CONTINUOUSWAVE

It appears that some new Boston Whaler models have unexpected lower horsepower ratings compared to other manufacturers.

I've often thought that Boston Whaler is in a unique position. The boat and the motor are a packaged deal, and they are also from the same parent company Brunswick. That combination puts Brunswick in a potential liable position. My gut tells me that the Legal Deptment at Brunswick advises the determination of maximum horsepower is done in a very conservative manner.

If Whalers were ever over-powered and accidents, turn-overs, injuries, etc. mounted, Brunswick and Whaler could be held totally accountable for providing a dangerous package.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

I'm inclined to believe the engines available on new Boston Whaler boats is determined almost exclusively by the marketing and engineering departments at Boston Whaler. Engineers, not attorneys determine the appropriate power ranges for the boats with the caveat that the engines selected must be available from Mercury Marine.

Otherwise, how do we explain the creep in the boat capacity ratings as new engines of higher HP become available from Mercury. For example the ratings for the 190 Montauk increased overnight, with no changes in the boat design, from 135 HP to 150 HP coincident with the discontinuance of the 135 HP Verado engine and the introduction of the 150 HP Verado engine. By the way, the ONLY changes to the 135 HP Verado to increase the HP to 150 HP were changes to the ECU.

RIght on Butch - are the maximum power ratings based on safety, or all about maximizing profits?

Boston Whaler is only obligated to provide a maximum horsepower rating on its boats that are under 20-feet in length. If they wanted they could just stop giving horsepower ratings to their larger boats.

Boston Whaler has historically given maximum power ratings to their boats that are lower than the maximum power rating that could be calculated by the formula used in the federal regulations. For details about this, see this article I wrote 12-years ago:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ratedHP.html

In addition to the analytical information, there are antidotal reports.

One such report is mine. I sea trailed a Montauk 150 with a Boston Whaler Dealer representative a few years ago. It was powered by a 60 hp engine. It was very clear to me (and the rep) that the boat was sluggish with a full load. It needed at least a 90 hp engine. BTW it weights the same as a classic Montauk 17.

My concern is not top speed but performance. With a load, can you maneuver in less than calm conditions, i.e. accelerating up the back of a swell?

I suggest that this sense of being under powered can be partly attributable to the lack of low end torque of the 4 stroke engine. It may be possible to mitigate this effect by selecting a better gripping prop and accept a slightly reduced WOT speed.

Macfam I was thinking about your statement " whaler held accountable in accident for over power" What about when a car leaves the lot and a person turns it over, Is Ford or GM held accountable? The other way to look at power ratings place on the boat by whaler could be "these are the recommended hp for this boat" The world has become to political correct and have turn to who can we screw. How about you were driving the boat, you overturn the boat, and its your fault...

Running with scissors? We've all done it at some point. Some of us are cautious and conservative. Others hove the need for speed and if it doesn't sink your transom, let it fly. My first Whaler was a 16' Dauntless. Rated for 115 HP but on the lot with a Mercury 90-HP four stroke. It wasn't the worst dog of a boat, but I had to change props to waterski with kids on the tow rope. That was after I installed a Doel-Fin on the skeg. My second and current boat is a 210 Outrage that had a 175 OptiMax on the transom in the lot. I told the dealer to install a 225-HP four stroke and the boat is sold. I got a 225 (208) HP Mercury-branded-Yamaha on the back and I am happy with it. The boat tag says it can handle 225-HP and 600-lbs of motor. If I were compelled to re-power, it would be a 250 E-TEC and or a 300 HP XS Mercury racing OptiMax. Just for the fun of it and both are under the maximum weight (less than the 225 Mercaha) My advice to all who are considering the purchase of a newer Boston Whaler is to maximize the available horsepower or re-power within the sale for better engine options than offered by Mercury at this time.

contender wrote:What about when a car leaves the lot and a person turns it over, Is Ford or GM held accountable?

Many years ago a plaintiff sued Ford because the Ford Bronco they were driving rolled over when the driver made a very abrupt turn maneuver at high speed. The Bronco had a fiberglass upper body to save weight to improve stability and avoid roll-over. A jury awarded the plaintiff an amount in damages that, at that time, represented one-third of the value of the entire Ford company. On that basis, yes, I think you can say that an automaker is held accountable for the design of their products.

I agree that modern Boston Whaler boats are under powered. Using the [Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971] formula, my little Montauk 150 could use a lot more power than Whaler sells it with:

(2 x l x w) - 90 = (2 x 15.42 x 6.5) -90 = 110-HP

Man--that would be a rocket. I wouldn't do that, but I do think a 90-HP would be great. Now if only they made a 90-HP engine that weighed less than 305 to 315-lbs I could get going with 4 adults on board and supplies.

I think it is the [engine] weight not horsepower [that imposes a limit on a boat's rating], as evidenced by changing an ECU to get to 150-HP from 135-HP, as mentioned above.

I think the 150 SPORT and 150 MONTAUK could easily be rated for more horsepower, but the 75-HP and 90-HP Mercury engines weigh 100-lbs more than the 60-HP model; [the engine weight] seems to affect how Boston is rating the hull. A 75-HP on 150 [SPORT] should push the top speed to 40-MPH. A 90-HP would up the speed to around 44-MPH, around the same speeds the classic 15-foot hull would have achieved with a 60-HP and 70-HP engine, respectively.

Jefecinco wrote:I'm inclined to believe the engines available on new Boston Whaler boats is determined almost exclusively by the marketing and engineering departments at Boston Whaler. Engineers, not attorneys determine the appropriate power ranges for the boats with the caveat that the engines selected must be available from Mercury Marine.

Otherwise, how do we explain the creep in the boat capacity ratings as new engines of higher HP become available from Mercury. For example the ratings for the 190 Montauk increased overnight, with no changes in the boat design, from 135 HP to 150 HP coincident with the discontinuance of the 135 HP Verado engine and the introduction of the 150 HP Verado engine. By the way, the ONLY changes to the 135 HP Verado to increase the HP to 150 HP were changes to the ECU.

yep 115 in 2007 now 150 om the same boat.

One key element has been engine weight.

Mercury has increased horsepower while engine weight stayed the same. Many Boston Whaler models received higher horsepower with the introduction of the L4 Verado. I think the same can also be true with the introduction of the latest generation of the Mercury FourStroke motors.