posted 10-17-2009 09:57 PM ET (US)            

I say move the filter.

posted 10-18-2009 06:48 PM ET (US)            

The last time I looked (and it has been awhile) Moeller only had a 26 or 27 gallon tank that was problematic for a Whaler because the seat is too low and the fill neck was inaccessible.

The link in this thread shows two tanks by moeller that now say "specifically designed for Boston whaler." (That is what the Tempo product description used to say and that is why I buoght it); A white 24 and a red 26.

A question about the white 24: The description says "specifically designed for use in Boston Whaler ... consoles." Do you all understand that this tank is designed to be installed inside a console ? (is that why it is white?); and that the red 26 gallon tank is designed for installation under the seat? But they are both almost the same size (actually the white tank is an inch and a half wider yet holds two gallons less). ??

Does anyone know how these Moeller tanks compare with the Tempo 26 for how well it fits under an original unmodified seat and accessibility of the fill neck without moving the tank?

posted 10-19-2009 01:14 PM ET (US)            

NONSENSE!!!

Why does this incorrect rumor persist? They fit PERFECTLY under the RPS. Just slide the tank aft three inches to fill it. It's REALLY easy to do.

COMPLETELY satisfied with mine under unmodified Montauk RPS.

Dave

posted 10-19-2009 01:32 PM ET (US)            

With limited floor space in the 170 Montauk, I elected to give up a few gallons to keep the tank completely under the RPS.

There are threads here where people have installed hatches on top of the RPS if you do a search.

posted 10-19-2009 05:31 PM ET (US)            

My Montauk has two stainless steel straps in front of the tank and two behind screwed to the floor so you can hook bungy cords to hold the tank down. Also my tank sits on original BW mats. I think the stainless steel straps are original also. The tank slides out that three inches easily enough when it is empty but after you fill it ( 25 gals x 6.5 lbs a gallon) and with the straps and the mats on the deck it is not so easy to slide back.

I went out and did some more measuring ... the space in the BW mats in which the original Pate (and the Tempo 26)tank sits is 18.5 inches wide; the fore-aft distance between the straps on the deck is 20.5 inches. The white Moeller 24 will fit between the straps but not in the 18.5 inch space in the mats. To use the Moeller white 24 you can't use the original mats .... If you don't use the original mats the Moeller will ride on the plastic hawse pipe and not sit squarely on the deck (another perhaps minor problem).

The Tempo 26 sits on the mats like the original Pate 26 and sticks out the back of the seat about 3 inches ... but the Tempo is notched on the bottom aft section so that the fuel hose can come out of the hawse pipe uninterrupted. Neither the white Moeller 24 nor the red 26 have notches (according to the pictures in the link) on the bottom aft so both Moeller tanks will interfere with the fuel line coming out the hawse pipe (another more substantial problem). How are you guys using Moeller tanks routing the fuel lines?

Conclusion (and I would like to hear how I am wrong): All the Moeller tanks are "problematic" in one way or another for the Whaler Classic Montauks (I don't know about the 170s). And none of them fit as perfectly as the original Pate or the leaky Tempo 26 which never had to be moved in normal operation once installed.

posted 10-19-2009 06:27 PM ET (US)            

Chris is in Nova Scotia, Canada. Not sure a custom tank shipped from Florida would be cost effective. I recall he contacted FMT for shipping a under-deck tank and the shipping was brutal.

I think this new Moeller model has several changes to address complaints expressed by Whaler owners.

- Color more attractive
- The filler neck is angled to the rear for access without unstrapping and moving.
- The sight gauge is also to the rear.

posted 10-19-2009 10:56 PM ET (US)            

Phil is correct. Shipping such a tank from Florida to me in Nova Scotia would be expensive, but I could look into having something made locally. I had a new tank for an Outrage 18 made locally last winter, but it wasn't cheap. A lot nicer then the original though. I'd rather a plastic tank anyway and I think the new Moeller 24 gallon tank would look great under the Montauk 170 RPS. It would be nice to be able to have a sender and gauge on the dash, but I think they can live without. I'm going to check with one of my suppliers who sells Moeller products and see what the new tank costs and it's availability.

posted 10-20-2009 08:41 AM ET (US)            

http://www.foreandaftmarine.com/FUELTANKABOVEDECK.htm

posted 10-20-2009 09:06 AM ET (US)            

I quite disagee.

The tank fits under the RPS of my 1987 Montauk with about two inches of protrusion back past the seat, which is *exactly the same protrusion as the original dual tank installation*.

Because:

It fits the original mats *perfectly*, as long as you take the 30 seconds needed with a razor knife to cut the inner lips of the mats ut (they were designed for two smaller tanks). BTW: You need to do this with ALL single tank installations.

Bottom line: A tank that fits the original mats has, BY DFINITION the same exact footprint as the original dual tank installation.

So much for the nonexistant "Overhang" issues.

As far as running the hose to the rigging tunnel, there is exactly the right amount of open space behind the tank to run a hose thru the exposed tunnel *precisely because the tank fits into the same exact spot as the original installation*. I cannot for the life of me see any issue there either.

As far as strapping the tank down... don't bother. The mats will hold the tank perfectly. I run in the open ocean, and in heavy chop on a daily basis here and my tank has never slid a fraction of an inch aft. If you feel like it, run a bungee around the tank and the RPS legs. Hook one end of the bungee into the (original) stainless steel strapping-points and lead them around the RPS legs. Works perfectly.

Filling... uh.... you generallly slide them back to fill them when they are only partially filled (duh), and it's easy to do. Sliding the filled tank forward is equally easy: The Moellers have a molded in grip area down near the bottom on the sides: Just kneel down behind the tank, grap it, and slide it forwards. It's far easier to do than to say.

Total time and effort to "Modify" a classic Montaul to accept the Moeller tank? 30 seconds to trim the mats with a knife. Same work needs to be done for the piece of crap Tempo tanks, and it needed to be done with the old Pate tanks (as I had before I changed to the Moeller), and same thing that needs to be done with any of the other single tanks.

Pate, Tempo, and Moeller: Been there, done that. Moellers are the best bang for the buck and are trouble free.

I'll shoot pics if anyone wants them.

Dave

.

posted 10-20-2009 09:47 AM ET (US)            

I'm pretty sure I paid in the vicinity of $130 for it two years ago. Why would I buy a tank with 2 gal less capacity for $200 or more?

posted 10-20-2009 01:44 PM ET (US)            

"Specifically designed for use in Boston Whaler Montauk 15' and 17' CONSOLES"

I capitalized the word "Console".

This tank is smaller than the 26 so it can fit into the CONSOLE and not under the RPS.

Now... how the heck do they expect us to get it INTO the console? ;-). Unscrew and tilt, and fill in-place?

Always helps to read the fine print.

Dave

posted 10-20-2009 03:00 PM ET (US)            

The fine print has already been read and the inside the console issue has already been discussed above. 95outrage and I think it is a mistake in the ad.

posted 10-21-2009 08:59 AM ET (US)            

I've found this gauge to actually work pretty well (although small boat fuel gauges of any kind are not a tough act to follow).

posted 10-21-2009 04:01 PM ET (US)            

Two things I take away from this statement.

1) As mentioned above this was most likely meant to read center console boats and..

2) Since they mention 15' and 17' together, and the 15' Montauk came out in 2006, that this tank was designed for 150 and 170 Montauks.

That said I take the statement to mean:

posted 10-22-2009 09:22 PM ET (US)            

"Hey Dave (are you the Long Island sound striper diver?)"

And the answer is "Yes", and Glen and I will be diving The Race on Sunday. It's big-bass season. Where do I know you from?

As for the tank, what's being said makes sense. The new tank has an angled filler that would seem to make it possible to fill it without sliding it aft, but... why bother since it's really not an issue.

Dave

posted 10-22-2009 09:24 PM ET (US)            

Dave

posted 10-23-2009 01:34 AM ET (US)            

I remember you posted some pics of the stripers a year or two ago in a controversial thread about the bow eye on a Montauk. If I remember right you even had some underwater pics of the fish. You also described the technique: you dive in rough water in heavy current without air tanks, then the boat picks you up down current.

posted 10-24-2009 09:50 PM ET (US)            

All I did was to slice off the inner raised lips, the ones that are for and aft on what would be the left side of the righ tank and the right side of the left tank. That allows the remaining periphery to hold the single Moeller tank in position and it fits perfectly.

The rigging hole for the gas line has "just enough" clearance to allow a hose to be fed down thru it, if you take an extra 15 seconds to cut and remove one inch of the edge molding at the rear of the rigging hole. That needed to be done with the older Pate as well, and had been done on my boat years ago.

At first blush you would think that sliding the tank aft over that hose feed-thru for filing would be an issue, but I can assure you that it is not. I'll take photos tomorrow if someone else wants to post them for me.

Dave