I have been researching boats for a little while now and made the trek to my local dealer (an hour away). They had a few models in stock to look at - Impact, Rebel, Tyee, and ProV. My goal in the trek was to compare features and learn more about the boats - to that point I was successful in my quest. After getting home I have some more questions.
I do have a big question - one concern I have is the integrity of the hull. The salesmen mentioned different layerings in the different hulls/models - double layers and triple layers. If I understand him correctly, all the boats have a triple layer hull at the bow. How far back that transitions to a double layer depends on the model. Does this make much sense?
What brings up my question is the design of the Alaskan - one of the obvious design differences between that and a comparatively sized boat of another model line is that it is a lighter boat and takes a comparatively smaller motor. For example, the 20'6" Alaskan 2000 is spec'd for a 125hp motor and the 19'1" Tyee 1900 is spec'd for a 200hp motor. From an efficiency standpoint, it would make sense to go with the Alaskan being the lighter/smaller HP option. Getting back to the hull design - how is the integrity of the Alaskan hull compared to the Tyee, or other lines? I am under the impression that the transom design/strength has more to do with the HP rating than anything, but factoring in the comparatively lighter design of the Alaskan is it less durable of a boat?
My first thoughts have been that, again from an efficiency standpoint, the Alaskan would be the better option, but another concern I have is the integrity of the hull. If it is noticeably easier to poke (running in to a rock, easy to do on our lake) it may not be the better choice. The bigger boats go faster, also, but that isn't my primary attribute.
Speaking of power - my salesmen seemed to be of the opinion that 2 stoke motors were better over all with the newer direct oil injection, vs. a comparable 4 stroke. As to fuel efficiency he seemed to think it was a wash between them. If the 2 strokes are consuming oil as well, then that is another consumable/expense that has to be factored in to the equation besides just fuel. I don't care about acceleration, or really top end speed, I just want to cruise at 35mph without going WOT and to be able to get on plane and back off the power for efficiency. My salesman's' idea was to get a 2 stroke for running and a 4 stroke kicker for idling around. My ideal set up would have a kicker anyway - the last thing I'd want is to be out on the lake with no way to get home if something went really wrong with the main motor.
I do have a big question - one concern I have is the integrity of the hull. The salesmen mentioned different layerings in the different hulls/models - double layers and triple layers. If I understand him correctly, all the boats have a triple layer hull at the bow. How far back that transitions to a double layer depends on the model. Does this make much sense?
What brings up my question is the design of the Alaskan - one of the obvious design differences between that and a comparatively sized boat of another model line is that it is a lighter boat and takes a comparatively smaller motor. For example, the 20'6" Alaskan 2000 is spec'd for a 125hp motor and the 19'1" Tyee 1900 is spec'd for a 200hp motor. From an efficiency standpoint, it would make sense to go with the Alaskan being the lighter/smaller HP option. Getting back to the hull design - how is the integrity of the Alaskan hull compared to the Tyee, or other lines? I am under the impression that the transom design/strength has more to do with the HP rating than anything, but factoring in the comparatively lighter design of the Alaskan is it less durable of a boat?
My first thoughts have been that, again from an efficiency standpoint, the Alaskan would be the better option, but another concern I have is the integrity of the hull. If it is noticeably easier to poke (running in to a rock, easy to do on our lake) it may not be the better choice. The bigger boats go faster, also, but that isn't my primary attribute.
Speaking of power - my salesmen seemed to be of the opinion that 2 stoke motors were better over all with the newer direct oil injection, vs. a comparable 4 stroke. As to fuel efficiency he seemed to think it was a wash between them. If the 2 strokes are consuming oil as well, then that is another consumable/expense that has to be factored in to the equation besides just fuel. I don't care about acceleration, or really top end speed, I just want to cruise at 35mph without going WOT and to be able to get on plane and back off the power for efficiency. My salesman's' idea was to get a 2 stroke for running and a 4 stroke kicker for idling around. My ideal set up would have a kicker anyway - the last thing I'd want is to be out on the lake with no way to get home if something went really wrong with the main motor.