Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  1998 17' Outrage compared to 2004 Montauk 170

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

Author Topic:   1998 17' Outrage compared to 2004 Montauk 170
Nushlie posted 02-03-2004 08:00 AM ET (US)   Profile for Nushlie   Send Email to Nushlie  

If anybody out there has information about the differences between these two boats I would appreciate reading your comments.

I'm interested in topics such as overall performance in calm and rougher water, build quality, cost, availability, etc.

Thank you,


prm1177 posted 02-03-2004 07:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
I own a 96 Outrage II 17 and looked at the Montauk 170 prior to buying my boat used. Here are the essential differences I found.

Outrage 17 compared to Montauk 170 has/is:
Internal fuel tank (56 gals)
6 inches longer and 2 inches wider
Heavier (300 Lbs)
Greater legal HP limit (150 vs 90)
Console has lockable electronics box
Deeper draft (12 vs 9 in)
Self-bailing scuppers (nice feature)
Storage locker/bilge

Some feel the Outrage will handle a little bigger water. Can't comment as I haven't had a Montauk in rough seas, although the extra HP capacity tips the balance in favor of the Outrage if you can find a clean one.


prm1177 posted 02-03-2004 07:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
You know, I never did answer your actual questions.

overall performance in calm and rougher water - Faster given higher HP capacity. I've taken my OR17 out in 2-3 ft seas and always felt safe, although it's not something I'd do by choice.

build quality - Comparable, I'd say, though the Outrage will have more finishing details

cost - OR 17 should be available around or under $17-20k depending on area and market

availability - there's the rub. both are scarce

Nushlie posted 02-04-2004 02:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Nushlie  Send Email to Nushlie     

Thanks for the information. We would prefer to buy a new boat, however we like the Outrage 17's more than the new Montauk 170's. The Outrage 17 appears to be a more robust boat than the new 170.

You are right; mint "96","97","98" models are tough to find. I think Whaler quit building the Outrage 17's in "98".

We currently own an older Montauk and have had great luck with that boat for over 15 years.

Thanks for your help, we'll keep looking.


Moe posted 02-04-2004 11:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
There seem to be two schools of thought on this forum. One says heavier boats are better, the other lighter boats are better.

I have no doubt the heavier, deeper-V 17 Outrage rides a bit better in chop. But deeper-Vs are more prone to nausea-inducing side to side roll when anchored or trolling.

Deeper-Vs take more horsepower to get up on plane in the same time period. They take more power, and thus fuel, to stay up on plane and move through the water. The minimum HP of the 17 (Justice) is 90HP, compared to only 60HP for the 170. That would imply the 17 (Justice) with 150HP probably performs about like the 170 would with 100HP.

And it doesn't mean the 17's 54 gallon tank gives anywhere near twice the range of a 27 Pate on the 170.

Deeper-Vs also have a deeper draft, eliminating their use in many shoals and flats.

Different strokes for different folks, there are pros and cons to both.


RonB posted 02-04-2004 11:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     

My 2003 MT 170 came with two 6 gallon tanks requiring me to spend additional dollars purchasing and outfitting the 170 with a larger tank.

Like you said there are pros and cons to both boats and if we are trying to compare apples to apples the Outrage has an internal 54 gallon tank while the MT 170 comes standard with 2 red plastic 6 gallon tanks. Let's not accidently misinform the prospective new MT 170 buyer that they will be getting a 27 gallon Pate as part of the standard BW package.


Moe posted 02-04-2004 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here's a scaled comparison of the 170 and 17 Justice:


Also keep in mind that with the 170 and on-deck fuel tank, you won't have to worry about something like this:



RonB posted 02-04-2004 12:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
I know Moe...sorry.

I rebuilt my home PC last night and didn't hit the sack until 3:30am so I'm a little edgy.

The little red tanks were the one thing that bothered me about my MT 170, I guess spending over 20K and then having to invest in a bigger tank to get to where I like to fish just rubbed me the wrong way. Then being careful not to overfill the tank as you may get some splashing through the vent and finally not being sure that having such a large tank sitting under my rear was even legal according to the Coast Guard left me a bit dissatisfied with the fuel arrangement on the MT 170.

Maybe installing these larger tanks is pushing the limit to what BW intended the MT 170 be used for, and perhaps that's why they still come with the two little 6 gallon red plastic tanks. It's a sack of money for this initial setup though...


Moe posted 02-04-2004 12:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Ya know, Ron... for a $16,000-$24,000 motorcycle, Harley sure uses some cheap-ass grips, footpegs, and other parts. But the point is that most owners are gonna replace them, with chrome or billet items, and they help keep the price down (and/or Harley's profit margin higher).

I believe the Montauk philosophy is similar... a blank canvas for the owner to customize as he or she sees fit, and at the lowest price possible, to allow that. 12 gallons is enough for a few owners. Many will go the Pate route. Some, like Barney, opt for a pair of more easily removable 12 gallon Tempos.

That's sorta how I see it.


RonB posted 02-04-2004 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for RonB  Send Email to RonB     
I see it as you see it Moe, I just don't think it's right, for Harley, BW or any other premium manufacturer for which the consumer pays a premium cost. Anyway, I wonder if BW will ever offer a different fuel set-up for the MT 170 especially when compared to competing brands. Guess we will have to wait for 2005...
Eddie Mucciolo posted 02-04-2004 06:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Eddie Mucciolo  Send Email to Eddie Mucciolo     
The pictures of the hull shown are one of abuse and neglect.I currently own a 1998 OR17 with a left over extended warranty 2002 mercury 150. The fuel consumption of the 150 compared to the 115 that was original standard power is minimal and, the extra power is satisifying to put it mildly.
I cannot comment on the new Montauk because I have never had the pleasure of riding on one but, trading from my 1999 Montauk classic to the Outrage (and I have owned three Montauks) the pros far out weigh the cons to consider a move to a larger boat with more storage, freeboard and power. I don't see your address or location but if you are intrested in purchasing a boat like mine contact my outlook. If you have any questions about an OR17 and, need an experienced owners opinion you can ask me. Good luck. If it's a whaler, it's a winner.
whalersman posted 02-04-2004 07:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalersman  Send Email to whalersman     

There have been many discussions on this topic in the past.
Here are a couple of links:

The drawings from Moe's link above does not do the Outrage II any Justice..
After owning an Outrage II, the MT 170 seems to be a much smaller boat then the Outrage17 when you are standing inside of them then the above drawings show. I have not ridden in an MT 170, but I have been in them several times at the dock.

Joe Kriz

Moe posted 02-04-2004 09:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here's an archived Whaler web page of the '98 17 Outrage:



aubv posted 02-04-2004 10:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for aubv  Send Email to aubv     

A comparison of the two boats is kind of like comparing apple to oranges. While they are both Boston Whalers and both have about the same length and beam. The comparisons end there. My sense is the only possible advantage of the Montauk might be a small operating cost savings and a shallower draft(9" vs 12"). In my opinion the 17' OR II has so much more going for it. It is a very comfortable boat to operate.

Some of the 17'OR features include Built in fuel tank(allowing an additional cooler/rubbermaid container to be located under the pilot seat), in-deck storage, under gunnel rod racks, gunnel mounted rod holders, Aft quater seating w/cushions and under seat storage, No side rails, Nonskid wide gunnels, self bailing cockpit, oh and in case you want to tie your boat up in a slip- front, spring line and stern cleats.

A host of options where also available including a Ski Pylon, Leaning post, Live bait wells, etc.

Anecdotally, I've read a number of posts from people who purchased a Montauk and discovered pretty quickly that while it is a nice boat it lacks some important features if you plan to use it for things like fishing. Of course that can be said for any boat "if it was only a little bigger I could....."

Regarding costs a quick search on should reveal pricing from 16-22K. The 17' OR II was in the 1995-1998 catalogs but considered Model years 1996-1998.

Regarding fit and finish I still get asked if my boat is new(1996-purchased 8/95.) I've had to do very little other than washing/covering after every use and waxing a couple times a year to keep the boat maintained. The gas assist shock did rust and needs to be replace. I've used the boat in Large fresh water lakes for water skiing. However, most of the use has been in the ocean fishing.

A Montauk is a basic boat. An Outrage while geared towards fishing by it's nature has more storage and features that make boating better, safer and more enjoyable. Just my opinion, understanding that what works for me might not work for you. Hope this helps. Best of luck with whatever Boston Whaler you get!

whalersman posted 02-04-2004 10:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalersman  Send Email to whalersman     

The only thing I disagree with you on is that you mention the 17 Outrage II as being listed in the 1995 catalog...

I cannot find it listed in my 1995 catalog nor on Tom Clark's CD collection in the 1995 catalog...

I do however see the 17 Outrage I that was made from 1990 to 1995... This first Outrage 17 had the Classic hull.
After that they changed the hull design and the 17 Outrage II was made from 1996 to 1999 (year models) and then discontinued except in the Commerical line as the Justice 17 which is still being offered today...

Joe Kriz

Moe posted 02-05-2004 03:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
From the price range posted, it sounds like you'd get a 5-8 year-old 17 Outrage, a boat of about the same size, for the about the same price as the new 170 Montauk with a new 2-stroke. Of course you'll have to add the cost of fishing stuff like rod-holders, etc to the latter.

AFAIK, there wasn't a 150HP four-stroke available with the 17, and a Yamaha F150 is too heavy now. Keep in mind while shopping for a 96-99' that these were the "bad years" for Optis and FICHT. You might get lucky with one, but a carbed two-stroke may be a safer bet, especially if you go to resell it and buyers avoid the DFIs. I'd look for at least 135HP to have the same performance as a 170 w/90HP. Seems that Eddie's 115 was working so hard it didn't get much better mileage than the 150 he replaced it with.

If financing will be involved, will your bank loan you as much, at as low a rate, for the 17 as for a 170? What "blue book" will they use to determine how much to finance?

If it's stolen, will your insurance pay what you paid for it, or worse yet, financed it for? What "blue book" will they use?

I'd like to know specifically what abuse and neglect resulted in the problems with the Outrage in that Reference article? Do you think they left the access covers open in the rain? What are you doing with yours to prevent it? How do you inspect all that area? How is Nushlie going to ensure there isn't 5-8 years of abuse and neglect in a boat he looks at? Just bounce on the deck for soft spots? Look in the limited area under an access cover?

I'm not trying to dis the 17 Outrage. Just making sure all the factors are considered.


Eddie Mucciolo posted 02-05-2004 02:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Eddie Mucciolo  Send Email to Eddie Mucciolo     
If the boat was stored outside in an unfreindly climate and the fuel sender cover was comprimised, either cracked from heavy impact, not closed properly, or had a bad seal the picture posted would be a result. Another senerio would be to leave a plugged rear deck storage area with the drain port for the fuel compartment opened or leaking from a bad seal. The deck also is sealed after the tank is installed. The through hull fittings, rails and wire ports need attention on any boat depending on how the boat is stored and used. The fuel tank area needs to be checked with a micro light and mirrior. The boat needs to be raised from the bow about three feet, of course with the motor tilted with the rear plug located in the bottom of the rear deck hatch removed and check for water. If there is moisture. Check the fulid color and consistancy. It should give you a good indication of the area around the bottom of the tank. Any boat including my Montauks needed inspection of all the through fittings at least once a season and, every so often the sealant needs replacement. We all know what a Whaler is worth after the foam gets water logged and the freeboard shows waves or the deck becomes soft. If Nushlie decides he wants an OR. He needs to get assistance with the inspection. Maintenance is like taxes. If you neglect the tax man you pay. Many Whaler owners boats look like new. It's because of the maintenance and storage. Good luck with your purchase Nushlie. Whatever you decide send me some photos. I may be able to help you.
Moe posted 02-05-2004 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Thank you, Eddie!


prm1177 posted 02-05-2004 06:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
Man. I forgot about the additional cleats (front and springline). Very handy.
aubv posted 02-05-2004 07:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for aubv  Send Email to aubv     

You are right from the model year stand point. I was going by the date on the back of the catalog, as some Catalogs don't have the year printed on the front.(Model year catalog 1996 is dated 1995 on the back).

jimh posted 02-05-2004 09:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Administrative post]

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.