Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk 170 v. 17 or 18/19 Classic Outrage

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk 170 v. 17 or 18/19 Classic Outrage
elaelap posted 01-29-2004 03:31 PM ET (US)   Profile for elaelap   Send Email to elaelap  
My first time on this side (the Post-Classic forum), so please forgive my post if it's duplicative of others here.
I've reviewed dozens of Post-Classic topics, and haven't seen one regarding all the following comparisons between a Montauk 170 and a classic (mid-late-'eighties) 17 or 18/19 Outrage:

1. Towing and launching ease (or lack thereof; problems if any exist).
2. Handling characteristics & rough water capabilities.
3. Comfort (seating, accessability of controls, the console layout, etc).
4. Fishability.
5. Finish and construction quality.
6. Aesthetics, and anything else you can think of...

Please don't tell me that I'm seeking impossible comparisons between apples and oranges; I already know that the two (actually three) boats are designed and constructed very differently, and that exact similarities will be few or nada. What I'm looking for, since the boats approximate one another in size and weight, are comments as to their general characteristics viz a viz one another.

Thanks,

Tony ('71 16 Katama/Yamaha 50 hp four stroke)

elaelap posted 01-29-2004 03:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Another way of addressing this might be: Setting aside price, which would you rather own, a 170 Montauk or a classic 17 or 18/19 Outrage in equal condition properly powered? I'll ask the same question in "General" to get some balance. Thanks,

Tony

Moe posted 01-29-2004 03:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
While on the Post-Classics page, select to view topics from the last two years. Then use "Find (on this page)" under IE's Edit menu, and search for topics which include 170. Lots of comparisons.

Do the same on the General page.
--
Moe

elaelap posted 01-29-2004 05:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Of course, Moe...I just said I reviewed a bunch of topics here about the 170; just haven't found one dealing with all my compare/contrast questions in one place. If it's there and I haven't found it, so, so sorry. And, by the way, while looking through many of those posts, I've come upon some seriously fine graphs and charts prepared by you...thanks. But now how about letting someone else reply to my topic, if he/she feels so inclined.

Tony

AQUANUT posted 01-29-2004 11:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
Hello Tony,

I currently own a 2004 170 Montauk built in June 2003, recieved mid-July 2003. The day I unloaded it off the tractor trailer with a fork truck--one of seven and it was on bottom of the stack (figures)--I took the 90 Saltwater 2-stroke off and re-rigged with a 115 EFI 4-stroke. I got to 30 hours before snow and winter set in here in Pacific Northwest. I love it. If ya have question will be glad to converse..

Secondly, tomorrow, first thing I am installing a XL [extra long] 115 saltwater 4-stroke EFI on an 18 Outrage c.1987. There are soooo many differences in my boat and the Outrage of that year. This particular Outrage had (until today) a 150-HP 2-stroke oil-injected. It was set up with dual steering cables and tilt tubes. Originally the second steering cable controled a remote kicker motor. There is also an extra set of throttle/shift cables and top-mount twin control box and two ignition switches. It is my belief that it never had two cruising engines, just a main engine and a kicker, each with its own controls

I guess my point here is the Montauk I have couldn't run a pair of 115's where the 18 outrage could accomodate this.

Not enough transom on the 170. There are many other differences. For example, installed fuel tank and greater fuel capacity, more deck room to fish aft of seat/leaning post. But then the 18 Outrage is a heavier vessel with lots of wood--which means maintenance. The performance on the hull/ride/planing--I can't comment as never ran an 18 Outrage. I am just stating the obivous differences to the naked eye. I personally feel that my Montauk with the 115 and the stainless 14-inch pitch Vengeance prop launches like a rocket. And I enjoy the rush. LOL! However for fishability, I've seen a lot of people catching fish from shore. Me, I enjoy the ride. That's the best part for me. :-)

later
Terry

elaelap posted 01-30-2004 11:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Thanks for that, Terry, and I guess you answered the second question also...as a rigger you must have a good first shot at many boats just coming on the market, and you chose a 170.

Others?

Tony

erik selis posted 01-30-2004 04:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
Hi Tony,

A while ago I asked a similar question on the "Classic Whaler: General " side.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/006417.html

I think some of your questions are also answered in that post but maybe not all. I'll try to highlight some issues that I have some experience with.

First of all I would like to mention that I have been out fishing and boating in 2, 18-foot Classic Outrages for many years now. However I have never owned one. The same can be said for a 17-foot Alert. I own a 170 Montauk and have taken her out about 80 hours now. Maybe it's because I own her, but I really love my boat. Although there are some small issues that could have been improved before launching by Boston Whaler. I will point this out later in the post.

Back to your points of interest:

Towing and launching ease (or lack thereof; problems if any exist).

We all have trailers with keel rollers so I don't know if I can compare with you guys. I have no problems launching my boat on my own. I do however always have a pair of wading boots with me. Be very cautious when choosing a trailer for the 18-foot Outrage. The boat weighs more than specified by BW. The spec's state 1225lbs but in reality it's about 1500lbs. They have been weighed here. The 17-foot Alert is the easiest to trailer and to launch because it's the lightest (obviously)

Handling characteristics & rough water capabilities.

After reading some of the experiences of some of the forum members here (lgh, Tabasco...)I don't really think I have been out in such bad conditions or have had such bad luck to be in a life threatening situation.
I can however say that the 170 Montauk is very difficult to manoeuvre at slow speeds especially with the slightest wind at either side. Both the Outrage and the Alert are less sensitive to wind at slow speeds.
The 170 Montauk and the 18-Outrage have a much softer and drier ride than the 17-Alert. The 170 Montauk ride is softer than the Outrage but not as dry. I think the 18- Outrage is a bit more boat than the 170 Montauk and therefore more capable in rough conditions. One huge advantage of the Classic Outrage is the low transom and the ability to get rid of water fast.

Comfort (seating, accessibility of controls, the console layout, etc).

I personally find the console of the 170 Montauk a bit low. It's ok when seated but too low for me when standing. The layout is fine. I like the no-feedback steering on my 170 Montauk. I don't like the standard steering system on the Outrage's that I have experience with. Letting go of the steering wheel can be very dangerous. I have also injured my kneecap twice on the console handle-bars of the Outrage. The seats in all boats are fine. The Outrage cooler-seat is larger than the others. More room is more comfort.
The bow cushion in the 170 Montauk is very nice. I haven't been in an Outrage with bow cushion so I cannot comment.

Fishability.

The inside space of the 18-Outrage and the 170 Montauk is basically the same. The Alert that we use is set-up completely different than the others and is used for a specific type of fishing: backtrolling and vertical jigging. The ideal boat for this type of fishing.
http://users.skynet.be/extreme-vissers/Alert_17_Dirk.htm
I think the side rails on the 170 Montauk are rather high and sometimes get in the way for certain fishing techniques. The 170 Montauk does have the advantage over the 18-Outrage in that you can easily mount a trolling motor on the transom (as I have done). A 55lb thrust motor and a 12V 105Ah battery is large enough to keep you fishing and manoeuvring all day. I doubt if it would easily manoeuvre the Outrage.
The rod holders in the gunwale of the Outrage is a plus point.

Finish and construction quality.

The general finish of the 170 Montauk is just fine for me except for 2 things:
-The bow rail is not supported at the front. It tends to resonate at certain speeds. It can easily bend if someone heavy would fall on it. A pity they made it like that. The bow rail on the Outrage has a larger diameter, is supported at the front and looks - is basically stronger.
-No cleats at the back:(the newer models now have them)How on earth they could have built the first models without those cleats I do not understand. The dealer mounted them for free because he couldn't understand either.
The anti-slip deck of the Outrage and the Alert are easier to clean than the 170 Montauk.
Be careful when putting your hand inside of the port hole under the rear starboard step in the 170 Montauk. I cut my hand on sharp fibre-glass leftovers when mounting my transducer.
All Outrages I have seen show some spider cracks on the transom.

Anything else ?

Why the low (90)hp-rating for the 170 Montauk? Brunswick policy? Everyone knows it should be higher.
Why no built-in fuel tank in the 170 Montauk? Ok, production costs. Still a setback for those who want (dare) to go out far on a good day. Oh well, on those days we'll just take the Outrage I guess.

All this said, I again wish to say that I really love my boat. I just pointed out some issues that have probably been discussed before about the 170 Montauk.

Sorry for the marathon post here guys. :-)

Erik

jimh posted 01-30-2004 10:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Some portions of this thread have been edited to improve their readability.]
elaelap posted 01-31-2004 09:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Bedankt, Erik! Thanks also to the several folks who emailed me with comments and links. You guys over here in Post-Classic are okay by me (but please don't tell anyone over in General that I said that, and pretend you don't know me if I drift by in my old Katama).

Tony

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.