Montauk 170 VS Classic 17, another view $ - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk 170 VS Classic 17, another view $

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk 170 VS Classic 17, another view $

lakeman posted 01-27-2003 08:46 AM ET (US)
I know this topic has been kicked around and I have read almost every one but hopefully this has a sligtly differenct slant.
Given the choice between buying a 99 classic 17 for $14K in great condition(I found one) or the new 170 for $23k. which would you buy if money was no REAL barrier to the purchase. I know all the classic people will say the clasic 17 etc. But, based on value, ride, etc what would I gain or lose in buying either one. Maybe, I should just ask is the new 170 worth the 9K difference.
The more I research/shop, the more questions I develope.

JBCornwell posted 01-27-2003 09:14 AM ET (US)
I guess it depends on priorities, Lakeman.
The 170 is a bigger, much heavier boat. It is closer to a deep vee. All three features will make it "ride smoother", if that is your top priority.
The 17 would be faster and more economical to operate. My opinion is that it is more nimble. For fishing, the lower freeboard and high rails are an unbeatable combination.
The RPS is a far more useful seat than the flip-flop.
The 170 will satisfy the "new" imperative, the 17 the "Classic" imperative.
If you settle on your prioities, the choice will be obvious.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
Jimm posted 01-27-2003 10:01 AM ET (US)
Lakeman, I do own a Montauk 170 so let's see if I can be objective. I was originally looking for an older Montauk. My wife and I went for rides in quite a few and she found them to ride too hard. I had to agree by stating "it's not the best ride in the world". We then happened to go for a ride in a McKee 17 footer. To our way of thinking the ride was a lot better. The McKee is about the same size as the current 170. The only reason we did not buy the McKee was the price when considering that there was a Force motor on it. While looking at another classic Montauk at a dealers we were introduced to the M 170.
The old Montauk is unsinkable; the new Montauk is unsinkable. The old has railings all around; the new has railings all around. The old rides hard; the new rides much better. The old is narrow, you have to squeeze by the console; the new is wider. The old old have time consuming teak; the new have easy clean fiberglass console and RPS. The old weighs about 950 pounds; the new weighs 1400 pounds. The old goes faster; the new goes slower - although I do not have a need for speed. The old could be trailered by a small car; the new by a bigger than a small car.
I could have saved about 8K by buying the old but I saw nothing but improvements in the Montauk 170. I have a great dealer and I am happy with the boat. It wasn't designed by Daugherty but so what. To each his own. Either way you'll have a boat you can trust that will get you home safely...Jim
Dick posted 01-27-2003 11:16 AM ET (US)
I own a 99 Montauk and love it.
Last week at the boat show I saw my first 170 Montauk. It is a nice boat and has some features that I like and some I dislike.
If I were shopping for a new boat I would be interested and show priced at $18,995.00 with a Merc 90 and trailer it is affordable.
Dick
triblet posted 01-28-2003 09:58 AM ET (US)
I got to drive a 170 a couple of weeks ago.
It's bigger. It wouldn't fit in my garage as
my 167 barely fits. That's a show stopper.
It rides lots better. Admiral Linda had taken
my 167 out a few minutes earlier and I'd watched
it bouncing. The 170 didn't bounce.
It doesn't jump on plane like my 167. Both
have 90's, mine's a carbed 2-stroke, the 170
had a 4-stroke.
The 170 is roomier.
But you've heard all this before.
That $23K price seems high.

Chuck
Bigshot posted 01-28-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)
My biggest factor is 99 will be worth $11k in 5 years. 2003 will be worth $13k in 5 years......hhmmmm.
PSW posted 01-28-2003 03:20 PM ET (US)
Well I guess I will throw in my two cents...I have a 1991 Mint Montauk with 115 and at the boat show I looked very carefully at the 170. I would miss the wood and the classic's lines. The console on the 170 looks to short if standing while underway. When I was searching for my classic I looked at a 170 and the price did not scare me too much I just felt like a 90 was not enough power. Also at the family beach house the extra 500 or so added pounds would be noticed when backing off the sandy boat ramp with a low tide. I think the big ride difference could be changed dramatically if you were to carry a full cooler and a anchor locker full of chain. I mean load it up to give it that extra weight the 170 has. Really though it looks to be a great boat I just like the classic.
PSW
Bigshot posted 01-28-2003 05:02 PM ET (US)
Good point....when I have 4-5 adults in my Montauk(89), she rides like a Cadillac....but floats of course. When Don(inhernet) gets up here I will beat the snot out of his brand new 170 and let you guys know how she holds up.
mbking1 posted 01-28-2003 09:45 PM ET (US)
The strongest arguement on this thread so far is from bigshot. Please re-read what he says and think hard..Next order is to determine which choice will be best FOR YOUR APPLICATION. Myself,I will stick with my 99 Montauk. I have repowered once already. The hull will always be there for me. I think the goal here is to have the maximum pleasure for the minimum financial exposure. Mark
lakeman posted 01-29-2003 02:53 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all the great replys from Knowlegable BW owners.
It seems that for my sake(age) the ride maybe more important than price. I wish I could compare the ride for my self, the BW dealer said that the later Classic Montauks ride was improved, The CC on the 170 leaves a little to be desired. On the price, I was figering tax into the 23k still might be low. I agree with bigshot that the money/depreciation angle is important as well. I'm just trying to find a do it all boat that I can keep in a small ware house, after coming out of my Grady, if/hope/when it sells, I like the looks and simplcity of the Montauk old or new. I'm retiring in the spring and have other interest that may take me different directions, but I will always own a boat.
TIA for I will have other question I'm sure.
What a great forum
Jimm posted 01-29-2003 03:33 PM ET (US)
Lakeman, I see you're in Florida but for comparison there are 2 local dealers in NJ offering the M170 for $17995 - boat, motor (90, 2 stroke) and trailer. Secondly I don't know where BigShot is getting his figures from in reagrd to depreciation...Jim
Bigshot posted 01-29-2003 03:41 PM ET (US)
Well....He is looking at a mint 99 with a 99 90hp yamaha for $13-14k. That boat was $25k when new. I figure that 170 is $20k new, so it will be worth the same in 5 years as the 99 depreciated to that in 4. Therefore I am being generous and including the fact that that 99 is a frickin steal. Personally I doubt the new 170's with 2 strokes will fetch $13k in 5 years being they are only $17.9 now. If they go up in price maybe. Many 2000-2001 130's for sale at $6-7000 and can't sell yet a nice classic 13 will for the same money.
lakeman posted 01-30-2003 08:04 AM ET (US)
Montauk 170 new price is with 904S, fishing package, bimmini, is something like $21,500 with tax @ 6% = about $22790 all BW,with no electronics. I would consider the 2S but noise in that small of boat might be of concern(how nit picky can I get)I have been spoiled by haveing a big motor on a bracket where the noise is isolated from the boat.
I have focused on BW because they atract interest and are known every where and sell quickly used, especially the ones under 20'.
Going to the Miami Boat Show and make my choice/decision there I hope, wife(my best boating friend) may alter my plans on what to buy, but so it goes.

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: Montauk 170 VS Classic 17, another view $
lakeman	posted 01-27-2003 08:46 AM ET (US) I know this topic has been kicked around and I have read almost every one but hopefully this has a sligtly differenct slant. Given the choice between buying a 99 classic 17 for $14K in great condition(I found one) or the new 170 for $23k. which would you buy if money was no REAL barrier to the purchase. I know all the classic people will say the clasic 17 etc. But, based on value, ride, etc what would I gain or lose in buying either one. Maybe, I should just ask is the new 170 worth the 9K difference. The more I research/shop, the more questions I develope.
JBCornwell	posted 01-27-2003 09:14 AM ET (US) I guess it depends on priorities, Lakeman. The 170 is a bigger, much heavier boat. It is closer to a deep vee. All three features will make it "ride smoother", if that is your top priority. The 17 would be faster and more economical to operate. My opinion is that it is more nimble. For fishing, the lower freeboard and high rails are an unbeatable combination. The RPS is a far more useful seat than the flip-flop. The 170 will satisfy the "new" imperative, the 17 the "Classic" imperative. If you settle on your prioities, the choice will be obvious. Red sky at night. . . JB
Jimm	posted 01-27-2003 10:01 AM ET (US) Lakeman, I do own a Montauk 170 so let's see if I can be objective. I was originally looking for an older Montauk. My wife and I went for rides in quite a few and she found them to ride too hard. I had to agree by stating "it's not the best ride in the world". We then happened to go for a ride in a McKee 17 footer. To our way of thinking the ride was a lot better. The McKee is about the same size as the current 170. The only reason we did not buy the McKee was the price when considering that there was a Force motor on it. While looking at another classic Montauk at a dealers we were introduced to the M 170. The old Montauk is unsinkable; the new Montauk is unsinkable. The old has railings all around; the new has railings all around. The old rides hard; the new rides much better. The old is narrow, you have to squeeze by the console; the new is wider. The old old have time consuming teak; the new have easy clean fiberglass console and RPS. The old weighs about 950 pounds; the new weighs 1400 pounds. The old goes faster; the new goes slower - although I do not have a need for speed. The old could be trailered by a small car; the new by a bigger than a small car. I could have saved about 8K by buying the old but I saw nothing but improvements in the Montauk 170. I have a great dealer and I am happy with the boat. It wasn't designed by Daugherty but so what. To each his own. Either way you'll have a boat you can trust that will get you home safely...Jim
Dick	posted 01-27-2003 11:16 AM ET (US) I own a 99 Montauk and love it. Last week at the boat show I saw my first 170 Montauk. It is a nice boat and has some features that I like and some I dislike. If I were shopping for a new boat I would be interested and show priced at $18,995.00 with a Merc 90 and trailer it is affordable. Dick
triblet	posted 01-28-2003 09:58 AM ET (US) I got to drive a 170 a couple of weeks ago. It's bigger. It wouldn't fit in my garage as my 167 barely fits. That's a show stopper. It rides lots better. Admiral Linda had taken my 167 out a few minutes earlier and I'd watched it bouncing. The 170 didn't bounce. It doesn't jump on plane like my 167. Both have 90's, mine's a carbed 2-stroke, the 170 had a 4-stroke. The 170 is roomier. But you've heard all this before. That $23K price seems high. Chuck
Bigshot	posted 01-28-2003 01:40 PM ET (US) My biggest factor is 99 will be worth $11k in 5 years. 2003 will be worth $13k in 5 years......hhmmmm.
PSW	posted 01-28-2003 03:20 PM ET (US) Well I guess I will throw in my two cents...I have a 1991 Mint Montauk with 115 and at the boat show I looked very carefully at the 170. I would miss the wood and the classic's lines. The console on the 170 looks to short if standing while underway. When I was searching for my classic I looked at a 170 and the price did not scare me too much I just felt like a 90 was not enough power. Also at the family beach house the extra 500 or so added pounds would be noticed when backing off the sandy boat ramp with a low tide. I think the big ride difference could be changed dramatically if you were to carry a full cooler and a anchor locker full of chain. I mean load it up to give it that extra weight the 170 has. Really though it looks to be a great boat I just like the classic. PSW
Bigshot	posted 01-28-2003 05:02 PM ET (US) Good point....when I have 4-5 adults in my Montauk(89), she rides like a Cadillac....but floats of course. When Don(inhernet) gets up here I will beat the snot out of his brand new 170 and let you guys know how she holds up.
mbking1	posted 01-28-2003 09:45 PM ET (US) The strongest arguement on this thread so far is from bigshot. Please re-read what he says and think hard..Next order is to determine which choice will be best FOR YOUR APPLICATION. Myself,I will stick with my 99 Montauk. I have repowered once already. The hull will always be there for me. I think the goal here is to have the maximum pleasure for the minimum financial exposure. Mark
lakeman	posted 01-29-2003 02:53 PM ET (US) Thanks for all the great replys from Knowlegable BW owners. It seems that for my sake(age) the ride maybe more important than price. I wish I could compare the ride for my self, the BW dealer said that the later Classic Montauks ride was improved, The CC on the 170 leaves a little to be desired. On the price, I was figering tax into the 23k still might be low. I agree with bigshot that the money/depreciation angle is important as well. I'm just trying to find a do it all boat that I can keep in a small ware house, after coming out of my Grady, if/hope/when it sells, I like the looks and simplcity of the Montauk old or new. I'm retiring in the spring and have other interest that may take me different directions, but I will always own a boat. TIA for I will have other question I'm sure. What a great forum
Jimm	posted 01-29-2003 03:33 PM ET (US) Lakeman, I see you're in Florida but for comparison there are 2 local dealers in NJ offering the M170 for $17995 - boat, motor (90, 2 stroke) and trailer. Secondly I don't know where BigShot is getting his figures from in reagrd to depreciation...Jim
Bigshot	posted 01-29-2003 03:41 PM ET (US) Well....He is looking at a mint 99 with a 99 90hp yamaha for $13-14k. That boat was $25k when new. I figure that 170 is $20k new, so it will be worth the same in 5 years as the 99 depreciated to that in 4. Therefore I am being generous and including the fact that that 99 is a frickin steal. Personally I doubt the new 170's with 2 strokes will fetch $13k in 5 years being they are only $17.9 now. If they go up in price maybe. Many 2000-2001 130's for sale at $6-7000 and can't sell yet a nice classic 13 will for the same money.
lakeman	posted 01-30-2003 08:04 AM ET (US) Montauk 170 new price is with 904S, fishing package, bimmini, is something like $21,500 with tax @ 6% = about $22790 all BW,with no electronics. I would consider the 2S but noise in that small of boat might be of concern(how nit picky can I get)I have been spoiled by haveing a big motor on a bracket where the noise is isolated from the boat. I have focused on BW because they atract interest and are known every where and sell quickly used, especially the ones under 20'. Going to the Miami Boat Show and make my choice/decision there I hope, wife(my best boating friend) may alter my plans on what to buy, but so it goes.