Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  new montauk

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   new montauk
scottfarm posted 02-15-2002 07:33 PM ET (US)   Profile for scottfarm   Send Email to scottfarm  
Just got back from Miami boat show.
The montauk has been changed.

[Since this message thread was begun, I have since published a complete description of the new 2002 170 Montauk, including color photographs, in the REFERENCE section.--jimh]

Length-17 foot
Maximum hp----90hp(Weird huh)
dry wight---1400lbs.----up from 950

beam is 8" wider--very nice---stearn seat on each side of transom(about time). More freeboard(looks like a foot to a foot and a half. Weight is up on dry hull 450lbs and maimum hp down to 90 hp.
very, very nice boat.
show price was $17,659 with 90hp 2 stroke merc and trailer. Wish I had not seen it. Now I want one.
traffic was hell.

scottfarm posted 02-15-2002 07:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
Excuse the above spelling errors.
also the montauk has a very nice and different console. The front of the boat(walk around space in front of cooler) is deeper with a higher step up to anchor locker. I love this boat. Only negative is the extra 450 lbs with 10hp less maximum hp. It has to make the boat's performance less.
Dick posted 02-15-2002 07:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
What did the bottom look like? Does it have the Montauk bottom design?
tabasco posted 02-15-2002 08:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
So dennis- DID YOU TAKE ANY PICTURES? Were all hoping that you did.
STEPHEN posted 02-15-2002 08:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for STEPHEN  Send Email to STEPHEN     
lhg posted 02-15-2002 08:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
It's the abominable marketing strategy that interests me, the same thing they did on the 13. Two or three years before they bring out the new, keep jacking the price up on the highly popular old one until it becomes absurd, a sucker's game. A Montauk now for $25,000., without trailer, while a CPD Alert only costs $8000?

Then bring out the new, larger and heavier one for 40% less, so that people will buy them, and it will look attractive price wise. This unfair & contrived pricing policy is about the only way you can kill a highly popular Classic Whaler model. This has happened to every one of the classic Whaler models, from the 27 on down to the 13, beginning in 1991. A fate they didn't deserve, nor did the immediately preceding buyers.

So now all of the new Montauk buyers over the last 2 or 3 years can take comfort in the fact that they were used, and probably paid inflated prices.

Let's see, compared to an 18 Outrage, which carries 150 HP, one of Whaler's great small boats, this new one is 1-1/2' shorter, 4" narrower and 150lb heavier and only carries 90HP. Is it as good at seakeeping? Progress? But I have not seen it. It could still be a great boat. Time will tell.

lhg posted 02-15-2002 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
See Sorcerer's thread below. He appears to be a Dealer. Has somebody been "had" here, or do I imagine it? Which is correct?
James posted 02-15-2002 08:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

I hope that someone who attended the Miami show is able to post a picture of the new 170. In the meantime, I ask you to paint us a somewhat more descriptive picture.

Does this new hull shape resemble any of the 17 Outrages? Is it a deeper entry hull (for inshore use) than its predecessor.

At 90 HP max. it sounds underpowered. From my perspective, a boat of that size and weight begs for a 115 HP four stroke and maybe more if you really want to fly. I am trying to determine why a bigger and heavier boat is downrated in HP. The old model was optionally fitted with the 90HP 4-stroke so the issue of the additional transom weight of the new four strokes does not make much sense. Did BW provide any explanation.

Is the new console similar to any other console in their line. Is there sufficient room for instrumentation.

What was the seating area behind the console like. Also does it have any additional storage, a built-in fuel tank, flush mounted rod holders, etc.

At that price, I wonder if BW has sacrificed the proven details and quality of an established line or are they just pricing the boat where maybe it should have always been.

Thanks for any additional information that you choose to share with us.


STEPHEN posted 02-15-2002 08:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for STEPHEN  Send Email to STEPHEN     
I heard from island marine center in ocean view nj that , the new 170 will have less detail example bow rails, stainless wheel etc
James posted 02-15-2002 09:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

The BW dealers here in New Jersey started selling the Montauk with a 90HP-2 stroke, covers, bimini, on a galvanized trailer for approx. $20-$21,000. Prior to that I believe that the sale price was around the $24 -$25,000 that you stated. Now the price is dropped again by a similar amount for the new 170 boat.

Actually, I was looking forward to this new boat, hoping that BW would take a big step backwards with just one model to satisfy its loyal clientele. How much more difficult could it be to re-engineer an 18 ft. Outrage, keep its basic qualities, and price it reasonably. I feel that such a boat could do some serious damage in the current marketplace.

Anyways, I am hoping for the best here. I have a phobia about buying anything used, and I would like to buy a Whaler for my already started "gray years". Who knows, this model may be it.


scottfarm posted 02-15-2002 09:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     

The bow looks like a cross between a montauk and an outrage to me.
The bow rails look about the same
deadrise at transom----16 degrees
cockpit depth----19 inches
maximum engine weight-----410 lbs.
swamped capaacity----3400 lb
tramsom height----20"
boat has two plastic fuel containers under seat--13.2 gallons
bridge clearance---4'7"
draft----9 inches
got the brochure on it --will scan it when I get home late sunday and boy will this ole country boy be glad to get back home in the woods of north west fla.
too many people down there for me

Dick posted 02-15-2002 09:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
Maybe my brain isn't working tonight, but some of the numbers don't compute.

1> It's longer and wider than a Montauk
2> Swamped capacity is 1400 lbs more than a Montauk
3> It's 450 lbs heavier than a Montauk

1> Engine max weight is the same as a Montauk
2> HP capacity is less than a Montauk

Think I will keep my Montauk.

dgp posted 02-15-2002 10:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
Is that max HP rating from the USCG data plate or is that all that BW is offering on this new boat?
Free Willy posted 02-15-2002 11:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Free Willy  Send Email to Free Willy     
If it were my company launching a new product, it would also be on the company website.

Looks like they missed the boat,again.

lhg posted 02-16-2002 01:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Guess what, guys. They're up to their old tricks again, the same one they used when the new "13 Sport" came out. Remember that, everyone asking why the new, wider, heavier one only had a 30 HP rating on it? Then, a year later, they screwed all of the first year buyers by upping the HP to 40, leaving those first buyers with an under powered boat, hard to sell?

Well, here we are again, since we know the Coast Guard HP formula is calculated basically length times beam. Both are larger here, so more HP rating is definitely available for this boat under the formula.

So what's going on again? It's called low-ball pricing, and comparing the old 90 HP powered Montauk package against the new 90 HP powered package. So now we have the engine as a non-issue, but on a much heavier boat, one that weighs more than the 18 Outrage rated for 150 HP. This allows the package price to be slashed, making the boat look like a great deal, even though it could be not real fast. In reality, the boat should have a 115-125 on it, since it's about the same as the older 17 Outrages. But that would make it a lot less attractive as a new boat offering, and harder to sell against a smaller, more efficient, current Montauk. A Merc 4 stroke 115 EFI is a big expensive engine at 7 grand. That would mean the new Montauk is only being sold, considering about $1000 for the trailer, for about 9500. That's what the boat cost 12 years ago. Not possible. So the un-suspecting buyer is up against more than he is thinking about. The Merc 90 keeps it looking like a nice conservative, similarly sized package. And since the engine's pretty strong, they can get away with it.

There's another issue too - it's called selling Mercury outboards at a time when competition is tough and sales are slow for all brands. If you have a new, hot model, why give Yamaha, who Mercury sees as their main competitor, a chance to power your hot little new boat, Whaler's most recognized brand name, the Montauk? So what is a Whaler/Yamaha Dealer to do with a very cleverly set 90 HP max, 410 lb rating? The nice little Yamaha 90 2-stroke doesn't have the cubes or guts of the 90 Merc, a very strong engine, so that would be a risky engine swap, resulting in an underpowered boat and an unhappy customer. Nor can he put a nice Yamaha 100-4 stroke on it, which just coincidentally, happens to be a 95 HP engine, and the same as Merc 90 4-stroke, which I'm sure is an option! He could put an 80 HP Yamaha 4 stroke on it, but not probably enough HP again, and not attractive price-wise to a buyer. Then, when they inevitably raise the HP to 115 or something, the Merc 115 4-stroke weighs 386 lb., but same block Yamaha weighs 415lb, so the Dealer's boxed out again in selling a Yamaha because of the weight limit imposed. Very, very clever marketing if you ask me! Don't say these guys haven't thought it all out ahead of time.

scottfarm posted 02-16-2002 04:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
Also the battery is in the console now.
the rear stearn seats in each corner are just non-skid seat pads molded into to the cap(no storage). And the freebboard is probably more like 8-10" more instead of one and one half foot, but it looks much higher than the classic. The walk around room on each side of console is much more(very welcomed). Its a very nice boat, but like ihg, I think its under powered. Would be nice with a 115hp, and thats a very tempting price. Three guys were filling out contracts while I was looking at it.

James posted 02-16-2002 05:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

Your evaluation is very astute. All local Merc/Whaler dealers also now carry the Yamaha line. Frankly, I would install a Yamaha F-115 engine on a boat of such weight, even at the additional price of deleting the Merc pre-rig. So in my case, from a sales point of view, BW/Merc would appear to be right with the 4-stroke 90HP listing. Yamaha dropped the listed engine weight of the F-115 to 400 lbs. for 2002.

The portable 13.2 gals. of fuel listed for this heavier craft is promising business for SeaTow and Pate fuel tanks. Why not just install a built in fuel tank, say 45 gallons, like on the 16 Dauntless. I guess that I just need to see the boat.


triblet posted 02-16-2002 09:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
The Montauk battery has been in the console
for some time.


Kelly posted 02-16-2002 03:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
It is my understanding that one of the reasons the old Montauk was so high in price was that due to the age of the old tooling, alot of hand and detail work was required to get the boat in satisfactory shape for sale, thus increasing the cost of the boat. That is one of the benefits of the new tooling, the hulls are less expensive to make. I also think Whaler knew that they needed to sell this boat for mid to upper teens.

Regarding the hp rating, I agree that it seems a little low, but I think a lot of things go into the decision. It may be a matter of erring on the conservative side, or just not having enough time testing the boat with the higher powered motors. As for using the formula, it seems that there are other manufactures that post the hp capacity and also the manufacturers recommended hp, which seems to be lower.


tabasco posted 02-17-2002 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Dennis- First i would like to thank you on behalf of all the members of this forum for confirming my initial posting of the new montauk. As i had many doubters, I thank you for setting the record straight.

NOW- we are still looking forward to some photos of the new montauk. As you said, you would scan the brochure and post it when you got home.

Once again thanks

triblet posted 02-17-2002 10:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
We need a name for referring to the "new"
Montauk to differentiate it from the original. Montauk II? 2002.5 Montuak (Note
that according to whaler's website and boat
show reports, there are 2002 original

Was the Montauk ever built on the non-smirk


mjd65 posted 02-17-2002 10:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for mjd65  Send Email to mjd65     
Post Classic Montauk
scottfarm posted 02-17-2002 01:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
Couldn't figure out how to post brochure on this site. I'm not that computer savy. Sent the scanned pictures of brochure to tabasco and james. Maybe they can figure out how to. Did the best I could. The brochure shows the boat with a 90hp 4-stroke on it, but the boat show special had a 90 hp two stroke for $17,659(That whaler dealer was from edgewater, Florida
triblet posted 02-17-2002 02:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
Only jimh can post pictures here, AFAIK.


peteinsf posted 02-17-2002 03:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    

If you e-mail me the image I can create a link to view it.


Tom W Clark posted 02-17-2002 03:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     

Just upload your photos to your personal webspace on your ISP's server and put a link to them here, then we can all see them.


The Montauk first appeared in 1974 so '74, '75, '76 Monatuks were all non-smirk. This one will be the third incarnation.

scottfarm posted 02-17-2002 03:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
I emailed it to pete so he could do it. Also of interest I got the 2002 all model brochure and it had the classic montauk in it making me wonder if they are going to still offer it also along with the new montauk 170.
Ventura16 posted 02-17-2002 04:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Ventura16  Send Email to Ventura16     
The "2002" brochure was actually printed in 2001. I picked one up at one of the fall boat shows last September.

I'm sure that this new Montauk will be considered a 2003 model.


Kelly posted 02-17-2002 04:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
Maybe we could call it the "MAM", middle aged Montauk, you know, its heavier and has more beam. Kelly

I would be interested to know if the weight stated above is with "standard" power. That would make more sense to me.

scottfarm posted 02-17-2002 06:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
1400 lbs. is the dry hull weight
dgp posted 02-17-2002 07:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
Dennis, thanks for the scanned brochure.
Let's see, 450# increase in weight, 7" in length and 8" in beam and now requires 25 more HP to plane. What a pig and still no built in fuel tank!
Looks like they chucked the excellent RPS for a cheap Tracy unit and no more Norman Pin (sob); where did the yacht quality go? Next thing to go is probably the diamond surface of the non-skid decks.
Based on what I see from the brochure, no thanks, I'm not trading in my obsolete classic Montauk.
triblet posted 02-17-2002 07:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
Dunno about the new hull, but there's just
no place in the previous hull to put a
built-in tank. Most of the V is taken up
by the tunnel. Can't move the tunnel to
the side sponson cuz there just isn't room.


djahncke posted 02-17-2002 07:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for djahncke  Send Email to djahncke     
I would love to see the HP rating on the USCG data plate. The sales brocures for my Dauntless 17 state that 115HP is the max. Yet the USCG plate shows 135HP is the max.
peteinsf posted 02-17-2002 07:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    
The original scan was a bit rough, I left it in its large format.


peteinsf posted 02-17-2002 08:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    

Are there any photos in the promo sheet? If so send them along also.


scottfarm posted 02-17-2002 08:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for scottfarm  Send Email to scottfarm     
Pete, that was the back side of the brochure. Did you get the front side I sent you. Paid $80.00 for that scanner 5 years ago. Can't figure why the scanned picture would be rough. Dennis
Dick posted 02-17-2002 08:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     

Thanks for the pictures.
It isn't a bad looking boat, but a Montauk it isn't.

peteinsf posted 02-17-2002 08:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    
OK, this is it!


It looks like the back page was scanned in "photo" mode. Text can get chopped up when the scanner is looking for color or grey scale.

The front look great!

How about "Monrage-170" (grin)


[Since this message thread was begun, I have since published a complete description of the new 2002 170 Montauk, including color photographs, in the REFERENCE section.--jimh]

Arch Autenreith posted 02-17-2002 09:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for Arch Autenreith  Send Email to Arch Autenreith     
Well, I think it's going to take awhile to adjust to this.

Uh oh. Dare we say that future conversations on the new Montauk have to take place on 'Post-Classic'?

James posted 02-17-2002 09:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

Thank you very much for the effort to post the pictures.

I like it! I think that it is the best looking, most Classic-style new boat that BW has made in a long time. Something different than what I have grown to expect from this outfit.

Outside of the maximum 90/115 HP issue, and the lack of a stationary fuel tank (nothing really new here!)I think that credit is due to the Whaler engineers who controlled the design. There was probably pressure to build another SeaRay. Yet they kept the basic identity and functionality of the old design while re-tooling for their current market needs.


peteinsf posted 02-17-2002 09:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    
At least it has a straight sheer line, if not it we would have had to name it "Monquest-170"

Dennis, what did the underside looklike? What sort of deadrise?

Tom W Clark posted 02-17-2002 09:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
New Montauk:

My reaction: ho hum....

masbama posted 02-17-2002 10:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for masbama  Send Email to masbama     
I like it! Really, what's not to like (other than max HP not being 115). I bet it does everything our current Montauks do plus rides a little better. Some people will whine no matter what Whaler came out with. It was time for a face lift and that is what they did. One word for those who wanted a built in gas tank, etc.....Dauntless!
andygere posted 02-18-2002 01:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
13.2 gallons of fuel? I guess Whaler doesn't know how people are using these boats! The hull looks OK, but big losses are 1) RPS; 2) Shepard's crook on console rail; 3) Suitable mounting location for a kicker; and 4) Canvas options beyond a bimini top. Looking at the photos, it's hard to imagine where the extra weight is coming from. I guess it could have been a lot worse....
triblet posted 02-18-2002 06:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
The changes in length and width take the
weight from 935 to 1065 pounds (do the math)
which accounts for only 28% of the increase.
It may be a touch deeper too which would add
weight. But all the whalers have been
getting heavier.

It has a cleat where the norman pin was. I
suspect the norman pin was a manufacturing

From the pix, underside is still a cathedral

Generally: longer, wider, maybe lower.

From the drawings, it looks like they've
managed to keep the cable off the main deck
which is an improvement.

It won't fit in my garage (my '96ish Montauk
is a slip fit), so that makes it a no go
for me, at least until I build the shop/boat
house in the side yard (which will hold an
OR27 just fine).

EVERYTHING about boats is a tradeoff.


jbtaz posted 02-18-2002 08:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for jbtaz  Send Email to jbtaz     
I love it! It needs to offer a bigger Merc though.
SWarren posted 02-18-2002 08:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for SWarren  Send Email to SWarren     
I like it. I think whaler has made a boat that competes well with the 17 to 19 foot scouts and seapros. The should recapture lost market share, and should sell a ton of them. It will also new boat buyers to become brand loyal, like we all are. The new boater will buy the 13 or 17 at a fair price, learn how to boat and then buy the expensive 21 or 23 outrage. Whaler has then accompolished its mission, brand loyality, increased sales and more profit. If I was buying a new boat I would buy the new 17 filled totaly with foam vs the other boats any day.
Bullbay posted 02-18-2002 09:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bullbay  Send Email to Bullbay     
I agree that it is a great new boat and design. I would like to have one not to replace my 89 Montauk but to supplement it. Of course the resale on my 89 has now gone down by $2 to $3000.
Bigshot posted 02-18-2002 11:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
You crazy mon? Resale on that 89 just went up and will continue.

I like the new hull so far. The footpads on bow are great,why they did not have them on the Dauntless, etc was beyond me. I think all boats should have them, stern ones too.

I know that BW is pulling a fast one again like on the 13. The 13 was at every show with a $7995 or $8495 special price. Now they are mucho higher. You'll see that 170 next year with the comfort package and a 115 4 stroke in the low 20's.

where2 posted 02-18-2002 12:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for where2  Send Email to where2     
Having seen it in person, it wasn't much more of a mutilation of the old design than the 13 was of the original 13. I was surprised to see the price being what it was. I figured for what they wanted for the tender last year, any new Montauk would be starting at $20k. For $18k, it didn't look bad. It just didn't look special either. The console was no big frills, the boat was no big frills. Then again, that's why I have a 15' Sport, I need something to pull me waterskiing without any big frills.

Traffic wasn't bad Dennis, you got there too late. Get there at 9:30AM next year... I got there at 10:30AM last year, traffic was bad. 9:30AM this year, traffic was fine, all the way down from West Palm.

bigz posted 02-18-2002 01:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Looking closely at the hull appears you no longer have a tri-hull but a modified Accu trac even though they maintained the bow curve and reverse chimes, the boat has the appearance of Dougherty's Everglade and the Maritime Skiff hulls. Might add, look close at the 2001 13 hull and imagine proportional enlarging it to this 170 hull.

Dougherty hasn't got their smaller boats shown which are supposed to start at 14' I suspect these will be in direct competition once they have a 17/18 model. Maritime already has an 18 not as nicely finished but then again the show price for it with a Honda 4 stroke at the AC NJ show was less than $14,000!

LHG maybe 100% on the mark with the hp rating snake oil side show, as he said this seems the same as they played it for the new 13. I do think it could be that folks who purchased a Montauk 2001 late in the year or a 2002 might have got screwed.

The other unknown is the actual handling and sea keeping abilities of this hull --- one thing for the factory to run them up and down the ICW and maybe a trip over to Mercury's lake X another thing entirely to put them to practical use in varied conditions over time. I suspect though the boat will ride pretty decent like the new 13 and the Dauntless.

Depends as usual what you want it for ---- if just a good stable fishing boat then I'd probably opt for a Maritime 18 maybe an Everglade depending on the price when it is introduced --- for plus $5000 premium to have bragging rights that I own a Whaler new or old Montauk just ain't worth it ---

Anyway, just my nickels worth since none of what I said matters much to me since another "little" boat ain't in the picture ---- Z

PS scottfarm thank you for bringing the forum the news, appreciated

ledfoot posted 02-18-2002 04:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for ledfoot  Send Email to ledfoot     
I was at the Miami boat show, and spent a lot of time looking over the new Montauk. I do not own a classic Montauk, and I am not terribly familiar with the old model. My industrial design back ground makes me acutely aware of the major design differences between the two boats. (by the way, I took half a roll of film of the details (just for you guys) and I will hand those over to jimh as soon as they are developed) I also spent some time speaking with a design engineer who was there at the show.

Initial impessions:
Overall, this is probably the best evolution of a classic design that Whaler has attempted thusfar.



The sheer is still classic and slightly upturned at the bow

The overall size did not increase dramatically (except to make it more user-friendly)

The foredeck kept its squarish plan view

Rails and console emulate the originals

Freeboard did not get high and ugly like the 13 sport

The boat does not sit high and ugly in the water

I don't think this is an out-of-the park home run, but with the pricing low and the size just right, and the styling pretty close to the classic, I think it should do well. It just needs a higher horsepower rating (135 would be nice)

Just my opinion, but if you've seen the 255 Conquest or the just-introduced 270 Outrage, this is a breath of fresh air.

ps I asked the Whaler guys if they had considered a "modern classics" line, and they said that they WANT to do that, but they don't think the economises of scale would allow for two lines of boats. Write and tell them which line YOU would select from, and maybe they would reconsider...

photos will follow soon...

lhg posted 02-18-2002 05:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
My very first visual impression was that this boat looks like the previous, discontinued 16SL, a VanLancker design. I hope it's a better boat than that one was.

The console looks terribly cheap, and not well laid out. Drink holders in front of an advanced throttle? I was hoping they would use the nice looking new console being put in the 18 Dauntless. Note the small instrumentation space. Mercury is intent on pushing these incredibly expensive Smartcraft gauge pairs, about $600. That's about all there is room for. Same with the new Dauntless 18 console.

What's with a limit of 13 gallons of gas, above deck tank? Doesn't this one AT LEAST need the same 27 gallon capacity of the earlier Montauks? Won't one of those fit under the seat? Could the design be that bad? There must be a surprise in store on this. Even the 16 Dauntless holds 45 gallons.

Speaking of the 16 Dauntless, I'll bet this model is about to be history? This new Montauk is probably it's replacement. They're almost identical in size, but the Montauk has more useable interior space and no wasted Euro transom space. Why make two boats in the same niche? Any bets?

So then they'll do a 15 Sport, and have the three "new" Classics?

tabasco posted 02-18-2002 05:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I like the new montauk enought that I called the dealer and cancelled the great deal I was getting on the 2001 leftover and ordered the new style montauk. The main reason for doing this is the increased freeboard. As I will be using the boat mainly on long island sound the additional freeboard 8-10 will be much appreciated. If I were just doing small lake boating the original would have been fine but it has been a concern of mine ever since i signed the purchase order.I am sure I will sacrifice some speed with the heavier hull but expect to get a smoother ride when the wind blows up as it often does on the sound.
I am sure there will be those who disagree with me but since I am laying out the bucks "Im buying the new one"
seasicknes posted 02-18-2002 06:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
I like the transition overall. It was bound to happen that the montauk will change sooner or later.

*Tabasco- When will you take delivery of it ?


tabasco posted 02-18-2002 06:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
They will give me a delivery date by weeks end. Not in such a rush as boating here doesn't really start til May.
Still hoping that they will reconsider and offer the 115 EFI . I think if they did they couldn't keep up with the orders that would flow in.
seasicknes posted 02-18-2002 07:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
By the looks of the picture, it has a 4 stroke on it, but no number.
The specs says max engine weight is 410 pounds.

These are approx weights of these motors:
Suzuki 90 hp (4 stroke)is 380 pounds (not sure)
Suzuki 140 hp (4 stroke) is 410 pounds
Honda 90 hp (4 stroke) is 373 pounds
Yamaha 80 & 100 (4 stroke) is 356 pounds
Mercury 90 & 115 hp (4 stroke) is 386 pounds

Yamaha 90 hp (2 stroke) is 261 pounds
Yamaha 115 hp (2 stroke) is 358 pounds
Mercury 90 hp (2 stroke) is 303 pounds
Mercury 115 hp (2 stroke) is 347 pounds


lhg posted 02-18-2002 07:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I agree that a 115 EFI 4-stroke, or even a 125 two stroke, would be the best engine for one of these new boats. (the 115 2 stroke is no more powerful than the 90) Strange but true, according to Mercury's own Prop charts.

If it were me, I would buy the boat, unrigged, without engine, and go to a discounter for the engine of my choice. This will be cheaper anyway. If you are forced to take a factory engine (let us know what Whaler's doing on this matter), I would get the lower cost 2-stroke 90. This is a highly popular engine, and you could sell it off the boat easily if you don't like it. Then still get what you want. I would be very skeptical of that 90 HP "trap". Will Whaler's ten year warranty be voided if you put more than a 90 on it? Insurance? What happened with first buyers of the 13 who got 30's, and then wanted to put on 40's? Warranty voided? Hull plate replaced? Insurance problems? BW needs to fix this problem fast!

With the current Montauk, and indeed the entire history of the 16/17' hull at 100HP, there is no way the new one shouldn't be rated for at least 115. The buyers are not that dumb to not be able to figure it out.

hauptjm posted 02-19-2002 03:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Not a bad looking boat. Someone earlier stated it looked like a 13. I agree. In fact that was the first thing that popped in my mind. Of course, the Whaler web-site has not updated its content to show this new model. But then they still are showing the Feb 2000 issue of the magazine they used to produce. I'm stinging from lhg's assesment of the engine situation. I've tried to come up with something that didn't seem so sinister, and I can't. I'd be leary going into a deal at this point, if for no other reason than this.
Barnett Childress posted 02-20-2002 05:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barnett Childress  Send Email to Barnett Childress     
I think that the new Montauk looks like it's a bit of leftover Montauk, combined with the Dauntless series. Bow looks a bit more rounded, higher freeboard, wider, heavier, more flotation, etc. Anchor locker, console and helm seat look exactly like the units used in the Dauntless 16.

I haven't seen a new Montauk yet, just going from the pics. But I have owned a 1999 Dauntless 16 & now a 2001 Montauk. To me it looks like they tried to get some of the newer features & components thier already using into the updated version so that they could share them across the product line.

So what is it? a Montaukless or a Dauntauk:>?

Call it what you want, but both the old Montauk & the Dauntless have their strong points. Just depends on what you want to use the boat for. Once the HP issue is worked out this new effort to combine both designs seems like it has the potential to be a big seller for BW. Even here on the Classic Whaler forum views seem split pretty evenly.

tabasco posted 02-20-2002 10:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I'll bet that Suzuki 140HP would make that new montauk fly. Especially since it weighs in at the 410 max weight. Now if we could only get whaler to raise the HP limit.
zpeed7 posted 02-21-2002 10:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for zpeed7  Send Email to zpeed7     
Is it just me or does that transom look real thin to you guys?
hauptjm posted 02-22-2002 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
The first thing I would do is cut a door access hatch at the rear of the console. I know there is a hatch on the port side, but my old Outrage/Montauk console has both, and I love it. When you're running and you want to access the console, you just pop open the rear hatch and.... No moving to the port side to get in.
triblet posted 02-22-2002 10:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
While I agree that a rear access hatch into the
console would be good, they may have run the
control cables there.


jimh posted 02-23-2002 01:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Latecomers to this thread should note that there now are excellent color photographs fo the new Montauk model and complete specifications, including performance predictions, available in the REFERENCE section. See


kingfish posted 02-23-2002 08:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     
In general, I think BW has kept enough of the aspects of the Classic Montauk and added enough new aspects that are considered "user friendly" by a wider range of the boating population than just us old teak-loving hardliners, that I'm betting on a success. For those who like the ability to monkey around with things themselves, change things out, etc., it might not be as attractive as the Classic; for those who like the general "look" but aren't into spending more time fussing with their boat than using it (guilty!), I'm with Ledfoot. Not out of the park, but a good solid hit.


Tom W Clark posted 02-24-2002 10:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
A few observations:

The minimum hp for this boat is 60 hp. In the case of all the "Classic" hulls, minimum hp was typically 30% -50% of maximum hp. So if we are thinking the 90 hp limit is Whaler contrived (and I think there is legitimacy to this argument) then we would expect this hull to actually be worthy of at least 120 hp.

Looking at this boat from another angle, it is clearly a bigger boat than the real Montauk (either version). Wouldn’t it be better to compare it to the Outrage 17? It is closer to this hulls dimensions and weight as well as (what we suspect to be the real) maximum hp.

The question to ask yourself is: If I got $18,000 to spend on a boat this size, do I want a new Montauk 170 or a Classic Outrage 17? Not a tough choice in my opinion.

lhg posted 02-25-2002 06:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
The BW performance figures with the 90 HP engines surprised me a little. A boat that will do 44 mph is a reasonable power package. If true, the Merc 90 2 stroke looks like a good deal, and a very strong engine, more like a 115. We know that the Merc 90/Yamaha 100 4 strokes are both about 95HP engines, so to be faster, the Merc 90 2 stroke must be at least 100 HP.

I was looking at my 18 Outrage in the garage this weekend. It's a pretty big, substantial boat, with a built in 63 gallon tank. I can't imagine that the new Montauk weighs 150 lb more, considering the 18 is a foot and a half longer, and 4" wider. Where is the weight coming from? Nor can I imagine a single 90 on the 18 Outrage pushing it to 43 mph. A friend has an 18 with a single 130Hp Yamaha, and it does 43 max. So something's not right here. Or is it me? Generally longer boats of the SAME weight plane easier and run faster.

But anyway, although I haven't seen one yet, I think it's probably a boat that will sell surprisingly well. How does the price and performance compare to a 16 Dauntless with the same 90 HP on it? And bring back a higher version of the original RPS (glass OR teak backrest), please!

dgp posted 02-25-2002 07:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
Larry, question? Is it possible that Whaler inaccuratly stated the weights of the older classics? This could be the monkey wrench that's being thrown into these formulas for calculating speeds.
BMR posted 02-25-2002 08:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for BMR    
It is my understanding that Mercury overstates their horse power by up to 10%, The Japanese do not do this, they usually come up a few horses short
lhg posted 02-25-2002 08:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Don - I really can't answer your question, but I think I have heard rumors that the 18 Outrage often weighed more than the published 1250 lb. But I really don't know, since I've never weighed mine. I would think it would be really easy for a Company to weigh a hull and show it's weight.

But I do know that in 1999 they had a real serious problem understating the weights of almost every one of the new heavier Whalers, which resulted in trailer problems and boat lift collapses for the Dealers. I always gave the old company credit for being honest, but who knows?

Dick E posted 03-19-2002 11:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick E  Send Email to Dick E
Yhe link above will give you some nice pictures of the new Montauk

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.