NautibyNature

Besides the obvious windshield and number of steps, what are the differences between the two? With 496 ho's what would be the top speeds... how much faster would the lightning be with the extra step?

bob_t

Maybe a couple mph at best. There is a 900 lb weight difference between the side by side 2000 and up twin step lightning (8500 lb) and the single step executioner/lightning (7600 lb). The new staggered 35 Lightning's with the new interior are listed at 9500 lbs The twin step lightning has a built in ladder on the swim platform, refrigerator in the cabin, anchor locker in the bow and a vacu-flush toilet whereas the excecutioner doesn't have a boarding ladder, has just a cooler in the cabin, no anchor locker, and a port-a-potty insetead of the vacu-flush ... not sure if it has pumpout or not. Also, the twin step has more freeboard than the classic/executioner. Can't think of any other significant differences off the top of my head.

Wildman_grafix

I don't get why the new staggered 35's are so freakin heavy.

Yet fast, wonder what would happen if they lost 1000 to 1500 lbs.

RaggedEdge

Having owned both hulls I disagree, more like 6-8 in my opinion, maybe a little more with a real good set up assuming you are comparing the side by side set ups in both hulls. The spread will increase if you are comparing a side by side EX to a full staggered Lightning.

bob_t

Twin step 35's with 500 EFI's were only 86-87 mph. The test sheet on mine was 87 mph. I don't think you are going to see 85 mph on a twin step 35 with 496HO's. The test sheets for the 496HO twin step 35's I saw were all around 82 mph or so. The later single step executioners with 496HO's were supposedly 78-79 mph boats. Thats how I came up with "a couple of mph". If the single step 35 with 496HO's are truly slower than that, then the spread would be bigger. I have never really looked too deep into the executioners. If you go from single step to staggered, yea, I agree, those are much different. No question about it, the twin steps were/are faster with the same power.

techman

My 2006 twin step with 496 HO's does 79mph consistently with average load of fuel/water and gear (two people). With perfect conditions, light load, should crack 80/81 but not much more.

I also feel that lightning twin steps run flatter on plane. The Ex's "appear" to have a bow high attitude. Hard to describe and totally subjective, but my lightning seems better balanced. And I have a lot of stick time between the two hulls. It is most noticeable when flying the boat off of waves. The 35 Ex tends to come down more quickly on its tail.

But....they are both exceptional in their own way in that size range. The 496's make for an easy to live with propulsion option as well.

RaggedEdge

Well maybe I'm off on this deal and there is not as much difference as I thought. What I base my opinion on is my '99 single step, or EX hull, with 500's which ran a solid 80 any time vs my '06 twin step with 525's which runs a solid 90 any time, somewhat backed up by bob t's comment about his twin step w/500's running 86-87. In my case it's a solid 10 mph difference, but I'm taking a few out of the equation for the slightly stronger 525's. I've run a best of 94, and with the labbed props run 91-92 most days with fuel. I have seen comments of near or at 90 in the newer full staggered boats with 496's. Which makes sense because the 525 staggered boats run a solid 100+. One thing to remember here is that some of the fastest 496 EX boats were set up with 1.8 gears and 32" props which gave them a couple more on the top, but it took them a country mile and then some to get there.

I fully agree with techman in that the twin step boats run flatter, and really come into their own when the chit gets snotty. You really can't go wrong with either hull design, WTF it's a Fountain!

techman

Mine has 1.5 XR's turning 28" stock Bravo One's. The XR's chew up a little more HP than the standard X's on the 496 boats. So, my setup is not optimal for a 80 plus top end, but I can out drag race most 525 boats from a standing start. Plus it has a great mid-range punch. So it suits me fine for the conditions I see, which is mostly snotty offshore stuff here in the Northeast. Having that quicker acceleration has gotten me out of a couple of binds in big water.

I think the argument about which hull is better, you have to really consider the twin step to basically be free speed over the single step. It is just a faster bottom, period.

bob_t

My friend's 2004 35 twin step with 525's ran right at 89 mph (gps speedo) with 3 adults and mostly full of fuel, on the lake near us. If I remember right, it ran right at 92-93 with just him in it and light on fuel, running labbed props. I do remember, though, it didn't take long to burn through a full load of fuel during a day at Smith Mountain Lake I really liked that boat a lot, and still do!

CaptJohnT

I have a 2008 35 Lightning with staggered 496's, XR SSM drives with 1.5 gears and 31 Hering 6 blades. the boat is a solid 82 mph with almost any load. I have had it 87 one time with a side sea and wind. My guess is the wind and sea condition helped get the hull loose. I boat in the Destin FL area and we have some pretty good size rollers outside the inlet to the gulf and it handles them pretty good for the size hull it is. I have heard the first 35 Stag 496 boat went 91 but was really light from the factory.