posted 01-26-2008 08:09 AM ET (US)        

[Dead Link]

[Dead Link]

[Dead Link]

[Dead Link]

posted 01-27-2008 12:10 PM ET (US)         

The Whaler is absolutely beautiful, apparently in mint condition, beautifully rigged, and with the right choice of power from my perspective! You and the owner should be very proud of this boat and your work. I would say the entire rig rates right up at the top of ANY Whaler I have ever seen here, or referenced here. The gauge installations, engine controls and rigging at the engines is some of the nicest work I have ever seen. As an aside, I would be interested in knowing what jackplates were used.

As for the HP, don't let the detractors here bother you.
I own two twin Merc powered Whalers myself, both powered at least 33% over the published hull rating like yours is, and no problems. I have reasonably priced insurance too! As the owner of the same year 25' hull, in the lighter weight Outrage center console version with Armstrong bracketed 200 EFI Mercs, I believe the boat can easily handle the power because of the additional drag of the Whaler Drive bracket. I have yet to experience a properly powered 25 Whaler with WD, and I think they need more HP than 450 for really great performance. I think you guys have done the right thing to bring the boat into the performance go-fast sector for which it was originally intended and marketed, but never made, because of slow speeds and lower HP availability in the late 80's. Robert Moore of Mercury (who would probably love seeing this boat) had mine running 62 MPH (GPS) with 19" Rev-4's turning 6400 RPM. (see Cetaqces page 78) I now run 21's to keep the rev's in line. With those Merc 4 blade ET props, I would assume the boat will do over 70 easily (not having any experience with 300 Opti's myself).

This rig will be of great interest over here, I would imagine, so keep us up to "speed" on how she performs.

posted 01-27-2008 05:37 PM ET (US)            

one thing though, being petty here, the whaler decals are on backwards, although....put this boat into the corner and maybe they will straighten out, or fall off?

posted 01-27-2008 06:54 PM ET (US)            

And a side note, somewhat related,

Much of the 250XS, 300XS, and all of the JP calibration work and boat endurance was done on a

posted 01-27-2008 07:39 PM ET (US)            

The dry weight of the Temptation 2500 WD is probably around 4000 lbs. With two motors, 1 adult and an almost empty tank (10 gallons of fuel), the total weight of the lightly loaded rig is over 5250 lbs. Now if the motors were mounted at the standard mounting hull the hull factor would be about 180. Plugging all of that into Crouch's speed estimator with 600 HP yields a top speed estimate of 61 MPH. Now if the motors are raised up, that will help with the hull factor and let's presume that the hull factor goes up to 200 for that effort and let's also give the Optimax 300s a few more ponies for good measure, let's say 310 each which is what this powercurve i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/blkmtrfan/merc300/300xspowergraph2ra.jpg seemed to show. Then, according to the Crouch's formula about 68 MPH is about as fast as it will go.

posted 01-27-2008 08:30 PM ET (US)            

The arrangement of the throttle and shift controls seems a little odd. It looks like it goes

SHIFT THROTTLE THROTTLE SHIFT

in the four level cluster.

The red trim is nice with a Temptation due to the usual color scheme of gray and scarlet in the original.

posted 01-27-2008 08:32 PM ET (US)            

This Temptation is one sexy looking rig! It has great style all by itself, then add the fine rigging, and you end up with one really cool boat.

posted 01-28-2008 08:39 AM ET (US)            

Assuming the 200 EFIs are just 200 HP, Crouch says you need a hull factor of 215 to get 62 MPH.

Because you've always, and I mean ALWAYS, told us that Mercurys are underrated, if we assume that the 200 EFIs are about 220 HP at the prop, then Crouch says your hull factor is just 205. I think that the 205 hull factor is probably more realistic than 215 given that the hull shape at the transom doesn't have any flat pad area unlike the modern Whaler hulls.

Now with a hull factor of 205, 620 HP and about 200 lbs more (the Optimax 300 could add up to 200 lbs to the bracket versus the 200 EFIs), you can expect to see just about 72 MPH, probably an uncontrollable 72 MPH.

Make sure you wear your crash helmet. ;)

posted 01-28-2008 04:48 PM ET (US)         

Although the hull was very stable at 62, I agree 72+ could be a bit much, and not anything I'm interested in doing! But with a Whaler Drive bracket attached, like the Temptation, maybe the hull and a younger operator could handle and enjoy the additional speed.

posted 01-28-2008 07:38 PM ET (US)            

I have always liked the look of it. It clears up the rear deck area and pushs the engines back and in some models offers the deck space and aft space to have more storage and livewell space we see on the bigger classics. That I really like.

Is that the only advantage?

Does it increase the running surface by making it a slightly longer boat and offer a smoother ride vs the same model with a notched transom without a bracket?

Does it help in getting up on plane quicker, engines and horsepower being equal on a Whaler Drive boat versus a regular Whaler, same model?

Does it decrease top end speed with the same engines on both models, with and without the Whaler Drive bracket because of drag?

posted 01-29-2008 12:38 PM ET (US)            

With respect to the last point, the notched transom version of the 22 Outrage has a maximum HP capacity of 240 which means that twin V6 outboards couldn't be used, only twin 4 cylinder motors which usually didn't come in counter-rotating pairs. The Whaler Drive version has a 300 HP maximum which means that twin counter-rotating 150 V6s could be used.

For Whaler, I believe the advantage was that they could offer a different configuration, basically a longer hull, without having to endure the expense of developing a whole new mold.

posted 01-29-2008 02:08 PM ET (US)            

However, spending that kind of money, it would have been even sweeter to set it up with the VERADO's.

By that, I mean: the XS Racing engines from Mercury are fast, no doubt - but that hull isn't going to really allow you to appreciate the blinding speed they can provide - better to completely deck the boat out with the top-of-the-line Verado supercharged motors.

Nice attention to detail, and while the livorsi guages aren't my cup of tea - the installation looks very professional and seems to fit the image this boat projects.

Great job and kudos to the guys who did it.

posted 01-29-2008 02:41 PM ET (US)         

Regarding performance, I think this installation is going to tell us a great deal about the Whaler Drive unit, it's pros and cons. It is no secret around here for years that the WD brackets impede top end speed, and if Tom's information is correct, here again it is proven. Looking at the second photo, even with speed unknown in the photo, it appears the WD is over-doing it's work as a giant, un-needed trim tab. The bow of the boat, nor the whole hull for that matter, do not show enough lift, greatly reducing speed potential. If I could show a photo om my 25 Outrage, running at 50 or so, you would see almost all of the hull out of the water, generated by the tremendous overall lift of the Revolution-4 props. People here report, on relatively underpowered hulls, that the Rev-4's are slower props than Mirage Plus, but I tried both, and for my rig, the additional lift of the Rev-4's reduces hull friction and adds greater top end, plus a much better overall ride. Maybe one needs a higher HP to weight ratio for the Rev-4's to run correctly?

So how does one get this Temptation to run faster? First of all, prop it for overall hull lift. These WD fitted hulls simply need more lift in order to get the speed, and to overcome the adverse effect of that giant trim tab.
I have absolutely "zero" experience with those Merc Pro ET props, but I know they are for high speed applications, and appear to be of the exhaust over hub cleaver design. Cleaver props are known for stern lift, to keep the bow down to avoid "blow over", so I doubt if they are appropriate on a bow heavy boat like the Temptation. Looking around the large number of high performance boats at Sundance Marine in Ft Lauderdale, I see Enertia, Rev-4, Bravo I's and Tempest Plus props being mostly used on the twin, trip and quad Opti and Verado rigged hulls. No Pro-ET's at all. My first recommendation would be to install a set of Bravo I's, as they come in the higher pitch increments that may be needed, beginning at 22". Rev-4's should also run quite well, but the limiting factor is maximum pitch availability of 23". Same with CR Tempest Plus and Enertia.

I think 68 MPH is a completely acceptable and reasonable top end for a Whaler hull like the 25. I would think that would be just fine, and in no way detract for the overall excellence of the total set-up. But if better performance and top end are the requirement, the WD may have to be removed in favor of an Armstrong or similiar transom bracket, along with a pair of conventional trim tabs. It looks to me like a Whaler drive does not provide clean flow off the transom for the best propeller bite and engine elevation. That is where the Armstrong bracket excells, providing clean, undisturbed water for the props, and at a greatly increased operation height of 4" or better. My guess is the boat could pick up 5 to 10 MPH with such a conversion, but hang on! The downside is a lower stern position in the water at rest, as these engines weigh 180# combined more than mine. The additional cabin weight will offset some of this however.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v429/lgoltz/Outrage%2025/?action=view& current=Scan0050.jpg

Peter, I am more than willing to surrender my title as "baddest Whalers on the water" to this rig. But more HP I don't need. After all, it's only 6 mph faster, and Merc racer Robert Moore told me he'd bet his next paycheck he could get another 3 MPH out of mine by raising the engines another 2 bolt holes and installing 24" Bravo I's. I haven't.

posted 01-29-2008 02:56 PM ET (US)            

We do not know what speed that photo was taken at. It could well be at 25 MPH so I would hesitate to make too much of it.

I would also point out that cleavers are stern lifting propellers, especially at that pitch. They will tend to make the boat run rather flat as this one seems to be doing. Note the hull *is* riding rather high, but the point of contact is very far forward even though the motors are trimmed out a bit. The boat's attitude is simply flat.

The Revolution 4 is made in a 25" pitch and this would also be my first thought for propping this boat.

posted 01-29-2008 04:36 PM ET (US)            

You are correct. The Tempest Plus is not made in a counter rotation beyond the 23" pitch. I missed that, so forget that idea.

posted 01-29-2008 06:17 PM ET (US)            

I don't think this installation tells us anything more than what we already know about the Whaler Drive even with this rig going way beyond where Whaler intended the design to operate. The Whaler hull design, with or without a Whaler Drive or a bracket is not a high speed performance hull by any stretch of the imagination. It was never intended to be that and the Whaler Drive appendage has never been intended to enhance the speed performance of the ordinary hull. It really doesn't detract from it either because it makes for a bigger boat.

posted 01-29-2008 10:01 PM ET (US)            

No, I don't want to own one of these (I have zero interest in owning any boat with twin 300 HP outboards) but I certainly do appreciate being able to read about a very interesting boat and I commend the owner and rigger for doing a fine job of putting it together.

posted 01-31-2008 12:16 AM ET (US)            

Real men always like the challenge of more speed. Guys like you belong in a sailboat, smoking a pipe, wearing your captains hat while using your calculator to figuer out how much gas you're saving!

posted 01-31-2008 08:34 AM ET (US)            

some people who are not in the business dont understand excess.
You could be in the car business, boat, heck even home improvement.

Sometimes people just WANT something, it might not make sense, it might be needed- but thats what they WANT.

People dont buy hummers to go off road and carry troops.
People dont buy a 12 cylinder Mercedes because they care about fuel economy.
People dont put granite countertops and marble floors in thier house because its economical.
You dont fly first class when you can take the same plane and sit in economy.

Not everything in life is about fuel economy and being like everyone else.

You never drove your boat or car and wondered "what if"?

posted 01-31-2008 09:07 AM ET (US)            

The boat looks great and I for one really like seeing the envelope pushed :)

But then I like whalers AND fast boats, LOL

posted 01-31-2008 10:22 AM ET (US)            

Another: "Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it."

posted 01-31-2008 02:16 PM ET (US)         

Maybe I should put a Nascar motor in my Town Car. Should appeal to the same folks. LOL

posted 02-01-2008 11:22 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

If you guys like speed and have enough balls, why not get into organized boat racing, APBA style. Pick a class and get started. Skeered?, thought so. LOL
Roscoe

---

posted 02-01-2008 01:19 PM ET (US)            

http://picasaweb.google.com/HydroRacer.Net/ LakeWalesFlorida2007PhotosTakenByDonMackrell/photo#5055542810282328242

posted 02-14-2008 08:56 AM ET (US)            

300 HP is what your boat is rated for.

posted 03-07-2008 03:33 PM ET (US)            

For others who have commented in this thread, I would like to get more out of my rig and would like suggestions on prop selection, etc. in order to achieve more performance. Feel free to throw any and all info at me.

For other Whaler and Temptation owners, is there is a source for replacement parts for these boats? There are a lot of unique pieces on these boats and I would like to restore many of them. Right now, since whaler no longer makes them, I am limited to custom building things or replacing things with generic brand parts.

posted 03-07-2008 03:59 PM ET (US)            

What brand and year of 250 HP outboards do you choose?

posted 03-07-2008 07:24 PM ET (US)            

I have also logged about 15,000 hours with 3 boats on V6 yamahas so I have some comfort with the brand. However, I think I would have preferred a set of Optimax's for the change-out but would have had to deal with a complete change-out (rigging, controls, gauges, etc.) and I wasn't prepared to do all that. 4 strokes are not an option-I'm an old school 2-stroke guy.

posted 05-08-2008 12:57 AM ET (US)            

To get to 75 MPH, that boat would need about 740 HP on the transom and to 80 MPH would require about 840 HP assuming the hull factor is 200 which is high for the Whaler Drive equipped classic Whalers based on JimH's propeller test reports.

posted 05-08-2008 07:35 AM ET (US)            

As for your tale about being on 1 of only 2 temptations with twin 225's, I'm not sure what to make of this. If one is in Boston, the other in Hawaii, where the hell did mine (and a half dozen ohters I looked at before buying) come from? Mine even has factory capacity plate CLEARLY showing 450 HP max.

posted 05-08-2008 03:59 PM ET (US)            

Without knowing the specific weight of that boat, its hard to provide a highly precise estimate of speed within the limits of the precision of Crouch's formula. However, it should be noted that the very first report of 68 MPH was exactly with the scope of the estimate made without the benefit of knowing the actual weight of the boat. Also, don't forget that the original poster was thinking 75 to 80 MPH, and fell quite short of that mark.

Now, regarding the comment that "Crouch's calculator becomes less reliable on larger whalers, and less reliable yet on larger boats in general", please show us the evidence of this reduced reliability. Within my own experience it has proved no more or less reliable in predicting the speed of a large Whaler like my current 27 Whaler WD/twin 225s, than it has been for medium sized Whalers like my former 22 Revenge/single 225 or my current 18 Outrage/single 150, or small Whalers like my former 15 Super Sport/first with a single 50 HP and then with a single 70. It also works with the same degree of accuracy for the current generation 320 Outrage as it does for the 190 Outrage once you determine the hull factor for these crafts.

Also, to expect better than a +/- 1 MPH on a 45 MPH estimate (about +/- 2.5 percent) accuracy from the formula is simply unreasonable.

posted 05-08-2008 07:38 PM ET (US)            

With respect to crouch, we need only to look at the boat in question to support my assertion. The input data is as follows:

Weight Dry: 4,350
weight of engines: 1,034
Weight of crew: 400 (est. 2 @ 200 ea.)
Fuel: 250 (assume 1/4 Tank)
Misc: 200 (batteries, etc.)

Total: 6,234

Total HP: 600

Hull factor: 180 (using jimh estimate)

Plugging all this in, we yield a max speed of 55.8. Now, for the sake of argument lets "manipulate" the hull factor to 200. This produces a max speed of 62. The actual speed, at last report, was up to 71.4 and it seemed the prop and other adjustments had not yet been dialed in. I would not consider this actual test data even close to Crouch.

For some additional evidence, I will share a ride I took on a friends 2006 Fountain 38 Express Cruiser. This model is just that, a cruiser, not their typical speed boat. Dry weight-15,000; Crew-400; Fuel-700 lbs (about 1/3 tank as I recall) Misc-500; Total HP 850 (twin 425 Hp Mercruisers); Hull factor-218 (high speed runabout). All this adds up to a max speed of 49.3. Fountain suggests 62+; we achieved 60.6 on GPS. Again, I would not consider Crouch close.

Staying with Fountain (my friend directed me to this test; a video is available on their site) I will use recent test data from Fountain used to set a world record using their 38' center console FISHING boat. I will conservatively estimate the weight at 14,500 (11,300 dry). The boat had quad 300 Merc XS's. Using Crouches high speed runabout # of 218, we yield 62.7 mph max; Increasing the hull factor to 240 (race boats) we yield 69 mph. Actual speed-87 mph. Again, I would not consider this close.

I'm sure there are numerous other examples, however, I don't see the point of going further. My own Temptation data also produces excessive error margins with Crouch.

posted 05-08-2008 08:55 PM ET (US)            

You can see Crouch's formula at work using Yamaha's performance data. For example, we'll start with the Edgewater 245 CC powered by a Yamaha F250. See www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_hpv6_swsii_edg-245cc-f250tur.pdf . Plugging the weight, speed and HP data into the Crouch calculator suggests that the hull factor for the Edgewater 245 CC is 215.8. Now using the Crouch factor of 215.8 previously determined, and 5627 lbs and 350 HP, as reported by Yamaha at www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_hpv6_swsxl_edg-245cc-f350tur.pdf , Crouch's formula suggests a top speed of 53.8 MPH. Pretty darn close to Yamaha's reported top speed of 52.8 MPH.