posted 01-25-2008 08:00 PM ET (US)            

115 HP is the maximum recommended by BW. If I was going to repower with a 115 HP engine I would choose a 115 HP Evinrude E-Tec since my 1999 115 Evinrude FICHT has operated flawlessly for nine years.

Having said that, I would rather go to a higher HP engine. Perhaps as much as a 150 HP but I would have to consider it very carefully.

posted 01-27-2008 04:06 PM ET (US)            

Both the OptiMax and the E-Tec are lighter than either the older or newer Mercury 4-strokes, and as such might be better choices for this boat.

posted 01-27-2008 07:10 PM ET (US)            

When it warms up for a few days I think I'll put my three blade speed prop back on and see what the 160 will do with a light load. I'm guessing at least 45 mph. The boat is load sensitive so it may do more if I can see 6000 on the tach.

posted 01-27-2008 09:19 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for the compliments, Henry. Actually I agree, 40+ MPH is fast enough to just about be scary for me. But then, I'm a sailor from way back, so I'm used to thinking that I'm really screaming if I get the speedo up over, oh, about 7.

posted 01-28-2008 09:38 AM ET (US)            

I'm now running a 13 1/4 X 15 four blade Stiletto Bay I. I installed that prop to replace a 13 1/4 X 19 Stiletto that was OE on the boat. The propeller change was to improve hole shot, acceleration, and the ability to maintain plane at lower speeds.

The 15 pitch propeller gives me almost instant hole shot and nearly scary acceleration and improved low speed plane performance but top speed with a heavy load is slightly over 43 mph. Wot with this prop is right at 6000 RPM which is the max rated RPM of my FICHT. Thank you Tom Clark.

As mentioned I raised the engine one hole along with the propeller change.

The 19 pitch prop had poor hole shot. I installed a Stingray Hydrofoil Stabilizer to improve hole shot. It did improve hole shot but not to the degree I was seeking. With the 19 pitch prop WOT was only 5400 RPM. Acceleration with the 19 was so so but never approached the performance of the 15.

I'm very happy with the performance of the 15 pitch prop but like to play around just to see the result. I've never tried the 19 pitch prop with the engine raised so am curious about the result. When I try the 19 with the engine raised I plan to remove the hydrofoil also. Should be fun!

posted 01-28-2008 08:28 PM ET (US)            

On the down side, if you're accustomed to the F115, I don't know how thrilled you'll be with the 2-stroke's fuel usage.

-Bob

posted 01-28-2008 10:42 PM ET (US)            

The 13-1/4 x 17 Trophy Plus 4-blade hmmmmmmmmm

posted 01-29-2008 12:55 PM ET (US)         

You noted you were turning 6100 rpm with the Vengeance. Out of curiosity, what was the max. rpm with the Trophy 17?

posted 01-31-2008 10:36 AM ET (US)            

Mike, off the top of my head, I think that the max RPM with the Trophy Plus 17" is about the same as the Vengeance 16". It's hard to say for sure, since they both get very sensitive to trim angles and ventilation at high speed. Overall, it seems like the pitch of the 16" Vengeance is more like 18", a comment which is borne out by the slip numbers for the prop. See http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004868.html for my full discussion of these props on my boat.

posted 01-31-2008 02:13 PM ET (US)         

Very interesting on the rpm. I'm curious because I have taken your past advice and will be testing the Trophy Plus on my 160D this spring. I currently have the 15P Vengeance that came with the boat and was concerned about the effect on max rpm achieved with the 17P Trophy Plus. To complicate it further, I have the newest 115 HP engine, which is different from your earlier model. Not sure what impact that will have either. Anyway, can't wait to compare the Vengeance and Trophy Plus on the newer engine model when the ice breaks.

posted 02-06-2008 02:07 PM ET (US)            

Most feedback on this site seemed to be that the 90hp was under-powered. Having some experience now I would say that the 90hp top speed is more than adequate - hole shot is ok, not great (probably not an issue that I'd invest $5K) to improve at this point.

The bigger concern for me would be the added weight. The boat is pretty heavy already and I'm curious about what adding 80 lbs would do to overall performance.

Hope this helps.

posted 02-19-2008 09:03 AM ET (US)            

I'm sure the Yamaha four cycle 90 hp engine will give you good service for many years. Especially if hole shot and ability to perform well at lower speeds is not important to your boating style.

You may want to consider a hydrofoil and a four blade propeller to help overcome some of the issues of mounting a relatively heavy engine of the lowest horsepower sold on a Dauntless 16.

Butch

posted 02-19-2008 07:23 PM ET (US)            

No, I doubt that using a stainless steel propeller will do much for performance, especially at lower speeds.

I suggest you use the boat for a few months and see what, if any, changes you may want to consider. If you find you would like to enhance low speed performance and handling post a query here. Tom Clark was extremely helpful to me and I'm sure he will try to help you as well. This is a great web site and an amazing source of valuable, hard to find information on Boston Whalers. The members are pretty much all super people in my experience.

posted 02-20-2008 07:11 PM ET (US)            

90 HP was the least powerful engine offered on the 16 Dauntless. It is generally, though by no means universaly, considered to be moderately underpowered with a 90 HP engine and a bit more so with a four cycle 90 HP engine due to the added weight of a four cycle engine.

Your low speed performace with the 90 HP four cycle Yamaha will be somewhat dependent upon how much load the boat will be carrying. For two people without a lot of gear it will probably be acceptable. With three to four people and fishing gear it will be marginal.

The Dauntles 16 is well known for poor hole shot even with a 115 HP engine with a three blade propeller. Changing to an appropriate four blade propeller makes the hole shot become much better with the 115 HP engine. I would exzpect a large improvement in hole shot of the 90HP Yamaha you have purchased with a four blade propeller of the appropriate design as well.

The ability to plane at lower RPM is a desireable attribute on a boat. As with hole shot lower RPM planing ability will probably be enhanced with the proper propeller.

Until you have used the boat for a while you won't know if it meets your needs with the engine and propeller you have selected. As stated, your boating style will decide any need for improvement. Give it a while, you may be very pleased with the result. If not, there is good advice available here to help you get what you may want.

posted 02-22-2008 09:45 AM ET (US)            

Sounds like you'll be good to go with the Yamaha. That's great.

As to full fuel, you may want to reconsider launching with a full tank every time. We have, I believe, a 45 gallon fuel tank on the 16 Dauntless. That weighs about 300 pounds full. Based on your boating five miles out you would probably be safe with a maximum of 20 gallons aboard in most cases. The fuel tank is located on the centerline aft of the operators seat so all the weight is toward the transom. You will almost certainly enjoy better performance with less fuel aboard, consistent with safety, of course.

I don't recall what Tom Clark charged for a four blade propeller but I found the cost to be very reasonable. I don't know what the OEM stainless three blade cost was as it was all in the package. I doubt the delta between the two would be more than about $100.

I assume your Yamaha includes a three blade aluminum propeller. If so, I would try that propeller for a while as it might be just fine for your needs. If you decide on another propeller contact Tom for a recommendation and a quote. He'll do well by you. You can then retire your aluminum propeller to be your spare. My OEM propeller is under the seat as my spare.

I take my boat to P'cola now and then when staying at the NAS camp ground. That's a wonderful boating and fishing area. My boating area is Mobile Bay, etc, and it's pretty nice as well. Perhaps we'll meet up out there one day.

Butch

posted 02-24-2008 09:44 AM ET (US)            

Drop me an e-mail if you'll be coming over. Just see my profile for the address.

Speck fishing here for the past many months has been Speck-tactular. Excuse the pun please. It has been slow, however, since the first of the month. Once it warms up a bit more and the water clears up from all the rain we've been having speck fishing will pick up again. We also have some very good redfish fishing for most of the year. I prefer to catch redfish for the fun of it but would rather put a nice speck in the cooler. Not to say I cant enjoy some nice redfish on the half shell at every opportunity.

One of my main fishing buds took three out-of-town clients out a week ago for about six hours. They caught one very large stingray, a handfull of croakers (singing trout), and a freshwater black drum. That's what we call getting skunked around here. They ended up putting about three dozen live shrimp back in the bay.

Enjoy that Dauntless and report back on your reactions to the Yamaha.

posted 02-27-2008 10:27 PM ET (US)            

Thanks