Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Montauk, 50-HP Four-cycle

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk, 50-HP Four-cycle
dgp posted 04-16-2000 03:40 PM ET (US)   Profile for dgp   Send Email to dgp  
What's everyone's opinion on a Montauk 17 with a 50-HP four-cycle Mercury?
Clark Roberts posted 04-16-2000 07:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Don, I have driven a 1998 17' Standard with 50-HP Merc four-cycle and it is a nice set-up! You won't win many races but it does really well, about 36-MPH top speed. It was fitted with a Quicksilver 12-inch-pitch prop, had great [acceleration from a standing start, and] planed easily with four adults. It was quiet and I'm sure very efficient. Read my trip and cruise report on this forum as one of the boats was a buddy's Montauk with a 50hp (1999) Merc two-cycle. It performs beyond most expectations and gets great fuel milage. If shallow draft and nimble handling are goals , it's hard to beat a 17 Whaler with any of the modern 50-HP outboards! Happy Whalin'.... Clark. aka the old man and the sea
Clark Roberts posted 04-17-2000 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Also have a friend with a 17 Newport and a 50hp two cyl/two stroker Evinrude and same story... runs out really well and handles great... It's one of my old Whalers and had a 100hp Johnson Javelin on it when I sold the boat. I'd prefer the present 50 hp to the 100hp for general purpose use! But then, I require shallow draft and tight handling over high speed... It would run about 42mph with the 100 hp and 34mph with the 50hp (per my gps)! That's 8mph (or 24%) more speed for double the hp! I think that 70hp will wring almost max performance out of a 17 hull.. any more will get a little more speed but at a point of diminishing returns as regards handling, operating costs, draft..... etc....etc...etc... Happy Whalin' clark
lhg posted 04-17-2000 06:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Clark: From what I have been seeing on this site, it appears that both the 15' & 17' hulls, at least in the "Sport or Standard" interior configuration, run about about the same top speed of 34mph with a 50HP engine. Is that what you have found to be true? I would have thought the 15 would be faster. Larry
TNguyen posted 04-18-2000 10:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for TNguyen  Send Email to TNguyen     
I have a 1995 montauk with a Yamaha 50 hp 4 stroke. The boat can run all day long (skiing and fishing, when the fish aren't biting) and still have half tank of gas left. I must admit that it can be a little under power at times when the swells go up 3 feet or more, but over all it does what it needed to be done.
Clark Roberts posted 04-19-2000 08:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Larry, I think that that's the case, ie: that the 15 and 17 both do about 34mph with a 50 hp engine... Only reason I can think of for that enigma is that 50hp is not enough for the 15 to get into its performance band (not enough power to lift hull to point of max performance/min. hull resistance) and that 50hp is enough to reach "hull high" attitude on the 17 due to its broad planing surfaces (compared to the 15's deeper V and min. flat planing surface. If you increase power to 70hp then the 15 will actually fly and climb so high that only a small pad of hull is in the water.. The same 70hp on the 17 will perform brilliantly but not enough power to lift the 17 hull much more than the 50hp... a 90 or 100hp will lift the 17 but it doesn't like it and will start to porpoise up and down or "chine walk" in a way complaining that "air time" is not its thing.... on the other hand, the 15 hull loves "air time" and doesn't tend to porpoise so long as fore/aft weight distribution is favorable. Max performance is, after all, a function of proper engine set-up (height on transom, jack plate?, tune, proper trim etc}, hull condition, weight distribution, optimum prop type and pitch, good fuel etc....etc.... By way of comparrison, I have a 15 with a 40hp four cyl Merc, raised about 5 inches on a Bob's Jack Plate MJ-5, turning a Yamaha 14" cleaver type ss prop.. that will run with most 15's with 50+ hp. But if I put 3 adults aboard it doesn't perform very well at all! It's a great one or two passenger rig! If I normally carried a heavy load I would need more power! The intended use will drive the decision on power. The 17 is more forgiving than the 15 when adding weight as it has tremendous load carring capacity and the 15 is very sensitive to port/stbd trim.. and added weight... Gee, got to stop rambling here.... anyway others may have different experiences to share... Happy Whalin'.... Clark
jimh posted 04-21-2000 11:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Clark,

Great comments about the 15. I added them to the website section on the 15 at:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/15/testimonials.html

Thanks!

--jimh

whalernut posted 04-21-2000 08:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
All this talk of not much difference between a 70h.p. and a 90h.p. on a `17 hull has decided it for me, I am going with the 70h.p. because not much speed difference, more fuel efficient, lighter on the transom and overall weight on hull, less expensive, and I fish and troll alot in Lake Erie, so it should troll slower without building up carbon and stalling. One question I have a 77` 70h.p. Evinrude with no tilt/trim and no oil-injection. First does this make any difference on performance and two, is the older smaller powerhead much different than the new larger powerheads on the new 70h.p.? Thank you-JACK.
dgp posted 04-23-2000 07:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
If you are considering a new Mercury 75 or 90 keep in mind they are the same engine with same dry weight, 303 lbs. The new Johnson 70 weighs 250 and the Yamaha 70 is 228. My experience shows that engine weight on lightweight hulls is an important consideration. W/o T&T you can't realize the full potential of the boat; speed, fuel consumption, hole shot, etc. The only advantage to pre-mixing fuel is that the engine becomes mechanically simpler. The oil injection system precisely meters the oil according to throttle position; more gas, more oil.
whalernut posted 05-22-2000 09:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Does anyone know what the difference or a benefit if any would be to use the Mercury 50h.p. 4-stroke Big Foot over the standard 50h.p. 4-stroke. The difference is a lower gear ratio and a larger prop on the Big Foot. I was thinking of useing the bigfoot-is this o.k.? Please respond. Regards-JACK.
Clark Roberts posted 05-23-2000 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Jack, the big foot model is intended for heavy load pushing... like a pontoon boat... the larger housing and the lower gear ratio will result in less performance, I'm afraid!
The added friction of that big lower unit will eat up loads of horse power.... anyway that's my opinion..... Happy Whalin'... Clark
lhg posted 05-23-2000 03:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Clark (or others): Question: When you run a Montauk, say, with a low power situation like a 50hp, when running at 30mph do you get a lot more high pitched engine noise because of the much higher RPM's, which I assume would be about 4800 - 5000? I have always taken the opposite point of view, and used a high horspower engine to keep RPM's, wear & tear, and engine noise low. When I had a 16 Nauset, I had a Merc 115 on it and at 30mph it was only turning about 2800 rpm. Engine lasted for years. On my current 18 Outrage, with twin 115's, I can cruise at 30mph and the tachs are showing about 2600RPM. I do know fuel consumption is probably greater, but I figured a lot less wear & tear on the engines, and a lot less engine noise. What's your thought on this subject.
whalernut posted 05-23-2000 08:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Clark, the Johnson 70h.p. engine basically uses the same gear ratio and prop size as the Mercury 50h.p. 4-stroke Bigfoot. The Johnson 70h.p. in my opinion would be a perfect match for a Currituck-Montauk-Standard, etc. for fishing or just a runabout? What do you think-am I wrong about this? Regards-JACK.
Clark Roberts posted 05-24-2000 05:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Larry, I think you are right about engine longivity! There's this thing called "piston feet traveled per unit time or distance" etc...eetc.. The reason lots of 17's in my area have 50hp engines is for shallow draft and weight/handling benefits! Yes, at 30 mph with a 17 and a 50 Merc the rpm is aroung 46-4800 rpm but the engine noise is smooth and harmonic... no thrashing!
I have a buddy with a 50 Evinrude on his Newport and it's the same story... both of these guys are in love with the combination and handling is unreal!! No other hull that I can think of will perform with so wide a horse power range... gives everybody lots of "choice", which is good... Jack, I think that 70hp is about ideal for a 17 Whaler'.. The choice of higher or lower power will depend on specific needs... There used to be a 17 around here with a 35 Evinrude and it popped around with 3 guys on it no problem.. never talked to the fellow but know it was around for a long time.. also have a friend that used to have a 150 Merc (straight six) on a Montauk.. I have driven it to near WOT and it was unreal... too fast!
Handling was fine! Go figure... Happy Whalin,... Clark... Spruce Creek Navy
whalernut posted 05-24-2000 08:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Clark, I just bought a 1975 `17 Currituck and it has a 1975 85h.p. Johnson on it and it flies, if you hit the throttle wide open you have to hold on tight. It trolls a little fast for me. If the engine dies I think I will put a 70 h.p. Yamaha on it with power tilt-trim but no oil-injection, the only company I know of that still offers engines up to 90h.p. that you can purchase that you can mix the oil 50/50. I like the simplicity. Also get Yamaha quality and should be a little cheaper than the oil-injected model. Regards-JACK.
dgp posted 08-19-2000 12:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
OK, first I'd like to thank Clark Roberts of this Forum and Chuck Bennett at Boston Whaler for their recommendations and opinions on this setup. Based on that, I bought a 2001 Montauk w/ 50HP Mercury four stroke w/ 11x12 Vengeance SS prop.. Here's the performance results;
6000 RPM (WOT), 34 MPH
5000 RPM, 27 MPH
4000 RPM, 19 MPH
3000 RPM, 11 MPH, still on plane
These results are the average of two runs (rounded to nearest MPH), against and with a 10 MPH wind speed. One person, some fishing gear and 12 gallons of fuel. Stock Montauk, only option Comfort Package.
Impressions; if your not a speed freak this is a sweet setup. It's quiet, power is seamless from idle to rated speed, planes and starts so easily. Wonderful engine noises at 6000 RPM.
My dealer wishes he had one in stock to demo for all of his customers, even his mechanic whose not a fan of four strokes is now a believer.
So there you have it, anyone considering repowering a 16/17 hull should give the 50HP four stroke serious consideration. Don
compounder posted 08-21-2000 09:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for compounder  Send Email to compounder     
Don, I am going to make the decision soon on a 4-stroke for my Montauk, and I can't help but wonder why you chose the Merc 50 when they have a 60 at the same weight and nearly the same price. Please elaborate on your decision. Thanks. Joe
dgp posted 08-22-2000 06:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
When I placed my order back in May, there was no information about a 60HP four stroke. I would go with that engine if I was ordering today. Don
lhg posted 08-22-2000 12:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Mercury's website does not show a 60HP four stroke yet. Only a 50, 75 or 90. Is this a new 2001 offering and is it based on the 50Hp model?
bigz posted 08-22-2000 01:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Larry -- not that I'm a great Mercury fan mind you --- actually pretty decent since they teamed up with Yamaha don't yeah know --- anyway the 4 "stoker" 60 is on their website and it is based on the 50hp --- Tom

Mercury 4-Stroke 50-hp Outboard Specifications
Propshaft Horsepower: 50-hp (37.3 kW)
Max RPM (W.O.T.): 5500-6000
Cylinders/Configuration: 4 (in-line)
Displacement: 60.8 cu. in. (995cc)
Bore & Stroke: 2.56 in. x 2.95 in. (65mm x 75mm)
Exhaust System: Through Prop
Lubrication System: Wet sump with pressurized lube system
Cooling System: Water cooled with thermostat and fresh water flush
Ignition System: CDI with electric spark advance
Starting System: Electric
Alternator: 15 amp (189 watt)
Gear Ratio: 1.83:1
Gear Shift: F-N-R
Steering: Tiller or Remote
Trim System: Power Trim
Shaft Length: 20 in. (508mm)
Weight-Dry: 236 lbs. (107.2 kg)
Operator Warning Systems: Overheat, low oil pressure, overrev
Propeller Options: Black Max, Vengeance, QA3, QSS

Mercury 4-Stroke 60-hp Outboard Specifications
Propshaft Horsepower: 60-hp (44.8 kW)
Max RPM (W.O.T.): 5500-6000
Cylinders/Configuration: 4 (in-line)
Displacement: 60.8 cu. in. (995cc)
Bore & Stroke: 2.56 in. x 2.95 in. (65mm x 75mm)
Exhaust System: Through Prop
Lubrication System: Wet sump with pressurized lube system
Cooling System: Water cooled with thermostat and fresh water flush
Ignition System: CDI with electric spark advance
Starting System: Electric
Alternator: 15 amp (189 watt)
Gear Ratio: 1.83:1
Gear Shift: F-N-R
Steering: Tiller or Remote
Trim System: Power Trim
Shaft Length: 20 in. (508mm)
Weight-Dry: 236 lbs. (107.2 kg)
Operator Warning Systems: Overheat, low oil pressure, overrev
Propeller Options: Black Max, Vengeance, QA3, QSS

whalernut posted 08-22-2000 05:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
How does Mercury get 10 more horespower out of a 50h.p. motor, when usually it`s the opposite, usually detuned from the higher horespower. And the specs are the same for the 50-60 Merc. What gives? And does 10 more h.p. translate into a few more miles an hour and more off the line tork? Regards-Jack Graner. P.S. Is Yamaha doing the same with their 50h.p. 4-stroke, making an option for the 60h.p. engine?
Clark Roberts posted 08-22-2000 06:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
As BigZ indicated... all Merc and Yamaha 4 stroke engines are joint venture and identical workings.... the mid sections and cowlings are styled differently.. that's all!
The Merc paint jobs will probably hold up better ..less corrosion.... Clark
dgp posted 08-22-2000 09:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for dgp  Send Email to dgp     
Apparently the 60HP four stroke is an addition to their engine line for the 2001 model year; my 50HP is a 2001 model. According to the engine information I have, dated January 2000, the 50 & 60 HP four strokes are bored out versions of the 57 CI 50HP four strokes. The new engines are 60.8 CI, so my 50 is a derated 60HP. An additional benefit of the bigger displacement engine is a 15 amp alternator vs. 10 amp for the 57 CI engine. Don

whalernut posted 08-22-2000 10:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Thanks guys, it sounds like a powerful 4-stroke. Do you think the boring out of the engine will weaken the cylinder walls and thus lessen the life span of the engine? The OMC/Suzuki 50h.p. 4-strokes only have a 49cid. powerhead, and alot less cc`s. Does the fuel injection OMC`s have any power advantage over the carburated Merc/Yams? It must be carburation that gets the extra 10h.p. from the 50 to the 60h.p. Merc/Yams. I think either one would be awsome for a `16 Currituck with the light hull and flat running surface. I am getting close to deciding. The only thing that is holding me up is I like the fuelinjection and the warrenty of the Suzuki 4-strokes. Does anyone have any experience with these engines(OMC/Suzuki 4-strokes). It seems that everyone that has talked about the Merc/Yam 4-strokes are very happy. Believe it or not I may be changing my mind about the Mercury engines. Even though Brunswick doesn`t make me happy about their practices with Boston Whaler, their Mercury division seems to have their act together. Also their is a Mercury autherized Dealer/Service right in the harbor where I keep my Whaler. If a Montauk can do 34MPH with a 50h.p. Merc. 4-stroke, I imagine by myself and my Currituck, it should do close to 40MPH. Any thoughts on this please. Also I bet it just a matter of time when Merc. 4-strokes go to fuel injection? Regards-Jack Graner.
whalernut posted 08-22-2000 10:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalernut  Send Email to whalernut     
Thanks guys, it sounds like a powerful 4-stroke. Do you think the boring out of the engine will weaken the cylinder walls and thus lessen the life span of the engine? The OMC/Suzuki 50h.p. 4-strokes only have a 49cid. powerhead, and alot less cc`s. Does the fuel injection OMC`s have any power advantage over the carburated Merc/Yams? It must be carburation that gets the extra 10h.p. from the 50 to the 60h.p. Merc/Yams. I think either one would be awsome for a `16 Currituck with the light hull and flat running surface. I am getting close to deciding. The only thing that is holding me up is I like the fuelinjection and the warrenty of the Suzuki 4-strokes. Does anyone have any experience with these engines(OMC/Suzuki 4-strokes). It seems that everyone that has talked about the Merc/Yam 4-strokes are very happy. Believe it or not I may be changing my mind about the Mercury engines. Even though Brunswick doesn`t make me happy about their practices with Boston Whaler, their Mercury division seems to have their act together. Also their is a Mercury autherized Dealer/Service right in the harbor where I keep my Whaler. If a Montauk can do 34MPH with a 50h.p. Merc. 4-stroke, I imagine by myself and my Currituck, it should do close to 40MPH. Any thoughts on this please. Also I bet it just a matter of time when Merc. 4-strokes go to fuel injection? Regards-Jack Graner.
bigz posted 08-23-2000 06:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Now Clark why do you think merc's paint job will hold up better than yamaha? --- yam does promote the heck out of their multi-step corrosion finish and use of ss --- haven't read anything about the merc's corrosion protection, maybe I just haven't been looking in the right place! Tom
Clark Roberts posted 08-23-2000 07:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
Tom, Merc has a 3 year warranty against corrosion but that's not why I think the Merc may hold up better... I think so from personal experience, as I have had a multitude of both brands and the Mercs have had LOTS & LOTS less (almost zero) corrosion problems. Yamahas may be getting better but my experience has been that the lower unit paint and the paint on the yoke and trim/tilt doesn't hold up well in salt water and the cowlings fade quickly in the sun.. I am not out to trash any brand but will give you my opinion on corrosion resistance top down! Merc, Yamaha, OMC, Suzuki...never owned a Honda so will reserve judgement on those...(Mercs in the 50's, 60s & 70's had more than their share of corrosion problems) Care and cleaning goes a long way in keeping corrosion down as does a keen eye on electrolysis etc.. Others may (and probably do)differ on this subject, just my emperical observations, you know I have an opinion on any subject...heh, heh... BTW I currently own three Mercs, one Mariner, a Johnson, and an Evinrude... Just sold my last Yamaha (a 15" shaft 25hp on a new 13' commercial Alert dive boat- photo soon on this forum). Happy Whalin' .. Clark... The Old Man and the Sea
lhg posted 08-23-2000 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Sorry, Tom, but I've got to back Clark on this one, based upon my saltwater/Florida sun experiences of my own. Since 1984, when Mercury INTRODUCED EDP (Electro Deposition Painting) to the world of outboards, their higher grade alloys, corrosion protection and paint jobs have been superior to all other brands. That's why they first introduced the 3 year corrosion warranty. Anybody who has seen my 1985 Merc outboards (all have been used in saltwater) can verify how good the corrosion resistance is. The paint jobs on the earlier OMC's and Yamaha's did not hold up well at all in salt & sun. A year ago I looked at a 1994 Whaler 27 Walkaround with t/250 1994 Yam's on it, and the engine
paint jobs were a mess. Needed to be completely repainted. The boat had been docked at the ocean Reef Club in Key Largo all it's life, and was well taken care of. The engine paint jobs just didn't hold up to the Florida climate.

I have observed engine corrosion problems for years in So Florida, and repeatedly noticed the problems with the OMC's and Yamaha's. A Yahama Dealer in Ft Lauderdale told me the earliest ones, (late eighties) were made from low grade aluminium alloys, and they suffered the worst problems. Many had really bad problems within 3 years and were traded in for Mercs or OMC's. That's why you see so many boats with Yam controls powered with newer Mercs. I do believe that by now the Yamaha problems have been corrected, and that they are now using the EDP process also. This is the whole reason they brought out the "Saltwater Series" of outboards, to emphasize their improved corrosion protection, and higher grade metals.

Incidentally, to keep your outboard looking like new, keep the whole thing waxed, just like your car, using the automotive products recommended for auto clearcoat.

Mort posted 08-23-2000 10:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mort  Send Email to Mort     
There are lots of opinions on Merc & OMC products. Does anyone have any experience with Hondas? What is the difference in performance between the 50 vs 75 on a 17' Montauk?
bigz posted 08-24-2000 05:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Thanks for the information fellows always glad to get the real story from real experiences.

The thing I do read into this is proper maintenance regardless of the manufactures initial "corrosion" protection. If it isn't maintained and the lower unit sits in the water day in day out for years your going to have a mess regardless of the brand.

I can go into just about any boat yard and look at the outboards high and dry in the Spring up here in NJ --- unless there relatively new the units, they look like heck --- yet the boat has nice fresh bottom paint and a beautifully waxed topsides --- go figure!!!!!!

Tom

bigz posted 08-24-2000 09:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Chuckle Larry --- I don't mind you "backing" Clark "Crab Toes" Roberts --- heh heh I have been listening to and "backing" him for quit sometime now don't yeah know --- It was just a simple "why" question and of course Clark gave me the simple answer --- which I accept as gospel don't yeah know --- not sure which religion but I prescribe whole heartily to it --- could be the one they call "Experience from the gospel of Hard Knocks"

Tom

lhg posted 08-24-2000 03:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Yes, Tom, it's maintenance and care that are the key. I know some guys with 10 year old Yamahas that look like they're fresh out of the box, absolutlely mint. It's when engines are totally neglected, and particularly in a harsh tropical climate, that the manufacturing differences can show up.
BASSPLAYER posted 11-09-2008 01:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for BASSPLAYER  Send Email to BASSPLAYER     
[Eight years later...] I have a 1980 Montauk 17 powered by a Yamaha 2000 F50Y four stroke with a 10 5/8 X 12G Yamaha aluminum propeller and SE200 hydrofoil. My top speed at present is 28mph. I don't have a tachometer. I would love to see 34 mph. I am about to buy a new propeller and I am looking for recommendations.
Tohsgib posted 11-10-2008 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Should have a tach to really dial it in.
bloller posted 11-10-2008 06:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for bloller  Send Email to bloller     
I question whether 50hp fourstrokes on a Montauk will hit 34mph. I have a 60hp fourstroke Bigfoot on my 16', have tried many different props and the best I can see is 33mph. The only explination I see is that these owners are running jackplates or that the 60hp fourstroke really only puts out closer to 50hp
number9 posted 11-11-2008 04:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for number9  Send Email to number9     
My experience is with Yamaha High Thrust T50, same basic setup as the 50&60 Bigfoots. Mine is mounted on a Outrage and cavitation plate about 3.5" above the hull bottom as it sits on the transom. For a hundred and change you can get a new TH Marine JP-4FA fixed jack plate. Prop it right and that would probably make you a much happier camper.

Bill

BASSPLAYER posted 11-12-2008 06:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for BASSPLAYER  Send Email to BASSPLAYER     
I realize the best way to size a prop is with a tachometer . Are there any aftermarket tachometers that will work .Yamaha tachs are $300. All I want to know is if there is a better suited prop for my setup 1980 montauk 17 w/ 50 hp yamaha f50y 4 stroke .I now have an 10 5/8x12 with se200 hydrofoil and a top speed of 28 mph .Would a 10 3/8 x 13 be faster or 11x12 ? If anyone knows of a similar setup please let me know.
bloller posted 11-12-2008 06:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for bloller  Send Email to bloller     
Go to a stainless steel prop of similar size and and you should gain about 2mph. Try raising the engine on the transom one or two holes if not already raised. Finally reduce every bit of uneccessary weight in your boat. If you are getting 28mph with two or more passengers than that is probably the best you can do.
Tohsgib posted 11-13-2008 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
You don't need a digital Yamaha tach...any tach will work if it has the right pole setting for yamaha.
BASSPLAYER posted 06-16-2009 04:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for BASSPLAYER  Send Email to BASSPLAYER     
I have a 1980 montauk 17 w/ a 99 yamaha f50y hp 4 stroke the prop I'M using now is a 10 5/8 d x12 p yamaha aluminum and a 200 se hydrofoil. I installed a tachometer and my max rpm with two people is around 5500 to 5700 and top speed 27mph .could anyone out there suggest a better prop. how about a 11 5/8 d x 11 p.I would see 30mph
BASSPLAYER posted 06-16-2009 04:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for BASSPLAYER  Send Email to BASSPLAYER     
I have a 1980 montauk 17 w/ a 99 yamaha f50y hp 4 stroke the prop I'M using now is a 10 5/8 d x12 p yamaha aluminum and a 200 se hydrofoil. I installed a tachometer and my max rpm with two people is around 5500 to 5700 and top speed 27mph .could anyone out there suggest a better prop. how about a 11 5/8 d x 11 p.I LOVE would see 30mph
weekendwarrior posted 06-17-2009 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for weekendwarrior  Send Email to weekendwarrior     
My 17' Montauk with 50HP Honda has the stock Honda aluminum 11-1/4 x 13 prop. With just me and one other person it zips right up to (and past) the 6000rpm redline and goes just over 30mph (maybe 32mph). With the boat more heavily loaded it will reach the upper 5000rpm range and goes in the high 20's (mph). I don't know if the gear ratios are the same for our two motors, but this prop has proven to be a great well rounded prop for me.
BASSPLAYER posted 06-18-2009 01:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for BASSPLAYER  Send Email to BASSPLAYER     
Any idea what I could expect from a 11 1/2 x12 ss or 11 5/8 x11 ss 17'montauk f50 yamaha 4 stroke
skred posted 06-22-2009 06:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for skred  Send Email to skred     
Clark, regarding your observations on the 50 hp engine on a 15 foot whaler: check out my photo...

http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc217/skred/?action=view& current=Afton2.jpg

That's pretty close to 40 mph with not much hull in the water....

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.