Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Twins for Montauk again
|Author||Topic: Twins for Montauk again|
posted 05-15-2001 03:47 PM ET (US)
OK. Here's my latest dilema. I am very close to getting a new 50 or 60 Merc 4 stroke and a kicker. Total weight about 280 lbs . After Ferdinandoís recent post re: duals on a Montauk I have been considering this option. One of the problems after limited research is that the smaller 30-35 hp models tend not to have tilt and trim and some don't appear to have bolt mounting and use the hand-operated clamps instead. (read: theft) Some of the 2- strokes and all of the 4- strokes the 40+ range are out of the question as they would be waaayyyy too heavy, imo. 400 lbs+. I guess I will have to modify the transom a little to accommodate the extra engine as Iím not inclined to opt for any jacks or set-backs but that could change as I pursue this. I have always liked the looks of duals. Who wouldnít? And with the forecast of increasing gas prices Iím steering away from a bigger Whaler. Other than the price, which seem to be about even, what do you all think of this and do you have any thoughts or suggestions for questions I havenít asked?
posted 05-15-2001 07:19 PM ET (US)
Arch - Even though I'm a great fan of twins, I wouldn't do it on a Montauk. The boat is simply not designed to handle them, or all the extra rigging involved. Too complicated, and you'll never get your money out of it. You would need at least twin 40's, probably 50's., and a change to hydraulic steering.
Whole thing sounds like a nightmare to me.
You'd be better off looking for a good used 18 Outrage if twins are your interest. That's exactly the reason I stepped up from my Nauset.
Stay with a single and a simply installed auxillary, bolted right on the starboard raised transom. I wouldn't even connect the steering to the kicker. Tighten it straight ahead, and use the main engine as a rudder.
posted 05-15-2001 07:48 PM ET (US)
Arch, if you will check the current specs on the Yamaha line, it seems to indicate that their 40hp 4-stroke actually weighs a little LESS than their 2 stroke.....I think it is less than 180#!! Don't know how this would work on a Montauk, but I don't think weight would be your worst problem.
posted 05-15-2001 09:11 PM ET (US)
I am real happy with the Merc 50 hp 4 stroke, 224#, on my Montauk. Loaded with two adults, stern seat , downriggers, electric trolling motor and 20+ gallons of fuel it will run in the mid 30s and doesn't suck gas.
Am going to hang a 5 or 6 hp kicker on when I find the right deal.
posted 05-15-2001 09:15 PM ET (US)
Yes it looks less because thats the SHORT SHAFT and the others are LONG SHAFT. If you really look at it, it is heavier than than the 2 stroke but not buy to much. Am I wrong???
posted 05-17-2001 09:41 AM ET (US)
Thank, all. I'm back to a new single again. I have read your postings Dick and mostly as a result of your comments I'm leaning towards the 50 again. Possibly the 60. Using the formula Clark (?) gave us there was 3-4 mph difference b/t the 50 and 60. My current old, prop chipped, noisy and rattling 80 only get's me to about 36 which is fine with me. Thanks, all, for getting my head on straight again. You're right...it would be a nightmare going the 2 engine route with the Montauk. But I do have one more question. I know I should get the long shaft but I would like to use it also as the dingy engine once in awhile. (I don't want to buy another one if I don't have to.) I'm not fond of those engine brackets and modifying the transom on the Stb. side is a relatively simple job. Would a short shaft in the up position still be a workable solution?
posted 05-17-2001 08:43 PM ET (US)
I think the only way you could use a short shaft would be with an auxillery bracket. I don't like them either but as a trade off to make the kicker more versitile it may be worth it.
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.