Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
Montauk vs 16 Dauntless w/Honda 90
|Author||Topic: Montauk vs 16 Dauntless w/Honda 90|
posted 08-18-2001 11:14 PM ET (US)
My local BW dealer is trying to clear out his 2001 stock, so they held an in-water demo day today.
I was hoping they would have their last 2001 Montauk rigged but they didn't. They had a 16 Dauntless rigged with a Honda 90 in the water, so I took that out instead.
On board for the demo were 3 adults and two children, with a total passenger weight of 630 lbs, and 20 gallons of gas.
We left the dock at headway speed and came to a complete stop about 100 yards out. My wife and I were seated in the stern seats, one of the yard workers from the dealership was at the console, and my two children were up front. I chose this seating arrangement to really challenge the boat.
From a complete stop, I asked the guy doing the demo to punch it and the test began. The bow lifted WAY up in the air and the boat lugged for about 6 seconds before getting on plane. The bow rise was so pronounced that the guy doing the demo looked back over his shoulder at the engine a couple of times to make sure that the engine was trimmed all the way in.
He demoed the hole shot several times, and then I asked him to find some good wakes and traverse across them at moderate speed. The boat handled these acceptably at about 24 MPH.
I then took the controls and collected some RPM/speed data using my GPS. The boat hit about 28 MPH around 4800-5000 RPM. I didn't go any faster than that because I was mostly interested in how fast the boat would go midway between cruise RPM and WOT.
When we got back to the dock, I had a long chat with a several of the salesmen and two of the yard workers who were doing demos. I told each of them that I thought the hole shot was terrible, and that the boat wasn't as fast at any given RPM as I expected, based on my experience with a 15 Dauntless rigged with a Merc 4-stroke 50. Much to my surprise, every one of them told me that the hull of the 16 Dauntless has a design defect which has been corrected on the 18 Dauntless. The defect is a rectangular shaped pocket on the keel right where it meets the transom. One of them said that they had heard of a customer who improved the performance of their boat by covering this pocket with a piece of aluminum. I've read everything I can find about the 16 Dauntless, and I've never heard this one before.
Finally, everyone agreed that the 90 Honda was too heavy for this boat, and recommended the two or four-stroke Merc 115 instead. They all agree that was a good combination.
Now for my real question! I sold my 15 Dauntless in anticpation of buying either a 16 Dauntless or a Montauk with a Honda 90. Now that I know I've tried the 16 Dauntless and I didn't like it, I'm worried that I won't like the Montauk/90 Honda combination either. All the workers at the dealerhip who agreed that the 16 Dauntless/Honda 90 combination is marginal told me that the Montauk/90 Honda combo is great. Of course none of them admitted that the 16 Dauntless/90 Honda was marginal until I tried it, so I wonder if they're telling the truth.
I've exchanged email or spoken with several people who have Montauks with four-stroke 90s, and all of them are happy with their boats. The thing that worries me is that all the folks who I've talked to who have a 16 Dauntless/4-stroke 90 have been happy with that combination too, so maybe no wants to critize their own choice! :-)
Has anyone here owned or tried BOTH a 16 Dauntless and a Montauk with a four-stroke 90? If so, how do yo think they compare?
Would a Montauk with a passenger load of 600 lbs lug as much as the 16 Dauntless? Will a Montauk be faster at any given RPM?
I would like to be able to cruise around 25 MPH at around 3500 RPM with the Montauk, with my family on board (about 470 lbs). Is that realistic?
Thanks for any and all insights!
posted 08-19-2001 09:57 AM ET (US)
My normal load on my Montauk with a Johnson 90hp is over 500 pounds of fishermen, and probably in excess of 200 pounds of tackle, poles, bait, and ice.
At the cruise RPM, I am doing about 25 knots. The boat has never lugged, and jumps up on to plane as quickly as I want it to.
I do trim the engine all of the way in to start up and then trim it up once on plane.
As an aside, the montauk has plenty of fishing room for two full size middle aged fisherman. We could add one more if we had to, but we do prefer our comfort.
posted 08-19-2001 11:07 AM ET (US)
My told me last week that whaler is working on a fix for the problem you have outlined regarding the hull; some sort of "kit." However, I believe it is more related to the weight of the motor. This design fix may be for the extra weight of the 4-strokes (now they want to use a Merc 115/4) and is not for a design flaw. In the new whaler specifications for their Dauntless 160 on their website the max engine weight has decreased from their 2001 catalog figure (455 vs. 410 lbs). And the Honda 90/4 weighs out around 390 lbs. I was hoping to purchase a new Dauntless 16 later this week with a yam 100/4 (352 lbs). Like you, I wanted to upgrade my 15 (w/merc 50/4). I took the 16 for a test drive with a merc 90/4 and I found the "hole shot" to be somewhat sluggish (two adults over 190 lbs on board)for a few seconds, but that may have been more related to the torque from the motor. Of course, the ride was much better than the 15. Now I have considered the Montauk, but nearing the age of 50, well I just don't like being beaten anymore. Its a good boat but any sort of chop will be hard on you. Will have to e-mail whaler and find out what is the story about the hull and a "kit" they are going to give their dealers.
posted 08-19-2001 01:46 PM ET (US)
I test rode a Montauk with a Mercury 90/4 at a boat show last spring, with the salesman, my wife, and me on the boat - probably about 500 total pounds. The boat leapt onto plane, and had more power than we were able to use for the conditions that day. We also rode a Dauntless 18 with a 135 Optimax. The river was so choppy that we couldn't go any faster in the Dauntless than we had in the Montauk. I would personally worry about the Dauntless in a folloing sea offshore, even though I know it would bail itself out.
posted 08-19-2001 04:06 PM ET (US)
Well that would be a challenge for any 16 Dauntless of that HP. The exact set up I have.
I hope that you will use the same seating (weight distribution) for all the hulls that you would test. I have a feeling that you will find a large bow rise even on the Montauk with most of the weight placed on the stern. This does become less of a problem as the LOA is increased.
I hope you find a hull and engine combination that will satisfy your needs.
posted 08-19-2001 04:39 PM ET (US)
I have a 90 4 stroke Merc on a modified Alert 17 hull (Commercial version of Montauk). The hull weighs 150 more than a Montauk and the modified console adds another 50. Inside the console are two batteries and a 10 gallon tank. With a normal load, this weighs over 2000 lbs. though you can feel the weight difference from lighter motors, it does not cause any problems aside from water into the motorwell if drifting with a 17 gallon bait tank in the stern and 2 or 3 guys fishing. I am running a Yamaha 19"SS prop which has little cupping and can turn 5700RPM @38knots with a normal load.
posted 08-19-2001 04:46 PM ET (US)
I thought this might help. You can go back and look at the entire thread, it is here in General.
Barnett Childress posted 06-20-2001 06:31 PM ET (US)
2) Unless you see these 2 boats side by side you really can't imagine how much bigger the Dauntless 16 really is. It's much easier for me to load/unload by myself.
3) Montauk comes up on plane much faster with lower speed/RPM. Dauntless seemed to plow a bit with the bow up before finally coming up on plane. Montauk seems to jump up and go.
4) Dauntless has a tendency to take on more water over the transom. Unless I feathered the throttle back VERY slowly I would always get some slosh in the engine well. Montauk even with heavier 4 stroke doesn't seem as prone to this.
5) Even though Montauk is a smaller boat there seems to be much more usable interior space. I think it's because of the squared off bow and no built in rear quarter seats.
2) Much more stable. Yes more stable. Must be the all the extra floation foam & wider width.
3) Features/features/features. If your looking for all the built in goodies, here they are.
4) Nice standard features: Built in 45gal tank & self bailing cockpit.
So thats about it. Both are superb boats. Just depends on what your use will be & what your looking for.
Hope this helps anyone trying to decide between old v.s. new designs.
posted 08-19-2001 08:03 PM ET (US)
I know I'll probably offend someone, but here goes.
I always thought the Dauntless 16 looked too stubby. I think the designers tried too hard to make it fit in someones garage. If you're going to buy a Dauntless you must get the 18 or 22.
No, I have never actually ridden in any Dauntless, so fire away.
posted 08-19-2001 08:35 PM ET (US)
No offense taken here. To be truthful the Dauntless 16 will not fit into my garage, the console and bow rail make it too high to get in on the trailer. I have heard from others who have seen the boat comment that they thought it looked longer than 16'. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe the design and appearance of the Dauntless 16 should be moved to it's own thread.
posted 08-19-2001 08:43 PM ET (US)
3 adults and 2 kids in a Dauntless 16? You need a bigger boat!
The Honda 90 weighs 373 pounds, the Mercury 115 4 stroke is 386, a Johnson 90/115 weighs 319 or an Evinrude FICHT 90/115 weighs 375 so the engine weight is not the issue.
The Montauk hull is over 500 pounds lighter than the Dauntless so you would definitely get better performance out of it across the board.
Were you at York Harbor Marine? I noticed that they had boats similar to what you mentioned advertised in Sunday's Portsmouth paper. No bargains that's for sure!
posted 08-20-2001 08:28 AM ET (US)
Thanks for all the helpful feedback!
I really like the looks of both boats, and on any given day, think that one or the other is the best looking 16/17 foot boat on the planet! :-)
I knew that having two adults at the stern and one at the helm would be a tough test. I did this because I noticed that the boat took on water through the scuppers when my wife and sat at the stern, while the boat was at rest. I plan to carry out the same test with the Montauk this weekend, and will report back with my findings.
I checked out the specs for the Guardian and the Alert(commercial versions of the Montauk) and was surprised to see that the max engine weight on those was listed as 330 lbs. I'm going to send a note off to Whaler this morning and ask why the max engine weight on those is less than on the Montauk.
BTW, does anyone know how much Whaler charges for Guardian? I think I read once that these come with a very heavy duty trailer, and I would also terested to know what model they use.
posted 08-20-2001 08:52 AM ET (US)
Bob - It is my understanding that the 13 Foot Whaler is the only one that comes with a trailer from the factory.
I had too much tongue weight on the Magic Tilt that came with my new Montauk. I was going round and round with the dealer and Boston Whaler. The Boston Whaler Representative had the adacity to ask me if Boston Whaler was stamped on the trailer. I must give Magic Tilt credit, they came through with a newly configured trailer.
posted 08-20-2001 10:21 AM ET (US)
This may be blaspheme, but; since you are talking new boat, have you looked at/test driven a Scout? I am considering a Montauk vs a Scout 162 or 177 as a replacement for my Striper 15.
posted 08-20-2001 01:40 PM ET (US)
That's an interesting comment about a Dealer having a big in-water Demo Day, to clear out his stock, but for some strange reason doesn't have the Montauk ready!!! That's not a story I would buy.
Could it be that the Montauk is easy to sell, and performs really well, a nice little profit center, but his particular poorly performing (your description, not mine) Dauntless 160 is not so easy to sell, particularly if the hull is being redesigned?
Have you looked into finding a good used 18 Outrage? The hull weight, and beam, are the same as a Dautless 16, but the Outrage 18 (or is it now 180) is 2 1/2 feet longer! This longer hull length will give greatly increased performance for the same hull weight. Another thing to consider. For the 18 Outrage, 115 HP is generally considered the acceptable good performance minimum. Since the Dauntless 16 is the same weight, but shorter (making it harder to plane off) I would think the Dauntless 160 needs 115HP also. The 18 Outrage can easily handle the 610 lbs of engine weight I have on mine. Not so with a Dauntless.
You may have to give up on your idea of a Honda engine for a Dauntless, since the 115 Honda is a monster, WAY to heavy for the Dauntless 160.
Test ride a Montauk before you buy any Dauntless. Also, the older 18 Outrage hull will outperform the Montauk, and 16/18 Dauntless models. You can still buy a new one as an 18 Guardian, if new is your preference.
Why BW doesn't still have the Classic 18 Outrage in it's line is a mystery to me. They have nothing in the current line to fill this void in offshore performance between the Montauk and the 21 Outrage. The new 210 Outrage, incidentally, is quite glitzy, with it's sexy curved interior shapes. If it sells for General Motors and Sea Ray, why not Boston Whaler.
posted 08-20-2001 04:03 PM ET (US)
You might want to see if you could get the Mercury 115 4-stroke EFI; it has 25 more ponys yet isn't much heavier than the Honda and is the same weight as the Mercury 90. The EFI should give more low-end torque which would make planing better.
Much like Larry, I wish there was more variety in the line up. But, Whaler can't concern itself with me, I have the boat I am going to have for a good long time.
posted 08-20-2001 05:20 PM ET (US)
I been told that the Dauntless 16 is a hot seller. Anyone have numbers to support or disprove?
posted 08-20-2001 05:54 PM ET (US)
Don't have any Dauntless sales numbers - they keep this info under pretty tight wraps.
But I do know they terminated 74 jobs in the Edgewater plant last week, without advance notice. But 20 of those people will be transferred to CPD, so the old classic Guardians, etc. must still be selling..
Wonder if this Optimax problem is hurting sales yet. Maybe that is why one can still get an unrigged boat.
posted 08-20-2001 07:02 PM ET (US)
Like it or not, I feel there is an Asian bias on this site. Time and time again, I hear many unsubstantiated rips. Additionally, none of Asian options were in widespread distribution during the "Classic Years" which I am sure contributes to the bias.
We are not unique here, as when I was in recently in Michigan, I heard undertones of the same type. In fact, while bench boating in a small Michigan watering hole, several patrons claimed that Honda was one of the largest contributors to the OMC bankruptcy! Somehow, they also blamed the politicians, for tightening the standards, thus encouraging Honda to expand with their 4 stroke engineering advantage.
The overweight argument is pretty weak. As if an extra 50 to 100 pounds will be the end of your boating experience. Another forum poster wrote that he felt the Honda “whirring or whining” sound was offensive. Well, I could never hear any whirring with by old Merc Black Max, as the intake resonance was much too loud to allow me to resolve the sound of any gear noise. The same is true with my new Tohatsu 70. It is too loud to hear any thing other than induction noise. The Honda (and most other 4 strokes) is very quite compared to the classic two-stroke.
There is much discussion about the Dauntless line in the "non-classic" section of this forum. As many others have suggested, sea trials are the only real way to settle this debate. Try not to rely solely on the opinions of dealers. They only have one goal in mind. You have one half of the puzzle in hand. The Montauk is the sentimental favorite, and the Dauntless is considered to be the new kid on the block. Let us know what you decide, when that day arrives. The purchase of your new boat should be fun! Take your time to enjoy it. You might even choose one the classic Outrage's as suggested by lhg. With Whaler, it is tough to make a bad decision.
posted 08-20-2001 07:50 PM ET (US)
I own a 79 Montauk with an 85 hp 2-stroke Johnson, and my dad owns a 2000 Dauntles with a 90 hp 2-stroke Mercury. Both nice boats, both have pluses and minuses. I like the room, seating and storage in the Dauntless, and I also like the built-in swim ladder and fuel tank. I like the classic looks of the Montauk, and prefer the lighter, bilgeless design. The Montauk feels quicker and has less bow rise out of the hole than the Dauntless, but the Dauntless is a little kinder in a chop. I don't think I'd be happy with less than 90 hp on the Dauntless, but it's not grossly underpowered either. As others have said, test drive different boat and motor setups and decide what you want. I think you will have a very nice, versatile boat with either choice.
posted 08-20-2001 08:10 PM ET (US)
This is from another message board when I inquired about a 16 with a Yam 100/4 (English is his second language, so please forgive his spelling):
Don, I bought my Dauntless 16 with a Yamaha F100-4 stoke in januari 1999 (in Miami) and it is still a great combination. It was one of the first F-100 available that time. Quiet, efficient and a lot of power for the Dauntless 16. We live at Curacao in the caribbean and sail the windy conditions in the lagune and at sea. We use it for recreation and waterskiing. After a few months I added a Doel-fin for better hole-shots. It pulls very easily a mono-skier with 2 people in the boat. The 80 and the 100 HP have the same weight, so go for the 100HP. Also because the Dauntless 16 is a heavy boat for its size, so power is no luxury. The combination is also very efficient, the average fuel consumption is about 2.15 gallon p/hour for a day with touring and skiing. Please ban the fairy tale about heavy 4 strokes. The Yamaha F80/100/115 4 stokes are not heavier than new clean 2 strokes with the same EPA specifications. Only older outbourds are lighter. For example the Evinrude 90 Ficht = 362Lbs. So if you like a quiet and quality combination with maximum power to weight go for the F100 4 stroke. Succes, Willem
I received a few e-mails from him and he really likes his Dauntless 16. A whaler is whaler and is whaler.
posted 08-20-2001 11:54 PM ET (US)
Anti-Asian bias on this site????
Mercury - American
Above represents the total world outboard industry (at least until the French Canadians get their product out).
So if one is anti-Asian, they would have to be, by definition, pro-Mercury. As a Mercury fan, I would rather be called just that, rather than anti-Asian biased.
What's wrong with being a 30 year Mercury fan, or a 30 year Boston Whaler fan for that matter? After all, Mercury does own BW. We all have our own brand loyalties. The racial overtones we don't need.
posted 08-21-2001 12:11 AM ET (US)
I was refering to your 18 Outrage as a true "Classic", not anti asian. There are classic Johnsons, Evinrudes, Homelites etc., all available in the classic years. As a matter of fact I hope to own a 18 Outrage some day. Small problem, I will need a larger towing vehicle and deeper garage. It is still on my list. BTW, what is the total package weight (boat, motor, trailer, etc.)?
posted 08-22-2001 02:31 PM ET (US)
I too am looking at purchasing a new 16' Dauntless or 17' Montauk. I read with great interest about your test of the 16' Dauntless.
After reading the post, I called a the Whaler's customer service and spoke with a Chuck B. He said that he had read this very post and was unaware of any hull "defect" that was described by those sales people that were hosting the demo.
He also provided some performance numbers on the 2 boats in question.
With 2 people, and a 2-stroke 90 Merc:
16' Dauntless; 4.74 seconds to plane, 41 mph top speed.
I realize that you were looking for a 4 stoke motor so the #'s will be different, but I thought the aforementioned comparison might help.
Also, I think it interesting to note that the montauk, which is 350 pounds lighter has essentially the same performance numbers as the dauntless. I know very little about hydrodynamics, but to me this seems to defy logic. If the numbers provided are true (and at this point I don't have any reason to think otherwise), to me, it illustrates the effeciency of the montauk's design is, to say the least, dated. (Personally, I still perfer the looks of the montauk.)
I'm hope this thread propers, and new opinions keep coming, I need to decide by the end of the year...
posted 08-22-2001 06:09 PM ET (US)
I was planning to contact BW myself, to ask about the alleged hull "defect" on the 16 Dauntless. It will be interesting to see if the 2002 "160" Dauntlesses have a slightly different hull. According to the BW website, the 160 Dauntless weighs 1500 lbs, so maybe the hull is in fact different.
I'm surprised that the performance numbers quoted by BW for the 16 Dauntless and Montauk are so similar, given the large weight difference. I plan to verify these first hand this weekend when I take my trusty GPS back to my dealer for a test ride! :-)
posted 08-22-2001 06:20 PM ET (US)
Bob, I have owned my Montauk for a year now.(95, w/96 Yam 70) I have no experience with a Dauntless, and have only seen a few out on the water.
For what it's worth, here is my experience:
I have fished all over the bay that I live near,(Casco Bay) which includes hanging tight on ledges in groundswell up to 5' feet or so. I have been 10 miles offshore fishing in the ocean.I have been on a couple of camping trips to remote lake spots with wife and two kids, and all of the gear that goes with this type of activity. I have pulled tubers and skiiers. I have cruised 30 miles or so up to harbors on the coast on sightseeing trips.
Throughout all of this, the boat has been perfect. Mind you, there are other boats that would do any one of these activities better than the Montauk. However, I wonder how many boats there are that do all of these things as well as a Montauk does. All at a reasonable price in today's economy. When the day is done, I can maintain the boat with some soap, a set of muffs, and my garden hose.
I'm pretty happy.
posted 08-22-2001 06:25 PM ET (US)
Since my Dad's Dauntless is not yet equipped with a GPS, and I didn't clock the time to plane, I can't say that the numbers reported by BW aren't true. For what it's worth, my gut sense is that my Montauk gets on plane faster. I do have a Whale Tale (aluminum Doel Fin knock-off) which may be part of it. Nevertheless, time to plane performance of the Dauntless with a 2 stroke 90 felt pretty good.
posted 08-22-2001 06:55 PM ET (US)
After reading though this thread again, it seems like the Dauntless may not be the problem here, but rather the 90/4 Honda!
All of the test reports I have read indicate that for given HP ranges, the Hondas seem to have less performance than the other 3 brands. I would doubt that a Honda 90 would outperform a 2 stroke Merc 90, which is a very strong engine.
Are we also hearing that the new Dauntless 160 has gained another 200lb in weight? Is it a better boat than the original 17 Outrage, which weighed in at only 1050 lbs?
posted 08-22-2001 06:56 PM ET (US)
I see B Bear sent my original post compairing these 2 boats. Having more time in the Montauk now I still feel the same way and would not change my comments.
My 16 Dauntless w/90hp 2Stroke, 1/2 tank fuel (approx. 24gal) & 2 people would do low 40'sMPH @ WOT. New Montauk w/90hp 4 stroke 24gal fuel & 2 people is just a bit faster 44mph @ WOT. Thats sense I have new Merc Vengeance 16" pitch SS prop installed. Both clocked with GPS.
The BIG difference is hole shot. If you get on both (WOT), Dauntless plows with bow high in the air then levels out. Montauk hops on plane instantly. If you go 1/2 or 3/4 throttle Dauntless seems to take forever to plane but Montauk still hops right up.
Also Dauntless had a habit of taking water over the stern unless I really feathered the throttle back. No big deal really but I know that would be worse with another 80 lbs or so for a 4 stroke.
One other thing the Dauntless is HUGE compaired to the Montauk. Not so much in interior space although it is a bit wider, but hull overall & heavier. Try to see both boats side by side to really appreciate the difference here.
I still think both are excellent boats. In my opinion if you are looking for an easier riding, versitle family boat with all the goodies/options get the Dauntless. If your thinking about light, fast, easy towing/launching by yourself, open deck space for fishing, get the Montauk.
posted 08-23-2001 12:34 AM ET (US)
The Honda 4 stroke is rated at 90 HP @ 5500 rpm. WOT for the BF90 is 5000 to 6000 rpm.
The Honda BF 90 is within the weight limitations for the Dauntless 16 (160).
Hull weight has been determined by the hull volume, Vee hull more volume to fill with foam than in the cathedral design, so more weight. Under deck integrated 45-gallon fuel tank with more fuel, so more weight there also. One of the things this can do is give a lower center of gravity, weight for stability. Located from the console back add three adults, two which are sitting almost even with the engine, one a little further up behind the console, there will be a large bow rise and harder time to get on plane. There is no mystery about it.
Weight distribution has always been a factor in performance on any hull from small boats to large ships. Also the propeller material, pitch and diameter, hull design. How many times is weight distrubtion considered on the Montauk? Where the batteries are located, the portable gas tanks, rear bench, stowage? How many times have the advice been given to try weight distrubition to get better perfomace and to reduce bow rise as an alternative to, say doel fins?
The hull is a planing hull on the Dauntless. From the photo given to me by Blackdog, showing my boat on plane. I was surprised to see just how very little of the hull is really in the water. It does not seem unreasonable that the WOT numbers for the Montauk and the Dauntless are almost the same. Even though this hull is heavier it is still efficient enough to almost match statistics with the Montauk.
What does that really leave? Weight distribution, not he engine, not the weight of the hull, not the hull design.
Both hulls have their advantages and disadvantages, each appeal to the different needs of different people. These hulls are, to use a quote; "Both are superb boats. Just depends on what your use will be & what your looking for."
So far the consensus has been to test ride as many hull and engine configurations as possible to find the right combination for this person and family, which includes all BW hulls new and used.
I would like him to buy a Boston Whaler of any year and model for the same reasons I purchased one. Safety, quality, long term value. Survival on the water depends on staying out of the water, and staying with your boat. That is a lesson learned from 21 years of being a professional seaman in the Merchants (ending as a CG licensed Chief Engineer and a commison as a Lt. Commander in the USNR) and it will always be true wither you are on a river, bay, or the deep sea. So far I know of only one boat that will do that for you over a long period of time, Boston Whaler.
posted 08-23-2001 01:02 AM ET (US)
I would say this, if Chuck is reading this Boston Whaler should consider moving the fuel tank forward to better balance the Dauntless 16 with the rear seating configuration.
posted 08-23-2001 03:10 AM ET (US)
I would also like to mention if he had stood with the yardman at the console with his wife on the cooler seat and children in the back seats the performance of the Dauntless 160 with the Honda 90 would have been far different.
When my wife and kids are with me she sits on the cooler seat and the kids prefer to sit on the bow cushion. If I have two other men with me I have the largest guy sit forward with the other next to me at the console.
I have also indicated to Tallydon in another thread that I felt that anything less than a 90 HP engine would not give a satisfactory performance. So performance would be better as the HP increased, a 115 would be better without question.
Sixteen feet is not very long, so weight distribution is important in these smaller craft, the 13 Sport and Montauk included. It is only when the LOA is increased does the weight placement become less critical, even so if all the weight was placed on the aft end of a 20 foot boat how well do you think it would perform? This is why I suggested he use the same seating configuration for all his test rides.
My suggestion to BW would be for the event of two adults sitting in the aft seats with no one sitting forward. Which is not very often and to move the fuel tank slightly forward to maybe starting under the cooler seat instead of the forward part of the console. So please do not consider this as a major design flaw, there is other seating for two additional adults.
While I am at it, let me address the water over the transom. Even with a traditional transom with an engine cutout water will come over. The difference is that with the traditional it needs the engine well to be pumped out with a bilge pump. I know, just pull the drain plug, I am using traditional as with other boat makes with a Vee hull. The design on the Dauntless 16 has drain holes at what is the cutout so this area is self-bailing. Also, with a sealed access plate to the bilge and the amount of rise to the top of the transom and seats no water ever gets into the cockpit from this part of the boat. This design also allows for a swim ladder and integrated step into the cockpit. Nothing hanging out past the transom that might increase drag.
I have been in some big chop 3-4 ft. with a following sea and never had water enter the cockpit over the transom.
posted 08-23-2001 11:26 AM ET (US)
I very seldom go out with more than three people so the Honda 90 power to weight ratio is fine for me. As LHG indicated the current Honda 115 would be too heavy for this hull.
Here is the post I gave about engines for the Dauntless 16 in the post-classic forum.
As Whaletosh pointed out in the specs the max engine weight for the Dauntless 16 is 455 lbs. and my Honda 90 is well within that limitation.
This is what I posted about the Honda in the performance forum
Also some might not know that Honda's warranty is a non-degrading warranty where all the components are covered during the entire warranty period rather than having items dropped off the warranty over time as with other manufacturers.
After talking to Blackdog today I did not realize that there might be a difference between the newer EFI engines and my Honda. The Honda came with a tool kit that included a starting rope with a handle. The engine itself has a manual choke besides the electric choke located on the console keypad. If I were ever to lose the battery I would still be able to start my engine and provide power for my electronics.
posted 08-23-2001 07:43 PM ET (US)
B. Bear, I pick up my new 16 with a yam 100/4 on Saturday. Despite the negatives and also the positives about the 16 I read in this forum, it was my test drive that sold me. I think that it comes down to how you are going to use the boat. I wanted a boat that was easier on the spine, carry mostly two people to the flats with room to fish comfortably, easy to trailer and store, and economical. In an ideal world, we could have everything we want. But that's not the way in works. I have learned in the course of my research that compromise is something you must do, especially with selecting a boat. Sure, I love the big Outrages but don't relish the thought of cleaning them afterwards or towing them down the road. The 16 is not a perfect boat but neither is the Montauk. It just depends what you want and what you are willing to settle for. Both are good whalers, but in different ways. In either case, I look forward to the waters off of Dog Island on Saturday and breaking in my new motor. Any thoughts about breaking in a new motor?
posted 08-23-2001 11:03 PM ET (US)
You hit on the head! It all comes down to doing your homework, taking a test ride, fair evaluation and understanding want you want it to do for you. No matter what boat or what power plant, or combinations of. At the end only you can answer those questions, and make the choice for yourself.
With that in mind, the right hull and engine combination will become apparent It worked for you, it worked for me and for many others here. As I have said before I hope that your Dauntless 160 will meet all you expectations.
As for your Yamaha 100, just listen to your dealer and follow the break-in guidelines from Yamaha.
May fair weather and calm seas be with you wherever you go.
Made my day. Thanks Tallydon, tight lines!
posted 08-24-2001 01:13 AM ET (US)
You know Sub is right your purchase should be fun no matter what whaler you decide on.
You have heard some different perspectives, some very good advice, and personal impressions based on experience. I know I am interested in your impressions of all the boats you will test, good or bad. And I would like to know how this ends up for you. I am pretty sure we all would like to know how this story ends.
So please ask your questions and keep us posted.
posted 08-27-2001 07:32 PM ET (US)
As promised, here's my report on a test of a 2001 Montauk with a 2001 Honda 90:
The Montauk that I took for a test ride did not the stern seating option, so I was not able to duplicate the test that I conducted on the 16 Dauntless (see the first note for this toic). For this test, the salesman and I sat at the helm, my wife and son sat on the cooler, and my daughter sat on the bow cushion. Same approximate passenger weight as last time.
As soon as we cleared the no-wake zone, I punched it to see how fast the boat would get on plane. From the responses I've received to my first note, I expected the boat to hop right onto plane, but I was REALLY surprised by how fast the boat was. Wow!
Having disposed of the time-to-plane test, it was time to find some big wakes and see if my wife would find the ride to be acceptable. From all the things I've read over the years, I was expecting the boat to have a ride somewhere between my old 13 GLS and my 15 Dauntless. Boy was I surprised! I took some decent wakes at 20-25 MPH, and it wasn't bad at all.
After doing some RPM/speed observations with my GPS, I asked the salesman to take us back. When we got back on shore, I asked my wife what she thought. She liked it!
I had brought a bank check with me, because I was that certain that I was going to like the boat. I was afraid the boat was going to ride hard, accelerate slowly, or spray us, and that my wife would veto the purchase on the spot. Fortunately, none of those things happened, so I bought the boat! :-)
We used the boat for about four hours Saturday and Sunday. My only complaints so far is that the engine is hard to start when cold, and the prop ventilates (cavitates?) pretty badly if I raise the motor too far up. The motor seems to be mounted with the cavitation plate a couple of inches above the bottom of the hull, so maybe that's what causes the latter problem. It may also be why the boat performs so well, so I can't complain.
Thanks to everyone who offered all the well-thought out and sage advice. This forum is awesome!
Another happy classic hull owner,
posted 08-27-2001 09:38 PM ET (US)
Congratulations on your purchase!
I would be interested to know what kind of deal you got on your boat.
posted 08-27-2001 11:05 PM ET (US)
Good for you!
I hope that you have many years of enjoyment with her and pass the love of the water and Whalers to your children.
Best Wishes, Happy Whalen.
posted 08-28-2001 08:37 AM ET (US)
Congratulations on your new Montauk! Sounds like our obsevations matched pretty closely. You will love her. Great all around boat.
P.S. If my Merc 90hp 4 stroke hasn't been started in a while, (over a week or so) I've noticed that sometimes it takes a couple of trys starting cold. Also needs to idle a bit & warm up before taking off or sometimes it stalls. Manual states that you should let cold engine warm up for about 3 min.
posted 08-28-2001 09:08 AM ET (US)
Now you know why they have been making them for 41years. If it aint broke, don't fix it! Good luck and you will love that Montauk as much as I love mine(wife too).
posted 08-28-2001 07:50 PM ET (US)
Here's what I paid for my 2001 Montauk w/Honda 90 and EZLoader EZB 14-17:
I really wanted a Honda, so I was willing to pay a bit more than the going price elsewhere. My dealer said that Whaler was making it harder and harder (impossible?) to offer their boats without Merc engines, so maybe I got one of the last ones with a non-Merc engine!
posted 08-29-2001 08:46 AM ET (US)
Thanks Bob - Like the Whaler Rep told me, "Someday that boat will be in the Smithsonian Museum".
What kind of fuel tank did you get with your Montauk?
posted 08-29-2001 07:33 PM ET (US)
I got two 6.6 gallon honda gas tanks that look a lot like the tempo gas tanks. I may eventually replace them with something bigger, but these will do fine until I figure out what to buy.
posted 08-29-2001 09:22 PM ET (US)
Bob - My Montauk came with two 6.6 gallon red plastic Quicksilver fuel tanks that slid all over the place.(The dealer later installed two black nylon straps.) It's a bit ridiculous that Boston Whaler doesn't come out with a better fuel tank from the factory (my pet peeve).
I installed a 28 gallon Tempo bought through Shoreway Marine for $104. I'm okay happy with it. However it is a crying shame to buy the best boat on the market, pay good money for it, and then start playing Mickey Mouse with the fuel tank installation.
posted 08-29-2001 10:21 PM ET (US)
"Whadjapay for that Honda 90?"
"Yikes! Whew! Help! Wow! I gotta sit down!"
"No, just one"
"Can't be! No! You're not serious! Whew!"
I'm just having fun, since this instantly brought to mind the currently running American Trans Air (ATA) ads on airline ticket pricing, similar to above. Best ads I have seen in a long time. Look for them on the tube if you're in an ATA service City.
Merc 90 2-stroke $4500
I bring all this up because we have all been saying that, yes, you can get a Whaler without a Merc, but you'll PAY! This seems to prove out Whaler's new marketing strategy.
Enjoy your new boat. Sounds very nice, except for the gas tank situation they set you up with.
posted 08-30-2001 12:01 AM ET (US)
Hey check this out!
2001 Scout 172 with a Yamaha 90 TL plus freight, prep and trailer for $15940.
What! Figure the Yamaha at around $5000, freight and prep $700, trailer for $1100.
Hmmmmm that leaves the hull around $9140.
Heck, $14898 for the Montauk hull.
Guess you get what you pay for!
I would rather pay the extra $5758 for the Montauk!
Just like I would rather have the Honda, even for the extra cash!
BobNH, you have a terrific combination. Neither the Hull nor the Engine will let you down.
posted 08-30-2001 12:09 AM ET (US)
I brought this up becuase, what BobNH paid are the normal retail prices. And not a package with a Mercury.
There are quite a few people posting lately that are considering something other than a Mercury on a new Whaler.
What it does prove is you can get what you want on a new Whaler.
posted 08-30-2001 07:44 AM ET (US)
My 89 montauk still has the original 6 gal steel tanks. The motor is a 100HP evin. They know me at the gas dock.
I like the pate 27 tank but its 3X the cost of the tempo 28. I'll decided this winter.
posted 08-30-2001 10:08 AM ET (US)
I gotta defend Scout here a little. They actually make a pretty good boat. Please don't kick me off the site !!! :)
I don't think they will be such a good deal in the future as JD Power tied them with BW and it seems they are becoming very popular.
After I bought my Dauntless last August the Dealer said it would be the same price for Merc, Yam or Evinrude. They buy blank hulls and own 2 different dealerships so they can do that. I might have gone with Yamaha if I had know .
posted 08-30-2001 10:54 AM ET (US)
There is nothing to defend. Scout is a good boat, as Honda, Mercury, Yamaha, and Suzuki are good engines.
The point is that there is a personal choice in any purchase. If someone decides they would rather pay more for a Boston Whaler or for a Honda for their personal reasons, there is nothing wrong with those choices.
The other point is that some products cost more than others. Once again this is a matter of personal choice. These items may cost more, but as long as the prices for these things are standard for them, in this case the suggested retail price, how can that be considered a conspiracy to gouge the consumer or to limit their choices to one product line?
If someone is willing to spend the extra money on a Boston Whaler it does not mean they are not willing to spend the retail price on an engine Other Than Mercury.
I believe that the package concept is very good. A factory rigged Boston Whaler with a choice of Mercury engines is cost effective for the consumer that would like to have a Boston Whaler at more competitive price when compared to other boat makes like Scout, Mako, and Proline. You will always pay more for something that is not packaged.
For LHG to use BobNH's purchase as an example of paying more, as in excessive, is quite weak.
posted 08-30-2001 11:15 PM ET (US)
What's the going package price for a 2001 Montauk with a Merc 90 4-stroke and trailer? The dealer I went to didn't have any. He said he could get me a 2002 w/ a Merc 90 "for a little bit more", but I didn't want one so I didn't ask for an exact quote. Of course that was a 2002, so that wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.
I checked a big BW dealer on Cape Cod, and they wanted around $28K for a 2001 w/ a Yamaha 100! That boat didn't come with a trailer or a bimini though. Maybe they would have come down in price and maybe they wouldn't, but that's what their list price was, and they seemed pretty arrogant.
The bottom line for me is that several thousand dollars one way or another isn't that big a deal over the long run, so long as I'm happy with the boat. :-)
posted 08-31-2001 12:54 AM ET (US)
See JimH's 17 reference section for pricing on a 2000 Montauk, with 90HP Merc 4 stroke and galvanized trailer. Price of $18,950.
I was able to personally verify this pricing myself, in Florida, by shopping for a Montauk in April of 2000. Admittedly, this was before the new "package" marketing strategy took hold, which has really jacked up the price of a Whaler for non-Mercury, since the Dealer only gets a wholesale engine deduct credit. And FL has some of the best boat pricing in the country. The boat and trailer price came from a Whaler Dealer, not rigged for any engine, and the engine/rigging price from a large Mercury Dealer down the street. The prices are legitimate, and include hull shipping, but not sales tax, and did not include any hard bargaining at all. Prices just as offered by the Dealers involved.
Some inflation figure would have to be added for 2001. But I just saw a listing from Bass Pro selling Merc 90 4 strokes for the same $6800., probably an unrigged price. But rigging a Montauk is no big deal cost wise.
Incidentally, BobNH, your very precise performance reports on the two boats were nicely done, and I'm sure of interest to many. Thanks for taking the time to do them.
posted 08-31-2001 09:37 AM ET (US)
My 2001 Montauk with factory rigged 90 HP Mercury 2 stroke and aluminum trailer was priced at $21,995. I believe I have the same package as Bob except no swim platform. The price for a 4 stroke would be more naturally, however still an increase from 2000.
posted 08-31-2001 09:57 AM ET (US)
I know this ain't my area, since no Dauntless and only a Montauk to use from friends.
Sort of feel bad about all this after the fact pricing ---
I must inject and respectfully object to LHG continuely quoting Florida "selected" dealer pricing as something that you can obtain nationally. That's hog wash and the dealers around the country don't and won't compete with them, "you want that price go to Florida and get it" --
Have fun and enjoy --- Tom
PS Nauset Marine in Orleans, is a top notch dealer but has always been premium priced, their customers always got great service -- this is going back to the 60's --- if that is the one on the Cape you called ---
posted 08-31-2001 11:20 AM ET (US)
Dang Larry, you know as well as I do that those performance reports were not at all fair.
It was like having a foot race between someone weighing 170 pounds (the Montauk) in running shoes (even weight distribution), running against someone weighing 190 pounds (the Dauntless) in soaking wet high top hiking boots (all the weight placed aft).
My guess is BobNH really wanted the Montauk and his wife was interested in the Dauntless. All is fair in Love and War.
posted 08-31-2001 03:14 PM ET (US)
Just my .02 but I had to nego pretty hard, I felt just to get around or below MSRP and that was at the end of the season for my Dauntless.
I started pricing the Dauntless and without a trailer, Comfort pkg, Bimini and UCG pkg the asking price was 4,00 higher than I paid with all above and I am sure people just pay it.
These boats sell for a premium around here
posted 08-31-2001 06:44 PM ET (US)
You're quite right that I preferred the Montauk and that my wife preferred the Dauntless. I've been going to the Cape for over twenty years, and I've wanted a Montauk ever since seeing one there for the first time. Having said that, I really like the looks of the Dauntless too, and my second Whaler was a 15 Dauntless. So, I was a winner whichever way the decison went!
The first thing that my wife noticed when she sat in the stern seat on the Dauntless was that water started coming in the stern scupper on her side. She weighs about 108 lbs, so her weight wasn't the issue. I honestly didn't think that was a huge problem and I told her so. When I sat in the stern seat on the other side I got a little water on my side too. No big problem, but I noticed it.
Because of all the negative things I've heard over the years about big four-strokes on small whalers, I was already predisposed to be on the look out for anything that looked like trouble. So, I asked the dealer to show me what the hole shot looked like with my wife and I at the stern. The bow rise was so striking that all of us just said "wow". The young yard worker who was doing the demo even blurted out that he thought the motor was too heavy for the boat.
Once we got on plane the ride was very smooth, but a little slower than I expected. There's a very good chance that had the yard guy not been aboard, that the bow rise would have been far less pronounced and the top end would have been better. He weighed around 160 lbs (I asked him), so his weight was definitely a factor.
Balancing the fact that we had an extra person on board was the fact that my kids are in their early teen age years, so they will probably put a lot more weight on as they grow older. Not another 160 lbs (I hope!) but mabe another 100 lbs. So I was definitely interested in seeing how each boat performed with extra weight.
Now for the Montauk: As I said in an earlier post, I couldn't seat my wife and I at the stern because the Montauk did not have any stern seating. We did stand at the stern with the boat dead in the water, and the stern was not as low in the water as the Dauntless. Given the larger amount of flotation in the Dauntless, that surprised me.
When we did the hole-shot drill with the yard guy and me at the console, and my wife and kids forward of the console, I was totally blown away by the acceleration and time to plane. I really was! I don't think that a different seating arrangement would erase the striking performance difference that I observed between the Montauk and the Dauntless, but I concede that it might.
I think the Dauntless 16 is a terrific boat, and when carrying two or three pasengers it may even be a better boat than the Montauk. From what I could tell, the Montauk had a clear edge with 3 adults and 2 teenagers on board though.
PS The Cape Cod dealer was Nauset Marine.
posted 08-31-2001 07:24 PM ET (US)
Thanks BobNH for the honest reply.
You might have guessed I have a Dauntless 16 with the Honda 90. I very seldom use the two aft seats other than for the storage. And when they are used there is quite a bit of counter weight forward.
I normally configure the seating as you did with the Montauk, wife on the cooler seat and kids forward either one with her or both on the bow cushion. Sometimes my wife or one of the girls will come back with me behind the console and the other two on the cooler.
With this kind of seating there is a moderate bow rise, nothing as dramatic as your experience, and is quick to go on plane. With the installation of a doel fin the bow rise is only slight and it jumps on plane now.
I have taken out another adult (male 180 pounds) besides myself (195 pounds) and three boys ages 11, 13, and13 (total weight about 300 pounds) fishing, that would be plus gear and extra cooler with ice. Still the boat never acted in the manner you experienced and was quick to plane. The other Dad was next to me on the console and the kids were forward, and the extra ice chest was behind the bench seat.
I would hate to have someone get a negative impression about the Dauntless 16 without understanding how big of a role weight distribution plays in a smaller hull concerning performance and handling.
Anyway, Enjoy your Montauk and Honda 90! I am just really happy for you. I will look forward to hearing from you in the future.
posted 09-06-2001 12:47 PM ET (US)
Having sold Mauntauks for over a decade, I can submit that the two boats are quit different in planing characteristics. The Montauk will plane readily with as little as 40hp. The only motor I have sold on the 16 Dauntless is the 90 4-stroke, but our dealership takes off the 16 pitch prop sent from the factory and put on a 14. We are in fresh water and have many customers who prefer to ski. My customers tell me that they love the set up ( yes slalom ). The motor does not max the recommended r.p.m.s recommended by the Mercury.
posted 09-10-2001 11:27 PM ET (US)
I have a 16'7" Neuport (1976) with the original 85 Johnson. I am thinking of going to a four stroke but the one I am interested in is the Yamaha 100. It is some 50 lbs lighter thant the Honda. My neighbor has one on a 17~18' edgewater and it has no problems pushing the boat when fully loaded. His edgewater is seveal hundred lbs heavier than my neuport. Just a thought
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000