Mako Vs Whaler

Oakgrove Boater · May 24, 2003

I may be asking a question that has been answered before on this board. How do the middle to late 80's Whalers(19 feet or so) compare with a late 90's Mako. The cost appears about the same and the Mako would have a newer motor.

JB · May 25, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Ahoy, TI. Makos are very good boats and often rigged more conveniently for fishing, but I am a Boston Whaler man. I find the fit and finish, quality of materials, etc. better on the Whalers, and there is no substitute for unsinkability. Buying a used boat, the condition and make of the engine is important. By the time the engine is 5 or 6 years old, the age is immaterial and condition becomes the top concern. Repowering can be the largest part of the cost of a boat if it is needed. I usually consider the value of an older engine only a few hundred bux when buying a boat. If the engine is a good one, that is a bonus. If not I can repower without breaking the bank. Good luck.

BillP · May 25, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Structual integrity goes to the BW but a Mako will probably take everything you will give it too. If you want to fish tourneys or go on organized events, Mako has the best organization around. Nobody comes close to Mako's owner group in this respect. Unlike JB, I am not a BW fan. Only because their hull design doesn't fit my use. A Mako is more my style but I don't own one...maybe someday if I decide to join a boating group.

JerseyJim · May 25, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

boston whaler 17' montauk. enough said.

skiffer · May 25, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Whaler is the most over-rated boat out there. I couldn't wait to get rid of the last one I owned - great in flat water (but then all boats are great in flat water) but put it in a chop and slap, bang - hold on to your dentures. Useless, actually dangerous, in a heavy sea. As far a unsinkability goes - scuse me but I thought all boats had to comply with Coast Guard requirements against sinkability? Whaler might get an edge in this regard if you ever want to saw your boat in half. I wouldn't buy another one.

BUAKMA · May 25, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

T.I, I've owned a Mako since 96 and it's the perfect boat for my fishing needs. I bought the smallest one, the 171, and it's great for lakes and calm days on the ocean. A friend of mine owned a BW while we where stationed in MA. and it was a great boat until it got choppy. I would suggest a Mako. Fishabilty they are both about the same, but I think you get more boat for your money with a Mako. Mine may be for sale if I can trick my wife into letting me buy a bigger one.

11 footer · May 26, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Lisen, Boston Whaler's are the best boats ever built. Take a 17' whaler and match it up with any other boat brand of the same size. Skiffer, you must have a whaler that was about 17' or smaller. However big your whaler was, tell me the name of any other boat builder that makes a boat the same size that would ride better then your old whaler in choppy water.....untill you can do so you should stop bashing whalers. T I smith, Get the Whaler, nuff said. Edit: Deleted some rude comments. You know better than that, Ryan. JB

JerseyJim · May 26, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

i agree with ryan t. Find me any 13' boat to compare it to, and my little 45 year old whaler will get you there in bigger slop than anything around. Its a slow pig compared to the aluminum boats of the same size, but you cant mount a 40 horse on an aluminum boat. whalers may pound a bit in the slop but so will anything - if the boat is pounding you are going too fast for the conditions!! a 50' hatteras will pound if you run it at 40knots in 15' seas!!!

BillP · May 26, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Ryan T. Don't confuse quality of construction with ride in rough water. Skiffer's explaination of a 17' whaler's ride is dead nuts on. This has nothing to do with his axx or foot. He is talking real boat riding experience...same conclusions as mine. The list of boats that ride better than whalers is a mile long. Just about any 17'cc deep vee hull of same beam AND weight will ride smoother. Why do you think BW has been gradually changing all of their hull designs from tri to mono? Hint...ride. The new BW 320 Outrage is almost (but not quite)a full fledged deep vee monohull? Ride is pushing this design. Give another 5 years and they will be conventional deep vees like all the others. Jersey Jim, 13s don't pound "a bit", they pound lot and are possibly the wettest boat I've ever ridden in. They are slugs too. You have it right, slow a whaler down to have a good ride.

skiffer · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Ryan T: You may be correct, perhaps I don't know my a$$ from my foot (my wife says so all the time), but I think I do know my boats. I have owned and used the following boats circa 1947 to present: 12' wood cat boat 12' wooden skiff with 5hp Scott Atwater 12' Old Town dinghy with 5hp Scott Atwater. 16' Town Class sailboat 12' plywood runabout with 10 hp Johnson 26' wood sharpie ketch with 8hp Volvo inboard 8' plywood dinghy (all I could afford when in grad school) 18' wood Novie with 25hp Evinrude 15' Marshall Sandpiper 30' Tartan 12' Zodiac 15' Boston Whaler 15' Valley Selkie sea kayak 14' Old Town canoe 16' Stur-dee skiff with 25hp Mercury In addition, I have sailed and/or worked aboard: The Canadian Ice Breaker "John Cabot" The USGS "Albatross" The WHOI "Alvin" The WHOI "Lulu" 30' Friendship Sloop "Dirigo" countless small boats owned by friends and relatives The above list includes more losers than I wish to admit but, in my unbiased opinion, the 15' Whaler was the worst of the lot. My kids loved it for waterskiing in the river in front of my house here in Duxbury, MA but once you took it out of the confines of the bay it was one miserable SOB. As I stated in earlier and much maligned post, I wouldn't buy another.

skiffer · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Ryan T: Sorry, I forgot to answer your question: ----------------------------- "tell me the name of any other boat builder that makes a boat the same size that would ride better then your old whaler in choppy water" ----------------------------- In my list above I mentioned an 18' wood Novi. I had that built by a gentleman in Shag Harbor Nova Scotia out of oak, pine and spruce. It cost me $775 brand new, painted, sans motor. It was a wonderful boat; would get up on a plane easily with a 25hp Evinrude 2 stroke and 2 adults, 3 kids and a Labrador retiever. It nicely handled any chop, slop or seas I ever encountered between Vinalhaven Maine and Nantucket. It was beautiful to look at too with a nicely planked quarter deck and a graceful tumblehome toward the stern. I stupidly sold it to a lobster fisherman from Marshfield because at the time we were sailing a Tartan 30 and nobody was using the Novi. I tried to have another built recently but the builder died shortly after building my first one. He was 94. I understand a new builder has taken over the moulds but he will build only one a year and his price has gone up to $4,000 Canadian (apx $2,800 US). If you want his name I can give it to you. Skiffer

JB · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Skiffer. As I commented above, comfort and seaworthiness are not often found in the same small boat. Generalized bashing of a product is not really welcome here. Nor are rude comments such as Ryan has demonstrated. If comfort is your top priority, don't get a Whaler or learn to helm a boat in cooperation with the sea rather than oppose it. Like you, I have been boating for nearly 60 years and piloted many, many different boats. That we disagree only proves that opinions and priorities differ. Nothing more.

11 footer · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Skiffer, I'm sorry you feel that way about whalers. Good luck with boating in the future.

BillP · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

All I can say is no boat is perfect (I know THAT is questionable)...I did't take anything posted as generalized bashing...except for the name calling by a sensitive protector of the BW faith.

TI Smith asked for information and received pros and cons on both. Please inject humor where possible when reading this summary... BW Pro: higher quality superior to all boats highly satisfied customers best ride unsinkable fishable old ones last a long time buy one JB is moderator

not a Mako Con: over rated worst ride not so satisfied customers go slow when rough pounder less comfort tri hull wouldn't buy another makes RYAN T. cuss Skiffer & BillP are not moderators

not a Mako Mako Pro: very durable best for organized events satisfied customer might buy one might buy another unsinkable comfortable vee hull ride best boat for money fishable go river or ocean not a BW

Con: less quality not a BW

Residual Takes:

Current BW owners = no other boat good enough

Current Mako owner = very satisfied Previous BW owners = pounding an issue TI Smith = should be totally confused and will decide to buy a 1965 Sears boat with Elgin motor (needs work but reported as the best boat ever)

JB · May 27, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Thanks, Bill. I enjoy your sense of humor.

One "yabut": I think Skiffer is the only previous BW owner who exressed dissatisfaction.

skiffer · May 28, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

jb: You write: ------------------------------------- "As I commented above, comfort and seaworthiness are not often found in the same small boat." ------------------------------------- My experience has been just the opposite - the seaworthy boats are generally the most comfortable. I believe this is because a seaworthy hull is essentially a displacement hull or a hybrid displacement/planing design. The unseaworthy boats, in my experience, are the planing hulls such as BW, Mariner, Carolina Skiff etc and these are often the most uncomfortable. This is because the modern planing hulls are meant to do just that - plane - and that results in pounding, slapping and a rough ride in anything but flat water. The lack of seaworthiness in these hulls is a result of the fact that you reach a limit in sea height where you can no longer plane. Then you have to take the boat off plane and you end up with a rig that is often highly unseaworthy. At least that's the experience I have had with my BW 15, my nephew's BW Montauk 17 and many other similar hull designs. The results can be more than just a loss of comfort: A fellow in my home town lost both legs in such a boat. He and two friend were cruising along off the Vineyard when they hit an abnormally large wave. The impact tossed all three out of the boat into the water. The boat kept going, circled back and cut off the guy's legs. Fortunately his friend got him to the beach and were able to tie on tourniquets. As far as making blanket statements goes, isn't that what forums such as this are for, to exchange ideas and opinions? Anyone who's too immature to handle negative opinions about their boat needs to grow up. And Ryan T - there are a lot of good boats out there besides BW's. You're not a BW dealer are you?

JB · May 28, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

Ahoy, Skiffer. Gotta comment on the accident. Was that a Whaler? In my experience it takes real talent, and intent, to be tossed from a Montauk with its waist high rails and so many places to grab. It also takes a certain sense of immortality to not hook up the kill lanyard in even light seas. I suspect that those guys were in an open, non-Whaler being operated foolishly and maybe even drunk. USCG stats on causes of on-water casualties would make your hair stand on end. All other causes combined don't approach alcohol. Not even a Whaler forgives stupidity all the time. Many years ago, momentarily distracted by my comely companion I buried the bow of my Montauk in green water and swamped her to the splashwell. The engine, of course, was unaffected. When I applied power she stood on her stern and dumped most of the water over the transom. The rest exited via the drain (on plane, quartering the sea) and she was dry in about 30 seconds. Without the Montauk's excess bouyancy I doubt that many boats could have done that. Most would have become instant derelicts with 2 MOB. I guess that experience demonstrates my view of seaworthiness. A comment on operation. Most that I have observed pick a destination point, aim at it and shoot, then complain about the pounding and blame the boat. That is sort of like running through the woods with your eyes closed. There are trees there, and if you don't alter heading appropriately you will whack a few. If you cooperate with the terrain you will be a lot more comfortable. Likewise, if you cooperate with the sea you will be a lot more comfortable.

skiffer · May 28, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

jb: You write: --------------------------- "I buried the bow of my Montauk in green water and swamped her to the splashwell" --------------------------- In my opinion, that's a good illustration of lack of seaworthiness in BW's and similar hull designs - not enough bouyancy in the bow, not enough freeboard in the bow. It also illustrates my point - you were probably trying to keep the boat up on a plane and pushing it too hard for the existing sea conditions. Your only other option would be to take it off plane, then you've got a wallowing pig on your hands (not your "comely" companion, your boat). By the way, were you: --------------------------- "...in an open, non-Whaler being operated foolishly and maybe even drunk." --------------------------- ??? .

JB · May 28, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

As a matter of fact, I was trolling nearly abeam the running seas (more like swells), not wallowing. The one that broke over the bow was a wake from a big Hatteras that crossed my bow at about 100'. I never drink alcohol on the water, or even allow alcohol aboard. I always wear the lanyard and type II PFD when underway. A Montauk is an open Boston Whaler 17 (16'7") CC with 270* of waist-high rail. (I thought you said you had one

) We seem to have totally derailed TI's thread. I hope he has found our exchange helpful anyway.

skiffer · May 28, 2003

Re: Mako Vs Whaler

jb: I had a 15' BW Supersport. My nephew has the Montauk. My back is still sore from the last time he took me out in it to No Man's Land Island chasing blues. In the narrative about the guy getting his legs cut off, that's a true story, happened here about 10 yrs ago, probably pre-lanyard law which would account for the boat not stopping. As far as alcohol being involved, I doubt it. Not that people around here don't drink on boats, but because in this state the laws for drinking in boats are the same as for drinking in cars. If there had been alcohol involved a big deal would have been made of it in the press and the driver probably would have spent a few years in the slammer. I suppose the argument of traditional vs modern hull designs is endless. What I do see, however, is that around here the professionals who work on the water seem to use traditional hulls, but of course they're not concerned about speed. The kids waterskiing in the rivers and bays use Whalers, Mariners, Carolina Skiffs and Edgewaters, at least I see a lot of them around zipping back and forth in front of my house. Sport fishermen seem to be switching over to more modified displacement/planing and deep V hulls such as you find in Grady White's. In the small boat category, there are options to the Whaler style hull. I'm thinking of the Bristol 17 (www.holbymarine.com/bskiff.htm), Stur-dee 16 (www.stur-deeboat.com) and Amesbury skiff (www.lowellsboatshop.org). They're all updated versions of traditional dory-style skiffs. They get up on a plane easily but have high freeboard and seakindly hulls so they handle well when not on a plane. Slow it down and you have a traditional displacement hull; speed it up and you have a planing hull. They're dry too.

Mako Vs Whaler

Cadet

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Captain

Petty Officer 2nd Class

Seaman

Recruit

Lieutenant

Petty Officer 2nd Class

Captain

Seaman

Seaman

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Lieutenant

Captain

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Seaman

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Seaman

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Seaman