Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
|Author||Topic: 270 Outrage|
posted 02-14-2002 04:00 AM ET (US)
I read boat test number 2219 on the new Boston Whaler 270 Outrage: What are the opinions of other Forum participants? Personally, I think that the boat is getting too far away from what a Boston Whaler was designed and built for. Also, in the caption of the article, the boat is referred to a "new classic." Is that similar to a "jumbo shrimp?" I don't know if anyone else shares my sentiments, but I would like to see the true classic 19, 22, and 25 foot hulls return to production as recreational boats. They do have shortcomings, but their positive features (stability, dryness, interior volume)far outshine those deficiencies (lack of storage, pounding, etc.)
posted 02-15-2002 08:44 AM ET (US)
PM- You asked for an "opinion" so here it is. As far as I'm concerned when one gets into the relatively large boats, 27-31', I'd rather have a Grady White. They are better built and, frankly, more "classic" within their mark than are the Whalers. I've looked over several editions of both maker's boats while in dry storage, therefore, the opinion is based upon at least a tad of empirical info. One little example, take a look at the tow eyes on the stern of a new Whaler vs Grady. The Grady's are tough, purpose built and handsome while the Whaler's look like tow eyes you'd pick up at West Marine. Just my opinion. David
posted 02-16-2002 08:41 AM ET (US)
Well having ridden in both brands, read numerous reviews, and had both boats surveyed prior to purchase I bought the 28 Whaler Conquest. The grady was wet, the interior was smaller and very spartan, and the fit and finish was not the level of the whaler. This opinion is based on my personal experience. I dont think that a Grady is a bad purchase just not at the level of the whaler...... my .02
posted 02-18-2002 04:05 PM ET (US)
phatwhaler posts 2/18 re rod holders on new Whalers with comparison to Grady and Pursuit. I rest my case. Obviously, the new Whalers are fine boats-- occasionally I wish I could afford one. Good luck.. Again, an opinion was requested in original thread. David
posted 02-18-2002 09:59 PM ET (US)
Ledfoot - since you have seen the new 27 Outrage at the Miami show, would you give us your impressions from a boat designer's viewpoint? From your other post on the Montauk I gathered that you didn't like this one.
posted 02-18-2002 11:28 PM ET (US)
I am concerned by a consistent comment noted in the boating literature regarding the newer Boston Whaler designs. One is in Boating Magazine's test of one of the larger (Conquest) models, a "low" is the inability to plane at low speeds and excessive bow rise during acceleration. This is also noted in Boating's test of the new Outrage 270. Clearly, having owned a Classic Donzi, a deep deadrise, V-hull has these characteristics, but, in my experience, this has not been a characteristic of the "classic" Whalers. The Montauk's, 13's, and 1971 21' Outrage we had all planed with minimal HP and at very low speeds. The newer hulls look like they would deliver quite a smooth ride, however. Has anyone had experience with these?
posted 02-22-2002 10:45 AM ET (US)
As far as it goes, my 26 Outrage has some bow rise getting out of the hole, but never such that my forward vision is obscured. I am supposing that the new 270 Outrage (which is actually a smaller/shorter boat than the 26) will most likely ride smoother than the 26, due to the deeper "V", sharper entry and what appears to be smaller chine flats. I'd be interested to see if they are as dry.
BTW, last night at the Boston Boat Show, I went over the (larger) Whalers on display: why is it that the decks just don't feel as solid as you'd think they would be? Particularly on the Conquests? I was over on the 26 Regulator and the thing was like a bank vault. The Pursuits, too. The Defiance was a NICE piece of kit... really solid and beautifully executed -- and about a zillion dollars (did I see 350K?). The engine room made your mouth water, although getting outboard of those Yanmars would be an undertaking. When I hit Lotto (actually, you'd the Powerball to afford one of those).
posted 02-22-2002 03:56 PM ET (US)
I have not seen the new 27, but the comment, if true, that it is shorter than the Outrage 26 indicates that once again Sea Ray/now Whaler are up to the same old tricks again in stretching actual length IMPLICATIONS. Now we know why the 3 digit marketing numbers are being used. How stupid of us not to have figured it out already. When you call a boat a 25 Outrage, as an example, it better be pretty close to the foot designation you are giving it, or face deceptive advertizing claims. This is what we are all used to over Whaler's previous history. The length was acurately described. The 25 Aoutrage was actually introduced by Whaler as a 24 Outrage. My old fashioned 18 Outrage is actually 18-6 overall, with the length being understated! But when you call a boat a "270" Outrage, it is just a "number", even though the size IMPLICATION is there. This IS deceptive advertizing/marketing actually, but not legally. Today, the 18 Outrage would be called a "200" Outrage! Why does this have to be done? Sure makes the company look bad. What is wrong with these people, and I guess others in the same business of building boats. Each blames it on the other. The NMMA should clean up this act. Eventually, the boat buying public is just going to walk away and quit buying, getting tired of being taken and then getting the bad service to boot. They wonder why they're in a recession?
I recently had my old fashioned 25 Outrage rafted against a 26 Outrage, also a Brunswick boat. Guess what, the hull length of the 25, at the water line, was longer, and the 25 is only listed as 24'-8" overall! With my Armstrong bracket, mine was 2' longer than the 26. The 25 also has more interior FLOOR SPACE, and is the same width inside the gunwales, even though the 26 is billed as 8'6 beam. So what REAL length is this new 27, if it's smaller than the 26? First chance I get, I'll pull mine up against a new 27 and get out the tape measure. So now we have an approximate 25' boat being billed as a 27 by calling it a "270"?
I was wondering how the 28 Conquest migrated to a "295" Conquest. Now we know. I guess you now have to put a tape measure on any new Whaler you're planing on buying. I'm going to go out and measure of few of the new ones and see what I get. Besides the Dealers, who get a price based on the foot, the Marina dockage guys are making out on this, charging by the foot!
Many here would agree that in the last year, BW is doing a much better job of designing it's new boats and improving service to customers than it has in the last ten years.
posted 02-22-2002 05:03 PM ET (US)
I was comparing the specifications and it appears that the 26 Outrage is 27'10" with a built in pulpit, this would make the hull about 26' concidering that the pulpit is about 22" long. The new 270 is 27" 0" and has no pulpit. Based on this comparison, the new hull would be up to 12" longer
posted 02-22-2002 06:05 PM ET (US)
But the 26 Outrage also has a built in bracket/swim platform, adding 1 1/2'. So from the "V" of the transom, where the boat actually rides in the water, it is actually 24'6" in length.
The old 25 Outrage WD, actually had an overall length of 26 1/2', if you're comparing "apples to apples" or "bracket to bow". So the old 25 is actually 6" longer than the newer 26. That is my point about "hull length truth". The current 260 Outrage is actually a 25' Outrage.
So then why is the bow pulpit included in overall length? Just to confuse the customer so they really don't know what they're getting. BW has always been one of the companies that never did this. But now look what is happening. And it's all unneccessary. The boats will sell without this hype.
The dimension on the 270 is also interesting,
So now the guy with a new "270" 25' Outrage, taking up the same dock space or dry stack slot as my old 25' Outrage, pays for 2' more for bragging rights of having "a bigger boat." That adds up over a 12 month lease. This is getting confusing, which is the intended purpose I guess.
By the time I get around to buying a new 25 Outrage, it will be being called a "290"!
posted 04-06-2002 09:31 PM ET (US)
I looked at the new 270 Outrage today at
our local dealer.Now thats a go fast boat.
It looks fast just sitting there.
It has three large fishboxes.Two in the
stern and one in the bow.It looks like all three have fishbox pumpout.
It has a leaning post like the 26 and 23
Outrages.I like the helm seating on the
290 outrage that is like the seating on
the new 210.
They have done away with the huge hatches
in the bow that the 26 Outrage had.They do
still have rod storage down in them like the
Looking under the hull from the bow towards
the stern I at first noticed how pointed
the new whaler was.I also noticed Wide
chines at the outer edge.If the boat sits
in the water right they should add some
Overall I liked the new Whaler.It should
compete well in the go fast fishing market
here in the south.
posted 04-13-2002 09:39 AM ET (US)
I inspected a new 270 Outrage with twin OptiMax power at Ponce Inlet a few weeks ago. The boat has styling elements similar to the Southern Kingfish Association boats from Donzi or Pro-Line (or whoever the heck they are!).
The freeboard is high, it has a pointed bow, and integrated engine bracket with a "Euro" type stern. (I'm not sure what the "Euro" means, but all of the boating publications are in love with that term. It should be dropped from the lexicon.) The "V" appears VERY deep.
I'm still of the opinion that this is too much of a departure from the intended uses for which Boston Whalers were originally conceived, designed, and constructed.
The method of construction is also called into question. Is it the "unibond" (foam-filled between two hulls), or the "grid" system?
If this is the future of the larger recreational Boston Whalers, the only options I see are buying used or ordering a CPD boat (which I am deliberating). I am concerned over the direction Boston Whaler (or Brunswick or Sea Ray or whomever is running the show) has taken. Boston Whaler's viability in the marketplace is threatened, in my opinion, if they don't revive some of the classics (or at least some of the design elements thereof).
After inspecting the new 270 (I doubt that it will ever be a "classic" despite Boating Magazine's labelling it as such!), I have a new-found appreciation for my Alert...all 17 feet of her. (I refuse to call a boat "it".)
posted 02-17-2008 04:27 PM ET (US)
I don't care how you term the word "classic". I've ridden in a grady and I've seen the same 2006 26 crack down the middle. Grady has always tried to match whalers reputation. Who knows some day they might.
I have had 5 whalers in my 40 years of boating. I've also had Makos, Aquasports and an Egg Harbor. I can tell you when the seas off the Jersey Shore get choppy with 5-7's, I'd rather be in no other boat than my 270. Additionally, when one of my most prized possessions (my son) heads for a day out at the Canyon, I cannot recommend a better platform to fish from.
In my opinion, in Boston Whaler terms a "classic" means quality, safety, stability and dry, the same as the original built in 1958..
posted 02-18-2008 06:12 PM ET (US)
This six-year-old discussion is now closed.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.