New 170 w/o power? - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  New 170 w/o power?

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   New 170 w/o power?

Pat Mac posted 10-10-2002 03:55 PM ET (US)
Running through some possible scenarios and would appreciate feedback.
I have a 70 hp Johnson that works great. Does anyone know if you can get a new 170 without power? If so, ballpark $.
Then, when my engine goes, I could upgrade and have a nice set up. That's the thought anyway....
Thanks,
Pat
bsmotril posted 10-10-2002 04:02 PM ET (US)
Depending on how old that 70 is, it may be more like a 60. Older motors measured HP at the powerhead versus new ones that measure it at the prop shaft. I think the new montauk with its' deeper v'd hull would be a bit underpowered with 70hp, and definetly underpowered with 60 hp. A call to your dealer should answer the question about an unpowered Montauk. My dealer said no, I'm curious if anyone else has raised the same question.
BillS
Pat Mac posted 10-10-2002 04:05 PM ET (US)
I believe the motor is from the late 80's.
AnthonyT posted 10-10-2002 04:17 PM ET (US)
The word around is !No! .. It is package deal in which Whaler will not break since the demand is so high... a few have tried but none were able to buy the bare boat. The best I've heard is a person upgrading to a four stroke that was not on the boat, from dealer stock...

AnthonyT
Pat Mac posted 10-10-2002 04:27 PM ET (US)
Looks like I'm back searching for a solid 80's Montauk w/o power.
Thanks
Bigshot posted 10-11-2002 01:50 PM ET (US)
No....you can buy an alert and make what you want with no power. 1986 & up 70's are rated at the prop.
Pat Mac posted 10-11-2002 03:53 PM ET (US)
A definate possibility. Thanks.
Pat Mac posted 10-11-2002 04:10 PM ET (US)
Checked out the whaler commercial site. Any idea what they go for w/o power?
Harles posted 10-19-2002 10:29 PM ET (US)
I know that you can get a 170 w/o power overseas. You may want to try a Canadian or Mexico dealer.
Bigshot posted 10-21-2002 01:39 PM ET (US)
An alert is like $7k.
tabasco posted 10-29-2002 04:50 PM ET (US)
I am interested.......has anyone tried Canada or Mexico ......can you buy a Montauk 170 w/O power?
Pat Mac posted 10-30-2002 08:54 AM ET (US)
I spoke via e-mail to someone at H. Chalk & Son (on the St. Lawerence River). They said that they were working on getting the 170 w/o power and would keep me posted. I will let you know when I hear back.
Pat
lhg posted 10-30-2002 07:13 PM ET (US)
I'm still confused why someone would want to buck the system and buy a 170 without power. Order it with a Merc 90 4-stroke, and you really have a Yamaha, which is what I would guess most would want anyway. So the only other reason to want one without power is to install the other low market share brands, Honda, Suzuki or Bombardier. In the 90 HP range, the Honda is a slug certainly not worth the bother, and that leaves only the Suzuki or Fichts, good contenders. Only other two options could be the other's 2 strokes, mainly the popular little Yamaha, but which could be a little light on HP for the boat, or the Johnson, which has the bother of a separate oil tank. The whole issue seems to be a lot of talk about nothing.
The real HP issue on this boat should be the low rating. I just read the Yamaha/Mercury 115's are in INCREDIBLY short supply, which is why the 90's are going on instead.
The boat package is so cheap anyway with a 2 stroke 90, that an engine switch could be accomplished later. A brand new, discounted Merc 90 should be easy to sell (not trade, where you'll take a bath). They are still very popular.
andygere posted 10-31-2002 11:45 AM ET (US)
Until Merc comes out with a "clean" 2-stroke 90, California buyers can only get a new Montauk with the 4-stroke. Based on what I've read on this forum, that may be unsatisfactory for those wanting a good hole shot for skiing or for heavy loads. It's too bad these boats came through with the low hp rating, which won't allow 2003 owners to upgrade to a higher power outboard (say 115) later on. If the holeshot performance on a new Montauk with a 90 is anything like my dad's Dauntless 16, the extra power is needed.
Rodger posted 10-31-2002 12:38 PM ET (US)
I have a 2003 MT 170 with the Merc 90 4-stroke and love the combination. The boat jumps on a plane and tops out at 42 mph. Sure the 115 would be great (my last three Whalers have all been overpowered) but the 90 is plenty of power, runs great, and sips the fuel. I was very concerned and hesitant to buy the combination I did because of the low HP rating, fortunately I was very pleasantly surprised and happy with the performance.
lhg posted 10-31-2002 03:50 PM ET (US)
Andy - From what I hear and have read, Mercury will not be doing Optimax engines below the 135HP level, and plan on leaving that market to Evinrude and Tohatsu. I think 115 and down are all going to be 4-strokes. Perhaps they will design their own engines, eventually, for the 75-115HP ranges, lighter and with better power curves than the current Yamaha based joint venture offerings. Don't know if this rumored 4-stroke supercharging they are looking in to would be applicable to the mid range engines.
andygere posted 10-31-2002 06:37 PM ET (US)
Rodger, it's good to learn that the new Montauk performs well with a 90 4-stroke. The 16 Dauntless, while a nice boat, seems to plow along forever before getting on plane with a 90 2-stroke. Once up, it's a great boat and top end is decent too.
Larry, I'm surprised Merc is willing to leave the midrange DI 2-strokes to their competetors. Considering the sucess they have had with Opti's, it seems natural to bring that technology down to the 90-125 hp range. I guess I'm just not sold on big 4-stroke outboards (too slow, too heavy), and I'd loathe the idea of having to pull my boat out of the water several times a year to change the oil. Thinking about my next Whaler, a pair of 115-120 hp Optis would be a great repower option for a 22 if they could keep the weight under the magic 700 lbs. I doubt a pair of comperable 4 strokes will ever be that light.
Rodger posted 10-31-2002 08:24 PM ET (US)
Hi Andygere,
I test drove a Dauntless 16 (2002 model) with a 115 4-stroke just before taking delivery of my MT 170 and thought that it took a while to get up on plane. The Montauk has very little bow rise as compared to the Dauntless and gets on a plane with very little effort.
Rodger

jimh posted 11-01-2002 08:28 AM ET (US)
Regarding the short supply of 115-HP 4-stroke engines, Mercury's corporate information director confirmed this recently. See http://www.Boating-Industry.com/news.asp?mode=4&n_ID=35370 for details and quotes.
James posted 11-01-2002 11:16 PM ET (US)
I tested the 170 with the 90 HP 2-stroke prior to ordering it with the 90 HP four-stroke. I am very glad that I ordered the quiet, lower emissions four-stroke.
I believe that the HP rating is very low for the 170. It should probably be up around 125 HP. But in reality, the low horsepower rating and related performance is now a moot issue, at least for me and mine. The 90 HP engine power is more than ample and I am not a small person, neither is anyone in my family or my fishing friends. In our opinion, performance with the 90 is more than we found necessary for this hull. Actually the 170 is a sweet riding hull especially at 25-30 MPH (~3500 RPM). I use the boat in Raritan Bay, New Jersey. The Bay has been a little rough this year, with a lot of 3-5 ft. waves whenever I had a chance to go out, and I never really had a chance to safely go WOT.
James.
ShrimpBurrito posted 11-02-2002 02:14 AM ET (US)
Here's 2002 Montauk, with pretty much no power. Could be a good deal if the bidding doesn't go much higher.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1871566074
Marlin posted 11-02-2002 09:57 PM ET (US)
Andygere and Rodger,
Not to change the subject, but can you tell me more about your Dauntless 16 experiences and observations? I have a deposit on a 2003, subject to a sea trial, and would be interested in any information you could provide. They're not nearly as talked-about as the new Montauks!
Thanks,
Bob
andygere posted 11-03-2002 11:50 PM ET (US)
Marlin,
My dad has a '99 Dauntless 16 with a carbed Merc 90. It's a nice boat and handles the chop a little better than my Montauk. Although they are similar in length, the Dauntless has more beam which makes it feel bigger inside. The stern seats are nice, as is the built-in fuel tank. Once up on plane, it really moves out, but I think it can really use the extra horsepower (say 115) to get it out of the hole faster. I suggested to my dad that he add a Doel Fin to help get it on plane a little quicker.
tabasco posted 11-04-2002 07:48 AM ET (US)
Shrimp- That 2002 is the classic style Montauk not the Newly redesigned 170

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: New 170 w/o power?
Pat Mac	posted 10-10-2002 03:55 PM ET (US) Running through some possible scenarios and would appreciate feedback. I have a 70 hp Johnson that works great. Does anyone know if you can get a new 170 without power? If so, ballpark $. Then, when my engine goes, I could upgrade and have a nice set up. That's the thought anyway.... Thanks, Pat
bsmotril	posted 10-10-2002 04:02 PM ET (US) Depending on how old that 70 is, it may be more like a 60. Older motors measured HP at the powerhead versus new ones that measure it at the prop shaft. I think the new montauk with its' deeper v'd hull would be a bit underpowered with 70hp, and definetly underpowered with 60 hp. A call to your dealer should answer the question about an unpowered Montauk. My dealer said no, I'm curious if anyone else has raised the same question. BillS
Pat Mac	posted 10-10-2002 04:05 PM ET (US) I believe the motor is from the late 80's.
AnthonyT	posted 10-10-2002 04:17 PM ET (US) The word around is !No! .. It is package deal in which Whaler will not break since the demand is so high... a few have tried but none were able to buy the bare boat. The best I've heard is a person upgrading to a four stroke that was not on the boat, from dealer stock... AnthonyT
Pat Mac	posted 10-10-2002 04:27 PM ET (US) Looks like I'm back searching for a solid 80's Montauk w/o power. Thanks
Bigshot	posted 10-11-2002 01:50 PM ET (US) No....you can buy an alert and make what you want with no power. 1986 & up 70's are rated at the prop.
Pat Mac	posted 10-11-2002 03:53 PM ET (US) A definate possibility. Thanks.
Pat Mac	posted 10-11-2002 04:10 PM ET (US) Checked out the whaler commercial site. Any idea what they go for w/o power?
Harles	posted 10-19-2002 10:29 PM ET (US) I know that you can get a 170 w/o power overseas. You may want to try a Canadian or Mexico dealer.
Bigshot	posted 10-21-2002 01:39 PM ET (US) An alert is like $7k.
tabasco	posted 10-29-2002 04:50 PM ET (US) I am interested.......has anyone tried Canada or Mexico ......can you buy a Montauk 170 w/O power?
Pat Mac	posted 10-30-2002 08:54 AM ET (US) I spoke via e-mail to someone at H. Chalk & Son (on the St. Lawerence River). They said that they were working on getting the 170 w/o power and would keep me posted. I will let you know when I hear back. Pat
lhg	posted 10-30-2002 07:13 PM ET (US) I'm still confused why someone would want to buck the system and buy a 170 without power. Order it with a Merc 90 4-stroke, and you really have a Yamaha, which is what I would guess most would want anyway. So the only other reason to want one without power is to install the other low market share brands, Honda, Suzuki or Bombardier. In the 90 HP range, the Honda is a slug certainly not worth the bother, and that leaves only the Suzuki or Fichts, good contenders. Only other two options could be the other's 2 strokes, mainly the popular little Yamaha, but which could be a little light on HP for the boat, or the Johnson, which has the bother of a separate oil tank. The whole issue seems to be a lot of talk about nothing. The real HP issue on this boat should be the low rating. I just read the Yamaha/Mercury 115's are in INCREDIBLY short supply, which is why the 90's are going on instead. The boat package is so cheap anyway with a 2 stroke 90, that an engine switch could be accomplished later. A brand new, discounted Merc 90 should be easy to sell (not trade, where you'll take a bath). They are still very popular.
andygere	posted 10-31-2002 11:45 AM ET (US) Until Merc comes out with a "clean" 2-stroke 90, California buyers can only get a new Montauk with the 4-stroke. Based on what I've read on this forum, that may be unsatisfactory for those wanting a good hole shot for skiing or for heavy loads. It's too bad these boats came through with the low hp rating, which won't allow 2003 owners to upgrade to a higher power outboard (say 115) later on. If the holeshot performance on a new Montauk with a 90 is anything like my dad's Dauntless 16, the extra power is needed.
Rodger	posted 10-31-2002 12:38 PM ET (US) I have a 2003 MT 170 with the Merc 90 4-stroke and love the combination. The boat jumps on a plane and tops out at 42 mph. Sure the 115 would be great (my last three Whalers have all been overpowered) but the 90 is plenty of power, runs great, and sips the fuel. I was very concerned and hesitant to buy the combination I did because of the low HP rating, fortunately I was very pleasantly surprised and happy with the performance.
lhg	posted 10-31-2002 03:50 PM ET (US) Andy - From what I hear and have read, Mercury will not be doing Optimax engines below the 135HP level, and plan on leaving that market to Evinrude and Tohatsu. I think 115 and down are all going to be 4-strokes. Perhaps they will design their own engines, eventually, for the 75-115HP ranges, lighter and with better power curves than the current Yamaha based joint venture offerings. Don't know if this rumored 4-stroke supercharging they are looking in to would be applicable to the mid range engines.
andygere	posted 10-31-2002 06:37 PM ET (US) Rodger, it's good to learn that the new Montauk performs well with a 90 4-stroke. The 16 Dauntless, while a nice boat, seems to plow along forever before getting on plane with a 90 2-stroke. Once up, it's a great boat and top end is decent too. Larry, I'm surprised Merc is willing to leave the midrange DI 2-strokes to their competetors. Considering the sucess they have had with Opti's, it seems natural to bring that technology down to the 90-125 hp range. I guess I'm just not sold on big 4-stroke outboards (too slow, too heavy), and I'd loathe the idea of having to pull my boat out of the water several times a year to change the oil. Thinking about my next Whaler, a pair of 115-120 hp Optis would be a great repower option for a 22 if they could keep the weight under the magic 700 lbs. I doubt a pair of comperable 4 strokes will ever be that light.
Rodger	posted 10-31-2002 08:24 PM ET (US) Hi Andygere, I test drove a Dauntless 16 (2002 model) with a 115 4-stroke just before taking delivery of my MT 170 and thought that it took a while to get up on plane. The Montauk has very little bow rise as compared to the Dauntless and gets on a plane with very little effort. Rodger
jimh	posted 11-01-2002 08:28 AM ET (US) Regarding the short supply of 115-HP 4-stroke engines, Mercury's corporate information director confirmed this recently. See http://www.Boating-Industry.com/news.asp?mode=4&n_ID=35370 for details and quotes.
James	posted 11-01-2002 11:16 PM ET (US) I tested the 170 with the 90 HP 2-stroke prior to ordering it with the 90 HP four-stroke. I am very glad that I ordered the quiet, lower emissions four-stroke. I believe that the HP rating is very low for the 170. It should probably be up around 125 HP. But in reality, the low horsepower rating and related performance is now a moot issue, at least for me and mine. The 90 HP engine power is more than ample and I am not a small person, neither is anyone in my family or my fishing friends. In our opinion, performance with the 90 is more than we found necessary for this hull. Actually the 170 is a sweet riding hull especially at 25-30 MPH (~3500 RPM). I use the boat in Raritan Bay, New Jersey. The Bay has been a little rough this year, with a lot of 3-5 ft. waves whenever I had a chance to go out, and I never really had a chance to safely go WOT. James.
ShrimpBurrito	posted 11-02-2002 02:14 AM ET (US) Here's 2002 Montauk, with pretty much no power. Could be a good deal if the bidding doesn't go much higher. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1871566074
Marlin	posted 11-02-2002 09:57 PM ET (US) Andygere and Rodger, Not to change the subject, but can you tell me more about your Dauntless 16 experiences and observations? I have a deposit on a 2003, subject to a sea trial, and would be interested in any information you could provide. They're not nearly as talked-about as the new Montauks! Thanks, Bob
andygere	posted 11-03-2002 11:50 PM ET (US) Marlin, My dad has a '99 Dauntless 16 with a carbed Merc 90. It's a nice boat and handles the chop a little better than my Montauk. Although they are similar in length, the Dauntless has more beam which makes it feel bigger inside. The stern seats are nice, as is the built-in fuel tank. Once up on plane, it really moves out, but I think it can really use the extra horsepower (say 115) to get it out of the hole faster. I suggested to my dad that he add a Doel Fin to help get it on plane a little quicker.
tabasco	posted 11-04-2002 07:48 AM ET (US) Shrimp- That 2002 is the classic style Montauk not the Newly redesigned 170