1983 Montauk - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1983 Montauk

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1983 Montauk

bobgus posted 05-01-2003 07:24 PM ET (US)
I'm interested in repowering my Montauk. Whaler rates her at 100HP, but I'm not sure of the max eng weight for my year Montauk. My current engine is a 2-stroke weighing in at about 300lbs. Looking to go to a 4-stroke at about 70HP, but unsure about the weight. Need some sound advice.
whalersman posted 05-01-2003 10:35 PM ET (US)
bobgus,
Welcome to this site....
Since no one else has commented here, I will let you know what the majority of people recommend for the engine on a Montauk....
The 70 HP 4 Stroke Suzuki or it's Sister, the 70 HP 4 Stroke Johnson...
I like the White color of the Johnson but others prefer the Suzuki Grayish....
Whatever Floats your Boat..
I do believe if I was going to repower my Montauk from a 1985 70 HP 2 Stroke Evinrude that I would go with the 4 Stroke, 70 HP, Johnson (which is made by Suzuki).....
Perry posted 05-02-2003 03:23 AM ET (US)
The 70 HP Suzuki/Johnson 4 stroke weighs around 340 lbs.
Whalerdan posted 05-02-2003 11:02 AM ET (US)
Since opionons are like armpits, I'll give mine.
I have an '85 Montauk and if I bought a new engine it would be a Yamaha 2s 115.
newt posted 05-02-2003 11:41 AM ET (US)
If you are not sold on the 70 hp 4 stroke, than take a look at the archives on this web site. There have been numerous discussions on re-power for a Montauk. Otherwise, there are several happy Suzuki/Johnson owners here.
NHKatama posted 05-02-2003 08:02 PM ET (US)
I just repowered my 1972 Katama with a 2003 90hp 2s saltwater Merc at 300 lbs best bang for the buck for me, we fish, water ski and cruise, but do not put enough hours on in a year to want to spend the extra $ for a 4s.
Well good luck with whatever engine you decide, ~~~Pete
Bigshot posted 05-09-2003 04:06 PM ET (US)
I have the Evinrude/Suzuki 70 on mine.....LOVE it. About 39mph WOT and cruise at 26 burning about 2-2.5GPH. My 88hp Johnson did 4mph but burned almost 6Gph at cruise. Whisper quiet and can be had for less than a 90 Yamaha 2 stroke. If you have an OMC now the new Johnson wil use the smae controls, etc saving you some $$$$.
JBCornwell posted 05-09-2003 04:26 PM ET (US)
Hi, Bobgus.
I have the Suzuki DF70 sister of Bigshot's Evinrude engine on my Montauk and am even happier with mine than he is with his.
BW has stated a 400lb limit on the transom of the classic 17s.
The Suzuki/Evinrude/Johnson 70 HP EFI 4 stroke engine that we all love so dearly is variously advertized as 336 or 356lb. My guess is that the 20lb difference is oil and prop.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
half shell posted 05-10-2003 07:58 AM ET (US)
I have a sheet stating 330 lbs max on the transom of the classic.However the new larger 170 montauk shows 400 lb max weight on the transom.While at rest the 70 4s places the boat a little to low in the water at the transom for my liking.While running Im sure it performs like a sports car.
And I can only imagine what the fuel injection is like.
Stan posted 05-12-2003 03:53 PM ET (US)
I have a 1972 Montauk and when I sent an e-mail to Boston Whaler about the transom weight limits on my boat, I was informed, because of the way the Montauk distributes it weight, there were no limits listed. I put a 2001 Suzuki 90 hp 4-stroke on mine. The back sits a little lower in the water then before when I had a 1973 85 HP Mercury. Other than that it runs great with exceptionally good gas milage.
Salmon Tub posted 05-12-2003 06:37 PM ET (US)
Hey JB, have a question, does the stated weight also include things like controls and all the other little things that come in the crate but are not hanging on the transom?
JBCornwell posted 05-12-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)
Howdy, Salmon Tub.
No, I don't think so. I think the 336lb is dry, in the crate with no prop.
The 356lb may include controls, guages, prop and even a full crankcase. Just guesses.
Half Shell:
I believe that the 330lb transom limit was for 16/17' boats with rear mounted batteries. Put the battery in the console and the CG of the hull moves a long way forward. Even on a 4" setback, my Suzuki does not wet the splashwell at rest.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
Bigshot posted 05-13-2003 10:51 AM ET (US)
JB...I just got my OMC service manual for the 1999 70hp 4 stroke and it states like 343.5lbs with all fluids installed. I will go by this from now on being the discrepencies out there. If Suzuki states 36 or 338 dry then 343 wet sounds right.
PS I like mine more than you :)
bobgus posted 05-21-2003 08:08 PM ET (US)
Thanks to all. A new Yamaha F90 4-stroke is being installed as we speak. Traded old Johnson as part of package. This was the determining factor. New question: what's the opinions on Yamaha F90's?
Bigshot posted 05-22-2003 10:54 PM ET (US)
They suck......just kidding.
Nothing is a bad outboard, just depends on needs, weight, and pocketbook. The 70 Suzuki met all my criteria. If I had deeper pockets the 90/100 Yamaha would have been a no-brainer but I will still outperform you:)

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: 1983 Montauk
bobgus	posted 05-01-2003 07:24 PM ET (US) I'm interested in repowering my Montauk. Whaler rates her at 100HP, but I'm not sure of the max eng weight for my year Montauk. My current engine is a 2-stroke weighing in at about 300lbs. Looking to go to a 4-stroke at about 70HP, but unsure about the weight. Need some sound advice.
whalersman	posted 05-01-2003 10:35 PM ET (US) bobgus, Welcome to this site.... Since no one else has commented here, I will let you know what the majority of people recommend for the engine on a Montauk.... The 70 HP 4 Stroke Suzuki or it's Sister, the 70 HP 4 Stroke Johnson... I like the White color of the Johnson but others prefer the Suzuki Grayish.... Whatever Floats your Boat.. I do believe if I was going to repower my Montauk from a 1985 70 HP 2 Stroke Evinrude that I would go with the 4 Stroke, 70 HP, Johnson (which is made by Suzuki).....
Perry	posted 05-02-2003 03:23 AM ET (US) The 70 HP Suzuki/Johnson 4 stroke weighs around 340 lbs.
Whalerdan	posted 05-02-2003 11:02 AM ET (US) Since opionons are like armpits, I'll give mine. I have an '85 Montauk and if I bought a new engine it would be a Yamaha 2s 115.
newt	posted 05-02-2003 11:41 AM ET (US) If you are not sold on the 70 hp 4 stroke, than take a look at the archives on this web site. There have been numerous discussions on re-power for a Montauk. Otherwise, there are several happy Suzuki/Johnson owners here.
NHKatama	posted 05-02-2003 08:02 PM ET (US) I just repowered my 1972 Katama with a 2003 90hp 2s saltwater Merc at 300 lbs best bang for the buck for me, we fish, water ski and cruise, but do not put enough hours on in a year to want to spend the extra $ for a 4s. Well good luck with whatever engine you decide, ~~~Pete
Bigshot	posted 05-09-2003 04:06 PM ET (US) I have the Evinrude/Suzuki 70 on mine.....LOVE it. About 39mph WOT and cruise at 26 burning about 2-2.5GPH. My 88hp Johnson did 4mph but burned almost 6Gph at cruise. Whisper quiet and can be had for less than a 90 Yamaha 2 stroke. If you have an OMC now the new Johnson wil use the smae controls, etc saving you some $$$$.
JBCornwell	posted 05-09-2003 04:26 PM ET (US) Hi, Bobgus. I have the Suzuki DF70 sister of Bigshot's Evinrude engine on my Montauk and am even happier with mine than he is with his. BW has stated a 400lb limit on the transom of the classic 17s. The Suzuki/Evinrude/Johnson 70 HP EFI 4 stroke engine that we all love so dearly is variously advertized as 336 or 356lb. My guess is that the 20lb difference is oil and prop. Red sky at night. . . JB
half shell	posted 05-10-2003 07:58 AM ET (US) I have a sheet stating 330 lbs max on the transom of the classic.However the new larger 170 montauk shows 400 lb max weight on the transom.While at rest the 70 4s places the boat a little to low in the water at the transom for my liking.While running Im sure it performs like a sports car. And I can only imagine what the fuel injection is like.
Stan	posted 05-12-2003 03:53 PM ET (US) I have a 1972 Montauk and when I sent an e-mail to Boston Whaler about the transom weight limits on my boat, I was informed, because of the way the Montauk distributes it weight, there were no limits listed. I put a 2001 Suzuki 90 hp 4-stroke on mine. The back sits a little lower in the water then before when I had a 1973 85 HP Mercury. Other than that it runs great with exceptionally good gas milage.
Salmon Tub	posted 05-12-2003 06:37 PM ET (US) Hey JB, have a question, does the stated weight also include things like controls and all the other little things that come in the crate but are not hanging on the transom?
JBCornwell	posted 05-12-2003 07:36 PM ET (US) Howdy, Salmon Tub. No, I don't think so. I think the 336lb is dry, in the crate with no prop. The 356lb may include controls, guages, prop and even a full crankcase. Just guesses. Half Shell: I believe that the 330lb transom limit was for 16/17' boats with rear mounted batteries. Put the battery in the console and the CG of the hull moves a long way forward. Even on a 4" setback, my Suzuki does not wet the splashwell at rest. Red sky at night. . . JB
Bigshot	posted 05-13-2003 10:51 AM ET (US) JB...I just got my OMC service manual for the 1999 70hp 4 stroke and it states like 343.5lbs with all fluids installed. I will go by this from now on being the discrepencies out there. If Suzuki states 36 or 338 dry then 343 wet sounds right. PS I like mine more than you :)
bobgus	posted 05-21-2003 08:08 PM ET (US) Thanks to all. A new Yamaha F90 4-stroke is being installed as we speak. Traded old Johnson as part of package. This was the determining factor. New question: what's the opinions on Yamaha F90's?
Bigshot	posted 05-22-2003 10:54 PM ET (US) They suck......just kidding. Nothing is a bad outboard, just depends on needs, weight, and pocketbook. The 70 Suzuki met all my criteria. If I had deeper pockets the 90/100 Yamaha would have been a no-brainer but I will still outperform you:)