Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

A conversation among Whalers
User avatar
Landlocked
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:37 pm

Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Landlocked » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:45 pm

I've had a 1977 Montauk 17 for the last 16-years and have become very comfortable with it in rough water, crossing wakes, waves, following seas, and so on. Unfortunately, in those 16-years, the family has grown. They have grown a lot. I would expect the combined weight of my crew to now exceed the 800-lbs by quite a bit--not to mention the various sundries they all need to bring along on boating excursions, Including no less than an 8-foot paddle board.

We've looked at up-sizing on and off for a couple years, but with quite a bit more earnest since our last trip down to the coast in May. I had narrowed my search to the Dauntless series until last weekend when I had an opportunity to borrow a friends Dauntless 16 for a couple days:

--loved the looks and comfort of the seats;

--loved the Yamaha four-stroke-power-cycle engine;

--liked the internal fuel tanks (although a full tank combined with the weight of that 90-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engine seemed a bit much);

--was a little disappointed by the draft as it takes a lot more water than the Montauk even though the boat isn't that much bigger;

--but, most surprisingly, was downright unhappy with the stability. The Dauntlesss just flat seemed unstable crossing rough wakes or heavy (to me) seas. Yes, ride was much smoother than my Montauk cutting directly through waves and wakes at a 45-degree angle or less, but when it was hit from the side it would rock and list a scary amount when at speed. As well, the ride seemed a lot wetter. I was honestly white-knuckled a few times and my youngest was truly scared. It just felt so much different; not stable at all in comparison to my boat.

[Conditions were] was choppy and winds were gusting to 15-MPH--I assume due to [hurricane or tropical storm] Mathew which was on the East Coast at the time. But conditions were not bad. I know from experience I would have felt fine in my boat in those conditions.

Is [the difference in perception of the ride of the DAUNTLESS dues to] just my comfort with my own boat?

Or, does the classic Montauk have that much more lateral stability than other hull designs?

Would I be happier in the Dauntless 19? (That is minimum length we'd have to go to anyway)

Is the perfect combination for me in terms of length, comfort, and stability going to be something in the Outrage series?

Maybe a 210 OUTRAGE?

I had an old 1972 Outrage 22 for a while and its ride was much more like the Montauk.

There is not a Boston Whaler dealer within a couple hundred miles of me; I can't easily just go try out all the models to see what suits me best.

Looking for input here from folks that have owned several before I waste the time of too many private sellers.

[The boat to be purchased] needs to be something I can comfortably tow [long distances] with a Tahoe.

--Ll.
Last edited by Landlocked on Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jimh
Posts: 6941
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby jimh » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:31 am

The twin-sponson hull design of the original classic Boston Whaler boats gives them very good initial roll resistance, particularly compared to any type of V-hull boat.

macfam
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby macfam » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:49 pm

Would you rule out a 190 or 210 Montauk?
Very stable boats. In my opinion, the 170 Montauk has it all over the classic 17 Montauk. Far heavier, and the ride of the new designs are remarkable. I own the 150 Montauk, and have driven the 170 and 190 models several times. I can't wait to get my hands on the 210.
These boats are DRY in my experience. The 150 Montauk amazes me on a regular basis. It will go head to head with the classic 17.

Masbama
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Mobile, Al

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Masbama » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Went from 1977 Montauk to a Dauntless 18. All the room you need and handles chop great except for following seas.

User avatar
Landlocked
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:37 pm

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Landlocked » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:42 pm

I got a chance to see the 190 Montauk on display at a tackle shop while I was down last weekend. Certainly looks like an option for me. Little more utilitarian than my wife would like this time around which why we had locked onto the Dauntless series in the first place but our experience may have changed her mind as well. Not sure about the 19 Dauntless. If more stable than the 16 was, certainly. We'll be keeping our eyes out for a gently used example of each close enough for a look-see.

Thanks.
Ll.

endus
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby endus » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:32 pm

Very interesting question. I have found that both the classic Montauk I used to drive as well as my 170 seem to have stability beyond what you would expect from this size boat. I've been in reasonably nasty conditions in both and never really felt any concern whatsoever.

Well, as long as I was going slow enough not to bash myself into oblivion, anyway!

Masbama
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Mobile, Al

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Masbama » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:26 am

There is no 19 Dauntless. There is a Dauntless 18.

User avatar
Dutchman
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:48 am
Location: Kalamazoo, MI (South Haven)
Contact:

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Dutchman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:52 am

macfam wrote:Would you rule out a 190 or 210 Montauk?...


I agree with macfam. I did drive all three: the 150, 170 and 190 Montauk. I wanted the 170 as it is a very nice all-round boat. but my wife thought it was too big. We ended up with a 150, and it is easier to pull with any [vehicle].

I've driven [the 150 MONUTAK] boat in some snotty weather on Lake Michigan. I'm very confident it can take what you throw at it, but, as for the OP, the Montauk 190 would do what he is looking for--be stable, be dry, have enough crew capability, be easy fishing, have shallow draft. The 210 would satisfy his wife with potty and shower options.

All these newer Montauk models are like the classic ones: they are stable and roomier than any other boat in the same size range.
EJO
"Clumsy Cleat"look up what it means
50th edition 2008 Montauk 150, w/60HP Mercury Bigfoot

jimh
Posts: 6941
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby jimh » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:05 am

DUTCH--How often does your wife use the boat she picked out?

User avatar
Dutchman
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:48 am
Location: Kalamazoo, MI (South Haven)
Contact:

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Dutchman » Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:10 pm

Jim I know what you are saying but honestly we boat together probably 85% of the time and 10% I'm alone and 5% me and somebody else.
EJO
"Clumsy Cleat"look up what it means
50th edition 2008 Montauk 150, w/60HP Mercury Bigfoot

jimh
Posts: 6941
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby jimh » Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:57 pm

DUTCH--that is good to hear. Almost 100-percent of my boating is with my wife as first mate. I can't recall the last time I went out alone or without her.

Destin_Dauntless
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Montauk and Dauntless Hull Shape and Handling Differences

Postby Destin_Dauntless » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:57 pm

I have a dauntless 220; I'd say it is very stable. I've had it in the Gulf in early tropical storm conditions, in nasty waves in Inlets, in rough bay conditions. I have never felt threatened.