Montauk 17: Re-power with 115-HP E-TEC - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Montauk 17: Re-power with 115-HP E-TEC

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk 17: Re-power with 115-HP E-TEC

windblown posted 02-04-2009 01:43 AM ET (US)
I am considering re-powering a c.1985 Montauk 17, and I have come across a never-sold 2007 E-Tec 115 for what I think is a vey good buy. Any comments on this motor for this boat? The weight is the same as the 90-HP.
TransAm posted 02-04-2009 07:23 AM ET (US)
Those two motors do not weigh the same. The 115 weighs 369, the 90 weighs 320. Although I don't think an extra 49 lbs will materially affect the handling of the boat, it will be considered over-powered. 100 HP was max for that boat.
jimh posted 02-04-2009 09:36 AM ET (US)
The 90-HP E-TEC is a three-cylinder. It weighs less than the 115-HP E-TEC V4.
You may be confusing the new E-TEC with the older OMC motors. They used to make a 90-HP V4 at one time. That motor had the same weight at the 115-HP V4 made at that same time.
-------------------------------------
From a previous discussion on motor weights:
Weight of Older Outboard Motors
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/011042.html
V4 1632 cc platform, 85/88/90/100/115 HP
20 inch shaft, elec. start, man. tilt -- 288 lbs
20 inch shaft, elec. start, trim/tilt -- 301 lbs
25 inch shaft, elec. start, trim/tilt -- 311 lbs
-------------------------------------
The new E-TEC 115-HP V4 weighs 375-lbs in the 20-inch shaft. That is 74-lbs more than the old OMC 90-HP or 115-HP V4.
I am sure there are many MONTAUK 17 boats with V4 OMC motors on them, 90 or 115-HP, but you shouldn't use that as an endorsement for the E-TEC 115-HP because of the difference in the weight.
Anyone thinking of putting a heavy motor on the transom of a MONTAUK 17 should read this article:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013113.html
in which an account is given of a MONTAUK 17 flipping in high winds.
As you probably already knew, with 115-HP you will be over the rated horsepower. This is more of a personal decision, as we have seen many people have run the MONTAUK with more than its rated horsepower. The implications of operating with more than the rated power are discussed in
Maximum Rated Horsepower
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ratedHP.html
I do not see anything in this instance which would modify anything said in the above article.
I believe that the MONTAUK 17 was sold at one time with a 90-HP four-cycle motor, probably a Mercury FOURSTROKE 90. I don't have the specifications handy for that motor, but the Yamaha version which is still in production weighs about 369-lbs. If we use that motor as a basis for comparison, we see the E-TEC 115 V4 is only six pounds heavier, not a significant difference.
In a previous discussion the topic of maximum engine weight was very carefully considered in light of many factors, including actual ratings from Boston Whaler for those models which happened to be given such a specification. See:
Maximum Engine Weight
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002449.html
The MONTAUK 17 model was the subject of much speculation about its maximum engine weight rating, and opinions varied from a high of 410-lbs to a low of 285-lbs. See the full article for how those numbers were derived.
Tom W Clark posted 02-04-2009 10:50 AM ET (US)
Make sure the motor you are considering is a 20" (Long) shaft.
Every time I hear about a good deal on these motors it is for a 25" (Extra Long) shaft motor which seem to sell far less well.
Tohsgib posted 02-04-2009 01:42 PM ET (US)
Weight is not a concern. What Tom says is usually true. 115 is not a concern as long as you are OK with it. I have been on a 17 with a 200 Yamaha.
rowmer1 posted 02-04-2009 05:03 PM ET (US)
I put a 115 etec 0n my 82 Montauk on a 4 inch cmc bracket. It's not to heavy for the hull. The boat works well with this set up. Great for skiing and cruising. Insurance company knows it's over by 15 hp and didn't seem to mind. They wrote the policy. My owners manual lists the weight @ 368lbs.
A honda 90 hp efi four stroke with oil in it weighs more than the 115 etec. I've seen plenty of those running around. You might have to install yourself but I think you should go for it.
Buckda posted 02-04-2009 05:17 PM ET (US)
Re: installing yourself. See posts by member mateobosch, who installed a 115 HP E-TEC early last year on his 17' Montauk.
The boat has incredible holeshot and handling...it is a lot of torque for that hull...but is not overly fast compared to a 90 HP powered hull...though it is faster.
I would not hesitate to put this motor on a Montauk, but do be sure to specify that it is over the rated HP to the insurance agent. Be specific. for actual coverage, you will have to pay a premium above the standard premium. If you are not obviously paying this premium, it is likely that you are NOT actually covered. Read your policy carefully. Insurance can be secured for this setup, but your options will be limited.
Buckda posted 02-04-2009 05:20 PM ET (US)
Incidentally, I tend to discount the report above about the wind flipping the Montauk. I believe it happened, as I spoke to the man myself in a gam on an inland lake in northern Michigan a few years ago. But I don't believe that the weight of his engine contributed to the incident. That storm blew whole buildings off their foundations and into the lake, and dismasted many sailboats. I believe that ANY Montauk in that situation, when raising up over a wave, would have caught the wind and blown over.
crabby posted 02-04-2009 07:22 PM ET (US)
I repowered my 1985 Montauk with a 90hp E-Tec in 2004. If someone had offered me a deal on a 115 hp E-Tec back then (they did not exist) I would have jumped all over it. As previously mentioned, check the leg length and be prepared to mount it on a bracket if necessary.
Tom W Clark posted 02-08-2009 12:50 PM ET (US)
The E-TE 115 is a great and powerful motor, but for the Montauk, I prefer the 90. It is that much lighter and compact and is a superb match for the classic hull.
The E-TEC 115 is, however, the perfect fit for the classic Outrage 17.
ratherwhalering posted 02-09-2009 07:26 PM ET (US)
I have an 2004 E-TEC 90 on my 1986 17-Montauk with CMC 4-inch setback brackets. I also have a 60+ lb stern seat and a group 24 battery in the stern. Weight is not an issue for me, however with the addition of the stern seat, the splashwell has a 1/4 inch of water when at rest. I'd expect you will see the same, but again, it is not a problem and performance is excellent.
ratherwhalering posted 02-09-2009 07:27 PM ET (US)
The splashwell was high and dry before adding the stern seat...

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Montauk 17: Re-power with 115-HP E-TEC
windblown	posted 02-04-2009 01:43 AM ET (US) I am considering re-powering a c.1985 Montauk 17, and I have come across a never-sold 2007 E-Tec 115 for what I think is a vey good buy. Any comments on this motor for this boat? The weight is the same as the 90-HP.
TransAm	posted 02-04-2009 07:23 AM ET (US) Those two motors do not weigh the same. The 115 weighs 369, the 90 weighs 320. Although I don't think an extra 49 lbs will materially affect the handling of the boat, it will be considered over-powered. 100 HP was max for that boat.
jimh	posted 02-04-2009 09:36 AM ET (US) The 90-HP E-TEC is a three-cylinder. It weighs less than the 115-HP E-TEC V4. You may be confusing the new E-TEC with the older OMC motors. They used to make a 90-HP V4 at one time. That motor had the same weight at the 115-HP V4 made at that same time. ------------------------------------- From a previous discussion on motor weights: Weight of Older Outboard Motors http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/011042.html V4 1632 cc platform, 85/88/90/100/115 HP 20 inch shaft, elec. start, man. tilt -- 288 lbs 20 inch shaft, elec. start, trim/tilt -- 301 lbs 25 inch shaft, elec. start, trim/tilt -- 311 lbs ------------------------------------- The new E-TEC 115-HP V4 weighs 375-lbs in the 20-inch shaft. That is 74-lbs more than the old OMC 90-HP or 115-HP V4. I am sure there are many MONTAUK 17 boats with V4 OMC motors on them, 90 or 115-HP, but you shouldn't use that as an endorsement for the E-TEC 115-HP because of the difference in the weight. Anyone thinking of putting a heavy motor on the transom of a MONTAUK 17 should read this article: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013113.html in which an account is given of a MONTAUK 17 flipping in high winds. As you probably already knew, with 115-HP you will be over the rated horsepower. This is more of a personal decision, as we have seen many people have run the MONTAUK with more than its rated horsepower. The implications of operating with more than the rated power are discussed in Maximum Rated Horsepower http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ratedHP.html I do not see anything in this instance which would modify anything said in the above article. I believe that the MONTAUK 17 was sold at one time with a 90-HP four-cycle motor, probably a Mercury FOURSTROKE 90. I don't have the specifications handy for that motor, but the Yamaha version which is still in production weighs about 369-lbs. If we use that motor as a basis for comparison, we see the E-TEC 115 V4 is only six pounds heavier, not a significant difference. In a previous discussion the topic of maximum engine weight was very carefully considered in light of many factors, including actual ratings from Boston Whaler for those models which happened to be given such a specification. See: Maximum Engine Weight http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002449.html The MONTAUK 17 model was the subject of much speculation about its maximum engine weight rating, and opinions varied from a high of 410-lbs to a low of 285-lbs. See the full article for how those numbers were derived.
Tom W Clark	posted 02-04-2009 10:50 AM ET (US) Make sure the motor you are considering is a 20" (Long) shaft. Every time I hear about a good deal on these motors it is for a 25" (Extra Long) shaft motor which seem to sell far less well.
Tohsgib	posted 02-04-2009 01:42 PM ET (US) Weight is not a concern. What Tom says is usually true. 115 is not a concern as long as you are OK with it. I have been on a 17 with a 200 Yamaha.
rowmer1	posted 02-04-2009 05:03 PM ET (US) I put a 115 etec 0n my 82 Montauk on a 4 inch cmc bracket. It's not to heavy for the hull. The boat works well with this set up. Great for skiing and cruising. Insurance company knows it's over by 15 hp and didn't seem to mind. They wrote the policy. My owners manual lists the weight @ 368lbs. A honda 90 hp efi four stroke with oil in it weighs more than the 115 etec. I've seen plenty of those running around. You might have to install yourself but I think you should go for it.
Buckda	posted 02-04-2009 05:17 PM ET (US) Re: installing yourself. See posts by member mateobosch, who installed a 115 HP E-TEC early last year on his 17' Montauk. The boat has incredible holeshot and handling...it is a lot of torque for that hull...but is not overly fast compared to a 90 HP powered hull...though it is faster. I would not hesitate to put this motor on a Montauk, but do be sure to specify that it is over the rated HP to the insurance agent. Be specific. for actual coverage, you will have to pay a premium above the standard premium. If you are not obviously paying this premium, it is likely that you are NOT actually covered. Read your policy carefully. Insurance can be secured for this setup, but your options will be limited.
Buckda	posted 02-04-2009 05:20 PM ET (US) Incidentally, I tend to discount the report above about the wind flipping the Montauk. I believe it happened, as I spoke to the man myself in a gam on an inland lake in northern Michigan a few years ago. But I don't believe that the weight of his engine contributed to the incident. That storm blew whole buildings off their foundations and into the lake, and dismasted many sailboats. I believe that ANY Montauk in that situation, when raising up over a wave, would have caught the wind and blown over.
crabby	posted 02-04-2009 07:22 PM ET (US) I repowered my 1985 Montauk with a 90hp E-Tec in 2004. If someone had offered me a deal on a 115 hp E-Tec back then (they did not exist) I would have jumped all over it. As previously mentioned, check the leg length and be prepared to mount it on a bracket if necessary.
Tom W Clark	posted 02-08-2009 12:50 PM ET (US) The E-TE 115 is a great and powerful motor, but for the Montauk, I prefer the 90. It is that much lighter and compact and is a superb match for the classic hull. The E-TEC 115 is, however, the perfect fit for the classic Outrage 17.
ratherwhalering	posted 02-09-2009 07:26 PM ET (US) I have an 2004 E-TEC 90 on my 1986 17-Montauk with CMC 4-inch setback brackets. I also have a 60+ lb stern seat and a group 24 battery in the stern. Weight is not an issue for me, however with the addition of the stern seat, the splashwell has a 1/4 inch of water when at rest. I'd expect you will see the same, but again, it is not a problem and performance is excellent.
ratherwhalering	posted 02-09-2009 07:27 PM ET (US) The splashwell was high and dry before adding the stern seat...