DAUNTLESS 16 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  DAUNTLESS 16

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   DAUNTLESS 16

William Kenney posted 03-07-2006 09:52 PM ET (US)
I have had a 1999 DAUNTLESS 16 with a 90-HP Mercury. For four years prior I had a MONTAUK 17. I felt the DAUNTLESS 16 would handle better in [Alaska] where I fish every other year for a couple weeks. I also regularly fish Lake Powell, Utah, elevation 3,500-feet.
When, say, 600-pounds of fisherman are on board, there is approximately a 30-percent drop in gas milage as opposed to less than 400-pounds (or two fisherman). Also I feel due to the 45-gallon gas tank in rear half of boat, along with people and outboard, the boat is too stern heavy. OK I know that's a no brainer.
Now what's the easiest solution? Maybe an Outrage 18? Another Montauk? Or maybe a 115-HP E-TEC on the Dauntless? Know I can get some good input. Sure would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks
jimh posted 03-07-2006 11:41 PM ET (US)
Adding 600-pounds to a small lightweight boat will have a big effect on the fuel consumption.
It will be a while before you can buy a 115-HP E-TEC, and even when they are finally available, I imagine they'll be as heavy or even heavier than your current motor.
William Kenney posted 03-08-2006 11:12 AM ET (US)
Jimb My 1975 Montauk had a 65 HP Merc did fine with 600 lbs of weight its also a small boat. I'm wondering if the Dauntless isn't a bit of a mistake by B/W . Reading other comments on the Dauntless on continusWave after posting my question. I know the old Montauks were much lighter than the newer Montauks around 900 lbs bare hull verses 1400 lbs today so very poss it takes a 90 HP on the new Montauks to do the same as my old boat. That's why I posted . I know there are B/W people out there with some answers to my questions. I do understand your comments (has to do with displacement)but still need solutions. I believe the early 90's 18 ft outrage is around 1200 lbs actually lighter than my dauntless plus maybe much better motor balance due to length and design. Its getting a good balance between boat motor and of course efficency today that's important to me . I want good resonable economy at 28-30 mph really don't care if boat is super fast. Thanks William Kenney
highanddry posted 03-08-2006 02:08 PM ET (US)
All this weight stuff is BS. Boston Whaler misrepresented weights on early models. The Montauk 170 weighs more than earlier versions because it is a bigger boat. You can put a classic Montauk inside a 170 very nearly with room left over. In any case it is noticeably larger and therefore heavier and therefore also rides better. The rest of it is preference, looks, opinion.
I don't understand the Dauntless either or why BW makes so many similar boats but obviously somebody does because they buy them and are happy with them. J

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: DAUNTLESS 16
William Kenney	posted 03-07-2006 09:52 PM ET (US) I have had a 1999 DAUNTLESS 16 with a 90-HP Mercury. For four years prior I had a MONTAUK 17. I felt the DAUNTLESS 16 would handle better in [Alaska] where I fish every other year for a couple weeks. I also regularly fish Lake Powell, Utah, elevation 3,500-feet. When, say, 600-pounds of fisherman are on board, there is approximately a 30-percent drop in gas milage as opposed to less than 400-pounds (or two fisherman). Also I feel due to the 45-gallon gas tank in rear half of boat, along with people and outboard, the boat is too stern heavy. OK I know that's a no brainer. Now what's the easiest solution? Maybe an Outrage 18? Another Montauk? Or maybe a 115-HP E-TEC on the Dauntless? Know I can get some good input. Sure would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks
jimh	posted 03-07-2006 11:41 PM ET (US) Adding 600-pounds to a small lightweight boat will have a big effect on the fuel consumption. It will be a while before you can buy a 115-HP E-TEC, and even when they are finally available, I imagine they'll be as heavy or even heavier than your current motor.
William Kenney	posted 03-08-2006 11:12 AM ET (US) Jimb My 1975 Montauk had a 65 HP Merc did fine with 600 lbs of weight its also a small boat. I'm wondering if the Dauntless isn't a bit of a mistake by B/W . Reading other comments on the Dauntless on continusWave after posting my question. I know the old Montauks were much lighter than the newer Montauks around 900 lbs bare hull verses 1400 lbs today so very poss it takes a 90 HP on the new Montauks to do the same as my old boat. That's why I posted . I know there are B/W people out there with some answers to my questions. I do understand your comments (has to do with displacement)but still need solutions. I believe the early 90's 18 ft outrage is around 1200 lbs actually lighter than my dauntless plus maybe much better motor balance due to length and design. Its getting a good balance between boat motor and of course efficency today that's important to me . I want good resonable economy at 28-30 mph really don't care if boat is super fast. Thanks William Kenney
highanddry	posted 03-08-2006 02:08 PM ET (US) All this weight stuff is BS. Boston Whaler misrepresented weights on early models. The Montauk 170 weighs more than earlier versions because it is a bigger boat. You can put a classic Montauk inside a 170 very nearly with room left over. In any case it is noticeably larger and therefore heavier and therefore also rides better. The rest of it is preference, looks, opinion. I don't understand the Dauntless either or why BW makes so many similar boats but obviously somebody does because they buy them and are happy with them. J