repower of 17 Montauk - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  repower of 17 Montauk

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   repower of 17 Montauk

billspin posted 06-14-2002 11:50 PM ET (US)
I'm interested in repowering my 1996 Montauk. I'm considering the Yamaha 90 2 stroke or the Yamaha 100 fourstroke. The fourstroke is almost 100 pounds heavier. Any advice would be much appreciated.
PMUCCIOLO posted 06-15-2002 12:55 AM ET (US)
billspin,
From my experience, I'd suggest the 90HP two-stroke Yamaha. I recently powered my new Alert 17 with this engine, and it performs beyond my expectations.
The entire rigging job, including SS prop, controls, multi-function gauge, dual 6.6 gallon OEM fuel tanks, OEM fuel/water separator, misc. supplies, and labor was $6500.00 plus tax.
The boat planes efortlessly, tows a wakeboard, tube, or ski without difficulty, and starts on the first crank every time. It runs flawlessly, is easy to flush with the hose fitting, and tilts fast. The light weight is a bonus, as the boat, with no one in it, full fuel, and equipment, fills the drain sump to the brim without water spilling over onto the deck. I found this out by launching the boat without the plug in when I first got it, a classic case of being overly enthusiastic!
For the amount I use the boat, the additional cost and weight of the 4-stroke was not warranted. The increase in fuel efficiency could not offset the higher initial purchase price. Best of luck in your decision making.
Paul
John from Madison CT posted 06-15-2002 06:35 AM ET (US)
I'm with Paul here. The Yamaha 90hp is great all around and a VERY reliable motor.
Sure the 4 strokes save gas but the pay back is very long when actually calculated. The extra 100lbs is alot of extra weight to haul around too.
The 90's slim profile is real nice too.
Go get 'em.
John
Don Fisher posted 06-15-2002 12:28 PM ET (US)
Remember that not all places will allow the 90 2 stroke anymore since it doesn't meet EPA requirements. If you don't have that problem, then the 90 is a good choice. My Dad went with the 100 4 stroke. It is a very sweet motor. He can troll all day with it with no problem. Although he has a kicker, he doesn't even use it anymore (which saves on some of the transom weight). In all, the Yamaha 100/4 is relatively light compared to its 4 stroke competitors in the same HP range. If I were choosing between the two, I'd pay the extra $$ and get the 4 stroke because I've seen first hand how weel it works on the Montauk. Good luck to you.
Whaler Proud posted 06-15-2002 12:46 PM ET (US)
Isn't there a thread somewhere that touches on the actual EPA regulations regarding 2 strokes? I just repowered with a Suzuki 90 2 stroke on my Nauset and it meets EPA requirements. I know that pre-mix 2 strokes are banned in California and injected 2 strokes might even be banned on Lake Tahoe but the oil injected 2's are OK.
My dealer told me that all 2 strokes would be phased out (new manufacture) by 2006 and that boat owners would not be required to replace their existing oil-injected 2's until it came time to re-power.
Any other information on this? I'll try and find a link to the regs and post it here. Also, my 90 screams.
whalernut posted 06-15-2002 02:00 PM ET (US)
I was looking at a New Yamaha 70 horsepower 2-stroke on a boat yesturday and thought that would be an ideal engine for a Currituck, I think the 90 is overkill, and I believe the 70 would also troll and no need for a kicker. I also noticed the dealers are asking almost the same prices these days for the C70-90(non oil injected) engines as apposed to the oil injected Yamahas, I wonder why they do this, maybee because they are steering you towards the oil injected model??? I would rather have a pre-mix 2-stroker or a 4-stroker, but not until my old 85h.p. Johnson kicks the bucket, but man is that thing a gas hog!! Jack.
seagull posted 06-17-2002 08:56 AM ET (US)
My local Yamaha dealer told me the reason Yamaha discontiued the "C" series was because the price of the enigines were so close it didn't warrant having non-oil injected in their line up.
Bigshot posted 06-17-2002 11:35 AM ET (US)
That 90 is a perfect engine on a Montauk. I am a 4 stroke man now but had that 90 which is plenty of power, light weight, quiet and gets darn good MPG.
Now for the commercial....I replaced my 90 with a 70 Zuki 4 stroke and would do it again and again and again.
Ogden Dunes posted 06-29-2002 04:14 AM ET (US)
BillSpin,
I just repowered my 1984 Super Sport with the Yamaha 100 4s. This unit weights 356 lbs and I am not sure the newer mauntauk is rated for this weight. You should look this up in your owners manuel. I am very happy with this application, No smoke, very quiet, no vibration, Excelent torq pulling wakeboard, tube, waterskiing.
It sets a little lower in the water at the transom due to weight but reversing in light seas there is no water spill over the transom. Top end speed with a 19 inch prop is aprox 46.5 at 5900 rpms GPS. The Turning Point Express prop that I am useing has a diameter of 13.25 inches and has not blown out in any corners (I do corner hard in the turns while pulling the tube). I could run a little faster with a 21 inch pitch prop but do not want to loose the holeshot. This application is squirley at top speed trimmed up. I felt the 4s will last longer there is no worry about gas oil mixtures,so was worth the extra money, this still remains to be seen.

Scott
Clark Roberts posted 06-29-2002 09:12 AM ET (US)
I have owned Montauks with 50/70 and 90 hp Yamahas as well as lots of Mercs and OMC's. As I recall the 90 Yamaha was a snappy performer but the 70's I've owned seemed quicker to rev and performed just about as well as the 90hp on the 17 hull. Also the 70's were smoother and less "raspy" at idle. If you're after the very last mph top speed then the 90 is the way to go...if not then don't rule out the 70hp as a candidate... that's my advice anyway... Clark... Spruce Creek Navy
compounder posted 07-02-2002 08:50 AM ET (US)
I also chose the C-90 to repower my Montauk. After months of deliberation, I decided the four-strokes were just too expensive and too heavy. The Yamaha 90 seems to offer the most performance and fuel efficiency for the money.
Clark is right about the 70 two-strokes on the Montauk. I have ridden in several. However, when you add a load (two large adults and their gear) performance really suffers with the 70.
The extra weight of a four-stroke hanging on your transom is a very real problem. Some owners are apparently trying to justify their buying decision by using terms such as "light compared to competitors" and "no vibration."
However, to each his own. When the two and four-strokes are priced similarly and weigh the same, I'll take another look.
Bigshot posted 07-02-2002 10:25 AM ET (US)
Now dopn't be talking about us 4 stroke owners. My 70 with the jackplate weighs over 360lbs. That boat sits fine and handles great. It sits about 3/4" lower than it did with the 90 Yamaha. No porpoising, no bowrise....actually rides smoother and does not slap as much.
TF3 posted 07-03-2002 08:43 AM ET (US)
I repowered my Montauk this spring w/ a Yama 100/4 and I think I've made a mistake. Don't get me wrong....it's probably the best small engine you can buy, but it's to much weight for the Montauk. I'm sitting 2-3 inches lower which becomes a problem in rough seas. The 80 is the same weight so I went with the power. I'm told by my dealer that next year the 80 will become a 70 and the 100 a 90. I think they (Yamaha) know about my problem.
Wild Turkey posted 07-03-2002 11:36 AM ET (US)
According to Yamaha's website, TF3's Yamaha F100hp (4-stroke) weighs 356 lbs. Bigs claims 360 lbs. with the jackplate for his Suzuki.
Based on each's described attitude and behavior of their Montauks, it doesn't seem to add up.
For the record, my Montauk with an Evinrude 90HP (330 lbs. ??) and CMC jackplate handles precisely as Bigshot describes.

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 of 17 Montauk
billspin	posted 06-14-2002 11:50 PM ET (US) I'm interested in repowering my 1996 Montauk. I'm considering the Yamaha 90 2 stroke or the Yamaha 100 fourstroke. The fourstroke is almost 100 pounds heavier. Any advice would be much appreciated.
PMUCCIOLO	posted 06-15-2002 12:55 AM ET (US) billspin, From my experience, I'd suggest the 90HP two-stroke Yamaha. I recently powered my new Alert 17 with this engine, and it performs beyond my expectations. The entire rigging job, including SS prop, controls, multi-function gauge, dual 6.6 gallon OEM fuel tanks, OEM fuel/water separator, misc. supplies, and labor was $6500.00 plus tax. The boat planes efortlessly, tows a wakeboard, tube, or ski without difficulty, and starts on the first crank every time. It runs flawlessly, is easy to flush with the hose fitting, and tilts fast. The light weight is a bonus, as the boat, with no one in it, full fuel, and equipment, fills the drain sump to the brim without water spilling over onto the deck. I found this out by launching the boat without the plug in when I first got it, a classic case of being overly enthusiastic! For the amount I use the boat, the additional cost and weight of the 4-stroke was not warranted. The increase in fuel efficiency could not offset the higher initial purchase price. Best of luck in your decision making. Paul
John from Madison CT	posted 06-15-2002 06:35 AM ET (US) I'm with Paul here. The Yamaha 90hp is great all around and a VERY reliable motor. Sure the 4 strokes save gas but the pay back is very long when actually calculated. The extra 100lbs is alot of extra weight to haul around too. The 90's slim profile is real nice too. Go get 'em. John
Don Fisher	posted 06-15-2002 12:28 PM ET (US) Remember that not all places will allow the 90 2 stroke anymore since it doesn't meet EPA requirements. If you don't have that problem, then the 90 is a good choice. My Dad went with the 100 4 stroke. It is a very sweet motor. He can troll all day with it with no problem. Although he has a kicker, he doesn't even use it anymore (which saves on some of the transom weight). In all, the Yamaha 100/4 is relatively light compared to its 4 stroke competitors in the same HP range. If I were choosing between the two, I'd pay the extra $$ and get the 4 stroke because I've seen first hand how weel it works on the Montauk. Good luck to you.
Whaler Proud	posted 06-15-2002 12:46 PM ET (US) Isn't there a thread somewhere that touches on the actual EPA regulations regarding 2 strokes? I just repowered with a Suzuki 90 2 stroke on my Nauset and it meets EPA requirements. I know that pre-mix 2 strokes are banned in California and injected 2 strokes might even be banned on Lake Tahoe but the oil injected 2's are OK. My dealer told me that all 2 strokes would be phased out (new manufacture) by 2006 and that boat owners would not be required to replace their existing oil-injected 2's until it came time to re-power. Any other information on this? I'll try and find a link to the regs and post it here. Also, my 90 screams.
whalernut	posted 06-15-2002 02:00 PM ET (US) I was looking at a New Yamaha 70 horsepower 2-stroke on a boat yesturday and thought that would be an ideal engine for a Currituck, I think the 90 is overkill, and I believe the 70 would also troll and no need for a kicker. I also noticed the dealers are asking almost the same prices these days for the C70-90(non oil injected) engines as apposed to the oil injected Yamahas, I wonder why they do this, maybee because they are steering you towards the oil injected model??? I would rather have a pre-mix 2-stroker or a 4-stroker, but not until my old 85h.p. Johnson kicks the bucket, but man is that thing a gas hog!! Jack.
seagull	posted 06-17-2002 08:56 AM ET (US) My local Yamaha dealer told me the reason Yamaha discontiued the "C" series was because the price of the enigines were so close it didn't warrant having non-oil injected in their line up.
Bigshot	posted 06-17-2002 11:35 AM ET (US) That 90 is a perfect engine on a Montauk. I am a 4 stroke man now but had that 90 which is plenty of power, light weight, quiet and gets darn good MPG. Now for the commercial....I replaced my 90 with a 70 Zuki 4 stroke and would do it again and again and again.
Ogden Dunes	posted 06-29-2002 04:14 AM ET (US) BillSpin, I just repowered my 1984 Super Sport with the Yamaha 100 4s. This unit weights 356 lbs and I am not sure the newer mauntauk is rated for this weight. You should look this up in your owners manuel. I am very happy with this application, No smoke, very quiet, no vibration, Excelent torq pulling wakeboard, tube, waterskiing. It sets a little lower in the water at the transom due to weight but reversing in light seas there is no water spill over the transom. Top end speed with a 19 inch prop is aprox 46.5 at 5900 rpms GPS. The Turning Point Express prop that I am useing has a diameter of 13.25 inches and has not blown out in any corners (I do corner hard in the turns while pulling the tube). I could run a little faster with a 21 inch pitch prop but do not want to loose the holeshot. This application is squirley at top speed trimmed up. I felt the 4s will last longer there is no worry about gas oil mixtures,so was worth the extra money, this still remains to be seen. Scott
Clark Roberts	posted 06-29-2002 09:12 AM ET (US) I have owned Montauks with 50/70 and 90 hp Yamahas as well as lots of Mercs and OMC's. As I recall the 90 Yamaha was a snappy performer but the 70's I've owned seemed quicker to rev and performed just about as well as the 90hp on the 17 hull. Also the 70's were smoother and less "raspy" at idle. If you're after the very last mph top speed then the 90 is the way to go...if not then don't rule out the 70hp as a candidate... that's my advice anyway... Clark... Spruce Creek Navy
compounder	posted 07-02-2002 08:50 AM ET (US) I also chose the C-90 to repower my Montauk. After months of deliberation, I decided the four-strokes were just too expensive and too heavy. The Yamaha 90 seems to offer the most performance and fuel efficiency for the money. Clark is right about the 70 two-strokes on the Montauk. I have ridden in several. However, when you add a load (two large adults and their gear) performance really suffers with the 70. The extra weight of a four-stroke hanging on your transom is a very real problem. Some owners are apparently trying to justify their buying decision by using terms such as "light compared to competitors" and "no vibration." However, to each his own. When the two and four-strokes are priced similarly and weigh the same, I'll take another look.
Bigshot	posted 07-02-2002 10:25 AM ET (US) Now dopn't be talking about us 4 stroke owners. My 70 with the jackplate weighs over 360lbs. That boat sits fine and handles great. It sits about 3/4" lower than it did with the 90 Yamaha. No porpoising, no bowrise....actually rides smoother and does not slap as much.
TF3	posted 07-03-2002 08:43 AM ET (US) I repowered my Montauk this spring w/ a Yama 100/4 and I think I've made a mistake. Don't get me wrong....it's probably the best small engine you can buy, but it's to much weight for the Montauk. I'm sitting 2-3 inches lower which becomes a problem in rough seas. The 80 is the same weight so I went with the power. I'm told by my dealer that next year the 80 will become a 70 and the 100 a 90. I think they (Yamaha) know about my problem.
Wild Turkey	posted 07-03-2002 11:36 AM ET (US) According to Yamaha's website, TF3's Yamaha F100hp (4-stroke) weighs 356 lbs. Bigs claims 360 lbs. with the jackplate for his Suzuki. Based on each's described attitude and behavior of their Montauks, it doesn't seem to add up. For the record, my Montauk with an Evinrude 90HP (330 lbs. ??) and CMC jackplate handles precisely as Bigshot describes.