BOATING Magazine Tests 240 DAUNTLESS PRO
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:28 pm
I was browsing through the "Boat Buyer's Guide 2018" published by BOATING magazine, and came across their review of the Boston Whaler 240 DAUNTLESS PRO.
Whenever I see test report data, I like to look at the boat's fuel economy in miles-per-gallon, particularly if the boat is similar in size and horsepower to my boat. Here is a comparison of my boat, a REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive, to the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO:
LOA = 24-feet 3-inch / 24-feet 8-inch
BEAM = 7-feet 5-inch / 8-feet 6-inch
DRY WT = 2,600-lbs / 3,300-lbs
The 240 DAUNTLESS is 5-inches longer, a foot wider, and 700-lbs heavier.
My 1990 Boston Whaler REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive with a 225-HP E-TEC gets its best fuel economy at a cruising speed of about 27-MPH, when the engine and propeller and hull seem to be quite happy to operate; the fuel economy is 2.7-MPG and sometimes a bit higher, maybe 2.8-MPG.
According to the BOATING MAGAZINE report in the buyer's guide, the best the DAUNTLESS 240 PRO with VERADO 350 can do is 2.2-MPG at 25.5-MPH. That number seemed really low. Usually I am admiring newer boats for their better fuel economy, as my old classic with a Whaler Drive is somewhat known for not being optimized for best fuel economy (but the ride is fantastic). The big gap between 2.2 and 2.7-MPG got me to visit BOSTONWHALER.COM to see what their test data showed.
Surprise, surprise, but at BOSTONWHALER.COM their test data shows the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO fuel economy peaks at 3.3-MPG at 27-MPH. That is what I expected: a modern hull, wider, no Whaler Drive appendage, should be more fuel efficient, even if a bit heavier.
It is troublesome that a magazine could get such divergent data from their testing compared to Boston Whaler's test data. I understand they might have been busy--they tested 97 boats for this special edition of the magazine. But what's the point of testing if the data is not very reliable? The difference between 3.3-MPG and 2.2-MPH is 1.1-MPG, and that is an error of 50-percent. Who puts any faith in data that is off by 50-percent?
I have more faith in Boston Whaler's performance data. They have been publishing detailed performance reports for years, and I have never heard of one of their boats being so far off from their published performance as BOATING Magazine suggests in their latest boat test report.
This is not the first time I have found performance data in BOATING Magazine tests that was questionable. In one test report about a boat powered with a VERADO, the engine was claimed to consume only 1-GPH of fuel at full throttle, making 300-HP. That mistake was so far off that it was rather easily spotted, but the data in the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO seem to be just off--off by 50-percent in the case of fuel economy--and might not be as easily noticed.
I haven't checked the data in the other 96 boat tests to see how it compares to manufacturer testing.
Whenever I see test report data, I like to look at the boat's fuel economy in miles-per-gallon, particularly if the boat is similar in size and horsepower to my boat. Here is a comparison of my boat, a REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive, to the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO:
LOA = 24-feet 3-inch / 24-feet 8-inch
BEAM = 7-feet 5-inch / 8-feet 6-inch
DRY WT = 2,600-lbs / 3,300-lbs
The 240 DAUNTLESS is 5-inches longer, a foot wider, and 700-lbs heavier.
My 1990 Boston Whaler REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive with a 225-HP E-TEC gets its best fuel economy at a cruising speed of about 27-MPH, when the engine and propeller and hull seem to be quite happy to operate; the fuel economy is 2.7-MPG and sometimes a bit higher, maybe 2.8-MPG.
According to the BOATING MAGAZINE report in the buyer's guide, the best the DAUNTLESS 240 PRO with VERADO 350 can do is 2.2-MPG at 25.5-MPH. That number seemed really low. Usually I am admiring newer boats for their better fuel economy, as my old classic with a Whaler Drive is somewhat known for not being optimized for best fuel economy (but the ride is fantastic). The big gap between 2.2 and 2.7-MPG got me to visit BOSTONWHALER.COM to see what their test data showed.
Surprise, surprise, but at BOSTONWHALER.COM their test data shows the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO fuel economy peaks at 3.3-MPG at 27-MPH. That is what I expected: a modern hull, wider, no Whaler Drive appendage, should be more fuel efficient, even if a bit heavier.
It is troublesome that a magazine could get such divergent data from their testing compared to Boston Whaler's test data. I understand they might have been busy--they tested 97 boats for this special edition of the magazine. But what's the point of testing if the data is not very reliable? The difference between 3.3-MPG and 2.2-MPH is 1.1-MPG, and that is an error of 50-percent. Who puts any faith in data that is off by 50-percent?
I have more faith in Boston Whaler's performance data. They have been publishing detailed performance reports for years, and I have never heard of one of their boats being so far off from their published performance as BOATING Magazine suggests in their latest boat test report.
This is not the first time I have found performance data in BOATING Magazine tests that was questionable. In one test report about a boat powered with a VERADO, the engine was claimed to consume only 1-GPH of fuel at full throttle, making 300-HP. That mistake was so far off that it was rather easily spotted, but the data in the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO seem to be just off--off by 50-percent in the case of fuel economy--and might not be as easily noticed.
I haven't checked the data in the other 96 boat tests to see how it compares to manufacturer testing.