ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
Montauk 17 and Outrage 18
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
Montauk 17 and Outrage 18
|
| Author | Topic: Montauk 17 and Outrage 18 |
| porthole2 |
posted 02-18-2015 09:55 PM ET (US)  
We have had our 1983 Sport 15 Center Console for ten years, now, and hardly use it, mostly because of the size. Since I put a Honda 50 four-cycle outboard on it in 2005, I don't think we have put 50 hours on the engine. For me and the dog it is fine, but for two of us and two Golden's it gets cramped fast. And, everything is so low to the deck, tough on my wife with a bad back. I have wanted a 17 Montauk for quite some time, and, now that our big boat is gone, I am ready to sell the 15 and move up a little. I'm pretty sure in the affordable range the Montauk will have to be a mid 1980's to early 1990's model. I'm figuring on a max of $12,000, although I would prefer much less. I looked at a 1988 Outrage 18 today for $6,400 that obviously needs some work, but that has been the price I have seen so far). While doing my net search for boats, Outrage models keep coming up. From reading the forum here I gathered the Outrage 17 is not the best choice and that the 18 and 19 are basically the same boat, just a number change. And I don't know what the 19 II is all about. Also, from what I can gather, the newer Montauk boats are quite a bit different then the 1980 models. I am referencing a 2003 17 Montauk that I saw on the web. It appears to at least me, that the newer model has more freeboard--a plus--and more of a conventional Vee. We boat on Shark River, New Jersey, a relatively small river and bay with direct access to the ocean. In comparing the two boats, if I plan on ocean use the Outrage would be a better choice. I have had my 15-footer in a four-foot sea running over 40-MPH with the original outboard, and I was surprised at how well it handled the open ocean. If I read correctly on the CW site, the 15 may be a better hull then the 17 Montauk on the open water. Is that correct? With the Outrage we need seats. The factory roto-mold buckets look to be OK for our needs. On boats that are equipped with the leaning post, are the two pedestals sufficient to use for seats and just remove the bench part? On the leaning post models that use the frame with cooler surround, can pedestals be added? Or, is the deck reinforced for that purpose from the factory? Something I have seen on several Outrage models was an enclosure on the top of the center console for electronics. I have not seen one in person, but I get the impression that you have to stand all the time to see over it. In that case I would prefer the Montauk style console. If the tank has to come out, will the deck come up fairly easily? Are water intrusion problems the same between the models? Thanks in advance for any info. |
| mkelly |
posted 02-19-2015 03:19 AM ET (US)
I own both a 15' Center Console and a 19' Outrage II, so I think from reading your post I would be a good source of information. You are correct, the 15 performs surprisingly well in rough seas, I believe a result of its shorter length and ability to maneuver between wave action. The Montauk model also does OK in seas but at slow speeds the 15 is bullet proof. The low freeboard is a concern, I've almost swamped mine in very rough seas with a large load (four persons, gear, etc.). To my 19' Outrage: a much different boat and capable of almost any seas, amd complete non existent exposure to swamping. The 15 weighs approximately 600-lbs, the 19 II weighs 1,900-lbs. Of note that you did mention, you appear to have family members that would all benefit from a more comfortable environment. Seats in any model of Montauk and Outrage are comparable, in that one or two can sit ahead of the center console while running or at rest. I would suggest you attempt to find a center console with seats (two usually) at the helm and you could have a person or two sitting ahead of the console. I also carry a pair of fold out camping-type chairs that I unfold and have people sit on the bow with them while we fish or crab. Email me or call with more details. I have some photos. |
| elvis |
posted 02-19-2015 05:10 AM ET (US)
My recent Boston Whaler ownership has consisted of a few older 13 and 17 boats, a 1985 Outrage 18, a 1985 Sport 15 (that I just recently sold), and now I have a 1987 Guardian 18. The 15 is exceptional in many ways, and I had difficulty making the decision to sell mine. It is seaworthy, fun, good on gas, versatile. You mentioned a 17; mine were great boats, safe, easy, fast and versatile, and while more room than a 15, it may be worth considering jumping two models up to the 18. When I went to the 18, the biggest difference was the ride improved considerably over the 17, while it maintained a sports car feel. It holds 63 gallons--lots of fuel--and has a bit more room in it, which is nice, while it is still small enough to fit in a smaller garage (unless you have a t-top), and I have trailered and launched mine by myself many times without difficulty. Of the under 20-foot boats, I would choose the 18. That said, the older 18 boats can cost more in initial price and when re-powering, as new motors are pricey. I am re-powering my Guardian now at over $16,000 for a new 150-HP engine. A 17 would be less. The only Achilles heel I would mention for the 18 is the [fuel] tank. Removing the floor to access it is no small task. I've done it three times, the third being my son's Guardian 20. You have to remove the console and this can be tough with wiring and cables. The floor has many screws, and is extremely heavy--a two person job. Underneath it was very dirty and ugly as one might expect after years. Why pull it up? Because after years I wanted to be sure there wasn't a problem lurking, like a gas leak. On two of the three, no serious problems were found. I replaced hoses and wires, and cleaned. The aluminum [of the fuel tank] looked good. My Guardian--wow, what a mess under the deck. I had to remove the tank, which is foamed in, and it was full of corrosion holes. Terrible. Cost about $900 for new tank, which I re-foamed in, looked brand new factory original when done. Sold the old tank for scrap, about $50 metal. Bought dinner and celebrated a completed job. Woo hoo. I can't and won't speak to the newer style hulls, I've heard and read good things on them but never owned or rode in one. Would highly recommend the older 18 series though, I believe the Outrage weighs in at like 1,250-lbs; the book says Guardian is a little more than that. I've seen pricing for decent 18-footers all over the place, but I would think $10,000 to $15,000 is within an average. If looking at 18 in heavy saltwater service, check the tank, or be ready to just replace it and then you'll know it's right. Whalers are great boats: SAFETY, UTILITY, RESALE. Your 15 will bring a good price, lots of folks want them. Mine sold quickly. |
| jimh |
posted 02-19-2015 07:32 AM ET (US)
To get a better understanding of the difference between an OUTRAGE 18 and the OUTRAGE 19 II, read http://continuouswave.com/whaler/rendezvous/NC2000/dayOne. html#outrage-II |
| jimh |
posted 02-19-2015 07:34 AM ET (US)
To get a better understanding of the difference between the original or classic MONTAUK 17 and the newer 170 MONTAUK, read |
| jimh |
posted 02-19-2015 07:43 AM ET (US)
As you know from owning one, the classic Boston Whaler 15-foot boat is a great small boat, but it has very low gunwales and is really not designed to be driven while standing. When you move to a 17-footer with a center console, like a classic MONTAUK, you will be piloting the boat while standing or at least leaning against something most of the time. I do not believe there are any differences in the reinforcement of the hull in the area of the cockpit on the MONTAUK 17 that are from variations in seating. The reversible pilot seat (RPS) seems to be the preferred seating option. The RPS does not mount on pedestals. It has two outer legs. The usual complaint about the RPS is the seat height is too low for taller men. If you are over six-feet tall, the RPS seat may feel low. Many owners have strong praise for their OUTRAGE 17 models. I am not sure where you got the impression there was something deficient about that boat. It is just a smaller version of the OUTRAGE 18, as far as I know, with a similar type hull, that is, not the rounded bottom hull of the classic MONTAUK 17. The OUTRAGE 18 is completely different than the much older OUTRAGE 19, which had a very different hull. That is why the revised OUTRAGE 19 II has the "II" in the name to distinguish it from the much older OUTRAGE 19 boat, made c.1973 to c.1978. |
| jimh |
posted 02-19-2015 07:55 AM ET (US)
The aluminum fuel tank under the deck of any older Boston Whaler boat is a concern. Many of these tanks are now 30-year old aluminum tanks sitting in a wet foam environment. I have owned two older Boston Whaler boats, one a 1987 and the other a 1990, and never had a problem with the fuel tank. I did have problems with rubber fuel hose deterioration. With the excellent fuel economy of modern outboard engines, having a 63-gallon internal fuel tank on an 18-footer may no longer be a necessity. If your fuel burn rate was around 2-GPH, you'd have 30-hours of endurance. That is a lot of time underway on an 18-footer between fuel docks. An OUTRAGE 18 that had a bad fuel tank could be operated with a modern outboard engine and an on-deck 25-gallon tank with about the same sort of range as one with an old two-cycle outboard with much higher fuel consumption and a 63-gallon tank. |
| tedious |
posted 02-19-2015 07:57 AM ET (US)
Porthole, I have a 15, regularly drive my sister-in-law's Outrage 18, and have a friend across the bay who has a Montauk 170. I have spent some time behind the wheel of each, and have launched and loaded all of them a number of times. For the usage model you describe, either the 170 or the 18 would do quite well for you. The 18 in general feels bigger, and of course requires a larger motor and has an internal fuel tank. The 170 feels a bit smaller and easier to handle, and is perhaps not quite as fast, but still very capable. The Outrage is a beast in chop, very forgiving. The 170 is a bit bouncier. For launching and loading, the 170 is a little bit easier, but really very similar to the Outrage 18. Neither is as easy as the 15, but with the right setup both could be a one person job. There are a couple of major differences: 1) the internal fuel tank on the 18 is much bigger than what the 170 carries, so even if the mileage is lower, the 18 is going to have significantly greater range. The downside is that eventually that tank will need replacing. 2) Unless the 170 has been repowered, it's going to come with a Mercury. For me, with no local Mercury dealer, that would be a showstopper. Tim |
| saumon |
posted 02-19-2015 09:28 AM ET (US)
quote: x2 Don't rule out the Outrage 17 I. It has all the features of the Outrage 18 (bigger internal tank, deeper V hull) in a Montauk size (easy to tow, launch and economical to operate) plus a few extras, like the taller console with electronics box, stern quarter seats and livewell. They aren't really common but some pop up from time to times, like these two: |
| endus |
posted 02-19-2015 03:16 PM ET (US)
Operated a Montauk 17 in pretty rough conditions many times. Always felt very secure and safe, but ride comfort is another matter entirely. If you go too fast in big waves you will experience what I like to call, "the spine crusher". Not pleasant! I have a Montauk 170 now which is a definite improvement over the 17. It's still not a boat you're going to go fast in when it's really choppy out, but it does feel somewhat less like you jumped the boat onto solid concrete when you take a wave the wrong way. I debated a lot when we were looking at getting a boat. In the end the trailerability/beachability/fuel efficiency won out. I do sometimes wish I had a deeper V hull when its rough out though! |
| Mike Kub |
posted 02-19-2015 03:24 PM ET (US)
I have owned 15, 17, and 18-footers. Currently I have a 17 and 18. I would agree with everything said. I just put a F150 on my 18. I was suspicious of [the under cockpit fuel] tank, although [the gasoline] would always come out looking good. I have an RPS. I put two 12-gallon fuel tanks under it, just like I had in my Montauk, because I spent $15,000 on new engine and did not want to re-do the fuel tank. The fuel economy of the new engine is remarkable. I manage the Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18 by myself just fine. [The ride of the] 18 is far superior [to the MONTAUK 17]. My first Boston Whaler was a 1975 SPORT 15 with a 35-HP Evinrude, and its ride was amazing, but the gunwales were just too low. |
| jimh |
posted 02-20-2015 08:23 AM ET (US)
Mike confirms my suggestion that with a modern outboard engine, a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18 could be operated with on-deck fuel tanks having a capacity of about 24-gallons. I think a typical cruising speed fuel economy with an OUTRAGE 18 and a modern engine should be about 5-MPG. That suggests a cruising range with 24-gallons of over 100-miles. Based on your report of using your SPORT 15 for only 50-hours in the last 11 years, or about 4.5-hours per year, I don't think being limited to a cruising range of 100-miles is going to be a hardship for you. On that basis, you can probably reduce your concern about the condition of the under-deck fuel tank on any OUTRAGE 18 you might consider buying. Of course, it would be better to get one with a fuel tank that was not a mess. I have often thought that if we got another boat, we'd look for a nice OUTRAGE 18. You can usually haul them on a single axle trailer, and tow them with a modest towing capacity vehicle, like one of the smaller SUV or crossover vehicles with a V6 engine. I have been aboard three different OUTRAGE 18 boats. One was rigged with twin 115-HP engines. This was much too much power, and running the throttles was very twitchy. Another was rigged with twin 90-HP, and this boat was a delight to operate. The third had a single 135-HP, and it, too was very responsive and fun to drive. A popular traditional set up for an OUTRAGE 18 which was to be used in big water was rigging with twin 70-HP outboards, originally twin OMC Evinrude or Johnson 70-HP engine, and then later the Yamaha carbon-copy 70-HP engine. I think a modern 135-HP to 150-HP engine, like a four-cycle engine that Mike has rigged or a modern two-cycle like an E-TEC, is a great set up for an OUTRAGE 18. You will get really excellent fuel economy combined with good performance. Of course, the cost of a new 150-HP engine will probably be more than the cost of a used OUTRAGE 18, so you must factor that into your budget. If you were to decide on a MONTAUK 17, a very popular choice for re-power is the E-TEC 90-HP. The E-TEC 90-HP is a great match in size, weight (especially weight!) , and performance. I have driven a couple of MONTAUK 17 boats with E-TEC 90-HP engines and found them to be really nice handling boats. |
| tedious |
posted 02-20-2015 08:46 AM ET (US)
One other thing to mention regarding the internal fuel tank - you can get them pressure tested to determine their integrity. You could even do that test prior to the sale. It doesn't tell you that you won't have a problem down the road, but might rule out the need for immediate attention. Tim |
| Marko888 |
posted 02-21-2015 05:55 PM ET (US)
Having spent lots of time in 15, 17 and now 18 classic hulls, I think the "in most ways wonderful" Montauk may disappoint in the ride department, compared to your 15. In my experience, they just ride hard where the 15 hits more softly. The 17 is WAY more stable at rest though, has much more freeboard, and doesn't need much more power than a 15. The 18 feels like a different class of boat, with its v-hull providing a lot more capability compared to the smaller hulls. It's 50% more boat than a Montauk in my mind...but this includes running costs. However, many consider the 18 to be very close to the perfect boat, big enough and small enough at the same time. I haven't been in an Outrage 17, but from what I've read and can see, this for me would be the boat to go for if I wanted a bigger classic than a 15 without going to an 18. My 1985 outrage 18 was a freshwater boat until 2012. Original fuel tank was in great shape when I inspected it in the fall of 2011. No signs of any issues yet. |
| AZdave |
posted 02-22-2015 01:24 AM ET (US)
I had an Outrage 18, and now own a Montauk 170. The Outrage felt bigger and was faster with a 135 hp outboard than the Montauk with a 90. It seemed a bit better with large waves. The 63 gallon tank can be a blessing or a curse depending on your usage profile. If you have long weekends which mostly deplete the tank, it will give you exceptional range. If you take short trips that use a few gallons, you may have nagging doubts about the freshness and quality of fuel. It is not easy to drain the tank into a car or truck. I think the Outrage was made to be driven from a standing or leaning position. I sold mine primarily because the floor had soft spots. I did not want to get into the process of replacing or repairing the floor. Your mention of a 2003 Montauk would refer to a 170 rather than a classic 17. You're correct in noticing that it seems to have more depth and freeboard than earlier Montauks. I seem to have the same criticisms of the new design that others voice on this site. The transom is quite thick, and it is no longer possible to simply hang a kicker outboard to the side of the main outboard. The details of modifying the transom are provided on another thread on this site, but it is not a minor task. The control cables for the outboard emerge from the hull close to the motor itself, and lubrication or modification of the steering cable probably will mean lifting and displacing the outboard. The outboard in this series has a pressure gauge rather than a temperature gauge. Many have complained that the tube plugs up, especially in salt water. If I were to buy another Montauk, I would really think about the classic 17 rather than the newer 170. Having said that, my wife adores the starting on the Mercury (Yamaha) 4stroke motor, and it fits in my garage when the tongue is folded on the trailer. |
| Jerry Townsend |
posted 02-22-2015 05:16 PM ET (US)
I graduated from a mid 70's 13 Super Sport because the guaranteed afternoon mountain storm made some friends uneasy. Graduated to a 1996 17 Outrage - which made the storms a no-never-mind. Looked at a 1996 Montauk - side by side to the Outrage and there is no comparison - re freeboard, room, safety. But, one item not mentioned is that BW incorporated in the '96 17 Outrage is a drain from the fuel tank region to the sump/fish-tank which allows one to periodically drain the fuel tank region. Very beneficial. --- Jerry/Idaho |
| porthole2 |
posted 02-23-2015 12:11 AM ET (US)
Well you all certainly provided a lot of info to ponder. And after following along here and with the various links provided, as well as continuing to search the net, I have increased my choices and raised my $$$ expectations a bit. Models I am now considering are the Montauk Classic 17 & 170, Outrage models 18-22. As you all know, prices are all over the place due to boat age, outboard equipped etc. There are some really nice classic boats out there with no bottom paint if you are willing to spend the money. Some of the nicer boats don't have trailers, which lead me to believe a boat is sitting in the water all season long. I really like my 15, but in order to upgrade I think it may have to go. Here is my 15. And after looking around I think I may be calling this the wrong model. I thought it was a 15 SS, then a Sport 15 and now maybe a 15 CC http://s96.photobucket.com/user/porthole2/library/Whaler?sort=9&page=1 --mkelly: I've never swamped the boat from seas, but have just for fun by backing down hard - "testing the unsinkable legend". --elvis: I followed your post on the tank replacement. I'm handy, I could do that if necessary. Of course I'd rather not, but hidden tanks are hidden tanks. -- jimh: Thanks for the links. I found the Montauk page after my first post, but the Outrage page didn't show up in my search. The deck-over-the-tank design would probably preclude me from getting an OUTRAGE 19 II, I think. According to the link you supplied, in 1992 the II model came out with a solid deck, causing much more of a headache for tank replacement. But, I have seen pictures of newer Outrages that have a removable deck. I guess for me, some of the confusion comes from calling the same boat three different model numbers (18, 19, 19 II). As for seating, I prefer to sit and at 5'9" the RPS seat sounds like it would work fine. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the Outrage 17 was deficient, just that overall the 18/19 would be a better choice. Fuel tank failure is something I don't necessarily want to deal with, but the option of just dropping a portable tank on deck means you can finish out the season and have yourself a nice little winter project. --tedious: Being on the Jersey coast means I have plenty of dealers, service types around, including one friend who is a Merc expert. --endus: One of my buddies down here had an older 17 with a 150 Merc on it. Talk about fast, on the flat river, out in the ocean - that was a different story. I would have rather been on my 15 in the same conditions. --Mike Kub: 15K on an engine is something I don't want to have to do. When I bought my 15 I had planned on eventually re-powering with a Honda 4 stroke, just didn't plan on it a month after bringing it home. --jimh: The low hours on the 15 - I originally bought that boat for my wife. We live 3 miles from the river and had a 42 Post docked in Shark River. I was out on the big boat all the time, so I got her something to use while waiting for us to come in. That was the main reason of going to a 4 stroke. No oil mix to worry about, smooth (well not so smooth) and quiet (and not so quiet). And the big tank, figuring I could fill it once a season and she wouldn't have to worry. She never took it out once. We kept it docked in front of the big boat for 2-3 weeks at a time and cruised the river with it. Some nights though it was nothing more then head out to the main river and drift with the tide for an hour or 2. That and run up river to the coffee shop with my pup to get a coffee and rolls in the morning. Now that he big boat is gone, the little boat should get a lot more action. Problem for us being on Shark River is that there is really not much to do. The back end is all mud. So if you want to have some fun it usually means a trip out into the ocean. Although I had no qualms taking the 15 out the inlet into the big stuff, and it was entertaining listening to the smart a$$ comments from the big shot head boat captains, you still felt like you were in a really small boat. Towing the boat is not an issue, my daily drivers a F-350 DRW and we camp with a 18,000 pound toy hauler. I have heard a lot of good things about the E-Tec's and they are being pushed with Sea Tow, as Honda is with TowBoatUS. --AZdave: I found the thread on the hull mod for a kicker. Hate the thought of cutting a good hull like that, but it sure seems to work out well. I don't know that I would actually install a kicker, but I have contemplated jut for the cruising purposes and lack of noise form the big engine. --Jerry Townsend: Good to know about the drain. I have seen that as one of the mods on this site. |
| jcdawg83 |
posted 02-23-2015 08:20 PM ET (US)
I don't know if this helps or clouds the issue, but I have a classic Montauk and the only boat I really think about changing to is a classic Outrage 18. I feel like the Montauk is comparable to a classic English roadster, like a Triumph TR6. I feel like the Outrage 18 would be like stepping up to an American muscle car. Both would be a blast to drive but one would be more of a sports car and the other would be more of a cruiser. The Montauk is so versatile and so easy to handle by myself, but some days I would like a bigger boat. |
| jimh |
posted 02-24-2015 11:39 PM ET (US)
PORTHOLE2--Thanks for the comprehensive reply and acknowledgement of all the comments. |
| porthole2 |
posted 02-25-2015 11:47 PM ET (US)
So, I confused myself some more today. Looked at a 1999 Outrage 20 and a 1994 Outrage 21 Similar but different as well. Newer boat looked like it sat in salt water quite a bit. One of the horizontal bolts on the lower unit had the nut almost completely rusted away (Merc EFI 200). Boat has sat for over a year on blocks The older boat looked about the same overall but according to the hour meter it has less then 340 hours (Johnson 225). Looks like it spent a lot of time on the trailer. Have any of you responding to this thread had the opportunity to drive both of these hull types? |
| DaveS |
posted 03-02-2015 08:15 PM ET (US)
porthole2, I've fished out of Shark River Inlet many times using my old, 1991 17' Boston Whaler Outrage. It's a great boat that could handle way more then I could. I've taken it out with my kids for runs up to the Shrewsbury Rocks and never felt uncomfortable. I just needed to take it slow. The kids in the front likes being launched off the waves. It's a great, overall boat. I kept it at Sea Port Marina, formerly Aps, on the right hand side heading out to the ocean after the last bridge. Great people and you can't get closer to the ocean! A few drawbacks, it got crowed from time to time. One of my son's friends is almost 7' tall. He took up a lot of space! With his normal sized friends, not really a problem, unless everyone was bringing several tackle boxes. After about 6 years of ownership, I sold it about 2 years ago and picked up a newer, 1999, 17' Outrage. I think this is the perfect compromise between the Montauk and 18' Outrage hulls. The 17' Outrage II is 17' 6" vs. the 18' 8" Outrage. I don't think I'll miss that extra foot. The newer 17' Outrage also weighs about 400-500 pounds more. Let me know if you have any other questions about the 17' Outrage...IMO...you can't go wrong with either model. As for the 17' Montauk, I had a 1989 17' Newport that I converted into a center console and took that to the Shrewsbery Rocks many times as well. No problems at all! Good luck! Dave |
| porthole2 |
posted 03-02-2015 11:00 PM ET (US)
Still fishing out of Shark River Dave? I have been running out of this inlet since 98. Prior to that it was almost 20 years out of Manasquan. Mostly diving. |
| DaveS |
posted 03-03-2015 12:08 AM ET (US)
I've decided I'm going to move down to Barnegat Inlet this season for a number of reasons. First, when things get snotty outside, Shark River isn't a huge fish haven. I haven't had much success inside. Barnegat will give me the option to fish the bay when I can't head outside. I'm going to miss the 30 minute ride to Shark River, that was sweet...looks like it's going to be closer to an hour. It'll be interesting trying to learn a new area...I was just getting pretty good at Shark River. My favorite inlet is Manasquan Inlet, but the marina's I contacted wanted a small ransom to put my boat in the water. Where I'll be keeping it this year, I'm looking at $50/foot and I'm about a mile or two away from the inlet. Can't beat that! One place I'm looking forward to heading are the Barnegat Ridges. It'll be a little farther but I plan to pick my days. Let me know if you have any questions about the Outrage, it's really a great boat! Dave |
| porthole2 |
posted 05-16-2015 10:52 AM ET (US)
An update - did a lot of searching over the last several months. Most disappointing was a very nice 1998 Outrage 20 with a fiberglass T top and a 2004 Johnson 175, excellent condition but on a poor condition roller trailer. Made a deal, ordered a trailer and a week later the owner changed his mind. Fortunately for me, the deal was through a marina that happened to also be a LoadRite dealer. So no issue with the trailer. Several other trials and tribulations trying to buy a small boat. |
| porthole2 |
posted 05-16-2015 11:01 AM ET (US)
--Jerry Townsend quote: Jerry, I noticed with my 17 that parked on level ground, with the boat nose high, I get no water out of that drain. But, while running wires through the starboard under deck side I noticed water is pooled at least up in the front where all the wires go through the deck. Looking down that hole (under the console) I can see what appears to be 2" or so of water. Removing the fire extinguisher bracket, while reaching down to the hull I could also feel pooled water. BTW, I simply removed the 8 screws securing the console and rolled it forward to do all my work. |
| |
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.