Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Moving Internal Fuel Tank on 23 Walkaround

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

Author Topic:   Moving Internal Fuel Tank on 23 Walkaround
Maui T posted 12-17-2003 09:58 PM ET (US)   Profile for Maui T   Send Email to Maui T  
I have a 1991 23 Walk Around with twin 140-HP motors on an extened box/swim deck [Whaler Drive/Engine Bracket]. It has a 140-GAL fuel tank that sits to the back of the last stringer. The boat seems to be tail heavy and has trouble getting on plane with four or more people on board. If I moved the gas tank forward 18-inches (under the cockpit) will this help to get [the boat] on plane faster and to be less tail heavy? Will affect handling? Or is my boat sitting the way it should?


Backlash posted 12-18-2003 08:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for Backlash  Send Email to Backlash     
Maui T,

Welcome to the forum!

The weight specs for the 21 and 23 WA in the 1991 Whaler mini-catalog were incorrect. The weight for the 23 WA was listed at 2650#. The 1992 catalog correctly listed the weight (with Whaler Drive) at 4300# and a MINIMUM of 300 HP, maximum 400 HP.

I think your problem getting on plane is because the boat is underpowered. Most of the 23 WA's I have seen have had twin 200 HP engines.

I don't know if moving your fuel tank forward 18" (if that is even possible) would help or not. Perhaps someone with more experience with this will respond.

Does your boat have trim tabs? I thought they may have been standard on the 23.

The 23 WA is a fantastic boat and the Whaler Drive makes yours quite rare.


gimcrack225 posted 12-18-2003 11:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for gimcrack225    
Hurray for a new POST CLASSIC post!

I have a 21' walkaround with a 225 Johnson. I agree with Backlash. Somebody underpowered the boat.
I wish I had a 23'WA with whaler drive.

Some approximate calculations:
140 gallons of gasoline at 6.1 pounds per gallon equals 850 pounds.

If you know how long the tank is you can calculate how much weight is represented by an 18" move. If the tank is 48" long, just a guess, moving it forward 18" might shift 300 pounds (when full). You could probably achieve a better result trying to remove weight. For example trying to run on 1/2 or 3/4 tank when you have a lot of guests.

Even if it were possible, it probably won't make big a difference. Moving 300 pounds in a 2 ton plus boat. Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of other stuff that will probably be affected like the holding tank, the thru-hulls, fresh water tank, macerator etc. There are some great pictures on this site of whaler owners adventures while ripping out foamed-in-tanks.

Best regards

lhg posted 12-18-2003 05:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
There have been only two 140Hp engines on the market that I know of, the older OMC V-4 (1/2 of a V-8) or the newer Suzuki 140 4-strokes. Which do you have? Neither would be adequate performers for 23 Walkaround WD. Time and time again, we see here that underpowering doesn't pay.

A nice pair of 200 EFI's would make her run.

seasicknes posted 12-18-2003 07:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
My buddy has a 23 wa with whaler drive. Twin 200 hp evinrudes. Boat goes FAST.

But, he does have a slight problem trying to plane the boat in sloppy sea conditions.

He seems to have no mid range on the throttle. Very touchy, either goes way to fast and pound or he cannot plane.

He solved the problem by getting those doel fins on the motors.

seasicknes posted 12-18-2003 07:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
OH last thing, I believe the 23 wa needs a minimum of twin 150 hp to run.

Maui T posted 12-18-2003 09:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Maui T  Send Email to Maui T     
I guess I'm the bone head that underpowered my boat. I'm tring to find where I found my info. I was pretty sure it stated that max was 300hp but I can't find where I found that number. Wish I'd have found this forum first. Good thing I didn't listen to the boatshop they said I would be fine with 110s And the 140 suzukis would be over powering.

When I see my boat sit on flat water it looks to be heavy aft. Does anyone have photos of their boats on flat water from the side so I can compare how mine sits. Or as they would say here "It stay one opticle delusion!"

Thanks for the info, T

Maui T posted 12-18-2003 09:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Maui T  Send Email to Maui T     
Correction , 115s not 110s

Sorry , T

lhg posted 12-19-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Here is a case where Suzuki's now apparent over-rating of HP on this model really hurts the consumer, particularly with conventional 4-stroke slower acceleration characteristics. These are deceptive, although legal, marketing practices if you ask me, and you can bet they won't do anything about this consumer being taken for a ride. But I would still go back to the dealer and scream. Minimally powering a boat with twin OVER-rated engines produces results like this, and the dealer had an obligation to inform the buyer. If one is going to "minimum" power a Whaler, be sure the engine is UNDER-rated. A pair of 2-stroke V-6 150's, any brand, carb, EFI or DFI, would have provided more acceptable performance on this boat. I think most of us have come to the conclusion that Boston Whaler's Whaler Drive models pretty much need the full HP rating.
Maui T posted 12-19-2003 05:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Maui T  Send Email to Maui T     
I was at the BW Web site and looking at the specs for the 24' outrage. The max 300hp; min 225hp and the wt. 4400# Is the difference between what is being recommened for my boat (300hp min; 400hp max) vs the outrage differnt hull shape? or the whaler drive?

Ignorant, T

Barry posted 12-19-2003 10:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Your 1991 Whaler 23 Walkaround is a very different boat from the current 240 Outrage.

In the 1993 catalog, the maximum hp for the Whaler 23 Walkaround Outboard (open transom) and the Whaler 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive are both 400. The minimums shown that year are 225 for the Outboard model and 275 for the Whaler Drive version. Both the 1992 and 1993 catalogs show the fuel capacity at 150 gallons.

I would definately consider adding "fins" to both engines. I've used Doel-Fins but have read good things about the larger Permatrim Hydrofoil units . These should help you get on plane faster and allow you to remain on plane at lower speeds.

How high are your engines mounted? How is your performance with the 140's?

Maui T posted 12-20-2003 01:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Maui T  Send Email to Maui T     
Thanks Barry

The performance is good. Not as much power as the old 150 johnsons, but the fuel economy and the reduced noise makes up for it. trolling at about 10knts gets 5gph wish is almost half of what the johnsons got. It makes the over- nighters nicer knowing that I won't run out of fuel on the way home.WOT 42knts.

Not sure how to answer you on how high the motors are mounted. I'll try to get a frame of refrence and let you know.

Thanks for the suggestion on the doel-fin.I asked some people around here how well they worked but they just shruged their shoulders. Basied on your experence I will give them a try.

Thanks, T

Barry posted 12-20-2003 02:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Everything I've read and heard about the Suzuki 140 4-stroke engines has been positive and 42 knots at WOT is great performance.

All of the 23 WA's that I've seen have had trim tabs. Even if your boat has them another option would be to upgrade or replace them with units with even larger blades.

You could still add hydrofoils to the engines and they would provide additional lift but that may be an issue with your engine warranties.

Regarding engine mounting, it seems like a lot of engines are not mounted at the optimal height. The anti-ventilation plate should be above the bottom of the hull. If the engines are mounted on a jackplate or bracket they usually need to be raised up even more. If the engines are too low you will have additional drag resulting in worse economy and handling.

The twin 150 Johnsons on my 1988 22 Outrage Whaler Drive are mounted all the way up and I still think that they are a little too low.

Note that the Whaler Drive used on the classic Outrage and Revenge hulls is different from the Whaler Drive that was used on the WA.

seasicknes posted 12-22-2003 03:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
I know of a guy that has an 18 outrage (1999) with a 140 suzuki 4 stroke. He had problems coming out of the hole. He added a fin on the motor and has helped out alot.

The fin is called WhaleTail-XT. One peice aluminum. Mounted under the cavatation plate. You need to drill 4 holes to mount.

Clark Roberts posted 12-23-2003 08:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Suzuki also produced (maybe still do) 115/140hp four cylinder two strokes. I don't see where Maui states that his engines are four strokers so maybe he has the 140hp two stroke?
Maui T posted 12-23-2003 01:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Maui T  Send Email to Maui T     
No they are the four stroke.

How do boat manufacture determine the power ratings for their boats?

jimh posted 12-23-2003 10:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
For boats made in the United States, manufacturers are governed by Federal laws, empowered by the Federal Safe Boating Act of 1971.

Hyperlink to Regulations

Nota Bene: it is preferable to start a new thread if you have questions that are divergent from the original discussion and topic of the thread.

jimh posted 12-23-2003 10:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Administrative post]

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.