Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
New Generation 170
|Author||Topic: New Generation 170|
posted 04-18-2002 08:23 PM ET (US)
I sent an e-mail to Boston Whaler yesterday about the new 170. Here is the reply.
Subj: Re: New Generation 170.
First off thank you for taking the time to contact Boston Whaler. Regarding the Montauk redesign, the process was long and drawn out on what to do to improve the older style Montauk. The changes that were made to the boat were made after months of design decision making including Boston Whaler employees, Boston Whaler dealers, and current Montauk owners. The changes that resulted were agreed upon that they improved the current Montauk as opposed to destroying the Montauk image and what the Montauk name meant to Boston Whaler and its owners.
Every possible angle was looked at by Whaler and the end product we felt justified and glorified the Montauk name. If you look at the boat from all angles, you will see the old Montauk underneath with all of the same characteristics still there. There is still a tri hull on the 170 Montauk, it is not an Accutrak hull like other Whaler models. There is still 360-degree fishing ability and easily reachable grab-rails no matter where you are in the boat, including that useful Shepherds hook on the >console. The new Montauk is wider, which increases stability compared to the old Montauk and helps create a softer ride. Take heart that Whaler did think of the Montauk name and made sure that these main characteristics remained because after all that is what makes a Montauk a Montauk. While the Montauk that you own is classic, consider taking a ride on a new Montauk before you question if it is a Montauk or not. I feel you will be
posted 04-18-2002 08:27 PM ET (US)
That is a bunch of [bs] The New Montauk(not at all) isn`t anything like the Classic Montauk. That jibberish from Sea Ray is more political speak and spin for marketing purposes only and they think we will pass this New model to as a Montauk, once again I say [bs]! Dick, thank you for shareing you're info for us all to see how stupid Sea Ray thinks we all are. Jack.
posted 04-18-2002 09:21 PM ET (US)
"The changes that were made to
the boat were made after months of design decision making including Boston
Whaler employees, Boston Whaler dealers, and current Montauk owners."
I wasn't contacted (89 Montauk).... nor do I recall anyone on this forum posting that they were contacted. No thread posted by BW asking for input.
I agree with Jack, they really don't care what we think.
posted 04-18-2002 09:34 PM ET (US)
Take a look at the letters close...Boston Whaler simply suggests "take a ride and judge for yourself". Don't prejudge...Bob M.
posted 04-18-2002 09:39 PM ET (US)
My childhood memories of the classic Montauk go back to 1970. I currrently own a 1993 Montauk, and I am just as happy with the boat as I was back then. While they may change the design of the Montauk, to me the Montauk will always be that classic timeless boat that we all know and love.
posted 04-18-2002 11:31 PM ET (US)
Quit bitchin' I like the new design. At least someone wrote back; most companies would not even take the time. The Montauk was due for an update;in fact, it has all the modifications I wished for (except 115 hp max.)
posted 04-19-2002 12:58 AM ET (US)
masbama, I'm not bitching about Brunswick. Boston Whaler and the Montauk production line is their call. It probably will be a great boat.
I just wish they would call it the Montauk II or something.
posted 04-19-2002 08:26 AM ET (US)
Yet again we're talking about the poor Montauk and what the dreaded people of Brunswick have done. Nothing and I mean nothing stays the same. If it did we'd all have wooden boats. Change is inevitable could we give it a rest.
Anybody seen what they call an Impala these days?
posted 04-19-2002 08:57 AM ET (US)
I though Dick's letter from BW was informative and respectful of past, present and future Whaler owners. Thanks, Dick, for posting it.
Actually, it makes me feel a little better about BW again as they took as many things into consideration as reasonably possible to make a product that will SELL!!!!!!!!!
I really like my Montauk but if and when the time comes I'll be looking at the new one for sure.
posted 04-19-2002 09:00 AM ET (US)
And come on, Jack. Is swearing that necessary?
posted 04-19-2002 09:27 AM ET (US)
[Edited posts to remove vulgarity]
posted 04-19-2002 10:42 AM ET (US)
Vulgarity.....naming it a Montauk is vulgar.
I'm not gonna whine here but I said this before. The Montauk was a Montauk, very little change. The Newport was a Newport, the Nauset was a Nauset. They are all slightly different and hence have different names. They should have used a different name. Yeah you can say the same about outrage but outrage pertained to a style not a particular boat. There was only one Montauk and in my eyes will remain that way.
posted 04-19-2002 10:56 AM ET (US)
I own a 2000 Montauk, and I must say that with all due respect for the classic design, I may say wow, they did this, or they did that, or this is not the same because of this or that, but it is kind of like seeing an ex-girlfriend with another guy, you migth rag on her to your buddies but that ain't necessarily what you are thinkin'. In any case, Once I have gotten my money's worth out of my hull, I will sell it and buy this new version. Won't be for a lot more years from now, but even still, it will happen. I wonder how we would be feeling if they went in reverse i.e. used to make the new version and switched to the old, calling it sleeker, with a higher power rating, and new advanced cathedral hull design. We'd probably be complaining the same.
posted 04-19-2002 12:04 PM ET (US)
I have not seen one yet. I imagine I will love the new boat just like I love the new 13. You can't compare the new 13 to the classic but neither could you compare the Dauntless 13. If the new Montauk was called a Seminole or some other Indian name I would not have a gripe. Kind of like if they called an Oldsmobile Alero a 442.
posted 04-19-2002 12:55 PM ET (US)
Coke "improved" Coke to the "New" Coke....then went back to the classic. I think the new boat will probably be great, as are most Whalers, but I would think that since they have all the molds, parts, etc. that they could continue to make the classic Montauk and continue to sell it. Although bass boats are probably not that popular on this site, Champion made a similar move a few years ago. Their boat, which is also of very high quality, was narrower than their competitors (like the Montauk). They decided widen hull design. While this gave a little more room and a little more stability at rest, it almost destroyed what put Champion on the map......its fantastic ride in rough chop. After a couple years, they went back to the narrow design. To say that wider boats ride better is just flat wrong. In fact, all things equal, a more narrow boat will usually slice through the water better and provide a better ride. For the record, I have owned an '84 Montauk for about 10 years and love it.
posted 04-19-2002 01:34 PM ET (US)
Get off the ledge - if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Face it, Dick Fisher sold the company in the 60's. Times change - your view of anything tried by Brunswick apparently does not.
I don't agree with your comment that Searay thinks we are all stupid - there may be some people that would like a 16-17 footer with both a smooth ride and Whaler unsinkability, which the Classic Montauk does not necessarily provide.
I seem to recall you once saying you liked the hard ride of the Classic 13's and 16's.
posted 04-19-2002 02:19 PM ET (US)
They did call it something different. Its a Montauk 170 rather than a Montauk 17. But he sure used the name Montauk in the email enough. 16 out of 265 words, by my count.
I thought the comment about the Accutrak hull was interesting, although I don't know what that really means from a hull design standpoint for either Accurtrak or the new 170.
posted 04-19-2002 04:31 PM ET (US)
I hesitate to respond to some of the comments made here because I ordered a new Montauk, and of course that leads to personal bias. I have test trialed the new boat on a fairly rough day (37 degree F temperatures and 30+ MPH wind) and was very impressed. It is a good boat. I also have put a sufficient amount of time chasing stripers in the Classic Montauk to be familiar with its performance.
I loved the Corvette Stingray. Then I saw the 427 L-88 version, loved it more and then I saw a 454 Motion Performance Vette and well, what could you say. I liked them all. The Vette name has been applied to many different models. Some models are more desireable than others, because people's tastes and needs vary. But every Corvette model is eventually welcomed by those who know that there is nothing like them and recognize that changes must be made in order for a competitive business to remain solvent. It allows new people to love the concept and share the dream.
It does seem that BW engineers did put a lot of effort in making this particular model change. When it is all said and done, in the marketplace, money talks, everything else walks. The new 170 Montauk is selling at an enthusiastic rate that I have not seen for any boat since the Mako 17. So maybe BW called it right this time. Life goes on!
posted 04-19-2002 04:35 PM ET (US)
It is difficult to disagree with the articulate opinions regarding the greatness of one of America's (and Classic Whaler Forum's) all-time favorite hulls, the Montauk. Brusnwick could probably continue selling the hull successfully in the future.
Brunswick obviously thinks they can sell more of a new style boat (at better margins) than they can the classic. Further, they probably can't afford to keep the classic in the line and have three vessels all in the same general size and price class (Classic, new and Dauntless).
I also have to wonder if part of its conclusion wasn't because Brunswick found itself losing new boat sales to 5, 10, 15, and 30 year old Montauks, Nausets and Curritucks. Heck, the boats are so tough and the lines have changed so little, it is quite likely to be a contributing factor. Darn sure that I would buy another used Montauk. I know my neighbor, who could easily afford any new boat, just bought an '88 Montauk. Only time will tell if the risk / decision was right for the company.
At the end of the day, the name Montauk belongs to Brunswick, not to any one of us on this Forum. Brunswick probably can sell more of the new style boat with a recognizable Montauk name attached to it than it could otherwise. So, once a decision to update the vessel was committed, naming it a Montauk is a smart business decision for the company. Hey, Chevy ain't around to make '65 Vette owners happy, it's about creating shareholder value.
Now I am not saying that Brunswick is the smartest group of boatbuilders in the universe. Shoot, almost any other console and RPS selections would have greatly imporved the new Montauk in my opinion (Frankly, I think their choices look cheap). But give the boat a chance and maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.
Furthermore, I like the fact that Chuck is still employed at BW... that they still make some great commercial boats that a few lucky people can own... and that I own one of the early year models.
Last, guys like Tabasco should be able to participate on this forum without everyone who has never stepped foot into a new Montauk trying to give him buyer's remorse. Damn, that must be irritating (and I know that I've chipped in a time or two about how great the classic whalers are). Give it some time and he'll let us know if its a great boat worthy of the name... or he'll try to trade it for one of ours!! Good luck Tabasco.
posted 04-19-2002 06:57 PM ET (US)
Arch, (BS) is actually swearing, it is what I think Brunswick is throwing at us. I do like the older hulls `13 and `16`s, and yes they do ride hard, but I didn`t buy one for the ride, I bought one for the stability and the hard ride happens to come with that. i always wanted a Montauk, so I can have the best of both worlds, a Montauk with a very stable hull. And I applaud everyone here getting their New Montauks(shouldn`t be called that), I am just angry that Brunswick chose to call the New `17 footer a Legendery name like the Classic Montauk, thats all. If they would have named it something else, I would be o.k. with it. I don`t like the New `13 Sport called that either or called a Classic for that matter. Jack.
posted 04-19-2002 06:59 PM ET (US)
I meant to say Arch (BS) is acctually NOT swearing. Jack.
posted 04-19-2002 07:04 PM ET (US)
I also think we should all give the boat a chance, at least 'til we see one out on the water. After all, it looks more like a Classic Whaler than any new Whaler we've seen in 10 years. (Yes, the new Sport 13 does not look much like the boat it replaced, and does not seem to be replacing it, either)
What petty things don't I like?
1. Those infernal rounded transom corners, the last vestiges of the now dying "Blob" boat and Euro transom look. The new 13 Sport also has this design error.
2. The plastic seat base to partially conceal the gas tanks. It just plain looks like an aftermarket discount catalog item for a used Bayliner. Either hide the tanks completely, or show them, but not this half baked solution. The old, but brilliantly designed, and highly recognizeable RPS should have been incorporated, maybe with higher legs. A huge mistake to miss that BW trademark, high class item. Penny wise and pound foolish.
3. The side rail stantions are not double connected to the hull. Since Montauks have a fishing history, they seem to have forgotten that rail mounted downrigger trolling could be a popular use for this boat, and need that strength.
BW's designers, obviously well intentioned according to the message, missed a proven technique of the auto industry in migrating design from old to new. You do it in stages, when the old and new are combined and overlapped. The new hull should have been fitted out with the same highly popular, highly recognized, interior, consisting of the original console, RPS and Cooler seat. Then, gradually migrate to the new stuff, if one must.
Jack, I think your comments are unreasonable.
posted 04-19-2002 07:58 PM ET (US)
Since there seems to be such a problem with Whaler using the Montauk name on their new model I will give them authorization to use the name on the side of my new hull
How about ............Tabasco 17
posted 04-19-2002 08:00 PM ET (US)
Or .........Tabasco 170............... :-)
posted 04-19-2002 08:40 PM ET (US)
I like the comparison to Coca-Cola and the "new" Coke. When they fiddled with the taste of Coke, they tried to make it more like their competitor, Pepsi, a sweeter tasting soda.
In a way, the Montauk 170 has some of the "glamor" of Sea Ray's boats, like the curvy console, the embossed-stitched logo's on the seats, and other glitz.
Coca-Cola discovered that people drank Coke because it didn't taste like Pepsi. Maybe Whaler will discover that people like Whalers because they don't look like Sea-Rays.
I also have to mention, again, that in the modern world a boat buying decision has much more input from women (than it did in the 1960's), so maybe the old macho Whaler look does not sell as well with female boaters.
It is good to hear from owners of the new Montauk that the boat performs well. It certainly is aggressively priced.
At BASS PRO SHOPS they sell their house-brand MAKO boats with Mercury engines and trailers as a package. A 17-foot MAKO center console with 90-HP Mercury 2-stroke on a trailer sells for $17,900--more than a new 170 Montauk Whaler!
(If you didn't know, MAKO, a respected boat builder, is now owned by Bass Pro Shops along with Tracker, their bass-boat house brand.)
posted 04-19-2002 10:31 PM ET (US)
JimH and all others:
I sincerely respect and think about your opinions. There are no "but's" here to precede that comment. I also am a very strong believer in quality, integrity, and the beauty that a sense of Whaler history provides.
I believe that I made the right decision for myself when I bought the 170 Montauk. I certainly deliberated it long enough. I finally chose the Whaler because it is the best built, safest boat that I could buy for me and my family. It has always been reputed to be so for as long as I can remember and it still is. All you have to do is check the competition, just like I did. There are many pretenders. None better, and most not even close.
I did not and will not buy a used boat. It is my pet phobia, thank you. I do not care to own something that somebody else has owned. It takes the fun out of it for me. Remember, this boating thing is supposed to be about having fun.
With all due respect, this old/Classic/new argument reminds me of a story in the early 70's about the Pentagon. If you will bear with me, it seems the Generals were all in a huff about the reported attributes of the latest Mig on the screen and its expected superiority over anything we had. They were asked which one of them would then like to trade the American weapons for the Russians. Nobody raised their hands. Life goes on guys. The only constant is change.
By the way, my dealer is a very nice female Whalerite whose boating savvy and offshore experience with her rebuilt and extremely well modified 1986 Classic would put many sailors to shame. So lay off the dames!
Actually, in light of everything that is going on in the world today, I find it senseless to continue this discussion. Good night!
posted 04-19-2002 11:14 PM ET (US)
I didn't post this reply to start arguments or classic vs post classic BS.
My primary reason was to show the fast responce from Whaler to a request for information.
Having worked for a couple Whaler dealers I do not have the mind set that older is better. I like the looks of the new 170 and the performance reports from Tabasco sound good. If I were in the market for a new boat it would be high on my list.
My e-mail to Whaler reflected the above feelings but suggested that the new boat be named so that it did not infer that it was the same Montauk that built it's reputation.
Change is inevitable lets live with it and be friends no matter what year our boat was built.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.