170 Dauntless Now Rated for 115-HP - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  170 Dauntless Now Rated for 115-HP

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   170 Dauntless Now Rated for 115-HP

masbama posted 03-20-2015 01:57 PM ET (US)
Long overdue. I wonder what was changed to allow [the Boston Whaler company to increase the maximum horsepower rating of their 170 DAUNTLESS model to 115-HP from a lower rating]?
Jefecinco posted 03-20-2015 06:21 PM ET (US)
The 1999 Dauntless 16 I owned was rated for a maximum 115-HP. Is there a current Mercury 115-HP four-stroke engine offering? If so, and, if recent, that may explain what changed.
Butch
Jefecinco posted 03-20-2015 06:29 PM ET (US)
I just noticed [since last May] Mercury now has a new 115-HP four-stroke engine for sale. Just in time for the 2015 Boston Whaler line up.
Butch
OMCguru posted 03-20-2015 06:52 PM ET (US)
It almost seems like a business decision. Rate [the 170 DAUNTLESS] with a lower power so you can sell a package with "maximum power" for a given price to get market penetration and get the product in the hands of consumers. Once [the 170 DAUNTLESS] has been out for a few years, quietly increase horsepower-rating to allow for large margin higher horsepower outboards to be sold on the package.
masbama posted 03-20-2015 08:01 PM ET (US)
If you can get the new 115hp that weighs 360lbs on this hull it would make an attractive package.
Jefecinco posted 03-21-2015 08:31 AM ET (US)
This has been a practice followed by Brunswick for years. When the 190 Montauk was introduced the maximum rated power was 135-HP, which coincided with the 135 HP Verado then available from Mercury. A bit later the maximum rated power was increased to 150-HP to coincide with the discontinuation of the 135 HP Verado and the introduction of the 150-HP Verado.
Butch
jimh posted 03-21-2015 08:52 AM ET (US)
Since the purpose for Brunswick in owning Boston Whaler is to create captive transoms for a mandatory tie-in sale of Mercury outboards, the explanation of a linking between models of Mercury engines available and horsepower ratings of Boston Whaler boats is a plausible cause of the change in maximum power rating of the Boston Whaler 170 DAUNTLESS.
What was the previous maximum horsepower rating? Was it just 90-HP?
masbama posted 03-21-2015 09:35 AM ET (US)
It was 100hp.
masbama posted 03-21-2015 10:51 AM ET (US)
Butch: the 2007 190 Montauk was rated for a maximum of 115hp
jimh posted 03-21-2015 12:37 PM ET (US)
I don't recall any Mercury outboard engines rated at 100-HP, so that data point seems to break the formula that suggests the maximum rating is always keyed to a particular outboard engine model made by Mercury.
OMCguru posted 03-21-2015 09:18 PM ET (US)
Mercury always made a 100hp engine for the overseas market. For some reason 100hp and 80hp are the rated HP in Europe vs the traditional 75hp and 90hp that we traditionally see.
I theorize being a global company this may come into play.
http://www.mercury-marine.eu/mercury/en/Products/Products.aspx?Model=FourStroke%20100%20EFI
jimh posted 03-22-2015 11:56 AM ET (US)
Good theory, but I don't believe that overseas there is a mandatory tie-in sale of a Mercury engine when buying a Boston Whaler boat.
tedious posted 03-23-2015 07:33 AM ET (US)
It appears the maximum horsepower rating is being used to sell motors, as opposed to guiding the boat owner to a safe motor choice down the road.
The mandatory tie-in in the US is generally annoying, but I find this practice of putting profit before safety truly appalling.
Jefecinco posted 03-23-2015 08:00 AM ET (US)
Masbama,
Thanks, I'd forgotten the year or so 90 HP was the maximum power allowed on the 190 Montauk.
I understand the rationale behind Brunswick's and other companies decisions based on profit. That's the "American Way".
The practice probably sells more Mercury engines but perhaps fewer Boston Whaler boats. I believe Mercury builds a fine and very competitive engine and I own two with which (so far) I have no complaints.
I believe it's a stretch to claim the practice sacrifices safety in order to increase profit.
Having said all the above, had I had the option to purchase my 190 Montauk with a 150 HP Etec that is what I would have done. I like more choices.
Butch
tedious posted 03-23-2015 12:01 PM ET (US)
Butch, I agree it's not an immediate and obvious safety problem.
However, most people, including the Coast Guard and your insurance company, interpret the maximum horsepower rating as shown on the capacity plate to mean "the maximum motor power one can safely place on the transom at any point in the boat's lifespan."
If it means "the motor horsepower which earns the most profit for the boat manufacturer as of the date of manufacture" that seems unfortunate - a real dilution of the safety message implied by the capacity plate. In the case of the 170 Dauntless, at repower time the owner of an older hull will be faced with the choice of whether to ignore the capacity plate to get performance equivalent to the later hulls, or put up with something less than that performance.
The whole mandatory tie-in and this most egregious aspect of it angers me to the extent that I would never consider buying a product from any manufacturer who does business this way. One wonders if losing out on such sales is factored into the decision on the part of the business - I've bought 3 boats and 3 motors in the last 15 years, so at some level, I'm part of the market.
Oh well.
Ridge Runner posted 03-23-2015 05:49 PM ET (US)
It would be interesting if Boston Whaler also increases the max HP rating on the 170 Montauk. The new lighter 115HP Mercury would be a nice match-up.
The spec's for both boats are very similar:
170 Dauntless
LOA: 17' 0" (5.18 m)
Beam: 6' 10" (2.08 m)
Draft: 11" (0.28 m)
Weight (dry, no engine): 1,680 lbs (762 kg)
Maximum Engine Weight: 410 lbs (185.97 kg)
170 Montauk
LOA: 17' 0" (5.18 m)
Beam: 6' 10" (2.08 m)
Draft: 9" (0.22 m)
Weight (dry, no engine): 1,400 lbs (635 kg)
Maximum Engine Weight: 410 lbs (186 kg)


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: 170 Dauntless Now Rated for 115-HP
masbama	posted 03-20-2015 01:57 PM ET (US) Long overdue. I wonder what was changed to allow [the Boston Whaler company to increase the maximum horsepower rating of their 170 DAUNTLESS model to 115-HP from a lower rating]?
Jefecinco	posted 03-20-2015 06:21 PM ET (US) The 1999 Dauntless 16 I owned was rated for a maximum 115-HP. Is there a current Mercury 115-HP four-stroke engine offering? If so, and, if recent, that may explain what changed. Butch
Jefecinco	posted 03-20-2015 06:29 PM ET (US) I just noticed [since last May] Mercury now has a new 115-HP four-stroke engine for sale. Just in time for the 2015 Boston Whaler line up. Butch
OMCguru	posted 03-20-2015 06:52 PM ET (US) It almost seems like a business decision. Rate [the 170 DAUNTLESS] with a lower power so you can sell a package with "maximum power" for a given price to get market penetration and get the product in the hands of consumers. Once [the 170 DAUNTLESS] has been out for a few years, quietly increase horsepower-rating to allow for large margin higher horsepower outboards to be sold on the package.
masbama	posted 03-20-2015 08:01 PM ET (US) If you can get the new 115hp that weighs 360lbs on this hull it would make an attractive package.
Jefecinco	posted 03-21-2015 08:31 AM ET (US) This has been a practice followed by Brunswick for years. When the 190 Montauk was introduced the maximum rated power was 135-HP, which coincided with the 135 HP Verado then available from Mercury. A bit later the maximum rated power was increased to 150-HP to coincide with the discontinuation of the 135 HP Verado and the introduction of the 150-HP Verado. Butch
jimh	posted 03-21-2015 08:52 AM ET (US) Since the purpose for Brunswick in owning Boston Whaler is to create captive transoms for a mandatory tie-in sale of Mercury outboards, the explanation of a linking between models of Mercury engines available and horsepower ratings of Boston Whaler boats is a plausible cause of the change in maximum power rating of the Boston Whaler 170 DAUNTLESS. What was the previous maximum horsepower rating? Was it just 90-HP?
masbama	posted 03-21-2015 09:35 AM ET (US) It was 100hp.
masbama	posted 03-21-2015 10:51 AM ET (US) Butch: the 2007 190 Montauk was rated for a maximum of 115hp
jimh	posted 03-21-2015 12:37 PM ET (US) I don't recall any Mercury outboard engines rated at 100-HP, so that data point seems to break the formula that suggests the maximum rating is always keyed to a particular outboard engine model made by Mercury.
OMCguru	posted 03-21-2015 09:18 PM ET (US) Mercury always made a 100hp engine for the overseas market. For some reason 100hp and 80hp are the rated HP in Europe vs the traditional 75hp and 90hp that we traditionally see. I theorize being a global company this may come into play. http://www.mercury-marine.eu/mercury/en/Products/Products.aspx?Model=FourStroke%20100%20EFI
jimh	posted 03-22-2015 11:56 AM ET (US) Good theory, but I don't believe that overseas there is a mandatory tie-in sale of a Mercury engine when buying a Boston Whaler boat.
tedious	posted 03-23-2015 07:33 AM ET (US) It appears the maximum horsepower rating is being used to sell motors, as opposed to guiding the boat owner to a safe motor choice down the road. The mandatory tie-in in the US is generally annoying, but I find this practice of putting profit before safety truly appalling.
Jefecinco	posted 03-23-2015 08:00 AM ET (US) Masbama, Thanks, I'd forgotten the year or so 90 HP was the maximum power allowed on the 190 Montauk. I understand the rationale behind Brunswick's and other companies decisions based on profit. That's the "American Way". The practice probably sells more Mercury engines but perhaps fewer Boston Whaler boats. I believe Mercury builds a fine and very competitive engine and I own two with which (so far) I have no complaints. I believe it's a stretch to claim the practice sacrifices safety in order to increase profit. Having said all the above, had I had the option to purchase my 190 Montauk with a 150 HP Etec that is what I would have done. I like more choices. Butch
tedious	posted 03-23-2015 12:01 PM ET (US) Butch, I agree it's not an immediate and obvious safety problem. However, most people, including the Coast Guard and your insurance company, interpret the maximum horsepower rating as shown on the capacity plate to mean "the maximum motor power one can safely place on the transom at any point in the boat's lifespan." If it means "the motor horsepower which earns the most profit for the boat manufacturer as of the date of manufacture" that seems unfortunate - a real dilution of the safety message implied by the capacity plate. In the case of the 170 Dauntless, at repower time the owner of an older hull will be faced with the choice of whether to ignore the capacity plate to get performance equivalent to the later hulls, or put up with something less than that performance. The whole mandatory tie-in and this most egregious aspect of it angers me to the extent that I would never consider buying a product from any manufacturer who does business this way. One wonders if losing out on such sales is factored into the decision on the part of the business - I've bought 3 boats and 3 motors in the last 15 years, so at some level, I'm part of the market. Oh well.
Ridge Runner	posted 03-23-2015 05:49 PM ET (US) It would be interesting if Boston Whaler also increases the max HP rating on the 170 Montauk. The new lighter 115HP Mercury would be a nice match-up. The spec's for both boats are very similar: 170 Dauntless LOA: 17' 0" (5.18 m) Beam: 6' 10" (2.08 m) Draft: 11" (0.28 m) Weight (dry, no engine): 1,680 lbs (762 kg) Maximum Engine Weight: 410 lbs (185.97 kg) 170 Montauk LOA: 17' 0" (5.18 m) Beam: 6' 10" (2.08 m) Draft: 9" (0.22 m) Weight (dry, no engine): 1,400 lbs (635 kg) Maximum Engine Weight: 410 lbs (186 kg)