170 Montauk Performance Chart - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  170 Montauk Performance Chart

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   170 Montauk Performance Chart

Barney posted 11-28-2003 06:54 PM ET (US)
This is a recent performance chart for the 170 Montauk that Moe put together:
http://myweb.cableone.net/barney9014/images/performance.jpg
Jim
cape_rover posted 11-28-2003 09:07 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the data. What was the weight in the boat and sea conditions?
Does the 2003 Montauk come with an 18" pitch prop? The reference material on this site shows a 16" prop for the 2002 Montauk.
What is the max RPM for the 90 Hp 4-stroke? How many RPMs can this motor turn with a properly trimed engine and the 18" prop?
The best MPG with this prop looks like it is around 3,300 PRM, is that correct or am I ready the bottom scale incorrectly?
Perry posted 11-28-2003 09:41 PM ET (US)
I thought a Mercury 90 4 stroke on the new 170 Montauk would do more than 38 mph. I also expected better fuel economy too.
Moe posted 11-28-2003 10:26 PM ET (US)
The only data points we have are on 500 rpm increments, so 3500 is the first data point after getting on plane and will show the highest fuel mileage (besides that at 2,000 rpm and below before the boat starts plowing though water as its bow wave moves back). The rpm data points are actually halfway between vertical lines. The lines are smoothed by Excel's graphing function.
I'll have to let Jim give the details of how the test boat was loaded. Perhaps they didn't publish the maximum mph speed because the associated rpm is less than the next 500 rpm increment at the motor's max rpm of 6,000.
Only the first 2002 170s were delivered with 16" props and they had 2.07:1 gearing, like the 115HP. The 4-stroke 90 on the 170 soon switched to 18" props with 2.33:1 gearing. The actual mph/rpm should be almost exactly the same, but the slip figures may be different. I don't know exactly when in production that changed.
--
Moe
Barney posted 11-29-2003 07:46 AM ET (US)
Loading during the test was two persons with 13 gallons of fuel. Jim
jimh posted 11-29-2003 12:09 PM ET (US)
Are the results measurements made by Barney (Jim)?
Or are the results as reported in the BOATING magazine article?
I'm confused--could be a chronic condition. :-)
--jimh
Barney posted 11-29-2003 01:12 PM ET (US)
jimh, The results are "Certified Test Results" from the magazine. Jim
Barney posted 12-02-2003 09:25 PM ET (US)
Moe put together another chart showing prop slip on the 170 Montauk with the 90 4-stroke.
http://myweb.cableone.net/barney9014/images/performance2.jpg

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 Montauk Performance Chart
Barney	posted 11-28-2003 06:54 PM ET (US) This is a recent performance chart for the 170 Montauk that Moe put together: http://myweb.cableone.net/barney9014/images/performance.jpg Jim
cape_rover	posted 11-28-2003 09:07 PM ET (US) Thanks for the data. What was the weight in the boat and sea conditions? Does the 2003 Montauk come with an 18" pitch prop? The reference material on this site shows a 16" prop for the 2002 Montauk. What is the max RPM for the 90 Hp 4-stroke? How many RPMs can this motor turn with a properly trimed engine and the 18" prop? The best MPG with this prop looks like it is around 3,300 PRM, is that correct or am I ready the bottom scale incorrectly?
Perry	posted 11-28-2003 09:41 PM ET (US) I thought a Mercury 90 4 stroke on the new 170 Montauk would do more than 38 mph. I also expected better fuel economy too.
Moe	posted 11-28-2003 10:26 PM ET (US) The only data points we have are on 500 rpm increments, so 3500 is the first data point after getting on plane and will show the highest fuel mileage (besides that at 2,000 rpm and below before the boat starts plowing though water as its bow wave moves back). The rpm data points are actually halfway between vertical lines. The lines are smoothed by Excel's graphing function. I'll have to let Jim give the details of how the test boat was loaded. Perhaps they didn't publish the maximum mph speed because the associated rpm is less than the next 500 rpm increment at the motor's max rpm of 6,000. Only the first 2002 170s were delivered with 16" props and they had 2.07:1 gearing, like the 115HP. The 4-stroke 90 on the 170 soon switched to 18" props with 2.33:1 gearing. The actual mph/rpm should be almost exactly the same, but the slip figures may be different. I don't know exactly when in production that changed. -- Moe
Barney	posted 11-29-2003 07:46 AM ET (US) Loading during the test was two persons with 13 gallons of fuel. Jim
jimh	posted 11-29-2003 12:09 PM ET (US) Are the results measurements made by Barney (Jim)? Or are the results as reported in the BOATING magazine article? I'm confused--could be a chronic condition. :-) --jimh
Barney	posted 11-29-2003 01:12 PM ET (US) jimh, The results are "Certified Test Results" from the magazine. Jim
Barney	posted 12-02-2003 09:25 PM ET (US) Moe put together another chart showing prop slip on the 170 Montauk with the 90 4-stroke. http://myweb.cableone.net/barney9014/images/performance2.jpg