Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
|Author||Topic: 1985 Montauk|
posted 09-07-2001 07:54 AM ET (US)
Just found and purchased a 1985 Montauk with a 90 hp johnson. Boat motor and trailer for 5k, I feel a little guilty. Anyway, I want to repower with a 4 stroke and have seen some with as much as a 100 hp yamaha. Is this too much weight? I would prefer either a yamaha or mercury. Any thoughts. Also, the batttery sits out in a box in transom, any reason why it could not go in console?
What about a supplier for the full width stern seat. Replacement teak doors and seat back? Sorry for all the questions, but I need help.
posted 09-07-2001 08:36 AM ET (US)
The battery can go in the console, most are. When I purchased my 2000 Montauk 2weeks ago, I looked at a brand new Montauk at Portage Entry Marine that had a 100 Yamaha 4 stroke. It looked funny because the motor looked to big for the boat. I talked to the sales man and asked him about it and after cutting through the BS the he told me the motor was to big for the boat and it had sat that way for over a year with no takers at a rock bottom price. He said the boat did not set right in the water. Hope that helps. Regards, Jay
posted 09-07-2001 08:41 AM ET (US)
Ahoy, DChapp. I had the same questions last winter about my '80 Montauk. I found the Suzuki/Evinrude DF70 EFI 4 stroke fit my wants best. At 335#, it is only marginally heavier than a OMC FICHT 90 and the EFI technology is far ahead of the carbureted 4 strokes. It was a close thing with the Yamaha 100, but at 355# I thought it was too heavy and I considered the carbs obsolete.
After experiencing the performance of the 70 I wonder if the Suzi/Evinrude DF50 EFI, at 238# might have been a good choice. I remember Whaler 16s of the 70s performed nicely with the Bearcat 55s, which must have offered prop hp in the 45 to 48 range.
The DF70, on a 4" fixed jackplate and with a SE Sport hydroplane and 18" OEM SS prop reaches 38mph at 5800rpm with 2 aboard. Hole shot is about the same as my son's 2000 Montauk with Merc 90 2 stroke and 19" SS prop. His Merc at WOT reaches 40mph.
Hope my research and experience help you out.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 09-07-2001 01:03 PM ET (US)
My '87 Montauk is rigged with a Yamaha 115. It is larger than I would have chosen, but that's the way the boat came equipped. The motor weighs in at around 350 lbs, but I don't have a problem with stability or performance. If weight on the transom is a concern, you could locate both the VRO tank and battery inside the console. The weight of a battery and 3 gals. of VRO oil farther forward should counter the extra 100 lbs or so beyond the midpoint.
posted 09-07-2001 01:21 PM ET (US)
Actually I have been thinking about this whole weight issue. My 17 rides better(like most small classics) with the weight aft. In chop I do not want people up front and they move back. Since that is an improvement, why not an extra 80lbs on the engine? What about the optional rear seat? That has to weigh a pretty pound. What about a poling platform, etc? I think 350 might be ok but some are over 400(Suzuki) and that might be pushing it.
posted 09-07-2001 10:07 PM ET (US)
I just repowered (Chohasset/Montauk) with the Suzuki 50 EFI, I was concerned about the lack of power, but at a max of 32mph it is more than enough. The best part about this engine is its preformance at lower speeds. I am usually in open ocean water and I can almost never run WOT, 15 to 22 mph is comfortable and this engine is just right for that duty. I moved my battery from the stern to the console and with the light weight of the engine, this boat is on plane in no time.
posted 09-07-2001 11:02 PM ET (US)
Before Reebock, etal, the 16/17' Whalers ALWAYS had the battery in the starboard stern, to counteract propeller torque. When Desert tan came out, they added the matching BW battery box, and it looked good. I still think this is THE preferred place for the battery, the way the original designers meant it. The integrity of the console is preserved for much needed storage, special batt cables are not required, and the battery gets a better ride, with no gases in the console.
But in the Millenium, exposed battery boxes are no longer glitzy and cool in a boat, especially as Sea Ray sees it, so they moved it up to the only place they could hide it, the console. I believe it's only a cosmetic decision, not a functional one. A Montauk is the only boat I know of with a battery moved so far forward.
posted 09-08-2001 07:01 AM ET (US)
"exposed battery boxes are no longer glitzy and cool in a boat"
I don't think anyone every thought battery boxes were "glitzy" or "cool" even in a desert tan color scheme! They are utilitarian safety containers by nature. Mounting them aft close to the engine made it unnecessary to run heavy battery wiring from the console to the engine. Which cut down on material and labor cost.
The idea a single group 24 battery in a Montauk, on the stern starboard side is going to appreciably counter act the prop torque is getting a little far fetched.
Moving it forward to the console eliminates one more piece of clutter in the cockpit area. The other item if so equipped is an oil tank that could be relocated to console. In a Montauk chances of taking water over the transom is relatively common and having the battery forward eliminates any possibility of "drowning" it. Self bailing or not self bailing.
Just my thoughts. To each his own.
posted 09-08-2001 08:50 AM ET (US)
Hey, Mort. Thanks for the info on your DF50 Suzi. I had to move my battery to the console to compensate for the added weight aft (previous power was OMC cross flow V4). As much as I love my DF70, if I had it to do over I think I would go with the 50.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 09-08-2001 10:54 AM ET (US)
wish i had one of those good looking old bw battery boxes..elegant.hadn't found one in a yard sale....i agree with lhg on battery placement ..starboard aft . it gets busy in that corner but i keep the center and port side open for access to my boarding platform( a one step job, chuck,but it serves very well) also moved the stern light over for that reason.as lhg says all the bw pictures show it that way, there along with the omc tnt box( reference the whatever year?from overhead montauk shot, male and female people underway with" THE BIG FISH")!... i figure that the precious console space can be better used for other things...another way of looking at it......lm
posted 09-09-2001 11:36 AM ET (US)
Anyone considering a 4-stroke on a Montauk should get a copy of an article from Offshore magazine published 1-2 years ago. The author worked with local dealers to get several different 4-strokes rigged on his own Montauk, including Honda (50), Suzuki (70), and Mercury (50), I can't remember the rest. I don't think the 100/115 Yamahas were out back then. The article was great because it gave speed, RPM, fuel consumption, noise figures, even prop sizes, what more could you ask for? I have moved since then, so my copies are packed in a box somewhere, but their number is 781-449-6204. Jim H., it would be really nice to see if you could get their permission to publish the performance data, as it would be useful to the many Montauk owners out there who are facing repowering decisions.
posted 09-09-2001 12:09 PM ET (US)
That was the November 2000 issue of "Offshore". They tested a '98 Merc 90 2 stroke, a '99 Merc 50 4 stroke Big Foot, '00 Suzuki 70 4 stroke, '00 Honda 50 and '01 Merc 60 4 stroke Big Foot. Ultimately he chose to by the last one. Why he chose 2 Merc Big Foot to test and then to buy is beyond me. He must routinely carry the maximum rated boat capacity.
posted 09-09-2001 09:43 PM ET (US)
What would be the difference between the Merc 60 four strokes - standard version, and the "Big Foot" version on a Montauk? Is one faster, more durable, etc. than the other?
posted 09-09-2001 11:32 PM ET (US)
Traveller, the Big Foot gets it's name from the bigger lower gear case that has a higher numerically gear ratio that allows you to swing a bigger prop. This is useful on applications that require more thrust such as pontoon boats, sailboat auxillaries, work boats, etc.
The Montauk hull is so efficient that it only requires a 35HP engine to plane. I have a 50 HP Merc 4 stroke (non-Big Foot)on a Montauk; with a 3 blade SS prop it'll top out a 34 MPH @ 6000 RPM.
posted 09-11-2001 07:19 AM ET (US)
Boat is starting to look good. Hull buffed out with some work and really looks great. Teak is starting to be re-done with varnish and the new Yamaha 4 stroke 100 hp was ordered today. Test run possible on fri. or sat., if all goes well. Thanks for all of your suggestions.
posted 09-12-2001 01:41 PM ET (US)
I just picked up a(nother) whaler, a 17 Montauk with a 50hp Honda. This is my first 4-stroker, and it's plenty of engine for this boat, and it's amazingly quiet. At 6,000 rpm it's pushing about 30mph, the max I'd be comfortable doing in the chop we get in Long Island Sound. My other boat, a 15' Super Sport with a 70 Johnson flies (45mph), but it's so small and light that it's useless above an idle in the daily chop we get here. The Montauk feels twice the size and heft of the 15'SS. It's amazing what 2' can do.
posted 09-13-2001 09:54 AM ET (US)
That's what she said:)
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.