Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk 170

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

Author Topic:   Montauk 170
Liteamorn posted 03-25-2004 09:01 PM ET (US)   Profile for Liteamorn   Send Email to Liteamorn  
I apologize in advance for asking what I am sure is a redundant Question.
I am downsizing to a trailerable, reliable boat from a 21' walkaround that was costing me a lung to slip and operate.
I have always liked center consols ( I had a 1977 19' Mako before my walkaround ).
My question is how do the 170 Montauks (pre 2002)handle in a choppy bay and what size chop would you say is way to much for this boat.
I am torn between a whaler or an older mako. God the Montauk just looked so small and I will pick my days (and nights) carefully but as we all know things change out there. Thanks in advance.
Moe posted 03-25-2004 09:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
If you're interested in the new, larger 170 Montauk, this "Post-Classic" forum is the place to ask. This is the "Post Classic" Montauk:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/170Montauk/

If you're interested in the older, smaller 16/17' Montauk, the "Classic Whaler: General" is the forum to ask. This is the "Classic" (mostly pre-2002) Montauk:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/16-17/

There were no "pre-2002" models of the 170 Montauk.

--
Moe

Chuck Tribolet posted 03-25-2004 10:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chuck Tribolet  Send Email to Chuck Tribolet     
Actually, I think the last year or two of the 16'7" Montauk
was called the Montauk 170. But everyone here calls them
the 167. Here, the M170 is the current 17' 0" version.

And the wood chart I have for the 16'7" version was updated
in early '01 to change the name to 170.

As far as the 167s go, it depends on your definition of
"choppy bay". For the SF Rendezvous two years ago, Hoop and
I took our M167s from San Leandro to Angel Island and back.
40 mile round trip. The first half of the trip out we
couldn't go very fast, and Adm. Linda and I were wishing
we'd brought our drysuits (we'd considered it), but we made
it. And I've come home to Monterey from the south end of
Carmel Bay on a day when I got it airborne at about six
knots.

The M170s do ride better.


Chuck

Liteamorn posted 03-25-2004 10:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Liteamorn  Send Email to Liteamorn     
They sure seem like tough boats, tougher than there size thanks guys and I have been looking heavy on the classic site
Knot at Work posted 03-25-2004 10:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Knot at Work  Send Email to Knot at Work     
as a proud owner of a 170 Montauk, I can attest to the ride stability. It is dry and handles well in near shore, in shore bays 2-5 ft moderate Chop.

Dryness - You can get wet when the wind blows athwartship, but for the most part it is safe, dry, smooth and handles well.

Trailer- well sometimes I forget she's back there.

Launching- easy easy easy.

Post boating cleanup and storage- Really easy. Only thing is I spend 20 minutes cleaning her and 45 minutes shining the rails and another 3 hours admiring the beauty and showing her off to passerbyers....

Cannot go wrong with the Montauk and worth every penny.....

Question,, what is a Mako???? (j/k)


Eddie Mucciolo posted 03-26-2004 08:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for Eddie Mucciolo  Send Email to Eddie Mucciolo     
If you want to feel secure and cut chop. Ckeck out the smaller Outrage II. The accutrack hull is small enough for to trailer and very sea worthy.
Eddie Mucciolo posted 03-26-2004 08:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for Eddie Mucciolo  Send Email to Eddie Mucciolo     
If you want to feel secure and cut chop. Ckeck out the smaller Outrage II. The accutrack hull is small enough for to trailer and very sea worthy.
Jimm posted 03-26-2004 06:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jimm    
Hi Lite- I own a Montauk 170 (2003) and fish Sandy Hook area 90 % of the time. I have not yet wished I had a "bigger boat". I do limit my trips so I don't lose sight of land but quite a few on this board go 20 miles out in an old or new Montauk. Before purchasing the 170 I tried the 16'7". I thought it was a back breaker but then again I'm close to 60 years. The ride in the 170 is much better because it weighs about 500 lbs more than the older version. Trailering with a Jeep GC on the GSP is no problem. Hope to see you on the Hook; stripers are starting...Jim
Chuck Tribolet posted 03-26-2004 07:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chuck Tribolet  Send Email to Chuck Tribolet     
I think the ride is better on the M170 because it's got a
deeper V, not because it's heavier. My M167 seems to ride
better in chop when light than when heavy. But maybe that's
because there are few people yelling at me to slow down. ;-)

I forgot to mention: My buddy with an M170 thinks my M167 is
more stable stopped than his M170.


Chuck

Moe posted 03-26-2004 08:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
The 170 hull looks much more deep-v AND more stable to me.

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/bowlines.jpg

--
Moe

Liteamorn posted 03-27-2004 05:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Liteamorn  Send Email to Liteamorn     
Thanks for all the reply's !!!!! My mind is made up , I am only looking at the whaler,and hopefully I will find a 170 sometime during the year at a good price.
Jimm, You may want to trailer your baby to Keyport for the spring run if bass is your game. Last year I was catching 18 -20 lbrs while you guys on the knoll were loading up on on fish a little smaller.
Thanks again guys I really appreciate your answers to what I am sure is a redundant question.

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.