Matching a tunnel Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 against a modified vee Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010 means you're likely deciding between two genuinely different on-water experiences. Hull type shapes everything from ride quality and fuel burn to dock handling and resale trajectory.
On paper these two are close siblings in the size department — Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 at 18,0 ft versus Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010 at 16,0 ft. Weight tells a clearer story for trailering families: the Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 tips the scales at 875 lbs — 350 lbs more than the Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010 at 525 lbs. That difference is meaningful if you're working within a half-ton or three-quarter-ton truck's tow rating, especially once you factor in a motor, gear, and fuel.
The power gap is worth calling out. Rated to 115 hp, the Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 has a 75-hp advantage over the Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010's 40-hp ceiling — enough to notice on acceleration and at cruising speed, particularly with a full passenger load.
Both boats are rated for 5 passengers — a good fit for a family of four or five plus guests. Comfort at capacity is another matter; the longer hull typically means more seat options and better weight distribution.
At this size, power-to-weight ratio matters more than outright horsepower. The Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 comes in at 8 lbs per hp versus 13 lbs per hp for the Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010. The lower the ratio the more explosive the acceleration — meaningful on a short RIB where bursts of speed, quick planing, and agility in surf or tight waterways define the experience.
Bottom line: Performance buyers should lean toward the Alumacraft VB 1860 W Special Tunnel 2013 and its 115-hp ceiling. If fuel economy and quieter running matter more than top-end speed, the Alumacraft Waterfowler 16 2010 with its 40-hp rating is the more economical daily driver.