Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Yamaha 100 4 stroke on a Montauk 17

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Yamaha 100 4 stroke on a Montauk 17
sailorman1986 posted 01-28-2004 05:06 PM ET (US)   Profile for sailorman1986   Send Email to sailorman1986  
I'm thinking of buying a mint condition 1989 Montauk that has a 1999 Yamaha 100-HP 4-stroke with low hours. I read about repowering and engine weights from various manufacturers on the repowering section of this site. I can't sea trial the boat for a while because the harbor is iced in. I noticed that the 100 4 was the biggest engine listed for the Montauk. Anyone care to comment on this big an engine on a Montauk or will it be fine?
weekendwarrior posted 01-28-2004 08:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for weekendwarrior  Send Email to weekendwarrior     
I've got a 1996 Montauk with a 50HP 4-stroke (212#). The motor by itself is not too much weight, but when I fill my 22gal livewell that sits towards the back of the boat it rides a little higher in the front than I would prefer in rough water. I am guessing that would be similar to having a 400# motor on the back. If you're not in rough water often, or you have something heavy to put in the front then it should ride OK I would think. But if you want to add something heavy towards the rear (fuel tank, livewell, etc..) then maybe look for a lighter motor or a fin of some sort to raise the stern in rough water. I could be mistaken but I believe the 96' is actually rated for a 400# motor, I would assume your year would be similar. Hope this helps.
jimh posted 01-29-2004 01:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The rating sticker on a 1989 MONTAUK should say 100-HP, so the motor is a good choice on the basis of horsepower. You might be interested to know that Yamaha de-rated that motor to 90-HP in later model years.

As for the weight, it is about 370 lbs. I think. I don't recall any reports that this was excessive weight for the hull, although it is perhaps a bit on the heavy side.

Bigshot posted 01-30-2004 01:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Reports are stick with an EFI engine in the 4 strokes. The 90/100 Yamaha is giving their owners about 41-42mph WOt. My 70 Suzuki EFI 4 stroke does about 39. For the extra money, weight, and no EFI I think the 70 Suzuki is the best engine for a 17' unless you really need the extra 2-3mph wide open.
********* posted 02-01-2004 10:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for *********  Send Email to *********     
I have a friend that has a 17 Montauk powered by a 2003 115 EFI 4-stroke Mercury that works fine. But not too good in rough seas. The 100/90-HP Yamaha I'm sure is a little lighter (than the 115-HP Mercury). [Actually the Yamaha 90 weighs 370 lbs. and the Mercury 115 weighs just 16 lbs. more. Twentyfive more horsepower for 16 more pounds sounds like a good trade--jimh]
NausetBoy posted 02-02-2004 07:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for NausetBoy  Send Email to NausetBoy     
I have a Nauset with a 2001 Yammy 100 Four Stroke. It does fine, no transom [problems] at all. The milage is great and hole shot is okay. The top speed on mine is 44. Hop this helps.

Sonny

ALAFIARAT posted 02-03-2004 07:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for ALAFIARAT  Send Email to ALAFIARAT     
Saliorman, I have had a 2000 F100 4 stroke on my Newport for the last 3 years,great motor ,very good mileage and very quiet . About 44 mph .I did put a 28 gallon fuel tank under the console (the Newport console is 43 inches wide) years ago and that made my boat sit flat at rest .Plenty of power,I can set the tach at 4000 and cruise at about 35 mph , good luck Dave
jimh posted 02-04-2004 08:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Administrative post]
sailorman1986 posted 02-04-2004 09:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for sailorman1986  Send Email to sailorman1986     
ALAFIARAT:
Thanks for you reply. I take it from your response that your boat sits better in the water with the addition of the 28 gallon gas tank, is that correct? Did you place the larger tank under the seat?
sailorman1986 posted 02-04-2004 09:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for sailorman1986  Send Email to sailorman1986     
Sorry Alafiarat,
I see that you place it under the console.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.