1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

What is the worst Blunder Whaler has made in your opinion?
Joe Kriz	#1  Posted on 02/09/13 - 6:17 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	I have a great story and will elaborate more on this soon. In the meantime, think about your ideas and thoughts on this subject. I am locking this thread for now so everyone can think of something and give me time to post my worst thing I think Whaler has ever done. Edited by Joe Kriz on 02/10/13 - 12:43 AM
Joe Kriz	#2  Posted on 02/10/13 - 4:19 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Almost all companies have Blunders, or weird things that they have done. I am not blaming Whaler or anyone else here. It happens. This story is about approximately two hundred 16' 7" hulls that were labeled as 1976 year models, when in my mind, they should have been labeled 1975 year models. I almost purchased one of those models. See this list under "Actually a 1975 model": http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=17 Here is my personal story and memories of the year model that shouldn't have been and one I almost purchased: In the summer of 1975, I was looking to purchase my first Boston Whaler. At that time I was living about a mile from a Boston Whaler dealer so I stopped by frequently just to get an idea of what I wanted and what was available. I was partial to the Montauk and wondering how I could afford such a fine boat. I had no knowledge of Whalers at that time other then they were unsinkable and that is exactly what I wanted. I had never heard of Smirkless or Smirked even though the 13' models had come out recently with the Smirk. Still had no idea what that was or meant at that time. The 16' 7" models did not however, have the Smirk at that time, and I had no way of knowing of anything different coming in the near future. I priced the Montauk with and without the motor. I don't really remember the price with the motor but it was out of my reach at that time. Without the motor, if I remember correctly, was about $3,500.00. Still pricey for a college student and I would still have to come up with a motor. So, I started looking for a used Whaler and found a used 13' model that suited my needs and finances. Here is what I ended up buying instead of a Montauk. http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Sport1...ort13.html Fortunately for me I didn't buy a new 1975 or 1976 16' 7" hull at that time. This is where, in hindsight, I might have blown my cool if I would have bought that 1976 year model Montauk with a Smirkless hull. How would any of us liked to have purchased a brand new 1976 year model that still had the older Smirkless hull, only to find out 2 or 3 months later, that another brand new 1976 Smirked hull came out? I would have been outraged to say the least. How about you? This didn't happen in the Auto industry that I know of. You don't see two hundred 1956 Chevy's running around with 1955 bodies? (factory made anyway) So, same thing applies here as to the boat mentioned above. How would you liked to have purchased a new 1956 chevy, that had last years 1955 body, only to find out 2 or 3 months later that Chevy came out with a newer 1956 year model that had a new 1956 body? That would be pretty dissapointing to find out your 2 month old auto, or boat, really wasn't the newest year model even though it was a current 1956 model. The boating industry obviously is not the same as the auto industry. Why didn't Whaler list those approximately two hundred boats as 1975 year models? Did they not know a change was coming soon? Maybe the new molds for the Smirked hulls weren't quite ready for the August build and changeover for the REAL new 1976 year model? It just doesn't make sense to me and probably never will. Again, lucky for me I didn't purchase one of those two hundred 1976 Montauk models that really weren't the newest 1976 year models. I am not looking for answers here. (I know, some of you won't be able to resist). I am only voicing my joy that I didn't buy that new 1976 year model Montauk that, in my opinion, really wasn't. I know Whaler has had other changes in mid year. But 2 or 3 months? Even the Ford Falcon in mid year of 1963 was called a 1963 1/2 year model. They didn't call it a 1963 year Falcon model for a reason. Whaler could have done something similar but they didn't. Why not a 1975 1/2 year Montauk model? Maybe it would have been worth more and sought after like the 1963 1/2 year Ford Falcon? How many different bodies or hulls should one year model have? 1, 2, 3, or more? New 1976 year model, newer 1976 year model, newest of the new 1976 year model, etc., etc.. To have more then one version of a given year model like the Montauk, that is different from the others of the same year, just seems ridiculous to me. So, for me, this is the biggest Blunder I can think of that Whaler has done as I was almost invovled in this weirdness. Anyway, that is my story and I'm sticking to it. If you have any other similar stories you want to share, let us know.
docsoma	#3  Posted on 02/10/13 - 7:57 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 121 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/19/11	Joe, I suppose you might delete this post since it does not add a new story... But my impression of being on this site for the past 2 years or so is exactly what you describe....a company that loyal fans and great product notwithstanding seemed (till this century) to have a fairly casual approach to model changes. I do not know much about boats but I do know a little more about product platforms. When a company (small auto manufacturers are similar) has relatively unrelated products within their line and a haphazard new model launch schedule, it usually signals a poorly executed strategy and an unsustainable cost structure.
wannabe	#4  Posted on 02/10/13 - 8:49 PM
Member Posts: 287 Comments: 1 Joined: 06/03/09	I think their biggest blunder is using a single supplier for their outboards. I believe they lose sales because of it. I don't have a huge problem with Mercury, it's just Choice. Edited by wannabe on 02/10/13 - 8:52 PM Drew 1988 Outrage 18 - 1988 Yamaha 130 hp
gary0319	#5  Posted on 02/11/13 - 4:51 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 218 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/25/12	wannabe wrote: I think their biggest blunder is using a single supplier for their outboards. I believe they lose sales because of it. I don't have a huge problem with Mercury, it's just Choice. Since Brunswick Corporation owns both Boston Whaler and Mercury Marine, I don't think BW has much to say about which outboards go on their boats at this point. 1998 Dauntless 15 - 1998 Mercury 60
tedious	#6  Posted on 02/11/13 - 5:45 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1072 Comments: 2 Joined: 09/07/08	wannabe wrote: I think their biggest blunder is using a single supplier for their outboards. I believe they lose sales because of it. I don't have a huge problem with Mercury, it's just Choice. Agreed - I like the newer Montauks a lot, but there's no Mercury dealer near where I'd keep it, so it's a non-starter. I'm sure Brunswick has done the math, and what they gain in selling Mercurys more than makes up for their losses in not selling Whalers, but its a shame. Tim
Jeff	#7  Posted on 02/11/13 - 7:12 AM
Member Posts: 1987 Comments: 34 Joined: 04/02/05	When I hear the descriptor of "Blunder" used I think more on the side of poorly thought out engineering and design related items. Top of that list is the way Whaler designed and built the central fuel tank cavity as well as the rigging tunnels which promote water egress into the cavity where it is retained indefinitely. A company tripping over themselves during a model year design change-overs / facelifts with seemingly non-reasonable naming convention changes are often the effects of marketing and sales efforts. This practice is often seen in the Automotive and Tech industries today. Included in the sales and marketing arena is the decision to bundle a "Family" made outboard to a specific brand of outboard powered boats. Edited by Jeff on 02/11/13 - 7:13 AM 1993 23' Walkaround Whaler Drive
jlh49	#8  Posted on 02/11/13 - 8:53 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 92 Comments: 1 Joined: 02/25/07	Having owned two 22' Outrages during a 32 year period, the plastic gas tank experiment might be at the top of my list for Whaler blunders. However, once ownership changed and the primary objective became sales over customer satisfaction and/or product quality, the blunders became more abundant as reflected in the aforementioned posts. Edited by jlh49 on 02/11/13 - 8:56 AM
Joe Kriz	#9  Posted on 02/11/13 - 10:58 AM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	We have been trying to find out the exact boat that changed from a 1976 Smirkless hull to a 1976 Smirked hull. We have narrowed it down to 11 hulls. If you have any of the numbers listed below, or in this thread below, please let us know. http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...ad_id=9993 3B0353 3B0354 3B0355 3B0356 3B0357 3B0358 3B0359 3B0360 3B0361 3B0362 3B0363 From the list below, we can see how many of each hull were made. http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=17 1. 1976 Smirkless = approximately 150 hulls 2. 1976 Smirked = approximately 1150 hulls
jvz	#10  Posted on 02/11/13 - 1:40 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 215 Comments: 10 Joined: 03/16/07	Poor storage and accessability to work on the inside of a Center Console! As Jeff stated poor rigging as well. But then i have had Whalers all my life,....
critter52	#11  Posted on 02/11/13 - 2:42 PM
Member Posts: 6 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/11/12	I think the lack of a front deck like their bass boat model has hurt for years.
Finnegan	#12  Posted on 02/11/13 - 4:27 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	I agree with Jeff that the built-in/foamed-in, non-draining, fuel tank design of the 1973-1993 1st and 2nd generation Outrage/Revenge boats is the biggest blunder. From what I can tell, this is the most expensive and difficult repair needed on these boats. Included in this category is the related difficult repair of the plywood backing under the extremely heavy fuel tank cover. Another chonic problem (blunder) seems to be the BELOW WATERLINE 1" brass through-hulls, which quite easily corrode and let water into the surrounding hull foam, especially in saltwater conditions. The o-ring gasket and crimp is part of this problem.
butchdavis	#13  Posted on 02/11/13 - 4:27 PM
Member Posts: 838 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/22/11	I support limiting sales to boats with Mercury power as a major blunder. Butch
realter	#14  Posted on 02/11/13 - 5:04 PM
Member Posts: 4 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/17/10	Brunswick owns Lund and you can spec out a Honda motor right on the "build your own Lund" page on the website.This is the first year that is possible.
Finnegan	#15  Posted on 02/11/13 - 5:41 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	From my perspective, I think the smartest thing Whaler ever did was installing Mercury outboards. Most of the older used Whalers all have OMC engines on them, which I am not particularly fond of. I have bought two used 70's era OMC powered Whalers and had to get rid of the obsolete blind hole mounted engines to suit my preference for Mercury, even though the engines were VERY low hours and in good shape. It was a lot of transom hole filling work. So the engine thing goes both ways. I know someone who passed on a Regulator, and bought a Whaler, because he would not own their mandatory tie-in Japanese engine (Yamaha), and wanted Verados. Grady White probably loses sales to Whaler for the same reason. And I've seen many Gradys repowered with Mercury or Evinrude, which probably means the buyer did not initially want, or like, the Yamahas. I know a Yamaha guy who bought another brand center console with a mandatory Mercury Verado tie-in, and now loves the Verados. Edited by Finnegan on 02/11/13 - 5:44 PM
ritzyrags	#16  Posted on 02/12/13 - 9:19 AM
Member Project Albums Posts: 1003 Comments: 36 Joined: 06/18/08	There no doubt that from my point of view here on The Very West Coast That in using the proverbial Should .... Could ....and Would....within my thousands of weekly decisions; That I would be living in Paris by now... No point in going too heavy on the hindsight mode in this instance here. BUT.. The Whaler name, rich in it's past seems to have forgotten; or just possibly lost some of the Original Soul and Feeling; of being part of a traditional boating culture in delighting me in bringing those splendid and precious offerings from the seventies and eighties. To begin from the top and observing the politics of the early days, Ideologies and influence in design involving salaried incomes has seen the Whaler birth with the Dick Fisher era involving his "innovative manufacturing techniques" providing us with the 13" Selling the company in 1969 Bob Dougherty signing on as chief designer in early sixties evolved the designs by bringing his own mentality in play. And so through the obvious and not so apparent effects of several ownerships the Whaler name has consequently evolved in what it has come to be today.. Space age all "plastic clones" that have lost the style and personalities of the Classic earlier models. There may be some truth in seeing that some of us have decided to go to different brands such as Grady Whites in practicality and affordability while still swearing by the Whaler brand names offered today. I am convinced that this subject is ripe with realities concerning our lives in the 2013 era and will be long debated bringing to light some excellent details involving the venerable "Old Days" concerning the brand name.. Dont lie Dont Cheat And dont give up..
Weatherly	#17  Posted on 03/01/13 - 7:56 AM
Member Posts: 752 Comments: 4 Joined: 12/31/06	I elicited the opinion of my 77 year old friend who worked at Boston Whaler Rockland, MA factory from 1959-1982, regarding the notion of Blunders. his commentary is chronological: It was a blunder for Boston Whaler to use BX cable in the 1960's production of the 13 hull. The cable, designed to vent air during injection of foam, cause rust on the exterior hull. It was a blunder to use a foreign source of polyurethane during the 1973 oil crisis. The resin did not cure properly and caused blisters and weeping on the exterior hull. The production of a red gelcoat hull was short lived and perhaps a blunder because the dark color gelcoat faded badly and/or oxidized quickly, sometimes in less than 3-5 years. During the CML days, the "Harvard Boys" that made up the management team thought they could transition Boston Whaler Rockland MA to a 4 day work week, so that everyone had more time to enjoy leisure time activities. At the same time, CML struggled to manage the other less profitable companies it owned in the "leisure time" industry. Edited by Weatherly on 03/01/13 - 3:37 PM
ritzyrags	#18  Posted on 03/01/13 - 4:34 PM
Member Project Albums Posts: 1003 Comments: 36 Joined: 06/18/08	Thanks for the comments Weatherly. I have enjoyed your Friend recollections in regard to the background history on the past manufacturing efforts in {:> making Boston Whaler what it was in the Hey Days. These are the type of background history details that I cant never get enough of. Dont lie Dont Cheat And dont give up..
dgoodhue	#19  Posted on 03/02/13 - 11:14 AM
Member Posts: 278 Comments: 0 Joined: 10/04/05	IMO Whalers biggest blunder was being purchase by Reebok. Dave
Binkie	#20  Posted on 03/03/13 - 9:27 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 2012 Comments: 0 Joined: 12/19/05	Well, I wasn't there so I can't say this story is absolute fact, but I have read it many times from different sources. In the fall of 1957, when Dick Fisher and Ray Hunt the designer, took their prototype 13 foot Whaler out for some long distance test runs on Long Island Sound on a windy day, they found that the boat basically beat the hell out of them at speed, and porpoised wildly at mid speed. What to do now, as production was soon to be started. Ray recommended they add a hook to the bottom at the stern, and call it good. No testing was ever done on the "new" hooked bottom, the boat went into production, and the rest is history. I don't think any other boat was designed with an intentionally hooked bottom. Over the years we learned to move the interior froward about 6" inches to improve their blunder. rich