Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Compare Whaler 17 to Mako 17

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

Author Topic:   Compare Whaler 17 to Mako 17
davinchi38 posted 06-19-2005 01:14 PM ET (US)   Profile for davinchi38   Send Email to davinchi38  
I was told that the Boston Whaler 17 was no good because the foam can take in water and make the boat weigh a ton. I was also told that the Mako 17 had a much better design to avoid this problem. Whay say you, everyone? David
jimh posted 06-19-2005 03:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
MAKO is the house brand at BASS PRO SHOP. You will probably find that the only person who will agree with this assessment is another salesman at a Bass Pro Shop.
swist posted 06-19-2005 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for swist  Send Email to swist     
The Mako is a conventionally built single hull boat. It is a good quality boat in that class, and pretty expensive to boot. But we're talking apples and oranges.

The other thing that Mako, and so many other small fishing boats, have that I never cared for is a completely open transom where the engine is mounted.

bsmotril posted 06-19-2005 08:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
The new Mako 17 at the dealer down the street is quite a bit cheaper than a new Montauk 17, right at $20K. I crawled all over that Mako a few weeks back, and was not impressed. When you look at the wiring, plastic hatches, and bilge area, (stuff not out in the open),you quickly see why they are so much cheaper. There's a world of difference in the Makos of today versus those of 10-15 years ago, and I'd take an old one over one of their new offerings any day.
Freeport Alan posted 06-19-2005 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Freeport Alan    
Mako can sink, Whaler cant
jimh posted 06-19-2005 08:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Another good way to compare the boats: look around for some 20-year old hulls. Boston Whaler boats at age 20 are often as good as new. A 20-year-old Mako is hard to find.
Marlin posted 06-19-2005 08:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
I have to agree with bsmotril. The Mako 175 was at the top of my list when I started looking for a boat 3 years ago, but I was very underwhelmed at close inspection. I'm not going to say it's a bad boat, but it didn't have the Whaler's quality or attention to detail. A glance under an aft hatch showed painted roving with rough edges, loosely bundled wiring, etc. In all fairness, it didn't have the Whaler's price tag, either.

With due respect to Jim, I have to disagree that you don't see many 20 year old Makos. Perhaps they're not very common on the Great Lakes, but old Makos are all over the place from Long Island Sound down to the Chesapeake. Along with Gradys and Whalers, they were THE boat to have in the '70s and '80s. I'd bet that in another 20 years, there will be more 40 year old Makos than 20 year old Makos.


bsmotril posted 06-19-2005 10:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
Old Mako's on the Gulf Coast have as good a reputation, if not better, than old Whalers. The Makos are certainly more common here. There are several web sites devoted to Mako resotrations, and the old 25-26 foot hulls are highly sought by restorers. But, after looking at some of those restoration projects, and the amount of rotten wood in the decking, fishboxes, and transoms, it makes a Whaler a much more attractive candidate for a resotration than a Mako. BillS
sharkbait posted 06-19-2005 11:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for sharkbait  Send Email to sharkbait     
I'll repeat that one..."Mako can sink whaler cant"

my second boat was a 1974 19'6" open fish Cari with a 150 evinrude....great looking hull with a great ride...

thing is one day we were out, two couples having drinks and fun, when we were about 1/4 mile from the boat ramp I feel boat getting sluggish, I turn around and it is taking water in!!! I was freaking...we JUST barley made it the dock. I thought we were deffinatly going down and I was going to loose my boat.

Running hard in the "bathtub-like" intercaostal gave it a crack in the side hull wall. Got it fixed and used it for another year but was never confortable enough with her. Lost the lovin' feeling.

Having had a small whaler before I new my next boat would be a whaler...and today it is... a 17 and I love it. The semi-v does not cut through the waves quite as well as a Mako (and I do like Mako's, always have) but the knowledge that I will never sink is unbeatable.

The whaler is a great all-around boat, and theres something special about owning one that you only know once you have had one.

sharkbait posted 06-20-2005 12:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for sharkbait  Send Email to sharkbait     

If you go to buy a whaler weigh it first. If it is water logged the scale will tell you (so long as you know the weight of the engine and anything else in the boat).

I do beleive that that problem is rare, but I am sure others on this site can expand on that issue...or just do a search.

Good luck with your choice.

jimh posted 06-20-2005 12:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It must be a Great Lakes phenomenon. We don't see many Mako's up here. In contrast, Whalers are everywhere.
Freeport Alan posted 06-20-2005 07:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for Freeport Alan    
I still see 20 year old Makos on long Island but most are due for a new deck & possibly stringers.
The 20 year old Whalers are just broken in & hitting thier stride !
Older Makos were a nice boat though, better then average with nice lines but I wouldnt but the bass pros specials personally for reasons mentioned..
Freeport Alan posted 06-20-2005 07:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for Freeport Alan    
last sentence was to have read " but I wouldnt touch the Bass Pro Shop specials "
poker13 posted 06-21-2005 03:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Contrary to what is being alleged in this thread, Makos ARE double hull foam-filled and unsinkable. I haven't looked at the 175 closely, but I haven't heard or read anywhere that they abandoned that feature. They have been that way for many years, perhaps since the very beginning, but they have never made a big deal of their foam-filled hulls the way Boston Whaler and McKee Craft do (and it makes me wonder why), They are unsinkable--supposedly "level-flotation unsinkable", like BW. Not like all other small boats. Remember, per Coast Guard regs., all boats under 20 ft. have to be unsinkable, so that alone negates what swist, freeport alan and sharkbait said.
bsmotril posted 06-21-2005 05:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
I can tell you from first hand experience that a swamped 26 foot Mako center console with twin Johnson 140s will float. It will float with about 3-4 feet of the bow out of the water as long as the 3 occupants don't try to climb up on it. When they do that, only about 1-2 feet of the hull sticks out. We picked them up and notified the coast guard. They hit an unidentified floating object about 5 miles out of Freeport TX while heading offshore before first light. This was about 10-11 years ago before I had my Whaler, but was instrumental in my decision on what boat to buy for my next boat.
The website has some links to interesting restoration projects of those old hulls.
jimh posted 06-21-2005 10:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I would love to hear about the "double hull foam-filled" Mako construction. Please elaborate.
BW23 posted 06-21-2005 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for BW23  Send Email to BW23     
We have a 1976 20' MAKO, Yikes !!! that is 29 years old!!

Aside of gelcoat cracks still solid as a rock!! Original fuel tank and transon.

Oldie but a goodie!!

Freeport Alan posted 06-22-2005 06:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for Freeport Alan    
arent makos built with wooden stringers ?
I never heard of these style boats being " unsinkable ".
Not saying theyre bad, lord knows most boats have stringers & is a great design but most boats will sink, floatation or not, like a safe.
WHALER27CC posted 06-22-2005 07:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for WHALER27CC  Send Email to WHALER27CC     
The old Makos have a great reputationfor ride and general fit and finish for its day, with the exception of transom rot,in far too many 17s, if not carefully watched. The older makos were an excellent quality, nice riding boat in its time. Unfortunately unlike Whalers they dont ALL age so well, so older ones usually need a fair amount of work.

The NEW Makos, the ones that are now owned by BassPro, have a TERRIBLE reputation for fit and finish!!! They are good looking and have a nice design , but unfortunately it stops there. It is WELL documentated that the newer Makos have alot of cosmetic and structeral problems as a result of poor quality control. They look good, but unfortunately , thats about it.

If Whalers really had consistent problems with foam then would they have been in business this long???Moreover how can foam be "bad" in a Whaler but not be "bad" in a Mako???

On a different note, did you really expect a Mako salesperson to tell you that the other brand is better, really??????

Marlin posted 06-22-2005 08:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
I always find it interesting to analyze these threads that start with a somewhat provocative question. Here are the relevant statistics on this one:

Previous posts by the originator: 0
Replies by the originator: 0
Replies by everybody else: 18 and counting

Draw your own conclusions, I guess...


poker13 posted 06-22-2005 09:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
It's called the Igloo-bond (TM), jimh. An innovative construction process perfected by an ice chest manufacturer and copied by various boat companies, including Boston Whaler. Makes your boat unsinkable and perfect for keeping beer cold.
WhalerMark posted 06-22-2005 10:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for WhalerMark  Send Email to WhalerMark     
That's an interesting comment about the Igloo-bond (TM). The other day I saw a show on either TLC or food channel that showed how the Igloo was made. Very similar to how a Whaler is made. They have the cooler and the insert, and then they pour in a precise amount of foam and press the insert in. It made a very sturdy buoyant container.
sharkbait posted 06-22-2005 10:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for sharkbait  Send Email to sharkbait     
Marlin...I too thought of that one, about poster maybe not even reading follow ups...

O.K. Poker 13...maybe I responded without enough knowledge...I used to fish on a Mako regularly in the 70's and did not know about today's floatation requirement.

Just did a search on that requirement (see below) and while I am not sure how Mako or others whaler, with plug pulled, never gets as "wet" as the diagrams for that requirement ALLOW.

Under those might not go under, but gee it sure looks like engine would be shot and lots of salt water in boat...kind of like losing the boat anyway...and add the cost of towing/recovery.

for article with diagrams.

Level Flotation
Applies to:

Mono-hull outboard boats (not catamarans, trimarans, or pontoon boats): Mono-hull means that if you can draw a continuous line around the hull at the waterline when the boat is at rest it's a mono-hull. If it makes two or more footprints in the water it's a multi-hull.

Greater than 2 Horsepower:

Less than 20 feet (measured on the center line, including rub rails):

This category includes most outboard motor boats.

The boat has to float when swamped, (that is; full of water), in an upright attitude. See the diagrams in each test for specific requirements.

So how do I know how much flotation to put in the boat?
The amount of flotation is based on three factors.

1. The boat weight: that is the weight of the hull, the deck, the seats, etc. Everything not in the next two categories.

2. The weight of the engines, batteries, full portable fuel tank, and controls. See the table.

3. The weight of the persons. This comes from the persons weight on the capacity label.

Go to form to calculate flotation.

What do I use for flotation?
Most people use polyurethane foam. Some use polystyrene foam, that is, styrofoam. Others use air chambers. Air chambers that are integral with the hull are not allowed. They must be separate from the hull. Also, you have to pass the test with the two largest chambers punctured. Foam is a good solution, but some don't want foam in their classic wooden boats. In that case they can use balsa, or build air chambers into the boat. The two main reasons boats fail is not enough foam, and not enough foam to support the engines.

How do I know it works?.
Test it!

The best way to find out if your boat passes is to test it. You can do the test yourself, or have a laboratory do it, or the Coast Guard will do it for you. Call the Coast Guard at 1-800-368-5647 or 1-202-267-0984.

Here's how it's done.
You need to know the following:

The maximum weight capacity (the safe load) your boat will carry.

How much weight in people it will carry

The engine weight:.

Then measure the following reference areas on your boat:

cockpit area. 40% reference area.

Passenger area 70% reference areas.

Two foot reference areas fore and aft.

There are three tests to do.

TEST 1. The first is the level flotation test after an 18 hour soak.

Put your boat in the water. Put ½ the persons weight in the boat (assuming the maximum persons weight is less than 550 pounds. If over 550 pounds, add .125 times persons weight minus 550) in the 40% reference area. The Center of Gravity of all the weights needs to be in the 40% reference area. That doesn't mean all the weights have to be in the 40% area, just the Center of Gravity of all the weights. Pull the plug! Let the boat fill up with water. Leave it that way for 18 hours.

When you come back it should float like this: (Link to diagram)

One end out of the water.

The other end 6 inches or less under water (or out of the water too) measured at the 2 foot reference area.

No more than a 10 degree heel angle. (You can buy a device at a hardware store that measures this).

TEST 2. The second test is the stability test. You need to do this one twice, once on each side of the boat.

Place ½ the weight for persons on one side of the boat. The center of gravity of these weights has to be in the 70% reference area on that side of the boat. You have a lot of lee way here. You can move the weights from front to back, or back to front to get the boat to pass as long as the Center of Gravity is in the 70% area, and 30% of the total passenger weight is in the 70% area.

Take the other ½ of the passenger weight out of the boat.

Leave the engine, batteries, fuel and control weights where they are.

WARNING! Make sure you have some ropes or straps attached to the boat to keep it from rolling over. If you don't have enough flotation to keep it upright, that's what it will do. Then the weights will fall out and go to the bottom of the pool or lake.

When it settles down it should float like this. (See diagram)

One end out of the water.

The other end 12 inches or less under water (or out of the water too) measured at the 2 foot reference area.

No more than a 30 degree heel angle.

Experience has shown that if it goes 30 degrees it will probably roll all the way over.


TEST 3. The final test is without the passenger weights.

Take all of the passenger weight out of the boat. Let the boat settle

It should float like this: (Link to diagram)

One end out of the water.

The other end 6 inches or less under water (or out of the water too) measured at the 2 foot reference area.

No more than a 10 degree heel angle.

That's It! If you pass all these tests you have done everything the regulations require.

Freeport Alan posted 06-22-2005 04:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Freeport Alan    
If one was to run into a log in say a 25 year old Mako what are the odds it will sink if infact it was a nasty hit pretty good I believe .
Now, if one did the same with a 25 year old BW, hmmmmmmmmm.
Which boat would you rather be on ?
Mako is a great builder, smoother ride the many smaller BW's, & a wonderful Americana Co. too.
But these suckers will introduce you to Davey jones locker well before the Whaler.........
It's too simple because of the building process...
nydealer posted 06-22-2005 11:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for nydealer  Send Email to nydealer     
davinchi38 I asume you are looking at a new 170 montauk. Some older Whalers have been known to have the foam take on water. The new foam desing is closed cell so it will not have this same problem. The temptation with a whaler is that it won't sink so some people don't fix them when they get damage. You can look at it like Run Flat tires. Even though you can drive them for some distance without a problem you don't want to drive for a long time without fixing them. In many cases though, damage in a whaler won't present itself like on other boats(ie. they sink) so on a whaler you may not know right away.

Poker13 "per Coast Guard regs., all boats under 20 ft. have to be unsinkable" I think they require level -flotation (not sure but that is what I remember it to be) This is a big difference from unsinkable. I have watched a test done side by side in a Grady white and a Whaler, where the Grady would have flipped over had it not been tied to the side of a pool. Not saying that the Mako would do this but there is a big difference in the quality components used on a Mako(read cheap).

nydealer posted 06-22-2005 11:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for nydealer  Send Email to nydealer     
Since my previous post had my opinion in it, I thought i should make a clarification on "my definition of Unsinkable". If my boat gets swamped and will stays upright where I can still navigate with it, that's unsinkable. If in the same situation, the boat becomes unstable where people have to go overboard and the boat flips, this is not very unsinkable especially if they are left with only a a little bit of the hull to hang onto. Yes, the second boat didn't sink but alot of comfort that will be when the boater is in the water with not much to support them....
WHALER27CC posted 06-23-2005 07:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for WHALER27CC  Send Email to WHALER27CC     
Marlin ...........Good point, this guy is a Troll.
Spirited thread though, so maybe its better to davinchi38 DOESNT reply after all........


poker13 posted 06-23-2005 02:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    

I guess you and I have different definitions of "unsinkable". If it's not completely under water, it hasn't sunk. Indeed, a swamped BW is partially sunk if you want to split hairs here.

highanddry posted 06-23-2005 03:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for highanddry  Send Email to highanddry     
Poker13, a "swamped" BW can be driven back up out of the water and will then self bail --most other brands when "swamped" cannot, they renmain swamped until rescued. A submerged engine is not going to do much for you. If the engine does not remain above the water and the boat cannot maintain headway then it is not unsinkable. This is why you are wrong.
poker13 posted 06-23-2005 03:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    

The point here is not whether the engine is in or out of the water, it's the definition of sinking. If part of the vessel is out of the water, it hasn't sunk, period. So you can recover from the partial sinking in a BW if the engine still runs? That's wonderful, but it was still partially sunk.

kingfish posted 06-23-2005 03:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     
BS - partially sunk is like partially pregnant - a contradition in terms. If it sinks it sinks. If it doesn't sink, then it floats. Some boats that don't sink, do float *better* than others in some conditions and in more safe and convenient ways when in duress.
poker13 posted 06-23-2005 05:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Really? So if a vessel (or any object for that matter) has enough buoyancy to be suspended in the middle of the water (not reaching the bottom and no part of it at the surface), did it sink?
WT posted 06-23-2005 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
Troll warning!
kingfish posted 06-23-2005 08:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     
The answer is yes - to sink is to "...go below the surface of the water..." Look it up.

WT - I hear ya-

poker13 posted 06-23-2005 08:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Therefore, you agree with me. I knew it would "sink in." :-)
Bay Lien posted 06-27-2005 12:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bay Lien  Send Email to Bay Lien     
I have both a 1988 15 Super Sport Whaler and a 1990 171 Mako.

Both are great boats in there own arena. I wouldn't own any other 15, and I sure wouldn't own a 17 Whaler to replace my Mako 171!!

West Coast.

Buckda posted 06-27-2005 03:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
just returned from a week fishing in Canada at a fishing camp. The boats were 16 foot aluminum Lund boats. Great little fishing rig.

Two nights in a row we had terrible thunderstorms with heavy downpours and wind and pillars of lightning out on the lake. Each morning, our boat was riding high and dry. Why? Gerald, the dock boy, had spent most of the morning pumping about a foot of water out of each. Had those been 16 foot Whalers, all Gerald would have had to do was step aboard first thing in the morning and pull the plug. A half hour later, after eating a nice warm breakfast, he could have gone around and put the plugs back in and sponged the remaining water out of the back of the boat.

Point is this: those 16' Lunds are required to have level flotation...but pulling the plug doesn't result in less water aboard, it results in more water aboard. That is an important differentiator when you're talking about "unsinkable" construction. There are few competitors out there that have enough reserve bouyancy to do what a Whaler does.

So, when's old Leonardo coming back?


DBOutrage17 posted 06-27-2005 09:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for DBOutrage17    
"the Boston Whaler 17 was no good because the foam can take in water "

not only that, they aren't even from Boston...

17 bodega posted 06-28-2005 07:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for 17 bodega  Send Email to 17 bodega     
Some good advice by Jim was to look at Mako's from the 70's and see how they are doing. Also read, read, read about Makos and thier track record on any given area. I think they are decent boats, but are not unsinkable. They have some "level flotation" that the coast guard requires for any boat on the water, but not like a whaler. Hasn't the whaler always used closed cell foam? They wouldn't be unsinkable if they didn't.

I almost bought a Mako 17 when I was boat shopping. It had the better center console, fishing setup, etc than my whaler did. After seeking advice on the MAKO FORUM, the administrator set me straight that the Mako was not unibond construction (foam sandwitch) like the whaler. Nice guy to be honest. I then opted for the whaler and I'm happy. The Mako had better storage, and fishing setup, but I think safety goes much farther.

No troll here, but there are numerous accounts of Mako boats sinking out at sea for various reasons. Not that the Mako will sink faster than a seaswirl, sea ray, or, anything else, I just happened to have read about several Makos that sank. Furthermore, many Mako owners have struggled with rebuilding transoms and fuel tanks (like the outrage 18, and yes whalers have transom problems too) more than I see happening on this website.

Perhaps I'm a fear monger, but I like NOT SINKING in a whaler. That is my biased reason for choosing used whaler over used mako.

Good luck with your search.


Prflyer posted 07-06-2005 06:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Prflyer  Send Email to Prflyer     
Personal Experience: I have a 1969 19ft mako with twin 75 Evinrudes, and also have a 1978 15ft Whaler with a Johnson on it, the Whaler gives me a safer feeling than the Mako. Mako is a great boat, dont get me wrong, but the boats are not comparable, the construction on the boats are so different, and they are NOT unsinkable as I have read here, I have seen a 19 foot in 7 feet of water, completely submerged. Mine is a 69, that is when they did not know how fiberglass would last, so they made them rock solid. Still the Whaler is a lot more solid, and the fact that it will not sink helps. Both Boats are great but they are not comparable, Just my two cents Hi from Puerto Rico, a Newbie from the Caribbean looking forward to reading more on the site
17 bodega posted 07-08-2005 02:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for 17 bodega  Send Email to 17 bodega     
Welcome! You must have a blast in your 15 in the ocean down there!
fisher224 posted 09-23-2006 12:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
The idea that a whaler is unsinkable is useless garbage in the real world. I should know, I sank a whaler. While running the inlet 10 years ago in a 17 with the wind against tide I stuffed the bow accidently into the wave ahead and the boat scooped enough water that we were instantly up to our shins in water. Now with the boat being not self bailing and an 1100 gph buldgepump useless against that volume of water we lost headway and began taking waves right over the boat. Had there not been a boat nearby to throw us a line we would have been a statistic in the 56 degree water in 15 minutes.
I can assure you that this situation would have never occurred in a 17 Mako. First the Mako would not have stuffed and scooped so easily and would have shed most of the water. Second any water that did get in the boat would have gone right out the back over the transom notch and out thru the scuppers.

Whalers are fine boats but the unsinkable thing is a myth. Perhaps it is so in a flat calm lake but on the ocean in the real world the unsinkable legend is a marketing gimick.

I dumped that whaler soon thereafter and now run a Mako224. There is no comparison as far as ride and safety go offshore. The Mako is a much better boat.

gorji posted 09-23-2006 01:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for gorji  Send Email to gorji     
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I disagree with fisher224. My Montauk 170 can become self bailing by pulling the plug and and going forward. The boat IS unsinkable and extremely sea worthy. I was stuck on a lake 6 weeks ago with a 2 and 3 year old, their mothers and myself. We battled 65 mile hour winds with 7 foot waves. The storm came upon us very quickly not allowing us to get to shore in time. This is despite monitoring NOAA weather (no watch or warning issued) We took water 2x (Not too much). My family and myself are alive today because of the Montauk.
When we returned to the marina (after storm was over), their were many boats who had sunk. Some had cracked open.
fisher224 posted 09-23-2006 02:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
Keep telling yourself that. 17 Whaler vs. 17 Mako is no contest......Mako hands down. Perhaps if I were just running on lakes and protected waters I would feel differently. 17 Whaler is perfect for lakes.
gorji posted 09-23-2006 02:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for gorji  Send Email to gorji     
Enjoy your Mako.
fisher224 posted 09-23-2006 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
Do you really believe your montauk can be self bailing????? You are kidding yourself. Trust me I had my Secocnnet completely awash with water. Pulling the drain plug would have been useless. The bildge pump was also useless. Problem is once the boat is weighed down with H20 and the waves are 3 feet like the day I had my incident there is no way the boat is going to recover regardless of what BW's marketing department claims. The waves don't stop coming while you pump out the boat with your little bildge pump or pull the drain plug (Which by the way is below the waterline).

Another detail I should mention about my incident. I managed to keep the motor running and with my 90hp at full throttle I was going backwards because the tide was strong and the boat was so heavy with water that the motor couldn't push the weight against the tide. It sounds unbelievable but it is true, we were actually loosing ground. I was barely able to keep the boat from rolling over in the 3 foot seas. I had two things that saved me that day.....The tide actually pulled us into safer water and a nearby boat saw and was able to assist.

It wasn't even very rough that day it was just wind against tide creating standing 3 foot waves in a 100 yard stretch of the inlet that you have to cross to get in from the ocean. My incident also shows how poor the squared off bow, bathtub design of those whalers is. A 17 foot V hulled boat would never have done what that whaler did.

Its funny how vivid my memories are of that day. At the time it was like it was happening in slow motion. I will never forget how crystal clear that water was that filled the boat and watching the igloo float away and watching my buddy scramble from side to side as he tried to balance the boat from rolling over as I tried to power us out of trouble.

gorji posted 09-23-2006 03:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for gorji  Send Email to gorji     
The Montauk is not self bailing as a conquest. I am not recommending pulling the plug while underway But if the boat is underway and the plug is pulled, water will exit rather than enter the boat.

Please enjoy your Mako. Its a nice boat.

ConnorEl posted 09-23-2006 03:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for ConnorEl  Send Email to ConnorEl     
I don’t want to get into an argument about which boat is more seaworthy. But, fisher224, it does not sound like your Whaler SANK. You have claimed that you experience proves that whalers are sinkable, but your description of the event doesn’t indicate that your boat actually sank.

Any small boat can become swamped and unmanageable in rough water. A Whaler should, however, not actually sink to the bottom of the sea but rather stay on the surface and give you something to which you can cling and which will be more visible to rescuers than your small self bobbing around alone in the water. This, to many of us, seems to be a desirable advantage.

Jkcam posted 09-23-2006 03:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jkcam  Send Email to Jkcam     
I've owned three Mako's and four Whalers. I owned a 1989 17'Mako 120hp Johnson 2/stoke, and a 1992 17' Mako 120 Johnson 2/stroke. When I decided to get back into boating after my painfully long separation of 3 months, I considered a new Mako 17' and looked at, and shopped several older Mako 17's. At the end of the day, I purchased a new Whaler 150 Montauk. I could not be happier. It clearly has as much deck space as a 17' Mako, as well as a classic 16'7" Montauk. A couple of aspects that set the 150 Montauk ahead of the crowd for me was the very usable casting deck in the bow, and an outstanding live well. The Mako does not have the casting deck and the live well is not as nice as the miniTauk. They are both nice boats, and as will suggest, there are a lot of knowledgable Mako owners.

This is the type of choice I like, can't make a really big mistake.

fno posted 09-23-2006 05:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for fno  Send Email to fno     
Suckers!!!! Trolled again......
fisher224 posted 09-23-2006 07:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
No the boat didn't go to the bottom. Given a few more minutes it would have probably been upside down and we would have been in the water. My point is the unsinkable claim is worthless. All boats in that size are required to be unsinkable. A 17 Mako is unsinkable as well and is alot less likely to become swamped than a 17 Whaler. I am 100% confident that in the same situation a 17 Mako would have had absolutely no problem. The Mako would not have scooped up the wave and its pointed bow would have pierced right thru. Any water that did get in the cocpit would have been minimal and would have quickly cleared thru the scuppers. The 17 Mako is just a much more seaworthy boat. There is no question. Also when my incident happened it wasn't even rough. 3 Foot waves should be no problem but the bathtub design of the Whaler scooped the wave instead of going up over and thru.

Don't get me wrong I loved my Secconnet but it is just not a very seaworthy boat compared to a 17 Mako or any other self bailing v-hull boat.

Royboy posted 09-23-2006 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for Royboy  Send Email to Royboy     
I have a 17 Outrage and I don't really even have to slow down for 3 footers. The fact that you were out in conditions with a boat that was not up to the task is in no way the fault of the boat. The fact that you are still here is a pretty decent testimony that the boat made up for some of your boatmanship, or lack thereof.


ConnorEl posted 09-23-2006 10:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for ConnorEl  Send Email to ConnorEl     

You said:

I should know, I sank a whaler.

But . . . you did not sink a whaler.

I’m not sure how reliable is the rest of your analysis. I’m glad you like your Mako and hope that you have many safe and happy days on the water. I hope you never have to discover first hand just how “unsinkable” is your Mako. For that matter, I hope I never have to “prove” the unsinkable quality of my Whaler.

fisher224 posted 09-24-2006 09:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
You are right on one thing here in this quote....."The fact that you were out in conditions with a boat that was not up to the task is in no way the fault of the boat." The Whaler clearly wasn't up to the conditions because its not a very seaworthy boat. Go and measure 3 feet. That is just 36 inches. Only about up to my waist. You would think the mighty unsinkable whaler could handle waves that big with no problem and definately would not completely fill with water up to the gunnels. Hell, one guy on here earlier was claiming he was in 7 foot waves on a lake in his Mauntauk with 4 people on board(I'm sure). I must admit I was jaded and fooled by the whaler myth before this incident. I really believed that these things are safe and seaworthy. My whole point here is that the claims of unsinkability are nothing more than a marketing gimick. In the real world it is meaningless. The 17 whaler is not a very seaworthy boat. My experience proves it to me without a doubt. What good is it if your hull cannot sink to the bottom if the hull is so easily swamped because of its poor design???? My boat was not overloaded there were only two 190 pound adults standing behind the console and a igloo cooler that weighed about 30 pounds full in front of the console. The conditions were not even rough. If you think your Whalers are invincible and more seaworthy than other boats keep living in your dreamworld.....just don't say you were never warned.

gorji posted 09-24-2006 09:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for gorji  Send Email to gorji     
I think we get the point that you are trying to make. Whether we agree is a different thing. You are entitled to your opinion.
fisher224 posted 09-24-2006 10:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
I got this quote from above

Poker13, a "swamped" BW can be driven back up out of the water and will then self bail --most other brands when "swamped" cannot, they renmain swamped until rescued. A submerged engine is not going to do much for you. If the engine does not remain above the water and the boat cannot maintain headway then it is not unsinkable. This is why you are wrong.

This guy is living in fantacy land. If nothing else my experience shows that a 17 whaler cannot recover on its own once it is swamped. Whaler does a great job of marketing their "unsinkability" by showing pictures in test tanks or flat calm conditions of its boats swamped with people in them. The truth is any manufacurer out there could show you the same pictures of their boats. But who boats in test tanks or flat calm conditions?????

A 17 Whaler is not, let me repeat this, IS NOT SELF BAILING!!!!!! The 17 whaler has its deck drain below the water line and relies on a bildge bump to clear water from the deck. A self bailing boat by its very definition has its deck above the water line and has scuppers above the water line to clear water from the deck. A 17 Mako is a self bailing boat. A 17 Mauntauk is NOT!!!!

Here is a statistic I would like to see on Whalers. How many whalers have filled with water because the whaler was in its slip when it rained and the bildge pump that it relies 100% on to clear water from the deck failed and the boat filled with water because it could not self bail. I have whaler friends who have had this happen to them multiple times.

highanddry posted 09-24-2006 11:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for highanddry  Send Email to highanddry     
I cannot speak for the Montauk but my Nantucket/Outrage 190 darn sure will self bail and since I broke a wave over the bow last spring and was in water half way to my knees, I watched it self clear. I pushed the power to it and the water largely went over the stern and the remainder out the scuppers which are there to drain the deck. The bilge pumps out the tank well which islargely sealed. I was not nearly being swamped but am certain I could have cleared much more water than I took on. The boat remained steady throughout.

Royboy posted 09-24-2006 12:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Royboy  Send Email to Royboy     
My 17 Outrage is self bailing by any definaition of the term. It's also a true 17 footer. A Montauk, at 16'7", is not if you want to get right down to it.

Regardless, I know a Montauk will handle a 3 footer if trimmed properly(bow up). If you just go plowing into whatever comes your way you will eventually have trouble no matter what boat you're in. Bashing a boat that has a long history of proven performance because you handled one poorly doesn't make it a bad boat. The fact is, your experience points to the boatman, rather than the boat, as the failure.


fisher224 posted 09-24-2006 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
You have obvously never run one of our Northeast inlets when the tide is running out. There is only one way in. You have to go over or thru an area of standing waves. Even on relatively calm days there are 3 foot waves stacked less than a boatlength apart.

This thread started as a comparison of the 17 Mako vs. the 17 Whaler. Where I come from a 17 whaler generally means a Mauntauk. I realize BW has made a fe models that are self bailing.

thediscusthrower posted 09-24-2006 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for thediscusthrower  Send Email to thediscusthrower     
I have a 15' Dauntless and I take it thru the Cold Spring Inlet in Cape May, NJ quite often (unless it's really snotty). You are correct in the "rolling" effect that is produced at the end of the inlet (e.g., 3 footers). The key to getting in and out is to properly trim the boat out.

As a matter of a fact, on my second time out, it was like "Victory at Sea," i.e., the tide going out, the wind blowing in, and boat lined up behind me. The problem was that I didn't have much of a choice at that point but to go out of the inlet before I was able to turn back around and come back in. It was quite an experience for a person new to boating but I used my head...i.e., I took my time, kept my eyes and ears open, got the bow up and made it back in one piece.

Funny thing is that the boat itself had absolutely no problem with the conditions, even though it's only a 15' rig. It was me that sweating it out, not the BW. I have been out in larger waves and have not had one come over the bow.................yet.


fno posted 09-25-2006 02:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for fno  Send Email to fno     
Fisher, you are on the wrong forum. Go away please. You are rapidly approaching the "asshole who only likes to argue on the internet" persona around here.
fisher224 posted 09-25-2006 08:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
Cold Spring inlet is probably the easiest and safest in NJ. Its either completely makable or its so bad out that only a crazy person would attempt it. Its pretty deep water so the waves usually aren't too bad. You should check out Tounsends, GE, Beach Haven and Barnegat. Those inlets get real ugly even on nice days.

Sorry to piss on your parade here guys but I thought you needed an opposing viewpoint on the comparison between the 17 Mako and the 17 BW from someone who has owned both and has had a bad experience with the BW.

You can all go back to your little love fest now. Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!

gorji posted 09-25-2006 09:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for gorji  Send Email to gorji     
We know you don't like whalers. We love ours. You have made your points. We do not agree. Please move on to something better.
Royboy posted 09-25-2006 09:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Royboy  Send Email to Royboy     
I'll keep my radio on 16 for when you stuff that Mako into the next three footer. Please wear your PFD; you'll be that much easier to fish out of the water.


Bjornas posted 09-25-2006 09:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bjornas  Send Email to Bjornas     

You said:

"I stuffed the bow accidently into the wave ahead and the boat scooped enough water that we were instantly up to our shins in water"

You know you have an open bow with about 3 feet of freeboard heading into those incoming tide closely packed swells created by the narrow inlet and the tide.

The proper way to navigate that inlet would have been to slow to 5 or 6 knots, put the trim up allowing the bow to gain a height of approximatly 5 feet and let the waves hit the albeit small V on the front of the hull. As a skipper you never should have allowed the bow to fall below the swell height. You yourself claim you made a mistake, which I am sure you did trying to keep the bow down which caused the accident. The only cause of that accident was operator error sorry to say. You can complain all you want that wouldn't have been necessary with a deep V hull, but you were driving an open bow Whaler that called for a different driving style to navigate that inlet. If it were a seamanship examination test, you failed.

Just be glad you and your crew were able to get out of it because of the excellent flotation properties of the Boston Whaler.

fisher224 posted 09-28-2006 01:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
I guess you had to be there. I have successfully navigated that inlet several thousand times in numerous boats and in all sorts of conditions. I will say this, having seen how my whaler handled those conditions I have absolutely no confidence in the seaworthiness of the 17 Whaler (mauntauk style). You can choose to think whatever you want. I know what happened and how that boat handled it and the boat gets a big thumbs down.
swist posted 09-28-2006 02:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for swist  Send Email to swist     
Self-baiing is another bit of myth. Most small boats are labelled as self-bailing when they have scuppers and the deck is above the waterline, but I have NEVER seen scuppers big enough to quickly drain a huge wave. They are almost as useless as bilge pumps if you take on a lot of water. The only way to get rid of that much water in a hurry is out the transom, and if your boat has enough bouyancy to keep the engine out of the water when loaded like that, you can easily drive the water out of the boat. That's what my Montauk does, anyway, and that also seems to be the experience of most other owners. (Some water stays in the boat because the height of the transom inner wall keeps it all from draining but what is left either goes out the drain hole or the bilge pump, depending on your setup and model). I have no idea what fisher224 might have been doing to lose control of the situation like that.
fisher224 posted 09-28-2006 05:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisher224  Send Email to fisher224     
I got caught between two very close together waves going aginst a roaring outgoing tide. The wave behind me pushed the square bow of the whaler into the wave ahead. If anything I was going too slow for the situation if I had it to do over with that boat I would have gone much faster so as to just blast thru. The funny thing is I was doing it textbook staying on the back of the wave ahead but the roaring tide made me wallow just enough off of plane that the bow dipped. It happened in an instant and the boat was full of water. Once the water got in the boat it was all over.
Whalerdrew posted 09-28-2006 05:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdrew  Send Email to Whalerdrew     
I dont know what Fisher is talking about. I think he just has something against Boston Whalers. I have personaly took my old Montauk out of the Barnegat inlet in NJ thousands of times in all kind of weather condations (including days when there were small craft advisories) and have never felt unsafe. I think that the problem is the captain.


rightsofman posted 07-21-2007 12:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for rightsofman  Send Email to rightsofman     
I have nothing against Whalers which are fine boats, but I've had my 17 Mako (1976) since 1990 and I am very well satisfied with it.
Jerome Williams
highanddry posted 07-21-2007 02:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for highanddry  Send Email to highanddry     
I just looked at Makos recently, they are NOT double hulls. The side hull is NOT double. It is a single layer and fairly thin and flimsy and easily gives under hand pressure--try that with any Whaler old or new. They may have a double bottom but they do NOT have double side hull like a Whaler. The Whaler has much more floatation as a result and obviously more stability when flooded to the gunwales as a result.
jenkinsph posted 07-22-2007 02:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for jenkinsph  Send Email to jenkinsph     
I was in my 150 Sport in April this year and found myself in rough conditions that I could have avoided if I would have been paying more attention. Not the fault of the boat. I took me about 2 hours to get out of this, heading into the waves proceeding slowly. One of the things that helped me the most was knowing that the boat was not going to sink. So instead of panicing you quickly start dealing with the issue at hand, getting to calm water. I didn't loose anything or damage anything and learned alot. I bought a 1500 gph bilge pump, have searched the threads here and read about pulling the plugs on a static hull and having it self drain. I make sure that everything is strapped in place where possible and the balance of the boat is much better now.

I am happy to say that I am still making mistakes and learning from them. The world is full of people who know so much they can't learn a thing. BTW, I have had lots of experienced employees I could not teach a thing, and got rid of them.

This guy also had a few things to learn, he said his Igloo floated away, if it had been strapped down it would have provided added floatation. He had water up to his shins
and thought he was going to sink? You need to know more about physics and keep your wits about you. I have reread the entire thread and feel he didn't learn much.

You can take on water or swamp an open bow boat but you have a better chance to overcome the problem in a Whaler
and learning how to operate the boat correctly is a definite plus. Boston Whalers as a whole are safe boats that will give you a better chance to learn from and be able to fish another day.


Mobjack posted 07-30-2007 04:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mobjack  Send Email to Mobjack     
One thing I have noticed about this story in re-reading the thread is that he claims to have broached the boat bow first into a wave.
This sticks in my mind because one of the things I have noticed the most in my 14 years of operating small, classic style whaler hulls is that it is damn near impossible to make the bow go under. Even running downwind in a huge following sea, (which is where broaching incidents typically occur), when you come down the front of one wave and pile right into the back of the next, it is next to impossible in my montauk.
Even pigged out with gear and people, I have never managed to take even a cupful of water over the bow in this situation.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, because I wasn't there and I did not see the conditions, but I will say that I believe it would take a display of extremely poor judgment and seamanship on my part as the operator to replicate what happened to fisher.

JohnJ posted 07-30-2007 05:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for JohnJ  Send Email to JohnJ     
I was thinking the same thing myself... Whalers are the least likely to stuff their bows thanks to their relatively light weight and the extreme bouyancy of their smirked and squared off bows. In fact, something that makes even small Whalers capable of taking on heavy seas is exactly that extreme bouyancy of the bow. Running bow high in my Outrage 18' allows me to operate comfortably in very tough conditions without fear of swamping. A pointed bow of comparable size will absolutely have less bouyancy than the square and smirked bow of a Montauk.
eportfolio posted 07-30-2007 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for eportfolio  Send Email to eportfolio     
Why don't you see for yourselves...

andygere posted 07-30-2007 06:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Here is a statistic I would like to see on Whalers. How many whalers have filled with water because the whaler was in its slip when it rained and the bildge pump that it relies 100% on to clear water from the deck failed and the boat filled with water because it could not self bail. I have whaler friends who have had this happen to them multiple times.

Here's a photo of one: sitebuilderpictures/namequoitberth.jpg

I NEVER put the plugs in, and she floats just fine, no water on the deck in the harbor or at sea. If you pull the plug on a 17 foot Whaler, a few inches of water will come into the stern and no more, no matter how much it rains. The water won't creep as far as the pilot seat. Perhaps if fisher224's friends were using a {b]bilge[/b] pump, the water would have been pumped out.

By the way, I think I've solved the mystery of fisher224's confusion: He never had a Whaler. I did an exhaustive search of my Whaler catalog collection, and conclude that Boston Whaler never made a mauntauk or a Secconnet model.

Final thoughts on fisher224's story: He must have been driving like an idiot, because it's really hard to stuff the bow of a 17 foot Whaler, especially to the point that it stops dead in the water. By the way, if I had a boat full of water and couldn't make headway against the tide, I'd probably consider turning the boat around and going with the tide to get it all drained out.

TwhalerkidP posted 07-30-2007 07:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for TwhalerkidP  Send Email to TwhalerkidP     
Makos are good boats but they are different from whalers so its hard to compare them, all i can say is if i had the money id rather buy a whaler.
hauptjm posted 07-31-2007 11:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Ignorance is bliss:

A 17 Whaler is not, let me repeat this, IS NOT SELF BAILING!!!!!! The 17 whaler has its deck drain below the water line and relies on a bildge bump to clear water from the deck. A self bailing boat by its very definition has its deck above the water line and has scuppers above the water line to clear water from the deck. A 17 Mako is a self bailing boat. A 17 Mauntauk is NOT!!!!

Here is a statistic I would like to see on Whalers. How many whalers have filled with water because the whaler was in its slip when it rained and the bildge pump that it relies 100% on to clear water from the deck failed and the boat filled with water because it could not self bail. I have whaler friends who have had this happen to them multiple times.

Mobjack posted 07-31-2007 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Mobjack  Send Email to Mobjack     
What a retard.
Tarpun posted 08-03-2007 01:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tarpun  Send Email to Tarpun     
In the past I spent a lot of time fishing from Mako 17's. They are better looking and have more storage. They do ride a little better than a Montauk but in 3-4' seas you're gonna slow down. They will float upright. However most of the floation is directly under the gunnel and cap. There is a lot of empty bilge that can take on water if the hull is breached. Once there is a large volume of water in the bilge they are no longer self bailing. I was 15 miles from the beach 1 day when we discovered aoleaking deck plate had allowed the bilge to fill and the bilge pump had failed. The seas were 3' but because of the weight when we could finally get on plane (with 140hp) you had to do 30+mph to stay on plane. It was a long scary slog home. That could never happen in 17 Whaler.

As far as Fisher 224's inlet experience I find it difficult to believe that 3' sea's would swamp a 17 Whaler. I have been in and out our local inlet when there where 5-6' "standing men" (large cresting waves close together)across the inlet in both boats. The Mako due to its sharper and narrower bow had a tendancy to pierce the wave. Most of the water would run off the bow and down the gunnels but quite a bit would get in the cockpit. My 1968 Whaler will take some water over the bow but is way more bouyant than the Mako. I love the little Mako's and if I ever find a not too far gone 17 project for the right price it will be mine. If I had to caught in open water during a gale or hurricane I'd pick the Whaler.
TexasWhaler posted 08-04-2007 07:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
A couple of things I always like to point out for those that question the contruction of Whalers, or compare them to the construction of other brands, are:

-The Coast Guard uses Boston Whalers for their armed, TPSBs (transportable port security boats), that not only serve stateside, but also get tossed into the back of military air transporters to go off and patrol some of the baddest, most hostile waters in the world.

Here's a link that shows some cool, fairly recent photos of Whalers serving proudly in Iraq:

-The U.S. Navy's SBUs (Special Boat Units) use only Boston Boston Whaler boats for their PBL class (patrol boat - light) of boats. It's these Boston-Whaler boats that are responsible for getting SEAL team members to, and from, the hot zones safely, even when taking huge amounts of hostile fire.

-The Marines conducted tests on Whaler hulls to see how much they could take. After 1000 rounds of .50 caliber ammo sprayed from bow to stern and everywhere in between, the hulls still sat nice and high in the water with no problems.

Folks may be able to debate about the ride and comfort of various brands of boats, but when talking about hull construction, and strength, I think the military answers that question for us ;-)

plafond posted 10-01-2007 11:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for plafond  Send Email to plafond     
When you discuss "newer" and "older" Mako 17's, what years do you mean? I am looking at a 1998 Mako CC 17. Is that a new or old one?
Also, trying to compare the Mako 17 and the Whaler 2001 Dauntless 16, any thoughts?
katoman posted 10-05-2007 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for katoman  Send Email to katoman     
The old Mako's were remarkable, when the company went out of business and move to North Carolina, the only thing that was the same is the name. The boats are really poor quality and not in the same league. Mako's are compared with Key west, Trophy,etc.

Flotation, there is level floatation, which most boat companies and there is closed foam. Level means part of it will float, closed foam means all of it will float

mako mon posted 12-04-2009 09:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for mako mon  Send Email to mako mon     
I recently purchased a 1989 171 mako. This boat was well mantained is great shape . Workmanship was better then almost any boat compared to today . Thanks to the bean counters. I was born an raised in s forida and have spent more time than cared on whalers. Talk about rough ride!!!! I think i would have rather taken my chances in the water.But it was a good boat for a kid to learn. I am not a kid any more! I have two boys and I glad there learning on our mako. Whalers are a good boat but since the invention of inflatables who needs them. There bigger models are over priced and there lines need help!! In regards to sinkablity most fault falls on owner operator. Check your bildge pumps more than once a year. Have not been on boat lately that not shelf bailing.
jimh posted 12-05-2009 09:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Let me summarize your comments about Boston Whaler boats for other readers:

A Boston Whaler boat:

--is good for kids to learn boating
--has a rough ride
--has floatation features no longer needed due to the invention of inflatable boats
--is over priced
--has poor lines
--has overall such poor performance that one would be better off abandoning it for the water for survival.

Thank you for this valuable assessment of Boston Whaler boats from your perspective as an experienced boater from south Florida. Objective and well reasoned criticism of the Boston Whaler such as this can help others form a better understanding of the boat and its features.

TRAFFICLAWYER posted 12-05-2009 08:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
Two simple words come to mind............A Whole.
mako mon posted 12-06-2009 08:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for mako mon  Send Email to mako mon     
Your summary was mostly on point. My point to learning expercience was I learned , not knowing at the time, what boat I didnt want later in life. As far as jumpning ship. If you ever wake boarded on the ICW in s florida your never much more than fifty yards from shore or a dock. And after hitting a large wake from a sportfish or motor yacht. The captian and crew land like a slab of meat. You give it some thought. In regards to inflatables. My point was a boaters choice for a tender was very limited. I would gather to say in todays market you either have an inflatable or a flats boat or bay boat. Unless your really big an Intrepid , jupiter or albury work very nice. If you want to fish and dive . I think there are many boats more suited than whalers. Unless you need to drop your boat out of a plan to get to the fishing grounds. Just my opion. You know the saying opions are like aholes etc etc.
jimh posted 12-07-2009 09:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thank you for the advice regarding wake-boarding in the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way. If it ever happens that I want to go wake-boarding in the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way, I will keep your advice close at hand, and I will be certain to give it some thought. Your advice in this regard is very much appreciated. I can say that in the history of collecting information about Boston Whaler boats for the last decade, I had, prior to this, never given one moment's thought to the use of the boat for wake-boarding in the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way, but, following your cogent observations, it is now one of the first things on my mind when considering what a proper 17-foot boat must be able to do.
number9 posted 12-07-2009 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for number9  Send Email to number9     
Believe "wake boarded" was used in jest to describe sea state often encountered.
hauptjm posted 12-08-2009 11:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Maybe he meant "water-boarded." I also believe "opions are like opiates, they can cause comas."
Tohsgib posted 12-08-2009 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I saw a 17 Mako yesterday with a 150 Evinrude on it...must fly. Thing was an absolute POS though with chopped up decks and a rebuilt transom.
muskrat posted 12-08-2009 03:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for muskrat  Send Email to muskrat     
I never took any substantial amount of water over the bow of my 1981 [Boston Whaler MONTAUK], even in following seas [with a wave height greater than four feet] where I continuously braced myself for a nosedive that never happened. I did, however, swamp her to the gunwales due to a careless and lazy mistake. After a late night at an island gathering I tied my [Boston Whaler MONTAUK] to the end of the dock with the stern facing a few miles of open [Lake Erie]; it was a dead calm night. When I returned in the morning the wind was howling in off the lake, and the boat was swamped with breakers crashing over the console. It looked as though the only thing holding her at the surface was the very taut dock lines, but, trusting the [Boston Whaler] legend, I untied the lines, and, after a struggle I managed to spin her around, and, with the bow pointed upwind, she climbed out of the water like an angry sea monster. With a little help from the bilge pump she was dry in about five minutes. The engine was fine. The only thing different was a lack of empty beer cans. In fact, the boat was cleaner than she had been in a long time.
deepwater posted 12-08-2009 08:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for deepwater  Send Email to deepwater     
One of our fishing friends had a [MAKO]. We were fishing the Delaware bay late one afternoon when the bay just turned around and went vertical 4' breaking confused seas. We just got behind a large tanker at anchor and the [MAKO] was full of water and unresponsive. My buddy threw his best pole in my boat--a 17' Montauk--and followed soon after. We found his boat later on the breakwaters and I think it is still there. I never got on another [MAKO] and he never bought another boat.
jimh posted 12-08-2009 08:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Enough of these silly anecdotes about Boston Whaler boats. Everyone please stop it. The MAKO has been shown to be superior. Boston Whaler boats are only for children, and, now, thanks to the inflatable boat, are totally obsolete.

Sell your Boston Whaler boats now before others catch on to their obsolescence. Or, just give your Boston Whaler away to children so they may learn how to use a boat. The truth has been spoken.

deepwater posted 12-09-2009 04:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for deepwater  Send Email to deepwater     
Its not going to be today jim,,(clicks heels 3x (or spins prop) repeating "I Want To Go Home")^@^ Hey max when ya comming up
bassguy posted 12-10-2009 09:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for bassguy    
my advice: like they say on one of my favorite and well moderated discussion boards, "flag it and move on"
florida1098 posted 12-18-2009 04:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for florida1098    
You're on a BW website, how do you think the answers would go. Like asking on the Smith&wesson website which is better a S&W or Colt? Chevy vs Ford? Come on, don"t expect an unbiased opinion
Jefecinco posted 12-18-2009 06:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
If you have to ask......... [fill in the blank].


podosky posted 12-19-2009 04:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for podosky  Send Email to podosky     
I can not agree with Fisher 224 on some items mentioned, but he does make some valid points.

The Montauk is not self bailing and does rely on a bilge pump. I understand the plug can be pulled and water will drain. But he is correct in his description that this may not be enough in an emergency situation in a NJ inlet; even if the situation may have occurred due to operator error.

I run the NJ inlets Fisher mentioned all the time with our 180 Dauntless, which has scuppers. I attempted to return through Corson's inlet after conditions suddenly deteriorated. Unfortunately it was wind against tide heading towards low tide. The inlet is not marked with bouys and my GPS broke that day while on the water. (you can see where this is going)

The channel is narrow and the waves were stacked making it invisible. I headed in slowly and missed the channel by 30- 40 yards. Easy to do without the gps.

My depthfinder showed the water getting too shallow, and I attempted to make a lateral move to find the channel.

I took a wave over the port stern. My tackle box was underwater initially due to the lead sinkers. I have a 150 Verado which I immediately hit to full throttle. There was so much water that even at full throttle the boat barely moved initially. If not for the tell-tale I would have thought the motor stalled.

The boat eventually shed the water and we found the channel a made it inside.

I had my young son with me and I will tell you it is a panic situation. For anyone who has never experienced it, the situation seems surreal while it is occcurring and in no way would I have been able to pull a plug or wait on a bilge pump. (the next set of waves would have surely clobbered me)

I retrospect I am not sure how I kept my cool.

I think back to that incident often and credit our safety to the Boston Whaler. It remained stable and shed the water quickly allowing us to get back inside.

R T M posted 12-29-2009 10:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for R T M    
I don`t discount fisher`s story one bit. I think some of you are clinging to false hope that your Whaler will get you home safely no matter what the sea and weather conditions. If your Whaler turtles, you are in the water, and what happens to you then may be out of your control.
Here's a thread on a scuba board about a Whaler dive boat that swamped and turtled in a Florida east coast inlet, with the loss of two divers. Also podosky`s comments showed that in is incident, he might have just been riding on good luck. 208859-dive-boat-overturned-boynton-beach-fl-3.html


Tohsgib posted 12-30-2009 10:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I have driven Barnegat Inlet more than anyone on this site. I have crashed through waves and almost flipped jumping them, etc. I would much rather be in a 17 Montauk than a Mako. Coast Guard had a fleet of Whaler's in NJ, never saw one in a Mako.
R T M posted 12-30-2009 07:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for R T M    
The whole point of this thread is to say that if you stuff the bow into wave and the wave is higher than the bow, and you have an open bow, you are in trouble, becuase the boat will fill with water. A 17 Mako has sort of a bow deck, but it is a short one. Water will still come over the deck, but some will run down the gunwales and go overboard. Not so with the whaler. I don`t know hard it is to stuff the bow on a 13 or 17 foot Whaler. Thing is, the Mako has a reasonably sharp entry that is less buoyant than the bulbous bow of a 17' Whaler, so that makes the whaler more buoyant in the bow and less apt to dig into a wave than the Mako. Ever see an offshore race boat stuff its bow. Its needle nose shape will almost drive the bow into the ground, if its shallow.

When I was a kid we used to run in Jones inlet on LI, that is, before they built the jetty, in similar conditions in a 15 ft. plywood runabout with a 30 Johnson and stuff the bow on purpose. The boat had a long 5' mahogany fore (front) deck and a 12" high wrap around plastic windshield. When we did this some green water would come over the windshield, but not enough to cause a problem. never felt any sense of danger, and the chicks loved it.


podosky posted 12-30-2009 08:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for podosky  Send Email to podosky     
RTM: I agree with you as to the bow shape. A mako would allow the bow to be stuffed more readily due to its less blunt shape.

I notice the flat portion of our smirk (the part parallel to the water) acts as a mechanical stop to stuffing the bow. As it hits the water it stops the the downward motion of the bow. This may contribute to a bang now and then in rough seas, but it also makes a small boat such as ours very seaworthy.

I keep our boat at a friends house in NJ. He has an extra slip. He is also a charter boat captain and runs a 31 Albemarle offshore and a 23 foot Parker inshore. Two pretty sturdy boats. He is not easily impressed with boats, yet he constantly tells me how impressed he is with the capabilities of our little Whaler.

deepwater posted 12-30-2009 10:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for deepwater  Send Email to deepwater     
Indian River Inlet Delaware,, Going out heavy in my 17 Montauk,,Real heavy,,Kodiak cooler on the anchor locker loaded with 2-5 gal buckets of chum 100+lbs and 5 lbs of dry ice,,10 lb danford 10'of chain and 300' of rope,, UH1 helo rubber fuel bladder strapped forward of the CC full with 45gal fuel/oil mix,,2 light weight poles 2 large cal shark poles,,24 gal fuel under the RPS and cooler of food and drinks for 2 days,,shark gear and 2 people on board 185 260 lbs ,,We were heavy and late launching,,The tide had turned and the light was going depth perception was almost gone,,When I saw the first wave it was too late to do anything but go through,, we went up and the bow stuffed in the next wave,, 2'of water came over the top of my bow rail and filled the Whaler 1/2 full,,I still have power and steerage but nowhere to go and there is another wave 10' ahead and were low and 1/2 full of water,,We dug deep in the next wave and were full of water now it is flowing over the sides more than it is going out the back the cooler flipped and all the dry ice hits the water and were now in an instant fog bank and blind,,Mike is blowing bubbles trying to pull the plug and im trying to get some power up but not flip us over,,The water goes away and the dry ice is put back the fog drifts off and ,,We went fishing,,And thats why I fish in the deepwater in a Whaler and not a Mako ,,And I never went out of that inlet ever again,,All boats are well made and meet Coast Guard Specs,,But they still aren't Whalers and all the talk wont make it so
number9 posted 12-31-2009 08:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for number9  Send Email to number9     
All boats are well made and meet Coast Guard Specs

Have to say not all boats are well made.

Coast Guard Specs have little-nothing to do with being well made.

johnhenry posted 12-31-2009 10:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for johnhenry  Send Email to johnhenry     
I know that inlet in Delaware deepwater. Very dicey. I hope I am never in that position. Last time I swamped a boat I was a teenager. Looking back now, we were very lucky.
podosky posted 12-31-2009 09:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for podosky  Send Email to podosky     
Deepwater: That is some story. Did the boat ever feel unstable while full of water?

I was surprised that ours did not feel unstable while full. The most noticeable was the percieved lack of power initially due to the weight of the water.

deepwater posted 01-01-2010 12:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for deepwater  Send Email to deepwater     
John you know the 3 hump waves that form just seaward of the bridge on an out going tide has taken many boats and I went in and out of there several times untill then and had taked some water over the bow but not like that,,We were full,,I used Ocean city inlet(and its nasty) by the rt50 bridge to get to the bone and the jackspot and the poormans the elephants trunk for the next 3 or 4 years ,,Between the wicked waves and the skidos and boats BIG and small going all over in and out drifting and damn near driving right over ya I had enough,,Im glad I had mike with me he is good in a boat he dosent get excited he just does what he can reach,,Podosky,,I cant say if the boat felt squirrely or not so much was going on all at once and than it was over,,I do remember the boat felt very heavy in the stern,,All the water + 24 gal of fuel and mike at 260+ was behind me ,,I felt it wallow a bit but when mike surfaced with the plug and stood up at the CC with me the bow came down and the water went away,,Mike also had a 1953 26'(I think) steel chris craft cabin-cruiser 350 inboard he got from his dad(my best friend of 30 years)Mike did some work on the cruiser and asked me to follow him out to check the work he had done ,, the delaware bay was a wreck 4'waves and chop cross wind and the tide was going out,,we took a beating for about 3 hours and called it a day and headed to bowers beach and at the green light mike lost his rudder and was going for the rocks pilings and the sand bags,,I got in to calm water about 200'in and pulled my big rope and headed back out ,,the tide was ripping out an I went in neutral got a tail end in my stern eye and as I drifted past gave one hail-marry throw to mikes dad at the stern he got a grip and 2 turns on a cleat I got a loose end wrapped around my wrist and went in gear there was no time to tie off I just braced off the RPS and put on all the pressure my arm could stand ,,My Montauk and the 88Spl pulled that heavy beast stern first away from the rocks against the tide and up the creek ,,John if you have ever been to bowers you know the rip it has,,when it got calm around Frenches the old man worked his way forward and I pulled them all the way to Frederica to the mill,,A cotter-pin fell out the rudder,,Are Whalers tough?? Yes they are,, Mine brought me back more than once

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.