|
|
Posts: 3
| I'm looking to upgrade my 16 ft aluminum side console to a bigger glass boat.
My main bodies of water are the St Croix/Miss. Rivers and Lake Minnetonka. I also need something that could handle occasional trips on the Great Lakes, Mille Lacs as well as smaller lakes in Northern Wis.
Size range I'm looking for is 17.5 to 19.0, with a preference for a single console at under 18' and dual console over 18'.
This boat will be used as a family boat with small kids, so it will need a 25" transom and inside depth of at least 24". Also need 4 seat bases in the cockpit area for family fishing and the ability to add a rear casting deck when casting for muskies with a partner.
So far I've considered Ranger and Tuffy.
For Ranger, I ruled out the 1860 angler because it has no rear casting deck options and while the 619 seems to have most of what I'm looking for, it is a little bigger than what I'd like (over 19'). The 618T model in a console would be great, but they don't make one.
For Tuffy, the 1760 esox side console looks like a good candidate on the smaller end of the size range, but it looks like they only have 3 seat bases in the cockpit (I could have swore this model had 4 bases several years ago, so maybe there has been a change????)
I'm also considering the 1890 esox, but my only concern here is that its too big to launch on smaller lakes in Northern Wis.
Am I missing any other options here? Any opinions or input would be appreciated |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Tuffy 1760 can be configured to accept 4 seats, utilizing two seat slides that adjust the seats over the rear livewell a bit.
The 1890 is definitely not too big to launch on smaller waters, I ran that hull for two seasons up here and fished all my favorite puddles with no launch or load issues. Norm Wild runs one now, and is allover Vilas and Oneida. For open fishing and a great price, look at the 1760 GC and 1890 GC models, still with deep enough interiors to meet your needs. Tuffy has special programs in place right now that will save you as much as 15% off last year's standard pricing.
Give a dealer a call and talk this over with them, I'm sure they can answer any questions you might have.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| ranger could sell a lot more 1860s if they offered a removable rear casting deck. 4 seats for kids and take 2 out and add deck for musky/bass fishing. i am in the same boat but smaller lakes. 619 also bigger than i want (don't need a large bore 6 cylinder gas hog). really liked the 1860 when i drove it with a etec 175 but no rear casting deck has prevented me from pulling the trigger. the new lund 1975 has a rear casting deck than is just about right and 4 cockpit seats but $$$. the 1890 is about the same size as a 619. dont like how much wasted space is present on the back/transom area of the 1890. x190 would work great for me but not the kids (shallow side walls and tight in back with rear casting deck in place).
Edited by badger 3/8/2010 6:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
Location: west allis, wi | i have a ranger reata 1850 - the pre angler series boat....no one has ever complained about the rear fishing deck while musky or bass fishing....my only complaint is the small live well and 7'-0" max rod storage only - not sure if the 1860 solved those items or not... the smaller rear area is great if you do trolling on the great lakes or trolling in general for that matter...i have a kicker and a large rear deck would be an interference to me....i love the removable carpet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| Looked at the 1860. Great with lots of room. Also, it did not seem to hard to build custom rear casting deck if you are creative and handy. Thats what I would do. However, look to save a ton of dough and find a nice used 618vs if the 619vs is too big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Otsego, MN | I owned a 618vs and way to small for a family, it's to narrow and the inside depth it not there. That's why I don't own one anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'dont like how much wasted space is present on the back/transom area of the 1890'
The entire transom and splashwell of the 1890 is usable and fishable as is the top surface of the livewell. Can't stand in the splashwell of any other glass brand. Where is the 'wasted space'? I've owned and fished two 1890's.
Tight in back with the rear casting deck...of course. One chooses to have the big rear casting deck or not, and...it takes about 5 minutes to make the change in the garage from huge rear casting deck to 4 seats and an open cockpit. Also, the 1890 splashwell was shortened by 6" and the cockpit expanded by the same a year ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Have you checked out the new Lund fiberglass boats? I've heard good things about them from a few people and they might be less expensive than the boats you are looking at. Here is a link:
http://www.lundboats.com/Showroom/2009/Fiberglass/
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Indiana | I bought a 1860 last year for the family and didn't have any problems with the smaller rear deck. We even had 5 adults and two three year olds fishing out of the boat last year. My wife and brother-in-law were on the back deck, father-in-law in rear seat, sister-in-law, three year olds on the front deck and I was running the trolling motor. My wife and I were the only ones with boat/fishing experience. Oh yeah I forgot the newborn.
I've also had more experienced fisherman on the rear deck while casting for Musky and they never thought the space was too small. I bought the I-pilot for my trolling motor so I imagine I'll be spending more time back there and I'm not worried. If your in rough water the front deck is large enough for two guys to cast as well.
Edited by Biddler2 3/9/2010 1:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I love it - one somewhat critical comment from a Tuffy owner and a quick response that his opinion is wrong. Typical! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, the person has or had bad information about the product. It's my job to see that is corrected. I'd also point out badger didn't express he currently owns a Tuffy. If incorrect information was expressed in this thread on a Lund, I'd do the same. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Otsego, MN | A good 18 foot boat that might fit your needs is a Skeeter. There 18 foot model is quite a boat as well. I think a lot of people run the 150 on that rig or you can run up to a 200. |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | Guest:
Sign in, then comment. Otherwise, SSssshhhhh ....... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| i have used a 1890 but do not own one - nice boat. i just dont think it uses all the space in the back as well as a ranger 619. look at norm wilds add - i don't like the vertical bar immediately behind the rear carpeted deck/livewell. why is that needed? the space between the back of the boat to the carpeted back deck is also much less on a 619 than the tuffy (the space behind the bar i am speaking of). makes the tuffy seem a foot shorter than an equivalent length ranger inside. go to the ranger web site and pick the 619 and look at the picture of the back deck extension. no wasted space on the back. also it is all level to the back fiberglass. also i don't feel the tuffy's are finished to the level of a ranger - getting better but not there yet. however, the tuffy's lower price reflects that. i think most would agree with that statement. it does not take long in a ranger to see where the extra money goes.
if price was not an issue and i spent any regular time on big water as well as smaller lakes i would get a 619 (or 620). for less $$$ the equivalent tuffy. the rangers are just finished above the competition. however the back on a 619 is not as useful for the family as say an open model such as the 1860 or tuffy 1890 without casting deck. i just feel a removeable casting deck option on the 1860 would be a great family boat. i have size 15 feet and fishing for muskies at night on the back deck of an 1860 is not anywhere as easy as on a 619 with rear deck or a 1890 with the rear decks. i am considering the ranger 1860, used 619, used prov 1975 with back extension, and tuffy 1890 (even with my reservations above) but am leaning heavily towards a new 1860 or used 619. the 1860 has a more shallow v which would be better for the family uses on smaller wi lakes (200-3500 acres) (lower speed to plane, better fuel milage, less wake, smaller motor). It also steers easier at low speeds (pulling kids speeds) and planes at lower kid towing speeds than the 619's i have driven (as a reference i test drove a 1860 and 2 619's back to back to back (etec 175, proxs225, 225ho). The 619 has a much bigger/better back deck with extension in place and is just a darn nice boat all around. for 50k it better be!!! There is a new 1890 for sale for 35. really not comparing apples to apples in my opinion. the 1890 and 1860 seem to be at the same price point. I am not an expert on the 1890 but it looks to have a v similiar in profile to the 619. If i was under a budget below 40k and fished bigger and smaller waters with and without kids it would be a new 1890 or used 619. If you are willing to give up the back deck space for more room for kids the 1860 new. The 1860 is also finished very well for a boat in the 30's (in todays economy they are going for less than 40K with terrova 24v and high quality graph). A 619 will hit 50k with any decent electronics. i am in your same shoes - i want to spend 35k but want a boat with a removable rear casting deck for fishing vs family time. 3 young kids. just like how the rangers are finished but can't justify spending 50k on a new 619. need to find out if justencase will build a system for the 1860 to add a foot or more to the back deck.
I respect everyone's opinions but my only reservation on the 1860 remains the rear deck. It is just not in the same class as the 619 or 1890 with rear deck. i understand why ranger built it that way - more space for 4 chairs. However, when you get a big fish on it is nice to have more room to maneuver before the net man and fish are ready to be caught. night fishing is easier too. i wonder if ranger does not offer a 1860 rear deck because it would compete with the 619 at a much lower price point???
my 2 cents
Edited by badger 3/9/2010 8:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | I am a Tuffy Owner (2002 1700 Osprey) . Not on the pro staff, or Tuff Team. I will say the fit and finish on a Ranger is better than a Tuffy, but that does not justify the huge price difference in my opinion. If I won the lottery and $ was not an issue, I would probably buy a Ranger. Otherwise, for the $, you simply can't beat a Tuffy. That is my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'i don't like the vertical bar immediately behind the rear carpeted deck/livewell. why is that needed?'
That's the splashwell. If the well isn't there and one takes some water over the 25" transom coming off plane or in heavy trailing water ( the 1890 is a big water walleye rig first, and a big water Esox rig second), it needs to drain to the outside of the boat....not the inside by USCG regs since the hull isn't a self bailer, and that belly band is beveled on both sides so it isn't a 'tripper'.
Here's an image of the 1890, please look at the floor plan.
http://www.tuffyboats.com/boats/1890
The 1890 splashwell is an even measure across the rear, and is finished in anti-skid that actually covers up the pretty polyflake for a reason...so one can stand in it, and the laminate thickness back there is easily 4 times that of the competition for the same reasons. It's even height with the livewell, battery storage, and oil tank access. Every square inch of that splashwell that isn't taken up by the motor (Tuffy designed it to use a minimum of rear cockpit area) can be walked on and fished from; that's the difference I was pointing out.
Please look at this image of a Ranger 1860: http://www.rangerboats.com/flash/floorplan.cfm?mid=5767&gid=36
What you see in the rear of that rig is the splashwell, and it's raised as much or more than the 1890 'bar'. It's actually a bit wider in the center in the motor well than the 2010 1890, and isn't very fishable, especially if it's at all rough.
Here's the 619:
http://www.rangerboats.com/flash/floorplan.cfm?mid=5746&gid=35
Same rear design, only a little more area is used for the splashwell and motorwell port and starboard and note the 'oval' on both sides...that's space that is rear deck on the 1890.
Compare the front deck in the 1860 to the 619 and 1890. Another consideration is the 1860 is carried at standard on a single axle trailer instead of a dual. The difference in cost of the trailer alone is in the thousands of dollars.
Tuffy builds the rigs they offer as a more utilitarian rig...compare a mid-level F150 to a Denali. There's a market for both.
One more observation; dead rise in the hull or lack thereof doesn't necessarily mean the boat will plane faster or run better or even draft allot less water with a smaller outboard all things considered. That's a function of the entire design including weight distribution, running bottom design and much more, witness many of the bass boats out there with almost no V.
All in all, there's lots of good choices out there! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| i like the design of the 619 better in back - just my opinion. on norms 3rd pic that bar looks definately high enough to trip over and the splashwell does not look level to me. looks like the outer foot or so is elevated compared to more centrally???
any opinion on the 1890 for smaller lakes pulling kids? what speed does it plane at vs a 619? how much water does it push vs the 619. i can tell you from personal experience the 1860 pushes a less water and gets up with a lot less hp than the 619. it gets 25-30% better gas mileage too. how does the 1890 compare to the rangers?
i agree ranger costs extra bucks but there are good deals out there right now on 09 1860's (low 30's new). put a 9 series si hummingbird and 80 terrova and you are looking at 15k less than a 619. not sure what a similar new 1890 with a 175 proxs or 200 opti would go for.
Edited by badger 3/9/2010 9:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's all dependent on load, propping, and horsepower. A 5 blade will plane a boat in WAY less time and distance than a 4 blade, which will plane a boat in less time than a three blade of the same pitch and diameter. Different blade shape, cup, and configuration will provide lift to the rear, center, pad, etc., and offer differing performance characteristics. I found the fastest prop for the 1890 configuration and load I was running was a Revolution 4, not the Tempest Plus I expected.
Load the boat rear heavy; longer time to plane. 'Pushing less water' (which means the boat isn't planed out) has as much to do with the trim position at increasing RPM, pitch and diameter of the prop, and engine height as anything else. I had an 1890 rigged with a 200 Opti that was about 4 seconds to plane and ran about 56 MPH. I also had an 1890 rigged with a 200 Opti that was about 6 seconds to plane and ran quite a bit faster. Only difference was the prop and one hole engine height.
Short answer, an 1890 one hole up rigged with a 200 Opti spinning a Hi 5 prop will plane nearly instantly and pull an entire herd of kids.
Hope this helps! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | The 1860 has a row for 7'6" rods and a row for 8' rods.
When I had an 1860 quoted with a tandem trailer it was around $1500 xtra. I was just curious because I really needed the single axle for my garage so I could push it around.
I had a rod holder fabricated that could also serve as a mini deck extension. In my opinion there is more than enough back deck the way it is now.
This wasn't my "ideal" rig when I bought it, but garage and parking restrictions dictated the size.
After having fished with my kids/casted for muskies/panfish/skiied/tubed/trolled for walleyes on the Great Lakes(Erie/Green Bay)/Flw League Events, etc. I couldn't be more satisfied with this boat.
The only thing I wish it had were the jump seats in the back so I wouldn't have to move the seats when I troll with the kids.
The 2nd to last pic. is of my son Hans' first musky, he wouldn't hold it...so I did.
Like many other boats, it is a versatile rig.
Edited by Wisconsin Wade 3/10/2010 6:12 AM
Attachments
----------------
 rodholder.jpg (165KB - 690 downloads)
Indianlake09.jpg (176KB - 234 downloads)
erie09.jpg (192KB - 251 downloads)
CC43-10-4-09.jpg (169KB - 257 downloads)
reduced skiing.jpg (151KB - 220 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| how old is your son - that is a big fish for a kid - was he throwing musky lures??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| Thanks everyone for the helpful information.
Pedro, I agree the ranger 618vs is out as it's too shallow and narrow to work as a family boat (it would be a great musky platform for 2 on smaller lakes). I do like the length of that boat and again it's a shame they don't make a console model out of the 618T.
Regarding the ranger 1860, while I can appreciate that some find the rear deck big enough to fish from, the fact that you can't put a butt seat up there to lean against for satability in rough water still rules it out for me. That does not make it a bad boat, just means I see better choices for me and my fishing style.
The main benefit of fishing off of a raised deck has nothing to do with fighting fish, but all about hooking them. I would say that I get 75% of my muskie action on figure eights at the boat. Fishing off of a raised deck allow me to see follows better and puts me in a better position to entice a strike. Therefore having a raised rear casting deck is pretty important for me and my fiishing partners.
So I'd say after all this, I'm still considering the Tuffy 1760 & 1890 and for Ranger the 619. I agree that the Ranger 619 has the better rear casting deck (bigger), but the ranger also has the fixed side storage modules, which make the rear cockpit more crowded without the deck than the Tuffy. So i'd give the nod to the Ranger 619 as a pure casting platform and the nod to the Tuffy's for trolling, family fishing and versatility. Think I need to spend some more time crawling around these models.
There is no such thing as a perfect boat. All these boats have their pros and cons and I'd add that most of the cons are not the result of poor design, but rather simply because we all have unique fishing styles and planned uses. As a result there will always be some compromises that need to be made
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| agree 100%. only other negative on the 619 is cost and more gas useage vs the 1860. not sure what kind of fuel the 1890 uses vs a 619. if money was no object i would be driving a new 619 with verado 225.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
Location: Indiana | Why can't you use a butt seat on the 1860? It has offset seat post locations which I think helps, in that wide of a boat if you were in the middle you'd be to far from the action. In big waves you could put one of the seats up there for more support and still have decent visibility for follows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| Biddler2 - 3/11/2010 7:08 AM
Why can't you use a butt seat on the 1860? It has offset seat post locations which I think helps, in that wide of a boat if you were in the middle you'd be to far from the action. In big waves you could put one of the seats up there for more support and still have decent visibility for follows.
I did not think that the 1860 had seat post holes on the rear deck, but I now see I was wrong. Will check those out in person. Thanks for pointing this out |
|
| |
|
| Find yourself a ranger 690vs or tiller model. One of the best hulls and layout that ranger has made. This boat can handle big water and also draft in 1.0ft of water. It may not be a newer boat but you can find these rigs in excellent condition. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I just picked up my new Skeeter WX1900 on Thursday. 18'9" with seating for 4 and 2 more jump seats in the rear deck for a total of 6 seats. I shopped Rangers and Lunds and picked the Skeeter based on price and it came with a Terrova 80 and HDS5 and a Yamaha 200HPDI. Not quite as sexy as a 619 but about $20k less as well.
Eric |
|
| |
|
![](<a href="http://flmnetwork.com/content/generators/skinny-sig-generator/">")
Posts: 485
Location: On my favorite lake! | I have been in both and both Ranger and Tuffy you cna't go wrong. Check out the layouts and see which ones you like better for me I prefer the Rangers because I thought they were more stable. I have been in a 681, 618 , 1860 and some of their bassboats also a Tuffy 1760, 1700 their larger ones may be better but out of the ones I have been in I liked rangers overall better. The rangers you will probably pay more for too. So it is all what you want and what you want to spend. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 395
Location: NW WI | Allow me to add that a "bad" dealer can make the perfect boat a disappointment. If you're buying new, whatever you buy, find a good regional dealer because it's likely you'll be taking the boat in for warranty work. A good dealer is worth his weight in gold. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | guest - 3/11/2010 4:05 PM
Find yourself a ranger 690vs or tiller model. One of the best hulls and layout that ranger has made. This boat can handle big water and also draft in 1.0ft of water. It may not be a newer boat but you can find these rigs in excellent condition.
that is what i just did and simply cannot wait to launch my 690 this year. i'll add in that the Champion Fish-Hunter's if you can find one are also great values for a nicely designed layout and a hull that is desirable even when compared to a new boat costing 3-4 times the same money. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | there are a couple very nice 690s for sale right now on walleyecentral....they won't last long...great boats for the money |
|
| |
