Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
MONTAUK: Best Four-Stroke Kicker
|Author||Topic: MONTAUK: Best Four-Stroke Kicker|
posted 10-21-2004 04:55 PM ET (US)
[What is the] best 4-stroke kicker motor for a 1987 Montauk that will mount on the transom? I am considering a 6/8-HP Johnson or Yamaha motor. I will probably use a tiller rather than dual control setup. Also, is the 20-inch shaft adequate for transom mount? I do not want to drill holes in the transom for a bracket mount. Whalers Forever!
posted 10-21-2004 07:05 PM ET (US)
"Best" is a very relative term, and depends on what you expect from the motor. Even pretty small motors can move the boat at slow speeds.
I'm in the process of putting on a 9.9-HP Yamaha high-thrust four-stroke on my 1985 Montauk. This is probably more motor than is needed for trolling or emergency backup. There will be lots of trips for me where the 9.9 will function as the main motor, horsepower-limited waters, shallow swamps, etc. The standard prop on this motor cannot drive any boat faster than 13-MPH, but that's higher than I need. I figure it's going to provide me any displacement speed I want, with some thrust left over. The high thrust motors have huge props that turn slower.
I have a Yamaha four-stroke 50-HP on, so don't have the weight problems that those with larger motors have, so can tolerate the 100-lb. weight. With moving the battery out of the stern the net change is about 50-lbs. at the stern. Be sure and think through your own weight situation. That may rule out some motors.
The motor I have is a long, 20-inch shaft version. In the starboard mounting spot it will have, that places the cavitation plate just slightly below the bottom of the transom there. I put it on temporary when it arrived just to check and it looks real good. The majority of the prop will be higher than the deepest part of the boat in the center, making it real good for shallow running. Since this motor is not expected to plane the boat, there will be lots of water depth around it. I don't think a short shaft motor would work as that would place the prop behind the transom rather than under--Boston Whaler recommend the long-shaft. A 25-inch or extra-long would definitely be way too long.
I will be bolting the motor to the hull through its lower bracket holes. Don't want to have to worry about clamps coming loose, though they will be used too. There is wood in the transom there for exactly this purpose. No bracket, though I may make up some padding pieces to protect the hull and deal with its curvature on top.
I'm also making this a full remote installation. The motor came used with a partial conversion to remote which I'm completing. Think about remote, sitting back in the stern corner running a motor did not appeal to me when I could do it at the console. You can convert a tiller Yamaha to remote, but there is a fair bundle of parts involved, and you don't want to do a half way job like was done on my motor. Better to get a remote motor.
To my mind if you don't need maximum speed from the installation, just trolling and emergency, the high thrust 8-HP with remote and power tilt is worth looking at. There's a T8 installation detailed in the reference section, though on a OUTRAGE 22. The T8 uses lower pitch propellers, so won't make the speed of a T9.9. Do note we are not talking plane speed, you will only do displacement with either. The T8 actually weighs slightly more than the T9.9 due to the tilt.
If not going for the high thrust engines, the other brand I'd look at is Honda. I have a Honda 50 on another boat and am very happy with it.
posted 10-21-2004 10:46 PM ET (US)
I had an 8-HP kicker on my Montauk and it was more than adequate. If I had it to do over again I'd seriously consider dropping down to a 5- or 6-HP motor to keep cost and weight down.
My last Yamaha was a high-thrust 8, and it was plenty to push my MUCH heavier 21 footer.
I can enthusiastically recommend both Honda and Yamaha kickers, as I have had several of each without a single problem over the course of many years.
posted 10-21-2004 11:15 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the info. I felt that the 8 hp may be too much weight. The Honda or Yamaha have very high marks from other boaters.
posted 10-22-2004 07:47 AM ET (US)
I have a 9.9 Honda on my Montauk. Both the dealer and I figured the 5-HP wouldn't have enough grunt to push the boat in rough water in the event that the main motor (Honda 90) fails, and the next motor up, the 8hp, is simply a detuned 9.9--same engine size, same weight. Obviously I chose to go with the 9.9.
There is a cap that fits over the end of the rubrail where it meets the transom. I removed it and cut back some of the rubrail (around 12") and then put the cap on the new end. It looks quite good. I bored one hole through the transom, gooped plenty of 3M 5200 in the hole, and then mounted the motor with one of the brackets going right through the transom. That way the motor CANNOT fall off--unless it takes a piece of transom with it!
Another note: I put a tee in the main motor's fuel line in between the the primer bulb and the motor. I then ran the kicker's fuel line from this tee, including another primer bulb. Therefore both motors run off the same fuel tank and it works great.
Although when stationary the boat lists a little to the side, when underway the weight is negligible.
Another poster to this site, Peter Dunster (his handle is Banff somethingorother) just purchased a new-to-him OUTRAGE 22 which came with a 9.9 2-stroke. He feels that his kicker isn't enough to push the boat if he was to run into trouble on big water. From my own experience I would have to agree.
posted 10-22-2004 08:53 AM ET (US)
I just went through this drill this summer. From reading these threads I went with a new Johnson 6-HP four-stroke. It has plenty of power, looks good, and the price was decent. I do recommend, as the others have mentioned, to thru bolt it on the transom to avoid loss. I did have to cut into the rubrail but it came out quite nice and almost looks like a professional installation. I did not use a Tee for the gas hook-up. Instead I went with a seperate bulb and fuel line for safety reasons. I would have liked the 8-HP but the weight was a little steep as I have a 90 hanging over the side. Honestly I'm quite happy with this set-up. Good luck, Fred
posted 10-22-2004 09:01 AM ET (US)
For comparison purposes an 8-HP long-shaft on an OUTRAGE 18 is is just about right, trolls nicely, and will give you around 6-10 MPH at WOT, depending on conditions. The only problem is steering with the kicker when winds are in the 10-15-MPH range steering. If it's calm you can set the kicker straight ahead and steer off the helm using the big motor as a rudder; if it's blowing you need to work the kicker. This is where the connecting rod would be nice to have.
posted 10-22-2004 04:51 PM ET (US)
A 1987 Montauk won't have the rub rail problems of the 170, no rub rail modification necessary. And a 170 may say "Montauk" on it, but it's a different boat.
Any of these engines will have two bolt holes on the clamp that will be lined up with the wood. I'd be really nervous depending on one bolt. Clamps can work loose. On one bolt you might find the motor pivoting around the bolt.
The idea mentioned by some that this is a emergency motor should be considered. Emergencies don't just happen on nice days, calm seas, light winds. Think storm and waves, think worst case. At least if you are going with a 6, go with the high thrust. That should give you steerage in most situations.
In my case it's not just a trolling motor and possible emergency motor, but a part time main motor. Thus I went with the 9.9. And I have a big weight advantage as the main is a 50-HP four-stroke.
Another difference between the 8-HP high-thrust and 9.9-HP high-thrust is available propellers. The 8 uses less pitch, which will limit top speed more than the 9.9. Check the pitch, use the prop calculations available elsewhere on the site and see what maximum speed you get at maximum motor RPM. No matter how well the boat moves that's all you will get. I believe the 6 uses the same dual thrust prop as the 8, but its lower horsepower may limit its effective use of it.
Going with a standard motor (high RPM propeller) is going to result in lots of propeller slip. The prop will be turning faster than it should for displacement speeds, with lots of slip at higher throttle settings. Yes the boat moves, but at poor gas usage. Those motors are designed to get really light boats on plane, thus they are set up for higher speed. The very reason why there is a high thrust series.
Note that Honda does not have high thrust, but it's gear ratios are not as bad as some.
posted 10-22-2004 05:15 PM ET (US)
I appreciate all the great information everyone supplied. I may consider the 9.9-HP since I want it for a backup motor as well as a trolling motor. The boat has a 90-HP Johnson two-cycle motor on it now. The great information in regard to optional prop selection and high thrust motors may sway me toward the 9.9-HP motor. Johnson has a 4 stroke 9.9 and will highly consider this setup. I love these boats and just added this one to my fleet of (3) Whalers. Your suggestions are most appreciated and the wealth of information on this web site is awesome. THX again, Whalers forever!
posted 10-23-2004 11:02 AM ET (US)
I really like my Honda 5-HP. I looked at the Yamaha 8p [8-HP?] but it weighed over 80-lbs., if I remember correctly. The Honda was about twenty pounds lighter. It has performed very nicely for me even in conditions that caused us to take some occasional water over the bow.
posted 10-23-2004 11:44 AM ET (US)
I currently have a 5-HP four-stroke Mercury outboard hanging on the back of my 17-foot Boston Whlaer boat, mainly for backup/safety. I must say, when I did need to use it, it moved my Newtauk at a nice clip (5-6-MPH) with two people (besides me) and a full load without a problem. I looked online but decided to buy from my local dealer. It turns out he was within $25 of Ed's and Iboats, and he's about five minutes from my house. I wouldn't go much more [horsepower] than what I have. DaveS
posted 10-24-2004 08:52 AM ET (US)
If your main motor is a two-stroke and not oil injected I would stay with a two-stroke kicker or else you're looking at another fuel tank which will eat up a lot of space.
posted 10-24-2004 09:49 AM ET (US)
[Moved this thread from another forum.]
The Propeller Calculator can be found at:
The article on installation of a Yamaha T-8 auxiliary motor is available at:
I added a link at the end of the article to this discussion.
posted 10-24-2004 10:06 AM ET (US)
I think it is good advice that the fuel requirements for the main and auxiliary motors ought to be similar. Use of pre-mixed fuel is becoming rare these days. If you have a main tank of pre-mixed and need just gasoline for the auxiliary, you will be forced to have two tanks. If your main tank is just gasoline, and you need pre-mixed for the auxiliary, you can buy a device to meter oil into the fuel line of the auxiliary, simulating pre-mixed fuel.
Marine engine mechanics that I trust have recommended using a 3-way valve fitting in place of a simple Tee to connect the two motors to the fuel supply, if sharing a common tank.
In any case, it seems you ought to use two primer bulbs. In this way the check valve in the primer bulb may help prevent fuel from being sucked out of one engine (that is not running) by the other engine's fuel pump (i.e., the engine that is running).
If you think about it, the fuel in the main engine is probably located higher than the auxiliary engine. Thus, when the main engine is off and your auxiliary is running, you have both gravity and suction trying to pull that fuel out of the main and into the auxiliary. Without the 3-way valve you are depending on the check valve in the primer bulb from preventing that from occurring.
posted 10-24-2004 02:44 PM ET (US)
Lots of great suggestions here and I will give you mine..
You already have a 90hp Johnson 2 stroke.
I would recommend the 8hp Johnson 4 stroke as it is lighter than the 9.9 4 stroke Johnson. The 9.9hp 4 stroke Johnson is made by Suzuki and I believe the 8hp is made by Johnson.
8hp Johnson = 88 pounds (rope)
9.9hp Johnson/Suzuki = 99 pounds (rope version)
As many people have mentioned already on this site, the looks of matching main and kicker engines are the way to go.. They simply look great.
I don't feel electric start for me is the way to go. The engine is heavier and you need another battery which adds more weight yet. I prefer the rope start model and you can add engine controls at the helm with a factory adapter kit from Johnson.
I had an 8hp 4 stroke evinrude on my prior Montauk and tried usiing the tiller and a seat in the back.... Hated it... Hated the seat and hated sitting back there... I sold the 4 stroke and bought an 8hp Evinrude 2 stroke kicker..
Here is a photo of the engine setup on my prior Montauk:
Here is a setup of a OMC Dual Binnacle of another Montauk I converted:
And yet more photos of the setup on my Outrage 18 using the same configurations:
Note that there is only one key switch on the console on both boats for the main engine only.
Maybe your Bombardier dealer will hang an 8hp 4 stroke on the back so you get an idea of how it will look. Although looks aren't everything, having the same brand of engines hanging off the back makes it much easier to connect both engine to the fuel system and the engine control system as they would be using (in this case) ALL OMC/Bombardier parts....
And there you have my complete recommendation.
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000