The width trend on new aluminum boats vs length.

Originally Posted by tikka

I want to buy a new boat and I am faced with tough choices. I currently own a 2004 Lund Alaskan 1600SS with a heavy Honda BF75 (385lbs). The back of the boat is dragging the bottom of the lake because there is too much weight at the back on a short and relatively narrow boat (65’’ chine). On the same note, my dad has an old 1986 Lund SSV Alaskan 18 with a flat bottom, Yamaha 2 stroke 70HP and 2 stroke kicker (total 280lbs) and his boat sits pretty leveled, even if the boat is narrower…. So I am thinking the length of the boat helps “leveling” the boat, but when looking at new rigs, they are all fat and short!?
Manufacturers cannot all be wrong? Can someone explain me why boats are wider (I am thinking heavier 4strokes) but yet are fairly short?
I have 3 boats on my list: #1 – Alumacraft Competitor 165CS with Yamaha F70 and T8. #2 – G3 V170 with Yamaha F70 and T8. #3 Crestliner Kodiak 18CS, Honda BFM60 and BF8. I would like to go to 19’ or 20’, but width kills it. With your experience, which one will be sitting the most leveled on the water?
Thanks

I'm thinking of buying a 2004 Alaskan 16 with a 75 hp ETEC. I think the motor weighs 320 lb. From what you're saying, would this boat have a difficult time planing? Is this motor too heavy for the boat?

[Nimstug]

Originally Posted by NMG

I'm honestly not sure where the fuel tank sits but the fill is in the back corner so I'm guessing it's the the back half of the boat....

It's in the floor from about where you step up to the bow back to almost where the seat pedestals are...

[Hot Runr Guy]

Originally Posted by Trego

I'm thinking of buying a 2004 Alaskan 16 with a 75 hp ETEC. I think the motor weighs 320 lb. From what you're saying, would this boat have a difficult time planing? Is this motor too heavy for the boat?

THis rig? http://minnesota.freeboatshopper.com...an-1600ss.html

You'll be fine w/the 75 E-TEC on that hull, it only weighs 815lbs, so it will definately get up and go with the DFI 2-stroke.

Like any used boat, you should take it for an on-water test, and see how she handles.

HRG

[Burr]

The new 1600 Alaskans are significantly wider than the 2004 you have.

You could probably just upgrade the boat in model year, and get the performance your lacking, but that would not solve any 2-foot-I-tis.

[KSauers]

Originally Posted by Burr

The new 1600 Alaskans are significantly wider than the 2004 you have.

You could probably just upgrade the boat in model year, and get the performance your lacking, but that would not solve any 2-foot-I-tis.

Only 2 inches diff. 79 to 81 now.

[Burr]

Originally Posted by KSauers

Only 2 inches diff. 79 to 81 now.

yeah, I see the 65 inches he referenced was either a different measurement, or inaccurate.

Perhaps he was referencing the water line width, not the gunnel width. I believe there may have been some design changes there too since 2004 that came with incorporating the IPS hull.

I know the 20' Alaskans are tremendously stable boats, but have little experience with the 16 foot Alaskans.

[tikka]

The 65'' measure is the Chine width, and the hull is a TLVB, not the curent IPS hull. The ETEC is still 65 pounds less than the BF75.
Trego, if you are looking in buying a 2004 Lund Alaskan, I wouls strongly suggest to pay extra attention to the wood parts on this boat. Carefully inspect floor, side storages, and more importantly take the time to unscrew the transom cap and try to inspect wood, to look for any dampness or rotten areas. It seems to me quality of components is not quite what it used to. That is why Alumacraft is on top of my list...

[tikka]

Thanks T Mac for this explanation. Makes lots of sense, and the snowmobile reference really hits home!