2000 CONQUEST 23 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  2000 CONQUEST 23

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   2000 CONQUEST 23

grizdon11 posted 05-06-2015 01:59 PM ET (US)
Hi All. Today I test drove a 2000 Conquest 23 with a single Johnson 250. Engine ran well and was running on all cylinders. At 5500-RPM the boat topped out at 34-MPH. When I pulled the throttle back to 3500 to 4000-RPM it ran at about 19-MPH. I love the boat overall, layout, look, ride, everything. I was going to purchase the boat for $22,500 until the test drive made me think twice. The boat had no gear, a quarter-tank of gas and two people. Do these number sound right? To me the boat seemed like a slug, and I felt like 250-HP should have given a better performance. Any information or experiences would be great. Thanks,
Justin
Tom W Clark posted 05-06-2015 03:15 PM ET (US)
Factory test data I have from Boston Whaler indicates the prototype of the 23' Conquest ran 47-MPH with both a 225-HP and a 250-HP outboard (both were Mercury EFI two strokes)
Somebody has seriously underpropped the boat you are looking at if it only goes 34-MPH at 5500-RPM, probably to mask a sick motor.
It would be interesting to see what propeller is on there now.
grizdon11 posted 05-06-2015 04:45 PM ET (US)
Thank You for the info. The propeller was an aluminum 15x17.
msirof2001 posted 05-06-2015 05:06 PM ET (US)
I looked at Grady White's webpage, looking at the Seafarer 226. That boat has a lot of similarities with the Conquest 23. I looked at the performance with a Yamaha 4-Stroke 250. Grady's weight as tested was just over 5000 lbs. They got 44mph. The 4-stroke vs 2-stroke difference shouldn't be that material in difference and I could see it favoring the 2-stroke. So I am a little miffed about topping out at 34mph. One question is if the display was set to knots instead of MPH. If it were 34 knots, you were actually going 39.1 MPH. Still, I think 39.1 would seem slow. But there are other factors. Is there a big transducer? Bottom paint? Is it kept in the water and so, is there a barnacle & algae beard on the bottom?
Tom W Clark posted 05-06-2015 10:15 PM ET (US)
34 MPH with a 17" pitch prop at 5500 RPM is about 29 percent calculated propeller slip. Even if the speed were in knots, it is still 19 percent slip, w a y out of line. Something is off.
Yes, a foul bottom could explain it, but that would be obvious. Is the boat wet-slipped currently? Have you examined the bottom?
jimh posted 05-07-2015 12:25 AM ET (US)
With 250-HP and an aluminum propeller, the propeller blades are probably flexing, and the effect would be to lose pitch. I once tried an aluminum propeller on my 225-HP engine. It worked alright at lower speeds with lower horsepower applied, but at full throttle the performance dropped rapidly, and the calculated SLIP was quite high.
OMCguru posted 05-07-2015 03:46 PM ET (US)
That boat is missing at least 10mph. Something is wrong.
martyn1075 posted 05-08-2015 02:43 AM ET (US)
Good information by Tom on the slipping factor. I'm wondering how this boat performed out of the hole. Did it feel like it needed more power? Did the engine sound like it was labering at all? I think this 23 was the model that had optional twin motors was it not? I would do a search on owners who have had twins and find out how this boat performs. Maybe a single is a little overworked.
Marko888 posted 05-08-2015 09:03 AM ET (US)
There is no mention of how the speed was observed. GPS or dash mounted speedometer? If the latter, perhaps the speedometer is malfunctioning.
grizdon11 posted 05-11-2015 08:12 AM ET (US)
It was on a gps in mph. There was a gps on the boat and I had an app on my phone running. The boat has been on a mouring and the bottom was painted but looked okay. Boat sat in the water well and the water was not above the paint but it was a bit bow heavy.
grizdon11 posted 05-11-2015 08:18 AM ET (US)
Also.. The boat got out of the hole okay and did not seem to struggle. The real issue was that there almost was not happy cruise speed. When I pulled the throttle back from 5500 rmps it really seemed to make the engine struggle. It was almost as if full throttle was a happy cruise speed anything under that the boat was ready to fall off plane.
martyn1075 posted 05-11-2015 07:48 PM ET (US)
I may be wrong but I think the twins helped hold and stabilize that particular model. The boat has quite a stocky and heavy stature. Perhaps that design works best with twins. A 225 on the 21 Conquest same year was just enough power, the 23 I would think would be in tough for great performance figures out of a single.
msirof2001 posted 05-12-2015 01:25 AM ET (US)
I remember reading somewhere in this forum that at least one of the Whaler models had a ballast weight in the stern when a single engine was used and the weight was missing/not included when there were twin engines. That came to mind when you said it was bow-heavy. Wondering if this was one of those hulls and if in the past it was repowered from twins to a single without adding the ballast. This is complete and utter speculation. At the same time, I can't imagine adding a few hundred pounds to the stern of a boat and as a result, it is all of a sudden able to go 10mph faster. So everything I've read in here, to me, raises about as many red flags as they have flying in Tiananmen Square.
Tom W Clark posted 05-12-2015 09:58 AM ET (US)

quote:
I may be wrong but I think the twins helped hold and stabilize that particular model. The boat has quite a stocky and heavy stature.
Martyn -- You may be thinking of the Whaler 23 Walkaround. We are talking about a 23' Conquest here. It is not very heavy and was mostly powered by singles. It can use as little as 150 HP
Tom W Clark posted 05-12-2015 10:01 AM ET (US)

quote:
The boat has been on a mooring and the bottom was painted but looked okay.
I would not bet on that. Do not underestimate how much a foul bottom can affect performance. if you are serious about this boat, haul it and see.
Mambo Minnow posted 05-16-2015 07:01 PM ET (US)
No, it was this Conquest 23 that had ballast lead in the stern if it was powered by a single 250 HP instead of twin 150 HP.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 2000 CONQUEST 23
grizdon11	posted 05-06-2015 01:59 PM ET (US) Hi All. Today I test drove a 2000 Conquest 23 with a single Johnson 250. Engine ran well and was running on all cylinders. At 5500-RPM the boat topped out at 34-MPH. When I pulled the throttle back to 3500 to 4000-RPM it ran at about 19-MPH. I love the boat overall, layout, look, ride, everything. I was going to purchase the boat for $22,500 until the test drive made me think twice. The boat had no gear, a quarter-tank of gas and two people. Do these number sound right? To me the boat seemed like a slug, and I felt like 250-HP should have given a better performance. Any information or experiences would be great. Thanks, Justin
Tom W Clark	posted 05-06-2015 03:15 PM ET (US) Factory test data I have from Boston Whaler indicates the prototype of the 23' Conquest ran 47-MPH with both a 225-HP and a 250-HP outboard (both were Mercury EFI two strokes) Somebody has seriously underpropped the boat you are looking at if it only goes 34-MPH at 5500-RPM, probably to mask a sick motor. It would be interesting to see what propeller is on there now.
grizdon11	posted 05-06-2015 04:45 PM ET (US) Thank You for the info. The propeller was an aluminum 15x17.
msirof2001	posted 05-06-2015 05:06 PM ET (US) I looked at Grady White's webpage, looking at the Seafarer 226. That boat has a lot of similarities with the Conquest 23. I looked at the performance with a Yamaha 4-Stroke 250. Grady's weight as tested was just over 5000 lbs. They got 44mph. The 4-stroke vs 2-stroke difference shouldn't be that material in difference and I could see it favoring the 2-stroke. So I am a little miffed about topping out at 34mph. One question is if the display was set to knots instead of MPH. If it were 34 knots, you were actually going 39.1 MPH. Still, I think 39.1 would seem slow. But there are other factors. Is there a big transducer? Bottom paint? Is it kept in the water and so, is there a barnacle & algae beard on the bottom?
Tom W Clark	posted 05-06-2015 10:15 PM ET (US) 34 MPH with a 17" pitch prop at 5500 RPM is about 29 percent calculated propeller slip. Even if the speed were in knots, it is still 19 percent slip, w a y out of line. Something is off. Yes, a foul bottom could explain it, but that would be obvious. Is the boat wet-slipped currently? Have you examined the bottom?
jimh	posted 05-07-2015 12:25 AM ET (US) With 250-HP and an aluminum propeller, the propeller blades are probably flexing, and the effect would be to lose pitch. I once tried an aluminum propeller on my 225-HP engine. It worked alright at lower speeds with lower horsepower applied, but at full throttle the performance dropped rapidly, and the calculated SLIP was quite high.
OMCguru	posted 05-07-2015 03:46 PM ET (US) That boat is missing at least 10mph. Something is wrong.
martyn1075	posted 05-08-2015 02:43 AM ET (US) Good information by Tom on the slipping factor. I'm wondering how this boat performed out of the hole. Did it feel like it needed more power? Did the engine sound like it was labering at all? I think this 23 was the model that had optional twin motors was it not? I would do a search on owners who have had twins and find out how this boat performs. Maybe a single is a little overworked.
Marko888	posted 05-08-2015 09:03 AM ET (US) There is no mention of how the speed was observed. GPS or dash mounted speedometer? If the latter, perhaps the speedometer is malfunctioning.
grizdon11	posted 05-11-2015 08:12 AM ET (US) It was on a gps in mph. There was a gps on the boat and I had an app on my phone running. The boat has been on a mouring and the bottom was painted but looked okay. Boat sat in the water well and the water was not above the paint but it was a bit bow heavy.
grizdon11	posted 05-11-2015 08:18 AM ET (US) Also.. The boat got out of the hole okay and did not seem to struggle. The real issue was that there almost was not happy cruise speed. When I pulled the throttle back from 5500 rmps it really seemed to make the engine struggle. It was almost as if full throttle was a happy cruise speed anything under that the boat was ready to fall off plane.
martyn1075	posted 05-11-2015 07:48 PM ET (US) I may be wrong but I think the twins helped hold and stabilize that particular model. The boat has quite a stocky and heavy stature. Perhaps that design works best with twins. A 225 on the 21 Conquest same year was just enough power, the 23 I would think would be in tough for great performance figures out of a single.
msirof2001	posted 05-12-2015 01:25 AM ET (US) I remember reading somewhere in this forum that at least one of the Whaler models had a ballast weight in the stern when a single engine was used and the weight was missing/not included when there were twin engines. That came to mind when you said it was bow-heavy. Wondering if this was one of those hulls and if in the past it was repowered from twins to a single without adding the ballast. This is complete and utter speculation. At the same time, I can't imagine adding a few hundred pounds to the stern of a boat and as a result, it is all of a sudden able to go 10mph faster. So everything I've read in here, to me, raises about as many red flags as they have flying in Tiananmen Square.
Tom W Clark	posted 05-12-2015 09:58 AM ET (US) quote: I may be wrong but I think the twins helped hold and stabilize that particular model. The boat has quite a stocky and heavy stature. Martyn -- You may be thinking of the Whaler 23 Walkaround. We are talking about a 23' Conquest here. It is not very heavy and was mostly powered by singles. It can use as little as 150 HP
Tom W Clark	posted 05-12-2015 10:01 AM ET (US) quote: The boat has been on a mooring and the bottom was painted but looked okay. I would not bet on that. Do not underestimate how much a foul bottom can affect performance. if you are serious about this boat, haul it and see.
Mambo Minnow	posted 05-16-2015 07:01 PM ET (US) No, it was this Conquest 23 that had ballast lead in the stern if it was powered by a single 250 HP instead of twin 150 HP.