Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  MONTAUK 17: Re-Power

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

Author Topic:   MONTAUK 17: Re-Power
Morgan posted 02-15-2012 12:12 PM ET (US)   Profile for Morgan  
I know there has been several threads on this and I have read everything I could find. I'm am a couple weeks away from re-powering and still undecided on which motor I want, so I thought I would put up a post and see if you fine folks could help push me one way or another.

About my boat: It's a 1979 Boston Whaler Montauk 17. All original with twin 12 gallon fuel tanks below the RPS. I will be putting two batteries below the console and adding a 26 to 30 gallon bait tank (217 to 250 pounds) to the stern. I plan to install the permanent fiberglass bait tank just in front of the transom and slightly forward of the rear rigging tunnel. Not sure if this location is a good idea or not, but seems to be my only option with a transom mount pump and overflow going just over the engine splash well?

About the use of my boat: My boat is located in Southern California and will be kept in a saltwater slip. I plan to use it about 3 times a month throughout the entire year. It will be used primarily for fishing. Most of the time I will fish with one other person, but sometimes I may have two other people. I'm 225lbs and most of my friends are in the 200lb range. Most of the fishing will be in-shore near the coast and about 4 to 5 miles away. I will occasionally take the boat offshore (15 to 30 miles) to look for bigger game fish and to local islands. A lot of the fishing I do will be slow trolling (between 1 & 2.5 mph). In addition to fishing, I plan to use the boat for hoop netting for lobster and for free diving / diving. I will also use the boat to take friends and family on harbor cruises in a no wake zone.

Below are the motors I'm considering. I'm not to worried about price and just want to get the best fit for my Whaler / situation. If weight was not an issue I would get the Yamaha 90, but because weight is an issue (especially with the bait tank)the Yamaha 70 is my front runner. It seems there are places to get all these motors serviced in my area, but there are more options with Yamaha. My concern with Yamaha is that they are going to come out with a VMAX SHO (lighter outboard soon) in the 90hp class.

Yamaha 70 - 257lbs (underpowered?)
Yamaha 90 - 369lbs (overweight)
Honda 90 - 359lbs (not familiar with)
E-Tec 90 - 320lbs (load up when slow trolling & crusing the harbor, smoke?)
Suzuki 90 - 341lbs (not familiar with)

Please help me make the right decision! I will share the results after I make a choice.

weekendwarrior posted 02-15-2012 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for weekendwarrior  Send Email to weekendwarrior     
You might rethink the position of your livewell. My motor is 212#, my 12 gal fuel tank is under the console and battery in the back and with my (if I remember the size correctly) 28 gal livewell immediately behind the drivers seat, it is a lot of weight in the back when the seas are rough. Fine for smooth days, but the weight makes the bow stand up at slower speeds and in rough water you are going to take an extra pounding with the bow up high. Also you will probably take water over the back when sitting still in rough seas. My boat is the 1996 montauk with a non standard console. You will have so much more on the rear than I do, my advice is get the livewell up as close to the center of the boat as possible, and the batteries as far forward as you can. The etec has a good weight advantage, i would consider it. I am a big 4 stroke fan myself, but from what I have read if I were to go 2 stroke the e-etc would be my personal choice. I have yet to read anything bad about them, and in your used case the weight savings could be very important. Good luck!
weekendwarrior posted 02-15-2012 01:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for weekendwarrior  Send Email to weekendwarrior     
Actually the 70hp Yamaha is worth considering. My motor isnonly 50hp and I am happy, though I don't typically make 30 mile runs offshore...
pcrussell50 posted 02-15-2012 02:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Bait tank? Man, I'd do anything I can to shave weight. Most of your list of negatives for the E-TEC are for old, carbureted 2-strokes that I'm pretty sure don't apply to the E-TEC. Were I in your shoes, I'd consider the lightest 70hp motor on the market. You don't need 90hp in the cold, rough pacific except for the rare smooth day.

You listed these as your plans:

quote:
I plan to use it about 3 times a month throughout the entire year. It will be used primarily for fishing. Most of the time I will fish with one other person, but sometimes I may have two other people. I'm 225lbs and most of my friends are in the 200lb range. Most of the fishing will be in-shore near the coast and about 4 to 5 miles away. I will occasionally take the boat offshore (15 to 30 miles) to look for bigger game fish and to local islands. A lot of the fishing I do will be slow trolling (between 1 & 2.5 mph).

Is this stuff you already do? Or did you just get your boat? You say you are re-powering... what of your old motor? What make/model/year was it? How did it die? Scored cylinder? Stuck rings? Catastrophic failure like a thrown rod? Which of the items in your list above was your old motor unable to perform? Or maybe you are just tired of it, and looking for a change, and have the spare cash to drop on a new one?

-Peter

Tohsgib posted 02-15-2012 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
In CA it seems like you rarely get the chance to go fast so I would look at 60-80hp engines and save a few $$.
Morgan posted 02-15-2012 02:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Morgan    
weekendwarrior....You make very good points about bait tank position and the added weight in the rear of the boat. This is my biggest concern with re-power and bait tank considerations. My two concerns with moving the bait tank closer to the RPS are: 1) I would have two hoses (inflow & outflow) running from the stern to the top of the bait tank. The only other option is a thru hull, but I don't think that is a good option with this Whaler. 2)I'll have to look today, but I'm not sure if I'd have enough room to pull the two 12 gallon fuel tanks forward towards to the console to remove them.

pcrussell50...A bait tank is an abolute necessity here for fishing in Southern California. It's one of the most important features on any fishing boat. The more bait you can hold and keep in good shape, the more fish you will catch. This list of stuff w/ the exception of diving is stuff I have done on friends boats, but not my own. I purchased my boat last Friday and it has a 79 Johnson 70 and 79 Johnson 15 kicker. I'm not sure if they are running because they have been sitting the last 10 years. Before that, they were not used for 6 years and appear to have very little hours overall. I was hesitant to put money (impeller, fuel filter, air filter) into these motors and have them not work, or have problems down the line. I potentially already have a buyer for the 70 and was concerned that the noise and smoke wouldn't make for relaxing harbor cruises for my guests. I personally don't even know how the boat sits in the water with these old motors.

Tohsgib...You make a good point. If I run outside of the breakwater, it is normally way too rough to run fast in this size boat; however, I will be fishing a lot in the long beach area. Lots of my runs will be inside of the breakwater where it is pretty smooth and where I can run fast. But I'm not worried about winning any races. I just want enough torque to push my load around and don't want to be a slug.

pcrussell50 posted 02-15-2012 03:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
pcrussell50...A bait tank is an abolute necessity here for fishing in Southern California.

Yes, I've been trying to teach myself how to fish here in socal, and with the exception of casting plastic grubs at the edges of the kelp paddies, I'm beginning to see that bait tanks are very important.

-Peter

L H G posted 02-15-2012 04:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I've also got a 1979 Montauk, and with the considerable stern loading you are taking about with that bait tanks and 24 gallons of fuel, I would say you need 90 HP. I would get the 90 E-tec, which is still pretty heavy, but a better low end performer than any of the heavier 4-strokes. That Yamaha 70 is noting but a dressed up 60, and doesn't have the cubes you need.

Actually, a classic Montauk is barely enough boat for what you are planning. A newer, larger 170 Montauk might have been a better choice.

Russ 13 posted 02-15-2012 07:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Russ 13  Send Email to Russ 13     
I would try to relocate some weight forward.
IF you can move the fuel slightly forward this will help.
Also BEFORE you permnatly mount the bait tank, try it filled in several locations, with the boat in the water.
You may find that moving it a foot or so forward, helps allot.
..
As to the engine choice:
I would go with either the E-Tech 90,
OR a Yamaha two stroke 90 (there are some new ones left at
dealerships, if you dig around)
The weight savings on either of these will be VERY
important due to the load you plan on haveing onboard.
The added HP will also help, when that extra guy goes fishing.
..
I agree with the peace of mind with repowering with a new
modern engine. It is ALWAYS better to have the extra HP
and not need it, than NEED the HP & not have it.
...
Enjoy your new to you Montauk.
kwik_wurk posted 02-16-2012 03:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for kwik_wurk  Send Email to kwik_wurk     
I vote e-tec 90. I am a fan of black motors (mine are all black, with exception to diesels), but if I had to re-power, I would go with the e-tec 90 in a heartbeat. They are nice motors, go ride in a boat with one, and you will be impressed with low speeds and no smoke.

And we assume you are not getting a kicker of any sort correct.

Now your bait tank. I would not mount it that far aft, no way. If you put two guys in the back with bait while at idle or slow troll you'll take a wave over the stern.

I have actually found that more weight forward on Montauks helps the ride quite a bit. I move my cooler to the bow (strapped down), and the extra 40 lbs (cannon balls and stuff) of gear forward of 96 qt seat cooler. (Plus I have over sized anchor with 25' 3/8" rode.)

Without moving stuff too much, I would go in front of the console (move cooler) or behind the fuel tanks. Run plumbing through the tunnel, into splash well and through a drain tube for pickup. Use a Transom Saver to mount a velocity pickup to help circulate while underway. (Just make sure you have an over-sized self priming pump, it's a fair distance, but I have had longer.)

Before drilling anything, play around with the weight distribution using buckets or a cooler full of seawater.

Now, if I were to get creative....(Which I have thought about because I miss having live bait on the Montauk. But I am too purist to modify my only Montauk, so I would need a 2nd as a scratch pad):

Plan A - Replace OEM fuel tanks with custom bait well, and put custom aluminum tank (~25 gallon) in the console. For the livewell feed: a through hull drilled at whatever angle possible where the fuel line tunnel opening is. And then hinge the RPS seat like i have seen by others.

Plan B - Create custom live well in front of console to replace seat cooler. Or live well inside console. Run lines back aft, and through hull either at console or at fuel tanks. (further aft is likely needed, have to look at pictures while on plane)

(Through hull would have to be glassed to keep the hole sealed (but not glassed in), not fun but I have done it on other foam like construction.)

Morgan posted 02-16-2012 04:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Morgan    
Russ & Larry....Thanks for the advice. Seems like most people are in favor of the E-tech 90 and after speaking to everyone, it seems like I'm going to have too much weight in my stern.


Kwik_Wurk....I wanted to keep the boat as original as possible, as it is almost completely original and in excellent condition. Everyone who sees it says it would be a sin to alter it. But I may have to alter it to fit my needs. I'm considering removing the RPS and adding a thru hull pump with a bait tank/leaning post there. Not sure if I would want to move the console forward or put a custom fuel tank in front of the console. It kind of hurts me to have to think about altering such a beautiful boat this way.

When I bought the boat I had every intention of making it a fishing machine. Now that I have it, I just want to keep it in the garage and preserve its beauty.

I spoke to a guy yesterday that glassed the back of his transom all the way across and used a yamaha 90 with a 25inch shaft. He was able to get a 30 gallon plus bait tank right in front of the splash well. He put an 18 gallon gas tank in front of the console and raised the RPS so he could fit a 90qt cooler underneath. I'm not planning on doing all this, just thought it was interesting.

andygere posted 02-16-2012 04:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Get the E-TEC 90 and move the bait tank in front of the console. You won't get a breath of smoke if you use the DF90 oil, and it will troll all day without a hiccup. The aft area of a Montauk is not very big, and putting a bait tank back there will make it much too crowded for 2 big guys to comfortably (or safely) fish. Your cooler will be just as happy riding up on the bow deck, and the heavy bait tank will serve you best midship in terms of balance and accessibility. You can run the water supply tube up the rigging tunnel and have it daylight under the console, and you can let the overflow drain into the bow locker with the plug pulled out.

Perhaps you can rig your bait tank with quick disconnect plumbing, and a base that will fit in the Montauk cooler seat cleats. That way, when you are cruising, you can pull the bait tank and leave it on the dock, and drop the cooler seat into place.

andygere posted 02-16-2012 04:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
For that matter, why not build your bait tank out of a cooler that already fits the cooler cleats? Round out the corners with some plastic held in with 5200, install circulation pump, overflow and fittings, and you are there.
Morgan posted 02-16-2012 05:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Morgan    
Kwik-Wurk...Thats correct, I'm not getting a kicker.
KDW posted 02-17-2012 02:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for KDW  Send Email to KDW     
I have the Yamaha 1990 90 HP 2S on a 1971 Nauset and a 2005 E-tec 90 on a 1991 Outrage 17. Before this current arrangement, the two motors were swapped on these boats. I also once owned a 1998 Montauk, so I have some experience with this model too.

The E-tec has been a great motor with zero smoke and nice smooth idle on the Outrage. I think it is a perfect motor for this boat. The Yamaha really didn't feel like it had the same torque and holeshot when it was on the Outrage and felt a little weak in comparison (I know the "propping" could have a lot to do with this too). One of the nicest features of the E-tec is that it is very good on gas, especially at low throttle cruising. When I purchased it in 2005, I was on the fence between the E-tec 90, a Suzuki DF70 and Yamaha 90 2S. I wanted the 90 horses, clean burn, low weight, and simplicity of a 2S, so the E-tec was my best choice.

Don't get me wrong though, I really like the Yamaha 90 too. It only weighs 262 Lbs and I think it is a perfect motor for the lighter Nauset and a screamer at WOT. However, she does smoke a lot and not nearly as smooth around idle speed (It is a 1990 carburated 2S motor, so that's what I should expect).

If I had your Montauk and given all the things I've read so far, I would go with the E-tec 90 or other brand with simlar weight, displacement, and positives of the E-tec.

It's just me and I'm a BIG Yamaha fan, but they are only human and I would give them a couple of years to make sure no bugs come with introduction of a dramatically new motor - this may not be too much of a risk if they are just adapting existing technology.

Just my 2 cents,

Kenny

weekendwarrior posted 02-17-2012 02:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for weekendwarrior  Send Email to weekendwarrior     
The livewell has to be towards the rear or the bait will die in rough water. It's just too bumpy up there when the going gets tough. Moving the fuel tank up front is what I would do. Have a seat/tank custom made to fit in front of the console.

If you weren't making such long runs off shore I would go with the 70hp for weight savings, but the extra 20hp would be nice of you're able to use it on those long runs.

Morgan posted 02-17-2012 06:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Morgan    
Andygere...I like the idea that you are thinking outside the box. Putting the bait tank is an idea that I never even considered. I think this is the type of thinking I'm going to need to make the boat suitable for all my needs. As weekend warrior also stated, keeping the bait in good condition would be a big concern of mine.

WeekendWarrior....I agree with you and I'm starting to lean more towards moving the gas in front of the console. I could leave the batteries in the console and add a leaning post/seat/bait tank combo where the RPS is now. It takes away from the classic look, but it would fit my needs better. Then I could just put a large 90 or 120qt cooler on the bow. I'd be hesitant to strap it to railing though, as I would wouldn't want to damage it.

KDW...Thanks for your input on the E-Tec. Seems like everyone who owns one really loves them. I think my biggest concern now is if I need the weight savings between the E-Tec 90 and the Yamaha F70. I believe the Yamaha F70 is 257(dry), while the E-Tec 90 is 320 (wet). I wonder what the (wet) weight of the Yamaha would be.

kwik_wurk posted 02-17-2012 09:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for kwik_wurk  Send Email to kwik_wurk     
Oh, don't worry about strapping cooler to in the bow area.

I was actually surprised how well it worked once I did it.

It isn't the most elegant solution, but it is functional. (The cooler makes a good seat up forward too.)

You can strengthen the through-hull mount for the second stanchion mount. You will find the long SS machine screws go to the small aluminum plate on the exterior of the hull. I pulled mine and cleared out some foam around the original holes, re-glassed with epoxy fiber/mash, re-drilled, and re-set the bracket. (I was surprised to find my original bracket basically screwed with no sealant (but maybe the sealant broke down after 30 years.)

I use three straps on the cooler, two stanchions, and then the norman pin.

(And yeah I hear you on drilling holes in the boat, I almost want two Montauks, one to modify and use, one to be the garage queen.)

OutragousBob posted 02-17-2012 10:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for OutragousBob    
KDW,

I would be interested in the performance numbers for your E-TEC 90, 17' Outrage I combination. I have been considering the E-TEC 90 for my 17' Outrage I.

KDW posted 02-18-2012 10:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for KDW  Send Email to KDW     
I've wonder many times about the E-tec 115 for the Outrage 17 I, but my transom sits pretty low in the water now and I don't think the boat needs the extra weight. Also, I already have (2) batteries under the aft jump seats, so that's not helping me any.

I'm finally comfortable that the improved fuel economy of the 90 is more important than the extra horses, for me anyhow. I think some others on this site have placed a 115 E-tec on their Outrage 17 I's and I have heard nothing but positive reports so I don't want to discourage this option.

As far as performace goes, I don't have a RPM vs. speed chart, but can tell you my Outrage 17 I will run 40 MPH at 5,500 RPM (I weigh-in at 300 Lbs and I'm loaded down pretty well). I'm running a BRP SS 17 prop. and probably could do a little better top end with a 19 pitch. I have tried the 19 pitch BRP Viper before, but the boat seemed to have lost too much torque and porpoising was pronouced at lower RPMs.

I have my E-tec mounted on TH Marine manual Highjacker plates at 4" setback (took me several trips to move the motor and "dial in" the height setting). With a light gas tank and little bow weight, I can get some porpoise action at high RPMs and when trying to trim up. I've heard the Stiletto 3 blade 15(?) prop. may help eliminate the porpoising and one day I hope to try this prop. Also, maybe the set back bracket isn't helping me either as the Yamaha 90 2S that came with the boat had no set back and also had no porpoising. Also, the Yamaha was 60 Lbs lighter. However, idle - 4,500 RPM the E -tec is perfect.

The only issue I've had so far is the oil tank developed some small cracks at the mounting points and leaked. BRP covered the parts, but I had to pay the labor which made me a little angry as I see this clearly as a design or manufacturing flaw. However, I do like my E-tec and think I made the right decision for my boat and use.

jimh posted 02-18-2012 05:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Moved to PERFORMANCE so it could join all the other discussions about re-power choices.
OutragousBob posted 02-18-2012 06:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for OutragousBob    
KDW,

I'm surprised you get 40mph with the E-TEC 90 on a 17' Outrage I. Like you, 40mph would be more than enough for me. I currently have a 90hp Ocean Pro V-4 that weighs the same as the E-TEC 90 and I do not want more weight on my transome. I could move my twin batteries to the console if I went with a heavier motor but at 40mph the E-TEC sounds like the ticket for me! BTW I think the E-TEC 90 would perform very well on a Montauk if it will push the heavier, deeper 17 Outrage to 40mph.

Tohsgib posted 02-20-2012 11:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
He must have a great setup and a healthy 90 as most here barely get 40+ with a 90 E-Tec on a Montauk.
KDW posted 02-20-2012 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for KDW  Send Email to KDW     
I don't think I'm any heavier than a Montauk. If so, it can't be by much. The 1991 Outrage dry weight is listed at 1,020 Lbs.

Also, I have my motor mounted on a jack plate and at optimum height.

KW

KDW posted 02-20-2012 03:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for KDW  Send Email to KDW     
Also,

I have no bottom paint and keep my hull waxed (well, most of the time anyhow).

Also for Morgan: Good information under Reference for 17' Montauk Repowering and E-tec 90 performance.

KDW

pcrussell50 posted 02-20-2012 04:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Waxed?
Probably doesn't matter at utility boat speeds, where Whalers operate, (up to low 40's), but the seriously fast, smooth-water boats, 70+ mph use about a 400-grit scuff. Still, I don't bother to wax the bottom of my boat... nothing to be gained from it.

-Peter

KDW posted 02-20-2012 04:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for KDW  Send Email to KDW     
I don't wax it for speed, only to make it easier to keep clean. Where and when I use my boat, the scum washes off much easier when waxed.

However, I have to believe a waxed hull has less resistance and therefore is easier to push through the water regardless of the speed. Albeit maybe not enough to make much of a MPH difference - not sure. Maybe someone should do a trial before and after waxing and let us know the speed differences? I haven't searched, but maybe this has already been done.

KW

jimh posted 02-20-2012 06:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Maybe you can start a new discussion on the effect of wax on hull resistance. Let's allow this thread to stay on the topic of MONTAUK 17 re-powering.
alvispollard posted 02-20-2012 07:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for alvispollard  Send Email to alvispollard     
'90 Montauk 2010 Mercury 60 hp four stroke - 238# (30 mph/8 mpg) Plenty of speed in waves - usually 22 mph cruising speed at 4000 rpm. 2012 Mercury 3.5 hp four stroke - 40# (internal tank/trolls 1 mph all day on 1 liter) 24 gallon fiberglass tank 14 gallon kodiak livewell (keeps 12 pogies alive all day) Located beside and under steering wheel.Driver sits on it with reversible seat in fishing position. This configuration is suitable for 3-4 fishermen when fast trolling (60 hp) for spanish or slow trolling (3.5 hp) for walleye and kings. Keep all gear up front in dry bags. Battery is in CC. Mills large top with eisoglass windshield & side curtains. Makes a wet boat bone dry for 2 people with forward reversible seat. I have owned this gem of a boat for 20 yrs. Usually fish inshore or 8-15 miles out on calm and 1-3' days. With this engine configuration we fish 8-10 hr days for $25-$30 (fuel/$4 gal.). Usually run hard until we find the charter boats on Lake Erie or the birds and jumping minnows off OBX. Sometimes fish on friends' 21' boat for $75-$100 doing the same kind of fishing. Upon retirement shortly will be able to enjoy & afford this boat when alone most days. On the prevailing SW fishing wind off Atlantic Beach I will run out to nearest wreck which is 3 miles out. The Mills top will act as a sail propelling the boat 1-2 mph for live bait trolling with no power. Somedays catch limit of kings (3/per day/per person with a total expense of $15/fuel. What other boat can do this variety of fishing with this sea worthiness and economy? Be glad to answer any other questions (7407090209). Wishing you favorable seas and tight lines. Alvis Pollard "Tight spot" (not much room on 16'7" boat and have been in some tight spots and still fishing) aluminum tank (sorry)
Morgan posted 02-25-2012 10:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for Morgan    
I've decided to go with the Yamaha F70 and I'm bringing the boat to the shop today. Do you guys have any recommendations on which prop I should get?
pcrussell50 posted 02-25-2012 01:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
This "box" the previous owner, FISHNFF/Brian added to what is now my 17 Alert, keeps two people dry while under way.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ F0Ei8aPKxwO87a7gawucKtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

That, plus the thick rubber restaurant floor padding keeps your feet dry too. Of course, it can't match the cabin'esqe dryness of a Mills rig, but it's pretty darned effective--and simple--no rigging.

-Peter

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.