Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  2001 26' Outrage and Offshore CCs

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

Author Topic:   2001 26' Outrage and Offshore CCs
TG_190 posted 01-12-2004 10:36 PM ET (US)   Profile for TG_190   Send Email to TG_190  
This is a re-post of a question I had asked on the general whaler forum. This forum seems more active, so at the risk of being redundant here it is.

I have read most of the threads regarding the 26' outrage, most of which pertain to the Pascoe's negative review.

I am a current Nantucket owner and I currently feel like I am pushing the safe limits of that boat by having a strong desire to fish offshore. So... I have X-foot-itis. I do love the Nantucket for what it is, but have felt myself tempting fate on several occasions. I have never felt truly unsafe on the Nantucket (quite the contrary), but have exposed myself to the possibility of "trouble". I am thinking about getting a bigger boat with twins to safely head out 50miles or more. I have poured over the specs for GW257 Advance, BW Outrages, Contender, etc.

I have come across several seemingly good deals on the 26 Outrage, but the one thing that Pascoe mentions in his review that bothers me the most (ie. not fixable) is the handling/listing complaints.

I would appreciate it if any current/former owners would let me know what they honestly feel about this boat. Any info would be appreciated.

Also I am interested in performance numbers (speeds, time to plane, fuel economy, top speed) for the twin 200 and 225 Optimax's on the 26.

Also, if anybody has any feelings about offshore center consoles, BW or other brands, I wouldn't mind taking them into consideration.



aquaman posted 01-12-2004 11:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for aquaman  Send Email to aquaman     

Pascoe doesn't have many good things to say about the 26 Outrage. I am currently looking at a 1994 24' Outrage and I have concerns the 24' may have some of the same handling qualities of the 26', he reviews. I have been around boats all of my life and from looking closely at the hull design would conclude it to have a poor ride. I wonder if there is anyone out there that has experienced the ride in these boats and would comment. I'd like to have another opinion.

TG_190 posted 01-13-2004 10:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Thanks for the reply. I have heard mixed things thus far. I am still looking.


kglinz posted 01-13-2004 12:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
I don't want to start a war. I don't want to "Bad Mouth" any motor. I would advise you to do some serious research on 2000/2001 3 Liter Optimax engines. Of the 26 Outrages listed on Yachtworld, For Sale all are Optimax powered.
TG_190 posted 01-13-2004 02:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     


No need to start a war. If you have an opinion, either based on first hand or second hand knowledge/experience. I would appreciate hearing about it.

In any event, are the problems you are alluding to fixed in the more recent years of the optimax 200/225s?



kamie posted 01-13-2004 02:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     

Is it the boat size or the lack of twins that makes you hesitate with the Nantucket? If it's the size go bigger, but if it's the lack of twins then maybe you should be looking at a used Outrage 18/19'.


kglinz posted 01-13-2004 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
All I know for sure is that one of my 2000 225 Optis lost a powerhead at 163 Hours. When I called my dealer, who was 300 miles away, he said just check # 6 compression. I did and found 20 Lbs. I was told by a salesman for the Boston Whaler in Seattle that the first 28 Conquest they had in stock lost 3 powerheads. I know that the biggest Mercury dealer in my area, who is a Ranger Bass boat dealer, had changed 28 Optimax powerheads the last time I talked to him. They told me the problem is almost #6 cylinder. I have not heard of any problems on the newer engines, but I have seen few of them. I know that there a lot of larger Whalers for sale and wonder how much the motor reliabilty enters in. I would have sold my boat, but my wife would not let me have a 8 KT trawler, even with stabilizers.
TG_190 posted 01-13-2004 04:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Both. Size and twins are safer and better to have offshore.
BTW, the nantucket will accept a kicker as the plate is built into the transom.


I assume the 200 and 225 are the same power head. Interesting info about that engines. What happened: bad ring(s), cylinder, rod? How did Mercury marine handle it?
I know that most if not all the listings I have seen were with Mercs, and the engine choice restrictions did not exist back then. I would think though that the vast majority of the 2000,2001 whalers were still powered by Merc anyway though.

TRAFFICLAWYER posted 01-13-2004 04:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
Didn't you repower with F225's?
kglinz posted 01-13-2004 04:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
Yes I did repower with F225s and so far they've been great.

They are both 3 Liter blocks. Mercury service took care of me even though I was 2 months out of warranty. No complaint there. Its hard the get real straight info on these problems. There are several versions of the 3 liter engine. If you order a service manual you must give them a serial number to get the right one. As I understand it Mercury stopped production of the motors for a time because of failures. There was a recall on some 2001 models and changes were made to the ECU and fuel rails, but they would not do these mods on my 2000 engines. I don't know if you can get a straight story from anyone. I was just very disapointed in the whole thing. I've been running outboard motors since 1952 and have had some motors that I've run on 3 different boats. I upgraded the boat and keep the old motor. Just blame it on the EPA.

bricknj posted 01-13-2004 05:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for bricknj    

Check this out:

kamie posted 01-13-2004 10:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     

Thanks for the info on the kicker. It was on my list of questions to ask the dealer.

TG_190 posted 01-14-2004 02:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Reprint of what I posted on the General board.

Thanks for all the replies.

Although, I didn't get any real first hand responses from 26 OR owners, thanks nonetheless.

An older 27' is an interesting thought, though I like my time spent on the water, and not too much rewiring, worrying about older engines, and the fuel cost...personally, i would rather get newer and slightly smaller for the occasional offshore trip (5-10 times a season), and the common inshore fishing I do in 3-4' foot seas. I also like the option of some day being able to trailer and self store it to reduce costs further. Its always all about compromises.

I am still waiting for relevant 26 OR input or other boats from BW or other makes worth considering.


diveorfish posted 01-14-2004 04:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
TG_190: Most feel that bigger is always better. I tend to agree with that. As far as the 26 Outrage goes, Pasco got a lot of things wrong in his review. I wouldnít put much stock in it. As far as the ride goes, a 26 has essentially the same shaped hull as every other large Whaler built around the same time. This goes for the 23 Outrage, 23 Conquest, 24 Outrage, 26 Conquest, 28 Conquest and 28 Outrage. By most accounts, folks think these boats ride just fine.

If you want to feel safe offshore though, you donít have to go as big as a 26 if you are considering Whalers. A classic 22 Outrage would do nicely. They are about as sea worthy as an offshore boat can get. I would rather be in one of those than any other 26 foot that can sink. The 22 is long enough to give you a decent ride and are very easy to tow. If you need more creature comforts, the 23 Outrage, 24 Outrage or 23 Conquest are great options also. They have heads, built in bait wells, high freeboard and large seating capacity. You will feel very secure and stay very dry in any one of these. These boats are a bit harder to tow and store but still easily doable.

The 26 Outrage is a big boat. It would be much harder to tow and store. I donít have any first hand knowledge on the ride but my dealer thought they rode great (for what its worth). I can only imagine my boat (a 23 Outrage) with 3 more feet of length would be a real battlewagon and impervious to 4 foot seas.

As far as twins go, they are no safer than a single with a kicker unless the each twin has sufficient power to plane the boat alone. My 23ís max power rating is 300 hp. Even if I had twin 150s, (I have twin 135s) one 150 couldnít plane my boat when loaded for a typical fishing trip. I would need at least twin 175s and no reputable dealer would install them even if I was willing to pay because the total hp exceeds hp capacity. On the newer bigger Whalers though, (24íand above) you get twins anyway.

As far as Mercs go, INSIST ON AN EXTENDED WARRANTY. So far on my 2001 twin 135 Optis, I blew the head on one after only 60 hours. While I was getting the head replaced my dealer also replaced all 12 injector sets with 2003 versions. I also had a trim motor go bad after 80 hours. I further had a kit installed that prevents the engines from overheating at trolling speeds (that was from a Merc service bulletin). Merc took care of all these items promptly because I have a 5 year warranty which was included when I bought my boat. I sincerely think that my engines are now debugged but only time will tell.

TG_190 posted 01-14-2004 09:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
Diveor fish,

Thanks for the reply. Offshore is a relative term. To me it means the Hudson Canyon, which is 86 miles out in the Atlantic. The weather has to be really good to head out in a smaller boat (uner 35 feet).

Big is definately better. The 23' is a great boat, as our most whalers. I do agree that Pascoe misses the point on whaler's unibond construction, but some of his other concerns may or may not be valid regarding the 26'. Balance and handling can vary from model to model. I can attest to this with other lines based on my experience.

As far as a kicker being as good as twins:I beg to differ. I've had twins, and I have had one go bad while out 30 miles. Although, I was not able to get the boat up on plane, I was able to drive back in a 20knot headwind in 4-5' seas at 10knots. A 20hp kicker on a 4000# hull in displacement mode would not have worked out as well.

Tight lines,


kamie posted 01-15-2004 12:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     

If you are hesitant about going 86 miles out in anything but really good weather in a boat smaller than 35'. Why are you looking at boats smaller than 35'? Aren't you really looking for a 305 Conquest or a 320 Outrage or maybe an older 34'/35' Defiance? Ok the 305 and 320 are both less than 35' but not by much but closer to the magic number than the 26'?

For what it's worth, when I say I am looking to go offshore in the Nantucket 86 miles is way, way farther than what i'm talking about. Max I'm looking at is 25 to 30 miles

TG_190 posted 01-15-2004 11:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Cabin boats 35 and under don't fit my usage model for half of what I do. The cost of ownership is typically much greater, and the initial outlay for a boat not requiring a ton of work is also much larger. I also happen to like open boats. Diesels are typical in sportfishing type boats, and that is a whole nother ball o wax.

No matter what boat size you have, when you head offshore, you always check and double check everything especially the weather. Note that my expectations for the number of times I can actually make it offshore in an open boat are 5-10 times a season. I would really pick my days carefully on a 25' open boat. A larger sportfisherman, the kind the charters are run on, have a larger window of conditions that they are safe in, plus they have a lot of income riding on the line every weekend during the tuna season. I have neither the desire or the resources to run a 35'+ boat in the forseeable future.

A 25' boat with twins is all about compromises. I know what they are and have evaluated carefully based on personal experience.

diveorfish posted 01-15-2004 02:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
TG_90: I had to come back on one motor also. Fortunately I only had to go about 5 miles in 3 to 4 foot seas. I was doing about the same speed. If you say that a 20 hp kicker wouldnít have been able to do that, I will defer to your experience. Your revelation only makes me happier that I have twins.

As far as pascoís complaints, his bitches are his own personal preferences.

He bitches about the console being too big. Well, it has a head inside big enough to accommodate a large man. Donít real fishermen ever have to pee? Furthermore, my two largest fishing buddies will only go in the head, they wonít go over the side or in a bucket. Of course with females, itís is not even open for debate.

He complains about the console being rounded on top so you canít set any keys on it. This is really moronic! The console is rounded so the water drains properly. Donít real fishermen ever go out in inclement weather?

He complains about the motor well being too large. It needs to be. If you tilt the engines all the way up to get the prop out of the water, the engines take up all the motor well space. Did he not tilt the engines up?

He complains about the rear seat restricting the access to the bilge. Donít real fishermen ever sit down?

Anyway these are just some of the rants I could remember.

lhg posted 01-15-2004 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Pity any poor participant here who has a Boston Whaler 26 Outrage with Mercury Optimax's on it. I'd say you're in for a real bath when you sell it. By now, all of us must surely be convinced it's a terrible boat, at least when compared to trask's favored Regulators, Sea Crafts, etc.
How clever to have two identical threads, started by same person. One got flushed out, but this one still survives.
bricknj posted 01-17-2004 04:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for bricknj    

Ocean Beach Marina in Lanoka Harbor (on Barnegat Bay) has a 1999 26 Outrage for sale with Ttop and twin 225's (asking 58,000 I think).


bricknj posted 01-17-2004 04:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for bricknj    
Sorry didn't mean to take up two posts..... they also have a 2001 26 Edgewater with twin 150's (for 20k less maybe that drresses resale value AOTBE). As you reside on the Jersey shore, perhaps a nice warmer Saturday could be spent trialing both of these. I am selfish for suggesting it, as I'd relish listning to your findings.


TG_190 posted 01-17-2004 08:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Well, I got an up close look at a 2001 26 Outrage today.

I will only talk about the overall design features, and not the specifics of this boat in particular.

My first impression was: Holy S**T, its Huge. It definately means business for offshore. Its a big heavy, overbuilt boat, and that is good. The transom/motorwell area is overbuilt in whaler fashion, and looked structurally very sound. The lines of boat were what I expected: Deep V entry, with a decent V at the transom. I would guess about 21 degrees?

The freeboard inside the boat was nice, and still doesn't require a 10' gaff to get a fish -a 6footer should do well enough. Standing at the transom you are a good 6 feet away from the back of the engine, which means fighting fish on the stern will require you to get them to the side, or step out on the deck behind the transom. A lot of stuff is built in below the transom (as Pascoe mentioned). I honestly agree with Pascoe here, in that I find it a liability to have batteries and, oil tanks close ( 2ft above) the bilge area. The splashing around of salt water, humidity, and electircal currents, spells corrosion to me.
I would say the access is OK at the dock, but I wouldn't want to be working back there in heavy seas. I did't think it was a showstopper though-I could deal with it.

The battery switches are also behind a door down low on the cockpit side of the transom. Not my favorite place either, but not that bad. Better than above the bilge.

All these things:batteries, oil tanks, and the breakers which are exposed on the CC below the steering wheel, should all be inside the console. If I were a designer thats the way I would do it.

Those were the low points. The cockpit had good space, and the ergonomics of the helm leaningpost were very good. T-top was solid. Plenty of room for electronics and stuff. On the right hand side of the console is a big black plate that is screwed in. For the life of me, I don't know why this is not a storage bin, but there may be a reason for this that I am not aware of. The console is big, and has lots of storage built inside of it. I don't see myself using a head, but Its nice to have the option in an emergency. I could almost stand up straight in it (6'1").

Overall, good layout, plenty of storage, and a large number of rod holders and rodstorage.

The bow area/casting platform is huge, with plenty of storage. Nice seat in front of CC, as well.

The Pulpit is solid, big, and looks like it is up to the task. The bowrail is great, and gives a secure feeling when on the platform.

Overall,as whaler put it in the catalog, a serious offshore fishing machine. I wouldn't hesitate heading out on this boat 85 miles in good weather.

The real test will be the Sea trial, and in case you missed it I have a pretty good thread on things to do on a sea trial.

The saga continues when the weather gets warmer.



diveorfish posted 01-20-2004 01:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
TG_190: A couple of items:

You were almost right, the transom deadrise is 20 degrees. Remember though, it is a modified V. If you look closely, the bottom of the hull flattens back to the transom. About 3 feet before the transom you will see that the hull bottom is steeper and actually dips lower than the transom. At that point, I would guess that the deadrise is around 22 degrees or so. I know it is not 24 degrees but itís still very respectable. You may give up a bit in a head sea ride but you gain a lot of stability and dryness in any direction. The stability means absolutely no roll at all. The boat wants stay level in any condition. You can be in 4 foot seas, relax and enjoy a nice cup of coffee while at drift or trolling. Also, you will never get wet on that boat. The only way you can get some spray is riding in at least 3 foot waves in a completely beam sea.

I see youíre still worried about the placement of the batteries and oil tanks in the bilge. First you have to define bilge. This is a Whaler not a garbage scow. As we all know the Whaler is very buoyant and thatís why theyíre unsinkable. The bilge area below the water line is about six inches deep and about a foot wide. Most of the space under the transom can be thought of as an extension of the deck elevation wise. Letís forget for a minute that all these items are designed to operate when wet. The top of the oil tanks are at least 8 inches above the water line and the top of the batteries are at least a foot above the waterline and that is with the boat heavily laden. By the time you get enough water in the boat to submerge the batteries, (I really doubt that you could do this during any boating activity) any other 26 foot boat would already be well on its way to the bottom. This is what really sets Whaler apart, many people, even Pasco, forget this all too important feature of a Whaler. Itís one of the main reasons we buyíem. Iím not sure what are considered heavy seas. So far Iíve been out in seven foot seas and small craft advisories. Hardly any water ever gets in the bilge. I always think my bilge pump isnít working because it rarely ever comes on.

TG_190 posted 01-20-2004 07:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Thanks for the reply. After seeing it, I am more concerned about the certainty of corrosion, than the possibility of calamity.

I would still like to see the batteries at least in boxes. They were in metal trays, and some of the hardware (hose clamps) was already looking a little rusty.

I have contacted a good surveryor, and am waiting for the ice to open up for a good survey/sea-trial. I probably will have to wait a couple of weeks, in the meantime, any pointers you or anybody else could provide would be appreciated.

I still don't know what to expect for performance with either twin 225 or 200s. Fuel Economy?



diveorfish posted 01-21-2004 12:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
My batteries are in plastic boxes. That is a must because a little water will drip down from the above hatch.

As far corrosion goes, it's a boat in the marine environment. Over time corrosion happens in the moist salt air. The boat is a 2001 which means it was probably built in mid 2003. That is nearly 4 years. You would expect to see some corrosion. Anyway, good luck in your quest.

BW23 posted 01-21-2004 04:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for BW23  Send Email to BW23     
I have a 23 CON w/ batteries mounted with hold downs, 6-8" higher that the bilge floor. It is a little difficult to change the batteries and that is all.

My other complaint is, the MERC oil tank mount is installed with 2 painted steel hold downs that rust miserably. I changed those to plastic HEYCO "P" clamps and stainless screws.

The location of my batteries has not been a problem in 2 seasons.

lhg posted 01-21-2004 05:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
BW23 You're right about those Mercury oil tank mounts. What were they thinking? I did the same thing you did, and they've held up for years now.
InHerNet posted 01-21-2004 09:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for InHerNet  Send Email to InHerNet     
Here is link to a 26' Outrage that is used for charter fishing with twin Hondas on the back. They claim they fish up to 100 miles in the gulf.
Personally, If the fish are biting off the dock then I fish there.
InHerNet posted 01-21-2004 09:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for InHerNet  Send Email to InHerNet     
Sorry about the 100 miles, their site states up to 50 miles on one page and 100 range on the other. Nice looking Outrage!
TG_190 posted 01-21-2004 11:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Thanks for the heads up on the oiltank mod. I had the same setup on my grady, and I had to replace the metal bands as well. I don't know why they would use metals prone to corrosion down there.


The battries in the 26 I saw were just bracketed down on trays, I would replace/add boxes.


kenv posted 01-22-2004 12:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for kenv  Send Email to kenv     
Hey Inhernet, yeah - it is a good looking boat, too bad it is not the one used in all of the photo's. That's a new 27 ft Outrage on the link(new hull - with some Honda's Photoshoped in - superimposed for those of you who don't know what Photoshop is). Go under photo's, and you will see that they use a 26 foot Outrage for fishing. Still an awesome boat. I currently fish out of a 2001 26' Outrage w/ Optimax 200's. As stated above, yes it is a good DRY ride. It was traded last Saturday for a 320 Outrage w/ twin 250 Optimax XS's that will be picked up when the boat show closes Sunday. Can't wait to get it wet.
VMG posted 01-22-2004 01:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for VMG  Send Email to VMG     
Also note the Hondas are 130s. Would seem to be underpowered with that set-up...

I have a '99 OR 23 bought new in the spring of '00 --essentially same back end as the 26. Only mod I've made is a loop in the bilge discharge hose to prevent reverse siphon. Water curls up over/into the bilge discharge port, starboard side aft at pre-planing speeds between roughly 12-20 mph -- runs back into the bilge through the hose/pump absent a "loop" in the hose.

An easy mod...but I couldn't for the life of me figure out where all the water in the bilge was coming from when I first got the boat. That was the only mod I've made since the batteries were delivered in boxes strapped down to stainless fittings on top of a hard plastic plate, and I've chosen the PM route for dealing with the oil tank mounts. Haven't had any problems with the boat, the motors (twin Yam 150 EFIs), or the electronics (Furuno 1650DF, ICOM VHF). First two years exclusively salt-water (lotsa offshore stuff), last two years fresh... total engine time roughly 350 hrs.

MassOutrage posted 01-22-2004 03:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for MassOutrage    
I just ordered the 32 with the 250 Project X motors as well. What are you hearing about performance with these motors?


diveorfish posted 01-22-2004 04:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for diveorfish  Send Email to diveorfish     
Massoutrage and Kenv: I never really knew the true nature of envy until your last posts:)
lhg posted 01-22-2004 04:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Are you 320 guys talking 250 Optimax XS(which I have seen) or 250 Project X 4-strokes (which I have not yet seen)?
MassOutrage posted 01-23-2004 10:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for MassOutrage    
The project X four strokes!
lhg posted 01-23-2004 01:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Mass - that's great news that finally they'll be on the water. What a machine you're going to have! Yours is only the second indication of this I've heard so far. When does it arrive? I've heard stories that she'll do high 60's, which is nothing short of amazing. The 250 rating must be conservative. What are they telling you?
VMG posted 01-23-2004 01:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for VMG  Send Email to VMG     
The 320 is a gorgeous beast -- its owners truly worthy of envy -- but I'm guessin you're gonna see top end performance in the high 40s or low 50s. A 7500 lb Regulator 32 will run in that range with Yam 250s. It'll be hard for an 8500 lb rig to run much better even with the hot engines.
MassOutrage posted 01-23-2004 02:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for MassOutrage    
I don't have any performance numbers yet. From what I have heard it will probably run in the mid to high 50s. I'll let you know as soon as I find out!
kenv posted 01-24-2004 12:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for kenv  Send Email to kenv     
The boat is actually my dad's, but it is a family fish/fun boat for all of us to use. It is at the San Antonio Boat Show as we speak. It will be headed to the Texas coast sometime in Feburary. It is the solid white with red graphics. LHG, this boat has the 250 Optimax XS's, not the project 4 strokes. I have not seen those yet either - but I had seen one article that mentioned them as a future release. MassOutrage must have the inside scoop!! Please post back with the 4stroke speeds. Also, Mass, which lower unit and prop and pitch will you be running on those X motors?. I think someone mentioned that the 320 tested with the 250 EFI's did right at 50. That was probably a light load. Yes, it is a heavy boat. I'm not sure what it will do with the 250 Opti XS's but I will report back as soon as we take it out a few times. Also, a side note, in one of the posts someone mentioned something about Mercury warranty. Since this boat was purchased during the boat show timeframe, the factory gives 5 years warranty on both motors as opposed to 3yr. Incentive to sell and buy during the show. Oh well, here comes the rain for the weekend. Time to get some sleep.


lhg posted 01-24-2004 12:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I think you'll like the 250XS Optimax performance division motors. I had a chance to see a 320 and start up a pair of those (with BW's very cool paddle switch starting system). Great sound of smooth power. The BW designer told me they are faster than the 250 EFI's, with much better fuel economy. I noticed it was running the new Revolution 4 props.

Evidently the Project X's will outrun them, however, and will probably cost more. We should know whether the leaks from the factory are correct in about 3 weeks.

kenv posted 01-24-2004 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for kenv  Send Email to kenv     
Thanks for the info LHG.
Peter posted 01-24-2004 11:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I agree with VMG's assessment. High 60s is overly optimistic unless the 320 has a stepped hull which I don't think it has.

A 320 with twin engines and a full load of fuel, not counting persons or gear, weighs in at 11,500 lbs. Even with a minimal amount of fuel its going to weigh in at about 10,000 lbs. So to achieve the reported 50 MPH with twin 250 Optimax (assume output at 275 HP each which is 10 percent over the 250 rating) the 320 has to have a hull factor of at least 210 (the classic Montauk has a high rating of 200).

Now, assuming lightly loaded (10,000 lbs) with a hull factor of 210, for the 320 to break the 60 MPH speed barrier, each of the Project X 250s would have to produce over 400 HP (more than 800 HP combined) which is way over the 10 percent fudge factor. To get to 65 MPH, they have to produce more than 450 HP each, 200 HP over the rating!.

Even bumping the hull factor up generously to 225, 65 MPH would still require each Project x 250 to churn out over 400 HP.

So how long is a 2.6 liter engine producing 400 HP going to last? At 400 HP, there is a lot of heat to get rid of.

Realistically, I think a 320 pushed by a pair of Project X 250s will see low to mid 50s on a good day. As VMG said, performance is likely to be similar to a 32 Regulator.

kenv posted 01-24-2004 05:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for kenv  Send Email to kenv     
Peter, going back to my post, I heard, and saw in one of the boating mag tests, not sure which magazine, that the 320 tested was doing 50 with twin 250 EFI, that's the EFI -- not the Optimax. Not to speculate too much, and I agree with your figures, but we expecte to see the Optimax's push it a little faster than the EFI's did. I will give you a GPS speed next month when we take it out. Again, this boat is a 320 with 250 Optimax XS, not the EFI's or the Project X 4's. I'll throw my wife over the side to see 52-53 - - just kidding, sorry honey!!


Jonathan posted 02-01-2004 06:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jonathan  Send Email to Jonathan     

Here's an alternate review of the 26 outrage.

TG_190 posted 02-02-2004 12:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Thanks for the different perspective (vs. Pascoe).

That author had very good first impressions of the 26. Once the water thaws a bit I am going on a seatrial.

Interesting to note that Massoutrage, a former 26 owner, is upgrading to a new 32 with the project-X motors. He kind of ran away with the thread for a while.

Like I said in another post I made: I wouldn't like to be Merc's beta tester for the X, especially since the Opti's are very good now. Good luck with your 32' and engines, the 32' seems like a real nice boat.

BTW, I saw a 2000 23' outrage this weekend. It had a lot of stress cracks (mostly crazing with a few more major cracks) all along the tight radius areas of the transom. This boat supposedly only had 25 hours on the original engines!
I walked away wondering what someone could do in 25 hours of operation that could cause all of those stress cracks.


SchoolsOut posted 02-05-2004 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for SchoolsOut  Send Email to SchoolsOut     
we run a 98 26 with 2/225 yam efi's. tops out at 53mph, 3500 rpm= 34-35 mph 4000 rpm=~38-39mph

the boat is dry, but rough in headseas over 3 feet. we run out 60 miles, troll 8hrs and back on 130 gallons. the brackets for oil resevoir are rusting bad, few spider cracks around but nothing out of ordinary.

wish the trim tabs had been a little larger, I love the console design, pascoe made a fool of himself when he described the console. Ive been on many CC's and none compare to the 26 console. plenty of cupholders for drinks, the curve of the top holds gear, snacks in avg seas.

I wish the entry of the boat was sharper, but then it would not be as dry. if you want a smooth riding boat dont get teh 26, if you want a dry, stable, and safe boat then it is the boat you want.

Any more ?'s, give me a shout

TG_190 posted 02-14-2004 08:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
The Seatrial...
The 26 Outrage was in great shape, and the engines (200 optis) had low hours and ran great, but the boat pounded allot, no matter how it was trimmed. Lots of things making noise, clattering etc.

It was difficult to keep the bow pointed straight, and it seemed proned to listing. No matter how much the driver or myself tried, the bow was always hunting...not the smoothe wave-splitting performance I would expect from a 26' boat that weighs nearly 5000lbs.

The conditions were 10-15kt winds, stiff 3 foot chop. Perfect for a sea-trial. I've been on smaller boats that could handle the conditions better.

it planed fine on 1 engine.
Normal cruise at 3800 rpm was about 30mph.
WOT put the boat over 40, in very choppy conditions but we couldn't take the pounding to measure a top speed. seemed to me like in flat water it would break 50.

I think the tabs were too small (recessed ones, so changing them out is not a clean option).

I backed it hard into a wave, and took about 75gal into the cockpit, most drained, but a lot remained. a lot went into the fishboxes, and when I tried to pump them out, the driver told me the pumps were frozen, so we continued the trial with about 40 gal of water in the fishboxes....


kenv posted 02-27-2004 11:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for kenv  Send Email to kenv     
Here's an update on the 320 Outrage speed. This is a 2004 320 Outrage with 250 Optimax XS's. The first run in saltwater on Friday showed 49.3 on the GPS. I was not there, not sure how much gas and fresh water was onboard, but my dad said it ran great for a big boat. They were suprised to almost see 50 on the initial run. It takes the small chop alot better than the 26 Outrage. I'll post some details if anyone is interested once I take it out.


North Beach posted 04-28-2004 05:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    

I assume you did not buy the boat? I have admired that 26 at Lanoka HArbor for some time now. If not the 26, what did you get?

ptortora posted 04-28-2004 07:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for ptortora  Send Email to ptortora     
I also am a proud owner of a Nantucket and I'm enjoying it tremendously. However, thinking about somethin bigger to give the wife a better ride in the 2-3 foot chops typical on Long Island Sound. Seen lots on this thread about the 27' Outrage, any thoughts on the 240 Outrage? This is one of my considerations.


TG_190 posted 04-29-2004 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

The Cape Horn 24 w/ twin 200 HPDIs, full enclosure, T-Top, outriggers. As stated before, I have a window of opportunity in my life over the next several years prior to having kids, that I want to fish offshore with. I liked the set of tradeoffs (for me) on this boat the most.


I would use your Nantucket some more, and maybe opt for tabs, as I use mine in 2-3, and the tabs I'm sure make a big difference. I had the tabs almost from the beginning, and I feel the Nantucket does very well in 2-3 conditions for a 19. I would think that the Nantucket on LI sound is ideal.

That said, the 240 and 270 look to be very well designed offshore boats. My problem with the 240 is the price (especially if you want twins ~$85K), space, weight, and the enormity of that Euro Transom. The 270 looks very good to me, but once again the price is over $100K, and the space is really that of a 25 IMO. The 240 has the space of a 21-23 CC.

The Cape horn is my prference given a set of tradeoffs and criteria. I am by no means saying it is a better boat than the BWs. That said...
The Cape Horn loaded is $52K w/ trailer, twin 200HPDIs, and T-Top. It is a very competent offshore performer, and I am betting that the popularity of these boats will grow here in the NE. In Florida they are very well regarded with strong resale and used by police, coasties, SKA guys, guides, and rental outfits.
They are extremely overbuilt, very seaworthy, simple boats, and they have level floatation. They don't have comfy amenities, or a molded liner, and this will turn some people off, but I value the other features more than gloss. I am betting other people in the NE will as well. And it holds 258 gallons of fuel.



North Beach posted 04-29-2004 04:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    

Nice looking boat. Is it fully cored (ie underwater)?

TG_190 posted 04-29-2004 04:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

Solid glass 12 layers thick on the running surfaces. Foam injected under the deck and in the gunnel caps. 10yr hull warranty, lifetime on the transom. Massive stringers. 22 Degrees of deadrise at the transom, very sharp at the bow.



North Beach posted 04-30-2004 12:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    

I also like the high sides (to keep my kids from falling out), a problem you do not yet have to deal with. Wonder if warranty service an issue - is there a dealer in NJ?

Was that the price for a new boat - if so, I can see why it was so tempting, for sure. Query whether 24 feet is sufficient for canyon run, prob okay if really really watch weather, as discussed.

TG_190 posted 04-30-2004 02:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     

The NJ dealer is Chambliss Marine in Lanoka Harbor. Joe is the owner and salesman, and he is a nice guy. Seems like a pretty straight shooter.

Yes, that is a very good price I got on a brandy new boat.
The bottom line was $52,500 + tax.

It is very large for a 24 (24'10") as it is 8'6" all the way to the transom, and as the www site suggests, designed for rough water. My sea trial also left me feeling that it is not tender on the drift or at anchor. The range and HP are definately more than needed for a canyon run, nonetheless the weather is still the big factor. Plenty of stuff inside of 60 miles that will make things interesting, but I do intend on going out to the canyon with this rig. I will be working up to it as I get familiar with the boat on the inshore stuff: Mud hole, glory hole, chicken canyon, texas tower, bacardi, Resor, 28 mi wreck, fingers, etc.



TG_190 posted 04-30-2004 02:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
BTW, I spoke with a NJ guy who went to the canyon a number of times in the same boat last season. He said it was fine, and so did one of his crew that I talked to independently. This crew member put an order in for a Cape horn this season as well.

I will double up, and file a float plan for sure.
Its still all about the weather.

rtk posted 04-30-2004 03:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
I used to work with Joe in the late 1980's before he opened up his own place. He was the service and rigging manager- the boat did not leave the shop until it was right. At that time I believe he was a Master Johnson/Evinrude certified mechanic.

Good luck with the boat- it sounds real nice. I am sure Joe will take good care of you.


North Beach posted 05-01-2004 07:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    
I note that the website says all of the CHs are unsinkable.

I bet it would be an intersting comparision between CH and Ocean Master.

TG_190 posted 05-02-2004 01:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for TG_190  Send Email to TG_190     
The OMs are very nice boats. Very rugged design for offshore use. They are a lot more money and really start a 27'. I limited myself to 25' due to slip and storage limitations.

A bunch of other nice boats (other than BW) that are very well built are:

Conch 27,
SeaVee 26, 29,
Regulator 23, 26
McKee Freedoms
Marauder Marine 26
Parker 25 DeepV CC,
Hydrasports Vector 24
Seacraft 25
Contender 23T, 25

W/ Cabins:
Steiger Craft
Grady White

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.