Repower 13Sport ~ 17Montauk.. - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Repower 13Sport ~ 17Montauk..

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Repower 13Sport ~ 17Montauk..

trouthunter2 posted 02-02-2001 12:38 AM ET (US)
I am pondering my options - 1983 13'Sport with orig. '83 Johnson 35hp running well. I am considering the move to a new 4 stroke 40 hp Merc. Will I regret the additional weight? Since my 35 is running well, will I really gain enough to justify the investment?
Also, I may upgrade to a 17'Montauk - minimum req'd hp is 35 - If I bought this new 4-stroke and moved it to a 17'which needed new power, would I really hate life without much power? How small a motor is really enough to enjoy a 17' - while not winning races?
Thanks for the input
Keith Silliman posted 02-02-2001 05:58 AM ET (US)
I have a 75 hp 4 stoke Mercury on my 17' Montauk. The dealer I purchased from here in Upstate New York rents Montauks with a 90 hp 4 stroke Mercury for use on Lake George. I will be using the boat primarily on smaller lakes, as will my (unsupervised) teenage children. I purposely went with the smaller engine and, to date, have not been disappointed.
Interestingly, most of my use this past year was on larger lakes and on the Hudson River. The boat performed quite well.
I am not a speed demon. I don't think I kept it at WOT for more than 15 seconds at any time.
The 75 moved me, a full tank of gas, three other adults, and our fishing gear quite nicely (and quickly) against the tide on the Hudson.
Hope these observations help.
Keith Silliman
dgp posted 02-02-2001 06:38 AM ET (US)
trouthunter, if you open the "Show Topics" drop down menu at the top of the page to "last year" you'll see this topic has been discussed at length and find some good info. Don
trouthunter2 posted 02-02-2001 09:37 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the responses. I have looked at past postings - haven't noticed any discussions where a 40hp motor has been discussed, this is why I ask. I will keep digging, however, to see if I might have missed any. Thanks, Steve
whalernut posted 02-02-2001 10:07 PM ET (US)
Steve, the older `13 hulls seem to prefer engines under 200lbs. I know a guy with a 40h.p. Honda 4-stroke on the transom and the engine purrs, but the transom is way down in the water and the bow way up. I would stay away from a heavy engine. The 30h.p. Johnson 2-stroke(2 cylinder) is just about perfect for the `13 hull. I had a 71` `13 Sport with a 76` 35 h.p. Evinrude(2 cylinder) and it was perfect power/weight configuration. Good luck-Jack Graner.
jimh posted 02-02-2001 11:08 PM ET (US)
One thing that should be avoided is using an engine that is so heavy that it disturbs the static trim of the hull, pulling the stern down.
If the drain holes on the motor well are below water, then the static trim is too far down in the stern!
I saw a nice, older 13-Sport at the ramp last summer with a modern (heavy) 4-stroke engine on it. With the battery and fuel tanks mounted in the stern, the boat had a pronounced trim problem. The bow was pointing skyward, almost!
Look at the static trim on Frank Bell's 13-Sport, a classic with a modern engine, but a (not too heavy) 2-stroke:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/13ClassicFloating500x304.jpeg (This is from Cetacea Page 23)
Or from the Reference/15/ section, look at:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/15/images/whaler15BurtLake384X186.jpeg This shows a 15-Sport with an older 2-stroke engine. This is the proper static trim.
The design of modern boats has been tending toward beamier sterns, in part to help accommodate the weight of these big, modern 4-stroke engines. You have to be careful in repowering an older Whaler that you don't overload it with too much engine weight.
--jimh
jimh posted 02-02-2001 11:15 PM ET (US)
One additional thought:
You could test the effect of greater engine weight by hanging some weights off the transom to simulate the newer engine. If a new engine is going to weight 100 lbs. more, then hang a couple of 50 lb. weights on the transom lifting eyes and see how the trim is affected.
For more accuracy, maybe you should hang them off the back of the engine, placing the weight as far aft as possible. This may better simulate the distribution of weight on the newer engine.
--jimh
trouthunter2 posted 02-02-2001 11:15 PM ET (US)
As I look at the current status of my '83 13 in the water, it appears to ride appropriately. I am not certain of the weight of my '83 35hp Johnson, it feels heavy to me - but I will need to compare it to the 205-210lbs for the new 40hp 4-stroke. It appears that I might be best served to hang onto my 1983 pair and look to upgrade to a 17' - and look for new power at that time. Looks like my interest in a little extra umph may come at a price which exceeds reason - since my current 35 is running well. Guess I will need to consider other options for a Montauk or Dauntless....Sure is nice to dream about Whalerin' during sub-zero days! Thanks, all!
Steve

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: Repower 13Sport ~ 17Montauk..
trouthunter2	posted 02-02-2001 12:38 AM ET (US) I am pondering my options - 1983 13'Sport with orig. '83 Johnson 35hp running well. I am considering the move to a new 4 stroke 40 hp Merc. Will I regret the additional weight? Since my 35 is running well, will I really gain enough to justify the investment? Also, I may upgrade to a 17'Montauk - minimum req'd hp is 35 - If I bought this new 4-stroke and moved it to a 17'which needed new power, would I really hate life without much power? How small a motor is really enough to enjoy a 17' - while not winning races? Thanks for the input
Keith Silliman	posted 02-02-2001 05:58 AM ET (US) I have a 75 hp 4 stoke Mercury on my 17' Montauk. The dealer I purchased from here in Upstate New York rents Montauks with a 90 hp 4 stroke Mercury for use on Lake George. I will be using the boat primarily on smaller lakes, as will my (unsupervised) teenage children. I purposely went with the smaller engine and, to date, have not been disappointed. Interestingly, most of my use this past year was on larger lakes and on the Hudson River. The boat performed quite well. I am not a speed demon. I don't think I kept it at WOT for more than 15 seconds at any time. The 75 moved me, a full tank of gas, three other adults, and our fishing gear quite nicely (and quickly) against the tide on the Hudson. Hope these observations help. Keith Silliman
dgp	posted 02-02-2001 06:38 AM ET (US) trouthunter, if you open the "Show Topics" drop down menu at the top of the page to "last year" you'll see this topic has been discussed at length and find some good info. Don
trouthunter2	posted 02-02-2001 09:37 PM ET (US) Thanks for the responses. I have looked at past postings - haven't noticed any discussions where a 40hp motor has been discussed, this is why I ask. I will keep digging, however, to see if I might have missed any. Thanks, Steve
whalernut	posted 02-02-2001 10:07 PM ET (US) Steve, the older `13 hulls seem to prefer engines under 200lbs. I know a guy with a 40h.p. Honda 4-stroke on the transom and the engine purrs, but the transom is way down in the water and the bow way up. I would stay away from a heavy engine. The 30h.p. Johnson 2-stroke(2 cylinder) is just about perfect for the `13 hull. I had a 71` `13 Sport with a 76` 35 h.p. Evinrude(2 cylinder) and it was perfect power/weight configuration. Good luck-Jack Graner.
jimh	posted 02-02-2001 11:08 PM ET (US) One thing that should be avoided is using an engine that is so heavy that it disturbs the static trim of the hull, pulling the stern down. If the drain holes on the motor well are below water, then the static trim is too far down in the stern! I saw a nice, older 13-Sport at the ramp last summer with a modern (heavy) 4-stroke engine on it. With the battery and fuel tanks mounted in the stern, the boat had a pronounced trim problem. The bow was pointing skyward, almost! Look at the static trim on Frank Bell's 13-Sport, a classic with a modern engine, but a (not too heavy) 2-stroke: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/13ClassicFloating500x304.jpeg (This is from Cetacea Page 23) Or from the Reference/15/ section, look at: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/15/images/whaler15BurtLake384X186.jpeg This shows a 15-Sport with an older 2-stroke engine. This is the proper static trim. The design of modern boats has been tending toward beamier sterns, in part to help accommodate the weight of these big, modern 4-stroke engines. You have to be careful in repowering an older Whaler that you don't overload it with too much engine weight. --jimh
jimh	posted 02-02-2001 11:15 PM ET (US) One additional thought: You could test the effect of greater engine weight by hanging some weights off the transom to simulate the newer engine. If a new engine is going to weight 100 lbs. more, then hang a couple of 50 lb. weights on the transom lifting eyes and see how the trim is affected. For more accuracy, maybe you should hang them off the back of the engine, placing the weight as far aft as possible. This may better simulate the distribution of weight on the newer engine. --jimh
trouthunter2	posted 02-02-2001 11:15 PM ET (US) As I look at the current status of my '83 13 in the water, it appears to ride appropriately. I am not certain of the weight of my '83 35hp Johnson, it feels heavy to me - but I will need to compare it to the 205-210lbs for the new 40hp 4-stroke. It appears that I might be best served to hang onto my 1983 pair and look to upgrade to a 17' - and look for new power at that time. Looks like my interest in a little extra umph may come at a price which exceeds reason - since my current 35 is running well. Guess I will need to consider other options for a Montauk or Dauntless....Sure is nice to dream about Whalerin' during sub-zero days! Thanks, all! Steve