Montauk and '99 115 John - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
  Montauk and '99 115 John

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk and '99 115 John

sargerator posted 03-23-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
Anyone put a '99 115hp Johnson on a '79 Montauk ? Wondering if this is too much for the transom ? Any thoughts on this much HP and weight on the transom and if anyone has done this on this old of BW ?
Happy Sailing,
Sarge
captbone posted 03-23-2003 06:31 PM ET (US)
That set up will be fine. It is a great set up in some peoples eyes. The 115 two strokes from omc are a pretty light any way. The 115 and 90 are the same motor just a few difference to put out alitte more power. I have seen your hull with 150hp on it.
rsess1 posted 03-23-2003 07:45 PM ET (US)
I have a 115 yamaha on a 1971 Nauset. 115hp is a great motor for that boat. I used to have a 100hp Johnson before repowering. Good Luck
sargerator posted 03-23-2003 09:41 PM ET (US)
Thanks Capt. and RS. Was worried because of hull design saying 100hp, but if your (rs) running a 115 on your '71 I should be OK. And a 150, that thing must scream.
Thanks again,
Sarge
frank_king posted 03-24-2003 10:27 PM ET (US)
i have an 81 with a 97 model 60 degree 115.
love it.
i get 5.4 miles to the gallon at 3500 rpm traveling at 30 mph.
Peashooter posted 03-28-2003 12:33 AM ET (US)
I used to run a 115 Johnson on my 63 Montauk. There was never a problem with with the weight or power. Fuel economy was a big problem for me. In So. Cal. we sometimes have to run quite a distance to get to the hot bite. Two 12 gallon tanks wouldn't get me far enough. I now run a Johnson 70 on a 28 gallon tank. I can go much farther and still have enough power to water ski. You must remember just how light the hull is. My boat boat gets on plane very quickly and top speed is still over 30 mph. I'm much happier with the smaller engin.
frank_king posted 03-28-2003 07:02 PM ET (US)
i got my boat and it had a crossflow 90 on it and the gas mileage sucked. i then went to a 78 model 70. the gas mileage was great, but the performnce was lacking. i then put a 1997 LOOPED charged 115 on it. gas mileage is better but with 70 on it the boat got about 6.5 miles to the gallon.
whalernut posted 03-29-2003 07:28 AM ET (US)
After seeing and reading all of the analesis on motors on the older `16-17 hulls, I have summized the 70h.p. Johnson/Rude is the all around power-soeed-water sports-fuel mileage King? Anybody else notice this? If I had a Newer(`76-on) I would say the 90h.p. are the King? I have a 1973 `16 Currituck with an 1975 85h.p. Johnson and it is plenty powerefull and only weighs about 20-30 lbs. more than the 70`s of today, but I would say for fishing and general runabouting the 50h.p. would be king, but I fish on Lake Erie and when I see frontal clouds, I am really glad there is a strong 85h.p. V-4 on the trandson, i am guessing 45-50 MPH on flat water, Lake Erie goes from flat to 4-5 footer in leterally minutes or worse. I say buy an engine to fit your all around neads and experiences and Lake Conditions and hull years. Jack.
frank_king posted 03-29-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
the reason i went up to a v4 was because of geting caught outin bad weather.
i had driven for what seemed like forever south of horn island. horn island is about 12 miles south of biloxi. i went out about 15 more miles to a "fish haven". water and weather was great mind you. it seemed like 15 min went by and then thunder, black clouds, high winds. i wanted to get close to the island to wait out the storm because i could see it coming. well my little 70 was just not fast enough, good on gas {just would top out at 32mph down a waterfall}but slow. the next week i had a 97 60 degree 115 on my boat and i love it. if i really need to move out the boat will go just at 50mph

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Montauk and '99 115 John
sargerator	posted 03-23-2003 05:48 PM ET (US) Anyone put a '99 115hp Johnson on a '79 Montauk ? Wondering if this is too much for the transom ? Any thoughts on this much HP and weight on the transom and if anyone has done this on this old of BW ? Happy Sailing, Sarge
captbone	posted 03-23-2003 06:31 PM ET (US) That set up will be fine. It is a great set up in some peoples eyes. The 115 two strokes from omc are a pretty light any way. The 115 and 90 are the same motor just a few difference to put out alitte more power. I have seen your hull with 150hp on it.
rsess1	posted 03-23-2003 07:45 PM ET (US) I have a 115 yamaha on a 1971 Nauset. 115hp is a great motor for that boat. I used to have a 100hp Johnson before repowering. Good Luck
sargerator	posted 03-23-2003 09:41 PM ET (US) Thanks Capt. and RS. Was worried because of hull design saying 100hp, but if your (rs) running a 115 on your '71 I should be OK. And a 150, that thing must scream. Thanks again, Sarge
frank_king	posted 03-24-2003 10:27 PM ET (US) i have an 81 with a 97 model 60 degree 115. love it. i get 5.4 miles to the gallon at 3500 rpm traveling at 30 mph.
Peashooter	posted 03-28-2003 12:33 AM ET (US) I used to run a 115 Johnson on my 63 Montauk. There was never a problem with with the weight or power. Fuel economy was a big problem for me. In So. Cal. we sometimes have to run quite a distance to get to the hot bite. Two 12 gallon tanks wouldn't get me far enough. I now run a Johnson 70 on a 28 gallon tank. I can go much farther and still have enough power to water ski. You must remember just how light the hull is. My boat boat gets on plane very quickly and top speed is still over 30 mph. I'm much happier with the smaller engin.
frank_king	posted 03-28-2003 07:02 PM ET (US) i got my boat and it had a crossflow 90 on it and the gas mileage sucked. i then went to a 78 model 70. the gas mileage was great, but the performnce was lacking. i then put a 1997 LOOPED charged 115 on it. gas mileage is better but with 70 on it the boat got about 6.5 miles to the gallon.
whalernut	posted 03-29-2003 07:28 AM ET (US) After seeing and reading all of the analesis on motors on the older `16-17 hulls, I have summized the 70h.p. Johnson/Rude is the all around power-soeed-water sports-fuel mileage King? Anybody else notice this? If I had a Newer(`76-on) I would say the 90h.p. are the King? I have a 1973 `16 Currituck with an 1975 85h.p. Johnson and it is plenty powerefull and only weighs about 20-30 lbs. more than the 70`s of today, but I would say for fishing and general runabouting the 50h.p. would be king, but I fish on Lake Erie and when I see frontal clouds, I am really glad there is a strong 85h.p. V-4 on the trandson, i am guessing 45-50 MPH on flat water, Lake Erie goes from flat to 4-5 footer in leterally minutes or worse. I say buy an engine to fit your all around neads and experiences and Lake Conditions and hull years. Jack.
frank_king	posted 03-29-2003 02:01 PM ET (US) the reason i went up to a v4 was because of geting caught outin bad weather. i had driven for what seemed like forever south of horn island. horn island is about 12 miles south of biloxi. i went out about 15 more miles to a "fish haven". water and weather was great mind you. it seemed like 15 min went by and then thunder, black clouds, high winds. i wanted to get close to the island to wait out the storm because i could see it coming. well my little 70 was just not fast enough, good on gas {just would top out at 32mph down a waterfall}but slow. the next week i had a 97 60 degree 115 on my boat and i love it. if i really need to move out the boat will go just at 50mph