Changing Specifications - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Changing Specifications

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Changing Specifications

kglinz posted 09-11-2002 07:09 PM ET (US)
I just got a 2003 Whaler Catalog and noticed some changes. The 255 & 295 Conquest are shown 3" wider.Not a problem on the 295 but if a 255 is 8'9" is has become a " Oversize Load"in most states. I have a 28/295 so I permit anyway and it doesn't effect me but if you have a 255 you might measure it. Mine grew in weight. From 5600 to 8500 Lbs.
jimh posted 09-11-2002 08:16 PM ET (US)
Can that be correct? The hull weight increased to 8500# from 5600? That is an increase of over 50-percent. Amazing!
kglinz posted 09-11-2002 09:05 PM ET (US)
The earlier numbers were way off in the brochure. I don't know the actual weight but I had 13,800 on the trailer axles last time across the scale. I don't know what tongue weight is. Glad I didn't use BW numbers when I chose trailer.
DCPeters posted 09-12-2002 01:27 PM ET (US)
my 2002 brochure lists the 295 at 8500 lbs.
lhg posted 09-12-2002 02:11 PM ET (US)
BW's apparently intentional (what else could it be - they're not that stupid with their engineering are they?) misrepresentation on hull weights happened a few years back. I even have a catalog with a sticker on it correcting the printed weights. It involved literally all of the Outrage/Conquest models. My guess is that the Brunswick designs were evidently so much heavier than the predecessors, that they fudged figures for a while. In these days of Enron and Worldcom, could we now be surprised? The 28 Conquest (a 27' boat anyway) weighs 3000# more than the 27 Full cabin model it replaced. That's like carrying around a twin engine rigged 22 Outrage in the stern deck area!
And it cost them some losses, in failed trailers and lifting davits from what a Dealer told me.
I now realize how lightweight and efficient the Classic Whalers really were.
Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2002 02:23 PM ET (US)
I partially agree with Larry. I have one of those 2001 catalogs in front of me. But I am sure it was simply a typographical error. The differences are egregious and it's hard to believe they thought they were going to fool anybody, but apparently they did if dealers were outfitting these things with inadequate trailers.
My feeling is that it was just really sloppy catalog production. The cost of producing and then applying to every catalog published these little weight corrections must have been enormous!
For the record, there were four models with incorrect (or at least amended) weights (initial/corrected):
12' Impact - 550/650 lbs.
28' Outrage - 5600/7700 lbs.
26' Conquest - 5200/6200 lbs.
28' Conquest - 5600//8400 lbs.
poker13 posted 09-13-2002 09:16 AM ET (US)
How about the 150 Sport? The bare hull weighs 900 lbs.!! The original 15 Sport weighed 500 - 550 lbs. (according to specs on this web site). And on top of that they reduced the hp to 60 from 70. Four hundred pounds more and 10 fewer horses. What kind of sense does that make?
lhg posted 09-13-2002 04:22 PM ET (US)
Tom - I believe the catalog was intentional, and can never believe the "printers" are to blame. Is the company run that poorly? Aren't sales brochures checked for accuracy, isn't the website checked for accuracy? Didn't anybody at the company ever read this stuff, or the website, for a year? Come on! Here's the rest of the story. The same dealer who told me of trailer & davit problems, when I asked how this could have happened, he said the "official" story to dealers was that nobody ever bothered to weigh the boats (not even one of them, all misrepresented models?) at the factory to determine the correct weights, and that the published weights were "their best guess". He didn't believe that line either, since the dealers were victimized by this also. If you believe it, I've got a bridge to sell you. Not many engineers I know work professionally on the basis of their "best guess". (Except for maybe the OMC Ficht engineers!!)
I think the real issue is that they were shocked to see how much heavier their new Outrages and Conquests were, figuring this could really hurt sales, and had to break it to the Whaler customer gradually. Probably something done by the marketing dept that backfired on them. Not only were Whalers gaining weight, but so were the engines to power them. The combination of the two makes the difference in weight and fuel efficiency quite large. Trailerability of Whaler Outrages and cabin boats is way down from the days of the Classics.
But the philosophy seems to have worked. Nobody seems to be complaining about how large and heavy the new 25 Outrage has gotten, previously calleda 26 Outrage, now called a "270". I can trail mine relatively easily, the new one I couldn't, with 2000# more weight, boat and engines combined. With that extra weight, it simply can't be more efficient, no matter what kind of power it has. Why are Whalers getting more inefficient when everything else is going the other way? (except the for SUV craze, that is). Maybe the public is demanding bigger and bigger? Maybe we can get our foreign oil dependency up from 60 to 70% if we keep trying.
jimh posted 09-14-2002 12:05 PM ET (US)
This may be an interesting comparison:
The 2003 295-CONQUEST weighs 8500# and is rated for 600-HP. Putting a pair of 225-HP Optimax engines on the transom would add another 1050#. The boat carries 296 gallons of fuel. When tanks are full that adds about 1800#. Thus the boat would weigh 11350# and have 450-HP. That is 25 pounds-per-HP.
The classic 13-foot hull weights 320#. Assume the engine weighs about 150# and a 6-gallon tank of gas about 50#. That gets the weight up to 520# If it were powered at the same rate, you would have a 520/25 = 20-HP engine on the transom.
lhg posted 09-14-2002 02:02 PM ET (US)
Poker brings up some interesting thoughts. The new 15 weighs 900lb and carries 60 HP, while the Classic Montauk weighs 50 lb more at 950, and carries 100 hp. Indeed, what is up here? Is 50#'s worth 40 extra HP?
What I really think is happening is that the boats are being rated to accomodate the engine selling interests of parent Mercury Outboards. I think that many issues are related here, including achieving overall pricing which is attractive enough to get a new model out on the water and be seen. Things are lean today in the boat manufacturing business, and the new "Classic" Whaler designs are one of their hottest commodities.
So the engine controlling decisions could involve which engines are 100% Mercury made, like the 60HP 4-stroke EFI. This engine is lightweight and one of Mercury's best offerings, vs the much larger and heavier 75 4-stroke shared with Yamaha, and without EFI.
So Mercury wants to get this boat out with one of their best on it. Great publicity for selling ENGINES when others see this new boat smoothly idling at the dock.
I think the Montauk 170 situation is also being controlled by Mercury, but for maybe a different reason. The real engine it should have, the 115 EFI 4 stroke, is in extremely short supply, and from what I have seen on the water, Yamaha is grabbing the lions share of this production themselves, for grey covers. So Mercury is using the more readily available, and less desireable carbed 90 4-stroke on the boat. If it were me, I'd buy that boat with the 2-stroke 90. I'll bet when Mercury gets their own 100% 115EFI, you'll see it appear on the new Montauk.
Considering the fact that Brunswick is in the boat business only to sell engines, one would expect that Mercury could be calling the powering shots on Whalers, and obvioiusly SeaRays & Bayliners too.
Look at the larger Whaler boats. Practically all you see are Opti's. No conventional carbs or EFI 2-strokes, even though they are less expensive, (what happened to pricing considerations here?) more reliable and faster. Mercury simply wants to get the Opti's out there, show people that they work and are quite fuel efficient, and recoup the huge development costs. The Opti fuel efficiency helps cover up the heavy weights of the boats also. So for selling Outrages and Conquests, overall package pricing is less important than Mercury's interest in selling Opti's. Hey, for the big guys, charge them through the nose! No cheap carbed 2-stroke deals here.
I'm betting it's Mercury really calling the shots on Whaler power, all sizes.
Finally, I saw a mag article that indicated BW is already testing the new high HP lightweight Mercury 4-strokes on Whalers.
I'm amazed at how well this secret is being kept. Kind of like "who makes the tcw-3 oil". Assuming these new high tech 4-strokes prove out (hopefully), I'm wondering if the Opti's will disappear, or just be knocked down a notch as the low-cost alternative, kind of like the carbed two strokes are now.
kglinz posted 09-14-2002 02:10 PM ET (US)
Thats interesting but the water supports the weight. The engines just need to get the boat to a speed to lift a given hull to it"s planning speed and above.
Tallydon posted 09-15-2002 10:54 AM ET (US)
According to my dealer, who I trust because of his past history with me, DFI is less desirable than the carb 4-strokes because of the problems with humidity. When a DFI 4-stroke goes wrong, the engine stops, period. Not true with the carb models. My dealer told me that there is nothing but trouble with the DFI and believes the carb motors are more robust and reliable in the marine environment.
lhg posted 09-16-2002 02:28 PM ET (US)
Tallydon, with all due respect, you should tell your Dealer to join the modern world.
First of all, he should look at the just released JD Powers survery on new boat/engine purchases in 2001. Most problems were reported with carburated engines, 50% more than fuel injected motors.
Who is making carburated auto engines these days?
I have run my EFI engines in all types of weather environments, and the computerized equipment involved makes them run better under all conditions. Both Mercury and Yamaha advertize to this effect, and they are correct. And I see Optimax and HPDI engines operating all over the place in S Florida in the summer time, with no problems at all. I would imagine the new Fichts are doing OK also.
When I bought my Merc EFI's 5 years ago, this technology was a first for me. So I asked the mechanics down at the dock if I should stay with the carbs or pay up for EFI.
All he said was, "well, once these EFI's go out of here, we never see them again". That was good enough for me, and after 5 years and 1600 hours, he has proved to be correct.
There is no way that a carburator is a superior fuel delivery device.
Fbray posted 09-17-2002 01:32 PM ET (US)
Yes, I noticed another change in the 2003 vs 2002 catalogue. The 2003 catalogue lists maximum engine weight for the 22 Daunless at 611 pounds. The 2002 left that info blank. It caused me some worry when I decided to opt for the new 225 Honda to power my boat. It weighed in at 586 lbs. It turned out fine, but I wondered if the omission was intentional to pusuade buyers to opt for the optimax (which I almost did based on the catalogue omission). Low and behold, this year we are told that the max is 611. The new Merc four stroke weighs in at 583.

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: Changing Specifications
kglinz	posted 09-11-2002 07:09 PM ET (US) I just got a 2003 Whaler Catalog and noticed some changes. The 255 & 295 Conquest are shown 3" wider.Not a problem on the 295 but if a 255 is 8'9" is has become a " Oversize Load"in most states. I have a 28/295 so I permit anyway and it doesn't effect me but if you have a 255 you might measure it. Mine grew in weight. From 5600 to 8500 Lbs.
jimh	posted 09-11-2002 08:16 PM ET (US) Can that be correct? The hull weight increased to 8500# from 5600? That is an increase of over 50-percent. Amazing!
kglinz	posted 09-11-2002 09:05 PM ET (US) The earlier numbers were way off in the brochure. I don't know the actual weight but I had 13,800 on the trailer axles last time across the scale. I don't know what tongue weight is. Glad I didn't use BW numbers when I chose trailer.
DCPeters	posted 09-12-2002 01:27 PM ET (US) my 2002 brochure lists the 295 at 8500 lbs.
lhg	posted 09-12-2002 02:11 PM ET (US) BW's apparently intentional (what else could it be - they're not that stupid with their engineering are they?) misrepresentation on hull weights happened a few years back. I even have a catalog with a sticker on it correcting the printed weights. It involved literally all of the Outrage/Conquest models. My guess is that the Brunswick designs were evidently so much heavier than the predecessors, that they fudged figures for a while. In these days of Enron and Worldcom, could we now be surprised? The 28 Conquest (a 27' boat anyway) weighs 3000# more than the 27 Full cabin model it replaced. That's like carrying around a twin engine rigged 22 Outrage in the stern deck area! And it cost them some losses, in failed trailers and lifting davits from what a Dealer told me. I now realize how lightweight and efficient the Classic Whalers really were.
Tom W Clark	posted 09-12-2002 02:23 PM ET (US) I partially agree with Larry. I have one of those 2001 catalogs in front of me. But I am sure it was simply a typographical error. The differences are egregious and it's hard to believe they thought they were going to fool anybody, but apparently they did if dealers were outfitting these things with inadequate trailers. My feeling is that it was just really sloppy catalog production. The cost of producing and then applying to every catalog published these little weight corrections must have been enormous! For the record, there were four models with incorrect (or at least amended) weights (initial/corrected): 12' Impact - 550/650 lbs. 28' Outrage - 5600/7700 lbs. 26' Conquest - 5200/6200 lbs. 28' Conquest - 5600//8400 lbs.
poker13	posted 09-13-2002 09:16 AM ET (US) How about the 150 Sport? The bare hull weighs 900 lbs.!! The original 15 Sport weighed 500 - 550 lbs. (according to specs on this web site). And on top of that they reduced the hp to 60 from 70. Four hundred pounds more and 10 fewer horses. What kind of sense does that make?
lhg	posted 09-13-2002 04:22 PM ET (US) Tom - I believe the catalog was intentional, and can never believe the "printers" are to blame. Is the company run that poorly? Aren't sales brochures checked for accuracy, isn't the website checked for accuracy? Didn't anybody at the company ever read this stuff, or the website, for a year? Come on! Here's the rest of the story. The same dealer who told me of trailer & davit problems, when I asked how this could have happened, he said the "official" story to dealers was that nobody ever bothered to weigh the boats (not even one of them, all misrepresented models?) at the factory to determine the correct weights, and that the published weights were "their best guess". He didn't believe that line either, since the dealers were victimized by this also. If you believe it, I've got a bridge to sell you. Not many engineers I know work professionally on the basis of their "best guess". (Except for maybe the OMC Ficht engineers!!) I think the real issue is that they were shocked to see how much heavier their new Outrages and Conquests were, figuring this could really hurt sales, and had to break it to the Whaler customer gradually. Probably something done by the marketing dept that backfired on them. Not only were Whalers gaining weight, but so were the engines to power them. The combination of the two makes the difference in weight and fuel efficiency quite large. Trailerability of Whaler Outrages and cabin boats is way down from the days of the Classics. But the philosophy seems to have worked. Nobody seems to be complaining about how large and heavy the new 25 Outrage has gotten, previously calleda 26 Outrage, now called a "270". I can trail mine relatively easily, the new one I couldn't, with 2000# more weight, boat and engines combined. With that extra weight, it simply can't be more efficient, no matter what kind of power it has. Why are Whalers getting more inefficient when everything else is going the other way? (except the for SUV craze, that is). Maybe the public is demanding bigger and bigger? Maybe we can get our foreign oil dependency up from 60 to 70% if we keep trying.
jimh	posted 09-14-2002 12:05 PM ET (US) This may be an interesting comparison: The 2003 295-CONQUEST weighs 8500# and is rated for 600-HP. Putting a pair of 225-HP Optimax engines on the transom would add another 1050#. The boat carries 296 gallons of fuel. When tanks are full that adds about 1800#. Thus the boat would weigh 11350# and have 450-HP. That is 25 pounds-per-HP. The classic 13-foot hull weights 320#. Assume the engine weighs about 150# and a 6-gallon tank of gas about 50#. That gets the weight up to 520# If it were powered at the same rate, you would have a 520/25 = 20-HP engine on the transom.
lhg	posted 09-14-2002 02:02 PM ET (US) Poker brings up some interesting thoughts. The new 15 weighs 900lb and carries 60 HP, while the Classic Montauk weighs 50 lb more at 950, and carries 100 hp. Indeed, what is up here? Is 50#'s worth 40 extra HP? What I really think is happening is that the boats are being rated to accomodate the engine selling interests of parent Mercury Outboards. I think that many issues are related here, including achieving overall pricing which is attractive enough to get a new model out on the water and be seen. Things are lean today in the boat manufacturing business, and the new "Classic" Whaler designs are one of their hottest commodities. So the engine controlling decisions could involve which engines are 100% Mercury made, like the 60HP 4-stroke EFI. This engine is lightweight and one of Mercury's best offerings, vs the much larger and heavier 75 4-stroke shared with Yamaha, and without EFI. So Mercury wants to get this boat out with one of their best on it. Great publicity for selling ENGINES when others see this new boat smoothly idling at the dock. I think the Montauk 170 situation is also being controlled by Mercury, but for maybe a different reason. The real engine it should have, the 115 EFI 4 stroke, is in extremely short supply, and from what I have seen on the water, Yamaha is grabbing the lions share of this production themselves, for grey covers. So Mercury is using the more readily available, and less desireable carbed 90 4-stroke on the boat. If it were me, I'd buy that boat with the 2-stroke 90. I'll bet when Mercury gets their own 100% 115EFI, you'll see it appear on the new Montauk. Considering the fact that Brunswick is in the boat business only to sell engines, one would expect that Mercury could be calling the powering shots on Whalers, and obvioiusly SeaRays & Bayliners too. Look at the larger Whaler boats. Practically all you see are Opti's. No conventional carbs or EFI 2-strokes, even though they are less expensive, (what happened to pricing considerations here?) more reliable and faster. Mercury simply wants to get the Opti's out there, show people that they work and are quite fuel efficient, and recoup the huge development costs. The Opti fuel efficiency helps cover up the heavy weights of the boats also. So for selling Outrages and Conquests, overall package pricing is less important than Mercury's interest in selling Opti's. Hey, for the big guys, charge them through the nose! No cheap carbed 2-stroke deals here. I'm betting it's Mercury really calling the shots on Whaler power, all sizes. Finally, I saw a mag article that indicated BW is already testing the new high HP lightweight Mercury 4-strokes on Whalers. I'm amazed at how well this secret is being kept. Kind of like "who makes the tcw-3 oil". Assuming these new high tech 4-strokes prove out (hopefully), I'm wondering if the Opti's will disappear, or just be knocked down a notch as the low-cost alternative, kind of like the carbed two strokes are now.
kglinz	posted 09-14-2002 02:10 PM ET (US) Thats interesting but the water supports the weight. The engines just need to get the boat to a speed to lift a given hull to it"s planning speed and above.
Tallydon	posted 09-15-2002 10:54 AM ET (US) According to my dealer, who I trust because of his past history with me, DFI is less desirable than the carb 4-strokes because of the problems with humidity. When a DFI 4-stroke goes wrong, the engine stops, period. Not true with the carb models. My dealer told me that there is nothing but trouble with the DFI and believes the carb motors are more robust and reliable in the marine environment.
lhg	posted 09-16-2002 02:28 PM ET (US) Tallydon, with all due respect, you should tell your Dealer to join the modern world. First of all, he should look at the just released JD Powers survery on new boat/engine purchases in 2001. Most problems were reported with carburated engines, 50% more than fuel injected motors. Who is making carburated auto engines these days? I have run my EFI engines in all types of weather environments, and the computerized equipment involved makes them run better under all conditions. Both Mercury and Yamaha advertize to this effect, and they are correct. And I see Optimax and HPDI engines operating all over the place in S Florida in the summer time, with no problems at all. I would imagine the new Fichts are doing OK also. When I bought my Merc EFI's 5 years ago, this technology was a first for me. So I asked the mechanics down at the dock if I should stay with the carbs or pay up for EFI. All he said was, "well, once these EFI's go out of here, we never see them again". That was good enough for me, and after 5 years and 1600 hours, he has proved to be correct. There is no way that a carburator is a superior fuel delivery device.
Fbray	posted 09-17-2002 01:32 PM ET (US) Yes, I noticed another change in the 2003 vs 2002 catalogue. The 2003 catalogue lists maximum engine weight for the 22 Daunless at 611 pounds. The 2002 left that info blank. It caused me some worry when I decided to opt for the new 225 Honda to power my boat. It weighed in at 586 lbs. It turned out fine, but I wondered if the omission was intentional to pusuade buyers to opt for the optimax (which I almost did based on the catalogue omission). Low and behold, this year we are told that the max is 611. The new Merc four stroke weighs in at 583.