posted 03-10-2006 11:47 PM ET (US)            

Any 1991 to 1993 Whaler 23' Walkaround owners here ?
I need your expert advise. Please, tell me anything before I fall in love with one of these boats. They look really good. But I heard something about their construction using some "balsa core" whatever that is. Is that true? Is it good or bad?

I know they were build for just 3 years but why is there so little information about them? Seems like Whaler didn't sell many of them.

posted 03-11-2006 08:59 PM ET (US)            

I'm not sure of fuel burn, but I have the May 1991 issue of Boating magazine where they tested a 23 WA with the typical twin Yamaha 200's. I forget what the results were. Top sepeed was around 54 mph. It's kinda hairy for me at that speed, and anyway, the water is never that smooth around here. Am planning to put a Flo-Scan in this spring for fuel management.

My main complaint is with the Whaler Drive bracket. To me, it seems to lift the engines out of the water more as the boat pitches in a swell, but I plan to run 4 blade props this year to minimize that some. As mentioned, the boat can be twitchy running down swell, but she seems solid. I have wanted one since they came out in 1991, and plan to take a few tuna with her.

My buddy just bought a 91 21WA last fall, so we're gonna give them a both a workout this year hopefully.

Do a search on 23 Walkaround; you'll turn up some more info.

posted 03-11-2006 09:07 PM ET (US)            

I don't recall ever seeing reference to BW using balsa coring in any of their boats, but I haven't cut mine in half to check. I don't think BW was too concerned about saving weight on their boats, at least the older ones.

Pat

posted 03-13-2006 12:20 AM ET (US)            

Hope you catch those tunas. I did the search but I still feel a bit confuse on how it compares with the classic hulls handling the waves (Deep V Whaler vs Classic Whaler).
You mention the "typical twin Yamaha 200's" I was thinking 150's or even 130's for a 23' hull.

Will that be ok or will It need that more power to reach 40 to 42 mph at WOT?

I'm trying to find one of this boats here in Puerto Rico, to see it in person but so far I haven't. If any CW member from here knows where I can see one please let me know.

posted 03-13-2006 08:42 PM ET (US)            

I say typical Yamaha 200's, because that seems like a common setup that I've seen on 23WA's. However, the BW catalog from that year showed a twin 150 setup, and I think 300 hp was the recommended min HP. I think twin 150's would be more than adequate. Having said that, keep in mind that this is not a lightweight boat, and can carry 150 gallons of full, with a 180 gal tank as an option, supposedly.

I am of the opinion that a little less weight on the stern would probably improve handling, although the additional leverage of the Whaler Drive bracket might also come into play as far as overall trim. I think mine rides bow high a little, although not terribly so. Again, my experience is limited, and I'm still playing with trim tab settings and engine trim.

There was one for sale down in the Keys a few months ago, on Yachtworld.com. Closest one I know of to PR...

posted 03-14-2006 09:42 PM ET (US)            

I have a deal on a 23WA in the States subject to a sea trial and comprression test, but I'm trying to find all the information I can before hand, because that sea trial it's going to cost me plane tickets, hotel and time.

I'm very happy with my Classic Outrage 25' but my wife and daughter want the cabin. I just saw this Whaler model (23WA) last month and it looks a lot like my former 2550 Pursuit, but with the unsinkability of a Whaler.

posted 03-18-2006 04:35 AM ET (US)            

I run out of San Francisco Bay / Golden Gate (where there is usually a significant chop) and run in the area of 14 to 16 gallons an hour at 23-30 mph at 3400 to 4000 RPMs weather permitting)usually carrying the full 180 gallons of gas and fresh water capacity of 12 gallons. I very seldom open it up but I am in the 42-45 mph range -- (It's not totally tweaked to the high end range - aluminum props)

Aspects of the boat that I have found (owner of 7 years):
1. The boat is a tank and the ride that is given is
excellent -- considering conditions.

2. I think the boat may be a little stern heavy as
originally configured with the heavier "older"
engines. I used to have a hard time keeping the
boat from taking off. (in my conditions)

Solved my problem by moving weight forward (100+ lbs of
lead weight in anchor locker -- also the repower with
four strokes changed the handling aspects significantly
(for me).

3. Have had several boat owners comment on the
hull details: cleats, bow pulpit, stainless
rail quality.

(Have some minor stress cracks -- where deck flooring
hatch ends - leading to the walkaround step)

4. Only complaints -- Can easily fish four people; have
fished five; where do you put the people when running a
minimum 17+ miles one way to the fishing grounds out
of SF Bay -- on a usually choppy day ??

Note: There is another 23'Walkaround for sail out of San
Francisco Bay Area -- fully loaded; $32000;
coastsidefishingclub.com

posted 03-18-2006 08:51 PM ET (US)            

I appreciate all the information you gave me, however I still have some doubts. When you say;

"I think the boat may be a little stern heavy as originally configured with the heavier "older" engines. I used to have a hard time keeping the boat from taking off. (in my conditions)"

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't 4 stroke motors heavier than older 2 strokes motors?

I guess the performance you mention is with 4 strokes engines. Do you remember gas milage with 2 strokes motors?

Again thanks ROI, as you can see there have been very little participation on this threat, maybe because there are not many owners of these boats in CW. I'll keep trying so if anyone can say anithing good or bad about these hulls please come forward, any info will be gladly receive.

posted 03-19-2006 02:54 PM ET (US)            

I own a 1992 with whalerdrive and twin 200 Yamahas.
I love it for what I bought it for, family cruising and scuba diving.

Unfortunately I am not gong to be too much help as far as fuel economy. I have only had the boat one summer. I installed a Navman fuel flow system but one of the sending units was bad so all my data is useless. (Navman is sending out a new unit to replace the bad one.)

Most of the time my boat is on small bodies of water. I have only had it in 3-4 foot waves and it did great. The two times I had her up on Lake Superior this summer the lake was glass calm. So I have no experience with her in any kind of big water.

I don’t think the boat is stern heavy, she jumps right up on plane, but with time and more hours I may change my mind.

The boat is heavy for a 23 footer, 4,300 pounds dry, 800 pounds for the engines equals 5,100 pounds with no gear or fuel. I have the 180-gallon fuel tank so you can make her pretty heavy with fuel, people and gear.

Sweet spot is 27 knots; top end is around 42 knots max horse power is 400, minimum with whaler drive is 275 (Transom hall 400 max, 225 min)

There is no balsa wood in the hall, there is some in the decks. Contact Chuck Bennet at Boston Whaler. He sent me a diagram of the deck showing all the different kinds of wood used. If you have a fax number I can send it to you.

(Have some minor stress cracks -- where deck flooring
hatch ends - leading to the walkaround step) I have the same stress cracks.

I also agree it would be nice if there was some more seating, but I bought her for her large back deck, so that is a trade I am willing to make.

This is a deep v boat, it will ride different from your typical Boston whaler, she will cut through waves head on but she will also dig into a wave and veer to the side. You have to drive it as a deep V. She will roll more at anchor when waves come in from the side, and she will be a little less stable at rest then similar sized classic halls.

I think the hall may still be being produced as a different model, someone here would know that.

posted 03-19-2006 10:05 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for your help (Great information). I think, I will be more comfortable now making a decision.

posted 03-19-2006 11:18 PM ET (US)            

You are probably right about the weight of four stroke engines in most cases -- was not thinking about higher HP engines or other boats.

I THINK, IN MY CASE, the weight of the Yamaha 2-strokes that I replaced was VERY CLOSE or heavier than the new engines that were installed ?? I did do the comparison at the time , ie removal of 2 cycle oil tanks; different steering rams , etc.

I do know that the handling characteristics changed for the better in my case.

As far as gas mileage, my gas mileage (AND MY RANGE) just about doubled with the installation of Yamaha 150 four strokes. The engines that were replaced were Yamaha 150 -- carbourated two strokes.

Since installation, 2 years ago, I have 408 hrs on the engines and have burned aproximately 2502 total gallons. My savings or payback since repower is around $5754 in two years. (I am anal retentive)

As far as useable fuel capacity -- the most that I have ever put in at one filling is 157 gallons on a 180 gallon tank -- too chicken to run any more out and was too lazy to pump remaining into empty gas cans. Would like to know exactly how much of the 180 gallons is useable.

My "world record" is 95 miles from the Golden Gate and I didn't hit the 157 gallon mark at that time -- 157 gallons was burned by the two strokes.

Hope this helps.

I don't always check this web site but I'll probably be checking in more.

JG

posted 03-21-2006 09:01 AM ET (US)            

Very detailed information, thanks for taking the time to help me. The ride comparison with the classics is now my main concern, and you mention your friends been impressed with the "quality and dryness of ride" of your boat so that's another point on the good side.