1991 Montauk 17 Engine Upgrade - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1991 Montauk 17 Engine Upgrade

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1991 Montauk 17 Engine Upgrade

clarkc posted 01-03-2006 01:55 PM ET (US)
I am considering re-powering my Montauk 17. It presently has a 1990 Evinrude 88-HP engine. What would work best? Should I go to a four-stroke? How would a 115-HP Yamaha work? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Buckda posted 01-03-2006 03:16 PM ET (US)
The 115 will work with the hull, however you will have to address the "OVERPOWER" with your insurance. No big deal, if you don't mind if you have to change carriers.
As far as getting a shop to rig the boat over the capacity plate rating (90?)...that may be more of a challenge.
If I were you, I'd be interested in the 90 HP motors. Since you have an Evinrude already, check out the E-TEC. The Mercury Optimax 90 HP is a nice motor as well. I think you'd be pleased with either of these motors.
I also think you'll be happy with the Yamaha, but as I said before, there's a few factors: Insurance (more difficult to obtain, however possible); getting a shop to rig the engine (depending on your location, this may be easier or harder); Liability/local law enforcement (in certain communities, the on-water authorities may "ding" you on this one, but elsewhere, they'll let it go. The Coasties will likely leave you alone completely on this front. If you do have an accident, most states cover the "overpowering" above the capacity plate under their reckless operation statutes, so you'll be fighting that battle in court, guaranteed. Hopefully your insurance will help on that front, but in that possibility, you are taking a risk.
Hope that didn't make things worse!
Dave
Teak Oil posted 01-03-2006 03:51 PM ET (US)
I plan to overpower my Montauk but will be doing the rigging myself. I agree with Dave it may be hard to find a dealer that will rig for you
Buckda posted 01-03-2006 03:57 PM ET (US)
...Teak Oil tows his Montauk with a Cummins Diesel Dodge Ram, so his viewpoints regarding "adequate" power are perhaps a little warped!
...just kidding you Bob (but he does tow with the diesel). Seriously, the 115 is a nice motor and should be just fine on this boat. It can handle the weight...it's just a question about your personal situation (location, insurance needs, operation and environment, local authorities and ability to rig the motor yourself).
Going with the E-TEC will allow you to keep the same guages, controls, etc. Switching brands will likely require additional costs associated with these new components. That may also be a contributing factor.
Dave
sosmerc posted 01-04-2006 11:59 AM ET (US)
Highly sugguest you find someone with a similar hull with a 90hp OptiMax that can take you for a test ride....I think you will be surprised how smooth and responsive and smoke free the new DFI two-stroke motors are. Nothing wrong with the 4 strokes either, but the 2 strokes have more "snap" in my opinion and, with DFI, are just as clean and fuel efficient.
Teak Oil posted 01-04-2006 06:10 PM ET (US)
The 120/140 uses a different crank and is a totally different motor, but the 115 is the same as the 90/88, 99 cubic inches
whalerron posted 01-04-2006 11:48 PM ET (US)
Put a two-stroke 90-HP on that boat and you won't be sorry. If you can find a Johnson 90 two-stroke, it is the largest displacement 90-HP made and it has absolutely plenty of power for that boat.
whalersailer posted 01-05-2006 10:21 AM ET (US)
Clark,
How much do you use the boat, and what type of activities do you typically do with her?
I bought a 1989 Montauk and repowered her with an E-TEC 90 last spring. I couldn't be happier with the engine and the performance of the boat. I use my boat for fishing and cruising around with my family (mostly on Lake Superior). The increased range and reduced weight of the E-TEC is very nice for fishing. The low emissions and noise are great for the cruising. Last summer, I only put about 100 hours on her, but for that use (lots of lower speed puting around), I calculate that I used about 1/2 the fuel of a "standard" two-stroke. At $2.00 per gallon, that's about $150 fuel savings. When I put the E-TEC on, there was about a 1-1.5K premium vs. the "standard" two-stroke.
Many here don't think that heavy engines on the back of a classic Montauk hull are a problem, but I respectfully disagree with them. Increased static weight on the transom reduces freeboard, and reduces options.
-WS
clarkc posted 01-05-2006 01:04 PM ET (US)
I would like to thank everyone who responded - it was a big help. I am new to this web site and it is great ! Thanks again.
capedave posted 01-05-2006 11:05 PM ET (US)
I just went with the tried and true 90 Yamaha two-stroke this past fall.
1. Weight 261 lbs
2. No Valves
3. Cost $$$ ($6,200 with basic rig kit,Boat Center of Ft.Lauderdale)
4. Compaired to the old Merc 75 this thing is just as quiet as a mouse, still not as quiet as as 4 strk but no valves, no efi, KISS just plain old Keep It Simple Stupid.Ask any outboard mechanic about them.
1982 Mountauk 2006 90TLR Yamaha all the power I will ever need, and great resale value if I ever decide too sell.
Look back on my posts for the rehab on my boat.
Dave
MIEChasSC posted 01-06-2006 03:02 AM ET (US)
Clark,
Since I see you're in the Charleston area, thought I'd share my recent experience with E-TEC pricing. I just repowered my 1989 Montauk with a 90 E-TEC.(Literally, just two days ago, so haven't had a chance for sea-trials yet.) But regarding pricing, I shopped-around A LOT for this motor, and found the best deal at Custom Marine in Statesboro GA. Motor was $6,935 and rigging was $325. The dealer subtracted the current BRP $340 cash incentive, so I was out the door for less than seven grand. It's a 2+hr drive to Statesboro, but the pricing differential between C-M and the Chas area dealers was substantial. (I would have preferred to buy locally, but the price differential was so large, I felt like I was paying for the dealer's next motor along with mine!). Also, CustomMarine really had their act together regarding selling to SC residents. They'll provide the SC Titling Papers if you need them, and also waive the GA sales tax since you'll be titling in SC (which saves a percent or two). See you on the waterway!
Teak Oil posted 01-07-2006 05:10 PM ET (US)
I have yet to hear of anyone having a bad experience with Custom Marine.
whaler1713 posted 01-29-2006 11:58 AM ET (US)
Make sure you really check on those E-TEC's. I put a 2005 90-HP on my 1989 Montauk and had to take it off. After living with a four-stroke 70-HP Suzuki (2000, sold with boat) I found the E-TEC vibrated, ran rough, smoked, was louder, and had no better fuel economy than the standard two stroke rule of thumb: HP/10 equals gallons per hour WOT. I ran numerous timed tests and was very unhappy that the "economy" did not live up to the promotion by a very wide margin. In my unscientific tests it was just over the rule of thumb. I may have had a lemon, but I was not going to use my scarce free time finding out. I can afford what I want for my Montauk. The 90 E-TEC is outa there, and I have a new 70 Suzuki (2005) AND LOVE IT.
jimh posted 01-29-2006 12:30 PM ET (US)
A motor running at wide open throttle (WOT) is probably not the place to look for a great savings in fuel consumption between a conventional loop-induction two-stroke and a direct-injection two-stroke, or a four-stroke for that matter. To make a certain amount of horsepower, say 90-HP, requires a certain amount of fuel to be burned. I would be surprised if there was more than about ten percent difference in fuel consumption between direct-injection and loop-charged injection engines at WOT.
The difference in fuel consumption rates will be greater at lower speeds. The typical loop-induction two-stroke will burn significantly more fuel at idle and low speeds than a direct-injection two-stroke. A number of tests have reported very significant improvement in fuel economy for the E-TEC at low speeds, often getting four times better fuel economy than a conventional two-stroke.
The amount of improvement which a direct-injection engine will show therefore depends on the type of operating done. If the engine is run at high speeds most of the time, the difference in fuel consumption will be minimal. However, if you troll for ten hours a day, you will very pleasantly surprised by the difference.
alvispollard posted 01-29-2006 04:19 PM ET (US)
Mercury 60 HP 4 stroke Bigfoot and a Yamaha 8 hp high thrust kicker. 350# total weight with dual motors for peace of mind and fuel economy. With a 24 gal. Pate tank, a range of 200 miles cruising and trolling. For most people, 3-4 days of trolling for walleye or king mackeral/spanish mackeral. WOT - 37 with 2 adults and a cruising speed of 20-25. Quiet and economical. A great combination.
Buckda posted 01-29-2006 08:40 PM ET (US)
Well,
I logged on tonight and have so far read two threads containing posts from this Whaler1713 guy.
Out of those two posts, he's dredged up a 7 month old thread to voice his negativ opinion on E-TEC, and this one.
I clicked his name to find that he's posted a grad total fo 4 times since becoming a member.
Need I dig further to find out if he's 100 percent finding threads including the E-TEC 90 and "dissing" it?
Just checking motivations here - new members are great and I'm always excited to meet a new person on this forum, but it seems like there's an agenda here - especially since 7 months after the fact, there is very little likelihood that the original poster had not already made a power decision.
I don't doubt that he had a bad experience with his motor. I also don't doubt that he has had a great experience with his SUZUKI.
I am wondering why he didn't ask his dealer to provide a new E-TEC engine to first determine if he had a Lemon before jumping ship to a new brand - especially since he had a great relationship with that original dealer.
That's what I would do if I have a bad experience with my 90 HP E-TEC motors that I have recently ordered (and not yet picked up). Before moving over to another brand, I'd want to work with my dealer to determine if it was an individual engine problem, or a problem with the brand/model.
Dave
fourdfish posted 01-29-2006 09:18 PM ET (US)
Dave-- If his engine problems were wide spread, I would have read it on one of the several different forums on the internet! I have not seen it anywhere!
LHG posted 01-30-2006 03:05 PM ET (US)
You Evinrude guys shouldn't let posts like that get to you, even if true. Don't be so sensitive. The Mercury people have had to put up with the same stuff for years, and we've survived. Even now, with no Mercury Optimax problems since 2002, there are still new theads on the subject being generated.
http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro .
So get used to it with the Evinrude 90's. Others have complained about them here too. Any engine can have some kind of an occasional problem.
Even a lousy fuel pump problem on a Verado in AUSTRALIA gets top billing here
deepwater posted 01-30-2006 06:42 PM ET (US)
hey guys don't forget that trimming out your boat is important to and not running it through the oyster beds has always improver my water pump life not to mention the overall efficiency of my prop and oil don't forget oil it has to be put in the gas to work and in just the right amount also i do love this spell check now
fourdfish posted 01-30-2006 07:11 PM ET (US)
deepwater-what?
jimh posted 01-30-2006 08:51 PM ET (US)
Dave--not all (of the four) articles posted by author whaler1713 contain unsolicited negative testimonials about previous engines he has owned--only three of them. However, I do believe all of them contain mentions of publications he has authored on related maritime subjects.

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: 1991 Montauk 17 Engine Upgrade
clarkc	posted 01-03-2006 01:55 PM ET (US) I am considering re-powering my Montauk 17. It presently has a 1990 Evinrude 88-HP engine. What would work best? Should I go to a four-stroke? How would a 115-HP Yamaha work? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Buckda	posted 01-03-2006 03:16 PM ET (US) The 115 will work with the hull, however you will have to address the "OVERPOWER" with your insurance. No big deal, if you don't mind if you have to change carriers. As far as getting a shop to rig the boat over the capacity plate rating (90?)...that may be more of a challenge. If I were you, I'd be interested in the 90 HP motors. Since you have an Evinrude already, check out the E-TEC. The Mercury Optimax 90 HP is a nice motor as well. I think you'd be pleased with either of these motors. I also think you'll be happy with the Yamaha, but as I said before, there's a few factors: Insurance (more difficult to obtain, however possible); getting a shop to rig the engine (depending on your location, this may be easier or harder); Liability/local law enforcement (in certain communities, the on-water authorities may "ding" you on this one, but elsewhere, they'll let it go. The Coasties will likely leave you alone completely on this front. If you do have an accident, most states cover the "overpowering" above the capacity plate under their reckless operation statutes, so you'll be fighting that battle in court, guaranteed. Hopefully your insurance will help on that front, but in that possibility, you are taking a risk. Hope that didn't make things worse! Dave
Teak Oil	posted 01-03-2006 03:51 PM ET (US) I plan to overpower my Montauk but will be doing the rigging myself. I agree with Dave it may be hard to find a dealer that will rig for you
Buckda	posted 01-03-2006 03:57 PM ET (US) ...Teak Oil tows his Montauk with a Cummins Diesel Dodge Ram, so his viewpoints regarding "adequate" power are perhaps a little warped! ...just kidding you Bob (but he does tow with the diesel). Seriously, the 115 is a nice motor and should be just fine on this boat. It can handle the weight...it's just a question about your personal situation (location, insurance needs, operation and environment, local authorities and ability to rig the motor yourself). Going with the E-TEC will allow you to keep the same guages, controls, etc. Switching brands will likely require additional costs associated with these new components. That may also be a contributing factor. Dave
sosmerc	posted 01-04-2006 11:59 AM ET (US) Highly sugguest you find someone with a similar hull with a 90hp OptiMax that can take you for a test ride....I think you will be surprised how smooth and responsive and smoke free the new DFI two-stroke motors are. Nothing wrong with the 4 strokes either, but the 2 strokes have more "snap" in my opinion and, with DFI, are just as clean and fuel efficient.
Teak Oil	posted 01-04-2006 06:10 PM ET (US) The 120/140 uses a different crank and is a totally different motor, but the 115 is the same as the 90/88, 99 cubic inches
whalerron	posted 01-04-2006 11:48 PM ET (US) Put a two-stroke 90-HP on that boat and you won't be sorry. If you can find a Johnson 90 two-stroke, it is the largest displacement 90-HP made and it has absolutely plenty of power for that boat.
whalersailer	posted 01-05-2006 10:21 AM ET (US) Clark, How much do you use the boat, and what type of activities do you typically do with her? I bought a 1989 Montauk and repowered her with an E-TEC 90 last spring. I couldn't be happier with the engine and the performance of the boat. I use my boat for fishing and cruising around with my family (mostly on Lake Superior). The increased range and reduced weight of the E-TEC is very nice for fishing. The low emissions and noise are great for the cruising. Last summer, I only put about 100 hours on her, but for that use (lots of lower speed puting around), I calculate that I used about 1/2 the fuel of a "standard" two-stroke. At $2.00 per gallon, that's about $150 fuel savings. When I put the E-TEC on, there was about a 1-1.5K premium vs. the "standard" two-stroke. Many here don't think that heavy engines on the back of a classic Montauk hull are a problem, but I respectfully disagree with them. Increased static weight on the transom reduces freeboard, and reduces options. -WS
clarkc	posted 01-05-2006 01:04 PM ET (US) I would like to thank everyone who responded - it was a big help. I am new to this web site and it is great ! Thanks again.
capedave	posted 01-05-2006 11:05 PM ET (US) I just went with the tried and true 90 Yamaha two-stroke this past fall. 1. Weight 261 lbs 2. No Valves 3. Cost $$$ ($6,200 with basic rig kit,Boat Center of Ft.Lauderdale) 4. Compaired to the old Merc 75 this thing is just as quiet as a mouse, still not as quiet as as 4 strk but no valves, no efi, KISS just plain old Keep It Simple Stupid.Ask any outboard mechanic about them. 1982 Mountauk 2006 90TLR Yamaha all the power I will ever need, and great resale value if I ever decide too sell. Look back on my posts for the rehab on my boat. Dave
MIEChasSC	posted 01-06-2006 03:02 AM ET (US) Clark, Since I see you're in the Charleston area, thought I'd share my recent experience with E-TEC pricing. I just repowered my 1989 Montauk with a 90 E-TEC.(Literally, just two days ago, so haven't had a chance for sea-trials yet.) But regarding pricing, I shopped-around A LOT for this motor, and found the best deal at Custom Marine in Statesboro GA. Motor was $6,935 and rigging was $325. The dealer subtracted the current BRP $340 cash incentive, so I was out the door for less than seven grand. It's a 2+hr drive to Statesboro, but the pricing differential between C-M and the Chas area dealers was substantial. (I would have preferred to buy locally, but the price differential was so large, I felt like I was paying for the dealer's next motor along with mine!). Also, CustomMarine really had their act together regarding selling to SC residents. They'll provide the SC Titling Papers if you need them, and also waive the GA sales tax since you'll be titling in SC (which saves a percent or two). See you on the waterway!
Teak Oil	posted 01-07-2006 05:10 PM ET (US) I have yet to hear of anyone having a bad experience with Custom Marine.
whaler1713	posted 01-29-2006 11:58 AM ET (US) Make sure you really check on those E-TEC's. I put a 2005 90-HP on my 1989 Montauk and had to take it off. After living with a four-stroke 70-HP Suzuki (2000, sold with boat) I found the E-TEC vibrated, ran rough, smoked, was louder, and had no better fuel economy than the standard two stroke rule of thumb: HP/10 equals gallons per hour WOT. I ran numerous timed tests and was very unhappy that the "economy" did not live up to the promotion by a very wide margin. In my unscientific tests it was just over the rule of thumb. I may have had a lemon, but I was not going to use my scarce free time finding out. I can afford what I want for my Montauk. The 90 E-TEC is outa there, and I have a new 70 Suzuki (2005) AND LOVE IT.
jimh	posted 01-29-2006 12:30 PM ET (US) A motor running at wide open throttle (WOT) is probably not the place to look for a great savings in fuel consumption between a conventional loop-induction two-stroke and a direct-injection two-stroke, or a four-stroke for that matter. To make a certain amount of horsepower, say 90-HP, requires a certain amount of fuel to be burned. I would be surprised if there was more than about ten percent difference in fuel consumption between direct-injection and loop-charged injection engines at WOT. The difference in fuel consumption rates will be greater at lower speeds. The typical loop-induction two-stroke will burn significantly more fuel at idle and low speeds than a direct-injection two-stroke. A number of tests have reported very significant improvement in fuel economy for the E-TEC at low speeds, often getting four times better fuel economy than a conventional two-stroke. The amount of improvement which a direct-injection engine will show therefore depends on the type of operating done. If the engine is run at high speeds most of the time, the difference in fuel consumption will be minimal. However, if you troll for ten hours a day, you will very pleasantly surprised by the difference.
alvispollard	posted 01-29-2006 04:19 PM ET (US) Mercury 60 HP 4 stroke Bigfoot and a Yamaha 8 hp high thrust kicker. 350# total weight with dual motors for peace of mind and fuel economy. With a 24 gal. Pate tank, a range of 200 miles cruising and trolling. For most people, 3-4 days of trolling for walleye or king mackeral/spanish mackeral. WOT - 37 with 2 adults and a cruising speed of 20-25. Quiet and economical. A great combination.
Buckda	posted 01-29-2006 08:40 PM ET (US) Well, I logged on tonight and have so far read two threads containing posts from this Whaler1713 guy. Out of those two posts, he's dredged up a 7 month old thread to voice his negativ opinion on E-TEC, and this one. I clicked his name to find that he's posted a grad total fo 4 times since becoming a member. Need I dig further to find out if he's 100 percent finding threads including the E-TEC 90 and "dissing" it? Just checking motivations here - new members are great and I'm always excited to meet a new person on this forum, but it seems like there's an agenda here - especially since 7 months after the fact, there is very little likelihood that the original poster had not already made a power decision. I don't doubt that he had a bad experience with his motor. I also don't doubt that he has had a great experience with his SUZUKI. I am wondering why he didn't ask his dealer to provide a new E-TEC engine to first determine if he had a Lemon before jumping ship to a new brand - especially since he had a great relationship with that original dealer. That's what I would do if I have a bad experience with my 90 HP E-TEC motors that I have recently ordered (and not yet picked up). Before moving over to another brand, I'd want to work with my dealer to determine if it was an individual engine problem, or a problem with the brand/model. Dave
fourdfish	posted 01-29-2006 09:18 PM ET (US) Dave-- If his engine problems were wide spread, I would have read it on one of the several different forums on the internet! I have not seen it anywhere!
LHG	posted 01-30-2006 03:05 PM ET (US) You Evinrude guys shouldn't let posts like that get to you, even if true. Don't be so sensitive. The Mercury people have had to put up with the same stuff for years, and we've survived. Even now, with no Mercury Optimax problems since 2002, there are still new theads on the subject being generated. http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro . So get used to it with the Evinrude 90's. Others have complained about them here too. Any engine can have some kind of an occasional problem. Even a lousy fuel pump problem on a Verado in AUSTRALIA gets top billing here
deepwater	posted 01-30-2006 06:42 PM ET (US) hey guys don't forget that trimming out your boat is important to and not running it through the oyster beds has always improver my water pump life not to mention the overall efficiency of my prop and oil don't forget oil it has to be put in the gas to work and in just the right amount also i do love this spell check now
fourdfish	posted 01-30-2006 07:11 PM ET (US) deepwater-what?
jimh	posted 01-30-2006 08:51 PM ET (US) Dave--not all (of the four) articles posted by author whaler1713 contain unsolicited negative testimonials about previous engines he has owned--only three of them. However, I do believe all of them contain mentions of publications he has authored on related maritime subjects.