A Boston Whaler and 115hp combo - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  A Boston Whaler and 115hp combo

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   A Boston Whaler and 115hp combo

masbama posted 03-20-2014 06:34 PM ET (US)
Maybe it's just me but I think Whaler is missing the boat by not offering a product that would have a 115hp motor as its peak power source. One has to go back to a 160 Dauntless or earlier to find a hull that will match well with a 115hp. I was disappointed to see the 170 Montauk and 170 Dauntless not rated for this engine.
jcdawg83 posted 03-21-2014 07:53 AM ET (US)
I find it interesting that the 170 Montauk weighs 1400 lbs and is rated for 90hp. The classic Montauk weighed around 900 lbs and was rated for 100hp. It seems to me that the 170 might be underpowered.
Jefecinco posted 03-21-2014 08:26 AM ET (US)
It may be underpowered and/or the hull shape may be more efficient. It would be cynical to believe that Mercury simply needs to sell more 90 HP engines.
My 190 Montauk is powered by a 135 HP engine and it is very quick if not terribly fast. I like the combination but will up the HP to 200 when the warranty expires. I expect the 190 to be quick and fast then.
Butch
mkelly posted 03-21-2014 09:12 AM ET (US)
Ah, I completely agree with the 17 Montauk HP rating, what a joke. If I owned one I would be livid with Boston Whaler, regardless if they needed to sell that motor or not. This whole HP rating thing is a bunch of BS & I want to know who controls it & the guidelines. Don't let this one go Montauk Owner with the crappy underpowered 90....my brother has the exact boat & is fully disappointed. I told him to dump the motor (or whole boat & motor) & reload....is that what Whaler wants to hear from it's absolute staple of small boats in the CC Montauk? That name is a classic & I'm troubled with what it has become. Original BW designers/managers would be rolling in their graves. Call BW & ask them what the parameters are for HP rating....don't let up, they will blow you off to Coast Guard regs, past BW decisions, etc. Keep the heat on
bloller posted 03-21-2014 09:28 AM ET (US)
It goes over 40mph with a 90. How is that underpowered?
jimh posted 03-21-2014 09:43 AM ET (US)
Because Boston Whaler is constrained to offering only Mercury Marine engines, another brand of their common parent Brunswick, the only 115-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engine available is just a different version of the 90-HP engine. The extra horsepower is probably due to rating at a higher engine speed. The 90-HP model is rated at 6,000-RPM, while the 115-HP model is rated at 6,400-RPM. I don't think the performance of the two engines will be very much different except perhaps in that last 400-RPM of engine speed range.
EJO posted 03-21-2014 01:46 PM ET (US)
Still the Montauks are under-powered.
Before I ended up with my 150 we were test driving a 170 with the 90 HP. With 3 men and a women on board it was slow out of the hole and yes it might top at close to 35 knts but it will take a while to get there.
I ended up with the 150 with the 60 HP Bigfoot. It looks impressive but again very under-powered.
My model is advertised as great for fishing, water-sports and skiing.
My boat couldn't pull me up on skis (ok I weight 250) but even a teenager and say at least two people in the boat it will have a hard time getting out of the hole.
Last but not least the boat is rated for 6 persons and last time I had 5 people (3 adult women(2 on the front pad, 1 in the back) and 2 men (at the CC seat)) I had a tough time getting onto plane (only done with one of the men moving forward to the front pad and shifting weight around)
After she got onto plane she moved around only 4 knts less at top speed (6,100 rpm)
bloller posted 03-21-2014 01:58 PM ET (US)
I agree that the 150 montauk/sport needs more power. Anyone out there done this?
jcdawg83 posted 03-21-2014 02:12 PM ET (US)
jimh, I would be surprised if an extra 400 rpms would produce an additional 25hp. That would be a 28% increase in power from a 6.7% increase in rpms. That is some serious efficiency in those last 400 revolutions.
The classic hull at maximum horsepower is 9.5 lbs per horsepower, the 170 is 15.5 lbs per horsepower. If the new hull is that much more efficient, Whaler has done an amazing design job.
115hp seems like it may be a little weak based on those numbers. 140hp seems to be the most likely choice. Maybe the 170 hull is flatter than the classic Montauk and planes better/easier?
swist posted 03-21-2014 03:15 PM ET (US)
The 90 does push the 170 to 40 mph, but it's not like it jumps up there. The 115 (same weight) would be a better choice (if there was a choice) for those who consistently carried heavy loads.
Someone on this forum put a 115 on a 170 back a couple of years ago - I remember how he waxed eloquent as to it being really the right motor for the boat. Don't think I've seen him around lately though.

jimh posted 03-21-2014 03:54 PM ET (US)
Horsepower is calculated on torque and engine speed. At the risk of making perhaps too general a statement, some of these four-stroke-power-cycle engines get all their horsepower rating from the last little bit of engine speed, that is, their maximum horsepower occurs at maximum engine speed. In contrast, some other engines have a much broader range of engine speed in which the same horsepower can be produced. Since Mercury has not published any data about the horsepower output of their 115-HP FOURSTROKE model, it is hard to say with complete authority that the gained horsepower occurs in the upper range of the engine speed, but I think it is a reasonable assumption. If that were not true, why would the 115-HP engine be rated to 6,400-RPM and the 90-HP engine rated to only 6,000-RPM? It seems to me that something beneficial happens to the horsepower rating if the engine speed is allowed to increase to 6,400-RPM. The most likely benefit is a higher horsepower rating.
Chuck Tribolet posted 03-21-2014 04:05 PM ET (US)
My 16'7" '97 Montauk with Evinrude carbed 2-stroke 90HP and Kawika Chetron's Montauk 170 with 90HP Merc 4-stroke were
about equal.
Chuck
bloller posted 03-21-2014 04:07 PM ET (US)
Any small boat that is heavily loaded is likely to be a dog even with the max horsepower. You can't throw four or more adults in them and expect performance
masbama posted 03-21-2014 09:44 PM ET (US)
My 1977 Montauk with a 2001 90hp 2 Stroke was an absolute beast.
Ridge Runner posted 03-22-2014 07:39 AM ET (US)
I have repowered two 170 Montauks. One with an E-TEC 115HO and the other with a Mercury 115 PRO XS OPTIMAX. You can search the forum for my experiences and thoughts about each motor.
In general I do believe that 90hp is under powered for this boat if you are loading it close to the maximum capacity or using it for water sports. A 115hp motor should be an upgrade has excellent mid-range acceleration.
Ridge Runner posted 03-22-2014 07:43 AM ET (US)
"should be an upgrade option from the factory - as my boat just pops up on plane and has excellent mid-range acceleration"
jimh posted 03-22-2014 08:14 AM ET (US)

quote:
I have repowered two 170 Montauks. One with an E-TEC 115HO and the other with a Mercury 115 PRO XS OPTIMAX. You can search the forum for my experiences and thoughts about each motor.
Better to give us URLs to those experiences/
Marsh posted 03-22-2014 08:23 AM ET (US)
My 2004 170 Montauk came with a carb'd 90 4-stroke engine. After a year or two (memory fades), I repowered to a 115 EFI 4-stroke. The 115 does offer slightly better performance, but the real constraint is the Montauk hull. It is simply not stable at speeds much over mid 40s mph. Thus, increasing horsepower in search of faster speed is a fool's errand.
But when my Montauk is loaded with three fishermen, trolling motor, three batteries, 25 gallons of fuel, assorted gear, ice, food, bait, etc., I am glad to have the 115 over the 90. Plus, I prefer the fuel injection over carburetors.
In any event, certain insurors refuse coverage for boats powered by engines in excess of rated capacity. I have had no problems in this regard from Traveler's, Liberty Mutual, or State Farm, but I have been denied coverage from Progressive, Allstate, and Hartford.
macfam posted 03-22-2014 09:57 AM ET (US)
We all must remember that Brusnwick is in a unique position. They design and make both the boat AND motor. Whatever they combine for boat and motor is under their control, and so is the LIABILITY.
I strongly suspect that the Legal deparmtentbat Brunswick has a say in the powering of these boats.
They'll probably never get sued due to under powering, but lawsuits for "too much power" could be a nightmare.
That what Legal departments do...........unfortunately.
Marsh posted 03-22-2014 10:39 AM ET (US)
Top speed is affected by many variables, including load, engine height, propeller, wind, et al. But just as an illustration, I will speculate that the top speed of my 170 Montauk with the OEM 90 was approximately 44 mph. After repowering to a 115, my boat, with the same prop, similarly loaded, on the same body of water, under similar conditions, had a top speed of approximately 48 mph. It is at this speed that the Montauk hull begins to exhibit a bit of instability. Perhaps this is what some cal "chine walking"?
At any rate, I can now say in retrospect that, after considering hull stability, cost, fuel economy, insurability, and overall hassle, the 170 Montauk seems to be ideally powered by a 90 hp engine. If you want to go fast, don't buy a Montauk, buy a bass boat.
jimh posted 03-23-2014 10:34 AM ET (US)

quote:
If you want to go fast, don't buy a Montauk, buy a bass boat.
That is good advice. A lot of machismo chest thumping goes on about how fast some Boston Whaler boat goes. Does it go 48-MPH or 50-MPH? Who really cares. Boston Whaler boats are not really designed to run at those speeds.
masbama posted 03-23-2014 10:54 AM ET (US)
It's not so much top speed but having the power for tubing, skiing, etc. with three or four adults on board.
jcdawg83 posted 03-24-2014 02:04 PM ET (US)
In my opinion, underpowered describes a boat that will not plane or perform well with a load that is more than one person with empty coolers, one battery, light fuel load, etc. I'm sure a 90hp engine is more than adequate for a 170 Montauk when lightly loaded. When two or three fat (fatter?) guys like me are in a boat with a full cooler, full fuel tank, 6 or 8 rods and the accompanying tackle, that is when 90hp would be inadequate.
No Whaler is going to be a speed demon, the hull design isn't made for that. A buddy of mine has a 21' bass boat with a 250hp E-tec that will run close to 80 mph, it is a terrifying experience to me. A 21' Whaler with a 250 would probably not achieve much over 60 mph. Speed is not the issue with a Whaler.
blacksmithdog posted 03-25-2014 06:52 AM ET (US)
I'd certainly consider the new, lighter Yamaha 115 on my Montauk 170 when I need to re-power. Getting a dealer to put one on will be a challenge.
We had a 1976 Montauk when I was growing up. It had a 115 Merc Tower of Power on it, and yes, it could move out.
masbama posted 03-25-2014 08:00 AM ET (US)
The new 90hp H.O. E Tec might be a strong consideration for a re-power.
swist posted 03-25-2014 08:32 AM ET (US)
macfam writes: "We all must remember that Brusnwick is in a unique position. They design and make both the boat AND motor. Whatever they combine for boat and motor is under their control, and so is the LIABILITY. I strongly suspect that the Legal deparmtentbat Brunswick has a say in the powering of these boats. They'll probably never get sued due to under powering, but lawsuits for "too much power" could be a nightmare."
Yes, it is clear that the legal department did have a big say in this one - the 115 is just an uptuned 90 and the additional price a 170/115 package would command would be nearly all profit for Brunswick. Some legal guy got the best of some accounting guy, clearly.
boatdryver posted 03-25-2014 09:19 AM ET (US)
Another thing they will never get sued for is mounting the engine too high.
JimL
johnhenry posted 03-25-2014 09:37 AM ET (US)
The 90 Mercury 4 stroke is not a perfect fit. I wish I had a choice on purchase but overall satisfaction is good. The motor is a beast, and acts like it. No problems with reliability other than the documented air filter deterioration and lousy design of the cable/wire harness connector where it enters the engine. Quiet, reliable starting, fuel efficient. Hole shot ok, but do get a little shudder if you don't jump into it.
If I re-powered I would most likely jump to a 115. Not necessarily a Mercury. Maybe something a little lighter, to make it more nimble. My hope is that this engine last a long time and I won't have to cross that bridge for a while. In the meantime if a real sweet 17 or 18 outrage shows up on my radar at the right time-you never know.
MikeF1 posted 03-29-2014 08:20 AM ET (US)
The '82 Montauk we bought last fall has a 115 Merc 2+2. Not necessarily what I wanted but it was what was available. We had in the water for only a couple of days before it had to come out for the season. It was quick and I have since found out the engine is mounted too low so we have to change that.
Back when that hull was built I was a marine police officer and we had 115 Johnsons on our Montauks. They were pretty fast and not too twitchy at WOT. Then they switched to 90 HP and some big diameter prop. It must have taken 10 mph of the top speed. We used to regularly tow disabled boats so maybe that figured in to the decision to get the big prop. The old timers, who knew something about boats (unlike me who had never operated a boat before being hired), couldn't understand it.
They also couldn't understand the decision to buy 25' Monarks and the equip them with twin 150s. This made the boat very top heavy and yours truly capsized a brand new one while towing a 52' sailboat off a sand bar. But that's another story.
masbama posted 03-29-2014 10:39 AM ET (US)
The 170 Dauntless weighs about 1700lbs. Imagine what a dog that must be with a 90hp. 4 stroke. Just plain dumb not to be rated for 115hp. or higher. Maybe someday someone will buy one and let us know.

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.

Author	Topic: A Boston Whaler and 115hp combo
masbama	posted 03-20-2014 06:34 PM ET (US) Maybe it's just me but I think Whaler is missing the boat by not offering a product that would have a 115hp motor as its peak power source. One has to go back to a 160 Dauntless or earlier to find a hull that will match well with a 115hp. I was disappointed to see the 170 Montauk and 170 Dauntless not rated for this engine.
jcdawg83	posted 03-21-2014 07:53 AM ET (US) I find it interesting that the 170 Montauk weighs 1400 lbs and is rated for 90hp. The classic Montauk weighed around 900 lbs and was rated for 100hp. It seems to me that the 170 might be underpowered.
Jefecinco	posted 03-21-2014 08:26 AM ET (US) It may be underpowered and/or the hull shape may be more efficient. It would be cynical to believe that Mercury simply needs to sell more 90 HP engines. My 190 Montauk is powered by a 135 HP engine and it is very quick if not terribly fast. I like the combination but will up the HP to 200 when the warranty expires. I expect the 190 to be quick and fast then. Butch
mkelly	posted 03-21-2014 09:12 AM ET (US) Ah, I completely agree with the 17 Montauk HP rating, what a joke. If I owned one I would be livid with Boston Whaler, regardless if they needed to sell that motor or not. This whole HP rating thing is a bunch of BS & I want to know who controls it & the guidelines. Don't let this one go Montauk Owner with the crappy underpowered 90....my brother has the exact boat & is fully disappointed. I told him to dump the motor (or whole boat & motor) & reload....is that what Whaler wants to hear from it's absolute staple of small boats in the CC Montauk? That name is a classic & I'm troubled with what it has become. Original BW designers/managers would be rolling in their graves. Call BW & ask them what the parameters are for HP rating....don't let up, they will blow you off to Coast Guard regs, past BW decisions, etc. Keep the heat on
bloller	posted 03-21-2014 09:28 AM ET (US) It goes over 40mph with a 90. How is that underpowered?
jimh	posted 03-21-2014 09:43 AM ET (US) Because Boston Whaler is constrained to offering only Mercury Marine engines, another brand of their common parent Brunswick, the only 115-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engine available is just a different version of the 90-HP engine. The extra horsepower is probably due to rating at a higher engine speed. The 90-HP model is rated at 6,000-RPM, while the 115-HP model is rated at 6,400-RPM. I don't think the performance of the two engines will be very much different except perhaps in that last 400-RPM of engine speed range.
EJO	posted 03-21-2014 01:46 PM ET (US) Still the Montauks are under-powered. Before I ended up with my 150 we were test driving a 170 with the 90 HP. With 3 men and a women on board it was slow out of the hole and yes it might top at close to 35 knts but it will take a while to get there. I ended up with the 150 with the 60 HP Bigfoot. It looks impressive but again very under-powered. My model is advertised as great for fishing, water-sports and skiing. My boat couldn't pull me up on skis (ok I weight 250) but even a teenager and say at least two people in the boat it will have a hard time getting out of the hole. Last but not least the boat is rated for 6 persons and last time I had 5 people (3 adult women(2 on the front pad, 1 in the back) and 2 men (at the CC seat)) I had a tough time getting onto plane (only done with one of the men moving forward to the front pad and shifting weight around) After she got onto plane she moved around only 4 knts less at top speed (6,100 rpm)
bloller	posted 03-21-2014 01:58 PM ET (US) I agree that the 150 montauk/sport needs more power. Anyone out there done this?
jcdawg83	posted 03-21-2014 02:12 PM ET (US) jimh, I would be surprised if an extra 400 rpms would produce an additional 25hp. That would be a 28% increase in power from a 6.7% increase in rpms. That is some serious efficiency in those last 400 revolutions. The classic hull at maximum horsepower is 9.5 lbs per horsepower, the 170 is 15.5 lbs per horsepower. If the new hull is that much more efficient, Whaler has done an amazing design job. 115hp seems like it may be a little weak based on those numbers. 140hp seems to be the most likely choice. Maybe the 170 hull is flatter than the classic Montauk and planes better/easier?
swist	posted 03-21-2014 03:15 PM ET (US) The 90 does push the 170 to 40 mph, but it's not like it jumps up there. The 115 (same weight) would be a better choice (if there was a choice) for those who consistently carried heavy loads. Someone on this forum put a 115 on a 170 back a couple of years ago - I remember how he waxed eloquent as to it being really the right motor for the boat. Don't think I've seen him around lately though.
jimh	posted 03-21-2014 03:54 PM ET (US) Horsepower is calculated on torque and engine speed. At the risk of making perhaps too general a statement, some of these four-stroke-power-cycle engines get all their horsepower rating from the last little bit of engine speed, that is, their maximum horsepower occurs at maximum engine speed. In contrast, some other engines have a much broader range of engine speed in which the same horsepower can be produced. Since Mercury has not published any data about the horsepower output of their 115-HP FOURSTROKE model, it is hard to say with complete authority that the gained horsepower occurs in the upper range of the engine speed, but I think it is a reasonable assumption. If that were not true, why would the 115-HP engine be rated to 6,400-RPM and the 90-HP engine rated to only 6,000-RPM? It seems to me that something beneficial happens to the horsepower rating if the engine speed is allowed to increase to 6,400-RPM. The most likely benefit is a higher horsepower rating.
Chuck Tribolet	posted 03-21-2014 04:05 PM ET (US) My 16'7" '97 Montauk with Evinrude carbed 2-stroke 90HP and Kawika Chetron's Montauk 170 with 90HP Merc 4-stroke were about equal. Chuck
bloller	posted 03-21-2014 04:07 PM ET (US) Any small boat that is heavily loaded is likely to be a dog even with the max horsepower. You can't throw four or more adults in them and expect performance
masbama	posted 03-21-2014 09:44 PM ET (US) My 1977 Montauk with a 2001 90hp 2 Stroke was an absolute beast.
Ridge Runner	posted 03-22-2014 07:39 AM ET (US) I have repowered two 170 Montauks. One with an E-TEC 115HO and the other with a Mercury 115 PRO XS OPTIMAX. You can search the forum for my experiences and thoughts about each motor. In general I do believe that 90hp is under powered for this boat if you are loading it close to the maximum capacity or using it for water sports. A 115hp motor should be an upgrade has excellent mid-range acceleration.
Ridge Runner	posted 03-22-2014 07:43 AM ET (US) "should be an upgrade option from the factory - as my boat just pops up on plane and has excellent mid-range acceleration"
jimh	posted 03-22-2014 08:14 AM ET (US) quote: I have repowered two 170 Montauks. One with an E-TEC 115HO and the other with a Mercury 115 PRO XS OPTIMAX. You can search the forum for my experiences and thoughts about each motor. Better to give us URLs to those experiences/
Marsh	posted 03-22-2014 08:23 AM ET (US) My 2004 170 Montauk came with a carb'd 90 4-stroke engine. After a year or two (memory fades), I repowered to a 115 EFI 4-stroke. The 115 does offer slightly better performance, but the real constraint is the Montauk hull. It is simply not stable at speeds much over mid 40s mph. Thus, increasing horsepower in search of faster speed is a fool's errand. But when my Montauk is loaded with three fishermen, trolling motor, three batteries, 25 gallons of fuel, assorted gear, ice, food, bait, etc., I am glad to have the 115 over the 90. Plus, I prefer the fuel injection over carburetors. In any event, certain insurors refuse coverage for boats powered by engines in excess of rated capacity. I have had no problems in this regard from Traveler's, Liberty Mutual, or State Farm, but I have been denied coverage from Progressive, Allstate, and Hartford.
macfam	posted 03-22-2014 09:57 AM ET (US) We all must remember that Brusnwick is in a unique position. They design and make both the boat AND motor. Whatever they combine for boat and motor is under their control, and so is the LIABILITY. I strongly suspect that the Legal deparmtentbat Brunswick has a say in the powering of these boats. They'll probably never get sued due to under powering, but lawsuits for "too much power" could be a nightmare. That what Legal departments do...........unfortunately.
Marsh	posted 03-22-2014 10:39 AM ET (US) Top speed is affected by many variables, including load, engine height, propeller, wind, et al. But just as an illustration, I will speculate that the top speed of my 170 Montauk with the OEM 90 was approximately 44 mph. After repowering to a 115, my boat, with the same prop, similarly loaded, on the same body of water, under similar conditions, had a top speed of approximately 48 mph. It is at this speed that the Montauk hull begins to exhibit a bit of instability. Perhaps this is what some cal "chine walking"? At any rate, I can now say in retrospect that, after considering hull stability, cost, fuel economy, insurability, and overall hassle, the 170 Montauk seems to be ideally powered by a 90 hp engine. If you want to go fast, don't buy a Montauk, buy a bass boat.
jimh	posted 03-23-2014 10:34 AM ET (US) quote: If you want to go fast, don't buy a Montauk, buy a bass boat. That is good advice. A lot of machismo chest thumping goes on about how fast some Boston Whaler boat goes. Does it go 48-MPH or 50-MPH? Who really cares. Boston Whaler boats are not really designed to run at those speeds.
masbama	posted 03-23-2014 10:54 AM ET (US) It's not so much top speed but having the power for tubing, skiing, etc. with three or four adults on board.
jcdawg83	posted 03-24-2014 02:04 PM ET (US) In my opinion, underpowered describes a boat that will not plane or perform well with a load that is more than one person with empty coolers, one battery, light fuel load, etc. I'm sure a 90hp engine is more than adequate for a 170 Montauk when lightly loaded. When two or three fat (fatter?) guys like me are in a boat with a full cooler, full fuel tank, 6 or 8 rods and the accompanying tackle, that is when 90hp would be inadequate. No Whaler is going to be a speed demon, the hull design isn't made for that. A buddy of mine has a 21' bass boat with a 250hp E-tec that will run close to 80 mph, it is a terrifying experience to me. A 21' Whaler with a 250 would probably not achieve much over 60 mph. Speed is not the issue with a Whaler.
blacksmithdog	posted 03-25-2014 06:52 AM ET (US) I'd certainly consider the new, lighter Yamaha 115 on my Montauk 170 when I need to re-power. Getting a dealer to put one on will be a challenge. We had a 1976 Montauk when I was growing up. It had a 115 Merc Tower of Power on it, and yes, it could move out.
masbama	posted 03-25-2014 08:00 AM ET (US) The new 90hp H.O. E Tec might be a strong consideration for a re-power.
swist	posted 03-25-2014 08:32 AM ET (US) macfam writes: "We all must remember that Brusnwick is in a unique position. They design and make both the boat AND motor. Whatever they combine for boat and motor is under their control, and so is the LIABILITY. I strongly suspect that the Legal deparmtentbat Brunswick has a say in the powering of these boats. They'll probably never get sued due to under powering, but lawsuits for "too much power" could be a nightmare." Yes, it is clear that the legal department did have a big say in this one - the 115 is just an uptuned 90 and the additional price a 170/115 package would command would be nearly all profit for Brunswick. Some legal guy got the best of some accounting guy, clearly.
boatdryver	posted 03-25-2014 09:19 AM ET (US) Another thing they will never get sued for is mounting the engine too high. JimL
johnhenry	posted 03-25-2014 09:37 AM ET (US) The 90 Mercury 4 stroke is not a perfect fit. I wish I had a choice on purchase but overall satisfaction is good. The motor is a beast, and acts like it. No problems with reliability other than the documented air filter deterioration and lousy design of the cable/wire harness connector where it enters the engine. Quiet, reliable starting, fuel efficient. Hole shot ok, but do get a little shudder if you don't jump into it. If I re-powered I would most likely jump to a 115. Not necessarily a Mercury. Maybe something a little lighter, to make it more nimble. My hope is that this engine last a long time and I won't have to cross that bridge for a while. In the meantime if a real sweet 17 or 18 outrage shows up on my radar at the right time-you never know.
MikeF1	posted 03-29-2014 08:20 AM ET (US) The '82 Montauk we bought last fall has a 115 Merc 2+2. Not necessarily what I wanted but it was what was available. We had in the water for only a couple of days before it had to come out for the season. It was quick and I have since found out the engine is mounted too low so we have to change that. Back when that hull was built I was a marine police officer and we had 115 Johnsons on our Montauks. They were pretty fast and not too twitchy at WOT. Then they switched to 90 HP and some big diameter prop. It must have taken 10 mph of the top speed. We used to regularly tow disabled boats so maybe that figured in to the decision to get the big prop. The old timers, who knew something about boats (unlike me who had never operated a boat before being hired), couldn't understand it. They also couldn't understand the decision to buy 25' Monarks and the equip them with twin 150s. This made the boat very top heavy and yours truly capsized a brand new one while towing a 52' sailboat off a sand bar. But that's another story.
masbama	posted 03-29-2014 10:39 AM ET (US) The 170 Dauntless weighs about 1700lbs. Imagine what a dog that must be with a 90hp. 4 stroke. Just plain dumb not to be rated for 115hp. or higher. Maybe someday someone will buy one and let us know.