Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Dauntless 17

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

Author Topic:   Dauntless 17
sjonnie posted 06-22-2007 12:08 PM ET (US)   Profile for sjonnie   Send Email to sjonnie  
Hello everyone,

Here is a question for perhaps Tom Clark or anyone else who knows technical detail on the different Whaler hulls.

My name is John van Helvert and I'm from the Netherlands. I was wondering if anyone on continuos wave has any experience with the Dauntless 17 (1996). I'm looking for a smaller Whaler, live on the sea in the Netherlands and want to use the boot for touring but also do a bit of fishing in the sea. I will only go out if weather permits this and most of the fishing will be done up to 10 miles off-shore. Only in specific good weather situations will I go out some more distance. Mostly for fuel budget reasons I'm looking for a boat like the Montauk 170, a Dauntless 180 or perhaps the Dauntless 17. At this moment I have a chance to buy a Dauntless 17 but it does not resemble the Dauntless boats like the 160 or 180. It much more resembles an Outrage 17 II. I very much like the Montauk 170 but the person I can buy the Dauntless 17 from tells me that this boat is much better suitable for rougher seas then the Montauk 170. I have been trying to research this boat but not much is to be found on the websites I have visited. In the Netherlands I also do not know anyone who has experience with this boat. As I understand they where only produced during 2 years, what was the reason(s) for that, does anyone know? That is indeed a short period for 'boat of the year'. I'm also told that the Dauntless is even better for rougher seas then the 190 Outrage (Nantucket) because even the hull of the Nantucket flattens out more towards the transom.

I very much enjoy reading in the forums of continuous wave and already have learned a lot.

I look forward to hopefully some feedback on the Dauntless 17.

John

erik selis posted 06-23-2007 05:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Hello John,

Welcome to the forum. It's very nice to see that you have registered here and are now an active member.

I'm sure there are people here that will give you good advice on the questions you ask.

Let me just mention to the other members here that John is a fantastic photographer that has also taken exceptional photographs of Boston Whaler boats. Some have been published in several magazines here in Europe. He is also a well know, sponsored sports-fisherman. His DVD is famous among the zander fishermen here in the Benelux and beyond.

I am also curious to what the people, that have experience with the 1997-Dauntless 17, have to say concerning the ride and the offshore handling of this boat.

I personally think the 190 Outrage is the boat for you. At a price of course.

Erik

Tom W Clark posted 06-23-2007 09:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
John,

The Dauntless 17 was made from 1995 through 1997. Is is a dual console model (like the Ventura), NOT a center console so I am suspicious that the boat you are referring to is a Dauntless 17 at all, unless it was converted.

What year is the boat in question? What is the HIN? Do you have a photo of it to share?

sjonnie posted 06-24-2007 03:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hi Tom and Erik,

Thanks for the warm welcome to this forum Erik, very much appreciated.

Tom, perhaps my post was a bit unclear at some points conerning the Dauntless 17. I did already sent the owner a request to mail me the HIN, so as soon as I receive this, I will put it in a post. The boat I'm referring to is officially called the Dauntless 17 and year is 1996. But what I meant by saying that it does not resemble the hull of a Dauntless 160 or 180 is that these Dauntless boats are the 'normal' center console type boats and have a more moderate deep-vee (semi deep vee) hull. The boat I have actually testdrivven today has dual consoles and a much more deep vee hull, which comes very close to that of the Outrage 17 II. This Dauntless boat can be found on page 16 of the 1997 catalogue. It is said by the owner that, because of it's more deep vee hull, it wil better perform in rougher water then the new Montauk 170, or even the 190 (Nantucket) hull because they flatten out more towards the transom. My question to any whaler fan who as experience with the Dauntless 17 (1996) and hopefully also the Montauk 170 and/or Outrage 190: Is it true what the owner is claiming? The other question 'what is the reason that this specific Whaler was only produced 1995 through 1997' (like you are saying Tom) is something I'm curious about. If it was voted 'boat of the year' in the US, then this is saying something isn't it? By the way: today I actually had a testdrive in this boat and I really like the lay out. I have driven the Outrage 17II before and that boat is 6 inches longer then the Dauntless 17, but the big difference of the inside room in favor of the slightly smaller Dauntless 17 is apparant. I really liked the boat but was not impressed by the 125 Merc. I personally am used to the four stroke Yamaha's and am also interested in the E-tech engines. The tested boat performed well but I think it could be better with a bit more power (150 hp).

John

erik selis posted 06-25-2007 02:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Here are some pictures of the Dauntless 17 John is referring to.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_E43E6A0E-0DEB-4C50-B64A-2BEEC7F.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_D5232F4E-22EA-49B3-B0D2-4CE7E58.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_CAD7AB1D-100A-4BAB-9717-BBE3F0F.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_AF2F5761-F070-4D58-8D01-305102B.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_38EA2606-50D6-4A67-9D39-3AEE7CC.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/cid_5FE062BE-F59A-4DE2-8EF1-CEC2F6B.jpg

The HIN N° is BWCW A758 F696.

Erik


sjonnie posted 06-25-2007 04:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Thanks a lot Erik for helping me with the pictures of the dauntless 17.
I wasn't shure how to get them in the post.

I hope this gives enough info.

John

Tom W Clark posted 06-26-2007 11:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
John,

Yes, that is the Dauntless 17, dual console. That is a sit-down boat, not a stand-up center console like a Montauk or an Outrage (or other Dauntless.)

I have neighbors with a Dauntless 17 and they use if primarily for water skiing and tubing with their kids. It is a nice looking boat.

sjonnie posted 06-27-2007 03:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Tom,

Thanks for the reply, but it still leaves me with the questions I origanally asked: is the Dauntless 17 of 1996 indeed the same hull as the Outrage 17 II. I noticed myself that the Dauntless is 6 inches shorter but apart from that it looks very simular to the Outrage. Also, have you any idea why this boat's production period was so short. You say that it is a nice looking boat, but do you mean thr Dauntless 17 in generall or also the one Erik sent you in the pics. Of course I'm still interested in your professional oppinion about it's rough water capabilities. It seems to me that this boat, due to the deep-vee will outperform any of the Dauntless models after 1998/1999 because they have a semi deep vee. Tom, have you ever been out on the water yourself in a Dauntless 17 ? The boat you see in the pictures is the one that is up for sale here in the Netherlands, unfortunately all of the upholstery was lost over the years so I also would like to know if a complete set of upholstery can still be ordered for this boat. I appologize Tom for asking so many questions, but you seem to be the Whaler expert to ask them. Some months ago I ordered your CD's with the catalogues and I very much enjoyed looking at all of these wonderfull Whalers. I quess I have become a Whaler afficionado over the past 34 years but was never in a financial position to own one. This year the time has finally come for me to actually buy my Boston Whaler and I hope I will make the right decision. If any one else on this forum want's to comment on my post's please feel free to do so. I know that most of the Boston Whaler afficionado's will like the center console boats over the dual console and so did I untill I set eyes on the Dauntless 17, which I really think is an underestimated boat in terms of it's multi functionality. I'm a real avid fisherman and have never even given this boat any consideration, but when I saw this boat for the first time I was struck by it's very functionall and very roomy lay out. You actually have much more fishing room in this boat compared to the CC. Buying the right boat of course involves many things and I would like to be more sure of it's seagoing capabilities. Last week I testdriven this but on a large river in Holland with heavy tanker traffic that produced not really big waves but very complicated water in terms of waves coming directly from the ships, but also crossing back and forth from the shoreline. The Dauntless felt very safe and the ride was 100% a dry ride, I never even came close to a dry ride with Outrages up to 25 feet. In a CC one is much more exposed to the elements. This Dauntless however did have some sternheavy issues, we started out with 5 people in the boat and it had a bit of a problem getting quickly on plane with the 2 stroke 125 hp Mercury. Trim tabs could give better results but perhaps a Doelfin can do this also, which is a simpler solution. I'm also thinking of a repower with a 150 hp E-tech. The fourstroke engines will probably make her even more stearnheavy, so the lighter weighing e-tech seem to make sense. Is there a reason to doubt the e-techs in the long run? I will mainly use the boat in salt water. Tom, I sincerely hope you can comment on this boat, the questions I have and if you have any comment on my way of thinking (Doelfin, E-tech or anything else) please feel free to tell me in all honesty. I thrust your oppinion. It goes almost without saying that I would value any input from other people who have personal experience with the Dauntless 17. Thanks alot beforehand, hope to get some more input on this.
Good luck to anyone else who is presently going through the difficult buying process.
Best regards,
John van Helvert

DBOutrage17 posted 06-27-2007 10:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for DBOutrage17    
I bought my Outrage 17 II in January 1996 for spring delivery and have kept the original brochure from then.

The stats on the back of the brochure are as follows for the two boats you are comparing:

1996 17 Outrage 17 Dauntless
LOA 5.34m 5.2m
Beam 2.14m 2.14m
Draft .3m .3m
Boat Weight 765kg 675kg
Max Wt. Capacity 730kg 765kg
Swamped Capacity 1170kg 1125kg
Persons Capacity 7 7
Max HP 113kw 98kw
Min HP 68kw 68kw
Recommended Engine Shaft Length .64m .64m
Standard Fuel Capacity 212 l 148 l

I even copied the funny numbers you guys use for measurements over there. Dauntless 17 is a little shorter, lighter, holds less petrol, and can use a smaller engine.

Good luck on your decision.
DB

erik selis posted 06-29-2007 10:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
John,

Here are some links with discussions about the Dauntless 17 like you are interested in. Maybe you haven't read these yet.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000794.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/009565.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003432.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004738.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/002811.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002681.html

These are just a few. If you do a search using the search function here you will find many more.

Maybe you could also contact some Dauntless 17 owners via e-mail. Their e-mail address is usually available in the small letterbox beside their forum name.

Hope this helps you out.

Erik

sjonnie posted 06-30-2007 11:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hello everyone,

Thank you DBOutrage 17 for you comments, I had hoped for more feedback from other Dauntless 17 or Outrage 17 II users but perhaps the Dauntless 17 is not such a popular boat by Whaler afficionado's. Personally, I like many different Whalers be it Classic, Post Classic and even some of the modern Whalers like the Montauk 170. Thanks again Erik for your help, very much appreciated! I did read these discussions in the links, still not to much on the seaworthyness of this Dauntless.

Since there is not so much feedback on this post, I'm just wondering: is it in the right forum? Should I move it to another forum?

John


Tom W Clark posted 06-30-2007 12:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
John,

I have no personal experience with either the Dauntless 17 or the 17' Outrage II. I am unclear if there are based on the same mold. I can find nothing definitive to prove it one way or the other.

It does seem odd that Whaler would abandon a mold after only a few years, but in terms of the model, I do not think Whaler has ever done well with the dual console concept.

The first true dual console was the 16SL and while there are those who love theirs, Whaler did not sell a lot of them. Likewise I do not think the Ventura line was a big seller or even the early Dauntless 20.

This may explain why the Dauntless 17 was short lived. I certainly know nothing that would indicate there was anything wrong with the Dauntless 17. I would think that if it fits your needs, go for it.

In terms of the ride, the helm position will have far more to do with comfort than the hull. There is a profound difference in the sense of comfort between the Outrage 25 and the Revenge 25 even though the hulls are exactly the same. If you can stand up and be standing further aft in the hull, you will be able to tackle MUCH larger, sloppy waves.

Richard Quinlivan posted 06-30-2007 02:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for Richard Quinlivan  Send Email to Richard Quinlivan     
I had a Dauntless 17 from 1995 until 2005 and found it to be a great boat. Immediately before that I had a 1975 Montauk so I could easily compare them. The Dauntless 17 was much more comfortable then the Montauk for 4 people. With the seat back you could easily drive it standing up if you wanted to. My boating is mostly done in the Finger Lakes of New York States which are big enough to have some seriously rough water. My boat was powered by a Merc 125.

I had a High 5 20" pitch and a Laser II 20" pitch props. The boat would reach 45 mph with the Laser II on a good day.

The boat rode fine in the waters I boated in within the limitations of a 17 foot boat. It will porpose at mid speed with trim. That was my chief complaintI had the engine as high as it would go and that helped but the real help was the addition of a Turbo Lift planing aid which is currently being discussed in one of the other forums.

Dick Quinlivan

sjonnie posted 07-04-2007 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hello Tom and Richard,

Thank you for your comments, very much appreciated.
Tom, I do understand your point about the helm position in relation to handling larger seas in comfort. I photographed Boston Whaler boats during different occasions and I can tell from personal experience that sitting in one of the quarter seats in an Outrgae 210, was just about the only position in the boats where I could work my camera (without getting a real beating) while the boat was driven in great speed. In the meanwhile I was photographing another Outrage 210 that was flying all over the place. In terms of comfort and body and boat control, a standing up position is more preferable then a sitting down position. On the other hand, I have driven Classic Outrage 18 boats with 150 Optimax and an accutrack Outrage 17II with a Yamaha 130 and while driving the boat at great speed, I felt comfortable but my compagnion, and in certain cases my girlfriend, where not as secure and comfortable at all. When you yourself is driving you anticipate certain movement and most of the time you know just a little earlier which way you are going to steer the boat. A compagnion driver is always slower in their reaction, because one has to follow the innitiative of the person at the helm. In that situation you can feel a bit uncertain and unstable when you are in standing position next to the driver behind the center console. On the other hand, in a dual console the compagnion driver can be more at ease and is in a much more stable sitting down position without getting surprised while off guard. Of course, that is true in reasonable water, and not in very rough water with high seas. Then it is a bit better for your back to be standing up. Anyway, I really love the Dauntless 17, and am still in love with many other Boston Whalers. Yesterday, I bought the boat and am thinking of trading in the older technique 125 Merc for a 150 E-tech. I want to go for the 150 to get this deep-vee baby faster on plane and then pull back a bit on the rpm's and then I think I'm more fuel efficient in comparison to buying a 115 or 130 e-tech, and letting that V-4 engine work 100% WOT most of the time. Thanks again Tom for sharing your thoughts, if you have any suggestion on the right propellor for this combination then I would be very happy to hear that.

Also many thanks to you Richard, good to hear some hands on experience with this boat. Thanks for your propellor suggestion, that could come in handy if I where to stick with the Merc. I'm interested to see if the purpoising problem will still exist with the E-tech 150 with the larger cavitation plate. I suppose one has better trim & speed control over the boat with a more powerfull engine. If anything still comes to mind that you would like to share on this boat then I would appreciate that Richard. What kind of boat are you using today Richard? Did you upgrade to a bigger boat with less limitations with rougher water? If so, did it make a big difference or not to much?

John van Helvert

davidby posted 07-05-2007 09:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for davidby  Send Email to davidby     
Hi all,

I have had my 1996 Dauntless 17 w/ Johnson Ocean Runner 115hp for about two weeks now and am loving it. I have it on a mooring by my cottage in mid-coast Maine.

My question is about props- the boat had a replacement aluminum 15.5" x 15" 3 blade that I'm sure is too low pitched- seems it should be 17-19". But what about diameter- I haven't seen much about how diameter effects performance and efficiency.

Any insights into what I should get?

Thanks,

David

andygere posted 07-06-2007 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Sjonnnie, I have some experience in a Dauntless 16, and by observation, the Dauntless 17 has a deeper V hull that I would anticipate providing a better ride in choppy water. Looking at the photos of the Dauntless 17, it appears that the helm position is fairly far aft compared to most dual console boats of similar size. This is good in terms or ride, although it does make the cockpit a bit smaller. One advantage of this style of boat is the ability to have a nice set of stand-up weather curtains made, increasing comfort in wet or cold conditions.

To improve comfort at the helm, the swivel seat can be replaced easily with a single place leaning post. Although the reach to the controls may be a bit long when standing, it may provide worthwhile comfort for those offshore runs. When inshore, the swivel seat could be reinstalled on the same base.

Overall, it looks like a very nice boat, and appears to be in fine condition. Considering your varied uses, it should be quite a versatile boat. If you do repower, I agree that going with a light weight DFI such as the E-TEC will provide better performance than a heavier 4-stroke. My experience with the 16 Dauntless is that it is also stern heavy, and has a bow-up tendency out of the hole, and a fairly long time to plane. More power while keeping transom weight low is key. Also, a multi-blade stainless steel prop should help the low end acceleration.

sjonnie posted 07-09-2007 04:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hello,
Thank you Andygere for your excellent comments on this boat.
Yesterday, I brought the boat home and for the first time in my life, I am a proud owner of a Boston Whaler. Having said that, I do not close my eyes in relation to some hopefully minor problems of this boat. I really gave this boat and other Whalers up to 20 feet A LOT of thought and been in close contact with Erik Selis who was marvellous in his support (and still is) in this respect. There is no ideal boat so any boat is always some sort of compromise, it is more a question to find ones own ideal compromise and then be happy with that. I really love these beautifull Boston Whaler boats and it is very difficult to just choose one Whaler. In a way they are all so different. I love to fish (fresh and salt water), I live in a house on fresh water in the North of the Netherlands (like a small harbour) and just 10 minutes slow ride from my house there is a lock (I believe it is called that in English) and when I go through the lock, I'm in a salt water harbour directly connected to the open sea. So within 20 minutes from my house I'm in the open sea and can do inshore or ofshore fishing. We also like to just drive slowly around our area with the family and enjoy a nice day on the water. All in all I really love the lay out of the Dauntless 17 (1996). I have been in beautifull Outrages up to 25 feet and apart from all the excellent qualities of these beautifull boats, I'm always surprised as to how little room one has in a center console boat which is originally meant for serious fishing. (I also read the critique of David Pascoe on the Outrgae 26!) When looking at Whalers, I do not like the high bow rails found standard in almost all Boston Whalers. I know you can order a Whaler from the factory without the high bow rails, but on the second hand market it is hard to find one without. Then I need to take them off which leaves marks on the boats etc. So often one entres a vicious circle. When looking at smaller Whalers I do like the Montauk (new and old) but it is relatively small inside and even the new one has a relatively hard ride in a nasty chop compared to a deep vee hull. I considered an 19988 Outrage 18 but read about the more then often problems with the fuel tank and water logged issue and since I have little time for a project boat (and not enough knowledge) I shied away from that. The bigger Whalers like the Nantucket are beautifull boats but not much room inside and then I came across the Dauntless 17 from 1996. I fell in love with the lay out, MUCH more roomy then the 6 inches bigger Outrage 17II and found it it to be a very versitile boat. I would love to have some more feedback on the purpoising and faster planing issue because that seems to be her only real problem. At this moment I'm running a 125 hp 2+2 Merc and am not at all satisfied with her performence. I'm convinced that a different prop and the Doel fin type of solution will make her plane faster and lessen the purpoising but am not so convinced staying with this older style 2-stroke engine. I'm more convinced to go with the repowering (E-tech 150). It is my feeling that from what I read about the E-tech and my own experience with for example the 150 Optimax on an Outrage 18 and Dauntless 180 that the 150 E-tech will shoot the Dauntless 17 right out of the hole (even with 4-6 people on board) and then I can go less on the RPM's to keep her on plane and trim her out so she does not purpoise. In that case I do not have to install the Doel Fin (avoid warranty problems with a new engine) and have more stability at high speed with the larger underwaterhouse of the 150 compared to the 115 E-tech. Of course this is what I wishfully think and hope what will happen if I do the repowering with the E-tech. I had hoped (still do) that someone on continuos wave has done this before with exactly this boat so I could get some hands on experience and it could give me a feeling of reassurance with this repower choice. I do however greatly appreciate your feed back Andygere, eventhough your experience is with the Dauntless 16. I think you are right about the comparison of the stern heavy issue due to the slightly further aft position of the helm seat. Thanks for pointing out the advantage of the further aft position in realation to the ride, Tom Clark has als commented on the fact that a further aft position with any boat in general provides a more comfortable ride in heavier chop or larger seas. You are also right about the weather protection advantage/possibility of this type of cocpit position in this boat, a BIG advantage in the Netherlands where most of the year we have chilly and wet conditions. Many years ago typical seafishermen in the Netherlands pointed out to me that the center console type of Boston Whaler is not at all suitable to these typical Dutch conditions. They said the center console is nice when you are in Florida sea conditions. Even though I thought there was some truth in this I have always put aside this argument (maybe because I wanted a Boston Whaler so badly). The Dauntless 17 indeed is a very multi functional boat in this respect. Thanks very much also Andygere for the comment about the single leaning post, do you also have a website link where I can buy a good quality single leaning post? I'm very sure I will buy one. Do you still have the Dantless 16 Andygere? Again, if anyone has more feedback, I very much look forward to hearing it. Good luck to everyone with your choices!
John van Helvert
Tom W Clark posted 07-09-2007 10:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
John,

You should try a 13-3/4" x 19" Trophy Plus propeller on your Mercury 125.

You might also consider the use of a line break or two to create paragraphs. It will make it easier to read what you have written.

andygere posted 07-09-2007 07:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
John,
Here's a link to the single leaning post that I had in mind. I believe this is the one Jock Marlo (JMarlo) has installed in his Revenge 22.

http://www.toddusa.com/productdetails.aspx?cid=5

My dad has a 1999 Dauntless 16, and I have spent quite a bit of time operating the boat. My own boat is an Outrage 22 Cuddy.

sjonnie posted 07-10-2007 07:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Thanks Richard for the leaning post link, I looked it up and I agree this is a good option. I also saw the flip up chairs from Wise and Todd where you can flip up part of the seat so you have some sort of leaning post. When you flip the seat back down, you have a normal style helm seat. Does anyone have experience with that kind of seat. I can go both ways, either the leaning post or the flip up seat.

Tom, thank you for the info on a better propellor choice. As I understand it from reading more on continuous wave, you are an authority on this subject. If I keep the Merc, I will definately try this prop, see if I can buy it in the Netherlands. In the upcoming 3 weeks, I wil make that decision. In the mean time, in the process of making that decision, what is your personal experience with the new E-Tech outboards Tom.

For years, I was a Yamaha sponsored fisherman in the Netherlands and have worked close with their technicians and PR people. I was spoiled by them in a way that I got the chance to drive all sorts of Yamaha two and four stroke engines ranging from 50-150 hp mounted on different G3 aluminum boats. Now I bought the Boston Whaler and on the boat there is the Merc 125 hp 2 + 2.

During these sponsored years the Yamaha technicians always claimed that in terms of acceleration there is absolutely no difference between two and four stroke, in their oppinion the four stroke is even stronger in the end. My own experience was always different, with the two stroke always being the faster excelerating outboard. We did try many different props and hanging the engine higher or lower on several boats. In the end, I didn't want to push the argument and left it at that, now I own my own boat and want to really better understand the diference between two and four stroke.

Some people also claim that it is the more aggressive sound of the two stroke that makes you think you accelerate faster. What is your expert oppinion on that Tom. If other continuous wave members can help me on that point then this is welcome. It seems strange to experience faster exceleration with two stroke and then hear a Yamaha technician tell you diferently.

Tom, do you have personal experience with the E-tech (150 hp or other)? I'm seriously thinking about trading in the Merc for the E-tech. Is this technique around long enough to put ones trust into it? I do fish in salt water, so good salt water resistance is also an important issue with me.

Good point also on the 'line break' Tom, to create easier reading, especially when I take of enthousiastically in my writing.

Thanks!

sjonnie posted 07-10-2007 05:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
My apologies andygere for calling you Richard in relation to the single leaning post link. I just saw it when reading through the different posts again.
Thanks again for the link.
andygere posted 07-10-2007 07:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
John,
Folks mistake me for that other Gere (Richard) all the time :)
andygere posted 07-10-2007 07:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Regarding the E-TEC 150, I installed an E-TEC 200 on my Outrage last year, and it shares the same 2.6 liter block and most of the other equipment as the 150. Let me know what you are most interested in.
jun posted 07-11-2007 12:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for jun  Send Email to jun     
John,
Congatulations on your purchase. I too purchased the same exact boat last year. She is also powered by a merc 125 using 13 1/4 x 17 Mercury Black Max propeller. On a good day, she runs 40 mph at 4700 rpm. I do noticed that she is sensitive to too much weight at the stern and has a tendency to porpoise. To aleviate this, i installed a doelfin stabilizer and and carefully learned to trim properly once on plane. I can trim her properly now to eliminate porpoising. She is also quite thirsty for gas. We usually go out with 4 people and use her for tubing and fishing.She handles the the lake well which can get very choppy with a lot of other boaters and jet skiers. I have no experince taking her to a big body of water yet ( Lake Michigan ). Overall im satisfied.
Good Luck !
jun
sjonnie posted 07-11-2007 06:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
That sounds a bit like wishfull thinking andygere or are you as handsome as mr. Richard (pretty woman) Gere?

Yes please, any feedback on the E-tech would be appreciated:
- what does the engine sounds like compared to traditional two and/or four stroke?
- how does she compare to the four stroke in relation to acceleration, please read in my reply what the Yamaha technicians have told me and my own experience with this.
- how does the E-tech compare to two and four stroke in gas consumption.
- what are oppinions on saltwater resistance with the E-tech?

Reading through the brochures doesn't give any reliable info so handon experience has a lot more value.

Last night, I took my boat for a spin with in totall two people on board and the ride was VERY different compared to the ride on sunday with 7 people on board. I know this could be expected buth there was very much difference! She came up on plane quickly and really took of. The rpm's on sunday where 4800 max, yesterday she came up to 5200 rpm's. The engine is still not performing well in my oppinion and of course I haven't had the chance yet to follow up on Tom's advice to install a different prop.

The Dauntless 17 was also easy to trim yesterday without any 'doelfin' help and she did not purpoise. I do have the feeling that this Whaler is sensitive to how she is handled which in a way is also a good thing. If you do everything right this boat really flies and performs on a high level. If you drive without much attention to trim etc. she will purpoise and not perform well. That is presently my feeling with this Whaler and I would be interested to hear if other Whalers are also sensitive to small variations of handling.

I can imagine that with any high performance vehicle, boat or otherwise, this is an issue and not necessarely a bad thing. I used to have boats that you would hardly feel any difference in performance to whatever chances (within certain limits) you would make, the ride was always very average. This Whaler (as probably any Whaler) has a very well thought out and designed hull for top performance. Naturally one has to handle her in a way to get this high performance level out of the boat.

It is good to hear, jun, that you are also satisfied with your Dauntless 17.
I'm surprised with 40mph with 4700 rpm..... that seems like a really good score. The thurst for gas seems to me like an issue with the motor and not the boat, or am I overloooking something? It is one of the reasons why I would like to replace the Merc for an E-tech.

Have a nice day everyone!

erik selis posted 07-11-2007 02:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
John,

You may want to have a look at this thread by Rob (Ratherwhalering)Schmidt.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004957.html

He has a lot of experience with the E-tec engines and helped me out when choosing the 90-E-TEC for the 17 Montauk I restored.

Dave (Buckda)also has plenty of experience with his twin 90 E-TEC's on his impressive 18 Outrage "Gambler". I think he also reported his performance data in a thread a few months ago.

From my own experience with the 90-E-TEC I can say that it is one heck of an engine. At first we did have some problems with a bad injector that degraded the spark plug prematurely but this problem has been solved.

When I did a drag race against my buddies 17 Montauk with this 90-E-TEC and my 170 Montauk (90 ELPTO 2-stroke Merc) it appears that both boats were equal in top speed. The E-TEC seemed to have a bit more torque most likely due to the smaller prop pitch. (17 vs 21 inch). As you may know my Mercury engine has a reputation of being a very fast engine so the E-TEC must also be a good performer.

An E-TEC engine is much quieter than the old school 2-strokes, no doubt about that and also no smoke at all. Oil consumption is ridiculously low. A modern 4-stroke (especially the Verado and also Suzuki's) still make less noise at low rpm's. At higher RPM's I would say that the 4-strokes (except maybe the Verado) are just as noisy as the E_TEC.

Fuel consumption of the E_TEC (90) compared to mine is about 40% less. On day in April this year I used 90 liter of fuel compared to 56 liter that Eddy used (E-TEC) on the same day while running side by side. We travelled from the Bergse Maas to Haringvliet, Spui, Oude Maas, Dortse Kil and back to the Bergse Maas. A nice trip. Sometimes WOT, sometimes against the currents and wind.

I also think that the E-TEC engines have the weight advantage over the 4-strokes.

One question for you John. Wouldn't a 150 HP engine be over the max. allowed range of the 17 Dauntless. What about insurance issues?

Erik

sjonnie posted 07-11-2007 08:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Erik,

Thanks for the feedback, I will check these threads out.

Looking at the Whaler specifications of the Dauntless 17 you are right: 130 hp is max. But: there is a thread running somewhere on this site, forgot exactly where, but in this thread it is said that the 'normal' formula for horsepower rating in the US is 2 x the length x the beam minus 90. For this Dauntless that would be 2 x 17 x 7 = 238 minus 90 = 148 hp. This figure can be rounded of to 5 upwards so 150 hp is the end figure. In this thread it is said that Boston Whaler is always very conservative in their hp-ratings.

You also know that there was considerable discussion when the new Montauk 170 came out and the Whaler horsepower rating was 90 hp max for that boat which is much heavier (635kg opposed to 430kg) compared to the old Montauk. The old Montauk, as you know was rated at 100hp. I have test driven the 190 Montauk with the 115hp and the ride was terrible. This boat has a hard time coming on plane with this engine and some load on board and it is argued by many that perhaps 130 or 150 hp would better suit this 862kg boat.

As for insurance issues: I have to seriously look into that.

Tomorrow, I'm off for a short trip and will return to this site when I'm back.

John

andygere posted 07-12-2007 03:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
- what does the engine sounds like compared to traditional two and/or four stroke?
This engine is much quieter than the 200 hp Mercury Black Max that it replaced. At idle, it's substantially quieter than my neighbor's Honda 90. My fishing buddies would rather troll with the big E-TEC than with my 15 hp 2-stroke, because it's much quieter, and there's no smoke. My V6 E-TEC is also quieter than Rob's 90 E-TEC, when idling side by side. At 30 mph, you can have a conversation without raising your voice. Overall the tone is pleasing, not whiny or raspy at all. At cruising speeds, the V6 4-strokes may be a bit quieter, but not by much.

- how does she compare to the four stroke in relation to acceleration, please read in my reply what the Yamaha technicians have told me and my own experience with this.
The Yamaha guys want to sell you a 4-stroke, of course they will tell you the acceleration is the same. Bottom line, my E-TEC is flat out fast out of the hole, easily as fast if not faster than the 2-stroke it replaced of the same displacement. Based on my experience on other boats, I'd say the E-TEC has significantly better acceleration than 4-strokes of the same h.p. Note that the Yamaha 150 is an in-line 4, and 150 is the highest horsepower they get from that platform. The E-TEC 150 is a V6, and the lowest horsepower of that platform. It's also very light compared to a 4-stroke. All else being equal, the 4-stroke uses power to move it's own additional weight, which hurts acceleration. This is 75 pounds more for the Yamaha 150. On a boat that is sensitive to loads aft, this is important. Although it is advertising, there is a pretty impressive video on the Evinrude website that shows a side by side comparison of an E-TEC 250 and a Yamaha 4-stroke 250 on the same boat. Click on the "Challenges" link to see it.

- how does the E-tech compare to two and four stroke in gas consumption.
I have not run a 200 hp 4-stroke, so it's a bit tough to say. What I will say is that my overall fuel economy has just about doubled compared to the carburated 2-stroke of the same horsepower. This is a big, powerful V6 engine, and it really sips gas compared to it's 2-stroke brethren. I think fuel economy compares very well with 4-strokes of the same power. I'll try to dig up some fuel actual burn numbers on my motor.

- what are opinions on saltwater resistance with the E-tech?
I have a saltwater version, which means more stainless steel parts than the freshwater versions. Overall I think corrosion protection is very good, but I'd say that's true for just about any new outboard you can buy today. The paint job is very robust, and fit and finish is excellent. Mine has been wet slipped in a saltwater marina for a year now, with no signs of corrosion at all. This motor can be freshwater hose flushed in the water, without running the engine or using earmuffs on the intakes.

Disclaimer: If this sounds like an Evinrude commercial, it is not. I am simply a satisfied customer that would buy this product again. I am not anti-Yamaha in any way, but I did look very closely at the Yamaha products before choosing my Evinrude. John's questions asked my opinion of the E-TEC vs. 4-strokes, and he mentioned Yamaha motors in particular.

andygere posted 07-12-2007 03:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
For what it's worth, you can download a pdf copy of the Evinrude brochure from the Evinrude website. It has a lot of side-by-side comparisons with the Yamaha 150. You decide what's real and what's hype. Of note is the fact that it states the Yamaha is actually heaver than advertised.
sjonnie posted 07-22-2007 11:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
I just got back from a trip to Ireland and the first thing I did after getting home was check my e-mail and read new replies on continuous wave.

Thanks a million andygere for your comprehensive replies, very much appreciated.

Yes indeed, I did ask for a comparison between the Evinrude and the Yamaha, and I got it! Thanks again and after reading through and looking at the links I will get back with a reply.

Erik, I did not have a chance yet to look at the thread of Rob Schmidt, but I will definately do that as soon as possible.


sjonnie posted 08-02-2007 02:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hi everyone,

Thanks a lot for all the feedback concerning the E-Tech engines. I can seriously say that I read almost all of it and I made up my mind. Starting Monday, my dealer is going to start the work with putting on a 150 hp E-Tech on my Dauntless 17. First the old, Mercury 2+2 is taken off and then preparations will be made for the newer engine.

There is also a day included where we will testrun the boat with different propellors. Any suggestions which Evinrude-propellor should come close to good results is welcome. I'm not necessarely looking for top end speed, since this baby will go fast enough anyway. I'm especially looking for serious acceleration to get this deep-vee hull planing in no time with a serious load. This is something she just doesn't do with the 125hp Merc.

Has anyone experience with the L&S 2832 Hydraulic Steering made by Lecomble & Schmitt? Is there a quality difference between Seastar Pro and L&S or are they comparable in quality? Another question: I also want to install a Schmitt 720 Evolution Steering wheel and on their website they ask for a choice of the size of the 'NUT' either a 1/2" or a 5/8". I do not have a clue what that means and they are not at all quickly responding to my enquiry about this. I only thought that the 3/4" tapered measurement was important, and that is right for this wheel and this Hydraulic steering set. But what does the 'NUT-size' mean? Is this an important issue?

Somewhere at the end of next week I should have my boat back at my house, ready for the first test runs around my area, which includes the North Sea.

John

andygere posted 08-03-2007 12:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
John- I think you will be very pleased with the 150 E-TEC on your boat. I am on my Outrage right now, and she started right up and ran like a Swiss watch after sitting in her slip idle for 3 weeks. I am very pleased with my Mercury Vensura/Offshore 4-blade prop for great accelleration, and no slip out or ventillation.I run in open ocean conditions most of the time.
erik selis posted 08-03-2007 05:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
John,

You made a great engine choice. Congrats!

Both L&S and SeaStar have good quality products. Last year I installed a SeaStar system on the Montauk and I found it to be of very high quality. Also fairly expensive. Even though L&S is a French company, I haven't seen that many of them around here. You see more SeaStar and are starting to see BayStar as well.

Concerning the nut size: this will depend on what kind of helm pump you have. The smaller pumps will likely have a 1/2" nut and the larger pumps will have a 5/8" nut. The nut, usually a locking nut(nylock), is used to screw down the steering wheel onto the pump shaft. The pump shaft is usually 3/4" or 19mm and is tapered at the beginning of the thread end.

Before ordering your steering wheel make sure you find out if the pump shaft has 1/2" or 5/8" thread. I expect it to be 5/8" in your case as the L&S pump you plan on using is rated up to 200HP but find this out for sure before buying the steering wheel. Btw, that's a really cool steering wheel.

Erik

erik selis posted 08-03-2007 05:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
I forgot to mention something. Being that L&S is a European company it could even be that the nut size is 12mm instead of 1/2" or 5/8". Just so you know.

Erik

sjonnie posted 08-14-2007 02:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hello everyone,

Here's some feedback concerning the mounting and testdriving of my new E-Tec 150hp on my 1996 Dauntless 17.

The engine was mounted, the L&S hydraulic steering was installed and an Evinrude distributor technical representative helped us with the propellor selection. We tested 5 different 17" and 19" three and four bladed rvs propellors. In the end, we choose the 19" four bladed cyclone, it gave very good acceleration (2-3 seconds to get on plane, 4 people on board, two in front of consoles, two behind the consoles), 50mph+ top end speed and no cavitation in rougher water or tight turns.

The engine ran marvelous and also due to the lesser weight compared to the Yamaha four stroke and better acceleration I think the choice for the E-Tec was absolutely the best one.

However......there where some drawbacks also:
1. the L&S hydraulic steering (rated up to 175hp) did not feel comfortable at all. I needed a lot of effort to turn the steering wheel at all speeds, slow or fast.
2. at WOT and with the motor trimmed out completely the boat started chinewalking. This doesn't happen immediately, the boat performs excellent at WOT but ones it is gaining those last few miles of speed, and when you try to go to the limit of trimming it out, the chinewalking starts.

I have never experienced this with a boat before and I felt that this movement increases fast and would be very dangerous to let it continue. Intuitively I felt that trimming down a bit and slowing the speed was the best way for me to go. The chinewalking would stop just as easy.

Just thinking logically I have a few options. I knew beforehand that this 150hp is just a bit sporty for my Dauntless. The main reason for installing her was better acceleration compared to four stroke and lesser horsepower all together. I didn't think an E-Tec 115hp was a good option. I am not per sé interested in top end speed. Going fast with a boat is fun but I honestly think 40-45mph is also nice. So going over 50mph is perhaps macho, if it means taking unnecessary risks then I will ease of the throttle.

However, since I also have a problem with the hydraulic steering, perhaps changing the steering system can contribute something to lessening the chinewalking?

First of all, we decided to take the L&S system of in any case and put the well established Seastar system on. But....... which helm and cylinder should I choose. Luckily I have had some great help from my good friend Erik Selis to understand the difference between 1.7, 2.0 and 2.4 helms, also the difference between 1000psi and 1500psi. This is the first time I have an hydraulic steering system on my boat so I'm new to this.

Understanding the basics however still doesn't mean that I know which combination I should choose. My boat is at a dealer, 100 miles from my house and the whole combination was supposed to be ready at the end of last week. Now we are in discussion with the steering system distributor who sells the basic Seastar kit with the HH5741 tilt-helm (1.7: 1000psi) + the well known HC5345 cylinder and the standard (non kevlar reinforced hoses) They claim that this is a very well test driven combination that performs excellent on boats up to 60mph speed with outboards up to 300hp. Looking at these specifications, my Dauntless with 150hp Evinrude falls well within this category. Being very cautious myself, especially after my experience last week with the heavy L&S steering, the chinewalking and owning a boat that is slightly overpowered, I learned from reading on the Teleflex website that there is also a Pro system.

A combination that I was looking at was the HH5773 tilt helm (1.7: 1500psi) with the Pro cylinder HC6345 + the kevlar reinforced hoses. My argument is that perhaps this combination will have zero tolerance in the steering itself, helping to prevent the chinewalking effect in the first place. Ofcourse, I do not know for a fact that the chinewalking is caused by slack in the steering system, or even if the present steering sustem is adding even 10% or something like that to the chinewalking effect.

I just don't know but it seemed to make sense to rule everything out. However, the distributor is very clear about this:
1. first of all, he doesn't stock the other components, but can order them from the US, no problem but will take a couple of weeks to arrive and the other system he has in stock can be at the dealer within 1 day!
2. apart from the fact that he has to order these components, the distributor very clearly says that the Pro system is only for high power bass and/or other performance boats. He thinks it is a waste of my money and very much doubts if I will feel any difference at all!

Since distributors are selling people, I do not trust 100% on their judgement just like that, therefore I really hope that I can get some good advice from someone on Continuous Wave.

Will I make a good choice with the standard Seastar kit HH5741 helm + HC5345 + standard hoses or does it make sense spending approximately 800 dollars more (you heard it right: european pricing!!) for the Pro system with probably zero tolerance?

I will keep my fingers crossed.....
John


Tom W Clark posted 08-15-2007 10:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
John,

I have talked to Teleflex about the Pro system as well. They do not recommend it for boats like ours.

My own mechanic has the opposite opinion. He recommended the Pro system because of its tighter feel and has installed the Prop system in his own boat. I know Andy Gere has also installed the Sea Star Pro system in his Outrage 22 Cuddy and likes it.

There are some quirks about the Pro system, it should not be used with an auto pilot which rules it out for use on my boat. It can become "supercharged" by turning the wheel with the motors off, building internal pressure which then gives the sensation that the steering is becoming very stiff. In reality, running the boat frees this pressure but it can be a disconcerting sensation if you are not familiar with it.

Teleflex will also try to make the point that the Pro system is meant for certain applications instead of being just a higher quality version of the regular Sea Star system, but owner feedback seems to contradict this.

Teleflex will also be quick to point out that there is nothing wrong with using the Pro system, just that it is overkill on a boat like a Whaler.

It would be nice to hear first hand feedback for other owners of the Sea Star Pro system.

sjonnie posted 08-15-2007 02:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Thanks Tom for this quick reply.

Now I understand why the Dutch distributor is so strong on the argument that the Pro-system is not for my Whaler but only for high performance boats......

It's strange with this affection for boats we all seem to share, just one week ago I knew practically nothing about hydraulic steering systems, just their existence. Now, since I experienced the chanewalking last week with my just slightly overpowered dauntless, I very much realised that if you go to the limits of power on a boat, it to becomes a high performence boat in a way. Who says high performance starts at 60 mph? To me it makes much more sense to look at any specific boat and motor combination and see what she does at top end speed.

If such a combination performs perfect with the standard equipment, well that's fine! If there are problems of any sort, that are linked with getting every bit of performence out of a boat, then I think we are also talking about a 'high performance boat'. Of course I understand that this performance thing is something that comes from the US history of powerboating and later the bass boat circuit. I have been in these flat water Ranger and Skeeter boats, visited their factories in Arkansas, even met Forest Wood on one occasion and have been to the Skeeter factory in Texas. This I did as an angler writer and photographer some 15 years ago.

So I do understand why a Whaler does not fit in to this catagorie, our boats are just to slow! But having said that, I think that any boat that is on the edge of its own performence curve has to be looked at very closely. It then stands to reason to look at all the individual parts on such a combination and see if there is room for improvement.

Look at how many hours boaters spend on choosing the right propellor, the engine height, trim tabs, doel fins etc etc. To me, even being a novice on the hydraulic steering it just makes good sense that with my boat and the 150 ETec, I should rule out any slack in the steering system when I approach 50mph. If the Seastar Pro does this better then the standard Seastar, what can be the problem for Teleflex?

Perhaps, if Teleflex admits that the Pro system has less or no slack compared to the standard system, then they will not sell as many standard sets..... and probably the standard system makes up for a large part of their volume in sales.

My update on this subject is that I have convinced my dealer today to not just plainly except what the distributor says. After a discussion on the phone and some e-mails, the distributor has now taken my concern serious and has promissed to contact Teleflex on this subject. That, in first instance, gave me the feeling that I will get some serious feedback now and the best advice I could wish for....

Tom, after reading your reply, and the fact that you already have been on this path with Teleflex, I think I will probably get the same answer that you got.

As soon as I get a reply from Teleflex, I will put it on the Continuous Wave site.

Anyway, perhaps this new subject within my thread will attract other Whaler users to give some serious comments on this. This subject goes beyond my Dauntless 17 and is interesting for all Whaler afficionado's.

Does this mean we have to open a new topic on this?

Tom W Clark posted 08-16-2007 12:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Chine walking is one of the specific problems the Pro system was designed to help with.
sjonnie posted 08-16-2007 03:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
I have mailed my questions on the Seastar Pro system to Teleflex and received a very quick response. I have shortened my own e-mail a bit for the comfort of reading. Here are my questions to Teleflex and the response I got within 3 hours!! from Marc D. Adams their technical Support Rep.

My e-mail: Dear Sir,

Presently, I'm repowering a 1996 Boston Whaler Dauntless 17 with an Evinrude 150hp.

We also installed a hydraulic system (rated up to 175hp) of a competitor and last week we did extensive testing with this combination, also choosing the right propellor.

Everything went well except for the hydraulic steering. With this system we had to use a lot of effort to turn the steering wheel at top speed (55mph) Also, my boat started to do chinewalking at 50+ mph.

We decided to take this system of and install the well established Seastar system, but........ which one to choose.

From reading on US websites (also about possible cures for chinewalking) we decided that we would like to install the Pro-system you offer (for example the HH5773 or HH5289 helm with the Pro-cylinder HC6345 and the Kevlar reïnforced hoses)

Even though I read on your website that the Pro system is for high performace boats only, with speeds exceeding 60 mph, it is my feeling that every boat that is powered to it's maximum or slightly above that is a 'high performance boat' in a way. By this I mean that when you go to the extreme limits with a boat, whatever kind of boat, everything comes down to small details and then we are talking 'high performance'.

For example one could argue that there should absolutely be no slack at all in the steering system, therefore the HC6345 could be a better choice in comparison with the older HC5345, this in combination with a Pro-helm and Kevlar reïnforced hoses.

Do you support my point of view or am I missing something in this way of thinking?

Best regards,
John van Helvert

Reply by Teleflex:

John:
Thanks for the note...

It seems that you have steered yourself into the correct direction (no pun intended)...

Since you installed the other system and it was hard to turn at higher speeds, and you encountered chine walking, the SeaStar PRO was basically built specifically for you. The PRO system offers a really precise control. Of course it will not remove the chine walk from the boat, but, since you have that added precise control you can actually make those minor corrections to keep the boat more stable.. The PRO system also has a higher relief setting so that it doesn't get that hard to turn at the higher speeds, (likely with the other system that was installed, and this would ring true even for the non PRO SeaStar, you are just coming up on the pressure relief setting of the system, that is why the wheel feels so heavy)...

The PRO cylinder was also designed seemingly with you in mind again. During operation the standard Front Mount cylinder racks as the steering wheel is turned hard to hard. In most boats, this is of no concern and the rack has no bearing on the feel/control of the boat, however. Like you said, once you get to the limits of the boat, very small details really start to show, this racking for example makes a big difference when you are on the edge. The PRO cylinder has a keyed support rod. This mans that during the operation, the two keyed brackets and rod will not allow the unit to rack in any way whatsoever. Along with the keyed shaft, the PRO cylinder uses more robust bushings to deal with the extreme use that these boats will inevitably see.

Lastly, the hoses. The Kevlar wrapping in the hoses of course are not there in case someone takes a shot at the steering line (the hose will probably not stop a bullet, but) it will limit the amount of expansion that the hose has. Going back to boats that are not extreme, fast or anything like that, the helmsman will likely not even notice a different between the PRO hose and the standard hose, but, you for example, will notice everything.

So taking into account all of the above, here is where we would be at.

Precise control at the helm
higher pressure relief setting
PRO cylinder with keyed shafts,
Kevlar hoses with no expansion
All of the above added together = What I refer to as "SWEET".

The real bonus with this is that at any time, you can add a SeaStar PRO Power Assist unit to this system. This means that if a customer drives their Porsche or Caddy to the marina, get on board their boat, turn the key and drive away, they may actually try to hit the turn signal because the power assist makes them think that they haven't even left their car yet.

Sorry for the long winded answers, but, I hope that gets you all of the info that you need, and....last but not least

Enjoy the ride and stay safe in the water

Thanks for contacting us and at any time in the future if you have any questions whatsoever please don't hesitate to give me or anyone else at Teleflex Marine a shout.

Marc D. Adams
Technical Support Rep
Teleflex Marine
604.232.5394


sjonnie posted 08-16-2007 03:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
After reading this response I think it was interesting to go in to the chinewalking just a little bit further. I come across this phenomonem very often on US websites and there excellent explanations on what it is exactly in technical terms, no one (at least I havent' found it in the existing articles) however seems to go into solving or preventing it in great depth.

It is something that happens to all kinds of boats, not just high performence 90 mph + bass boats. Myself, having experienced it on my own boat last week, I want to know if I can prevent it instead of having to correct it. Therefore I wrote back the following reply to Teleflex:

Hi Marc,

Thank you very much for this quick response! I appreciate it!

It is an interesting point you are making about the chinewalking.

After the initial test runs I spent many many hours reading about hydraulic systems , chinewalking etc.
I came across numerous serious articles on chinewalking and even though nobody says in those articles that a totall flex free hydraulic system will remove chinewalking from a boat, they all say that if you have chinewalking it is very important to see IF you have slack in the steering system.......

Now, one can look at this from at least two different angles. You could say: hey, my boat is chinewalking and I need zero tolerance precise control (Seastar-Pro system) to help correct the chinewalking.

I believe this is a good point but......... but there is also another way of looking at this phenomonem. I have the feeling that when you are on top speed with your boat (whatever that speed is) you are stretching the personal performance of the boat to its limits. What do you honestly think Marc, could some slack in the steering cylinder on the engine (from whatever brand), in that specific situation -cause- or at least -help- the boat in some way to come into this chinewalking motion?

If this last point of view has some thruth to it, then with the Pro-cylinder, Pro-helm and Kevlar hoses we are actually talking about PREVENTING chinewalking to come into play in the first place! With the other angle of view, we are talking about CORRECTING a chine walk that has already been set into motion. I'm very interested in your professional oppinion on this Marc.

This is the most important part of my second mail to Teleflex. Having had such a serious reply on my first mail, I'm hopefull to get some good info on the chanewalking that could be of some interest to other Whaler afficionado's. The info on the Pro-system seems very clear to me, it is the right choice to make if you want the best steering system for a fast Wahler. I'm left without any doubts at this point and time!


erik selis posted 08-17-2007 03:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
John,

This is all very interesting information you are providing us here. I guess it's a bit overwhelming as most Whaler owners have never been confronted with these kind of details before. Whalers are not really go-fast boats and are very conservatively rated from the factory. The need for the top-of-the-line steering system and the high price it costs is not there. Actually for the smaller Whalers, like the 17-ft Whalers, it's already a treat to have power steering. Usually the less expensive BayStar line is the system of choice. It works well. If one has extra money to spend you could go for the standard SeaStar line and be very pleased with the fact that you are buying a high quality system, better than the BayStar line. I guess it's exceptional that one would put the SeaStar-Pro steering system on their 17 or 18-ft Whalers. I'm sure it will work fine indeed but I don't believe many here have done it before, or felt the need to do it. For the people that have "overpowered" their smaller Whalers (whatever overpowered may mean) maybe they could chime in here. Do they have power steering? What's their experience with "chine-walking"?

In your case I think you are making a good decision as you can now show you have looked into every detail to safely rig a larger-than-rated engine on you boat. (insurance)

I also think that this topic has interesting information but should be posted as a new topic in the performance section (correct me if I'm wrong Jimh).

I'm also sure that the article you are writing about re-powering your boat will be top-of-the-line. Good luck John.

Erik


sjonnie posted 08-17-2007 05:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hi Erik,

I want to clearly express the fact that I have absolutely NO intentions at all to promote overpowering a boat, be it a Boston Whaler or any other kind of boat!

Having said that, I also believe that boaters in generall are looking at safety factors in a very different way compared to driving a car. This is a link to an official United States Coast Guard article I found while googling for chinewalking: http://uscgboating.org/recalls/pdfs/BSC78.pdf It is a so called boating Safety Circulair.

Apart from the interesting information on chinewalking, I found it alarming to read in this article about the amount of fatal boating accidents compared to driving a car! I don't know about the US, but amongst the Dutch Boston Whaler crowd, there are some pretty strange people that are attracted in a wrong way to this so called undistructable legend. As a professional photographer, I have made numerous photographs of people literally flying through the air with their Boston Whalers. I'm not kidding, you have seen some of these photographs yourself Erik.

By all means, wether you are in a Boston Whaler or other brand of boat, this is a dangerous thing to do with a boat, so is chinewalking, broaching etc. Some of the people I know, who own a Whaler really think they can do anything with a Boston Whaler and obuse the boat in many ways. If you look at some of the You Tube movies, for instance the one where the US army is having a shootout with an Outrage at sea, not everyone will interpretate this in a right way.

It can give a boater the idea that once you are in a Boston Whaler, you yourself are indestructable also. Some people just think that way. If you look at the second hand Boston Whaler market in the Netherlands you come across beat up boats that have been very much obused and not handled with any care at all for the boat, the people in the boat or the fellow boaters on the water for that matter.

For many years, I have written in Dutch magazines about the, in my mind, absolute ridiculous situation that when obtaining a Dutch National Boating license, you have to learn a bunch of theory from a book and if you pass the exam, you get your boating lincense...... there is presently no practical test in the Netherlands attached to this exam.

This means the the novice boater, if he or she has the money, can buy any fast boat on the market and with the theoretical exam license in hand, they can just drive a boat at great speed on the water. I think this is VERY unresponsible conduct of our Dutch government! In my oppinion, no one should just go out and drive a fast boat without having learned the do's and the don'ts on the water... In my upcoming article on the repowering of my Whaler with the Evinrude E-Tec, I will again try to get this point across.

I know you are probably right when you say that the standard Seastar or Bay-star system will be good enough for most Whaler users. In my case, with my boat, I have come close to what my boat can handle, and being a very responsible person at that, I just have to be very sure about the steering system. Once this Pro-system is installed, and my boat still goes chinewalking at 50+ mph, then I will just not go 50+ mph, because I do not want to take any risks at all! It is just not worth it.

I have stated my motivation for repowering the Dauntless with the E-Tec 150 hp before on this forum: it has got mostly to do with the excelleration. With the 125hp Merc, 4 people on board, this boat was dragging through the water, nose up, for way to many seconds (VERY unsafe!) before slowly coming on plane. Now, I'm on plane within 2-3 seconds and that in my believe is much safer. The only thing I have to rule out now is the fact if I can safely drive this boat at top speed with the E-Tec 150hp. I will know when the Seastar Pro system is installed.

When I read through the other topics, usually the people who own the much larger Whalers are not the speedy types. However, especially amongst the smaller Whalers (15 ft sport and 17 ft older Montauks) I do come across Whaler users who have repowered their boats beyond the original factory limits. I suspect that they will come across the phenomenem of chinewalking more often then not.

I'm really interested to see what the follow up with these people from Teleflex on this chinewalking thing will result to. Sofar, I must say that these Teleflex people are very serious about their business and kind to talk to. Today, I again received a mail that they are out of office the rest of the day and will follow up on my questions this upcoming Monday. That is very correct and polite by any standards. I'm sure we will get good and honest information from them and I sincerely hope that other Whaler users benifit from it. That is what this website is all about isn't it: helping each other with sometimes difficult choices.

I for one am very thankfull to you yourself Erik, you have helped me with choosing MY personal Boston Whaler, even though it is not the Montauk 170 you are rightfully so fond of yourself. Also Tom Clark, Andygere and some other forum members have helped me, I thank them for that!

Richard Quinlivan posted 08-17-2007 10:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for Richard Quinlivan  Send Email to Richard Quinlivan     
John

My experience with my Dauntless 17 with the 125 Merc is much like yours. With 4 people it labored to get on plane especially if the passengers were in the back seats. With one or two aboard and the right prop trimmed out it would get to 45 or so and felt pretty light. I had hydraulic steering and that certainly made the boat more pleasent to drive. Your boat with 150 HP and 1 or 2 aboard must really fly. I think you are getting the chines completely out of the water which is why you are chinewalking. The bassboats do this all the time but they have a section of the hull which is flat i.e a. pad. They learn to balance on the pad. I am not sure you can balance a v hull as well with the chines free. You might want a lower pitch prop and get the acceleration and let the rev limiter limit your top speed to a more comfortable level.

Dick

sjonnie posted 08-18-2007 03:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Dick,

Thanks for the input, good point you are making with the balancing of the pad what they do with a bass boat. Perhaps it is not possible, as you say, to do this balancing thing with a deep-vee hull.

Also, if I need to continuously do steering corrections to balance a hull without a pad, just to stay away from chinewalking, then this doesn't sound like a comfortable planing ride. If this is going to be the case, then I will indeed cut back on the speed to a more comfort level for the hull and passengers.

I hope to have the Seastar-Pro system installed somewhere next week or not before long. Then I can finally put in some serious time on the water and find out what works and what doesn't work.

John

Jefecinco posted 08-18-2007 10:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
John,

The idea that chine walking is caused by a rocking motion port to starboard and back, etc, due to too little hull bottom submerged is interesting. As to bass boats running on a flat pad like a very thin skiff to cure the problem it seems to me that a lot of operating skill and experience would be required. Perhaps a much better and tighter steering system will allow minute corrections which would hopefully allow elimination of chine walking on your Dauntless as you become more experienced and skilled with operating your boat. I would think more experience and better steering would at least minimize the issue.

There are two experiments that could provide interesting results. First and least expensive would be to try a four of five blade propeller. My experience in switching to a four blade is that it provides a tenacious grip on the water. I've no idea if this would be helpful but the possibility is interesting. Second would be the addtion of trim tabs positioned so that when set to a minimal down position at WOT they would be just contacting the outer edge of the water flow.

These ideas are probably ridulous to those of you who actually know something about chine walking but as someone who has never experienced the problem they seem worthwhile.

Butch

sjonnie posted 08-20-2007 06:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Thanks Jefecinco for your reply.

I already have a four blade 19 pith cyclone propellor installed.
The trim tabs: I see them as a last option which could contribute something. First, I think it is important to get the basic setup perfect and pure (without trim tabs or hydro foils) If I still need to improve on something that is beyond the basic setup and my skills as a driver, then I will definately see trim tabs as a serious option. They will lengthen the hull a bit and perhaps they will add soem stabilisation.

I'm presently again in contact with Teleflex and they brought an interesting new point to my attention that I would like to share here. Hopefully soemone will know the answer to the following question:

Teleflex said that I should find out if my brand new Evinrude E-TEC 150hp 2007 model engine is mounted in rubbers or has a rigged mount?

They say that this can, and possibly will also have its effect on the totall steering. That makes sense I would say and now I have to find out about this.

Does anyone know? (andygere perhaps?)

Thanks,
John

Jefecinco posted 08-20-2007 07:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
John,

I assume this question asks if your motor is bolted to a mount which is mounted to the transom. And wante to know if the mounting bolts are run through rubber much as is seen in automotive motor mounts and on some larger commercial boats such as towboats.

If rubber is used in the mounts then a lot of slack would be built in. I doubt that your motor is mounted with rubber.

Perhaps some brackets use this kind of mounting system.

The only reason for such a system that I can think of is to reduce engine vibrations transmitting to the hull, etc.

Butch

sjonnie posted 08-21-2007 02:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Jefecinco,

My first thoughts on this was that the 'rubber mounting thing' was something inside of the engine. Something I couldn't change because it is the way Evinrude designed the engine.

Thanks Jefecinco for thinking a bit further on this.

My engine is mounted directly to the transom, very much a straightforward standard way of mounting. Since this was a repower, (the 125 Merc was probably the first engine on this boat and delivered from Boston Whaler in a package deal) there where already 4 Boston Whaler factory drilled holes in the transom.

The dealer bolted the engine using exactly these 4 holes. Of course, he did use a bit of silicone stuff (don't know the English word) on the bolts to rule out any moisture getting inside the transom.

So, I seem to have, what Teleflex calls - a rigid mount - ?

Jefecinco posted 08-21-2007 08:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
John,

Agree. You have a rigid mount motor.

Butch

sjonnie posted 09-04-2007 03:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Hi everyone,

Due to delivery time, I had to wait for the Seastar Pro system to be installed on my 1996 Dauntless 17.

My Whaler had been at my dealers place all together for over a month now. Yesterday we finally had the second testrun with my boat + the E-TEC 150hp: this time with the new Seastar Pro hydraulic steering system installed. The first time with the L&S system was on the 9th of August and at that time we encountered the chinewalking problem when my boat reached approx. 50mph.

It was my personal feeling that the chinewalking could be the result of movement in the steering cylinder at top speed. Also, having a Pro system 2.0 helm pump with 1500psi could mean more control steering the boat out of the chinewalking. Much better still is preventing the chinewalking in the first place.

Wether or not the chinewalking was the result of this combination boat, engine and hydraulic steering was something for me to find out. Looking back at this situation, it took a lot of time al together but was well worth it, because the end result means certainty for the years to come.

The testrun yesterday was awesome!! She planed within 2-3 seconds and although it was choppy water, with my dealer and myself on board we easily hit 53mph with the cyclone 4 blade 19inch propellor. I am of course happy that the boat planes so easily now with the new engine but she already did that last time. This time however, with the Pro cylinder HC6345, the Kevlar reinforced hoses and the HHH5290 Pro 2.0 helm (1500psi) there was absolutely no more engine 'flutter' and NO chinewalking on a straight path.

We could, if we wanted to, trim the engine up all the way. Then there is hardly anymore boat in the water and I'm sure that if we are on water without any chop, she could pick up a few miles more speed, BUT...... this was never my first goal. Last time however, we had to cut back on the throttle at +/-50 mph because the chinewalking kicked in! For me the acceleration of the 150 E-Tec was important with this deep-vee hull and having a completely flutter-free hydraulic steering system without any 'chinewalking-side effects'. This is now achieved.

Ever so once in a while, when we past an island on the lake, we encountered stronger side wind and there was a bit of crossing waves. At those moments there was just the normal feeling of wanting to cut back a bit on the gas just like when you are at sea and always adjust to the size of the waves.

Anyway, all problems with the chinewalking seem to be solved. I'm impressed sofar with the E-TEC. This engine is so quiet and non smoking compared to the 125hp ten year old Merc. Compared to four stroke there is a sound difference. Maybe not so much in decibels but it is the specific 2 stroke 'tone of voice' one hears when the E-Tec is running. Personally I like this sound. Also, the acceleration is awesome. With four stroke I always had the feeling during the first second, nothing happens when you try to get a good hole shot.

The fancy sensor for the fuelflow is still not working on my E-Tec and my dealer thinks we should install a new one. This was already not working during the first testrun and perhaps other CW members have simular experiences with this?

I want to thank everyone for the input, (also Marc Adams from Teleflex Canada) this is greatly appreciated by me and I hope there are other CW members that can benefit some from my experiences with my boat, the engine and the hydraulic steering.

John


Jefecinco posted 09-04-2007 09:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
John,

This has been a great thread to follow. I've learned a lot from it and from your results.

I have a 16 Dauntless with a center console and a 115 Evinrude FICHT engine. I've often thought that if I have to repower that a 135 two stroke could be possible. Off hand I don't know if that is in the E-Tec arsenal but my current small engine preference is E-Tec. I'm afraid my hull would not tolerate a 150 HP E-Tec but if I thought it was something possible I'd be willing to give it a shot.

I don't like to go fast all the time but I like to have the capability. Truth is that I am a bit of a speed freak but in small doses as I age.

I believe your efforts have absolutely maximized the performance potential of the very fine 17 Dauntless and have been a valuable lesson for the forum.

Thank you!!

Butch

sjonnie posted 09-04-2007 10:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for sjonnie  Send Email to sjonnie     
Jefecinco,

From my contact at Evinrude in Europe, I heard that there is talk of a 130hp 4 cylinder E-TEC in the near future. As I understand, it will be based on the 115hp so you have the weight advantage over the 150hp and still get more performance.

Perhaps this could be your next engine. I'm based in the Netherlands in Europe and I suppose that you are in the U.S.?
If so, you should be able to get maybe even better 'up to date' info from your contacts at Evinrude U.S. or a good dealer.

Reading your reply suggests that you had not heard that rumor yet so this could at least be interesting for you.

In any case I can recommend the Pro system when you rig a Whaler (or probably any boat) to its own engine limits.

By the way, I understand that feeling for speed, I feel that too but MUST also be honest and say that 53+ mph is pretty fast with a Whaler. It takes up all of your concentration to handle the boat in a responsible way, even with the Pro system. I felt more comfortable with 40mph and like you, just feel good about having the capability to go faster and probably will not use it most of the time.

Good luck with your choices and keep us informed.

John

erik selis posted 09-04-2007 01:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
John,

It has been a very interesting thread indeed. I know there are things that I have learned from your strive for perfection in operating your fine 17 Dauntless and I also believe that many others here will have learned something as well.

It also looks like you received great support from the people from Teleflex in Canada. I also received wonderful assistance last year when installing the standard SeaStar steering system on the 1984 Montauk. These guys know what they are doing and are nice people as well.

I would also like to share some pictures with the members here, of your fast, furious and lean 17-Dauntless.


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/e-techDSC_0143.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/e-techDSC_0140.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0112.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0106.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0122.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0130.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0078.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0082.jpg


Doesn't she look slick with that white E-TEC on the transom?

BTW, the guy operating the boat in the pictures isn't John. It's the Evinrude dealer.

Erik

erik selis posted 09-04-2007 01:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
oops!

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/e-techDSC_0143.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/e-techDSC_0140.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0112.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0106.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0122.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0130.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0078.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c86/erik069/ John%20Van%20Helvert%20photos/evinrudeDSC_0082.jpg

Jefecinco posted 09-05-2007 07:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
John,

A 130 HP V4 E-Tec based on the 115 HP would be pretty close to perfect. It should be a "piece part replacement" for my 115 HP FICHT. I'll keep my ear out.

Thanks.

Butch

Sal A posted 05-24-2015 01:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
Reviving an eight year old article is strange, but I didn't know what Jim would prefer me to do.

I just wanted to add that I just bought a 1997 Dauntless 17, powered by a four cylinder Yamahe 115 two stroke. The boat had 160 hours, and I was looking for a nice little family boat to take kids if or rides in on Barnegat Bay, NJ. I have to learn the boat., and how to dial in the trim and throttle for the choppy conditions here, but that will come.

It is a real nice layout, and it's nice to post something here after a long hiatus from me.

Happy Memorial Day everyone, and remember to think about and honor our men and women in service.

Sal A posted 05-26-2015 08:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
Here is a picture:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o295/TheMaryAlice/ 97%20Dauntless%2017_zpsctz32aah.jpg

The engine is strong, and I think it is propped correctly - I get WOT at 5600 rpms, and I really dont like going as fast on the bay as the boat will allow me; its too choppy.

Jefecinco posted 05-27-2015 08:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
Sal,

That's a pretty Dauntless. But, I think I prefer the Parker for year round use.

Butch

Sal A posted 05-27-2015 11:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
Butch...

I miss the Parker too... and the other nice boats I used to own. Bull markets were sure nice right up untill they weren't!

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.