Forum: ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Topic: 50HP Honda vs 90HP Honda on Montauk
Note: You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.
posted 07-26-2001 10:42 PM ET (US)
What is the advantage, if any, of running a Montauk with a 50HP Honda 4 stroke vs a 90 HP 4 stroke? In addition to a 1989 Montauk and 1974 Revenge, I bought my wife a 24' Godfrey Pontoon that is powered by a 45HP Honda...which pushes the boat as fast as my neighbor's 90 HP Merc on a 26' Harris FloteBote. The 45HP ran at cruising speed(not WOT)for three days on 5 gallons of fuel. If I am going to use the Montauk primarily for fishing, why do I need 90HP?
posted 07-26-2001 10:55 PM ET (US)
"I have been on a 17 montauk with a 140 and I do not think it did much more than 50."
This response,though not to my posting, has already appeared in a different thread. Why should I front for a 90HP as advised by dealer(same engine and weight basically as ther 75HP)than a 50HP Honda? The 50 HP Honda weighs about half the weight of the 75/90 HP Honda and runs forever on a tea cup of gas.
posted 07-26-2001 11:04 PM ET (US)
My 99 Montauk is powered with a Merc 50 HP 4 stroke. Cruises comfortably in the high 20s and and it takes forever to empty the 28 gal fuel tank. I am very happy with the combination. Not a go fast boat but comfortable.
posted 07-27-2001 12:44 PM ET (US)
Make your decision based on your typical load and use. Dick gets satisfactory performance with a 50, and enjoys the benefit of lower capital and operating cost. On the other hand, I frequently have heavy loads, pull wakeboarders and I like to go fast. My Montauk has an oldie but goodie 85 hp, and every once in a while I wish it had just a bit more power. I curse my lousy fuel economy, but wouldn't trade better milage for less power.
posted 07-29-2001 10:05 PM ET (US)
Neither of these is a suitable Montauk engine.
The 50 is way under-powered and the 90 is way overweight.
posted 07-29-2001 10:33 PM ET (US)
How can you say neither of these is a suitable Montauk engine? Do you run a Montauk? If so what power do you have on it?
I have a 50 4 stroke on mine and it is very suitable. Adequate speed and very good economy.
posted 07-30-2001 10:35 AM ET (US)
Maybe "suitable" wasn't the word I was looking for.
I recently re-powered my 1980 Montauk with a Yamaha C-90 and literally spent months trying to arrive at that decision. Luckily, there is a large number of Montauks in my area, many of them owned by friends and aquaintances. I was able to "test drive" several boats ranging in power from a 50hp 4-stroke Yamaha to a 150hp Mercury.
Although the older couple who own the Montauk/Yamaha 50/4 rig are fairly satisfied with it's performance, I found it to be a real dog.....sluggish out of the hole and top speed, though not measured, felt like less that 30 (very lightly loaded).
The 75hp Yamaha two-stroke I piloted was a huge improvement over the 50hp rig. This approached "suitable" for me. Fairly decent hole-shot and top speed of 36 on the gps.
Next up was my neighbors Montauk/Honda 90. I already knew this wasn't the combo for me because I see it sitting at his dock every day. Along with his rear-mounted dual battery installation, the big Honda pushes his stern down almost to where the water reaches the "Boston Whaler" decal. Performance was decent but slow to get on plane.
Two more test rides were with a Yamaha 90 and a Tohatsu 90. These sealed my decision. Great hole-shot, 40+ top speed, decent economy, low purchase price. I ended up with the C-90 at HALF the price of the Honda 90 and 60% of the weight.
Therefore, IN MY OPINION, after due and diligent research (seat of the pants,not hearsay), the average Montauk user is not going to be even close to satisfied with 50hp on the stern of his boat. If you are happily under-powered, then I am happy for you!
posted 07-30-2001 03:03 PM ET (US)
I am beginning to love this forum, You go contender! I agree with both of you in that we had this post a few weeks ago. I also never understood why ANYONE would not put the max or close to it on ANY boat. My thought is that a 90hp at 3500 is running a lot easier than a 50 at 4500. 2nd, if buying the most expensive boat made, then why care about MPG and why cheese out on a couple grand for the bigger engine, plus resale is better.
I talked to the BW dealer by my parents that has been there since the 60's. He said the 75 2 stroke was the most popular and the 90 2 stroke next. He said he has done a few with the 80, 90 or 100 hp 4 strokes(also yammie dealer) but said the boat was never designed to carry that weight. He said if you want that weight, go with a dauntless. If you insist on a 4 stroke, go with a 70 or less(under 350lbs). he even said he likes to keep them under 300 lbs. His favorite setup is a 90hp Yamaha at 267lbs or whatever(what I run:). I agree to some extent. my father had a 40hp Johnson on his 61 or 62 Nausett. It ran about 30 because the engine only weighed 160lbs or less. My 60hp 1984 Johnson only weighed 192. These new engines are heavy and take away from the handling and performance we once had. 416lbs for a 90hp suzuki, are we nuts. That is like my wife(and some) sitting on my 90. I would love a new 100hp Ymaha 4 stroke but I think I will repower with another 90 2-stroke if they still make them when mine quits.
posted 07-30-2001 09:23 PM ET (US)
Maybe you should have tried a Merc 50 4 stroke. It may be the same powerhead as a Yamaha but the likeness stops there.
With two people it is on plane instantly and will top out in the low to mid 30s. True it isn't a water ski boat but a good cruising and fishing rig for the wife & I it is.
posted 07-30-2001 09:42 PM ET (US)
Hi Compounder, did you ride in a Montauk with a 150? I'm not sure I'd have the nerve for that one! Overpowered by 50%, PLUS overweight. Can you say: chinewalk? How about a deathtrap.
posted 07-31-2001 10:39 AM ET (US)
Saw a montauk with a 175 black max on a trailer once. Nasty!
posted 07-31-2001 12:39 PM ET (US)
Although my 2000 Montauk is now powered with a 2001 90hp Johnson, it was orginally powered with a 1997 60hp Johnson.
The 60 never had a problem in getting the boat up on plane, but had a hard time getting over 28 knots by gps without any load.
Out in the ocean, I ran it a similar speeds to what I now run with the 90, but obviously with less load on the engine. I suspect that the 50hp would be functional.
I do appreciate the ability to utilize the extra horsepower on smooth waters to get where I want to go in a hurry.
posted 07-31-2001 08:53 PM ET (US)
When I replace the outboard on my Montauk, I will be buying a replacement from Tom Hughes at Tom Hughes Marine in West Columbia, SC. Tom has recommended a 90HP Honda 4stroke for the Montauk, in part because the 75HP weighs precisely the same as the 90HP. My "gofastboat" will be a 21' 1974 Revenge that we are in process of restoring. The Montauk will be primarily a fishing boat on Lake Murray, a 50,800' inland lake in the middle of SC. Tom says to go with the 90HP, but we also have a 24' Godfrey that is powered by a 45HP Honda 4-stroke that equals or surpassess similar "pontoons" powered by 90HP or higher outboards/inboardl-outboards. It's as if, no matter the HP, a pontoon is a barge and will remain a barge.
I think my question about the use of a 50HP Honda 4stroke, for a boat that will be primarily used for fishing, rather than as a gofast boat, has been usefully answered.
Thanks. See me in another of the forums. I have a question about using LED lights for navigation lights(especially port/starboard nav lights and where I can buy them).
posted 08-01-2001 09:00 AM ET (US)
Just read an article on the honda 225...616lbs WOWSER!
posted 08-01-2001 09:50 AM ET (US)
The 225F Yamaha is reported to only weigh ~50lbs. more than its 2-stroke counterpart, and removing the 2-strokes oil tank, hoses, and 3 gallons of oil will make up half of that delta..
posted 08-01-2001 09:54 AM ET (US)
BlueHeron I urge you to find a Montauk with Honda 90 and go for a test drive,hopefully in rough water. Apparently, lots of folks have already made this purchasing mistake, so you should be able to find one to ride in.
The Honda 90 is TOO HEAVY! Yes, the Montauk will do an admirable job of trying to sustain the weight, but will sit low in the stern, possibly causing a porpoising problem, & definitely causing a problem with following seas over the transom.
I'm speaking from experience-----next door neighbor has this rig. I spent several hours cruising in this Montauk and loved the way the Honda ran (smooth and relatively quiet,although it does have a high-speed "whine" which is annoying) but it is TOO HEAVY and TOO EXPENSIVE!!
posted 08-01-2001 10:26 AM ET (US)
Have you considered a Suzuki DF-70, and is EFI. It is 38 lbs lighter than the Honda 90. The Yamaha F-60 is 244 lbs., the Mercury 60 is 236 lbs and is EFI for 2002.
If you are willing to spring for a Honda 90 you can easily afford any of the above.
You might even be able to find a great deal on a left over EFI 4-stroke Johnson/Evenrude 60 or 70 HP. these wre the same motors as the suszuki, just painted and labeled as OMC products.
posted 08-01-2001 12:15 PM ET (US)
Suzuki 60&70 weigh 335lbs, about the same as a 115 Yamaha 2 stroke. Again my 90 Yamaha weighs 270 and a 70hp Johnson weighs 250. My chines are out of the water at the rear of my boat.
posted 07-12-2007 04:40 PM ET (US)
Just a couple of points from someone who's been admiring Whalers since the early '60s and waterskiing behind almost anything that would float and burn gas since 1959 --
1) I'm astonished that noone has mentioned the Bearcat/Homelite 55, which is nearly an ideal engine for either the original or the 70s+ 17 hull. It's available professionally rebuilt for about a quarter the price of a new 4-stroke, sips gas, weighs about the same as an OMC V4 (ca. 240 lb.), and skied me (no lightweight) quite satisfactorily on one of the short, narrow slalom skis popular in the '60s.
2) Boaters who talk about "holeshot" tell me more about the sort of boating they do than about the equipment under discussion. For any water sport -- from skiing to fishing -- except drag racing, "holeshot" is utterly irrelevant. Likewise the fellow who can't understand why anyone would put less than max horsepower on any boat is clearly not concerned with noise, rough water handling, range, safety, or ease of maintenance -- all of which are almost always more important to enjoyment of water sports than top speed. If you're in that much of a hurry, get an airline ticket.
3) For genuinely professional competition slalom skiing, you need a 3000+-pound boat that will do 35 under extremely heavy load conditions and tracks dead straight regardless of sidepull at the stern. No outboard I know of under about 24' qualifies. (Some of the best ski boats are the old heavy mahogany runabouts with inboard straight 6s. Nothing fazes them.) For recreational fun skiing, a 17 with 55-60hp is jes' fine; beginners on 2 wide skis will be popped right up and the gung-ho slalom guy knows how to help the boat plane him.
posted 07-13-2007 01:19 PM ET (US)
I second Dick's opinion. My Nauset has a 240lb 50 ETEC and gets on plane in less than 3 seconds with me (190), 6-mo preggers wife (170), dog (45), two skinny shorties (60 combined), and a bunch of chairs, fishing rods, lunch, cooler, 12 gallons of gas and a battery in the stern. It likes to go over big chop / small swells with that load at about 3600-3800 rpms, and cruises happily over a medium to small chop at 4250 rpms. That's 75% of 5600 max, which is my understanding of the rule-of-thumb on continuous use. No speedometer, but based on time over known distance we go mid twenties at that 4250. When I peg it to 5600 alone, the hull starts to wobble around.
Takes a long time to empty the 12 gallon tank, and I saved about $3000 off the 90 ETEC.
We use it on the St. Lawrence River, which almost always choppy. Chop+speed+kids = not comfortable or safe. If I were using it on water that was almost always flat and it was just me, I'd be looking for more power.
|A Little Madness||
posted 07-16-2007 01:03 PM ET (US)
Compounder, BlueHeron, and all. Let me clarify a few things about the Montauk/Honda 90 match (and I've written some of this before). Specifically, I just renovated our 88 Classic 17 Montauk using the 2007 Honda BF90D 4 Stroke which weighs in at 359 lbs. I did shift my two gell-cell batteries to the center console & went w/a Tempo 28 gal red tank. If you will go to the attached link for my personal page you will see that she sits perfectly balanced w/an inch or two to the original water line. As for power, I'd call 41 mph @ 5900 rpms not too shaby! The BLAST (Boosted Low Speed Torque) technology is awesome. I wish I had an like equiped 88 Montauk w/an E-tec 90 just to compare. I believe I'd give them a run for their money! With the new Lean Burn Control I'm using approx. 1.7 gph thru a diversity of motoring profiles (slow, fast, single - 5 people, etc.). Bottom line...I wouldn't change one of the most reliable motors in the industry right now w/anything offered. We Love It! Here's where to go for more info and pictures of the renovation:
posted 07-16-2007 03:19 PM ET (US)
Amazing what 6 years and many boats later how a person can swing 180 degrees. Not only did the spelling of my name go 180, so did my opinions, but this time from experience.
A little Madness, just FYI, my 70 Suauki hit 39+mph so 41 from a 90 is a bit shabby. BUT...the E-Tec, 90 Yammie, etc are not fetching any more. Seems like the old days of 43-45mph from a 90hp is gone due to green reasons....which aint too shabby ;)
posted 07-18-2007 09:17 PM ET (US)
1991 Montauk & 2004 Honda 90-- used for fishing, skiing, tubing, cruising. I've had 3 whalers over the last 30+ years and this combination is great. I'm only jealous of the new Honda 90s (not the new Montauks)!
Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000