Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  '03 Sport 150

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

Author Topic:   '03 Sport 150
poker13 posted 10-20-2003 11:59 AM ET (US)   Profile for poker13  
Walked into my local Whaler dealer this weekend to pick up a copy of the '04 catalog and browse around. They had a 2003 Sport 150, a Dauntless 160 (new, but didn't ask what year) and a Nantucket 190 side-by-side.

The 150 was a bare-bones model--not a single option on it--with a 2-stroke 60. The salesman offered it for $9,550, including the $1,300 factory rebate. Sounds like a good deal to me, but wanted to compare opinions with other folks who have shopped around for 150s (I really haven't).

The Dauntless 160, which I have seen many times, looked a lot smaller when sitting right next to the 150. The 150 is only a few inches shorter and narrower than the 160, and a lot lighter. I think if BW installed a center console on the 150 and jacked up the max. h.p. limit a bit, the 150 could become the best seller overnight and they couldn't sell another 160.

It was the first time I ever saw the Nantucket in person, and looks like a nice boat, but I find myself drawn more towards the 130/150./170 shape.

Moe posted 10-20-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Since we bought a fully loaded 150, I'll leave the price comparison to those who purchased a 2-stroke. Sounds good to me, though. A few comments on the 150 options.

I have the factory Whaler bimini, while Tombro got the Mills installed on his, with tracks. His will fold down much further forward than mine, and can be used forward enough to make the rod holders useful. I took them off mine because they're too far forward and high under the factory bimini to be useful.

I may install 90 degree flush mount rod holders between the forward cup holder and stern light receptacle where they'd put the rods in front of the bimini, like the stern light. Relocating the rod holders on the 170 to the front of the motor well also seems to be getting popular to get the reels out of the back of anyone sitting on the cooler.

The bow rail and bow cushion are a "wife thing," and I'd personally rather just have a bow platform. She feels more secure with the rail up there, and more comfortable when kneeling to dock, etc with the pad. She also sleeps in the sun up there when I'm fishing or we're anchored. To me, they look nice, but just get in the way. The cushion is annoying when getting to the anchor. The plastic buckle on the cushion strap won't go through the anchor eye if a 1/2" rode is tied to it with just the one loop of a bowline, much less if a round turn is used either for a coupla half hitches or an anchorbend knot. These are not nearly as much of a problem as an unhappy spouse though. :)

The seat cushions are nice, especially the backs which let you bend forward, slide back, then sit up, for really awesome lower back support. The bottom cushions could stand to be thicker and firmer, though.

To me, the four-stroke was worth the big premium, but to others, it isn't. Your call.

As for comments on size, to me, the 150 is more comparable to the Classic 17 Montauk and 170 Montauk than the 160. It's 4" wider than former and only 4" narrower than the latter. I once commented to the contrary, but thinking more about it, if a center console worked in a 17 Classic, it would certainly work better in a wider 150, but wouldn't be quite as roomy as on a 170.

The 150 and 170 hull designs are virtually identical, at both bow and stern, and owners of both praise THE RIDE!

The 170 IS 19" longer than the 150, but the majority of that 19" is taken up by the required motor well, with the rest of it consumed by a much wider deck on the bow, to accomodate the longitudinally mounted 8" cleat. The main deck is about as long in both.

The 170 has 2" more internal freeboard than the 150, but it also sits 2" lower in the water, with 2" more draft. Both, as well as the 17" Classic, have much shallower draft than the 160. With the same transom height, the external freeboard of the 170 is about 2" less than on the 150 at the transom, so it has the deck-consuming splash well with a 2" lip above the transom, putting it about as far above the waterline as the 150's transom.

The 170's deeper draft also means, that at least with a 4-stroke, the aft end of the deck is below the water line, and it isn't self-bailing like the 150, so it uses a bilge pump. The 150 deck is be high and dry with just the single drain plug in the stern removed.

While the length/transom width of a 150 might indicate it could handle more horsepower by formula (as would that of a 170), the additional weight would also lower the 150's stern in the water and might require a motor well. Keep in mind that both boats are designed for the weight of 4-stroke power, since carbureted two strokes are facing extinction.

What's impressive to me is that I can stand my full 280 lbs on the stern corner of the unloaded 150, and the waterline is still below the stern eye, which is well below the transom cut-out. So maybe a heavier motor wouldn't have that much of an impact.

A 170 with max motor weight is 50% heavier than a 150 with max motor weight, but when you add 500 or so pounds of people, cargo, and gas, the 170 is only about 1/3 heaver. With 50% more max hp, it has a better weight/hp ratio and is certainly faster than a 150 with 60HP. OTOH, I find the 150 faster than I care to run on Lake Erie in most conditions.

Both 150 and 170 lose a little deckspace to foam filled boarding steps, which I believe were put there to support the heavier weight of a 4-stroke motor in a swamped condition.

The 170 will fit a coupla slim adults who really like each other on its helm seat, and a hefty one on the cooler seat if there are no reels to dig into his back. The 150 will fit three hefty adults on its helm seat alone, and another on the liftable and removable middle seat.

The 170 will accomodate a 24-27 gallon fuel tank under its helm seat, while the 150 will accomodate up to four 6.6 gallon tanks, or two 14.5 gallon Tempo tanks under its. The 150 should also get better mileage, taking less energy to keep its lighter weight on the surface.

The 160 seems to be a more stern-heavy boat, and the 45 gallons of fuel aft probably contribute to that. I've seen the posts here about hard to plane with a load, and the need for a motor fin. Never, in all the posts from the many 170 owners here, have I heard a complaint about that, or about porpoising, even though Whaler mounts the 170 4-stroke one hole down from center with the AV plate about 3/4" below the transom. That's probably to ensure the water pickup stays submerged in rough water.

I've also never heard those complaints from 150 owners, where Whaler mounts the 4-stroke in the middle hole, with the AV plate flush with the transom bottom. Two of us have tried to make the 150 porpoise unsuccessfully and I've heard no complaints about planing. And that despite the fact I load most of the weight under or behind the aft seat.

In the end, it comes down to layout and price. Regardless of whether a center console would fit, you can't get one with the 150, and there's a lip molded into the deck to mount the side console on, so it wouldn't be easy to change that. Nor can you get thwart seats on the 170, as you could with the Classic 17.

The center console layout lets you follow a fish around the boat without stepping over a thwart seat, allows for better lateral balance, and lets you stand with your knees bent to absorb the shock of rougher water. While it has nothing to do with location, the flat-topped 170 console is MUCH better for mounting a compass and electronics. And while Whaler finally addressed the lack of stern cleats on the 170, they have yet to do so on the 150.

But in this case, because you have to opt for the 170, it costs a LOT more to get these things. That might not matter to many folks, but to some of us, it does. And if someone tells you that you can't fish in a 150, you should read some of tombro's fishing reports!

Hope this helps,

poker13 posted 10-20-2003 03:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Thanks, Moe. Antother thing I noticed, and forgot to include in my original post, is that the 150 was sitting on a trailer that only had one roller--about the middle front to back--and two bunks that were improperly adjusted, so that the boat was about three or four inches above the single roller and was sitting unevenly on the bunks.

Is that the kind of trailer BW is providing now? The factory specifically indicates that the hull of a BW should rest its keel on rollers, but this one has only one and two bunks. I'm pretty sure it was an EZ Loader.

Moe posted 10-20-2003 03:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
The new hulls are more flat-bottomed aft, and have no discernable keel to rest on a center roller, like the Classic boats, with their center V. The bunks work fine for support of the new hulls, and the trailering info about rollers doesn't apply.

An '03 150 should have an EZLoader trailer, like mine. The bunks on mine were not centered when the boat was delivered, but I adjusted it with the boat off in the water.

There is a plastic slide in the center of the crossmembers that doesn't contact the boat when loading or unloading if the trailer is submerged sufficiently. Only the roller forward usually does.

Tombro ran into a situation with low water at a ramp with a severe drop off at the end, where he couldn't get the trailer submerged sufficiently. He reported he did have to crank the bow over the plastic slide and it worked with no problem other than more effort than usual.

We both think the EZLoader lights suck, and will be replacing them with LED models.


Moe posted 10-20-2003 03:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Let me add that with a coupler lock, and the motor tilted up on the transom saver, the rig is right at 21' long. Lowering the motor takes about a foot of that off. The track of the trailer is narrow enough to put the fenders inside the gunwales, so the trailer doesn't add to the width of the boat.


Florida15 posted 10-20-2003 05:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Florida15  Send Email to Florida15     
Poker, where are you located ? That beats what I've found down here by about $3K.
poker13 posted 10-20-2003 08:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Austin, TX
Perry posted 10-20-2003 09:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Poker13, the 150 sport and 160 Dauntless are not even comparable. Like Moe said "the 150 is more comparable to the Classic 17 Montauk and 170 Montauk than the 160." I test drove both 150 and 160 before I bought the Dauntless. Not only is it almost a foot longer, 7" wider and can hold 40 more gallons more fuel than the 150 sport, but it handles rough water much better. It rides like a much bigger boat. I can have 5 large adults (over 1000 lbs.) and my boat will still get on plane in under 6 seconds and will reach 38 mph. The 150 is designed for use in a lake or bay where the Dauntless can handle the open ocean quite well. I have taken mine from Oahu to Molokai several times in the rough Hawaiian seas and often fish far from shore. I guess it depends on what you use your boat for but I doubt that adding a center console to the 150 sport will replace the Dauntless 160.
Moe posted 10-20-2003 11:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Perry, I meant that the 150 is more comparable to the 170 because of the hull and square bow. From your last sentence, it looks like you got a little defensive and it led you to, shall we say overemphasize, a bit.

First, is your max plate weight for 6 passengers on the 160 really over 1000 lbs?

If so, here's how I see the 160 loaded with 1000 lbs of people and all that gas:

Wet Motor Weight = 395 lbs
Five People @ 200 lbs = 1000 lbs
45 gal gas @ 6.3 lbs/gal 284 lbs

21 lbs left out of 1700 Max Capacity for anchor and safety gear, forget cooler, drinks, and fishing gear. Maybe 10 more lbs with a 115 Opti

If you read my post, you'd find the 150 can easily carry 24+ gallons of gas, so the difference is actually about half what you stated (and yes, I know you based it on the 150 only coming with one tank).

Here's how I see the 150 loaded with four of your 200 lb people, and this is with the 4-stroke:

Wet Motor Weight = 275 lbs
Four People @ 200 lbs = 800 lbs
24 gal gas @ 6.3 lbs/gal = 150 lbs

175 lbs left out of 1400 Max Capacity for anchor and safety gear, cooler, drinks, and fishing gear.

To compare the room for 4-5 people, here's the actual difference, very close to scale, between the 160 (162 (85") X 371 pixels) and the 150 (149 (78") X 349 pixels) and they're aligned at the aft end of the bow locker where the main deck begins.

Now I don't doubt the deeper Dauntless hull is better in rough water, and I'll have to take your word about the Pacific, but the picture clearly shows we're not really talking bay boat vs ocean-going vessel here. I can see where Poker13 made that comparison.

Keep in mind I run mine in the steep chop of Lake Erie, while Tombro runs his across the bay into the Atlantic, and Techmage runs his in the Gulf. We also all agree the 150 rides like a much bigger boat, too.

No, I don't think the 150 with a center console would ever replace the 160. But with the popularity of the 170, if Whaler ever had to cut back on the number of models, it might.

The guys with the 21-30' boats are probably getting a real chuckle out of this.

Perry posted 10-21-2003 12:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Yea Moe, I'm sure the big boat guys are getting a good chuckle with this. In my comparison, I didn't mean to imply that I go boating on a regular basis with 5 large guys and their gear. I was just saying that it can carry lots of weight (max plate weight: 6 people 1100 lbs.) and still perform well. The deep v really helps in rough seas and that was the main reason why I bought the Dauntless.
Jarhead posted 10-21-2003 09:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
poker13s' statement that the 150 Sport, with some modifications, would make the 160 Dauntless unsalable is provocative at best.

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't share that opinion. Of course I guess I'm a little bias, I like my 160 Dauntless a lot. :) :)

poker13 posted 10-21-2003 10:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Didn't mean to raise a stink with my comparison of the 150 to the 160. I'm sure the Dauntless is a very fine boat. It's just that I was really impressed when I saw them side by side and realized how little difference there is in size, and how great the difference is in weight and price. I really think the 150 would make a good center console boat, and it would be the choice for us who can't really afford the 160. Now if they would only jack up that h.p. limit...... :-)
Moe posted 10-21-2003 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Poker, you've been "lookin" long enough. Jump on that deal. ;-)


poker13 posted 10-21-2003 12:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
You bet I've been looking long enough--years! Right now I'm waiting to look at a classic Nauset that a co-worker is thinking about selling (those things are extremely rare in TX). If it's in good shape and we can negotiate a good price, I may own a classic soon!
tombro posted 10-21-2003 03:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
You've been citing me long enough, Moe. :-]
In a nutshell: I AM a former "big" boat owner, having had in the past two classic, 1980-era Makos, the biggest a 258 cuddy with twin 175 hp Merc outboards. None of these Whalers we are talking about can quite hold a candle to a boat of that class in big seas, and I speak from experience as a Northeast canyon runner. That means a ninety mile run offshore in the Atlantic.
However, the 150 Sport is about the biggest feeling little boat I've ever been on, with my only other Whaler experience being in a classic Montauk 17. I would rate them very close in ride, handling and performance, with the Montauk slightly faster with the 2 stroke 90 that my rental was rigged with. I find a good balance between comfort for wife and daughter with the bow cusion and bimini, and fishability for myself. Once the bow cushion is removed, I have a fantastic casting platform, that is stable and non-skid. My last trip I left the bimini home as well, since the blood and guts were (hopefully) gonna be flying. We crossed the bay for 4 miles, and ran 10 miles out and down the beach catching false albacore, big bluefish, stipers, and over 100 bottom fish. Boat cleaned up beautifully from the mess, and we only burned 6.1 gal for the 28+ mile round trip. So, while not my old 25 footer, it does what I need it to do, fits in my garage, and sips gas. Guess you could say I am very happy with it. Does more than I had expected, and then some. I wanted a boat I owned, that didn't own me, but could get me outside the inlet, too. Great rig!
Guess it all depends on what you want out of a boat, and are willing to spend, are able to trailer and store, etc
poker13 posted 10-21-2003 08:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
I replied to the e-mail you sent me directly, but it bounced back. Just wanted to say thanks.
Moe posted 10-21-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Glad you got it... been having trouble with AT&T mail lately.


Moe posted 10-21-2003 08:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Hey Tom! Glad you weighed in here. Good to have the perspective of another reformed "big boater." :-) The guy who gave us boat fever every summer finally sold his 32 Wellcraft Martinque and replaced it with... a 15' aluminum side console w/60 hp Merc 4-stroke. Said he got tired of insurance, slip and storage fees, maintenance, and having to stand to get the wind in the face feeling. Makes him feel like a kid again, exploring the St Clair River.


tombro posted 10-22-2003 08:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
Yeah...sure miss: bottom painting, shrink wrapping, marina winter and summer fees, sun-faded gelcoat, huge fuel bills, seagull poop, etc, etc. Well, sorta...that Mako was the right boat for the right time, and I don't regret a single minute of it. This just happens to be the right boat right now. I know I'll be back in a marina kept cabin boat someday again, once I'm too old and cranky to trailer and zip around in an open skiff. In the interim I am really enjoying being a kid again and exploring in my 150!
I understand your neighbor's decision. I almost was going to get a 15' aluminum like he did...'till I saw the 150. Once owned a 16 Duranautic with a comparison to a heavy glass boat. That tin boat never saw the ocean...too rough and wet!
Jamber posted 10-22-2003 01:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     
This is a great thread...
Glad to hear the 150 is such a great boat.

I myself have a 1999 16 Duantless with a Yamaha F100 four-stroke.
I bought the boat new and have really been impressed with it. Especially in the rough waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the great range between fuelings. Very dry ride... I could go on. I love this boat.

However, I do feel it is stern heavy and slow plane with a few adults onboard. My selfbailing scuppers go underwater and even let some water flow into the boat, when I'm standing by the stern with a full tank of gas and the boat not moving foward. My 160 does suffer from porpoising, but can easily be adjusted with trim or throtle. I always felt these are just minor sacrafices to have a great riding 16 foot boat that sips gas (heavy 4stroke).

I recently purchased a waterfront house off the East side (shallow side) of the Estero Bay (South West FL). I feel my 160 now draws way too much water for my area of boating.
I have trouble getting through on low tides (18" inches of water in one particular area). But I still want to boat in the rough Gulf of Mexico, so I got a delima...

I want to boat in shallow and in rough waters, my options:

I'm considering a jack plate but I do not want to add any more weight to the stern.

I could repower with a lighter 90 two-stroke, but I do not want less fuel economy and the higher emissions.

Maybe I will now look at the 150 or 170 with a four-stroke.

Thanks guys for comparing the boats. The 150 and 170 sounds like it would be a good compromise to run shallower and give up little on rough water ride quality vs. the 160.
I may lean towards the 170 so can stand and let my legs can absorb impact in rough water.
I wonder if my Whaler dealer will give me a test drive in both...?


tombro posted 10-22-2003 02:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
Almost forgot--One of my favorite features is the removable front seat, allowing me to walk unhindered to the bow. I've been just leaving it at home as of late. Works very well for two adult males fishing in the typical striper/bluefish blitz. For even more elbow room I'll typically fish the 'cockpit', with my partner in the bow. Great feature!
Perry posted 10-22-2003 03:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
James, Model year 2002 and newer Dauntless 160's have a redesigned hull. The notch at the bottom of the transom has been filled. The result is quicker to plane, less porpoising and more floatation in the stern. My Honda 90 weighs 375 lbs and the scuppers are above water with a full tank of gas.
Jamber posted 10-22-2003 04:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

I never understood why they put that notch there in the first place...? Such a pain to reach the drain plug too. I'm glad Whaler improved it along with the fuel venting problem I had. I will check the newer models out aswell. I think my Yamaha F100 weighs in at 385lbs. I could see the notch causing some of my problems, but not the main problem which is lack of water by the mouth of my creek at low tides.

The 2003 170 is two inches less draft than the 2003 160 (9 compared to 11 respectivley). By what you are saying, I think my 1999 160 could require more water like 12', since being notched (less floatation). Add that to my heavy four-stroke and it becomes a real pain to go through 18 of water, trimmed way up, with an occasionally strong current.

I'm in the process of trying to get my city to dredge the mouth of the creek, but I'm told I won't get far, so I'm considering other Whalers now. I love my 16 Duantless and will hate to give it up, unless it is for another Whaler.


cmarques posted 10-22-2003 06:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for cmarques  Send Email to cmarques     
Some 2002 Dauntless 160's still have the notch in the transom. Mine is a 2002 model built in may 2001 with the notch. The mold was changed after production of the 2002's began.
Perry posted 10-22-2003 07:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
cmarques, that is odd. My 2002 has no notch but it was built a year after yours.
Moe posted 10-22-2003 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Jamber, you got me curious... so off to the garage with a 4' carpenters level and tape measure... boat sitting on the trailer at the same angle it does in the water.

I'm not sure how Whaler measures draft. The bottom of our 150 drain is 6" above the lowest point at the center of the hull, and the waterline with the boat empty, even with the 60 HP BigFoot, is below that. I know because it completely drains rain water out with the plug removed. The bottom of the anode at the bottom of the motor mount is 8" above the lowest point of the transom. With a load in the boat, under slight engine power, the waterline MAY get up that high, particularly if the motor is trimmed up, pushing down on the stern.

If it does get that high (where draft would be 8"), we need 24" of water to keep the motor vertical with the skeg just grazing the bottom. It doesn't take much up-trim at all to get the bottom of the skeg no lower than 17" below the bottom of the motor mount anode. At that point with 8" draft, the top of the 13-7/8" prop should be right at the waterline, and the top of the exhaust hub about an inch below it.

If the 170 hull does sit 2" lower in the water, it doesn't take much more up-trim to get the skeg up another 2-1/2" (another 1/2" to account for the 3/4" lower engine mounting), where the bottom of the skeg should be 17" below the waterline (the 90 has the same bottom end as my 60 HP Bigfoot). At that point the top blade of the prop should be only a bit over 2" out of the water, the top of the exhaust hub maybe 1-1/2" out. Even at this, the top of the water intake should still be 1-1/2" below the surface, and there should be plenty of steering authority, but with a bit more tendency for the stern to walk to starboard. Perhaps some 170 owners have looked at this shallow water operation closely.

At any rate, either 150 or 170 should be no problem in your 18" of water.

I grew up in the '50s to early-'70s in what's now Knot At Work's stomping ground on the west end of Pensacola NAS. Most of our boating was in the Grande Lagoon as far east as the jetties at Ft McRee, but on good days, we, and other small boats, would run through the pass into the Gulf for some trolling down the beaches. There's lots of 2' or shallower water in and around the lagoon, so the ideal boat for both purposes, as well as Pensacola, Escambia, and Perdido Bays, was a 17' with a deep-V bow and a very shallow V bottom at the stern.

In that area in the 60's, most considered a 16' Whaler unsuitable for the bays, much less going out the pass into the Gulf, except the early-adopters. We'd watch their die-hard owners get beaten and soaked, and some would laugh about them spending so much money for so heavy a boat that rode so hard and wet. Two hull generations later, the 16 BW has evolved into the 170 and is in some ways even better than the old ideal boat. Quite frankly, even the 150 is a better, safer boat than the no-floatation 17s we had back then, when a closed bow was considered essential.

I don't particularly consider the Gulf rough (I also used to deck-hand on the snapper boats), but it is certainly to be respected even with a large boat, and a close eye kept on the weather. We definitely have a lot better access to weather information these days. If I were spending most of the time in the lagoon, the ICW, the bays, and surrounding rivers, with trips out in the Gulf on good days, I'd chose the 150, and forego the few days in the Gulf where the 170 would be better. But if much of the time would be out in the Gulf fishing, I'd opt for the 170 for it's slightly larger size, and better fishing layout... if I could afford it. Chosing a 60HP 4-stroke would help with that and in the shallows. But even then, I'd stay well within sight of land.

I dream of retiring back down there and one day throwing a cast net for mullet from the bow of a small boat again.


Barney posted 10-22-2003 08:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Moe, drag that boat on down, Jim
Jamber posted 10-23-2003 12:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

Thank you so much for measuring, calculating and posting.
Thinking about the 160 45gal. fuel load and the weight of all that fuel. Plus I keep full to avoid condesation, that is alot of weight! The four-stroke sips the gas, it seems like a waste when the most I have ever used in one weekend outing was 15 gallons. No wonder I can't get though shallow water with that weight. I have been thinking about it alot and I plan to head down (about 5 miles) to my local Whaler dealer on Saturday and take a good look at the 170. I like the 90 four-stroke (I just wish it was EFI). BTW The 115 four-stroke in the other thread look nice...50 mph! holy smokes!!! But that will take away from my shallow water advantage.

I think the 160 Duantless is a great boat, but just not for my personal situation. The 170 seems like a better boat for my needs. I checked with the wife, she says it is fine with her as long as it does not get too pricey.

When I do head out into the Gulf I usally run along the shore and never go out of sight of land. I know my limits and my boats limits. I always check the weather, tides, use commmon sense, and say a pray. Three guys are currently missing in our area, they went out 66 miles in their 24 HydraSport. I hope the find them alive.

Moe posted 10-23-2003 08:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Jamber, you're lucky to be so close to a dealer (and lucky to have an understanding spouse!). Make the dealer let you sea trial the 170 through your inlet at low tide with at least you and the sales guy in the boat, preferably the wife and more to simulate a 24-27 gallon tank full.

The 115 weighs the same as the 90, which are both the same as your Yamaha at 386lbs dry, so weight wouldn't be an issue with the 115. But insurance probably would. Dunno 'bout Florida nowadays, but I believe overpowering is against the law in Ohio.

I'd have to dig a bit to find it, but we do have at least one 170 owner here with the 60HP EFI Bigfoot, which is 122 lbs less on the transom than the 90, at 264 lbs dry. IIRC, he's getting close to the same 35 mph top speed as we do with it on the 150, but I'd have to find his posts. That EFI sure does idle smoothly for trolling and won't load up or foul plugs as readily as a carbed model. I guess you're already used to trolling with a carbed motor, though.

Good luck!

Moe posted 10-23-2003 11:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Title XXIV, Chapter 327, paragraph 327.52(3) of Florida Statutes: "No person shall operate any vessel described in subsection (1) when said vessel exceeds the maximum weight capacity, maximum persons capacity, or maximum horsepower capacity..." Basically the same as Ohio.


Jamber posted 10-23-2003 01:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     
Thanks once agian Moe for all the info. I do want to stay legal. I did not know the 60 BigFoot was EFI, I would love to test drive the 170 with the 60 BigFoot and then the 90 4stroke. Do you of any published numbers of plane time, top speed, and fuel economy for both setups? I guess I could live with the top speed 35mph from the 60 BF if plane time was still decent, I imagine the 122 lbs would really help the draft!


Jamber posted 10-23-2003 01:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

I wonder if Mercury is planing on making an EFI 90 4stroke soon, or would it just be a detuned 115 then...?

tombro posted 10-23-2003 01:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
Party pooper :+}
Moe posted 10-23-2003 02:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I know, Tom... we could'a had another 150 convert :-)

Jimh posted some performance data with the 60HP on the 170 in the reference section but it doesn't include time to plane.

While it's logical that 50% more power would plane significantly faster, the lighter stern would also be a factor that helped with this.

90HP (and 115HP) proponents will be quick to point out that a 60HP 170 would be less marketable come time to sell or trade it, and I definitely agree. However, if I planned on keeping the boat for a long time, it wouldn't be as big a factor.

I've been unsuccessful using HtDig to find that 60HP 170 owner's posts.

The current 90 is just a destroked 115, so even if they did install the EFI unit of the 115 on it, I suspect it would stay destroked. I think Larry may have something when he says Merc may've gotten Yamaha to go EFI on the 115, but probably won't push it on the 75 and 90 which compete with Yamaha's own carbed models, considering their new direction in four-stroke technology.


Bigshot posted 10-23-2003 02:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Before you buy anything try running that 16 with only 10 gal in the tank. I can't see trading a 160 for a 170 due to a shoal....170 aint goonna draw much less(2"?)
Jamber posted 10-23-2003 05:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

Actually it does list the 60 BigFoot time to plane... 7.3
After looking at some of the info and comment I think I would be unhappy with that engine on the 170. Also after loooking at the photos compared to my 16 Duantless there seems to be a real lack of storage on the 170. But there looks to be room to add a cooler seat or two by the stern on either side. I got the idea after following the link in your profile:
Man you packed a lot on to your 150. Great use of space!

The 150 is still not out of the running for me. I could see the 170 getting pricey with the 4stroke and a few other options as well as a bigger tank one day. What type of performace do you get out of your 150 with the 60BF? (back to the original topic that I hyjacked).

Jamber posted 10-23-2003 05:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

Thank you for the advice. Before I sell/buy I do plan to do some measuring, with fuel full, with low fuel, with the boat in the water...ect. The area I'm in is just really shallow, That is 18 inches of water in the middle of the channel! Every inch counts. I never venture outside the channel, it would be nice if I could like my neighbors do.

When I first came to the area, I saw a 17 Palm Beach with a 140 OMC plane off infront of me an cut off part of the channel not problem. I thought oh I guess it is not shallow there. I tried and ended removing lots of paint from my prop. I had to get out and walk my boat back to the channel shaking my head, wondering how he made it through. I still see boats cutting through the same spot all the time, not me...

I think the 99 Duantless with a 386 lbs motor is a stern heavy boat. Just the design of the boat. Not for shallow water, it is awesome when then gulf is rough and when I have people in the bow weighing it down. It was great when I lived in Orlanda and boated the ST John's and the Space Coast.


Moe posted 10-23-2003 09:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Jamber, it gets us from point A to point B as quickly as we care to go in 2-4' chop without exceeding 70% of the engine redline (4200 rpm), and I'd run it all day at that speed. In 1-2' I'll run it to 4800 rpm for short periods, and every now and then 5400 in less than 1'. Keep in mind we run about 750 lbs of people, cargo, and fuel, and the bimini always open.

Despite all that weight in the stern, it still rolls over on plane at 3200 rpm in a few seconds with the motor trimmed full down, and falls off at that point on smooth water. In most cases, we have to keep it at 3400 rpm to keep waves from slowing it enough to fall off plane. 3400-3600 seems to be the best speed for fuel economy. It cruises nicely, and very quietly, at 2,000 rpm in displacement mode, but starts plowing at about 2,200. I can run it up to 1200 rpm in no-wake zones without generating more than a trickle on the surface.

I know that's not objective data. I can only quote from one of Keith Shoaps' posts for that:


For those who may be interested: my 150 Sport with 60 hp BigFoot, standard equip. aluminum prop (13 3/4" X 15) clean hull, smooth water and 72 degrees with the engine anti-cav plate at 3/4" above the keel gives the following:

800 rpm-------3.2 mph
1000 rpm-------4.1 mph
2000 rpm-------7.1 mph
3000 rpm-------14.6 mph
3200 rpm-------17.6 mph
3400 rpm-------19.6 mph
4000 rpm-------23.9 mph
5000 rpm-------31.0 mph
5800 rpm-------36.5 mph (engine tilted 8-9 "bumps" to full tilt at WOT)

This was in fresh water, with the motor vertical to the boat, as it would be at rest, for rpms less than max, rather than it being trimmed for optimum mph. Trim up was done at max speed, where raising the motor 3/4" had picked up 200 rpm and 1.5 mph from Keith's previous post of max speed. Keith boats on smooth water, but I prefer to keep my motor where Whaler mounted it to ensure the water pickup stays submerged in waves.

At any rate, I wouldn't even consider a 150 either until you've tried it in your channel and run it out in the Gulf for yourself. If I was going to be operating in a sandy areas, I'd have a stainless prop, but I boat where there are minefields of limestone boulders. And if I was going to be in very shallow water much of the time, I'd put a trim gauge and water pressure gauge on either side of the tach.


Jamber posted 10-24-2003 12:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     
Yet again, thank you so much for all the info. You are a huge help as I educate myself on these Whalers. I try not to rush into a major purchase and will measure and test all I can. Years ago I would be in the public library thumbing through Consumer Reports... gotta love the internet and great forums like these... Thanks Jim!

Back to the notch on my 16 Duantless. I was talking to a friend and fellow boater and he mentioned that he saw another boat manufacture (can't remember) that has a simliar notch in the stern. He was told the notch lets water flow up so the engine can be mounted higher on the transom so the cavitation plate is even with the top of the notch, not the bottom of the boat. Sound correct? I'm not sure where mine is mounted. I'm thinking maybe my engine is mounted at the botom of the notch. I will have to check it out tomorrow, if so I will ask at the Whaler dealer what the proper mounting height is on a 1999 16D. That would be a cheap and somewhat easy fix to my draft problems. Would make sense. I plan to measure my boat and visit the Whaler dealer this weekend.

I think the 170 would be a great boat for my needs, can't wait to see it in person.

Another solution would be to pick up a 13 classic. Then I could have a "low tide" boat and keep my 16D for my "high tide" boat. :)


Moe posted 10-24-2003 08:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here ya go, Jamber:


Jamber posted 10-24-2003 09:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     
LOL, sometimes I feel that is what I need.

I have considered one of these:

I looked at the notch on my 16 Duantless and the upper smaller cavitation plate (on the front of the engine) is just about even with the top of the notch. So I do not think I would be able to raise my engine.
Hard to tell, but you can kinda see in this photo...

Perry posted 10-24-2003 01:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
James the link for the picture of your boat didn't work. Is the motor flush mounted on the top of the transom? If so, it can be raised a hole or two. Try reposting the pic.
Jamber posted 10-24-2003 02:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jamber  Send Email to Jamber     

I'm not sure why it is not working for you... are you getting an error? If so after, the error shows up, clink at the end of the link in the location bar in your browser then hit you "enter" key.

I have to take a closer look at the mounting, I'm prretty sure that it is not on flush. But it may be able to still go up a hole.
I will take better close up pics this weekend and upload them to a different server.

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.