Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
Outrage 17: 1991-1995
|Author||Topic: Outrage 17: 1991-1995|
posted 02-05-2002 12:20 PM ET (US)
I'm looking at purchasing a used 17' Outrage (model year 1991 thru 1995) and am looking for any feedback and experiences with this model, both good and bad. I currently own a 1979 Montauk so any comparisons between the two models would be great also. I also looked at the newer Outrage 17 (1996 - 1999) but found the boat too big for my cuurent needs. Plus it wouldn't fit in the garage! Thanks for any information provided. Marc
posted 02-06-2002 06:09 PM ET (US)
I owned a 1991 model after having a Montauk. I found the Montauk to be far more stable, but of course, with its deeper V, the Outrage had a (not much) better ride in chop. If it matters, the Outrage was also a lot faster boat with a 115 hp engine than the Montauk was with a 90 hp. I moved up to a 20' Classic Outrage next and found a dramatic difference. I regret having sold that boat.
posted 02-07-2002 12:23 PM ET (US)
Whalerfan - I don't agree about the 17 outrage being faster than a montauk. My buddy had a '91 with a 115 johnson and I have a '85 Montauk that had a 115 evinrude. I could run away and hide from him. I just went to a 90hp and it's only 4 mph slower. He sold his boat so I can't race him now, but I still think I would blow it away.
posted 02-07-2002 08:31 PM ET (US)
Marc - I have a '96 17 Outrage with a 115 Evinrude. It is deeper and wider than the Montauk. The "V" hull makes it a little smoother. My boat handles fairly big water well and I think probably better than the Montauk. Speed - I have nothing to compare with - but that wouldn't make much difference anyway since I am up in the air about 5000 feet. ---- Jerry/Idaho
posted 02-08-2002 12:03 AM ET (US)
I owned a 1987 Montauk, spent some ocean time on two Outrage 17s, 1991 and 1993. While the Outrages were less stable at rest, my poor back will take the ride of these Outrages over the Montauk any day. The Outrage rear seats and livewell are pretty useless, the electronics locker on the console is too small, and the built in fuel tank could be bigger. Still, the Montauk has none of these features. Also, the Outrage is self-bailing, the Montauk is not. There are more used Montauks available and they cost less on average, but price aside, I prefer the Outrage. If you are talking about ocean use, the speed difference is irrelevant.
posted 02-08-2002 11:50 AM ET (US)
Anchor7 - Why are the rear seats useless? I would imagine because of there location and from the catalog pictures there is no backrests. And you are right, the Montauk doesn't have any of those features (seats, built in gas tank, etc.). What size motors did you have on the outrages and what type of performance (speed, etc.) did you get with them? Did you have kicker motor and/or a trolling motor? Thanks for any more information you or anyone else? can provide...
posted 02-12-2002 05:27 AM ET (US)
The Outrage 17 with a 115 (OMC V4) is faster, in my experience than the Montauk 17 with a 90 (OMC V4). I've had personal experience with both of these boats, as my father and brothers have owned both boats simultaneously. The weight difference (1050 lbs. vs 900 lbs.) is minimal, and, combined with the "V" hull lift and 25HP more, the reasons for the 17' Outrage's higher cruise and top speeds are obvious. The Outrage 17 offers a considerably smoother ride; however, the loss of lateral stability offered by the Montauk is something with which you'll have to live. As far a the garage goes, it pays to measure the top of the console rail on the trailer before inking your check! If garage depth is not a problem, the 19' Outrage II had a folding console which worked quite well.
posted 02-15-2002 11:02 PM ET (US)
PMUCC --- I believe the weight of the 17 OR is about 1700 lbs rather than 1050 lbs. So the 17 OR is about twice as heavy as the Montauk - which might, in view of your comparison, suggest a significant difference in the performance of the hulls - but 25 HP difference is not necessarily insignificant. --- Jerry/Idaho
|Tom W Clark||
posted 02-16-2002 12:25 AM ET (US)
You are talking about a different boat. PMUCCIOLO (and Marc) is refering to the Classic Outrage 17 designed by Bob Dougherty which does, in fact, weight 1050 lbs. Your boat is a completely differnent design and you are correct, it weighs more like 1700 lbs.
posted 02-17-2002 04:04 PM ET (US)
Specification of 1991 Outrage 17
LOA 17' 3"
posted 02-17-2002 05:47 PM ET (US)
DW & Tom - thanks for straightening me up - and my apologies. I have just a few sales brochures and didn't look far enough as one of them (1993 I believe) shows the 1020 pound 17 OR addressed in this thread. Again, my apologies.
Comparing the two boats, there are significant differences - the 1700 pound boat is just a bigger boat, (6 inch wider beam, additional capacity, et.al), all the way around - and in turn, weighs about 700 pounds more, draws another 2 inches and requires more power. The advantages/disadvantages of each can be argued.
It would be interesting to see if there is a significant difference in the hull profile design. The sales propoganda I have doesn't even mention those words. --- Jerry/Idaho
posted 02-21-2002 09:38 PM ET (US)
There were no intends with the post of the specifications of the whaler. It was to share the information that I have on this great little whaler.
Sorry if there was any misunderstandings.
posted 02-22-2002 02:46 AM ET (US)
DW - no problem with you - I just don't like making mistakes, and I just didn't do the necessary looking and research to ascertain the weight given was, in fact, not correct. Maybe I'm just getting old or senile - because as an engineer (albeit retired), I just don't take a chance of being incorrect - yet, I sure got in a hurry in this case.
Again, I appreciate the information you provided - which I would have seen in one of my sales brochures - if I had looked a bit further.
But, as I mentioned, I have further questions because 700 pounds is a lot of glass and I just don't see that much additional glass between the two boats. But this is a different subject than the initial post.
Thanks again ------ Jerry/Idaho
posted 02-25-2002 02:34 PM ET (US)
One clarification: A Montauk with a 90hp anything IS self-bailing. I've seen a '74 with a way overpowered OMC 140 and it was still self-bailing. Just my .02.
posted 02-28-2002 08:00 PM ET (US)
Just purchased 1991 17' Outrage in August 2001. Had a 13' for 18 years. The 91 has a 1996 90HP Mariner. We have not put alot of hours on it yet being in Wisconsin our summers are not that long. But our preliminary thoughts are nothing but positve. The boat has plenty of speed(mid to upper 40,s, with 4 people), and a soft dry ride. Very stable when moored and swimming in and out of etc. The 90 Mariner is also surpisingly economical.
It's interesting to listen to the other comments about the 2 vastly different 17' Outrages. There are also different interior configurations on the 91-96 1020lb version. Some had built in rear livewells, wrap around rear seats, etc. It's difficult for me to tell sometimes exactly what year becouse most of the old Whaler Catalogs don't have dates.
Good Luck on your decision. If I can give you any more details please E-Mail.
posted 02-28-2002 08:10 PM ET (US)
Sorry, forgot to mention that it does fit in our garage by about 8", we have a standard 7' high garage door.
posted 03-01-2002 07:52 PM ET (US)
Just make sure you buy plent of 3/4" lines. The boat needs 'em
posted 03-01-2002 11:52 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the information. I'm pleasently surprised at the speed you get with a 90 HP. I've only been considering ones with 115's on them unless I found a great deal on one with a smaller engine. Regarding the different interior configurations, you are right. I've seen all sorts of different ones. Since I've got to buy used I will have to settle for what it comes with. I know I want the reversible pilot seat like the montauk but other than that, I will take what I can find. I do have a standard garage (single 8'x7'). I had to cut a hole in the back to get it to fit length wise (for the montauk) but it does fit. How wide is your trailer? It looks like there are several companies that make trailers that are not too wide but support the weight of the outrage 17. I hope to buy this year...I may or may not try and sell my Montauk first so that may affect when I buy.
posted 03-02-2002 11:32 AM ET (US)
Boat is currently in Winter Storage Whse.(a thing us cheeseheads in Wis. have to do)! So I can't measure it right now but as DW mentioned above that the beam is 6'8" and I don't believe that the Trailer Fenders stick out more than 6"s.
Are you coming across alot of used 17's? I understood this to be a rather rare breed but maybe I'm wrong.
posted 03-02-2002 11:05 PM ET (US)
I'm seen a few over the last year or so. There are four right now that I've seen on the internet. However, 3 out of the 4 are overpriced at least in my opinion. I can substantiate that opinion by the fact that they've been listed for several months.
Where did you purchase your Outrage? How far did you travel and how far would you have traveled for the right deal?
posted 03-03-2002 03:50 PM ET (US)
Only had to travel about an hour. Had a 13 foot Whaler for 18 years and last summer my Nephew(Outrageman) and brother(bdb-Harpoon Harry) got me involved in the Door County Rendezvous and after that we had to upgrade. Was kind of looking for a Montauk but my brother saw the Outrage in an add. The rest as they say is history. Where are you seeing the 17's on the net?
The way we feel so far I would have traveled alot further then an hour!!
posted 03-05-2002 02:31 PM ET (US)
The "Classic" Bob Dougherty designed 1991 17' Outrage (his last Whaler design, I believe)
was born into a tough environment, and never had much of chance at success, unfortunately.
The designing company had already been sold by the time it came out, and new hull shapes were the priority, the 21 & 23 Walkarounds, the 16 SL, the 13 & 15 Dauntlesses. The new owners & design team in late 1990 had already decided the Classic hulls were to be history, as soon as their new hulls could be tooled. But because it was the newest of the "Classic shapes", it and the 27 survived the longest until they could get their new shaped 17 Outrage out. I believe it never got the marketing emphasis it deserved, and besides, it was sandwiched between the Montauk and 18 Outrage, forcing it into a very narrow function niche.
posted 03-05-2002 08:08 PM ET (US)
There are four on boattraderonline right now, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994. All are right around $14k. All listings are from brokers.
posted 03-07-2002 08:39 PM ET (US)
I guess you just have to sit in the rear seats yourself to see what I mean. No back rests is part of it, but they are also very low, and too narrow for their depth. I definitelt would not sit in them while underway.
One of the Outrages had an OMC 115 hp V4, the other was a 120. I had a GPS with me on the 120 hp and as I recall it easily did 43 mph on smooth water with two people. I don't think it was at wide open throttle. Yes, it is light boat for its size, good for trailering.
I define a self bailing boat as one where the interior floor level is at or above the waterline with the boat at rest, and passengers on board. It also would have decently sized scuppers, normally open or with check flaps. Most Outrages, including this era of 17 footers, meet this criteria, while the Montauk does not.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.