Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  2002 170 MONTAUK - Reference Page

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

Author Topic:   2002 170 MONTAUK - Reference Page
jimh posted 02-21-2002 03:09 AM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
Please note the very hot-off-the-press publication of a new REFERENCE page on the just-introduced Montauk. See URI:
170-MONTAUK Reference Article .

Please use this thread for comments.

jimh posted 02-21-2002 03:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I'll add more photographs as I have a chance. Note the time of this posting--it is getting late!

Thanks to Jeff Angeleri for dropping these off in person last night.

Enjoy the pictures. These are much higher quality than anything posted elsewhere.

PMUCCIOLO posted 02-21-2002 04:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for PMUCCIOLO    
Your post is replete with information! I saw the boat...It is NOT for me. I don't think that it should be called a "Montauk" because many of the original "Montauk" design elements have been diluted or eliminated. Also, even though the hull design is "updated" to the new style (like the 13) isn't a 90HP a bit anemic for that much mass?
Whalerdan posted 02-21-2002 07:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     
Looks good to me. The only thing I see wrong is the rails. The old design I sure is a lot stronger. The new looks like it will pull out over time.
tabasco posted 02-21-2002 08:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Anybody know where the placement of the tackle draws are located? Can't see them on the photos
hardensheetmetal posted 02-21-2002 09:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for hardensheetmetal  Send Email to hardensheetmetal     
I've got to say, from strictly a business point of view, this boat will be a winner for Whaler and Brunswick.

Dan

hauptjm posted 02-21-2002 10:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Two simple observations:

1. jimh beats Brunswick to the punch as far as information available to the public. Thanks Scoop Hebert.

2. There looks to be an attempt to retain some "classic" taste evidenced by the bow/nav light set-up, the grab bar at the front of the windscreen (although not the Sheapherds crook) and overall not a bad execution. I hope CPD still makes the original available for some time.

GAwhale posted 02-21-2002 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for GAwhale  Send Email to GAwhale     
jimh - Thank you for your very fair write up of this new boat. I think it's good that you remain 'middle of the road'. Time will be the true judge.

I don't like to be the guinea pig and buy the first year model of anything. Let them work the bugs out and make adjustments.

Thanks for the good pictures Jeff.

blackdog posted 02-21-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for blackdog  Send Email to blackdog     
Looks a lot like my Dauntless Console and Pilot seat.
JACKLAV posted 02-21-2002 10:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for JACKLAV  Send Email to JACKLAV     
What has happened to the classic look of the Whaler that we have all come to love and enjoy. I could always spot and reconize a the Whaler hull from a great distance. That will now never be the same. I'm glad that I own an original Montauk.
Landlocked posted 02-21-2002 10:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Landlocked  Send Email to Landlocked     
I own a classic Montauk but I have to admit -I'd consider the new version if I were shopping.... Considering that motor is 5,000 + the package seems to be very fairly priced. Looks like it makes use of available space a little better and would probably feel much "bigger" than my boat.

Just wish they would have added a splinter or two of teak for effect - would it really have cost them that much?

Ll.

Salmon Tub posted 02-21-2002 10:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
It is catchy and more in line with their other hulls but, it is yet again getting farther and farther from a whaler. 1st observation is the fact that they have a passage for wires/cables running somewhere through the hull from the console to the engine. This was the reason I bought my montalk in the first place. KISS, keep it simple..., passages like that develope into problems over time i.e. if water, dirt gets in. If you are not going to compromise the hull with an internal gas tank, then why compromise it with this tube? The reason whalers (classics) last so long is because you don't have internal junk that can become contaminated with water and corrode. I like the width but only time will tell as to performance. Looks like they went away from the practical and went in the direction of asthetics (on the showroom floor).
Tom W Clark posted 02-21-2002 11:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Congratulations Boston Whaler, you're finally made a boat that looks just like a Wahoo...
Chesapeake posted 02-21-2002 01:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chesapeake  Send Email to Chesapeake     
Well, some good and some not so good. Thanks Jim for the 170 coverage page on Cetacea. It gives a great look at the boat.

I am not a great fan of the new console. Primarily because I liked (or was more used to) the looks of the Montauk / Outrage console. Then again, the bottom falling out of those seems to be a not unusual process.

The pilot seat is a definite negative in MHO. It is going to limit accessibility to the tanks, not to mention the size of tank. I am sure someone will figure out how to jamb a larger tank beneath -- without have to break your back every time one re-fuels. It just seems that the classic seat provided many options in this regard.

Next, the swinging seatback looks cheap. I never liked it on the Dauntless and like it even less here. Guess it was easier / cheaper to build. Great. It now looks like every other boat.

I do like the transom. It looks much "cleaner" than the classic Montauk. There don't appear to be a ton of wires and cables in the way to look at and trip over.

Last, while I like the looks of the Montauk smirk, Brunswick has done a nice job in keeping some of that smirk in the new design. So ... over all... not too bad. Nothing that couldn't be cured by ripping out the console and pilot seat, anyway.

Chesapeake

JFM posted 02-21-2002 02:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
I like what I see. I like the price. My son and I are going to the local dealer to see if there is a package deal with a 4 stroke. Regards, Jay P.S. I'll report back if there is a 4 stroke deal.
seasicknes posted 02-21-2002 02:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
Thanks for posting the pictures and the specs on the new Montauk II.

I like the majority of the changes except for the seat. I am so-so on the center console.

Do you guys noticed that the center console is missing the big door ?

Ken

Dick posted 02-21-2002 02:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
I like it, if I didn't allready own a Montauk I would buy one. I don't see a problem with the 90, it should still run in the high 30s and for me that is great. The only downer for me is the Dauntless console. I could live with the seat, should be able to fit at least an 18 gal tank under there.
Arch Autenreith posted 02-21-2002 02:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Arch Autenreith  Send Email to Arch Autenreith     
Someone always says what I'm thinking but couldn't find the words (boat).

Tom Clark said it perfectly for me also.

It may appear that I'm in the minority here but I'm liking it less and less. That being said I guess the price is coming inline more with other competitors. There shouldn't be any competition but I guess there will be from now on.

Whaletosh posted 02-21-2002 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    
regarding the seat back on the new Montauk. It isn't a cheaply made assembly. The rail is stainless as is all of the hardware. The pad is marine grade vinyl and foam. The side plates are stainless and though bolted into the seat base as is the bottom swivel point. The side plates allow for 4 different posiotion of the seat back, not just two. I use the leaning post position a lot while fishing on my Daunltess 14. Cheap would have been an aluminum rail, plastic plates, screws instead of through bolts, and only two positions as on the Todd seats. The Dauntless seat is firmly locked in place in any of the positions, I have never had it slip out and change position while underway.

Personnally, I like the Dauntless console better. Although, I will admit that I am basing my judgement on observation rather than actual experience. The only complaint i have is the size of the door, but that is only an issue when I need to do some wiring.

TightPenny posted 02-21-2002 03:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for TightPenny  Send Email to TightPenny     
The nice storage in the RPS will be sorely missed. Where can you drop spare sinkers and lures with the new setup? It also lost the two rod holders in the RPS.

Couldn't tell from the photos, how many rod holders are in front of the console. Does anyone know?

Whaletosh posted 02-21-2002 03:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    
Then again this tread is about the new Montauk, good or bad, and I guess I should not started the sidetrack of it being yet another classic vs. new debate.
Whaletosh posted 02-21-2002 03:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    
regarding the seat back on the new Montauk. It isn't a cheaply made assembly. The rail is stainless as is all of the hardware. The pad is marine grade vinyl and foam. The side plates are stainless and though bolted into the seat base as is the bottom swivel point. The side plates allow for 4 different posiotion of the seat back, not just two. I use the leaning post position a lot while fishing on my Daunltess 14. Cheap would have been an aluminum rail, plastic plates, screws instead of through bolts, and only two positions as on the Todd seats. The Dauntless seat is firmly locked in place in any of the positions, I have never had it slip out and change position while underway.

Personnally, I like the Dauntless console better. Although, I will admit that I am basing my judgement on observation rather than actual experience. The only complaint i have is the size of the door, but that is only an issue when I need to do some wiring.

tabasco posted 02-21-2002 04:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
JFM-
Here is the 4 stroke info.......... You add $2100 and they give you the 4 stroke. That's what i decided to do.
whalerfran posted 02-21-2002 05:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerfran    
Jim-We must once again thank you for all the information and photos. The new Montauk will probably provide a more comfortable (and dry?) ride, but I will miss the truly classic lines of the old model. To me an important part of boat ownership is appreciating and taking pride in the boat's appearance. I agree with Tom Clark's opinion of the new model; so I would not buy a new one. In any event, will the price reduction on the new model make it easier to negotiate with a dealer on the price of a new old model?
lhg posted 02-21-2002 06:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I really don't think it's too bad, except for the now easily recognizable lower level of component quality that we have consistently seen since 1996, when Sea Ray took over control of the company. Since they keep insisting this is their tried and true formula for sales, they're not about to give it up. We will just have to get used to it, upgrade it ourselves (which I would do) or stay with our higher quality outfitted Classics.

The new Reversible Pilot Seat stands out as a run-of-the-mill component, basically available in any accessory catalog. The original RPS was pure Whaler, and pure quality. Not this one, and it hurts the overall impression of the boat. The Dauntless models have suffered through that seat also. The plastic shell base to hide the tanks is terrible. An original teak backed RPS, with 4" taller legs than the standard, would have looked beautiful in this boat. Doesn't this boat need the 28 gallon capacity also, that the original seat allows? 13 gallons for this boat is ridiculous. One has to wonder who approved such a decision. Certainly not someone who understands how Montauks get used. This is the wrong place to save a few bucks.

The console's all right, but not great. But it is their new standard fare. Take a look at the console in the new Dauntless 18, and see if you don't like it better. It's the one that belongs in this boat.

Except for the rounded transom corners, which I absolutely HATE, and see no reason for, the hull is OK. We can now see the lines of the new generation Whalers, which are much better than the current, all lines. All of the new hulls, the 13, 17, 21, 22 and 27 now have a more recognizable Whaler smirk, with concave lines rather than the current bulbous convex shapes of the 96-2001 generation boats. The gunwales are getting lower again, replacing the high sided previous models, which were really overdone. So I think all of this is positive, and when you see these hull shapes coming toward you on the water, I think you will agree the designs are improving, finally, rather than digressing. All of this is positive to me. The boats do not look like our classics, but a more familiar Whaler design vocabulary seems to be developing, with more uniformity between models than we have seen in 12 years. As Sea Ray's first generation of Whalers is phased out over the next couple of years, the new ones should look better. Even the Euro look is starting to be old hat, recognized for the desgin gimmick that it was, and now developing into new transom shapes.

So we now are starting to see what's ahead
from BW. If you at the picture showing the 17 from the side, notice the identical look of the 13 Sport sitting in the background.
Look for a 15 to fill gap, with BW once again returning to past Classic hulls of 13, 15 & 17. As I said before, the 16 Dauntless will probably disappear at that time. This identically sized Montauk will replace it.

We already have hints that the current 23 will soon be replaced, with the end of the 23 Conquest. I'll also bet there's a new 25 in the works, replacing the gap when the current 26 goes.

What mystifies me is the Conquest line, particularly the new smallest one. It looks nothing like this new generation of Whalers, or any Whaler at all. A Bayliner. What happened there is beyond me. Maybe the Conquests are all headed over to the Sea Ray line?

So what would be my perfect new 17 Montauk?

1. A new Dauntless 18 Console instead.
2. A nice Classic RPS, with 28 gallon tank
3. A 94Qt cooler seat, for more storage and comfort
4. A taller bow rail
5. A 115HP Merc EFI 4-stroke, or 135 Opti.
6. A keel roller trailer!!!

Thanks Jeff and Jim for bringing this great information to us. BW ought to be paying for this kind of advertising! Well done.

lhg posted 02-21-2002 06:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
In looking at the photos, it appears the Tempo 28 or Moeller 26 tank can fit under the seat.
dscew posted 02-21-2002 07:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for dscew    
The one thing that I am SO happy about is that BW didn't put the Euro transom on it. Otherwise, it's ho-hum to me. I'll stick to my tried and true '74. The extra beam should be a plus.
Tallydon posted 02-21-2002 07:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tallydon  Send Email to Tallydon     
I seriously doubt that the 170 will replace the D16. There is no live well, no internal tank, no storage, and it is a shallower vee than the D16. I bet its ride will be better than the classic Montauk, more similar to the discontinued D15 which had similar shallower vee. The 170 looks like a good work boat and entry level boat. But if you want comfort, go with the D16-18.
jimh posted 02-21-2002 08:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I was able to get some performance data on the new boat in the three engine options available. Also, I added much more information about the new cable rigging and tunnel design.


Production of 170 Montauks began today, with JOB-1 rolling off the line today!

masbama posted 02-21-2002 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for masbama  Send Email to masbama     
[Consolidated from separate thread--jimh] It is true that Whalers always had that "classic" look that people like us love, but it is 2002. All things must change. I think the [170 Montuak] is a good first step. Let's face it--most of us want a little more beam and a litle smoother ride in chop. The new Montauk should give us both. One thing I wish my '77 Montauk had is the fill-in of the rear with seats/steps like the new one has. It's about time. The HP situation seems to be a way of forcing Mercs down our throats which is disturbing but hopefully that will change. I'm repowering my '77 this year; keep it for at least five more - then look for a two year old (2005) model. The issues should be worked out by then.
whalernut posted 02-21-2002 10:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
O.k. here is the shocker. I like it if it had what LHG said it should have, but instead of calling it a Montauk, I would name it a Dauntless `17 or a an Outrage `17. It looks more like them than a Montauk. In this naming scheme, they could still make the `17 Montauk and this New model with different names under a different line, anybody agree with that??? Jack.
Macman posted 02-22-2002 07:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for Macman  Send Email to Macman     
Nice to hear from the Whalernut! I concur with LHG's observations. The boat looks ok to me....but will reserve judgement until I see one...or maybe test one.
The fuel capacity is puzzling.A day of fishing on the ocean with the 90 will make short order of those tanks. The console/pilot seat remind me of the 17' Aqua sport. I like my Montauk(95)helm much better.
I suppose,in the final analysis, it is all in the ride, eh??
whalernut posted 02-22-2002 07:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Now that I look at it some more, I like the old bow norman pin better than the one cleat, anyone agree with that?? Also, I would change out the rubrail to the older barbour style. I`ll keep finding things to change, but as far as the exterior hull styling I like it, but not as a replacement for the Montauk, but to compliment it in a different line. Jack.
North Beach posted 02-22-2002 08:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    
Interesting price comparison-1996 17 outrage with 4 stroke honda versus the new montauk-- I assume that the outrage will ride better and have longer range, but the montauk is a new boat. Of course, the outragebhas aleady depreciated . . . .
Tallydon posted 02-22-2002 08:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tallydon  Send Email to Tallydon     
The setup with the seat and the fuel containers is similar to the old D15 seat. When I owned the D15, never had a problem with fueling them. The reason: just unsnapped the seat cushion and had wide open access to both tanks to refuel them. I bet a larger tank could easily fit in there just like some had who owned the D15s.
Alan Hiccock posted 02-23-2002 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
They really made a nice looking boat here and the attractive pricing is something I never expected from BW.
This boat with it's increase beam & weight will have much more range then the old montauk. Allthough if I hit a log out there doing 35 mph's I wonder if I might be better off in the old montauk is it as tuff as the classics? Also will this boat float if cut into 3 pieces like all the other whalers? Something tells me that these attractive prices on the new 13 sport & now the montauk is more then labor savings it's got to be a cheaper construction technique or something.
Now to the performance results...
They're telling me this boat went 43.7 mph's with 2 people gas & gear???
So thats 1440 plus 325 lbs {for 2 skinny guys}, Let's give it 2 full gas tanks @ 7lbs. a gallon = 91 lbs, couple batterys & gear 200 lbs. Thats 2056 lbs..
theyre not just being agressive on the pricing but also on reporting the truth of it's performance..
I can tell you right now that no 2056 lb. boat powered with a 90 horse outboard will do 45 mph's , no way no how. Add bottom paint and deduct another 3-5 .
It's a big mistake this low HP rating & it takes away from the boats saftey and offshore performance not to mention the load on the engine which is also an issue.
I wonder if they will increase the hp rating if everyone complains. I'ts the only thing that would keep me from buying it.
My opinion with that weight a 135 minium hp sounds right & would top out in the low 40's. Alan
jimh posted 02-24-2002 01:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Alan's comments caused me to get out some catalogues, look up some dimensions, and do some calculations.

For 90-HP 2-stroke

WT= 303 lbs.
Gear Ratio = 1:2.30
WOT RPM = 5,500
PROP PITCH = 21 inches

For 90-HP 4-stroke

WT= 386 lbs.
Gear Ratio = 1:2.07
WOT RPM = 6,000
PROP PITCH = 16 inches

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED TO OBSERVED
Analyzing the propellers with an allowance of about 3% for SLIP and assuming that the engines can achieve their rated WOT crankcase speed, I get the following:

90-HP 2-stroke WOT = 46 MPH (43.7 Factory)
90-HP 4-stroke WOT = 42.5 MPH (43.0 Factory)

The numbers reported from the factory do seem to be very close to the maximum possible speeds for the situation assumed in the predicted speed analysis. Perhaps they ran the 90-HP 4-stroke a little past the redline at 6,000 RPM.

SPEED PREDICTION ON WEIGHT and HP

Computing the weight and horsepower of the boat and motor and guessing at a hull factor will enable speed predictions. I used a HULL FACTOR = 200 (similar to the "classic" hulls).


For the boat itself, I used the following weights:

DRY WEIGHT BOAT = 1,440 pounds
2-People@175 lbs = 350 pounds
6 gals @ 6.5 lbs/gal = 40 pounds
Battery and Gear = 70 pounds
---------------------------
TOTAL WT (less Engine) = 1,900 pounds.

Adding the engine weights gives the following total weights and predicted speeds:

90-HP 2-stroke = 2,203 lbs. = 40.4 MPH (43.7 factory)
90-HP 4-stroke = 2,286 lbs. = 39.7 MPH (43 factory)

Again, the factory results show numbers somewhat higher, but this is not necessary something to dispute. The new hull form may be very efficient!

jimh posted 02-24-2002 01:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I should mention that if you paint the bottom, put up the Bimini, add some beer, bait, and babes, then perfromance will probably drop out of the 40-MPH range for both rigs.

The other rig with the 60-HP may be very nice for trolling at slow speeds, given the big-foot lower unit.

andygere posted 02-24-2002 02:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
The 60 hp minimum should give a hint about the power required to push this boat. The classic Montauk would "plane satisfactorly with a light load" on only 35 hp. It seems like 90 hp is pretty light to push this boat when fully loaded. My guess it that the narrow power range is based on package price point and has little to do with the performance capabilities of the hull.

I'm not wild about the console, especially the lack of a door on the aft side of it, nearest the driver. Also, I wonder how sturdy the rails are, without the bracing inside the gunwhales. Finally, I wonder if the new bilge/tunnel configuration will make the interior of the console a wet place. Overall, not a bad looking boat, but the only real improvement seems to be the price.

Alan Hiccock posted 02-24-2002 09:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
Jim,
factor in summer month water temps. and thats good for another 2-3 mph loss easy.
I see that your #'s are close to the factorys but I just came out of a V19 Carolina Skiff pre-rigged with a 90 Johnson I bought new.
Boats total weight without engine & gear was 1400lbs. I had the right prop and when it was new & crisp, my best speed was 41 mph on GPS in early spring before lunch.
Maybe under all these ideal conditions the montauk will do around 40, but if your heading out with his friends 20 miles offshore to troll for tuna in July
& all the gear, bait, 2 batts, electronics, outriggers, 3 anchors, 6 fishingrods & a labrador retiever, a 90 just aint goint to cut it.
I love the boat , it's reasonable pricing & I think I want one, soon.
But i just hope they up the rating by next season '03.
I posted in an earlier thread 135 hp minimum would be right , I ment to say max.
Alan
jimh posted 02-24-2002 12:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I looked up the dimension for the 60-HP engine and calculated its speed and predicted performance. I added all this information to two new tables which appear in the REFERENCE article.

See:
170Montauk Reference Article

Alan Hiccock posted 02-24-2002 01:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
Jim,
you know what it comes down to, you have to factor in more total weight, warmer water then ideal test conditions, bottom paint { maybe even a little beard}, and a couple dinks in the prop, not to mention many 2 stroke motors lose a step or 2 after couple/ few yrs. & you've got some underpowering issues. Sometimes you need some serious torque to make your way through a rough inlet riding between them breakers, hugging the jetty ect.. The Mercs run a little faster then most other brands also, a 90 OMC or even Yammie could possibly be slower. The Yammie 90's are great engines but with a lot of weight they're short on torque being 3 cyl., be an issue on that boat.
I just hope the hp rating ends up increased because I personally wouldnt buy one as it is. And I love the boat!
Dick posted 02-24-2002 01:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
For comparison.
1999 Montauk 950#
Merc 50/4stk 248#
2 people 300#
1 Fat Spaniel 45#
25 gal fuel 175#
Gear 200#
Dual batts. 80#
Total weight 1,998#

Gear includes: trolling motor, downriggers, fishing gear and safety gear.


Top speed per GPS 33 mph at 5600 rpm

Forgot to add about 9# for a half rack of beer.

There is no way I can believe that the new Montauk can break 40 mph with a 90.

Alan Hiccock posted 02-24-2002 02:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
Just wanted to point out dick factored in his engine into his total weight & also he should eat some cheeseburgers with his 150 lb. friend & put the dog on a diet! LOL!
I wonder what 2 average fisherman/boaters/whalerowners weigh in this country? I bet it's like 420 lbs!! LOL again,
Heck I'm 185 about 5'9" & aint even fat.
jimh posted 02-24-2002 03:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I have to agree that in order for me and another person to have a total passenger weight of 300-lbs, that other person will have to weigh in at about 75-lbs.

I like the theory proposed by someone here on the forum; "When you need a little more power it is easier to just push the throttle forward than to go out and put a new engine on the transom."

Novice Dave posted 02-24-2002 03:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Novice Dave    
Thanks jimh for all your work on pulling together the info on the new Montauk. BW doesn't seem to waste much money on product marketing. I was the one who filled in my BW dealer on the new 170 a week after it was announced.

About the reduced top speed: if you simply vary the total weight by 450# you get a reduction of about 4 mph.

sqrt(90/2500)*200 = 37.9 mph
sqrt(90/2050)*200 = 41.9 mph

However, if you up the hp on the old Montauk calc to 100hp, it is more like a 6 mph difference. A 135 hp on the new 170 would pump up its top speed about 8 mph.

The new 170 has a wider and higher frontal area that will slow it down at higher speeds but the hull might be a slicker design.

Generally, I like the new Montauk even with some of the trade-offs they made. If it performs well in person, maybe next year...

Dave

Alan Hiccock posted 02-24-2002 07:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
The Yamaha website has a performance bulletin section that offers interesting comparisons, for example..
A 17' seahunt
boats weight 1300 lbs.
{ max hp 135 }
weight as tested 2196 lbs
with a 90 yamaha max speed...
38.7 mph's
In all fairness if that looks a little low it's because water temps. were in low 80's for the test but more often then most thats what water temps. are during the boating months in many places.
There's a whole bunch of other performance tests @ the yamaha website also with 90 hp. motors. These are unfudged results,#'s look right.


tabasco posted 02-25-2002 08:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Jimh-
I read you thoughts about BW wanted to keep the price in their projected slot of about $18,000 however If they are offering the 4 stoke option for an addition $2000 so why not offer the 115HP EFI motor for an additional $3000 .........give us the option to increase the cost. They would make more money (as the 115HP EFI costs about $400 more) and there wouldn't be all this discussion about under rating the HP on the new Montauk
North Beach posted 02-27-2002 10:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for North Beach    
Novice Dave:

HAd the same experience today- had to tell a BW dealer about the new Montauk-he said he got something two days ago, but had not read it yet!

tabasco posted 03-01-2002 12:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I think what we are forgetting its not the top speed we are trying to achieve. The problem with using a 90HP on the new Montauk is that it won;t have enough tork.
Try pulling two skiiers with that set up. Ill bet you couldn't pull one 200lb man out with that rig. Not that it will blow you out of the water if they up it to the 115 EFI but it would certainly help. Also the 115 EFI is a much smoother motor and weighs the same as the 90 HP four stroke.
Alan Hiccock posted 03-02-2002 01:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Alan Hiccock  Send Email to Alan Hiccock     
I agree with tabasco,
not only is the lack of torque a problem with pulling skiers but ever have to negoiate a rough inlet by hugging the jetty ang working between the breakers with confused seas?
Try doing that with the boat coming back from a lucky day shark fishing with a 250 lb mako & 2 fishing buddies & gear.
this HP rating was I bet passed down from the legal dept @ BW or something to play it safe. It may be a bigger & better montuak but till they up yhe rating it's a bay boat.
rkong posted 03-05-2002 11:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for rkong  Send Email to rkong     
The new Montuak in action. They must be the pictures Whaler will use for their brochures.

http://adcache.boattraderonline.com/6/5/3/1963853.htm

jimh posted 03-06-2002 08:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The photographs in the online boat ad mentioned above are all factory photographs and were recently sent to dealers.

Actually, I have high-resolution digital images of these same photographs, but I didn't use them in the article.

Whaler emailed these to its dealers shortly after announcing the new Montauk.

Until someone buys a new Montauk and gets it in the water, I'll stick with the boat show layout.

tabasco posted 03-06-2002 10:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Jimh -
Well it looks like I'm the only one on the forum who has ordered a new Montauk. Naturally, as soon as I take delivery I will follow up with photos and impressions. Still hoping that BW changes their mind and offers the option of the 115HP EFI. My dealer was told by BW that production of the new whaler would be March 13th.
phatwhaler posted 03-06-2002 10:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
I love it! I think it is more appealing than the old one. I know it doesn't have the same lines, but it looks sharp to me!!!

I saw it in person at the Miami boat show and I think it's a great little rig. I'm still trying to talk my old man into buying one. I relieved him of his 20 Outrage, or else I'd be seriously considering. Nice price too.

Congrats Mr Tabasco!

SoCalWhaler posted 03-10-2002 08:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for SoCalWhaler  Send Email to SoCalWhaler     
Just a quick thought,the weight of the new montauk is 1440lbs. The dry weight of the 16 dauntless is 1500lbs. There seem to be quite a few people with this boat with a 90hp motor and seem to be happy with the performance of their boat.
tabasco posted 03-10-2002 08:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
The 16 Ft. Dauntless is a foot shorter than the new montauk and has a 25HP higher rating.............90HP vs 115HP ..........I still don't undersatnd it.
whalerdude posted 03-10-2002 08:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdude  Send Email to whalerdude     
I was shopping for a new 01 Montauk a few weeks ago and asked 5 different whaler dealers what they thought of the new 02 Montauk 170 'value priced' model and they did not have a clue of what I was talking about.

As a favor to my local (Searay)Whaler dealer I emailed him the web link to 'our' photos and scoop info on the boat. He was grateful for the info.

It seems as though Brunswick is keeping their dealers in the dark or these guys only care about Sea Rays!

triblet posted 03-10-2002 09:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
tabasco: deeper V on the Dauntless?

whalerdude: the brochure's probably sitting in the
salesmanager's briefcase who keeps taking it
home figuring he'll read it, and never does.
Or he doesn't plan on scheduling a sales
meeting until he's got one on a truck, or
maybe until it gets there. The sales droids
want to make the sale TODAY, so for now, it's
just vaporware.


Chuck

tabasco posted 03-17-2002 09:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Jimh-
Thanks for all the work you did putting the New Montauk information together.
hitropics posted 03-31-2002 02:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for hitropics    
Has anyone been able to get their hands on one of these? I can't wait to get more info.
osillator posted 04-27-2002 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for osillator  Send Email to osillator     
I have ordered the new 2002 monyauk based on photos, specs and talking to a dealer who tested one. I am betting the huge improvement will be RIDE RIDE RIDE!
Mine arrives early June. I will let you all know.

p.s. I must be impressed. I dont ever buy the first of anything!

James posted 04-27-2002 11:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     
osillator,

Congratulations on your purchase. Join the New Montauk Club. What did you get with the boat and where did you order it.

James.

triblet posted 04-28-2002 09:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
hitropics, see
Hyperlink

Chuck

osillator posted 05-10-2002 11:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for osillator  Send Email to osillator     
Test drove new 170 montauk on 5-4-2002.

Conclusion: sell your wife and order one. Seriously it was great! I will list the top 3 improvements below.


Got to take the boat out in a rough Atlantic inlet with 4 to 6 foot choppy seas an a stiff noreaster. Salesguy Jack Womble piloted the boat with no fear as I sat in the bow area.


1. When this baby lands off a wave front it feels so much more cushioned underneath. I could not ride in the old boat in that water without hurting my back. I have tried.
we both agreed night and day difference.

Onthe return trip we were head on into a stiff chop in the inland waterway going 35 mph. You could barely feel the bow popping up and down. This thing rides like a 19 footer. Im impressed.

2. Very stable when turned sideways to a 6 foot swell! They gave up no stability when improving the ride.

3. When we got back to the showroom Crockers Marine still had an old style 170 on the floor. I got in it and WOW! That old deck felt so cramped. The walk space on the sides of the new console is much wider. The new deck really looks and feels like a typical 19 footer!

I know you all want to know about the power. This boat had the 90 hp 2 stroke. To be honest it really felt adequate. It did not seem to have quite as much torque out of the hole but the hull really planes easily and quick without the bow pointing up.
I certainly was not pulling a skier but I did like the power and top end speed seemed near 40 although we did not have a way to measure it.


All around a great boat that still does have enough classic look. It looked better and bigger in person than it will in these photos.

Only one minor conern. The front center of the bow rail where it is not supported tends to oscillate up and down at certain speeds and does have a bit of flex if you lean on it.
I wish they would add another support there. The rest of the rail seems well supported and strong.

I can not wait! Mine is due to be shipped early June to Crockers Marine in Wrightsville Beach,N.C. Many thanks to Kay Crocker and the guys for a daring sea trial( no other boats were out there!)They will never be able to keep this baby in stock!

James posted 05-11-2002 09:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     
osillator,

Good to read about your test ride. I test trialed the new Montauk back in March on Long Island Sound. The temperature was 37-degrees-F and the wind was probably 40+ mph. The sound was a frothy white/brown mess. Too rough for normal boat use, but it was a long ride to the dealer for us and I was not going home without a trial. The most surprising thing was that my wife who gets seasick looking at the water asked if she could also go, jumped in and enjoyed the ride.

We were equally impressed with the boat, and eventually ordered one which is also due for delivery in early June. However, I did notice the vibration of the bow rail, but I attributed what I thought was an anomaly to the combination of the unusually high winds and the high boat speed. Maybe additional bow rail supports are in order.

James.

jimh posted 08-23-2002 02:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Administrative post]
andygere posted 08-25-2002 02:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Interesting find: A UK dealer is offering the Montauk 170 with a 100 hp Yamaha 4 stroke as an option. Not sure if this is endorsed by Brunswick but....

http://www.bostonwhaler.co.uk/montauk17.html

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.