Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
repowering montauk with 4 stroke
|Author||Topic: repowering montauk with 4 stroke|
posted 03-03-2003 07:37 PM ET (US)
getting ready to repower my refurbished 1986 montauk with a suzuki 4 stroke. thought i would purchase a 90 but can actualy get a 115 for less because of inventory overstock. two questions, (1) is a 115 too much motor for this boat? (2) both engins weigh in at 415 Lbs. +/- is this too much ? this is my first montauk and i painstaking refurbished it from a beat up bare hull to like new condition. want to make the right motor selection after all that hard work. thanks. mitchell
posted 03-03-2003 08:10 PM ET (US)
Both are too heavy. 400 lbs maximum on the transom. The DF70 is the only option in the Suzuki four stroke line.
posted 03-03-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)
Actually, a 50 or 60 will deliver what I call decent performance, but you young bucks want to fly, so the Johnson/Suzuki DF70 is the best choice. It is fast becoming the #1 choice in 4 strokes for a Montauk.
My Montauk (and Bigshot's Montauk, and. . . . . etc.'s Montauk) delivers upper 30s at top end. We do have them on short setbacks with fixed "jack" plates to avoid lag screwing the lower mount holes to the transom.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 03-04-2003 12:12 AM ET (US)
Go with the 115. The 70 is too heavy (loose 45 hp and only 80lbs) per HP IMO and does not have enough power for a 17'. I have run 17 footers with 40hp, 55hp, 70hp, 90hp, 100hp and 115hp. The 90 and 100 were great, but if I had the choice of a more powerful engine that weighed the same and cost less I would jump on it. I have seen a 17' with a Honda 130 (~510lbs) that still floated well so... If I had my druthers I would go with a Yamaha 100hp 4-stroke.
posted 03-04-2003 08:45 AM ET (US)
is 400 lbs. the true max engine weight for the old style montauk per the manufactuer? visited the reference thread on the 170 montauk and they list the max motor weight at 410 lbs. is this because the boat is larger (more wetted surface thus more bouancy = greater engine weight capacity)? the 90 merc 4 stroke that comes with the 170 package weighs in at 386 lbs. the suzukis i am looking at are 29 lbs. more. would this make that big of a difference ? am i making too much of this weight issue? thanks, mitchell
posted 03-04-2003 09:17 AM ET (US)
I, too, have run 16s and 17s with a variety of power, from 50 to 140. I find 70hp fits it well.
I wonder if Nimrod has driven a Montauk with a Suzi 70. Everyone I have talked to who has finds it an excellent package.
BW said that the max weight on the transom of a classic Montauk is 400lb. I would expect terrible handling with that much weight aft.
The Yammy 100 is a fine, but obsolete technology engine (carbs).
If you want to fly, get a bassrocket with a 250 on it. Or, if you are really insane, put a JohnnyUki 140 on your Montauk, that is lighter than the 115.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 03-04-2003 10:40 AM ET (US)
I doubt 29lbs would make that big of a difference but is it worth it? My 70 will hit about 39mph, the 90 Yamaha will do about 40-41 and a 90 Johnson/merc 2 stroke will do 42-43mph. For 3-4mph at WOT I really can't see spending another couple grand for the engine. You may want to consider the 115hp Ficht at 368lbs or the 90hp yamaha/merc 4 stroke at about the same weight. I don't have any issues with the 350lb weight of my 70 but I am not sure about adding another 65lbs. I have however seen many Montauks with 115 Suzuki 2 strokes at 370lbs, 120 OMC loopers at 382 and even a 175 Merc at about 400lbs all on smirked hulls. Choice is yours but if 38+mph is fast enough and burning 2GPH is a nice option at cruise for you, get the 70hp.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.