CONTINUOUSWAVE

I am looking at a 2004 Nantucket with a 2004 Mercury 150 OptiMax with 300 hours.

I am having a Mercury mechanic do a evaluation [of the OptiMax] as I'm a little uneasy with this engine and its complexity. The mechanic, however, believes most of the main problems with OptiMax engines had cleaned up before 2004.

A guy I know is telling me to get the boat surveyed. "Whalers are also wet." he says. I'll agree there are a few Boston Whaler boats in my area that are clearly waterlogged just by the way they sit on the mooring.

To my eye this NANTUCKET floated nice, was above the water line, and handled fine on sea trial.

Keep in mind this is a big jump money wise for me to get into this boat. I would prefer to not waste money on a survey unless it is truly needed.

I do plan on keeping the boat for at least a few years or longer.

There are multiple layers of bottom paint on. My plan would be a soda blast and start from scratch.

I appreciate your thoughts!

It is usually not a waste of money to have a 13-year-old boat inspected by a surveyor. If you are satisfied that your inspection skills are equal to those of a surveyor you may not need the help. However a useful attribute of a surveyor is that he has no emotional investment in the survey outcome.

Be very careful with the soda blasting. A lot of boats have been damaged by the process. I would prefer a chemical paint removal process if that can be accomplished on a 190 Nantucket.

There are many Boston Whaler boats whose hulls have picked up water: 50-year-old 13-footers that have been sitting continuously in tropical saltwater and used as work boats are good examples. The notion that every Boston Whaler boat ever made has water in its hull is silly. But there is proper concern about absorbed water, particularly for a boat that has spent most of its life in the water and whose bottom condition is obscured with layers of antifouling paint. For more advice about water in the hull, see the FAQ answer:

Q3: Is There Water In My Hull?
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/FAQ/#Q3

Re the Mercury OptiMax 150 engine c.2004: my impression is that the really awful problems with the OptiMax were mostly seen in the larger displacement and higher horsepower engines.

There was a marked production change epoch in c.2006 for the OptiMax. This change was heralded by Mercury as "OptiMax the Next Generation" ( or OTNG for short). I carefully collected information about what changes actually were made and published my findings in an article in March 2006. See

OTNG--OptiMax The Next Generation
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/011847.html

As I noted back then, "By the logic of exclusion, it appears the 135, 150 and 175-HP OTNG motors will differ only by their new cowlings from their current motors."

In that case, a c.2004 engine may differ from a "OptiMax the Next Generation" engine by very few substantial components--maybe just some engine graphics and cowling design.

Also, to be as favorable as possible to the Mercury OptiMax, the really awful problems showed up when their first-generation engines were used by professional tournament anglers. On a cold misty morning they would start their engine, idle for five minutes, then run at full throttle for 45-minutes. These guys more or less torture test engines. In one very high profile tournament a number of top anglers who were sponsored by Mercury and had OptiMax engines were put out of competition by engine failures.

The failure rate of the OptiMax--even among ordinary recreational boaters--became so high and so much a problem that Mercury actually stopped producing them for a while in order to figure out what was causing the problems and to engineer a fix. There was also a very high warranty cost to Mercury to replace all the failed engines. It was sufficiently significant that their annual reports to investors remarked about "improved warranty costs" when they finally got things under control.

A further effect of the high failure rate of the OptiMax was Mercury's creation of a new sales channel selling re-manufactured engines. Mercury had to take back so many power heads and replace them under warranty that they began to rebuild these very new engines and offer them to their dealer channel as factory-rebuilt engines. I think the branding was something like "Pacemaker" engines, perhaps a coy reference to a patient with a bad heart who needs a pacemaker to keep it beating. This second-source channel of engines from the manufacturer was something unique to Mercury. I don't think any other brand ever had so many failures of their outboard engines under warranty that necessitated complete powerhead replacement in such a large volume that they had to resort to re-building and reselling them under a second-tier branding.

As Mercury outboard engines evolved and they finally were able to design, engineer, and manufacture their own four-stroke-power-cycle engines, the OptiMax brand became much reduced. Most of the engines that used to be sold under OptImax branding are now sold under ProXS branding, which positions the engine as some sort of a hot-rod outboard engine for hot-rod performance boats. It's not your typical recreational outboard engine user's engine any more. It's noisy, it's a bit cranky, but it goes really fast.

You can look at the 2004 NANTUCKET as a boat you are buying and it comes with a free outboard engine. Assess the value that way. Then you won't be in a bind if you have to buy a new outboard engine in two years.

You can look at the c.2004 OptiMax engine this way: if it were going to blow up due to a defect in original manufacture, that failure would probably have happened by now. If it runs, it can keep running. Just perform the proper preventative maintenance, use the proper grade fuel, use the premium specialty oil branded by Mercury.

I just bought a 190 Nantucket. It was re-powered last year. I did look at some boats with the original Mercury Optimax engine, and, if I went that route, I was going to to re-power within a year.

Thanks I have just contacted a surveyor to ask about cost. Now I'm paranoid. The boat was used lightly but sits on a mooring and clearly is in need of some TLC by my standards. I've also read about a potential defect in the livewell drain with the potential for water seeping into the foam.

Can anyone tell me if Boston Whaler used poly fuel tanks in 2004? I can't seem to find it on the whaler resources website.

jimh--I agree with your philosophy with regard to OptiMax: grind it out as long as possible and then re-power.

I hate buying boats. I'm stuck around the $18,000 price range. I am in the New england Area. I am trying to move up from my Dauntless and love the size and feel of this 19.

Yes, Boston Whaler used poly fuel tanks in 2004. Our previous 1999 Dauntless 16 had a poly tank.

thanks Butch.

Well I just purchased my first Boston Whaler. Folks here helped a bunch. It is a 2004 Nantucket 190.

I got the boat, trailer and 150HP Optimax for $18000.00. Most everything on the boat was is excellent shape. I had been looking for 6 months or more. I sea tested this boat and the Optimax was loud. I must say the boat was extremely sturdy and solid. Power was just right. Known problems with is boat was lack of stereo, raw water wash down, trim tabs and lack of dual battery. Optimax had a problem with the belt tensioner but other than that the motor was like new. Hit 46 MPH WOT. Probably could get a couple more if I was use to the tilt. The trailer had rusty bunk board brackets which cost me $50 to fix.

As far as survey I decided against it to save some money. I ran engine with engine cowling and belt cover off. That is how I discovered the belt tensioner was not quite right. I did a compression check and took out bottom gear case plug and was happy to find no sign of water intrusion. Battery, plugs, filter, water pump were new late last year. I am hopping for a couple years of service before re-powering as folks have mentioned.

I had looked at every Nantucket/Outrage in the southeast I could find and found a few that were as nice, but at $25k + without new warrantied motors were not my cup of tea. One northern boat was a 2004 with new motor and was very nice (only seen photos) but was far away and had bottom paint. That boat was listed for $31.5K and the seller said $25K cash and I could take it away.

Good luck !!

M

Welcome to the family the boat looks great in the picture.