posted 02-15-2002 07:33 PM ET (US)        

[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
beam--6'10"
Maximum hp----90hp(Weird huh)
dry wight---1400lbs.----up from 950

posted 02-15-2002 08:22 PM ET (US)         

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.

posted 02-15-2002 08:38 PM ET (US)            

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.

James.

posted 02-15-2002 09:02 PM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-15-2002 09:31 PM ET (US)            

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

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

posted 02-16-2002 01:02 AM ET (US)         

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.

posted 02-16-2002 05:48 AM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-16-2002 03:53 PM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-17-2002 09:49 AM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-17-2002 10:16 AM ET (US)            

Was the Montauk ever built on the non-smirk
hull?

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

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

Pete

mailto:pete@esquared.com

posted 02-17-2002 03:17 PM ET (US)            

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.

Triblet,

posted 02-17-2002 04:32 PM ET (US)            

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

posted 02-17-2002 07:58 PM ET (US)         

http://pete.esquared.net/montauk-2002.jpg

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

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

Pete

posted 02-17-2002 08:25 PM ET (US)         

Dennis,

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!

http://pete.esquared.net/montauk-2002-fr.jpg

How about "Monrage-170" (grin)

Pete

[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]

posted 02-17-2002 09:13 PM ET (US)            

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

posted 02-17-2002 09:30 PM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-18-2002 06:51 AM ET (US)            

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

From the pix, underside is still a cathedral
hull.

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.

posted 02-18-2002 11:07 AM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-18-2002 01:05 PM ET (US)         

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

posted 02-18-2002 04:12 PM ET (US)            

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

Why?

They KEPT IT SIMPLE.

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...

posted 02-18-2002 05:05 PM ET (US)         

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?

posted 02-18-2002 07:03 PM ET (US)         

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

posted 02-18-2002 07:05 PM ET (US)         

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!

posted 02-20-2002 05:39 PM ET (US)            

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:>?

posted 02-24-2002 10:52 PM ET (US)            

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.

posted 02-25-2002 06:13 PM ET (US)         

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.