Someone please convice me to not sell my 2001 Dauntless 16 with 90-HP Mercury

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Someone please convice me to not sell my 2001 Dauntless 16 with 90-HP Mercury

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Someone please convice me to not sell my 2001 Dauntless 16 with 90-HP Mercury

jpspivey78 posted 08-19-2013 06:04 AM ET (US)
I am new to this site but I have seen it pop up a ton when I do some internet searching about anything that has to do with whalers. Here is my predicament. I am a first time boat owner and bought a used 2001 16 foot Whaler Dauntless with the 90 Merc 2 Stroke. When it's just me and the missus, the little one and our beach stuff, the boat runs fine. When I put five people on it with twice the stuff, I can't even get the boat to plane. Here are the details you all need based on what I see you asking for:
I have the notch cut out just below my motor (where the drain plug goes)
My motor has one blank hole above and two below where it is currently mounted (so it's using the second hole down)
My propeller is currently an "aluminum" I am assuming (its not stainless). Its a Quicksilver 2038P19.
I do have a hydrofoil (spelling?) installed but don't know the brand.
The little inverted shark tail thing right above the prop is slightly just right of 12 o clock when looking from above.
Any other info please let me know and I will get it. I hate that I have only had this boat for 2 months and I am already looking at upgrading the motor....from what I can tell I just need a new prop or transom hole combo.
I usually cruise around 30 mph at around 4800 to 5000 RPM. At WOT I can get to 37 with just me on the boat, with the fam I can get to about 32, and with a full load I can't plane and I can't get above 10 mph.
Please Help!
Thanks in Advance!!!!!

jimh posted 08-19-2013 07:47 AM ET (US)
The engine mounting height is usually measured in units of 0.75-inch, which is the hole spacing, and it is measured in terms of how many of these units, called "holes", the engine is mounted up from the lowest position. So your engine mounting sounds like it is "one-hole up".
The ability of the boat to reach hydroplane depends of the power to weight ratio. On a small boat, when four more people come aboard, the weight of the boat and crew increases significantly. Your present 90-HP engine may not be enough power to push the heavily loaded boat onto plane.
If the boat is running with the bow high and not able to climb over its own bow wave onto hydroplane, sometimes changing the weight distribution can help. Move some weight forward to bring down the bow. This may get the boat over the bow wave and onto plane.
An anti-ventilation plate foil extension is sometimes used on smaller boats where it is said to help raise the stern and aid in getting onto plane faster. If you have one on your engine now, and if it is bent at some improper angle, it may be hurting more than it is helping.
tmann45 posted 08-19-2013 08:21 AM ET (US)
For some good technical suggestions see this thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007671.html
You might find some more info with a search of this site.
jimh posted 08-19-2013 09:30 AM ET (US)
By the way, that three-cylinder 90-HP two-stroke-cycle Mercury outboard engine is really quite a nice engine. It is compact, not very heavy, and delivers good power. It is a simple engine, and should be easy to maintain. There is nothing fancy under the cowling. It is a good example of classic two-stroke-cycle outboard design, and it should deliver a lot of power.
Since you got the boat used, you probably don't know all the history of the engine and its maintenance. It would be prudent to give the engine a tune-up. On an old classic two-stroke-cycle engine, a tune-up typically involves:
--changing the spark plugs and setting the spark gap to specification
--changing fuel line filters
--checking the synchronization of the carburetors and the throttle linkage, including checking the spark timing advance
--checking the carburetors for any blockages or crud in the fuel flow path.
--running some additives in the fuel system or instilling additives directly into the cylinders to help remove carbon build-up.
You may find that with a few hundred dollars invested into engine care, you might obtain improved performance from the engine. At the least, I would put a can of fuel-additive such as Mercury's QuicKleen into the fuel tank and run the doctored fuel through the engine. Once you have done that, check the spark plug gap and change plugs. Spark plugs for that engine probably cost $3; a set of three plugs will not be a financial burden.
Jefecinco posted 08-19-2013 09:38 AM ET (US)
There are dozens of posts on this subject. Your boat is underpowered for heavy loading. You have done about everything you can do to get the most out of your setup except for your propeller. You could replace your engine with a 115 HP engine but that is an expensive option.
Selecting the best propeller for your use will make your Dauntless better able to perform with heavier loads. [Perhaps] Tom Clark will chime in and provide his excellent advice.
Butch
Plotman posted 08-19-2013 10:29 AM ET (US)
I don't agree that your boat is underpowered to the point that it won't plane with 5 people plus gear with a 90. No way. Something must be wrong with the setup.
I just had a total of 11 people in my 15 powered by an old OMC 70hp. (6 adult sized people and a 5 kids averaging 100 lbs, and we got on plane fine. yes, I know that that is grossly overloaded.)
Anyway, first thing I would check is engine trim - you want to be able to tuck that engine way in. There is usually an adjustment - a pin of some sort, that controls how far in max down is.
Secondly, change prop pitch - drop down 2" and see what happens. You will lose some top end, but may get the extra you need to get out of the water.
skred posted 08-19-2013 03:52 PM ET (US)
I had the same boat, same year, with a 90 Honda. I installed a hydrofoil (I assume that's what you described), and with 3 people (over 600 lbs) the boat "squatted" a bit on run-up, but achieved plane very quickly. I noticed that with a full fuel tank (internal - in the stern) it became a lot slower. With 2 additional passengers, I had to have 3 of them sit fairly far forward to achieve a decent speed and plane. As others here suspect, I think the motor is not performing efficiently. If shifting weight forward doesn't help, I'm betting on the motor tuning, and/or prop selection.
K Albus posted 08-19-2013 03:57 PM ET (US)
How's the condition of your prop? Even minimal damage can seriously compromise performance.
jpspivey78 posted 08-19-2013 04:37 PM ET (US)
Do you think this has anything to do with the throttle cable linkage if I can't ever get WOT 5500 RPM? There is a hydrofoil installed but I am not sure of the make/model. The prop seems to be in good shape, I wouldn't know what a bad one looks like unless it was chipped or distorted.
I had a full 300 hour service performed on it when I purchased it....new spark plugs, thermostat, impeller, lower gear unit gear oil replaced, compression check, carb clean and flush.
L H G posted 08-19-2013 05:28 PM ET (US)
Assuming the engine is in good shape, I would raise the engine up one more bolt hole, get rid of the hydrofoil attachment (too much drag), and use a Mercury 17" aluminum prop. Use the 17 for heavy loading, use the 19 for lighter loading.
A 17" Mercury High Five SS prop could also be an excellent prop for your rig. It offers great acceleration and pulling power, but they are expensive.
Lupi posted 08-19-2013 06:03 PM ET (US)
I have the same boat, with the same engine. The previous owner of my boat was using, at first a 19 pitch aluminium black max that was the stock prop (that is certainly the prop you have) for this boat (confirmed by Chuck Bennet from BW). He complained not to be on plane with heavy load and when pulling people for tube or ski. He changed for a 16 pitch aluminium and he could get on plane in most of situations, but lost too much top end speed (that was not his concern). When I purchased the boat, I was not convinced by the 16 pitch that was too slow, and finally got good advices from all the people here, mainly from Tom Clark from who I purchased a Stiletto 13,25*17 stainless steel propeller that can get me on plane with 5 people on board and a top speed betwen 35 and 40 mph depending how the boat is loaded. The engine, with this prop is mounted 3 holes up (one hole down). At WOT, the engine with trim up can reach 5500 rpm that is the redline limit for this motor. Depending on what you are expecting from your boat, you should check with Tom for a good Stainless prop that should give you a good payback in term of performances.
As Butch said, the boat is limit underpowered with 90 hp, so a good prop should make the difference. It you really want another level of performances, you will have to switch to 115 hp. But, this Merc 2 stroke 90 hp equiped with a good SS prop is largely acceptable.
andygere posted 08-20-2013 01:22 AM ET (US)
I just spent two weeks with the identical boat. We loaded it up with 7 people, a full tank of gas and a lot of beach gear, and she planed out with ease and ran 30 mph. Tis boat has a slightly dinged aluminum prop and bottom paint. A stainless stell prop would be my first improvement, but there is clearly something wrong with your set up. I think 19" is too tall, and a 17" should provide much better low-end performance. I have grown to really like the 2-stroke 90 Merc, and it does deliver good power.
Russ 13 posted 08-20-2013 09:06 PM ET (US)
Switch the prop to a 17' Pitch.
Stiletto makes a nice affordable one roughly $ 300.00
Try Overton's or your favorite boat store.
Get it with the vent holes, or have a good propeller shop
"vent" the prop.
This will make a BIG difference & help to reduce the load
on the engine.
jpspivey78 posted 08-22-2013 02:34 PM ET (US)
I removed the hydrofoil last night and I am going to raise the motor up two holes and do a sea trial with that setup. If that doesn't show much improvement I will purchase a stiletto prop and see how much that helps out. I will keep you all posted. Thanks for all of the help!!
Dick E posted 08-27-2013 08:17 PM ET (US)
I have 1998 2 stroke 90 HP on my same year Montauk. There is no gap on the spark plugs,so you do not have to worry about that.Pretty bullet-proof engine.
I would recommend you change your all your rubber fuel lines if they are not recently redone with ethanol resistant hose.
I get 40 mph with a 20" Laser II prop on the top hole. I use Stabil and Quickleen in every tank, a good investment.
Lupi posted 08-29-2013 04:29 AM ET (US)
Dick,
I'm a bit surprised you only reach 40 mph with a 170 Montauk equiped with this 90 hp merc 2 stroke. With a 21 pitch black max prop, Boston Whaler reports 44,1 mph @ 5500 rpm (WOT). I guess a 20 pitch laser II should give same performances. What's your rpm @ WOT ?
Dick E posted 08-30-2013 12:04 AM ET (US)
Lupi, my 1998 Montauk model is 17 not 170.The 17 style is a little lighter and should run even faster, My rpm is 5200-5300 rpm.I hit 42 on a good early spring day. Engine is now 15 years old and lost a step.Got 42mph, but never 44 mph

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: Someone please convice me to not sell my 2001 Dauntless 16 with 90-HP Mercury
jpspivey78	posted 08-19-2013 06:04 AM ET (US) I am new to this site but I have seen it pop up a ton when I do some internet searching about anything that has to do with whalers. Here is my predicament. I am a first time boat owner and bought a used 2001 16 foot Whaler Dauntless with the 90 Merc 2 Stroke. When it's just me and the missus, the little one and our beach stuff, the boat runs fine. When I put five people on it with twice the stuff, I can't even get the boat to plane. Here are the details you all need based on what I see you asking for: I have the notch cut out just below my motor (where the drain plug goes) My motor has one blank hole above and two below where it is currently mounted (so it's using the second hole down) My propeller is currently an "aluminum" I am assuming (its not stainless). Its a Quicksilver 2038P19. I do have a hydrofoil (spelling?) installed but don't know the brand. The little inverted shark tail thing right above the prop is slightly just right of 12 o clock when looking from above. Any other info please let me know and I will get it. I hate that I have only had this boat for 2 months and I am already looking at upgrading the motor....from what I can tell I just need a new prop or transom hole combo. I usually cruise around 30 mph at around 4800 to 5000 RPM. At WOT I can get to 37 with just me on the boat, with the fam I can get to about 32, and with a full load I can't plane and I can't get above 10 mph. Please Help! Thanks in Advance!!!!!
jimh	posted 08-19-2013 07:47 AM ET (US) The engine mounting height is usually measured in units of 0.75-inch, which is the hole spacing, and it is measured in terms of how many of these units, called "holes", the engine is mounted up from the lowest position. So your engine mounting sounds like it is "one-hole up". The ability of the boat to reach hydroplane depends of the power to weight ratio. On a small boat, when four more people come aboard, the weight of the boat and crew increases significantly. Your present 90-HP engine may not be enough power to push the heavily loaded boat onto plane. If the boat is running with the bow high and not able to climb over its own bow wave onto hydroplane, sometimes changing the weight distribution can help. Move some weight forward to bring down the bow. This may get the boat over the bow wave and onto plane. An anti-ventilation plate foil extension is sometimes used on smaller boats where it is said to help raise the stern and aid in getting onto plane faster. If you have one on your engine now, and if it is bent at some improper angle, it may be hurting more than it is helping.
tmann45	posted 08-19-2013 08:21 AM ET (US) For some good technical suggestions see this thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007671.html You might find some more info with a search of this site.
jimh	posted 08-19-2013 09:30 AM ET (US) By the way, that three-cylinder 90-HP two-stroke-cycle Mercury outboard engine is really quite a nice engine. It is compact, not very heavy, and delivers good power. It is a simple engine, and should be easy to maintain. There is nothing fancy under the cowling. It is a good example of classic two-stroke-cycle outboard design, and it should deliver a lot of power. Since you got the boat used, you probably don't know all the history of the engine and its maintenance. It would be prudent to give the engine a tune-up. On an old classic two-stroke-cycle engine, a tune-up typically involves: --changing the spark plugs and setting the spark gap to specification --changing fuel line filters --checking the synchronization of the carburetors and the throttle linkage, including checking the spark timing advance --checking the carburetors for any blockages or crud in the fuel flow path. --running some additives in the fuel system or instilling additives directly into the cylinders to help remove carbon build-up. You may find that with a few hundred dollars invested into engine care, you might obtain improved performance from the engine. At the least, I would put a can of fuel-additive such as Mercury's QuicKleen into the fuel tank and run the doctored fuel through the engine. Once you have done that, check the spark plug gap and change plugs. Spark plugs for that engine probably cost $3; a set of three plugs will not be a financial burden.
Jefecinco	posted 08-19-2013 09:38 AM ET (US) There are dozens of posts on this subject. Your boat is underpowered for heavy loading. You have done about everything you can do to get the most out of your setup except for your propeller. You could replace your engine with a 115 HP engine but that is an expensive option. Selecting the best propeller for your use will make your Dauntless better able to perform with heavier loads. [Perhaps] Tom Clark will chime in and provide his excellent advice. Butch
Plotman	posted 08-19-2013 10:29 AM ET (US) I don't agree that your boat is underpowered to the point that it won't plane with 5 people plus gear with a 90. No way. Something must be wrong with the setup. I just had a total of 11 people in my 15 powered by an old OMC 70hp. (6 adult sized people and a 5 kids averaging 100 lbs, and we got on plane fine. yes, I know that that is grossly overloaded.) Anyway, first thing I would check is engine trim - you want to be able to tuck that engine way in. There is usually an adjustment - a pin of some sort, that controls how far in max down is. Secondly, change prop pitch - drop down 2" and see what happens. You will lose some top end, but may get the extra you need to get out of the water.
skred	posted 08-19-2013 03:52 PM ET (US) I had the same boat, same year, with a 90 Honda. I installed a hydrofoil (I assume that's what you described), and with 3 people (over 600 lbs) the boat "squatted" a bit on run-up, but achieved plane very quickly. I noticed that with a full fuel tank (internal - in the stern) it became a lot slower. With 2 additional passengers, I had to have 3 of them sit fairly far forward to achieve a decent speed and plane. As others here suspect, I think the motor is not performing efficiently. If shifting weight forward doesn't help, I'm betting on the motor tuning, and/or prop selection.
K Albus	posted 08-19-2013 03:57 PM ET (US) How's the condition of your prop? Even minimal damage can seriously compromise performance.
jpspivey78	posted 08-19-2013 04:37 PM ET (US) Do you think this has anything to do with the throttle cable linkage if I can't ever get WOT 5500 RPM? There is a hydrofoil installed but I am not sure of the make/model. The prop seems to be in good shape, I wouldn't know what a bad one looks like unless it was chipped or distorted. I had a full 300 hour service performed on it when I purchased it....new spark plugs, thermostat, impeller, lower gear unit gear oil replaced, compression check, carb clean and flush.
L H G	posted 08-19-2013 05:28 PM ET (US) Assuming the engine is in good shape, I would raise the engine up one more bolt hole, get rid of the hydrofoil attachment (too much drag), and use a Mercury 17" aluminum prop. Use the 17 for heavy loading, use the 19 for lighter loading. A 17" Mercury High Five SS prop could also be an excellent prop for your rig. It offers great acceleration and pulling power, but they are expensive.
Lupi	posted 08-19-2013 06:03 PM ET (US) I have the same boat, with the same engine. The previous owner of my boat was using, at first a 19 pitch aluminium black max that was the stock prop (that is certainly the prop you have) for this boat (confirmed by Chuck Bennet from BW). He complained not to be on plane with heavy load and when pulling people for tube or ski. He changed for a 16 pitch aluminium and he could get on plane in most of situations, but lost too much top end speed (that was not his concern). When I purchased the boat, I was not convinced by the 16 pitch that was too slow, and finally got good advices from all the people here, mainly from Tom Clark from who I purchased a Stiletto 13,25*17 stainless steel propeller that can get me on plane with 5 people on board and a top speed betwen 35 and 40 mph depending how the boat is loaded. The engine, with this prop is mounted 3 holes up (one hole down). At WOT, the engine with trim up can reach 5500 rpm that is the redline limit for this motor. Depending on what you are expecting from your boat, you should check with Tom for a good Stainless prop that should give you a good payback in term of performances. As Butch said, the boat is limit underpowered with 90 hp, so a good prop should make the difference. It you really want another level of performances, you will have to switch to 115 hp. But, this Merc 2 stroke 90 hp equiped with a good SS prop is largely acceptable.
andygere	posted 08-20-2013 01:22 AM ET (US) I just spent two weeks with the identical boat. We loaded it up with 7 people, a full tank of gas and a lot of beach gear, and she planed out with ease and ran 30 mph. Tis boat has a slightly dinged aluminum prop and bottom paint. A stainless stell prop would be my first improvement, but there is clearly something wrong with your set up. I think 19" is too tall, and a 17" should provide much better low-end performance. I have grown to really like the 2-stroke 90 Merc, and it does deliver good power.
Russ 13	posted 08-20-2013 09:06 PM ET (US) Switch the prop to a 17' Pitch. Stiletto makes a nice affordable one roughly $ 300.00 Try Overton's or your favorite boat store. Get it with the vent holes, or have a good propeller shop "vent" the prop. This will make a BIG difference & help to reduce the load on the engine.
jpspivey78	posted 08-22-2013 02:34 PM ET (US) I removed the hydrofoil last night and I am going to raise the motor up two holes and do a sea trial with that setup. If that doesn't show much improvement I will purchase a stiletto prop and see how much that helps out. I will keep you all posted. Thanks for all of the help!!
Dick E	posted 08-27-2013 08:17 PM ET (US) I have 1998 2 stroke 90 HP on my same year Montauk. There is no gap on the spark plugs,so you do not have to worry about that.Pretty bullet-proof engine. I would recommend you change your all your rubber fuel lines if they are not recently redone with ethanol resistant hose. I get 40 mph with a 20" Laser II prop on the top hole. I use Stabil and Quickleen in every tank, a good investment.
Lupi	posted 08-29-2013 04:29 AM ET (US) Dick, I'm a bit surprised you only reach 40 mph with a 170 Montauk equiped with this 90 hp merc 2 stroke. With a 21 pitch black max prop, Boston Whaler reports 44,1 mph @ 5500 rpm (WOT). I guess a 20 pitch laser II should give same performances. What's your rpm @ WOT ?
Dick E	posted 08-30-2013 12:04 AM ET (US) Lupi, my 1998 Montauk model is 17 not 170.The 17 style is a little lighter and should run even faster, My rpm is 5200-5300 rpm.I hit 42 on a good early spring day. Engine is now 15 years old and lost a step.Got 42mph, but never 44 mph