Montauk Motor Weight - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Montauk Motor Weight

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk Motor Weight

Whalerdan posted 01-31-2002 12:21 PM ET (US)
With all the talk about what engine to put on a Montauk I have an observation I'd like to bounce off everyone.
I went from an old '85 115 Evinrude to a '96 90 Ocean Pro. In doing this I think the boar rides better in chop. It seemed like with the old heavier motor the chop was hitting the flatter, rear, bottom portion of the hull. The heavier weight making the boat ride a little nose high. Now with the new motor it seems like the boat rides flatter in the water. Now the front V part of the hull slices the chop better and the boat rides better.
Has anyone else seen this, or is it my imagination?

Bigshot posted 01-31-2002 02:42 PM ET (US)
Dan...I hate to say this but your 90 weighs more than your old 115. About 30+lbs more.
I was just reading a 1976 Evinrude catalog and check out these stats:
15hp-71lbs.
35hp-112
70hp(3cyl)-220...now 250
115hp(v4)-267....yes 267lbs
200hp(v6)-377....not too shabby being a new Honda 130 is 505!
What the heck is going on here. You would think things would get lighter with modern materials. Cars got heavier due to airbags, crumple zones, abs, EFI, etc. But O/B's are the bare bones.
Why the heck is a 115hp Johnson 100lbs heavier than it was 25 years ago?
Bigshot posted 01-31-2002 02:44 PM ET (US)
PS in case you are wondering, the 70hp was loop-charged back then(not a Japanese "first" in outboards...same as a 2001. The 115 and 200 were cross-flows.
Taylor posted 01-31-2002 03:13 PM ET (US)
According to the NADA guide the weight of a 1985 Evinrude 115 is 309lbs. The 96 E90ELED model is 319. Not that much different. Is NADA ok for weight? I know the price is off.
Here are some ideas: could there be a wider trim range or could a different prop change the ride attitude?
Also, beware of subjective things like this. The chip and cat back on my car did not cause me to loose weight or make me a better lover as I thought. It did make the car run better, but its hard to say how much faster.
Bigshot posted 01-31-2002 04:13 PM ET (US)
Taylor they made 2 90's in 96. the v4 crossflow 90degree and the v4 Ocean pro 60 degree. I believe the oceanpro was 330+ but I will double check.
Arch Autenreith posted 01-31-2002 05:41 PM ET (US)
Taylor.
"The chip and cat back on my car did not cause me to loose weight or make me a better lover as I thought. It did make the car run better, but its hard to say how much faster"
I'm already laughing at your statement but I can't figure out what 'chip and cat' are.
Don't make me stay up all night trying to figure this out!! What is it?
Still laughing.
Taylor posted 01-31-2002 09:09 PM ET (US)
Yup, I knew Bigshot would have better info. The first draft of that message actually began 'Bigshot certainly knows more about this than I do, but...'
He does, too.
Arch, with modern electronic fuel injection cars (not like my mechanical injection 74 Alfa, mind you) you can change the engine management software parameters by changing a computer chip in the car. "Chipping" in auto go-fast parlance means that you've changed the performance characteristics of your engine, hopfully for the better.
For instance an Audi S4 can go from 250 to 300HP with the right chip. That's a 2.7L twin turbo engine. Scary. But that's not the car I have. Mine is a 15 year old BMW with an attitude, roof racks and a trailer hitch.
A "cat-back" is an aftermarket exhaust upgrade that runs from the catalytic converter to the exhaust tips. This works well to reduce back presure and increase HP and high RPM's where you might actually be choked by the size of your exhuast pipe and the baffles in a normal muffler.
A cat-back also gives you a chance to put fancy stainless or chrome tips on your exhaust pipes. Look for this next time your in traffic... the Honda tuning crowd often put really large tips on to make the car look modified. Sometimes the cars are actually modified, too.
Usually, exhaust tip size is inversely proportional to sexual stamina, at least that's my theory. Lets look it up in Masters & Johnson.
Whalerdan posted 02-01-2002 07:20 AM ET (US)
Man that's hard to believe! When you see these two motor together the old 115 is huge compaired to the 90.
Arch Autenreith posted 02-01-2002 10:50 AM ET (US)
Taylor.
12 years driving this old tow vehicle of mine has put me out of the loop. I can't believe I didn't know at least some of that. I knew zilch about any of this. Everyone around me seem to live and breath older BMW's so I guess it's about time to get out of the slow lane.
Thanks for the info.
Arch
Salmon Tub posted 02-07-2002 01:50 PM ET (US)
For a Montalk I feel the best weight is between 290-330 Lbs. If heavier, put a bait tank up front. If lighter toss a tank in back. Guys with large four strokes and tanks in the back take water over the back alot out here and during drifts, always end up with the rear facing the wind and or swell, not the best set up. I used to run around with a small 40 hp on my hull and it had enough power but sat way too low in the bow.
lhg posted 02-07-2002 02:33 PM ET (US)
I agree with Salmon Tub (with a name like that, who could disagree!) I ran a 315 lb engine on my Nauset, and it handled very well.
I am convinced that reasonable heavier engine weight, at least on the Whalers I have run, improves ride, speed and handling, by lifting the bow a little, and taking the waves farther back under the hull. After all, the prop manufacturers go to great length to create bow lifting props for the same purpose.
My 18 Outrage, with 610 lbs of engine, set back 10", runs smoother than any other 18 Outrage I have been in with the standard 400 lb 150HP single. In addition, I run bow lifting props! Same goes for the bracketed 26" setback and 830 lbs of engine on the 25 Outrage.
So the question becomes, how much engine weight is TOO heavy on a given Whaler. The new 4-strokes may soon tell us. For a Montauk, the new 386 lb Merc 90 4 stroke is getting close to the limit. Many Montauks carrying a kicker already have this amount engine weight, and most would say they still perform OK.
Bigshot posted 02-07-2002 03:16 PM ET (US)
Good points Larry.
I was really worried putting that 340lbs and another 20lb jackplate, and another 20lb SS prop on the transom of my Montauk. The key here is you need to run a little faster to get the benefits. By this I mean some people(myself) will sometimes cruise just on plane(say 21mph) which the Montauk does nicely. At 21 the stern feels heavy and a sense of plowing is in the air. If you bump it up to 25mph, she smoothes right out and handles like a dream. It is taking me a while getting used to the missing 20hp I had last month. I just have to get over the fact that I can no longer cruise at 3600 and have to bump it to 4000. Now that I am getting used to "beating" on it a bit more, the lack of HP is no problem, nor is the weight. She no longer slaps and slams on wakes and chop like it did when it was 100lbs lighter on the transom. I will have to raise my waterline 3/4" and the fact that my splashwell always has water in it now means I grow stuff, but it is worth it.
Bigshot posted 02-07-2002 03:23 PM ET (US)
PS from what I understand weight does not crack transoms, HP does. I always pondered this being I had a 13' with a 121lb 35hp Johnson on it and basically ALL I ever did was jump yacht wakes, 6' breakers, and run aground but I drove it like a turtle. Cruised at 3500-4000 and rarely went WOT. The transom on that boat received more stress than I can imagine and to this day, not 1 stress crack(neighbor owns it). Then you look at another 13' with a 30 or 40 on it and there are stress and spider cracks everywhere. What gives? Are they from WOT operation and 40hp pushing it constantly? My Montauk is clean but has a few spiders on the floor up by the front bow locker....why? Are the front spiders from "slamming" the chop or is that an inherent trait of 17's?
FISHNFF posted 02-07-2002 09:48 PM ET (US)
Interesting how Whaler lists a maximum engine weight on their 17 Guardian at 330 lbs. My Alert hull (extra 150lbs in console area) actually sits better with 386 lbs (Merc 90 4S)on the back, as opposed to the previous 303(Merc 75 2S). Many have commented how much better my rig runs through chop and I never realized it until taking a trip the other day in a friends stock Montauk with a Johnson 70 2 stroke. It felt like a cork! My rub rail actually fit under his when side-by-side! But again I did have 3 batteries, trolling motor and bait tank. Less freeboard, but better stability and ride. Hmmmm. It sure helps to have 1500GPH worth of bilge pumps on the hole!
FISHNFF posted 02-07-2002 09:57 PM ET (US)
Bigshot
What you sat about pushing with max HP seems to make sense, but I will tell you on a 1981 13 Sport I had ran an Evinrude 35 for 8 years until I repowered to a Yamaha 40, then upped to a Yamaha 50 in 1992. Jumped ferry waves and ran everywhere mostly at WOT. Only cracks were a few around the bow locker. I regularly used this 13 in saltwater out to 18 miles. My 1998 Alert has spider stress cracks around bor locker and around front step pads. This boat is used commercially and really takes a pounding. Transom so-far-so-good.
Bigshot posted 02-08-2002 01:19 PM ET (US)
I guess the foot step-bow locker spiders are VERY common. This 13' I just bought had a 25 on it and is spidered from bow locker back along the sides where the non-skid ends. Minor spiders but everywhere.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

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.

Author	Topic: Montauk Motor Weight
Whalerdan	posted 01-31-2002 12:21 PM ET (US) With all the talk about what engine to put on a Montauk I have an observation I'd like to bounce off everyone. I went from an old '85 115 Evinrude to a '96 90 Ocean Pro. In doing this I think the boar rides better in chop. It seemed like with the old heavier motor the chop was hitting the flatter, rear, bottom portion of the hull. The heavier weight making the boat ride a little nose high. Now with the new motor it seems like the boat rides flatter in the water. Now the front V part of the hull slices the chop better and the boat rides better. Has anyone else seen this, or is it my imagination?
Bigshot	posted 01-31-2002 02:42 PM ET (US) Dan...I hate to say this but your 90 weighs more than your old 115. About 30+lbs more. I was just reading a 1976 Evinrude catalog and check out these stats: 15hp-71lbs. 35hp-112 70hp(3cyl)-220...now 250 115hp(v4)-267....yes 267lbs 200hp(v6)-377....not too shabby being a new Honda 130 is 505! What the heck is going on here. You would think things would get lighter with modern materials. Cars got heavier due to airbags, crumple zones, abs, EFI, etc. But O/B's are the bare bones. Why the heck is a 115hp Johnson 100lbs heavier than it was 25 years ago?
Bigshot	posted 01-31-2002 02:44 PM ET (US) PS in case you are wondering, the 70hp was loop-charged back then(not a Japanese "first" in outboards...same as a 2001. The 115 and 200 were cross-flows.
Taylor	posted 01-31-2002 03:13 PM ET (US) According to the NADA guide the weight of a 1985 Evinrude 115 is 309lbs. The 96 E90ELED model is 319. Not that much different. Is NADA ok for weight? I know the price is off. Here are some ideas: could there be a wider trim range or could a different prop change the ride attitude? Also, beware of subjective things like this. The chip and cat back on my car did not cause me to loose weight or make me a better lover as I thought. It did make the car run better, but its hard to say how much faster.
Bigshot	posted 01-31-2002 04:13 PM ET (US) Taylor they made 2 90's in 96. the v4 crossflow 90degree and the v4 Ocean pro 60 degree. I believe the oceanpro was 330+ but I will double check.
Arch Autenreith	posted 01-31-2002 05:41 PM ET (US) Taylor. "The chip and cat back on my car did not cause me to loose weight or make me a better lover as I thought. It did make the car run better, but its hard to say how much faster" I'm already laughing at your statement but I can't figure out what 'chip and cat' are. Don't make me stay up all night trying to figure this out!! What is it? Still laughing.
Taylor	posted 01-31-2002 09:09 PM ET (US) Yup, I knew Bigshot would have better info. The first draft of that message actually began 'Bigshot certainly knows more about this than I do, but...' He does, too. Arch, with modern electronic fuel injection cars (not like my mechanical injection 74 Alfa, mind you) you can change the engine management software parameters by changing a computer chip in the car. "Chipping" in auto go-fast parlance means that you've changed the performance characteristics of your engine, hopfully for the better. For instance an Audi S4 can go from 250 to 300HP with the right chip. That's a 2.7L twin turbo engine. Scary. But that's not the car I have. Mine is a 15 year old BMW with an attitude, roof racks and a trailer hitch. A "cat-back" is an aftermarket exhaust upgrade that runs from the catalytic converter to the exhaust tips. This works well to reduce back presure and increase HP and high RPM's where you might actually be choked by the size of your exhuast pipe and the baffles in a normal muffler. A cat-back also gives you a chance to put fancy stainless or chrome tips on your exhaust pipes. Look for this next time your in traffic... the Honda tuning crowd often put really large tips on to make the car look modified. Sometimes the cars are actually modified, too. Usually, exhaust tip size is inversely proportional to sexual stamina, at least that's my theory. Lets look it up in Masters & Johnson.
Whalerdan	posted 02-01-2002 07:20 AM ET (US) Man that's hard to believe! When you see these two motor together the old 115 is huge compaired to the 90.
Arch Autenreith	posted 02-01-2002 10:50 AM ET (US) Taylor. 12 years driving this old tow vehicle of mine has put me out of the loop. I can't believe I didn't know at least some of that. I knew zilch about any of this. Everyone around me seem to live and breath older BMW's so I guess it's about time to get out of the slow lane. Thanks for the info. Arch
Salmon Tub	posted 02-07-2002 01:50 PM ET (US) For a Montalk I feel the best weight is between 290-330 Lbs. If heavier, put a bait tank up front. If lighter toss a tank in back. Guys with large four strokes and tanks in the back take water over the back alot out here and during drifts, always end up with the rear facing the wind and or swell, not the best set up. I used to run around with a small 40 hp on my hull and it had enough power but sat way too low in the bow.
lhg	posted 02-07-2002 02:33 PM ET (US) I agree with Salmon Tub (with a name like that, who could disagree!) I ran a 315 lb engine on my Nauset, and it handled very well. I am convinced that reasonable heavier engine weight, at least on the Whalers I have run, improves ride, speed and handling, by lifting the bow a little, and taking the waves farther back under the hull. After all, the prop manufacturers go to great length to create bow lifting props for the same purpose. My 18 Outrage, with 610 lbs of engine, set back 10", runs smoother than any other 18 Outrage I have been in with the standard 400 lb 150HP single. In addition, I run bow lifting props! Same goes for the bracketed 26" setback and 830 lbs of engine on the 25 Outrage. So the question becomes, how much engine weight is TOO heavy on a given Whaler. The new 4-strokes may soon tell us. For a Montauk, the new 386 lb Merc 90 4 stroke is getting close to the limit. Many Montauks carrying a kicker already have this amount engine weight, and most would say they still perform OK.
Bigshot	posted 02-07-2002 03:16 PM ET (US) Good points Larry. I was really worried putting that 340lbs and another 20lb jackplate, and another 20lb SS prop on the transom of my Montauk. The key here is you need to run a little faster to get the benefits. By this I mean some people(myself) will sometimes cruise just on plane(say 21mph) which the Montauk does nicely. At 21 the stern feels heavy and a sense of plowing is in the air. If you bump it up to 25mph, she smoothes right out and handles like a dream. It is taking me a while getting used to the missing 20hp I had last month. I just have to get over the fact that I can no longer cruise at 3600 and have to bump it to 4000. Now that I am getting used to "beating" on it a bit more, the lack of HP is no problem, nor is the weight. She no longer slaps and slams on wakes and chop like it did when it was 100lbs lighter on the transom. I will have to raise my waterline 3/4" and the fact that my splashwell always has water in it now means I grow stuff, but it is worth it.
Bigshot	posted 02-07-2002 03:23 PM ET (US) PS from what I understand weight does not crack transoms, HP does. I always pondered this being I had a 13' with a 121lb 35hp Johnson on it and basically ALL I ever did was jump yacht wakes, 6' breakers, and run aground but I drove it like a turtle. Cruised at 3500-4000 and rarely went WOT. The transom on that boat received more stress than I can imagine and to this day, not 1 stress crack(neighbor owns it). Then you look at another 13' with a 30 or 40 on it and there are stress and spider cracks everywhere. What gives? Are they from WOT operation and 40hp pushing it constantly? My Montauk is clean but has a few spiders on the floor up by the front bow locker....why? Are the front spiders from "slamming" the chop or is that an inherent trait of 17's?
FISHNFF	posted 02-07-2002 09:48 PM ET (US) Interesting how Whaler lists a maximum engine weight on their 17 Guardian at 330 lbs. My Alert hull (extra 150lbs in console area) actually sits better with 386 lbs (Merc 90 4S)on the back, as opposed to the previous 303(Merc 75 2S). Many have commented how much better my rig runs through chop and I never realized it until taking a trip the other day in a friends stock Montauk with a Johnson 70 2 stroke. It felt like a cork! My rub rail actually fit under his when side-by-side! But again I did have 3 batteries, trolling motor and bait tank. Less freeboard, but better stability and ride. Hmmmm. It sure helps to have 1500GPH worth of bilge pumps on the hole!
FISHNFF	posted 02-07-2002 09:57 PM ET (US) Bigshot What you sat about pushing with max HP seems to make sense, but I will tell you on a 1981 13 Sport I had ran an Evinrude 35 for 8 years until I repowered to a Yamaha 40, then upped to a Yamaha 50 in 1992. Jumped ferry waves and ran everywhere mostly at WOT. Only cracks were a few around the bow locker. I regularly used this 13 in saltwater out to 18 miles. My 1998 Alert has spider stress cracks around bor locker and around front step pads. This boat is used commercially and really takes a pounding. Transom so-far-so-good.
Bigshot	posted 02-08-2002 01:19 PM ET (US) I guess the foot step-bow locker spiders are VERY common. This 13' I just bought had a 25 on it and is spidered from bow locker back along the sides where the non-skid ends. Minor spiders but everywhere.