posted 06-17-2002 11:45 PM ET (US)            

--modern outboards are more reliable;
--modern outboards troll all day without fouling;
--a 17-foot boat is not an offshore boat anymore, not by serious standards;
--for most users a single engine will be fine;
--for lake or river trolling an electric motor is enough.

posted 06-18-2002 12:57 PM ET (US)            

While many, if not most, of the small sport fishing boats in this part of the world have kicker motors on them, emergency propulsion is entirely secondary to the real reason for them: fishing. I suspect this may be part of Matt's frustration.

Whalers are only very rarely run more than a few miles from shore in the Pacific Northwest. It’s just not possible unless you go to the ocean. 17' boats never were considered offshore boats around here so the fact that modern outboards are very reliable is substantially irrelevant to this discussion.

Fishing around here usually means salmon fishing. There are many different techniques for fishing for salmon and certainly trolling along at one ,two or maybe three knots is one of them. But Mooching or motor mooching is also very popular and this cannot be done with a big motor nor can it be done consistently with a bow mounted electric.

When fishing for Salmon with, say, a cut plug herring, the speed that the bait travels through the water is all important. It usually needs to be very slow but it needs to move. The swirling currents of our very tidal waters mean that in order to get your bait moving at the correct speed at depth the boat has to move anywhere from not at all, to very fast, as water does not move as a single mass but in layers sometimes going completely opposite directions.

What this means to the salmon fisher in his Waler is that he may want to be going dead slow one moment and 2 knots the next. There is no way a big motor can do this. In fact, much of the time I am fishing I am trying to get my kicker to run at minimum idle speed. Sometimes I even have to put it into reverse to back down on the current.

Trolling with the big motor is not practical because the boat will move too fast. It is also unpleasant because as quiet as even modern four strokes are, they still make more noise than their little siblings and they burn more fuel and produce more exhaust no matter how relatively clean it is.

There is an old saying: You get what you pay for. Truer words were never spoke and I think this must be the case with the new Montauk 170. This boat has been produced with a new lower price to appeal to boaters who would not have otherwise bought a new Montauk.They’ve cut corners like mad to achieve this. This is the very strategy that has made Bayliner boats the most popular recreational water craft in the world, by far.

While I cannot fault Whaler for trying to make money, (they are just a business like any other) I can lament the loss of their high standards.

However good the ride, the Montauk 170 should in no way be considered a replacement for the Montauk.

You don’t need a kicker on your new Whaler? Go tell that to all the fishing guides in BC and Alaska!

posted 06-18-2002 03:39 PM ET (US)         

I fished up to 18 miles offshore in Lake Michigan for several years in my 16' Nauset, and after the first year, quickly decided I needed a kicker. Being out that far on big water with a single, even a highly reliable Mercury(!), is just not smart. I never needed it to get in, but knowing it was there made all the difference. That's also why my next boat, an offshore 18 Outrage, got rigged with twins.

But for years, since Reebock first took over, I have watched BW brag about it's great fishing and offshore boats, and thinking all along they didn't know what they were doing anymore. Euro transoms are not great for downrigger trolling, now you can't even get a Whaler smaller than 23' for twin engines. Nor can you mount even mount a kicker on those Outrages and Duantless models less than 23'. And now, no kicker on a Montauk? I like the boat and think this would be a huge mistake if they want the boat to continue it's reputation for fishing.

The Outrages are now like fishing out of a high sided bathtub. Valuable fishing floor space is being used up by an oversized jiffy john console and bow rider side seats. How many times do you have to "go" during a day out fishing. Poor use of space for those couple of minutes in the "head". It sure seems like Whaler's offshore fishing boats are being designed by "booze and cruise" designers who have never caught a big fish 15 miles offshore!

posted 06-19-2002 12:20 AM ET (US)            

I'll probably look into that bow mounted trolling motor if I can find one that is beefy enough.

I spoke with my dealer prior to purchasing the boat and one question they asked was did I want to mount a kicker--they knew I liked to fish. They were in the dark as well. I was going to wait and see what others who had purchased the boat did with mounting the kicker bracket.

The first time I had a look at the wood/phenolic locating diagram (after delivery) I noticed there was no backing on the starboard side of the transom, which began my inquiry.

I probably would still have purchased the boat--due to high prices in the Northwest for used Montauks that need to be repowered.

There is wood embeded in the transom for a real boss swim step (sarcasm).

posted 06-20-2002 09:25 AM ET (US)            

To whalernut,
Your post raises several issues. You refer to the new Montauk as "a cheaper design." In actual fact the boat weighs more, thus the material costs may actually be higher than the old design. It is my understanding that the price point reduction was achieved by reducing the labor needed to build the boat.

In the new design there are many, many embedded backing materials, almost all of them phenolic, not wood. The material costs for phenolic laminates are higher than the wood they replace. If the new boat replaces something in the old boat with a more expensive and better substitute it is difficult for me to accept your description of this as "cheaper design."

I know you are proud of your 1973 16-Currituck and the fact that you could put a trolling motor on the transom, but that fact that you don't have a trolling motor on the transom says more about the situation being discussed than you might realize. Thanks for pointing out that you, an avid fisherman on the Great Lakes, do not use a trolling motor on the transom of your older Whaler.

As for the bluring of the lines between the various boat companies under Brunswick ownership, I think there is wide agreement that Boston Whaler should remain distinctive. I don't want to have to drill a core sample to tell if the boat is a Whaler; its looks should convey this.

As for "real world", I have to tell you this: the 2002 170-MONTAUK is in high demand, most all dealers are sold out, and customers are standing in line to get one. Do you really think that if they introduced a boat in the year 2002 that looked exactly like your 1973 CURRITUCK that the demand would have been as high?

posted 06-20-2002 01:25 PM ET (US)            

I am not disappointed with my boat! Only with the kicker/bracket situation.

posted 06-20-2002 02:34 PM ET (US)            

I'm surmising (admittedly without first-hand knowledge) that the transom condition on the new Montauks where you would mount a kicker is similar to the transom condition on my Outrage 22' outside of the thickened transom area where the main motor(s) goes, in that there is no internal reinforcement, only foam between the two fiberglass "skins".

If I am correct with that assessment, and if someone had the will to do it, I think the transom could be internally reinforced such that it would hold a kicker.

I have done some of this sort of thing in the unreinforced area of the transom on my Outrage 22', and after learning from a couple of mistakes, had a very successful experience with it.

The short version is digging out foam in areas where you need reinforcement and replacing the foam with a thickened mixture of glass and resin. The long version deals with just how to do that without damaging any more gelcoat than necessary, how to patch things back to factory new and how to avoid a thermo-chemical event. (Not a thermo-nuclear event, but similar in some ways...)

I would think that one would contemplate bolting the kicker through the transom, and I think in that case some pretty limited reinforcement that would be pretty easy to repair could be accomplished.

I'd be happy to noodle those ideas around with anyone who is interested either here or via e-mail.

kingfish

posted 06-20-2002 07:07 PM ET (US)            

Tabasco,
Thanks for the diagram offer, but I do have a copy of the wood locating diagram.
By the way your boat looks great! I bet you will put alot of hours on it this summer.
Have fun.

posted 06-20-2002 08:13 PM ET (US)            

If you don't mind, I'd like to take you up on that drawing offer, if you don't mind.

posted 06-20-2002 11:30 PM ET (US)            

When you say "many posts have been edited" I guess you understand "many" to a number in the range of 2-3.

As for those who wish to defend your "rights", you have no "rights" here. Your participation is not a right granted to you under the constitution, it is not protected by law, it is not an entitlement. You are a guest participating in a forum on a website. You are a guest at the party.

A party where there is no charge for admission, the beer is free, and the entertainment is decent.

All your host asks (that's me, your host) is that you stop thinking it is so damn cute for you to get up an pee in the swimming pool every few hours/days/months.

Every time you pee in the swimming pool, I have to clean it up--you see the rest of us don't really like to hang around the pool after you pee in it.

I told you the first time you pee'd in the pool--over two years ago--that at this party we don't let the guests pee in the pool.

If you don't figure this out, you are not going to get invited back to the party.

So figure out, please, if you want to pee in the pool again, because I am tired of cleaning it up, and I totally tired of you telling me "editing my posts won't stop me."

Pee in the pool again, Jack, and you are not getting invited back to the party.

posted 06-23-2002 12:46 PM ET (US)            

I spoke with my service manager and a factory rep. from Whaler yesterday at my dealership's demo days and both thought that there was a solution to the kicker motor situation: through bolting to two stainless steel supports on the inside of the boat. One above the rear starboard step/seat and one below using the access panel.

I'm still of the opinion, as Kingfish stated, that there needs to be some interior reinforcement. But I have limited knowledge and it is just my opinion.

I would recomend that you contact Chuck Bennet at Whaler and look at a wood/phenolic locating diagram.

Then ask your Dealer two questions:
Has your dealership succesfully mounted a kicker bracket to this particular boat and what method did they use?

I'm hoping that they have had success, not only for my own selfish reasons, but I think you'll enjoy the boat!

posted 06-23-2002 04:45 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for continuing the TOPIC. I sent an E-mail to the dealership asking them to hold up the sale until they contact Boston Whaler for clarification and written approval. Also, I sent an E-mail to Boston Whaler to the userid's "service@whaler.com" and "assist@whaler.com" with a CC to my boat dealer. May I please have the userid for Chuck Bennet. I will contact him directly...would it be OK to mention your name?

Why did we consider the Montauk?

1) safety, ruggedness, longevity, resale
2) the assumption that a kicker was OK
3) good dollar value...less than 2001's
4) the boat ride was very good

What will we use it for?
1) snorkeling in Monterey Bay, CA
2) salmon, rockfish, albacore, stripers
3) 6 to 30 miles offshore (when safe)
4) trips to Santa Catalina from mainland
5) occasional fresh water use

Maybe we selected the wrong boat? I'll open up the question: Did we purchase the wrong boat for our purposes?

I truly believe that there are more potential purchasers of the new 2002 Montauk 170 that will experience the same limitations as you and I. I believe that it was up to your selling dealer to assist you in obtaining accurate information about the kicker...mine also. You should not be in the position you are today. If you or anyone else would like to contact me direct, my email address is "jobsrch@hotmail.com".

I thank you all for each opinion on this topic...I know there is NO single correct solution.

posted 06-23-2002 08:11 PM ET (US)            

I'm not saying there "should" be internal reinforcement - that's the sort of thing that might get me branded as a "malcontent" (private joke - sorry).

I'm just saying that my assessment from afar is that one option to the challenge of mounting a kicker might be internal reinforcement. I will say that if it were mine, that's what I would probably try. The notion would appeal to me because I think it would be closest to the way the factory would and probably eventually will solve the problem, because if done as I envision, it would be invisible, because I have already had some practice in something similar, and because it would be a challenge.

This is all offered on a philosophical basis up to this point, Matt, and there are probably a number of "right" answers. But if the idea appeals to you, I'd be happy to help walk you through it in more detail so you could develop a clear enough understanding of the project to decide whether it would be worth the effort in *your* eyes. (Read between the lines: you might not be quite as obsessive about these kind of ideas and projects as I am, and that's all right. In fact if you weren't, your wife would probably be happier with you than mine is with me.) Let me know - I'd get a kick out of tossing some ideas around-

kingfish

posted 06-23-2002 08:18 PM ET (US)            

As my son and I were leaving the BW boat store, on Friday, we saw an older Montauk being serviced. It had a 2-stroke kicker mounted directly onto Port Side of the transom, without a bracket. The border on top of the transom was cut away to make room for the kicker. Frankly, it looked like h_ll...that is it look bad! There was no way I would spend about $2x,000.00 for a new boat and do this. The Garelick was at least a cleaner and better solution...at least I thought so at the time. We will know shortly.

Even though the current purchaser of the New 2002 Montauk may find the single outboard satisfactory, a lesser concern would be re-selling the same boat at a later date to a person that feels the need for a kicker...that cannot/should not be mounted onto this boat.

Any information from Boston Whaler will be posted...Good...Bad...or Ugly.

posted 06-23-2002 10:17 PM ET (US)            

Chuck Bennet's email address is cbennet@whaler.com and feel free to mention my name.

The classice style Montauk was designed to have the kicker motor mounted on the starboard side directly on the transom.

The Gaerlick bracket was our initial thought on how to mount the kicker.

I think the 170 Montauk could handle everything you mentioned--however since I boat mainly in the Northwest, I've never been offshore or to Catalina Island. I might add I have a bit over 15 hours on my boat so my experience is limited, but have been in a bit of the snotty stuff and the boat handled it well.

Kingfish,

I appreciate your offer and would like to discuss it further, but I would leave the actual work to a professional as my wife may have our expected baby early if she sees me with a sawzall/ drill motor/ chainsaw with in 50' of the new Whaler!

posted 06-23-2002 11:23 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for the posting. I did send an E-mail to Chuck Bennett. There is a correction for Chuck Bennett's E-mail address. The correct E-mail address is cbennett@whaler.com. The other one received a Delivery Failure.

I asked for an answer ASAP...we'll see.

posted 06-24-2002 12:17 AM ET (US)            

I forgot to say that the dealer was also installing a 24 gallon Pate underseat tank in addition to the other optional items.

posted 06-24-2002 10:58 AM ET (US)            

The following is the entire E-mail response from Chuck Bennett at Boston Whaler:

Dear Mr. Fujino:
Unfortunately, there are no reinforcements on the transom of the 2002 170 Montauk to allow the typical installation of an auxiliary motor bracket. The center section of the transom is reinforced with laminated marine plywood to back up the main motor, however, towards the starboard side of
the main motor, the transom is foam filled.
On the port side of the main motor, there is phenolic material molded into the boat to support the installation of the optional swim platform.
Whaler engineers have told me that this phenolic material is molded in too
low to allow the proper installation of a kicker motor bracket.
Chuck Bennett
Customer Care Rep.
Boston Whaler Inc.

Mr. Bennett,

posted 06-24-2002 11:06 AM ET (US)            

Mr. Bennett,

I thank you for contacting me promptly and will forward this E-mail to the guys at Outboard Motor Shop in Alameda, California. Can you or someone else from Boston Whaler contact either Craig, Brian, or John for me at the Dealership? In fact, all Boston Whaler Dealers should be informed of this DESIGN LIMITATION to avoid this type of confusion and possible future legal action from consumers with a non-supported kicker motor installation.

For the record, my son and I test drove the new 2002 Montauk 170. For it's size, we felt it WAS the best boat for our needs. It handled and rode exceptionally well. My son, Brian, is disappointed. I will be cancelling my purchase of the new 2002 Montauk 170.

There are a large number of older Montauk model customers that take this very capable boat very far offshore. Many of these have a kicker motor for safety reasons or utilize it for trolling. I sincerely believe that Boston Whaler missed an opportunity to continue this very important FEATURE in the New Montauk 170. Perhaps this is a limitation of the overall design, an oversight on Engineering's part, or an underestimation of this FEATURE in Boston Whaler Marketing. Boston Whaler should re-visit this FEATURE and incorporate an enhancement in the Newer 200x Montauk 170 whenever possible. In software development and support there is a tongue in cheek statement, " It's Not a Bug... It's a Feature". Again, I think Boston Whaler Missed the Boat!

Also, there is another customer that purchased a new Model 2002 Montauk recently. His name is Matt. I'm sorry, but I do not know his last name. You previously answered his question about mounting a kicker. Unfortunately, he purchased the Montauk before finding out that a kicker installation was not possible. His Boston Whaler Dealer did not know there was a problem with a kicker installation. I think the right thing to do is to help him with some factory solution. My software customer support management background tells me this.

This lengthly response is NOT directed at you personnaly. I am impressed and glad that you responded to my E-mail question(s). Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions. Again, thank you.

With Sincere Respects,

posted 06-24-2002 11:28 AM ET (US)            

This morning, I received this E-mail response from "custserv@gradywhite.com", the support person's name is Bert Kelly. This was in response to my question to Grady White Support about installing a kicker on a used 1998 Sportsman 180 Center Console that I found on the web. They also responded very quickly.

What is the nature of your request?
----------------------
Please expedite my request. The used Grady cannot be held for me too long. Does the GW Factory have any recommendations for installing a 4-stroke kicker on the transom
of a 1998 Sportsman 180 Center Console? A Honda 130 Outboard is the primary engine. I would like to purchase a Honda kicker. What size do you recommend? Thank you for the time...respectfully Rick
----------------------
Thanks for writing.

We do not recommend installing a kicker motor on the 180 Sportsman as it is
a small model that could experience balance issues with the addition of a
second engine.

Customer Relations

posted 06-24-2002 12:25 PM ET (US)            

I just spoke with John at the Boston Whaler Dealership to CANCEL MY PURCHASE. They were both surprised and unhappy with Boston Whaler's answer. They are continuing communication with Boston Whaler to try and get to the core of the problem. I asked the Dealership to keep me in the loop.

I need to say that the folks at Outboard Motor Shop have been very, very good during this ordeal. I would purchase a new boat from them...if I could afford it!

I am now searching for a good used late model open console Whaler with twin outboards at a reasonable price. Is this an oxymoron? If you see one...please let me know. I am at jobsrch@hotmail.com.

Matt,
Good luck with your boat and thanks for the assistance...this FORUM has been both informative and supportive...it saved me from future grief!!!!

posted 06-24-2002 05:02 PM ET (US)         

Newowner, considering your price range and size requirement, I would look for a good used 18 Outrage, 1983 - 1991. There is lots of info on this site about that boat. Except for the fact you are wanting a newer model, this is the perfect boat for your description. Another option would be to look at a new 19 Guardian (same hull as this 18 Outrage). May not cost as much as you think.

BW stopped making the smaller Outrages with twin capability because the Dealers reported that practically nobody wanted to pay to have them so powered. And the designers thought the little sexy stern quarter seats were more needed. Twin engine 18 Outrages are extremely rare. Twin engine 20 & 22 Outrages less rare, but still not real common. Conversely, almost all 25 Outrages were twin powered.

posted 06-25-2002 06:26 AM ET (US)            

"Whalernut was 100% correct for interjecting the fact...

"Interjected" is perhaps a good word to use here since when Jack posted he essentially ignored the topic (Auxillary engine brackets) and veered off into his usual, constant, ineluctable mantra about the current corporate owners of Boston Whaler.

The phrase "100% correct" is harder to accept; you might say you strongly agree with Jack's opinion. To ascribe "100% correct" to an opinion sounds like an attempt to add weight to an opinion. When people have opinions they generally believe them to be correct.

The phrase "for interjecting the fact" is again hard to take. A fact is something that most reasonable people believe to be true after being widely demonstrated. You attempt to equate one man's opinion with fact, but I don't buy it.

Now we get to the "fact" "some major corners were cut to have the new 17 Montauk Whaler be priced so cheaply." I guess the issue is whether being able to mount an auxillary engine is a major concern to a majority. Interesting that the word "majority" and "major" share the same root. A major concern is held by a majority of those concerned. I am not convinced that a majority of the potential buyers of a 170-MONTAUK are worried about mounting an auxillary bracket.

This is essentially my position: most buyers will not find this an issue because they were not going to mount an auxillary engine.

Now the post turns from the topic of the thread to the topic of my chastising Jack for using vulgar language and having to edit it out. You see, I don't edit out Jack's opinions, I just edit out his vulgarity.

"Peeing in the pool??? [What's] that all about? It's a metaphor for using vulgar language and in this case crude and vulgar sexual inuendo involving Jack's favorite target (Brunswick) and his irrational interpretation of reality.

In this case, Jack proposed that the omission of an auxillary engine bracket was the equivalent of being sodomized by the corporation that happens to own Whaler. It is a truly bad metaphor and it is not going to be tolerated on this website. It is also preposterous. Let me explain.

Jack's position is that a decision to not include an auxillary mounting bracket is being forced on the marketplace. Of course this is completely wrong. The marketplace will inform Boston Whaler if it likes the decision or not. There are millions of boats to buy, no one is forced to buy a new Boston Whaler, least of all Jack. I don't think you could find a person less likely to be a customer of a new Boston Whaler. Most companies figure out who their customers are and make things they want. I don't know if they did or not, but perhaps some research went into the decision to omit auxillary engine brackets. (Well, if not, they're probably doing a little research now, eh?).

In any case, back to Jack and his vulgar rant. His position, minus the crude language, was insupportable. No one is forced to buy anything, especially a brand new boat.

And even more silly--I really find this part amusing--here is Jack complaining about a boat when on his own boat he does not have an auxillary engine. It would help me understand a person's rant if he actually had or used or needed the thing he was ranting about.

So now we have a vulgar, sexual remark about a situation that doesn't really exist made by a person whose own situation does not make use of the feature being omitted.

"Who the hell posts something like that in the discussion of a ONCE great American boatmaker??? Well, I do, as the publisher of this website and the moderator of this forum. I don't permit vulgar, crude metaphors of sodomy to be used. I don't endorse irrational thinking. I don't overlook complete inconsistency in thinking.

Boston Whaler co. might think [it's] a great thing for you support [their] product "no matter what". If the whole tone and orientation of the website was geared to "support no matter what" then Boston Whaler might think it great, but not too many other people would. There is plenty of critical content on the website. I don't tell people what to think. I do set some bounds on how they say it.

"might bring some finanical gain to the lake boater website owner and his faithfull followers" Three issues here:

--"financial gain" is, at the moment, not an issue with respect to the website. There is no financial support from any corporate entity; generous voluntary and unsolicted contributions have been received and acknowledge, but there is no corporate support.

--"lake boater" Like Caesar to Brutus, this was the "most unkindest cut of all."

--"faithful followers" seems ironic since I am in a distinct minority in this thread; no one seems to be following me!

"but anyone with half a brain KNOWS you get what you pay for... If you have an opinion it is better to support it with arguments other than ones that rely on attacking the intelligence of the person who has the oppposite opinion.

"this topic is laughed about [at] the local watering holes on Woodcleft in Freeport, NY." I get out to the bar a few times with other website moderators and we have a few topics of our own that are favorites to discuss.

posted 06-25-2002 09:13 AM ET (US)            

If push comes to shove, it probably wouldn't be a major effort to fashion a bracket that is integral to the main engine mounting that supports a kicker on the side.

Just my thoughts...

posted 06-25-2002 03:10 PM ET (US)            

Now....oinions hrough the eyes of Bigshot:

1)I have NEVER installed a kicker on a boat. I have NEVER had twins. I do however carry Boat US insurance. I have NEVER used my Boat US insurance......NEVER!

2)A 6-8hp kicker does not require much support. Yes they get beat up in chop, etc but as far as support goes, I think an aluminum plate on the inside of the transom would be PLENTY if the desire strikes you to own a kicker. If a POS 1960 12' alum hull can handle a 6-8hp without folding in the transom, I think a BW could cope with some reinforcement.

3) Most or should I say Majority of kicker owners I know usually get towed in because they never use their kickers and the carb gets gummed up(at the worst possible time of course).

4) I agree that most 17' boats these days do not see the "tour of duty" to warrant an aux. engine and to be honest, nothing would suck more than being 25 miles offshore(because you know you have aux. power) and having to use it and take 7 hours to get home. See above on towing insurance.

5) The money you spend on a 8hp Yamaha 4 stroke, Garelick bracket, sta-bil, etc, you can purchase UNLIMITED towing insurance for about 15 YEARS!......15 YEARS!

So I agree that it is a shame that BW cheezed out on a $4 piece of wood. I also believe that kickers(in the modern day of reliabilty and 4 stroke trolling capabilities) are obsolete or unneccesary for about 99% of all boat owners. Ever see a professional flats guide with a kicker? Ever see a towboat with a kicker? How about the coast guiard or marine patrol with kickers? Maintenence and TOWBOAT US are all anyone needs, along with a little common sense and some basic mechanical skills.

PS nice metaphoric use of "pee" jimh. Can we know call the waterpump indicator a "peehole" or "pisser" again? I love this place:)

posted 06-27-2002 02:37 AM ET (US)            

Most of my local boating is out of Santa Cruz or Monterey Bays in California. I do not have the convenience or luxury of "Towboat US" or "Sea Tow". I am out of their service areas. Does anybody know of a TOW company that covers the above areas?

I will be trying and possibly purchasing a new 2000 Edgewater 247 Center Console with twin Yamaha 150 HPDI's. The price is better than a New 21' Boston Whaler Outrage with a single outboard.

Also, the Edgewater company would custom factory install an auxillary motor mount for their 180CC boat if I wished.

Best of luck...

posted 06-27-2002 11:11 AM ET (US)            

If a guy has a Montauk and wants a kicker, who cares what his reasons are. He's the one spending the money. But setting aside the argument about whether a kicker is warranted on a Montauk or not it just seems reasonable to include a little bit of extra plywood in the transom of the new Montauk 170 in case somebody does want to install one. How much extra can it cost?

newowner,

Andy Gere or Chuck Tribolet can correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time I was in Santa Cruz harbor (in January) there was a tow boat there. You might look into it.

posted 06-27-2002 11:51 AM ET (US)            

A full sized motor, be it two stroke or four stroke, even at dead slow idle speed will propel the boat too fast.

Add to that the fact that a 90 hp four stroke (and I should point out not all new Montauks will have four strokes) will still be louder than a 6 hp four stroke. It's just more pleasant to listen to a 6 rather than a 90 all day long.

posted 06-27-2002 03:25 PM ET (US)            

Tom, what is the scene up in your area, as I recall, mooching was a method that we got from you boys up north. Also, as I understand, you boys came up with the drop to the bottom then slowly crank up, then back down, method. We used to drop to a depth, then hold, then up or down a few and hold. When you feel the hit, feed the fish, then once the fish has swallowed the bait, it goes one way, you go the other and wham, fish-on! How are your regs., strict or mooch friendly, maybe I need to find a new home port.

Don't see anyone using a kicker to mooch with out here, and oddly enough, a few party boat skippers would every now and then pop into gear for a few seconds then out while mooching and herald that as their secret to catching fish. Apparently, it is common knowledge in your area. It is sad though, no one (vast majority) mooches down here any more.

posted 06-27-2002 05:43 PM ET (US)            

I'm with you - conceptually, that in a nutshell is what I would do, and to what I was referring in my earlier posts. There may even be less invasive ways to get the same effect.