210 MONTAUK

[Blackfin32]

Hello to all.

I have been doing a lot of research on [the Boston Whaler 210 MONTAUK]. I realize Boston Whaler boats are unique boats and have a unique following--mostly either a love or hate relationship. I have never been a fan of Boston Whaler boat. Being a freelance captain, I recently had opportunity to spend a lot of time playing with a brand new 270 Vantage with twin VERADO 300-HP engines. I was beyond impressed and fell in love with the boat--certainly not "your grandfather's whaler." I like the boat so much my interest has turned towards one I can reach for as my personal boat, the 210 MONTAUK with the Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE.

I have read a thread here about the boat, and googled and read every article ever printed about the boat. I do have a hard time swallowing the price, as others have mentioned even with the 170 MONTAUK being [around] $35,000 and the 210 is [around] $55,000-- ouch, ouch, and more ouch.

What I have learned: if you get a new whaler, keep it looking like new, your money is pretty safe, taking into consideration the average one-percent to three-percent yearly price increase.

I am looking for input from the Boston Whaler boat gurus to help me justify the purchase. I am reluctant to [make the decision to purchase], but I really like the 210 MONTAUK.

I'm looking for any fresh input on the 210 MONTAUK, its ride quality, your likes, your dislikes--anything that pertains to the 210 MONTAUK.

The other thread was older so instead of reviving it, I thought it might be better to start a new one on the 210 MONTAUK with actual input from owners. Much of the information on the old thread was either speculative or comments made from non-owners, as it was in 2012 when the model was introduced four years ago.

My primary uses will be a have a total of four to five people maximum, mostly three, to take sandbar trips, restaurants, all intracoastal, no inshore fishing, limited near shore offshore, no more than 25 to 30 miles on a perfect day--pretty much a gentleman's cocktail cruiser, that my money will hopefully stay safe in. The boat will not be used for chartering.

I am new to CONTINUOUSWAVE's forum but not new to boating. I recently sold my last boat, a 32 BLACKFIN combi.

[jimh]

Save your money. Get a nice OUTRAGE 22 from c.1988 and re-power it with an E-TEC 225.

[Phil T]

I do admire the Montauk 210 but there is no way I would spend $50,000 on a boat.

A mid 1990's Outrage 21 is half the price and is a better boat for the ocean.

[Jefecinco]

Even though you liked the Vantage, because you are accustomed to a Blackfin 32 ride, I encourage you to secure an offshore ride on a 210 Montauk before further exploring a purchase. I may be wrong but I believe the Montauk deadrise is less than that of the Vantage. Check the Boston Whaler website for definitive information.

[Rinoue]

I have a 2013 210 MONTAUK with a Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE NOT VERADO. I mainly fish in a bay but get out a few miles from the inlet on a good day. I never experienced riding in rough water like four-foot to five-foot short-period swells as the inlet gets pretty rough first. So, I need to pick the day when I go out of the inlet.

I occasionally take five people out and still comfortable. Two to three people fish by midship and stern, and the rest stay at the bow. I believe [the Boston Whaler 210 MONTAUK] has more deck space than other boats of similar size due to the bow shape.

[Blackfin32]

Even though you liked the Vantage, because you are accustomed to a Blackfin 32 ride, I encourage you to secure an offshore ride on a 210 Montauk before further exploring a purchase. I may be wrong but I believe the Montauk deadrise is less than that of the Vantage. Check the Boston Whaler website for definitive information.

I don't think there was ever a whaler made that will even ride close to what that 32 blackfin rides like with the heavy Detroit-iron in the bilge with 24-degree deadrise. I also know this Montauk will not ride anything like the 270 Vantage. My primary use will be a sandbar bar boat, I'm quite sure the boat will excel in that application.

Jim--I have started looking at 22 Outrage boats, a well. They are nice, but I can't find the cream puff, and all will need to be re-powered. When I add initial purchase, re-power, new electronics, cosmetic repairs, etc., the number is not that far off from a new 210, and I would still have a 25- to 30-year-old boat. Nothing wrong with that, but the math doesn't justify and add up in my book.

I have no plans whatever to take the boat out through a nasty inlet to get offshore. Most of the use-- at worst--would see typical close frequency wind chop when getting closer to the barrier islands from the intracoastal.

A tough pill to swallow for me, but I keep looking at the boat, in person and at the dealer. The boat has amazing storage between the huge console-head compartment and the bench seat at the helm, provide you don't get either the slide-out-cooler option or livewell option for the helm seating. This is very important to me, as we all know every girl that comes onboard always brings a giant bag full of unneccessary gear for a day trip but they are going to bring their beach bag anyway. I hate stuff riding on deck taking up space, so having dedicated holds to store such items is very important to me.

[jimh]

[Re finding an OUTRAGE 22] I can't find the "cream puff," and all will need to be repowered...when I add initial purchase, re-power, new electronics, cosmetic repairs, etc., the number is not that far off from a new 210, and I would still have a 25-30 year old boat.

Well, yes, perhaps my reply was a bit glib. The key is finding the cream-puff older Boston Whaler. For the past few years I have been in a bit of shock at how little people were asking and apparently how little they were getting for really nice classic-era c.1989 hulls. The value seemed to be down quite a bit in just a few years from what those boats were fetching as used boats. I was figuring a nice OUTRAGE 22 hull might be $12,000 with a trailer, and a nice new outboard might be about $12,000. You'd be in for about half the $55,000 of a new 210 MONTAUK.

Another problem finding a cream-puff is that as these c.1989 hulls get older, they are naturally getting a bit more wear and tear on them. I can see that with my own boat, a 1990. It is now 26-years-old. It has many miles on the highway getting towed around, many launches and loadings on the trailer, and many little bumps with a dock or on the most rare occasion with the bottom. It is not the absolute perfect garage-queen she was when I bought her used at a fair price about ten years ago. But I don't think I could get anywhere near as much boat as I have for anywhere close to the money I have invested in her if I went shopping for new Boston Whalers. The closest equivalent for me would be a 235 CONQUEST at about $90,000--far more than I care to spend on a trailerable 23-footer. And, to make matters worse, Boston Whaler does not even make a small cuddy cabin boat any more. The smallest is a 285 CONQUEST, and that boat is $265,000 and cannot be trailered or launched easily.

And, yes, these new model Boston Whaler boats have very sophisticated and very well thought-out designs. They are lovely boats. I guess you just have to step up to the plate and pay the big money for them. Apparently many boaters are, as Boston Whaler sales have probably never been stronger at any time before.

[Schulbboat]

We just purchased a 210 MONTAUK for all the reasons stated above. I am very excited, This is our first boat since we sold our 1988 Montauk in the early 1990s--big mistake, obviously. Back then we boated off Boothbay Harbor. Now we will use the 210 MONTAUK in Indian River and Rehoboth Bays.

[gusvi]

Hi. I purchased a 2017 Montauk 210 with a [150-HP] four stroke, a T-Top, and trim tabs. I have it in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. I usually navigate in two to three-foot-high wind chop. The 210 MONTAUK rides great at 18 to 20-MPH--just run it with a bow down [trim] and it slices through. In three to four-foot-high swells the 210 MONTAUK ride is comfortable.

For me you have to start slowing down in [a sea state of wave heights of] four to five feet but [the speed reduction is only] regarding comfort. The boat can definitely take it. Regarding the boat itself, I always receive compliments on its space and stability for 21-footer. I would recommend this boat without hesitation.

[jimh]

...you have to start slowing down in [a sea state of wave heights of] four to five feet but [the speed reduction is only] regarding comfort. The boat can definitely take it.

I am astonished that a 210 MONTAUK can run on plane in five-foot waves. This seems extraordinary. Are you really serious about this? I cannot imagine running any small boat on plane into five-foot head seas. A five-foot head sea is not something you can take on at any sort of speed in a small boat.

[Jefecinco]

I've encountered four foot swells in our 190 Montauk. Though manageable while on plane it was very uncomfortable. There was no pounding but the constant short interval motion soon convinced me to back off and proceed at below planing speed. I can believe a 210 Montauk would handle five foot swells well enough but I would prefer not to be aboard if the Montauk was on plane. Gentle long interval ocean swells of almost any size are not uncomfortable while on plane although going up and down hills at speed is not great fun and visibility can be limited in a small boat.

To me a swell is a wave that is not breaking which is sometimes referred to as a wave, chop is breaking waves at short intervals.

[jimh]

I am referring to wind waves that are five-feet from trough to crest. You cannot run into head seas like that in a 21-foot boat at planing speed--unless you are a willing to risk tearing the boat apart and breaking some bones. Wind waves of five-feet from trough to crest are usually breaking waves anywhere near shore. Even if they're not breaking waves, it is still madness to head into them at 20-MPH in a 21-foot boat. You won't be comfortable in those conditions in a 100-foot boat. It is extremely misleading to suggest that a Boston Whaler 210 MONTAUK can run at planing speeds in those conditions--well, the boat might survive for a while, but you won't.

[andrey320]

Given enough time between swells (15+ seconds), it is not that bad.

Last Friday, I made it to Santa Cruz island in a little over an hour in my Dauntless 15. The speed was around 15 to 17-nautical-miles-per-hour. NOAA showed swells of up to six feet rolling through the gap between the islands.

[jimh]

Let's analyze your new set of "waves":

At the specified boat speed of 17-nautical-miles-per-hour the boat is moving at 28.7-feet-per-second. If the boat encounters a "five foot wave" which now is changed to be a "swell" every 15-seconds, this means the "five foot waves" are thus 430-feet apart--that's how far the boat travels in 15-seconds.

That is a change of vertical movement of 60-inches over a distance 5,160-inches of horizontal movement, or a rate-of-vertical-change of 0.01-foot-rise-or-fall per foot-of travel. That is completely insignificant in terms of a "wave." This sort of vertical motion is not even observable--the boat's own angle of plane is more than that. You couldn't even tell you were going up or down a wave.

If I scale the wave height for waves that are 25-feet apart instead of 430-feet apart, that means the equivalent wave height is reduced to 3.5-inches. So, yes, if you want to say that a 210 MONTAUK can run at planing speed into waves that are 3-inches high and spaced 25-feet apart, then I agree.

But please, let's not go around telling people you can hop into a 210 MONTAUK and take on 5-foot wind-driven head seas, spaced like normal wind-driven waves, about 25-feet apart, and cruise along on plane directly into them without much concern. No one says, "we were out there in five-footers" to mean some gentle ocean swell spaced 430-feet apart. A distance of 430-feet is more than 20-boat-lengths for a 21-foot boat.

[Jefecinco]

I completely agree that no Montauk is a great choice for boating in rough conditions. Although the boat will tolerate a lot of abuse our bodies will not. I think it's fair to say no recreational Boston Whaler is a very suitable boat in rough conditions.

[jimh]

JEFE--your post reminds me of an observation I made many years ago. I was aboard an OUTRAGE 18, heading across about 50-miles of open water in Georgian Bay, trying to make progress into head seas of about two-feet to perhaps an occasional larger wave. It was a not a relaxing or enjoyable passage; we had a long way to go upwind. At one point we encountered a much larger boat, probably an 80 or 90-footer, a stately old motor yacht, on the opposite course, going downwind and with almost no motion at all on the boat--just gliding through the waves. "Now that," I though to myself back then, "is the way to go boating."

[BarryCuda]

Ten months ago I found myself in the same situation as Blackfin32 opening comments and jimh's first response.

Two years ago I sold my 1987 Montauk 17. I went to the Palm Beach Boat Show ready [to purchase] a 210 Montauk. Sleeping overnight on the decision, I rescinded my offer due to the price.

I then concentrated hard on finding a classic (c.1989) OUTRAGE 22. Many were [in rough condition]. [Eventually I found] one out-of-state with a nice clean hull, on a good tandem trailer, with a very low (175) hour E-TEC 200 H.O. that surveyed well and the mechanics checked-out.

But I still love the design of the 210 Montauk. So I contracted Wildfire Marine in Stuart, Florida, to do marine fabrication and lamination to partially enclose the port and starboard transom to stop waves rolling in the stern. I had them fabricate two aft seats like the Montauk. I raised-up the original center console four inches--I am 6' 1" (not like Montauk)--then painted the boat inside and out. I am in the middle of this reconditioning right now.

COSTS: Boat, engine, and trailer were $15,500; fabrication, modifications, and paint $5,200; miscellaneous other upgrades $1,000. Also know that I did many hours of stripping and replacing rigging, wiring, and sanding and prepping.

Bottom line for ME is I have a beautiful classic Outrage 22 in like-new conditions with upgrades for half the cost of a new 210 Montauk.

Now others on this site might say I modified and changed a classic from original; I would say I took a great boat and made it better (at the transom) where the complaints were. I also took advantage of Boston Whaler's design team improvements they felt customers wanted, and I made the classic current.

[Blackfin32]

I would love to see pictures of [the updated and modified classic OUTRAGE 22 with E-TEC engine]. I ended up buying a 2010 190 OUTRAGE with 148 hours. I do not regret my purchase, but I keep finding myself searching for classic outrages loaded with teak. Hmm.

[jimh]

There is no requirement that the classic Boston Whaler boats must never be modified. The only limitation is that modifications have to improve the boat's utility and comfort while not compromising the essential elements of its original design. A look at the modified OUTRAGE 22 would be appreciated by many readers.

[BarryCuda]

Blackfin32 and jimh, I will be proud to post pictures of my modified OUTRAGE 22 under a new post when the modifications are complete (3/17).

[vze2gbs4]

Buying 190 outrage over 210 montauk was the best decision you did choosing a right boat for yourself. I owned all montauks ( 150-170-190 and 210 ) and so did 2008 190 Outrage. Apples and oranges. Outrage is far more superior hull than any montauk will ever be. if I saw your post on time I would recommend 2002-2008 210 outrage that I consider best hull that ever rolled out of factory and now that they are reaching around 10 years on used market they are very affordable. I always call any montauk grandpa lake boat-its not a fun boat and will pound you no matter what everybody tells you. It is a skiff after all and has very low bow entry and barely any v in the hull.Any serious wave over the bow entire deck is wet . If you never rode accutrack deep V outrage you wouldnt know any better . Trust me you will love your 190- design and beam on her are excellent. She has more room than new 230 outrage they just rolled out of the factory. That hull is oldest production hull right now down in Edgewater.Around 20 years now and still running strong . Have fun and watch that Verado. Fuel float problem will get you one day . Keep an eye on it.
I have to comment about running 210 montauk in 5 foot chop. About 2 years ago I took our 210 montauk to Lake Ontario for our annual October salmon fishing. One of the days we had moderate gusts and strong winds and some serious waves-it was one of the most miserable days I ever experienced on any boat-you couldnt run her headsea on a plane because bow was stuffed on every upcoming wave and was crushing all over the deck - we were all wet and miserable wishing our 210 outrage was there instead.

[Jefecinco]

vze etc,

You're terribly uninformed about the Montauks. So much so that it's not easy to believe you've owned all of the models listed. Did you not learn your lesson with the first one you owned?

[vze2gbs4]

I knew I would get backlash posting my opinion about something I experienced more than probably anybody else here on CW ( it is a very reason I dont post much because you get hammered anytime you post your true opinion about something I know very,very well )-you see Butch one of my bucket list wishes is to own almost every single whaler model below 27 feet -owned 71 boats so far and 56 of them were whalers and I almost had them all -rode them all and can see,feel and write my opinion about them.All my bucket list boats -whaler and non whaler are checked .If I say outrage is way better than montauk I dont see why is that uniformed opinion.Theres not many people on this planet that owned more whalers than me sir and that is my reward- That would be 2 150 montauks - 4 170 montauks and one 190 and one 210. I am lucky enough and have opportunity to turn my passion and hobby into business doing something I love .

[Masbama]

More room than a 23' Outrage? The 190 Outrage has much less room than a 190 Montauk. Compare side by side as I did.

[vze2gbs4]

I referred to OUTRAGE series. MONTAUK boats are skiffs, and therefore no other Boston Whaler boat model will have that bow real estate as they have. A 190 OUTRAGE has a tremendous amount of space. A 230 OUTRAGE has oversized console and huge euro-style transom that cuts space.

All these new generation designers have different perceptions and try to stuff as many obstacles on new boats--and that comes with the price of the boat feeling cramped. I am old school and love open space. My main boat these days is 26 Regulator: an open, smart, bracket-powered boat that rides like magic. [There is] no Boston Whaler boat that ever delivered a silky ride like that legendary hull. I hate to say it, but it's true.

[Jefecinco]

I think it's accurate to say that not every Boston Whaler owner wishes to fish offshore in snotty weather. As a matter of fact I doubt that you wish to fish offshore in snotty weather. I acknowledge the superiority of a deep V hull for boating when the weather is less than ideal. However, deep-V hulls have some disadvantages when used as fishing machines. Deep-V hulls are much more tender than modified-V hulls; they require more horsepower to achieve the same speeds as other hulls; and they burn more fuel to reach a destination than do other hulls. In a nutshell, deep-V hulls are less efficient than other Boston Whaler hulls.

Our 190 Montauk with a 135 HP Verado engine will only reach the mid forties MPH when loaded for angling. I don't know what speed it would make lightly loaded but I imagine it will do somewhere in the high forties. The Verado I4 Gen 2 engine on the 190 Montauk is a heavy engine relative to the two stroke engines usually seen on Classic Outrage 19s. I have no idea what speed those classics would make with 135 HP but I doubt they will do much better than a modern 190 Montauk with a 135 HP four stroke engine. I believe the newer 190 Montauks are rated for 150 HP.

So, bottom line is you are trying to compare apples with oranges for some reason. You seem to think modern Montauk hulls are not useful for off shore angling but dozens of them, including ours, fish off shore and do it rather well. Montauks are not just for old sissies.

[Blackfin32]

I am in the camp where I fully understand where VZE is coming from. Just look at my name: my prior ride was a 32 Blackfin combi. I have also owned four Albemarles and two Bluewaters.

I am very familiar with how weight and deadrise work together to make for quality ride. While this thread has certainly got for an interesting read, there are other people with history of other boats that can contribute a lot of positive knowledge and experience to this board to help understand the love for Whalers. I never even was a Whaler fan, I have a new respect for them, and what they are--but the facts are, they were never known for their ride quality like many here truly believe. Even my 190 outrage, nice little ride, but unless it has trim tabs and you know how to properly use them, she can beat you silly.

But I don't care, If I wanted to keep riding in the ocean, I never would have sold my 32 Blackfin. And while I will confess I have never ridden in a 350/370/420 Outrage, I have ran a "older" 320, and can assure all there is no comparison in the ride. When seas get over five-feet, even though the whaler is "unsinkable", I can assure you I would get out of the Outrage to ride home in the Blackfin without any doubt.

Whalers are unique and have more of die hard following than any other boat in existence that I know of. I am proud of my little Outrage, and I accept the way she rides only because I understand my use of her is strictly an intra-coastal cruiser and sandbar boat. Anyone here (like VSE) that would question the ride quality of a 26 Regulator must simply ride on one to fully appreciate their ride. Even with mod-v hulls, you still get a lot of roll and stability concerns. My 190 Outrage is extremely tender with her mod-v, so I don't see the winning compromise payoff in ride quality as you would think. But she is solid, I can't break her, and I feel my money is safe--that is why I bought her!

[jimh]

There is no dispute that if the measure of a boat's ride is its ability to make way upwind into head sea at planing speed, the best choice will be a hull with a relatively high length-to-beam ratio and a bottom running surface with a high deadrise angle, possibly augmented with strakes: in other words, a Bertram MOPPIE type hull. That we must define the characteristic we call "ride" as only the ability to run at high speed in large headwaves is what's the debate here. There is more to "ride" than just that one aspect. We are all recreational boaters, which means we go boating for the fun and enjoyment. If I get to the marina or launch ramp and I see there are five-foot closely-space wind-driven breaking waves coming ashore, I am not going to go out for recreational boating. The notion that we define our boat's ride on that one aspect is really limiting.

[Whalerdog]

...you have to start slowing down in [a sea state of wave heights of] four to five feet but [the speed reduction is only] regarding comfort. The boat can definitely take it.

Not happening. Five-foot close-breaking waves would eat alive the 210 MONTAUK. [A Boston Whaler 210 MONTAUK] staying on plane with five-foot breaking waves--I would like to see a video or get a ride.

Sure. It's two feet wider than my 190 Montauk but I know what my 190 can do. People usually overestimate wave heights. I take my 190 out in the inlet in some big stuff-- maybe cresting swells--and it's fine. But breaking curling waves are totally different. I feel safe in the 190 MONTAUK unless the waves are so big the curl could flip it.