posted 08-21-2011 12:25 PM ET (US)        

I plan to use this boat for fishing and some watersports. Also some intercoastal waterway use. Mainly looking for something easy to trailer. I think I was to get the 115 engine no matter which I get.

posted 08-21-2011 10:40 PM ET (US)            

The Dauntless has significantly more storage space, with storage under the pilot's seat (or a livewell) and storage under both aft quarter seats and beneath the splashwell. Both boats have storage inside the center console, but the Dauntless is a bit deeper because the storage area is recessed into the deck, while the Montauk is not.

I think the biggest difference between the boats is that the Dauntless has a 45-gallon internal fuel tank, while the Montauk is limited to on-deck fuel. I will say, however, that a full tank does make the Dauntless a bit heavy in the stern -- you'd be better off with a late-2002 or newer Dauntless hull without the notch in bottom of the transom, and a lower-unit hydrofoil helps too.

By the way, the Montauk is only rated for 90HP, while the Dauntless is rated for (and really ought to be equipped with) 115HP.

posted 08-22-2011 09:29 AM ET (US)            

As a former 16 owner I strongly advise against buying a Dauntless with less than 115 HP if your plans include water sports or several aboard.

The Dauntless has three advantages over the Montauk; ride, below deck fuel capacity for long runs, and storage capacity.

If I was in the market for a Boston Whaler in the 16 to 17 foot range I would choose an older Montauk. There is no advantage to purchasing a model year 2000 or later Montauk. Older Montauks in excellent condition can be purchased for much less money than can a similar Dauntless or a late model Montauk. Furthermore, operation and maintenance costs over the long term will be much lower.

posted 08-22-2011 10:32 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

There is no advantage to purchasing a model year 2000 or later Montauk.

---

Really? None? Them's fighin' words. At least if we're talking 2002 or later. 2000, 2001 model year Montauks should not really be thrown into the "or later" category. The Montauk design changed quite a bit in 2002. So much so there are posts on continousWave saying it should be called 'Newtauk', not 'Montauk' [To my knowledge, this has never occured. A boat with the wider gunwale decks of the NEWPORT and a center console of a MONTAUK, is said to a NEWTAUK, a portmanteau word combining NEW from Newport and TAUK from Montauk--jimh]

posted 08-22-2011 07:27 PM ET (US)            

I won't disagree with your statement that the 2002 and later Montauks are different from their predecessors. But, are they better? If they are better, why? If they are better are they enough better to justify a much higher price than a 1990 Montauk with a newer engine?

I've seen a 17 Montauk towing skiers and tubers but not wakeboarders. They seemed to get the job done without difficulty and looked rather grand during the process.

I forgot to mention that the 16 Dauntless is much more tender than a 17 Montauk. That's not a desirable feature in a boat with children moving about.

I felt that my 16 was very well suited for fishing after adding a few after market rod holders and a 5 gallon live baitwell. The extra storage was very welcome.

Butch

posted 08-22-2011 08:08 PM ET (US)            

From looks alone, Dauntless'es look more like conventional, v-hull'ed recreational boats, (albeit, with superior Whaler-quality construction). Almost like it's not a Whaler. Whereas, the Montauk is Whaler "to the bone".

Do not take lightly or as insult, what I said about the looks of the Dauntless. If I were in the market for a typical, v-hull recreational boat, I'd way rather have a Dauntless than any other, because of the Uni-Bond construction.

posted 08-22-2011 10:34 PM ET (US)            

So it all depends on whether you are mainly wanting a family boat with the most seating or a fishing boat with the most walk-around deck space.

I chose a Dauntless. It fits my needs now, as did the Montauk I had previously.

posted 08-23-2011 01:47 AM ET (US)            

Clearly, both boats are safe, fun, versatile vessels. That being said, what I've been able to do in a Montauk: The fun I've had, the places I've been, the freedom the boat has provided, she has performed beyond my wildest dreams. Just last week I was slalom skiing on Lake Mead and next week I will be heading 26 miles across the open ocean to Catalina Island.

I have never owned a Dauntless but, I can say without hesitation, the Montauk will take you wherever you want to go.

posted 08-23-2011 01:37 PM ET (US)            

It's beginning to look like the only drawback to the 160 Dauntless, (for your uses), may be it's relatively tight quarters/interior size. Maybe the 180 Dauntless will take care of that? Sounds like that would be the solution to whatever remaining reservations (or concerns from the others), you have about the 160.

posted 08-23-2011 11:30 PM ET (US)            

I have a 2002 Dauntless 160 and love it. I trailer it but also slip it for certain periods of time in different locations. It is easy to trailer and launch. It seems larger than a 16 foot boat and the generous storage and aft seating are very handy. When I bought the boat used it had a carbeurated Mercury 90 hp four stroke. The boat seemed underpowered with that engine. I have since put an ETEC 115 on it and the difference is amazing. It has really made the boat sort of a "pocket rocket" while also giving me much better slow speed control for docking, maneuvering, etc. I have also added a TurboLift fin which makes the hole shot even better and allows me to stay on plane at 13-15 MPH, depending on load, wind, and waves. I have no problem pulling a wakeboarder or skier with three adults in the boat and 30+ gallons of fuel. For your intended use I don't think you can go wrong with a Dauntless. Good luck on your search.

posted 08-26-2011 10:02 PM ET (US)            

I got a chance a few years ago to check out a fellow's Dauntless 15 in detail. It was a beautifully made boat, as one might expect, with a lot of features for a 15-footer. But it's much smaller than the 160 Dauntless, even more than the small 1-foot difference might suggest. Likewise, the 180 Dauntless is a much bigger boat than the 160.

I rarely find myself in disagreement with Jefecinco, but having been aboard a few classic Montauk 17s, I wouldn't say that the 160 Dauntless is a more tender boat. About the same, or maybe a bit more laterally stable, I'd think. The boat is very stable when in the bow, to the point that you can easily stand on the bow gunwale without the boat reacting badly -- or for that matter, hardly at all. The down side, of course, is that the heavier, less efficient Dauntless really needs more power -- every bit of the 115 rating, and when skiing, you might wish for more.

This is the "biggest" 16-footer I've ever been on, and one of only a few boats that feel bigger in the water than out of the water. Whenever I look at photos of my boat, or even more so see another 160 on the water, I always think "wow, is my boat really that small???"

Stern seats... they're okay, but not super. Some passengers don't find the low backrests very comfortable, and it's noisy right next to the engine. And unless I've also got a couple people in the bow to keep things balanced, I rarely want anybody sitting in the stern. Especially if the fuel tank is full. The Dauntless is hyper-sensitive to weight aft and to engine trim, and loading it up in the stern is the fastest way to turn it into a sluggish, hard-riding pig of a boat.

As for the looks versus the classic Montauk, well, rarely has form followed function so beautifully as with the Montauk, so you'll get no argument from me. In comparison, the Dauntless is positively pudgy.

Finally, I think a foil of some type is necessary equipment to get planed off promptly and to keep the bow down at slow planing speeds. Prop selection is important too; my 115 4-stroke came with a 16" Vengeance, but changing to a 17" Trophy Plus had a huge impact on performance. I have a big writeup on that at http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004868.html .

posted 08-26-2011 11:04 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

As for the looks versus the classic Montauk, well, rarely has form followed function so beautifully as with the Montauk, so you'll get no argument from me.

---

EXACTLY! Being new to boating, I'm automatically new to Whalers, though I've heard of their great reputation all my life. To "outsiders" like me, the classic 13/15/17/Outrage ARE Whalers... even though the others are Whalers.

Just a POV from somebody new enough to remember not having a Whaler.

posted 10-21-2013 08:35 AM ET (US)            

You're mistaken. There is a fix. Not that your incorrect information matters on this old post. If you had done a search on this site you would probably found the solution before posting.