Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
New 170 Montauk--Factory says no to Kicker
|Author||Topic: New 170 Montauk--Factory says no to Kicker|
posted 06-17-2002 08:32 PM ET (US)
I couldn't find any info in my owner's manual with regards to a kicker motor/bracket installation.
I emailed the factory and the response from Chuck Bennet was as follows: "the new 170 Montauk was not designed for the installation of a transom mounted kicker motor... forwarded your email to engineering and they stated the the Montauk was desinged for the mounting of a bow mounted trolling motor and would not recommend a transom mount as the reinforcement would not supply the proper amount of support for both engine/bracket."
Any thoughts would be appreciated,
|Tom W Clark||
posted 06-17-2002 09:02 PM ET (US)
Surely you jest?
posted 06-17-2002 10:57 PM ET (US)
Sounds like an engineering defect, one that'll have to be addressed I would hope.
posted 06-17-2002 11:42 PM ET (US)
posted 06-17-2002 11:45 PM ET (US)
You can look at this with this perspective:
--modern outboards are more reliable;
I know there is this concept that you go 30-miles offshore in your Montauk and use your auxillary to come home when you main engine breaks down, but I am not sure that picture fits into the vision of many buyers of 2003 Montauks.
posted 06-18-2002 07:21 AM ET (US)
It seems to me that the new outboards are just too heavy to mount an extra engine on the back of the boat. My Y2K Montauk was the only boat to have a 90 HP 2-stroke engine installed from the local dealer in the last few years. I gave up the convenience of the 4-stroke engine because the boat is always full of dive gear and I wanted the extra carrying capacity. If I were fishing and trolling, I would go to the 4 stroke.
The last Whaler/Mercury I owned ran 5 seasons without ever missing a beat. One of my dive buddies had an old Wellcraft sport fisherman with a single Johnson 225. The boat was always breaking down. He wouldnít bother with the marine radio, just used the cell phone to wheel and deal the best (cheapest) towing option to get the boat back to the nearest harbor etc.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 06-18-2002 12:57 PM ET (US)
While I agree that all the points jimh makes are accurate (except perhaps the fourth), they completely miss the point of Whalering in the Pacific Northwest where Matt and I live.
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. Itís 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.Theyíve 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 donít need a kicker on your new Whaler? Go tell that to all the fishing guides in BC and Alaska!
"--for most users a single engine will be fine" Well, in the case of the new Montauk 170 I guess it will have to be...
posted 06-18-2002 03:39 PM ET (US)
I agree with Tom, except in many parts east of the Mississippi, Montauks ARE used offshore, both in the Great Lakes and Atlantic and Gulf. So are pre-1991 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 Outrages, all of which can handle twin engines or a big single with a kicker. From the earliest days, the 16/17' Whalers have been rigged with kickers. All of Whaler's literature show it and give instructions for installing and using one of these. The boats were re-inforced on the starboard side for such an installation.
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.
I recently had a chance to compare Whaler's latest and hottest new 270 Outrage side by side with my 25 Outrage (same size boats incidentally!) and there is no comparison of interior useable offshore, deep sea, fishing space. The 270 is a very nice, unique looking Sea Ray Laguna! I'm sure it will be a big seller, but it doens't look like it came from the same company that does the 170 Montauk.
posted 06-18-2002 08:36 PM ET (US)
[This post has been edited--jimh.]The 170 is not even close to a replacement for the venerable Montauk, it is much cheaper design. Sea Ray, [Boston Whaler],...Bayliner...all of those are being lost in one another, and in my eyes not for the good. I know I could put a kicker engine on my 1973 16-Currituck very easily... because it was built very well and the design was a real world hull. Let all of us morn the death of the Classic Whalers, they are all gone now...Jack.
posted 06-19-2002 12:20 AM ET (US)
Well said Tom.
I did manage without a kicker on my 15' sport because I mostly mooch for Kings and troll (high line) for Silvers. So I'll do just fine--just no back trolling.
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.
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 06-19-2002 06:39 PM ET (US)
Not that you should even have to....But, I bet a bracket could be fabricated. Perhaps two pieces of aluminum plate bedded to the inside and outside of the transom with pillars at the corners to tie the pieces together through the cored transom, maybe another pillar in the center. Bed the whole thing with 5200. I can't remember how much space is above the rear corner step inside the hull. The inner plate may need to be shorter than the outer so as to not interfere with the step.
posted 06-19-2002 09:16 PM ET (US)
I fail to understand how limiting the wood used in the hual is that much of a cost savings on the new Whalers...With all the products out on the market place these days, I got to believe Whaler could put some kind of structural support in the traditional locations (like the stern)...I believe I shall put my 1969 Nausets flag at half mast to morn the death of one fantastic boat line...
posted 06-20-2002 07:23 AM ET (US)
It's a design decision, not necessarily made by the engineers and designers. On the one hand a few people like Matthew are going to be unhappy. On the other it's one more thing to keep off the boat and not subject the company to the risk of liability.
posted 06-20-2002 09:03 AM ET (US)
It is easy accomplished just don't order the swim platform. There is wood in the stern on the port side of the transom where they mount the swim platform. Just mount your aux. motor mount on that side.
Whalernut ......could you please GIVE IT A REST! .......ENOUGH!
posted 06-20-2002 09:25 AM ET (US)
To Tom Clark,
Thanks for the information on the trolling technique. I am not much of a fisherman, but I am sure the strong tidal currents you describe could create many unusual trolling situations.
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 09:39 AM ET (US)
Thank you, Jim. Your post was far kinder and more thoughtful than the post I was repressing. I'm not necessarily in love with every one of the "post-Classic" Whalers, but the relentless bashing of them is tired. Different strokes for different folks!
posted 06-20-2002 01:25 PM ET (US)
I thought about the port side, but the phenolic that is located there looks as if it is specifically for the swim ladder/platform. It is L-shaped and it looks as if the upper bolts for the motor bracket would miss the phenolic.
Plus I think that installation on the port side would cause the boat to list when under power due to the prop rotation ?
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.
posted 06-20-2002 04:26 PM ET (US)
I have a drawing from Whaler showing where all the wood is located on the new Montauk 170. I have forwarded it to Jimh. If you would like e-mail me and I will send it to you. It's quite a large file.
posted 06-20-2002 07:07 PM ET (US)
Kingfish & bsmotril
I'm thinking along similar lines and have the service dept. at the dealer where I bought the boat doing some research as well.
Don't hesitate to share any further ideas.
posted 06-20-2002 07:40 PM ET (US)
Trolling for salmon in Monterey Bay would be impossible with an electric on all but the calmest days. There's just too much swell and chop to keep the baits/jigs moving at a constant speed with a bow mounted motor. I've had my 15 hp kicker working pretty hard trolling into the wind and chop, and would probably be moving backwards with an electric. As important however is the need for backup power. Where I fish, even a few miles offshore can be serious business, and I often fish just a few hundered yards from shore, but 8 or 10 miles from port. When things get hairy, Towboat US may already be on another call helping someone else, and I prefer to have the ability to help myself. In terms of the new Montauk, if there is enough demand, I imagine Whaler may again add reinforcement for a kicker. I can't imagine the cost would be that much, and it offers Brunswick an opportunity to sell the boat with 2 outboards instead of just one. If presented to them in that light "the offshore trolling option" might be made available.
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.
Thanks in advance,
posted 06-20-2002 08:25 PM ET (US)
Thanks Matthew, I appreciate it. Some people take me all wrong and I have been doing this for the last couple of years and have had many posts edited, no big deal, some people have thin skin and well I really don`t care what they think of me. Tabasco, as long as B/W keeps making what I feel is non-Whaler looking boats, then I will never stop critisizing them. I don`t blame anyone for buying a New Whaler, but I won`t stop comparing them to the older Classics. JimH, editing my posts won`t stop me, until you catch me again, I feel it needs to be said. It is nice to see Ed Z gets it, Ed you can see the Death of the Whaler as I do, it all started with the move to Florida, and they slowly dismantled the Classic Whaler one by one. Jack.
posted 06-20-2002 11:30 PM ET (US)
whalernut--Jack--I don't think you appreciated the tolerance you have already received here.
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 06-20-2002 11:38 PM ET (US)
I do have a digital image of the wood drawing for the Montauk 170, but the drawing contains explicit instructions prohibiting its reproduction.
It does show a very large number of embedded wood and phenolic pieces.
posted 06-21-2002 06:46 AM ET (US)
I am going on vacation to fish and when I come back will try to whatch my mouth. But before I go, I just have to say that since this New Montauk came out, they have beeen given alot of tolarance in the regular forums, isn`t that what the Neo-Whaler Forum is for??? Jack.
posted 06-21-2002 06:47 AM ET (US)
I meant to say "Post-Classics" Forum. Jack.
posted 06-21-2002 09:45 AM ET (US)
Maybe the next time you post you should turn to"Emily Post"first.
posted 06-21-2002 03:57 PM ET (US)
I think this forum has begun to forget which members laid the foundation a few years ago and some of the WORDS aimmed toward Jack should be addressed towards some of the OTHERS that are submarineing others on this board.
posted 06-21-2002 10:54 PM ET (US)
Well spoken Jack Ole Buddy,Ole Pal! I guess you showed them! I'm wiith you pal! My Currituck that I love more thaan my Fanner 50, that's named after Teddy Currituck, Senator from Massachussets,could carry at least two motors...really big motors!! The new junk ain't no whaler,me and you are the only guys that now real whalers because we are the only really cool guys here, ccaause we drive standin up even if we cant reach the steering weel and keep crasshin into stuff and gettin hollered at by those dopey coast guard kids.
posted 06-23-2002 02:24 AM ET (US)
I am very new to this forum and just stumbled upon this topic. Yesterday, I purchased a New Model 2002 Montauk 170 at Outboard Motor Shop. It has a Mercury 90 4-stroke, bimini top, and fishing package. I also ordered a swim platform/ladder and an auxillary outboard bracket installed. I won't be taking delivery of the boat until next Saturday. The owner Craig and salesman John had recommended a Garelick outboard motor bracket opposite the swim platform/ladder. I would then purchase an 8 hp 4-stroke outboard for the auxillary outboard bracket. Are they wrong? Is Chuck Bennett a Boston Whaler employee? If so, I need to have the guys at Outboard Motor Shop talk with him. I purchased the Montauk with the plan of installing an auxillary motor for peace of mind when offshore. I am about to cancel the whole order if his information is fact. I am glad I read this article...it may have prevented a disaster. Respects...Rick
posted 06-23-2002 12:46 PM ET (US)
Chuck Bennet is an employee of Boston Whaler.
He answered my email when I asked the kicker/bracket question to the factory.
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:
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 "email@example.com" and "firstname.lastname@example.org" 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
What will we use it for?
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 "email@example.com".
I thank you all for each opinion on this topic...I know there is NO single correct solution.
posted 06-23-2002 06:25 PM ET (US)
When it comes to the purchase of a big buck item I'm anal. I study,read, investigate and practically become an expert on the item. It took me more than six months to come to the conclusion that the Montauk 170 was right for me. I recently ordered a 2003 which should be in by August 1. Now this. The old and new Montauks both have a 410 lb motor weight limit. Being that a Merc 2 stroke 90 weighs 305 pounds, it's not the weight. It must be the absence of the "wood" or other substance to bolt to then. So BW saved $25 in not putting in that piece of wood? Did they cut costs in other places that have not come to light yet? This is so typical of a large company buying a "name brand". Cut costs, cut quality and ride on the name. I hope this is not the case. Back to the mental drawing board........Jim
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-
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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 email@example.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:
posted 06-24-2002 11:06 AM ET (US)
The following my reply to Mr. Bennett's Email. Sorry for the length, but I feel you all have the right to see the entire communication...Rick
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)
I know this is not Boston Whaler, but I think it is applicable to this topic.
This morning, I received this E-mail response from "firstname.lastname@example.org", 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.
We do not recommend installing a kicker motor on the 180 Sportsman as it is
posted 06-24-2002 12:25 PM ET (US)
Matt and Forum Members:
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 email@example.com.
posted 06-24-2002 04:26 PM ET (US)
Whalernut was 100% correct for interjecting the fact that it looks like some major corners were cut to have the new 17 Montauk Whaler be priced so cheaply & not have some major corners cut.
Peeing in the pool???
Whats that all about?
Who the hell posts something like that in the discussion of a ONCE great American boatmaker???
Boston Whaler co. might think its a great thing for you support thier product " no matter what"
& might bring some finanical gain to the lake boater website owner and his faithfull followers but anyone with half a brain KNOWS you get what you pay for & BW has gone the way of Chris Craft when Murray bros. took over in the '8o s.
I bet the new Montauk is worth its purchase price compared to Seapros & Carolina Skiffs BUT you GOT to be kidding if you cant figure this one out, this topic is laughed about @ the local watering holes on Woodcleft in Freeport, NY
This is a VERY unique website
posted 06-24-2002 05:02 PM ET (US)
Newowner's comments about finding a late model Whaler that will handle twins or a kicker, are interesting. Except for the Classic Montauk, which apparently all of sudden is starting to look more attractive again to the offshore crowd, he will have to consider 23' or larger. If one goes back to a 96 model year, you can get as small as a 21 Outrage to have the twin/kicker option.
After that, you have to go back to 1991, the last year the classic 18 Outrage was made, which will handle twins/kicker.
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.
But what they completely missed in building these single engine notched transoms was the auxiliary issue. A lot of people want those, and now they're building nothing less than 23' to accomodate that need. This is a REAL serious design mistake. They should immediately modify the new Montauk to solve this issue. But they may have to get rid of the ridiculous rounded stern corners and stern seats to accomodate this.
posted 06-24-2002 09:47 PM ET (US)
Another option for a person wanting a newer Whaler, but not a Montauk, is the Dauntless line. There are used 13, 14 & 15s on the market and they will take a kicker motor. Tanner Manufacturing in Bellingham, Wa makes a great SS kicker bracket for them.
posted 06-25-2002 06:26 AM ET (US)
I'll take this opportunity to response to Alan. Frankly, I got a good laugh out of this post. Let's begin with:
"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 08:27 AM ET (US)
Actually I agree with your position on this post Jim. I feel that if Boston Whaler still built the kind of boats the people in this topic seem to want, they would go the way of Cape Dory Sailboats. I do understand, because I think it would be great to buy a new Cape Dory.
Bottom line is that no matter how much a builder loves boats, they still have to feed the family.
Itís too bad, I for one would like to go back to a quieter time on the water, when spring was for varnishing, and personal watercraft meant canoe.
I donít think those days will return, and feel that beating up the current management of BW because of it completely misses the point.
posted 06-25-2002 09:13 AM ET (US)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of Classic Montauks have a kicker installed. In my club, I'm docked with about 7 other Montauks and none of them have a kicker. This may be a local preference ( Barnegat Bay ), but I've seen very few that do.
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 09:35 AM ET (US)
ahhhh, the sharp edge of linguistic deconstructivism...
posted 06-25-2002 11:29 AM ET (US)
It would seem that some folks have too much spare time in their lives.
posted 06-25-2002 03:10 PM ET (US)
How in the world did I miss this thread? Probably because I don't give a hoot about the new 170 or kicker motors.:)
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...
|Tom W Clark||
posted 06-27-2002 11:11 AM ET (US)
I have to disagree with BS's description of most kicker owners and their kickers. Maybe that's the way it is in Florida but not on the West Coast. The majority of Montauks out here have kickers. Kickers are for fishing first and then for back up power. Don't believe me? Go down to a Seattle salt water ramp on a Saturday morning and count. A lifetime membership with Towboat US will not help you catch salmon.
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?
Andy Gere or Chuck Tribolet can correct me if Iím wrong, but the last time I was in Santa Cruz harbor (in January) there was a tow boat there. You might look into it.
Also, you can decide not to buy a new MT 170 for whatever reason you feel is significant, but donít be too quick to use the lack of kicker backing as your excuse. I suspect Whaler may soon correct this short coming of the new boat. Given the negative reaction to this dilemma it only seems sensible that Whaler will add the backing. New models often undergo slight changes and modifications as the market is dictated by what customers really want.
posted 06-27-2002 11:11 AM ET (US)
Dougherty is no fool and makes a hell of a boat. If you people are not happy with BMW....look at Mercedes.
posted 06-27-2002 11:17 AM ET (US)
Tom.....it has been my dealings in both Northeast and Southeast, never been to Northwest...but that is why I stated it was my "opinion" but I mispelled it. I can't see how a kicker can help you fish if you have a new 4 stroke. Quiet, won't foul plugs, etc. Why is a kicker necessary to catch salmon....just curious.
I also stated that it is a shame the cheezed on $4 of wodd but I am with you...if you want a kicker, it aint hard to modify and reinforce. We are only talking 80lbs and 6hp or so. No need to go to MIT to figure out how to reinforce a bracket. I too think they are using it as an excuse because if a Carolina Skiff can handle a kicker.....anything can.
|Tom W Clark||
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.
Actually I have NEVER had a problem with my Johnsons fouling or running poorly from idling for hours on end. Theyíre just noisy and smoky. Though the smoke and noise will be reduced, I really don't think the advent of the modern large four stroke outboard is going to eliminate the demand for kicker motors. Ain't gonna happen.
posted 06-27-2002 12:16 PM ET (US)
I guess that is why some use those plates to slow down their trolling speed. I have never felt the need to troll that slow in the ocean. We usually troll at 6mph or so. I know kickers are necessary for some but as a "back up" I think some should consider other alternatives if they do not do much trolling. One day i will get out there and we'll go bag some salmon Tom.
posted 06-27-2002 01:17 PM ET (US)
My biggest reason for adding a kicker is so I dont put too many hours on the big girl. I fish up to 10hrs a day. 8 of those hours go on the kicker. Also backup power never hurts!
posted 06-27-2002 02:28 PM ET (US)
I am opening a "can of worms"..if some one realy must have a Kicker,,carefully cut the top of the transom open where the kicker goes, remove some foam, fill with liquid transom (don,t remember the name),,carefully put the top of the transom back on and match the gel coat,
posted 06-27-2002 03:25 PM ET (US)
Mooch or Die used to be my motto, until the man started to pinch down. One rod only, then at first you needed to use a hook the size of tennis ball, then circle hooks, which I am only slowly starting to get a little bit of appreciation for. But what all this means is that it killed the sport of mooching out here. I must say, that the reason I bought my whaler was that in my opinion you do need a little motion when you mooch. Dead flat milk pond days mean only one thing when mooching - the big skunk. And this motion came from days with a nice breeze stiring the water. This also made it rougher which requires a boat that can handle the conditions. Nothing too rough, but just enough to keep things moving. Also, I am a firm believer that the predominant method of presentation sets the mood if you will for what the fish will strike. I mean, that if there are 100 boats out and 95 are trolling, then the fish will be keyed into the trolled baits, if 95 are mooching, the fish will be keyed in on mooched baits. But the killer is that no one mooches here anymore.
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.
I know most of this is off topic but could not help myself.
posted 06-27-2002 03:32 PM ET (US)
Ya know! I sometimes get a bit confused from Jimh's post just because I do not have a thesaurus at my side. Tub...you have just brought the deer in headlights look on my face to a new level. Is mooching the same as drifting or is it like trying to hold the boat at 0mph in a swift current?
posted 06-27-2002 04:41 PM ET (US)
Mooching consists of using a 8' noodle rod with a reel that holds a few hundred yards of 12-15 lbs. test, with a 6-10 lbs. leader, to which is attached a single hook with a baitfish threaded onto it. You use the smallest possible weight to keep you at the depth you want, and the weight is set up on a slider so as to not be felt by the fish when it hits. We always stopped and drifted over balls of bait, lowering the baits to just above the depth you mark the bait at. The best part of it all is the hit. Sometimes you will get a kamikaze that will rail the rod, but ussualy, it is a series of small taps. You would suspect it was a tiny rockcod, if you didn't know any better. This is where the skill comes in. You need to feel the fish, if it gives (slacks) you take up the line, if it takes (pulls) slowly, you feed it line, sometimes hit free-spool and thumb the spool gently, you do not want the fish to feel any resistance, neither from the rod nor from the weight. Once the speed of the pull starts to increase, the fish has most likely already begun to digest your bait and is off to find more, this is when you stick him. Sometimes, you this part can last up to a minute, and this in my opinion is what it is all about. The fight is usually fun too, but I mooch because I love the bite. This is why it has become illegal here too since a gut hooked fish does not a survivor make if you have to release it. Again you want to drift against the current, and you can tell if it is a good drift if when you have about 4 oz. of sinker, and the line is at about 45 degree angle to the water. If it is straight up and down, the drift is too slow. Trolling is OK, but you use a meat-stick rod , with 40 lb. test, and small fish are just winched in, and big ones are a headache since you are fighting them and all the harware that you were dragging in the first place. Just not my cup of tea.
posted 06-27-2002 04:44 PM ET (US)
Despite my running off at the keyboard about the technique, I did not answer your question. It is Drift fishing. As Tom has mentioned though, if nature is not cooperating, you may need to generate a bit of movement yourself.
posted 06-27-2002 05:20 PM ET (US)
One other reason for a kicker and main reason I'm looking at one for my Montauk. HP restricted waters. I'm in western Mass and mostly fish fresh water ponds and lakes. Problem is by 10am these waters are packed with water skiers, pleasure boaters and jet skis.
We have a large deep beautiful resevoir (Quabbin)that has great fishing (land locked salmon, lake trout, bass etc) and doesn't allow any other boating activity except fishing. But its HP restricted. 20hp for 2S & 25 for 4S max. A 6-8 hp kicker will allow me access and be enough to get around/troll by pulling my main engine prop.
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.
posted 06-27-2002 08:26 PM ET (US)
I Talked to a Boston Whaler rep this weekend and was told that Tanner Manufacturing can make, or will make a starboard side kicker bracket for the new Montauk 170. I have not investigated this claim so I would suggest contacting Tanner for more information.
posted 06-27-2002 10:33 PM ET (US)
Tanner Manufacturing is in Bellingham WA. I have seen and sold a lot of his products they are first class.
His web site is:
posted 07-01-2002 01:09 PM ET (US)
Salmon Tub, I realize we're getting off the original topic here, but have you or others tried circle hooks for the fishing method you describe? Circle hooks have become popular here in Florida when using bait, particularly when fishing for "all release" fish such as tarpon. The hooks almost never gut hook...you don't "set" the hook at all, you just allow the line to come tight, and the hook drags out of the fish's gut & hooks the fish right in the corner of the mouth every time. You wouldn't think they'd work but they do. It really helps reduce release mortality. Just something to consider.
posted 07-01-2002 06:58 PM ET (US)
Circle hooks are what I was refering to a few posts back, they are required by law here in order to fish for salmon. They seem not to work as well with salmon because the fish does not always chew the bait up real nice, but rather swallows whole, and then as you put preasure on the line, it burries the point into the body of the bait, and all you do is pull the mangled but still whole bait out of the fish along with the hook. As I understand, you guys rig differently, either by tieing the hook onto the bait with floss (live bait) or with ribber bands. Also, the best law they had here for conservation was to ban releaseing any salmon. They are super fragile, will most likely die if you so much as touch them, or if the thrash around and hit the side of the boat, and forget netting a fish that you want to release, so, if you catch ten shakers (small salmon) regardless of how delicate you are, most likely half will die. I have found that the thin shank off-set circle hooks seem to work well.
posted 01-28-2003 12:22 PM ET (US)
According to Chuck Bennett,
A kicker motor/bracket can be added to the 170 Montauks built after
7/12/02. Before that time, there was no reinforcement molded into the boat
to accept a kicker bracket.
Check with your dealer to find the date of manufacture on the boat in
posted 01-29-2003 01:05 AM ET (US)
I was in the Outboard Motor Shop today (had a meeting nearby and went there instead of lunch) and overheard one of the salesman talking on the phone about a canceled order for a 170 Montauk. He went on and on about what the factory had said about mounting a kicker bracket, and mentioned something about a bunch of e-mails. Only hearing half the conversation, I couldnt' be sure, but I'm willing to bet he was talking about Rick (newowner) and the status of his earler order. Having just read this thread yesterday, I couldn't beleive what I was hearing. It's a small world....
By the way, I saw a 170 in the flesh for the first time, and it's not a bad looking boat at all. This one was in for service and had a Honda 90 on the transom. The mechanic didn't seem too happy about it, saying something to the effect that he couldn't understand why the owner wanted that motor (instead of the OEM Merc?).
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.