CONTINUOUSWAVE

I am in the market for a new boat and recently stepped aboard a 2001 280 CONQUEST. The fit and finish and and overall impression the hull gave me was very, very convincing that a Boston Whaler should be my next boat.

I use due diligence when it comes to expensive purchases. In a lot of older forums people have said a 280 CONQUEST hull is very slow to plane and generally can’t hold plane at lower speeds [due to a] notch [in the hull running surface at the stern].

The main purpose of boat for me is trolling Lake Erie for Walleye. The 280 CONQUEST hull's wide and stable platform is a big plus, but I’m not [sold] on the notch [the lack of hull deep-V running surface extending all the way to the engine transom in the stern], nor by the many, many reports of a bone-rattling ride.

For readers who have a c.2001 280 CONQUEST or a 260/275/295 CONQUEST: please give me your comments about how the boat rides in 2-to-3-feet high, stacked [close-spaced] chop.

This particular boat has twin 2001 Mercury OptiMax 225-HP engines, which I feel may be marginal power for what the hull needs. Were I to buy the boat I would likely soon re-power. Everyone with whom I have messaged on marketplace who HAS re-powered to twin 250-HP or twin 300-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engines seems to have a better opinion [of the hull ride].

Q1: [has the increase in power to 500-HP or 600-HP and four-stroke-power-cycle engines from 450-HP two-stoke-power-cycle diect-injection engines provided the necessary] power to turn more propeller [load], and this has helped the hull get on plane and maintain plane better?

Q2: have outboard wedges been used on a c.2001 280 CONQUEST to help improved [the time to reach plane and the ability to maintain plane at lower speeds]?

I am aware that some owners of a c.2001 280 CONQUEST have increased the size of the trim tabs and changed to four-bladed propellers.

Q3: what are the [inherent] problems in the c.2001 280 CONQUEST hull?

I love the layout of the c.2001 280 CONQUEST, and the condition of this particular boat.

A possible option would be to buy a 285 CONQUEST or a 305 CONQUEST, but they are not in the budget--unless the asking price is a great deal.

Here are some general comments in response to your comments and questions about the ride characteristics of a c.2001 280 CONQUEST and engine power:

In general the design of most Boston Whaler larger boats is for a moderate V-hull with outboard sponsons or runners, with the hull dead rise not particularly sharp at the bow, and at the transom dead rise angle typically about 16 to possibly 20-degrees.

The construction of a Boston Whaler boat uses the Unibond hull method, which produces a very stiff and strong hull, which does not yield to waves but instead displaces them into spray. There is no hull flexing occurring to absorb the impact of wave encounters, which may give rise to reports of a very harsh ride in some situations. As with any hull, a bone-rattling ride is ameliorated by reduction in speed.

If your goal in a boat is to be able to go directly upwind and directly into large head seas at maximum offshore-race-boat speed, there is no Boston Whaler hull design that will excel in that operation. They are just not designed for that.

The typical Boston Whaler hull does excel in handling large following seas, where it will track beautifully and exhibit very little tendency to bow-steer or suddenly veer off going down a wave face. Lateral hull stability will also be very good, even at low speeds.

As for ride into head seas of close-spaced two-feet-high waves, the ride quality improves as the waterline length improves. The longer hulls can get up and ride on the crests of several waves, giving a better ride than trying to go up-and-down over each wave. Lake Erie is widely known as perhaps the roughest of the Great Lakes due to its shallow depth and long East-West fetch. I am sure there are situations out there that will produce uncomfortable rides on any boat.

Typically a Boston Whaler hull will perform best--that is give best fuel economy for cruise--at a speed around 25 to 30-MPH. The deeper the V-hull design, the faster the on-plane speed needed to reach a peak in fuel economy. If the engines are trimmed-in to lowest position, you can maintain speed on most hulls down to maybe 10-MPH, but the fuel economy will suffer significantly.

The 2001 OptiMax engines on the boat in question are interesting. Boston Whaler began in the late 1990's to sell their boats pre-rigged with only Mercury engines, due to the purchase of Boston Whaler by Brunswick in 1996. In 2001 there were no four-stroke-power-cycle engines in high horsepower engines from Mercury, which meant using the OptiMax was the only option (or perhaps older higher-emission carburetor two-stroke engines). The OptiMax is a direct-injection low-emission two-stroke-power-cycle engine, but with a bit of a troubled history for reliability in the early-year large-displacement V6 models (like the 2001 models) , and it is also known for being rather noisy in operation. But it delivered good power. Once Brunswick obtained a contract with Yamaha to buy the Yamaha 225-HP four-stroke engines, paint them black, and sell them under a Mercury badge, Boston Whaler completely stopped offering the OptiMax engines, and customers showed overwhelming preference for the models called FourStroke (as Mercury styled them).

For engines from 2001 to still be in use and running well is quite an achievement in 2025. However, if the boat use was entirely on the Great Lakes, then the freshwater and limited seasonal use tend to stretch the service life of all engines used there and help the boat avoid deterioration from saltwater.

In terms of being able to deliver good engine power output at lower engine speeds, two-stroke direct-injection engines like the OptiMax and E-TEC were able to provide that better than the typical four-stroke-power-cycle engines of similar displacement which were not using supercharging. To get good low-engine-speed power output from a four-stroke engine the engine displacement generally needs to be much bigger for the same horsepower output compared to the direct-injection two-strokes. Of course, at this moment, all the direct-injection two-stroke engines are out of production, so re-powering is limited essentially to four-stroke engines. But if you want to get low-speed planing performance, get a lot of rated horsepower and largest displacement possible.

Regarding the transom design in a c.2001 280 CONQUEST, the term "notched" is not appropriate. A more appropriate description is a "Euro-transom" which refers to having a sloping aft sheer line and a bulkhead at the aft end of the cockpit. What is often noted about the c.2001 280 or 28 CONQUEST is that the hull V-form stops ahead of the engine transom, so the aft two-feet of what looks like the hull is really just the incorporated engine set-back molded-in bracket.

Regarding using a four-bladed propeller, the Mercury REVOLUTION4 is often mentioned. That propeller requires a lot of horsepower to turn compared to a typical three-bladed propeller that was intended more as a "speed" propeller. The REVOLUTION4 really delivers a big "bite" into the water and consequently creates much higher loading on the engine. That means to maintain plane at low boat speeds you will need engines that can deliver mucho horsepower at lower engine speed ranges.

Finally, as in any used boat, the care and maintenance of the boat by the prior owner--particularly in a boat that may have 25-seasons of use--is extremely important. However, for Boston Whaler hulls in general there is no reason a 25-year-old hull can't be in like-new condition if used in freshwater, and very well looked after. But watch out for those engines--better get a sea trial before actually laying out money to buy.

ds4426 wrote:This particular boat has twin 2001 Mercury OptiMax 225-HP engines, which I feel may be marginal power for what the hull needs. Were I to buy the boat I would likely soon re-power. Everyone with whom I have messaged on marketplace who HAS re-powered to twin 250-HP or twin 300-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engines seems to have a better opinion [of the hull ride].

Q1: [has the increase in power to 500-HP or 600-HP and four-stroke-power-cycle engines from 450-HP two-stoke-power-cycle direct-injection engine provided the necessary] power to turn more propeller [load], and this has helped the hull get on plane and maintain plane better?

I doubt that 50-HP increase to 500-HP would make a huge difference in time to plane. Certainly a 150-HP increase to 600-HP would have more effect on improving the time to plane.

In order for a planing-hull a boat to reach hydroplane, the engine has to accelerate against an increasing propeller load, producing increased boat speed, which then, while not yet on plane, produces a bow wave whose height increases as boat speed increases. To reach hydroplane the boat must have enough power to climb up the backside of the bow wave, get over the crest, and then ride down the face of the bow wave. The boat speed increases significantly after the bow wave has been crested because the boat is no longer trying to move uphill. Once over the bow wave, the bow will come down, and the bow wave will shift aft on the boat's hull form, as a result of the lift generated by the planing surfaces of the V-hull.

The ability to stay on plane at a particular speed is related to an equilibrium where the amount of hull area in the water producing drag is also producing enough lift that the engine can maintain the engine speed at that equilibrium point.

What typically occurs when a hull is described as being "slow to plane" is the engine power is marginal, the bow of the boat is permitted to rise quite high, and the boat struggles to climb up the bow wave.

When the throttle is advanced on an engine, the engine tries to accelerate, and the acceleration will continue increasing engine speed of rotation until the load on the engine is too high for the engine to accelerate to a faster engine speed; this is point where the propeller load and the engine power at that particular engine speed are equal. If the engine is only able to accelerate from this equilibrium at a very slow rate of acceleration--that is, the engine is just able to produce slightly more power than the propeller load--then it may take an extended time for the boat to climb up its bow wave, reduce hull drag, and begin to accelerate onto full hydroplane.

What really helps an engine be able to accelerate a boat unto plane rapidly is the ability of the engine to produce a significant portion of its rated power output at lower engine speeds, which is often cited as the engine having a wide power band.

Two-stroke-power-cycle engines are noted for having wide power bands. Part of this comes from the design of the combustion chamber, where the air flow into the combustion chamber is pumped into the intake ports by the piston descending into the crankcase. Each cylinder on a two-stroke has its own separate and sealed crankcase, which gets pressurized on the downstroke of the piston. Thus there is a type of forced-induction which gets more fuel and air into the combustion chamber and produces more power output. Further, the two-stroke design produces a power strong on every downstroke. These are significant advantages for the two-stroke-power-cycle engine, and is why they are know as being strong engines.

Getting back to the c.2001 280 CONQUEST (or perhaps "28 CONQUEST" as I don't have the Boston Whaler literature handy to see which model designation convention they were using that year), I would expect that 450-HP of strong two-stroke direct-injection engines would be more likely to produce faster time to plane than 500-HP of four-stroke naturally-aspirated engines could. For 600-HP of four-stroke engines, especially if they are large displacement engines like a V8, they might have a plenty-wide power band and be able to rapidly push the boat over its bow wave and onto plane.

Other than pure horsepower, other factors that affect time to reach plane include the engine trim, if the boat has trim tabs, then the trim tab position; and weight distribution on the boat.

Trimming in the engines to be as close to the transom as possible will tend to limit bow rise; having trim tabs set for bow-down will also limit bow rise; and balanced weight distribution will help to limit bow rise. And limiting bow rise will generally help reduce the difficulty of the hull climbing over its own bow wave. And that will lead to faster time to plane.

As for helping a boat maintain being on plane at slow forward speeds, having a propeller with a lot of blade area will help produce more thrust at lower propeller shaft speeds (hence lower engine speeds). But the trade off is a propeller with a lot of blade area will be harder to turn. The REVOLUTION4 is a four-bladed propeller with a lot of blade area, particularly compared to a three-bladed propeller whose design is for best performance at the very highest propeller shaft speeds and generally will not have really large area blades.

I would describe the hull design of the c.2001 280 or 28 CONQUEST essentially as a 26-foot hull which has a integrated, molded-on full-width two-foot or perhaps longer engine set back bracket that includes a substantial buoyancy box. The term "buoyancy box" refers to the portion of the engine bracket which will be submerged, especially at rest, which then displaces water and produces buoyancy, helping to push up the stern of the boat and bear the weight of the engines.

While much handwringing was often done because some Boston Whaler newer boats had a sheer line was "a Euro-transom style", having an engine bracket with a buoyancy box was nothing new for Boston Whaler. The Whaler Drive hull extension, which was bolted on and not molded as part of the hull--which Bob Dougherty developed and was allegedly going to be called the Dougherty Drive until Marketing trumped that name--is essentially the same type of engine set back bracket, with two subtle changes: it is not full width, and it has slots that allow air to escape from the hull running surface and ventilate out of the water stream.

The effect on the ride of a Boston Whaler hull from bolting on a Whaler Drive is a drastic reduction in bow rise, so much so that the transition to hydroplane occurs with very little to almost no bow rise. The boat ride is extremely smooth, which one very experienced Boston Whaler owner described to me when he experienced the ride of my own boat, a REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive model, as being "The Brougham" a reference to the soft ride of a luxury Cadillac.

Exactly how the hull design of the 28 or 280 CONQUEST got a reputation for providing a bone-jarring rough ride is hard for me to understand. I have not been aboard one on Lake Erie on a really bad day, and I think any boat could be driven at speeds too high for the wave conditions and produce some quite high G-force decelerations, but I would never expect anyone to say a Whaler Drive had a general ride characteristic as "rough.”

As for slow speed plane operation, the 280 or 28 CONQUEST has a generous beam, which should give the hull more lift at slow speeds and make staying on plane easier.

ds4426 wrote:Q2: have outboard wedges been used on a c.2001 280 CONQUEST to help improved [the time to reach plane and the ability to maintain plane at lower speeds]?

I do not have any survey information on the number of owners who have added wedges on a 280 CONQUEST.

I think you are suggesting that adding wedges would allow the trim-in angle to go more negative, which would then give more bow-down trim. Whether that would be necessary likely will depend of the range of trim angles available for each particular engine that might be in use. I do not think that every outboard engine on the market offers the exact same range of trim angles. One model might benefit more than another by adding wedges to increase the most negative trim angle possible.

ds4426 wrote:Q3: what are the [inherent] problems in the c.2001 280 CONQUEST hull?

I suppose you could possibly infer that an inherent problem in a c.2001 hull might have been something that was changed later in the production run of that hull or implemented in a new model in that length range in the CONQUEST series.

Generally among Boston Whaler boats produced over the last 65-years there are few if any hulls that are infamous for their awful design. In the early days of Boston Whaler, their hull designs remained unchanged for decades, but more recently the company seems to have no worry about turning out one or two new hull designs every few years.

I think the continuing introduction of new models is part of a marketing strategy to create new sales with new models. And at the enormous selling prices of these new and larger hulls, the cost of the development and of all the new molds is probably repaid after a few new models are sold. I think they are onto something, as it seems astonishing that a new model is shown at the Miami International Boat Show, and in the first day or two enough orders are placed for the new model that all of the allocated production slots are sold out for that model year. I guess management knows what they are doing.

I hope my remarks have been of some interest to you, even though I have gone on rather long in my replies.