2004 170 Montauk with E-TEC 90 H.O. - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  2004 170 Montauk with E-TEC 90 H.O.

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   2004 170 Montauk with E-TEC 90 H.O.

endus posted 07-30-2014 12:44 PM ET (US)
I saw some of the threads from earlier this year where the new E-TEC motors were discussed, but I am wondering if anyone has actually re-powered with one of the high-output four cylinder engines? We recently picked up an 2004 170 Montauk with the Mercury FOURSTROKE. The engine has been well maintained, but we are considering trading in and re-powering anyway. I'm aware of the major differences between two-stroke and four-stroke power cycle outboard engines, and we're specifically looking for the E-TEC.
How big a difference will the high output will make> Is it worth it? Are there are any specific concerns? It sounds like the design of the motor is similar to an older and well-loved design. The dealer said he had one on a Montauk and it was _significantly_ faster. I wanted to see if anyone had any experience running the E-TEC 90 H.O. engine on a 170 Montauk.

Peter posted 07-30-2014 01:07 PM ET (US)
Given that the 90 H.O E-TEC model is built on the 1.7L V4 platform, it must have significantly better low and mid-range performance than a Mercury 4-stroke of the same HP and displacement. The 2004 Montauk 170 can handle the weight of the 90 H.O. E-TEC. I don't think I would put that motor on a classic Montauk as I think it is too heavy.
Chuck Tribolet posted 07-30-2014 05:48 PM ET (US)
How much does the E-TEC 90 H.O. weigh?
My classic Montauk, and a lot of others, has a carburetor
Evinrude 90-HP V4 that weighs 335-lbs and is fine.
Chuck
ANDREW PITCHFORD posted 07-30-2014 06:33 PM ET (US)
[The E-TEC 90 H.O.] is listed at 390-lbs.
Chuck Tribolet posted 07-30-2014 07:43 PM ET (US)
I wonder where the 55 pounds came from?
Does the H.O. still use a remote oil tank?
Chuck
Teak Oil posted 07-30-2014 09:30 PM ET (US)
The HO will get the 170 on plane nicely and is a great fit for the 170 hull, since the 170 is only rated for 90-HP and it is well known that 115-HP makes the hull perform much better all the way around.
With the 90 H.O. you are basically getting a 115 but will still be legal with the 90-HP limit.
thegage posted 07-31-2014 12:35 AM ET (US)
The H.O. is built off the V4 platform, not the in-line-3 of the standard 90, hence one of the reasons for the weight gain.
Peter posted 07-31-2014 06:43 AM ET (US)
Chuck--the 90 H.O. E-TEC is your 335-lbs Evinrude V4 90 with about 55-lbs of DFI components (injectors, fuel distribution lines, EMM, vapor separator, fuel injection recirculation pump, targeted oil pump and distribution system, exhaust sound baffling system, etc.) added to it.
Dave Sutton posted 07-31-2014 12:34 PM ET (US)
The key to a happy 'Tauk is a balance of power and weight. Low transom weights reward the boat and its owner greatly. The stock 90 is about perfect. The heavier HO? Not so much.
Truthfully, a 70 is almost perfect too. There's very infrequent use for more.

Dave
.
jimh posted 07-31-2014 12:45 PM ET (US)
I think Dave is speaking of the classic MONTAUK 17, not the newer 170 MONTAUK, when suggesting 70-HP might be adequate power.
Dave Sutton posted 08-01-2014 10:46 AM ET (US)
^^ True, the "170" is off my radar as being "anything", sorry. I lost interest in product changes when "Whaler" went to Florida and I stopped paying attention.
A 17 Montauk is a self-describing thing, and they run well with a 70 for many applications.
How different could a "170" be? Enough to need a 90 perhaps... if you say so.

Dave
fishgutz posted 08-01-2014 12:01 PM ET (US)
Whaler specs state maximum engine weight of 410 pounds. I think the Montauk 170 and 90 H.O. would be a great combination.
http://www.bostonwhaler.com/Page.aspx/pageId/29592/pmid/323825/ 170-Montauk.aspx
Ridge Runner posted 08-01-2014 10:29 PM ET (US)
I have the 170 Montauk with the E-Tec 115HO V4 (same block), it is a very good combination.
endus posted 08-08-2014 01:22 PM ET (US)
Thanks everyone!
Yea, the weight was definitely something I thought about. The 390lb H.O. is definitely close to the transom weight limit. I've seen so many people on here mention powering with a 115, though, it seemed like it might be nice to wring a little more speed out of it without going over the official HP recommendation.
70lbs is a lot though.
We were making about 29kts in flat-ish salt water turning about 5800rpm on the merc 4 stroke. The boat came with the rubber strip to protect the boat when beaching on it, so maybe that might impact top speed, but I wouldn't mind doing a little better.
I need to make a run to a nice flat lake and see how I do there...people's talk of 40mph is intriguing and it sounds like the H.O. would do better than that. Maybe its a trim thing too.
Dave Sutton - I drove a much older Montauk 17 with a 70 at a sailing place I worked at when I was younger. That definitely wasn't bad, but the 170 definitely "feels" much bigger to me. Even with the 90 I think it could get out of the hole a little better. The older boat felt a little more nimble and light, but the ride in rougher seas is *definitely* way better in the 170...no more spine crushers if you miss dropping the power for a wave.
EJO posted 08-08-2014 02:23 PM ET (US)
endus you were saying;
"We were making about 29kts in flat-ish salt water turning about 5800rpm on the merc 4 stroke. The boat came with the rubber strip to protect the boat when beaching on it, so maybe that might impact top speed, but I wouldn't mind doing a little better."
WE meaning more than one I assume? We meaning regular Americans of at least an average of 190 lbs? A little over 33 mph as you state wouldn't be bad with the drag of the Keel-guard (@ -1 mph).
Alone and no keel-guard with good trimming gets you over 36 mph, do you really need to go faster?
Now I do agree with that the hole shots are slow with the Mercs on the new Boston Whalers. But do you really need to get across the lake in a couple of seconds less when the seas are smooth?
ANDREW PITCHFORD posted 08-08-2014 03:17 PM ET (US)
You should be able to get over 40-mph with the merc 4 stroke.
Ridge Runner posted 08-08-2014 09:40 PM ET (US)
My 170 Montauk with the 115HO (127hp) will hit 51MPH with two onboard and 10 gallons of fuel running a 19" Stiletto prop.
The big advantage is the hole shot and mid-range punch. I run a 4 blade Powertech SCD4 prop for pulling two 190lb skiers out of deep water starts and have a turboswing tow bar on my boat.
endus posted 08-13-2014 01:48 PM ET (US)
EJO - True, there were two of us and a full load of fuel, so that would impact things. We just worked out a setup where it will be pretty easy for me to take the boat out by myself, so I will have to give it a run with just me and a lighter load of fuel.
I will mess with the trim as well...still figuring that out.
boatdryver posted 08-13-2014 03:32 PM ET (US)
dry weight of classic Montauk 17--950 lbs
weight of Montauk 170---------1400 lbs
JimL

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: 2004 170 Montauk with E-TEC 90 H.O.
endus	posted 07-30-2014 12:44 PM ET (US) I saw some of the threads from earlier this year where the new E-TEC motors were discussed, but I am wondering if anyone has actually re-powered with one of the high-output four cylinder engines? We recently picked up an 2004 170 Montauk with the Mercury FOURSTROKE. The engine has been well maintained, but we are considering trading in and re-powering anyway. I'm aware of the major differences between two-stroke and four-stroke power cycle outboard engines, and we're specifically looking for the E-TEC. How big a difference will the high output will make> Is it worth it? Are there are any specific concerns? It sounds like the design of the motor is similar to an older and well-loved design. The dealer said he had one on a Montauk and it was _significantly_ faster. I wanted to see if anyone had any experience running the E-TEC 90 H.O. engine on a 170 Montauk.
Peter	posted 07-30-2014 01:07 PM ET (US) Given that the 90 H.O E-TEC model is built on the 1.7L V4 platform, it must have significantly better low and mid-range performance than a Mercury 4-stroke of the same HP and displacement. The 2004 Montauk 170 can handle the weight of the 90 H.O. E-TEC. I don't think I would put that motor on a classic Montauk as I think it is too heavy.
Chuck Tribolet	posted 07-30-2014 05:48 PM ET (US) How much does the E-TEC 90 H.O. weigh? My classic Montauk, and a lot of others, has a carburetor Evinrude 90-HP V4 that weighs 335-lbs and is fine. Chuck
ANDREW PITCHFORD	posted 07-30-2014 06:33 PM ET (US) [The E-TEC 90 H.O.] is listed at 390-lbs.
Chuck Tribolet	posted 07-30-2014 07:43 PM ET (US) I wonder where the 55 pounds came from? Does the H.O. still use a remote oil tank? Chuck
Teak Oil	posted 07-30-2014 09:30 PM ET (US) The HO will get the 170 on plane nicely and is a great fit for the 170 hull, since the 170 is only rated for 90-HP and it is well known that 115-HP makes the hull perform much better all the way around. With the 90 H.O. you are basically getting a 115 but will still be legal with the 90-HP limit.
thegage	posted 07-31-2014 12:35 AM ET (US) The H.O. is built off the V4 platform, not the in-line-3 of the standard 90, hence one of the reasons for the weight gain.
Peter	posted 07-31-2014 06:43 AM ET (US) Chuck--the 90 H.O. E-TEC is your 335-lbs Evinrude V4 90 with about 55-lbs of DFI components (injectors, fuel distribution lines, EMM, vapor separator, fuel injection recirculation pump, targeted oil pump and distribution system, exhaust sound baffling system, etc.) added to it.
Dave Sutton	posted 07-31-2014 12:34 PM ET (US) The key to a happy 'Tauk is a balance of power and weight. Low transom weights reward the boat and its owner greatly. The stock 90 is about perfect. The heavier HO? Not so much. Truthfully, a 70 is almost perfect too. There's very infrequent use for more. Dave .
jimh	posted 07-31-2014 12:45 PM ET (US) I think Dave is speaking of the classic MONTAUK 17, not the newer 170 MONTAUK, when suggesting 70-HP might be adequate power.
Dave Sutton	posted 08-01-2014 10:46 AM ET (US) ^^ True, the "170" is off my radar as being "anything", sorry. I lost interest in product changes when "Whaler" went to Florida and I stopped paying attention. A 17 Montauk is a self-describing thing, and they run well with a 70 for many applications. How different could a "170" be? Enough to need a 90 perhaps... if you say so. Dave
fishgutz	posted 08-01-2014 12:01 PM ET (US) Whaler specs state maximum engine weight of 410 pounds. I think the Montauk 170 and 90 H.O. would be a great combination. http://www.bostonwhaler.com/Page.aspx/pageId/29592/pmid/323825/ 170-Montauk.aspx
Ridge Runner	posted 08-01-2014 10:29 PM ET (US) I have the 170 Montauk with the E-Tec 115HO V4 (same block), it is a very good combination.
endus	posted 08-08-2014 01:22 PM ET (US) Thanks everyone! Yea, the weight was definitely something I thought about. The 390lb H.O. is definitely close to the transom weight limit. I've seen so many people on here mention powering with a 115, though, it seemed like it might be nice to wring a little more speed out of it without going over the official HP recommendation. 70lbs is a lot though. We were making about 29kts in flat-ish salt water turning about 5800rpm on the merc 4 stroke. The boat came with the rubber strip to protect the boat when beaching on it, so maybe that might impact top speed, but I wouldn't mind doing a little better. I need to make a run to a nice flat lake and see how I do there...people's talk of 40mph is intriguing and it sounds like the H.O. would do better than that. Maybe its a trim thing too. Dave Sutton - I drove a much older Montauk 17 with a 70 at a sailing place I worked at when I was younger. That definitely wasn't bad, but the 170 definitely "feels" much bigger to me. Even with the 90 I think it could get out of the hole a little better. The older boat felt a little more nimble and light, but the ride in rougher seas is definitely way better in the 170...no more spine crushers if you miss dropping the power for a wave.
EJO	posted 08-08-2014 02:23 PM ET (US) endus you were saying; "We were making about 29kts in flat-ish salt water turning about 5800rpm on the merc 4 stroke. The boat came with the rubber strip to protect the boat when beaching on it, so maybe that might impact top speed, but I wouldn't mind doing a little better." WE meaning more than one I assume? We meaning regular Americans of at least an average of 190 lbs? A little over 33 mph as you state wouldn't be bad with the drag of the Keel-guard (@ -1 mph). Alone and no keel-guard with good trimming gets you over 36 mph, do you really need to go faster? Now I do agree with that the hole shots are slow with the Mercs on the new Boston Whalers. But do you really need to get across the lake in a couple of seconds less when the seas are smooth?
ANDREW PITCHFORD	posted 08-08-2014 03:17 PM ET (US) You should be able to get over 40-mph with the merc 4 stroke.
Ridge Runner	posted 08-08-2014 09:40 PM ET (US) My 170 Montauk with the 115HO (127hp) will hit 51MPH with two onboard and 10 gallons of fuel running a 19" Stiletto prop. The big advantage is the hole shot and mid-range punch. I run a 4 blade Powertech SCD4 prop for pulling two 190lb skiers out of deep water starts and have a turboswing tow bar on my boat.
endus	posted 08-13-2014 01:48 PM ET (US) EJO - True, there were two of us and a full load of fuel, so that would impact things. We just worked out a setup where it will be pretty easy for me to take the boat out by myself, so I will have to give it a run with just me and a lighter load of fuel. I will mess with the trim as well...still figuring that out.
boatdryver	posted 08-13-2014 03:32 PM ET (US) dry weight of classic Montauk 17--950 lbs weight of Montauk 170---------1400 lbs JimL