Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  The new 240 outrage

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   The new 240 outrage
diveorfish posted 07-25-2002 07:57 PM ET (US)   Profile for diveorfish   Send Email to diveorfish  
The BW website now has the new 240 with many pictures. What do you all think?
Peter posted 07-25-2002 09:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The lines from the side views are much nicer than the lines on the 230 Outrage it replaces.

However, assuming the specifications are accurate, I wonder how well it will perform being that its advertised dry weight is 4400 lbs and has only a 300hp max rating. For comparison purposes, according to the 2002 brochure, the advertised weight of the 2002 230 Outrage (about a foot shorter) is 3300lbs with a 300hp max and the 260 Outrage (about two feet longer) is 4350 lbs with a 450hp max. I believe that the Van Lancker (sic) era 24 (about the same length) weighs in at about 3300 with a 300hp max. The Dougherty era 25'(foot longer) weighs in at something like 3000 with a 300hp max. The Edgewater 247 CC (almost a foot longer) weighs in at 3300 with a 400hp max. The Regulator 23 (5" shorter) weighs in at 3800 with a 400hp max.

According to the specs, the swamp capacity is about three times that of the 230 Outrage and more than twice that of the 260 Outrage. I find that hard to believe.

jimh posted 07-26-2002 05:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
This is going to take some getting used to.

The black rub rail becomes more or less the sheer line of the boat. So now we have this continuously curving, sloping sheer line, which is more departure from the traditional straight sheer line--not just a Whaler tradition but a general power boat tradition of having straight sheer lines.

Working in opposition to that line is this new stripe in the hull, curving up from the waterline at the transom to the bow, in an inverted echo of the shape of the sheer line. I don't like that much.

Typically from an aesthetic point of view I want to judge the boat's profile against the real waterline. Now I have this artifical line of the stripe on the hull fighting with the straight water line.

At the stern the real sheer line stays straight, creating those big shoulders that slope into the transom. They just look awkward and out of place.

The console is very curvy, too.

I'll have to see one in person, I guess, but the pictures show me too many curves for now.

aubv posted 07-26-2002 09:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for aubv  Send Email to aubv     
I see a number of notable changes on the new 240 vs. the 230:

Larger fresh water tank for shower 20 vs. 9
smaller fuel tank 150 vs. 165
less rod holders -4
smaller casting platform/sun lounge area
smaller anchor locker hatch=smaller locker?
Built in seat in front of cc
Recessed electric trim tabs
Stainless steel thru-hulls
Better under gunnel rod racks but 4 vs. 6
Cast stainless steel steering wheel with knob
A larger electronics box
and last but not least a pointy bow rail!

The 240 may grow on me but my initial impression, it's just OK. After seeing the changes on 260 in the NY boat show and figuring the 240 would look similar, we thought the 230 was a nicer boat.

diveorfish posted 07-26-2002 01:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
The boat definitely looks like something developed for the twenty first century with all its curves and slopes.

It’s a big heavy 24-foot boat though. Given its size, you would surely need the twin 150’s. As Peter pointed out, It seems like it should be rated for more than 300hp max. The stated hull weight is over a thousand pounds more than the 230 it’s replacing.

It also seems like BW is moving away from an easily trailerable boat larger than 20’. I always liked the size and weight of the older 22’-24’ OR Whalers. They were big enough to take offshore yet light enough to tow easily. The newer ones keep getting heaver. Even my 2001 vintage 230 OR is definitely beyond that “easy to tow” limit, I wouldn’t want to tow anything larger. I figure this new 240 full of gas and gear would weigh close to 9000 lbs. Contrary to the brochure, that is not “easily trailerable package” unless you got a semi or something.

Also, how come there is no bow rail above the gunnel? Do people have better balance these days?

Anyway, I will reserve judgment until I see one in person. I don’t want to start sounding like the classic guys who bash the post-classic Whalers like the one I have.

My only question now is: Can we call our post-classic Whalers second-generation-classics?

lhg posted 07-26-2002 02:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
The new 240 & 270 Outrages now round out Brunswick/BW's second generation of Outrages, with all of their first ones discontinued. I don't think any were on the market more than 5 years, some less.

These boats are unmistakenly from the Sea Ray design boards, as they still search for another new look for Whalers, for the better or worse. Like Sea Rays, they are not bad looking, more attractive and streamlined than their immediate predecesors, but still not to my liking, however. Many others will dissagree, as I think these could be bigger sellers than their predecessors, but to a different market. With the return all over the boating business to classic lines, these seem strange. Many of the shapes on these boats have been copied from others, such as the interior bow design which looks like Contender, Whitewater and Sea Craft. They also seem to have a little of Sea Ray's droopy bow profile, which has been around for 25 years.

I recenly had a chance to pull my Classic 25 full transom up alongside a new 270, the third attempt at bettering the old 25 since 1994, and measure both boats. In all dimensions, and especially interior useable space, the old 25's are larger boats. As an example, the 8'-0" beam 25 has an interior gunwale-to-gunwale width of 79 1/2". The 8'-6" beam 270 has this dimension of 78 1/4". Amazing, considering it is a wider beam boat. Overall length, back of bracket mounted Merc engines to bow point, is IDENTICAL, but the 25 has much more interior space because the bow is rounded rather pointed. Regarding fishability, at the console, the 25 gunwale height is 27". On the 270, it's 45" (almost FOUR FEET) above the water. These 270's may have an Outrage name, but they are not fishing machines, that's for sure. Sea Ray never did build a good fishing boat. If someone wants a new Whaler for serious offshore fishing, my recommendation would be to get a 25 Guardian.

The weight difference between these two same sized boats is also of interest, with the 270 being 1600 lbs heavier than the Classic 25. That means I could carry around, on board, a Classic Montauk tender, rigged with a 100Hp Yamaha 4 stroke and a full tank of gas, and now be the same weight. It seems this country will never cease it's dependence on foreign oil! Why are we so wasteful? For a better ride into a chop?

VMG posted 07-28-2002 09:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for VMG  Send Email to VMG     

Profile isn't unlike some of the earlier Edgewater designs (e.g the 247). Looks a little cramped, and the "how does it ride at 30 knots in 3-5 footers" crowd will wank about the helm position being too far forward. Good news for me is that it doesn't instill any "gotta have a new one" envy around here ;).

jimh posted 07-29-2002 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
After browsing through some boating mags this weekend with an eye toward the sheer line of all the boats, I noticed two interesting things.

The newest European designer boats, generally from Italy, all had straight sheer lines.

The boats with sheer lines resembling this new 240-OUTRAGE were mainly SeaRays.

Wild Turkey posted 07-29-2002 05:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Wild Turkey  Send Email to Wild Turkey     
I think my wife would like it.......
lhg posted 07-29-2002 06:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I wonder if comes with a washer and dryer.
Louie Kokinis posted 07-29-2002 11:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
August Motor Boating Magazine did a review on the 27.

"When it comes to boats, the term "classic" is used to describe models with time-honored looks, proven performance, quality construction and user-friendly features. Everyone loves a classic. But there are times when even a much-admired design needs to be upgraded. That's the philosophy of Boston Whaler, which recently replaced one of its perennial favorites, the 26 Outrage...."

26 Outrage……perennial favorite, much admired, a classic?


jbtaz posted 07-30-2002 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jbtaz  Send Email to jbtaz     
I like the look of it..(I've always liked the Contenders too...and I see a similairity) I'll bet it's a big seller.
Louie Kokinis posted 07-30-2002 07:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Louie Kokinis    
JB: I was just trying to point out the articles reference to the 26 as a much-admired classic. IMO the 26 (like many other Searay/Whaler designs) flopped.

Looks are a personal preference. Personally I like the old 25, hated the 26, and agree the 27 looks like a contender (which also do little for me). List on the 27 is close to 120k, hopefully this one works out better than the short-lived hull it replaced.

fno posted 08-12-2002 11:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for fno  Send Email to fno     
It appears that BW has mixed up the dry weight and the max weight figures on the web page. The new dry weight looks like it is 3500 lbs, 200 more than last year. Not good, but not as bad as 4000 lbs.
jbtaz posted 08-14-2002 05:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jbtaz  Send Email to jbtaz     
I just picked up my 2003 brochure and it gives more details and pictures showing this model. I like it alot equipped with T-top. I'll be interested in it's performance with the new Merc 225 4 stroke.
im4bc posted 08-20-2002 04:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for im4bc  Send Email to im4bc     
Did anybody else hear that BW mixed up their weight on the web site or catalog. FNO where did you get your info?
fno posted 08-20-2002 04:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for fno  Send Email to fno     
If you look at the specs for the 21' you'll see that the figures are correct for dry weight vs fully loaded. The website is notorious for typos and lack of pertinant info on the boats. Although it has gotten a lot better in the last year.
hooter posted 08-20-2002 03:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
Fer all ya'll's talkin', that bloated yuppy cruiser is no Boston Whaler. The only thing "Whaler" about it is the decal.
bsmotril posted 08-21-2002 04:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
My local dealer had the prototype I think here on their lot last month. The helm is like a space ship, not a boat. All curvey with art-deco like electric switches along the perimeter of the console. This boat looks to me like it is directed to compete with the go fasts on the Southern Kingfish Circuit. I hate to say it, but it looked almost "Trophy-like" inside.
dogface posted 08-21-2002 10:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for dogface  Send Email to dogface     
jimh posted 08-22-2002 01:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Interesting comments.

Regarding the similarity to Brunswick's other fishing boat company, TROPHY, I, too, have observed this, particularly in the transom and stern well on the 2002 Whaler 210 Outrage. They were almost identical to a similar Trophy boat. Both used very geometric designs using circular sections.

im4bc posted 08-22-2002 06:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for im4bc  Send Email to im4bc     
fno, the 2003 catalog has the same specs as the web site. so you are saying they had a typo on both publications?. If you look at the specs on the 27 you will see the same weight increases from the old 26.

To all of the critics out there remember boston whaler does not build a bad boat. They have worked to hard to build a good reputation. You either change with the times or you get left behind

fno posted 08-22-2002 09:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for fno  Send Email to fno     
Looking at a 2002 catalog and the 2003 website. The web site lists dry weight and max weight. The dry weight I am assuming is the weight of the boat with no motor. The max weight should really be described as max weight capacity as the ctalog does. This is the amount of motor, people, soda, ice, beer, and dogs you can carry. Enough of the semantics crap. Worry about something important like the weather for the weekend.
hauptjm posted 08-22-2002 10:57 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
In regard to the 240, at least it's set-up for twin engine placement. The 21(0) is woefuly looking short for this world if they don't make this accomodation.
lhg posted 08-22-2002 02:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I agree with Jim. The sales pitch of an "offshore fishing machine" rings hollow without accomodation for either twin engines or a kicker. Admittedly, not many 18-22' Outrages were originally equipped with twins, because of an extremely high selling price, so BW under Reebock dropped the twin engine/kicker capability on boats under 23', saying twin engine sales were practically non-existant. The replacement stern quarter
seats are very popular with the ladies, apparently BW's prime sales target nowadays.
A lesson well learned by parent SeaRay. Twin engine notches and splashwells have no sales appeal in the smaller models.
diveorfish posted 08-22-2002 04:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
Lhg: I read on THT that Woody Wax is the greatest thing since sliced bread for UV oxidation and such. I have no personal experience with it but Dauntless18 posted above that he uses it on his non-skid. Maybe someone else with Woody Wax experience could elaborate.
diveorfish posted 08-22-2002 04:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
Sorry, my previous post was on the wrong topic
hooter posted 08-22-2002 06:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
"change wid da times" or "jump on'da bandwagon", can mean exactly da same thing. Bet'cha der's a few portfolio managers out der wish dey'd stuck t'some common sense valuation rules jest a li'l while back instead o' "changin' wid da times". Ah know's some o' der clients wish it.
homey posted 08-25-2002 08:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for homey  Send Email to homey     
It(240) doesn't have much cockpit space for fishing. My 25'Outrage looks much larger and has a huge cockpit.(Thats why I bought it)
I think this boat is more of an suv, design than a fishing boat. It will probably sell very well, due to its sporty appearance...
lhg posted 08-26-2002 03:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Homey - Not only does the 240 not have the interior usable/fishable space of the 25, amazingly, the 270 doesn't either! The boats are too heavy and fuel in-efficient.

BW has evidently embarked on a radical new look for the big Outrages, combining a lower hull bottom that actually looks a little more like a Classic Outrage, and top shell lines coming from Sea Ray and the go-fast look, complete with pairs of big black Mercs. It's a risky departure, and if successful, will alter forever who the Whaler Outrage buyer is, with people like ourselves gone for good, in favor of the Sea Ray/Fountain type of buyer. Many boat manufacturers are returning to the Classic lines, and BW seems to be doing this in the small boats, but not the large ones. These companies are bringing out beautiful brand new Classic lined boats, at big prices, similar to their popular earlier ones, but not BW. Could it be a mistake, and letting Edgewater and others pick up their past customers?

im4bc posted 08-28-2002 07:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for im4bc  Send Email to im4bc     
I am going to buy one of these. Twin 150 mercs. The reason for the inquiry with the weight is I plan to trailer the boat. My Tahoe has a max towing capacity of 7,800 lbs (Cargo plus trailer). The 24 because of its excessive weight is right under the edge. Depending on how much gas/water is on board at time of delivery. I was quoted $78,000 with trailer and loaded (T-top, outrigers ect.) Anybody else look into prices?
hooter posted 08-28-2002 09:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
im4bc, Fer dat much dough, you can remax-power and pay somebody to re-fit a pre-'90s '25 AND put a year-old program Yukon in front of'er. Have a Hell of'a better rig than what yer talkin' bout here wid dat fat li'l bowling-ball boat.
diveorfish posted 08-28-2002 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
Im4bc: How far do you want to tow the boat? That new 24 OR fueled up and geared up is too heavy for a Tahoe. If you are just going a couple of miles to the local ramp then ok. But, if you plan on towing say 30 plus miles on a curvy road with a few hills each time, you’ll need a bigger tow vehicle for sure.

Also, the new 24 OR is a beautiful boat. If it rides smoother and drier than my 2001 vintage 23 Outrage, you are in for a real treat. I was fishing out the Gate (Golden Gate bridge) recently and I was inadvertently blowing by just about every other boat I saw because of the smooth stable ride qualities of these new Whalers. Furthermore, when drifting or trolling, my 23 OR is amazingly stable it doesn’t roll very much. In fact, it’s almost like an inflatable. My passengers were duly impressed.

Contrary to some opinions, these bowling ball boats are great and very versatile. If you can afford a new one, more power to you and you’ll never regret your purchase. To top it off, you have the added privilege of owning an unsinkable Boston Whaler regardless of the year.

im4bc posted 08-28-2002 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for im4bc  Send Email to im4bc     

I don't understand what a word you are saying in your comments. But I gather your saying purchase an older boat with new engines. I like the new lines on the 24.

What power option did you get? Final price?

hooter posted 08-28-2002 06:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for hooter    
im-BeeCee, Dat's ok! Good luck with your purchase.
diveorfish posted 08-28-2002 08:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
im4bc: I will email you with particulars
Ed Stone posted 08-28-2002 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Ed Stone  Send Email to Ed Stone     
My 2000 23 outrage with twin mercs and
with full tanks of gas,oil,and water
including trailer weighs in at 7400lbs.
Keep us informed on how the new
240 Outrage performs.
Good luck! Ed Stone
bsmotril posted 08-29-2002 10:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
I have been looking at the pics on the BW web site and that is not the boat I saw a month back at our local dealer. The boat I say was much sleeker and not as stocky looking. It also had a space aged looking center console with switches arrayed along the perimeter. It had no ignition keys, only key locks on the perko battery switches. The engines were started with a pair of switches in the array. I'm pretty certain it was a 240 that I saw, but it looked way different than the web pics. Maybe it was a proto type for an upcoming design. It definetly looked unlike any Whaler I have yet seen, but was badged as a Whaler.
Peter posted 09-21-2002 11:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Jumped on one of these at the boat show today. Most significant impression: the cockpit space behind the center console is very cramped. Alot of the available space is taken up by the leaning post and a lot of potential cockpit space is gobbled up by the Eurotransom.
BMR posted 09-22-2002 08:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for BMR    
Saw the boat in Tampa. If you have a chance get in a 230 OR than in the new model, I noticed a lot more room forward of the console as welll as more space aft of the Leaning post. Also, the area to walk around the console seemed larger.
Samars posted 09-24-2002 07:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for Samars  Send Email to Samars     
Trailer boats did a recent "boat test" of the new 240 Outrage...

interesting results and observations

Capt_Tidy posted 09-26-2002 02:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Capt_Tidy  Send Email to Capt_Tidy     
Is there a link available for the Trail Boats' article.
Ed Stone posted 09-26-2002 09:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Ed Stone  Send Email to Ed Stone     
I also looked at the 240 Outrage at the boat show in Tampa.I noticed that the
batteries and pumps have been moved
underneath the centerconsole behind a
cabinet door.With the doors open there
seems to be plenty of access for working
on pumps or batteries.I liked the new
setup of plastic doors and draws in
the center console.The ignition keys'and battery switches are also in the center console.At the helm there are switches for starting the motors.
It looks like the electronics cabinet
gained a few inches to allow equipment
with larger screens.The door to the
cabinet is no longer the smoked plexi-
glass but rather a two piece door that
stores away easier.
They have gone to the lenco trim tabs
with pockets built into the hull.
Now some of the hatches have the gas
assit struts.
The overall height of windsheild and
console have been shortened.On my 23
I have a little trouble looking through
the tinted windshield at night.
There has been a aluminum mounting plate
added to the center of the t-top for
4 motor options are available:225 opti,
225 4stroke,twin135 optis,twin150 optis.
I'd love to take one for a spin.
Ed Stone
jimh posted 10-02-2002 10:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
TRAILER BOATS Magazine has gratiously placed the Whaler 240 Outrage review online.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.