Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Ultimate 170 Montauk Power

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

Author Topic:   Ultimate 170 Montauk Power
buddy79 posted 04-27-2004 03:51 PM ET (US)   Profile for buddy79   Send Email to buddy79  
Just seeing what yall think about my new power I ordered today, as with all things I expect some will love but most will disapprove. I have been posting some threads relating to the decision but I finalized today and he said hopefully by Friday or Saturday I'll be back in the water. My boat is an 03 Montauk. For primary power I got Johnson 175 2-stroke and will be mounting with a jack plate to try and get the prop as close to surface as possible to facilitate in handling. For my kicker I got a matching white Johnson 6hp 4-stroke. He had the kicker in stock and cut me a good deal. I like the 2-stroke main power for performance and this way when I want to troll I have the noise and reliability of the 4-stroke. Ultimately I will be over the 410lb. transom limit but the kicker will be mounted starboard and ties more into the side as well. The owner of the marina is overseeing it and thinks it will work well. The primary motor weighs 383lbs and the kicker is 63lbs for a grand total of 446. That's still almost 50lbs less than if I would have went with just the 115hp Honda. I'll get some pics and performance specs up in the week to follow. I have GPS so no made up numbers. All I hope for is maybe 60 or at least mid 50's. Thanks. Oh all this is costing around $11,500, I hope its worth it :)
Divedog posted 04-27-2004 07:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Divedog  Send Email to Divedog     
Wow! That should be a real rocket! I'd like to here how it all turns out. The price and liability are over my risk threshold, but is sure sounds fun.
AQUANUT posted 04-27-2004 09:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
So the question seems to be....How much is TOO much?
I say whatever floats your boat....However I have had the unpleasent experience of chine walking my 2004 with the 115hp merc 4stroker E.F.I. I am always aware not to repeat it.

true the jack plate will help offset some stability, by making the boat longer..however there will be very little boat hull in the might seriously consider trim tabs......offshore racing boats I have driven (wellcraft scarrab] big hp...twin 502's...they use "k" planes to keep the bow down....just a suggestion..interested in how it turns out...I personally know of a classic montauk with a 150hp 2 stroke....whatta rocket!

Camuyano posted 04-28-2004 10:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for Camuyano  Send Email to Camuyano     
After reading this post and the information in the website while waiting for my new boat to be delivered, I cant help but wonder if I made the right decision. Is the performance of the 170 Montauk with the 90 hp so bad that people are going to such extremes to repower basically new boats? As an ex-sailor, big outboards scare me but the 90 seemed to be a good compromise between power and economy, as it is the smallest of the big guys. Economy is important to me as gas prices will likely soar this summer.


erik selis posted 04-28-2004 11:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for erik selis  Send Email to erik selis     
With all due respect, I think an engine of this size (175hp)
is a bit too extreme for the 170 Montauk.

Rest assured that the performance of the 90hp (2 or 4-stroke) is more than adequate on this boat. (see the performance data of the 170 Montauk in the reference section). Sure the boat can also handle a 115hp engine or probably more. But the 90hp works great for me and for probably 99% of the 170 Montauk owners on this forum.

If you have purchased a BW 170 Montauk with a 90hp engine then you have bought the best boat in it's class. No matter what anyone else says. It's top quality and very reliable!
(also referring to your other post)


buddy79 posted 04-28-2004 04:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
I would agree that the Montauk with the 90 4-stroke is the better combination of the offerings new. I LOVE my boat and I plan on keeping it indefinitely. I would hope that this in no way would discourage someone from buying a new Montauk with the 90 4. Actually my dad bought my Merc 90 4-stroke from me with controls for $3500, I know he stole it but he'll always sell it back to me for the same. He's putting it on a new Sea Chaser 175rg center console so he'll have a nice boat easy to trailer to take down to the coast. That hull new was only $7k rigged, then he adds $3500 and he's got a new boat for just a hair over $10k. He's got a couple of big boats and really wanted a little runabout since he had road on my boat and really liked it just didnt want to spend the cost of a new BW hull. With just myself (180lb) or just me and my wife the boat ran great. It was only when us and 3 or 4 people got on would I wish for more motor. Thanks for the opinions, hopefully pics be up by this weekend.
Uncle Pug posted 05-06-2004 11:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Uncle Pug    
For those worrying about the *poor* performance of the 170 with 90hp 4 stroke:

Mine jumps onto plane and does 41 MPH actual WOT with 25 gallons fuel, two divers in full cold water gear and four steel scuba tanks.

For those who need faster with more load I suppose more power would be necessary.

fishgutz posted 05-07-2004 09:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishgutz  Send Email to fishgutz     
I'm probably going to get in trouble for this. When I sailed catamarans we'd say a guy like you "had a motor instead of a brain". I don't know what state you're from, but in many states what you are doing is illegal. Obviously you have never taken a safe boating coarse. You are irresponsible. You probably won't have insurance either. (You're uninsurable). I hope I never meet you on the water. Why do you have to go that fast in that small of a boat. I only pray when you crack this boat up that you don't take anyone else with you. I hope others on this site lambast you, too.
AQUANUT posted 05-07-2004 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
cape_rover posted 05-07-2004 12:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for cape_rover  Send Email to cape_rover     
I'm interested in hearing how the boat performs. I was just on vacation in the caribean and saw the 15' whaler knockoff made in Mexico(?). The boat had a 125 merc with a chopper prop! I though to my self that it must fly but I doubt that you go WOT all the time.
davej14 posted 05-07-2004 04:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
One of the great benefits of this forum is the information received from owners that are willing to experiment and share their experience with others. The equipment you chose has nothing to do with being a responsible operator.
I'm looking forward to the results of your engine upgrade. Best of luck with it!!
buddy79 posted 05-08-2004 12:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
Actually fishgutz I hope I never meet you or anybody like you ever...I have taken a safe boating class and am a certified sailor as well. No, I do not have to go that fast I simply want to, got it? I believe its great that I have that opportunity so why would you wish bad on me? Yes its illegal, big deal, and you know what I might just have even broke the speed limit on the way home too, oh god the horror! I am not saying the power with the old 90 was bad, I'm sure for most it was more than adequate. I felt like I had went and bought a 1-ton truck but got the V-6 motor. Yea it ran, it would pull itself around, but felt weak and strained when loaded heavy. I mostly just ride around and we used my boat as the runner so when we all pile in it you could really tell it needed more power. I like the capacity of the whalers but felt like they were underrated all along. I too believe 175 is an overkill but it does weigh less and I prefer Johnsons. Hey its not for everyone so put you a trolling motor on or whatever floats your boat and I'll do the same. One must remember when comparing Whalers to a lot of other boats they weigh considerably more but carry the same hp rating which equals substandard performance. My dad put the 90 on a new 17' Sea Chaser which weighs 850 lbs. (roughly 600 less than my Montauk) and it's great.

I pick up the boat tommorrow morning at 9 o'clock so I'll post first impressions tommorrow night.

This is POWERboating right?

If I dont see what a Montauk is like with 175hp now then when will I? My next time around? Live a little, just buy lots of life insurance...

AQUANUT posted 05-08-2004 06:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     

I wish you well in your endeavor,several things com to mind,
about ten years ago, I dumped 28k into a 1973 chevy chevette, I built a Pro Street car...complete with wheelie wheels, drag shute, NHRA chrome molly roll had..air conditioning and electric windows..basically a Street-legal Dragster. {florida street legal not neccessarily legal in other states}.

why did I do it, because it was something I wanted to do..
was it dangerous? drive a 2,000 lb 600hp chevy chevette that would wheel stand at 80mph on a kick-down?
sure it was dangerous...but only if you didn't respect
or understand its capabilities.
I honestly enjoyed the rush..I am hopefullu older and wiser these days...but would be very cautious,and when no one was arround, I'd kicker down...good luck.


although I can understand your concern, and respect others right to have their own opinions, I would like to point out something I have often wondered about,have you ever heard the stories about Dick Fisher,founder of Boston Whaler?
Have you ever seen the photograph of Dick Fisher in 1958 taking an early Boston Whaler up WHITEWATER Rapids? He was in a looks like about 13ft with an evenrude, mass hull
registration numbers MS1429M

if you saw the picture I am looking at, the thought, is this guy crazy, an idiot, or what, I think the answer is apparrent..a risk taker, yes, life jacket..looks like class three rapids or higher he was in at the time..
but he obivously survived and had a fruitful and bountiful life..

point being, maybe buddy79 someday will hold the water speed record,..caution is wise..condemnation is often ignored.

enjoy your fishin boat.

fishgutz posted 05-08-2004 09:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishgutz  Send Email to fishgutz     
As a professional firefighter for 26 plus years, I've all too often seen the results of Darwinism. Risk takers NEVER consider the others that they are putting at risk, innocent bystanders and rescue personel. Stranded mountain climbers, dog sledders in the antarctic, speeders on the freeway, many if not most boaters who don't know the rules of the road. All are very unpredictable. I know I get paid for my work but not enough. Coast Guard auxilliary people are volunteers as are most lake rescue people.
Whaler owners will say the number one reason they bought a whaler was safety. Its Whalers main advertising point. You're just throwing safety away.

Here is an example of a risk taker. True story, and I know the guy. Motorcyclist has a couple of drinks. Drives his bike through a window of a sandwich shop. NO helmet. Multiple injuries especially head injuries. He's in a nursing home now in a wheel chair. He'll never get any better. Pretty much a veg. This happened when he was in his 20's He's 40 something now. Who is paying for his housing and medical care? We are. A couple hundred grand a year. His own insurance has been exhausted.

By the way I own a '99 14 Dauntless with a 75 merc. 40 mph in a 14 foot boat is plenty fast. I thought 25 in a 14 aluminum boat was fast.

Hey, I like to play the devil's advocate. OK maybe I'm God's advocate in this case. Mostly I got you all riled up. That was my goal.

And in your defense I believe "FREEDOM lies in being bold".

bigjohn1 posted 05-08-2004 10:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
Sorry guys...I am with fishgutz on this one. I am all about freedom, personal choice, and doing what you want but only if it does not involve risk to other people. Disagree if you like but this endeavor involves risk to other people.

Like Aquanut, I have been a "motor head", "wrench head", "speed freak" or whatever anyone wants to call it since the late 70's. I was a hobbyist rather than a professional but have raced and built huge power Harley Davidsons and many makes of American big and small block
V-8 street cars. I have done 3 frame-off restorations of classic American muscle cars from the ground up as well.
I have aged, wisened, and chosen to pursue other less-hazardous hobbies in my boring middle age family life.

I cite the above experience not to brag but only to say I know my way around a garage and have had some experience with go-fast toys AND the concept of "having all that power with no intention of using it". BTW, I do not believe the aforementioned concept at all. Sooner or later, curiosity will get the best of us and we will "punch it" or try out WOT "just to see". With time, most will fall into a misguided sense of comfort with big power and "punching it" or "just to see" will be replaced with a false sense of security that we can do it more often.

But enough "obliques" and back on my point that this involves risk to others. If he were only going to operate this boat on a closed race course, what the heck.....I say go for it. After all, risk to others will be minimized. If this boat is to be operated in public waterways, other people will be at risk. Perhaps he gets a little comfortable with all that power and something happens that will cause an accident with another boat. Perhaps he takes a high speed turn and dumps it close to another boat. Perhaps the boat throws another person out of it while over-corecting on a high speed turn. Perhaps he sells the boat to a less experienced skipper who cannot handle all of hat power.....the list of possibilities is endless.

I will say that there is a chance that everything will be fine and nothing bad will ever come but I doubt it. Personally, I hope the Coast Guard or other authorities fines the daylights out of him or better, confiscates the boat. I hold no malice against buddy, I just think this endeavor is misguided and unsafe - to himself and to others.

BTW, saying that you have taken a boating safety course means nothing when you are making a concious choice to install a motor which is twice the rated horsepower for your craft. Not to be hypocritical, prior to ordering my 170, I thought hard about ordering the 115 EFI Merc. Since the 90(4stroke) and 115 weigh the same and the difference is only 15 hp and fuel injection, I think this is a much safer "risk" to take albeit most agree the difference in the two motors is simply SMOOTHNESS throughout the rpm range and about 10 mph more at WOT. I am not bashing OMC by emphasizing Merc but that is what Whaler rigs in these boats. If you are pro-OMC, that's fine, there are enough smaller OMC motors that would be just fine (and safer) on this boat.

I have sailed the "seven seas" for 25 years now on everything from 22' Navy RIBS to Aircraft Carriers (called CVN's). I have seen plenty of people die just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, regretably,
a few die due to carelessness and/or stupidity on their own part. The sea (and even a lake or river for that matter) is a very unforgiving place. This whole thing just doesn't make sense to me.

Big John

buddy79 posted 05-09-2004 01:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
Why is it as people grow older they value their personal safety even more? Hell you've already lived a full life, had kids, made most of your money so what difference would it make now if you flipped your car 9 times doing 150? My original idea was to sell the boat and buy a bigger boat more capable of handling the power, I even posted this here in the marketplace but had no serious offers, just somebody wanting to trade some older boat even.
This happened once before when I graduated high school with my miata... Miatas are fun cars albeit underpowered. They have 130 hp which I'm sure for most old retired couples to joyride in the sun is more than enough but not for me. I wanted a fast car so I tried to sell it but again all I got was mad so I set out to improve upon what I had. The end result was a little over $13k and now it is very fast and probably dangerous as well. It will easily outrun a new C-5 vette and I have personally been in the car at 140+, at night, with the top down. I have owned the car since and I'm 25 now.
And for all the others I took the first ride on it today and it feels like a completely different boat. They put a 25 pitch prop and its too much because my max rpm was only 5k but it got there REAL fast. The difference in hole shot would have to be experienced, time to plane now in virtually nonexistant. All I got was 50mph but that was at 5k rpm and the boat trimmed all the way down, like this the boat really plows through and the ride is much improved. I can cruise 30mph at 3k rpm, real quiet, much quieter now at the same speed due to the decrease in rpm.
I hope you noticed I said I was only looking for 50-55mph out of my boat, not 150mph. There are a countless number of bass boats on my lake that'll run over 80mph and they are a much wilder ride. They weigh several hundred pounds less and all have 200 hp or more. I too was originally planning to repower with the 115 Mercury but for just a little more money I got a Johnson, which I prefer, and even more of the characteristics you all were seeking when you went with the 115. Yea its a 2-stroke and yea its carbureted but it really is a smooth running motor. I also added the 6hp 4-stroke kicker so I have all my trolling needs taken care of with it.
How am I endangering anybody else within reason? Oh if while I'm running, oh god now, 50mph and a tornado suddenly appears beneath my boat and it starts to flip there may in some distant world in however a far reaching scenario an accident may be caused by this which will injure someone other than myself or my occupants. Come on now, do you really believe that? The biggest waves we have on my closed freshwater lake are from other boats wake. The widest part I have swam across more than once. Oh and the dangers facing the rescue team that I'll never need is what? Other boat's wake? The man eating turtles? The huge 1-2 ft waves we have? Hell they could just inner tubes on my lake with trolling motors and be more than sufficient. The water patrol is much like our police dept. all they are interested in is writing citations and fines for out of date registration and pfd's. My dad's store has been broken in 34 times and they have never caught anybody. Once 3 times in one week, but they're managed to catch me not wearing my seatbelt 3 times.
Have you ever met anybody who worked by the hour and made good money? No. Well I work by the hour and I am very proud of my little boat. Think a 175 is too much for your Montauk? Well that's why they make more than one model.
To each his own...
So to each his own... :-)
AQUANUT posted 05-09-2004 08:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
wouldn't it be a great day when one didn't feel that contributing to this would not feel like you were putting your head on the chopping block.

wouldn.t it be a great day if you never had to experience the feelings of facing a kangaroo court in this forum?

but life isilled with opionated people..and being here recieving these opinions is part of the dealio.

for me all thoughts are entertained..not all accepted...

enjoy your boat buddy!

when is next launch....T minus 10 and counting

jimh posted 05-09-2004 08:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
When someone asks "what yall think" about a decision to power a boat above the manufacturer's maximum rated horsepower, they should not be surprised when people respond with their opinions on that decision.

Plenty of people have powered a boat above the manufacturer's maximum rated horsepower, but they haven't posted an article soliciting people to pass judgment on it.

When someone voluntarily places their "head on the chopping block", it is not really fair to complain if someone takes a swing.

Clark Roberts posted 05-09-2004 09:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
As to age, up to a point that is: At age 15 one should know more than at age 5; at age 25 one should know more than at age 15; at age 35 one should know more than at age 25; at age 45 one should know more than at age 35...etc, etc..etc!
Beam me up! Clark... Spruce Creek Navy
PS> I'm now at the 65 mark and sometimes feel that I'm slipping the other way
billyc posted 05-09-2004 09:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for billyc  Send Email to billyc     
Gee, I wonder why insurance rates are so high so high for males under 26?
AQUANUT posted 05-09-2004 11:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
with age hopefully comes temperence, patience, kindness and understanding when we deal with our youth, sometimes they can get a little always seems that we have to learn the hard way when we are young....and when we are old..we fail to remember how we failed to listen when people told us NO when we were young...what was the most common response to a NO, you went ahesd a did it anyway...

well this is beaten to death, guess I'll go and dream about being old senile and visualize me trading my whaler in on a 12ft alluminum fishin boat with a good ole evinrude 9.9 hp...cica 1960/70's....naw screw it..make that a 60hp efi bigfoot merc.....cheers

frostbite posted 05-09-2004 04:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for frostbite  Send Email to frostbite     
There is hardly a day go by when I don't realize how little I knew the day before.

light tines,


cape_rover posted 05-10-2004 08:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for cape_rover  Send Email to cape_rover     
Have you considered using a surfacing prop on your setup?
fishgutz posted 05-10-2004 09:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishgutz  Send Email to fishgutz     
Interesting numbers on your 17 with a 175. I know I blasted you but I'm a reasonable person.
The speed doesn't seem too out of line, really.
My Dauntless 14 will go just over 40.

I've always wondered why Whalers (Mako's too)have such low HP ratings compared to other boats. There are countless 17 foot boats that are rated at 150. Even 16s for that matter. My neighbor just bought a new 16 1/2 foot Crestliner 1100 lbs. and its rated at 125. What gives?

On another note what is going to happen in 2006 with the new emission standards. Will I someday have to repower with a 60 four stroke? eek! A 75 four stroke weighs way too much. Even a 75 Opti weighs too much. Is evinrude cornering the market on lightweight outboards with its E-tec line?

fishgutz posted 05-10-2004 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishgutz  Send Email to fishgutz     
Sorry, I didn't mean Mako, I'm thinking of some other boat brand. A Mako 17 is actually rated pretty good at 135. So once again.. Why are Whalers rated so low?
bugsyjr posted 05-10-2004 11:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for bugsyjr  Send Email to bugsyjr     
Buddy's Quote "Oh and the dangers facing the rescue team that I'll never need is what? Other boat's wake? The man eating turtles? The huge 1-2 ft waves we have? Hell they could just inner tubes on my lake with trolling motors and be more than sufficient. The water patrol is much like our police dept. all they are interested in is writing citations and fines for out of date registration and pfd's."

You have a lot of nerve trivializing the dangers our rescue personnel face everyday. They take a risk just responding to traffic accidents everyday. You think there is no danger try to save someone's life on the water. You are an arrogant idiot.

I just hope that when you eliminate yourself from the gene pool you do it alone and don't take someone away from their family.

skred posted 05-10-2004 01:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for skred  Send Email to skred     
Darwin WAS right. It's proven every day!
LHG posted 05-10-2004 01:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
This discussion has become out of proportion to the situation.

First of all, increasing HP on a boat is not a proportional relationship, so putting 175/180HP on a Montauk will not make it go 80+ mph. Properly set up for speed only, about 55 is all this boat is going to do. This engine is barely faster than the popular Johnson 150, which probably would have been a better and less expensive alternative to the 175 model (since he asked for "opinions"). There are tons of boats out there that go this fast, including many I/O's.

Take a look at the Montauk 170 specs, and compare them to the Classic 18 Outrage, which weighs less, and is rated for 150HP. An 18 can do 50 with a Mercury 150 EFI on it, and still be within it's rating.

So this really isn't as big a deal at it sounds (although I'll admit it SOUNDS bad). In most states is NOT illegal, and it IS insurable if you know where to buy.

Compare all of this a Cadillac STS 300 HP Northstar (or any number of similar vehicles), a relatively conservative, older folk's sedan, but which is GOVERNED at 160 MPH. This is the auto of 175HP powered Montauks. Nobody says you have to go THAT fast in either conveyance. Why is all of this legitmate in the auto industry, but not for buddy79?

We should all be careful of our double standards

NHKatama posted 05-11-2004 11:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for NHKatama  Send Email to NHKatama     
My do we live in PC times. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

There are some people that should not be on the water with any boat. And others that are perfectly safe in a 17' boat with a 175hp. It is how you operate the vessel.

Some of you that work for the Government (any branch Local or Federal) need to learn to relax and lighten up, do not take your self so serious.

"Live free or die"

buddy79 posted 05-12-2004 10:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
Come on now, "arrogant idiot", I have to admit that's pretty clever but if you could read well at all I believe you could have seen I am not trivializing rescue personnel. There are ZERO rescue personnel on my lake. We have the state boat patrol which are the equivalent of state troopers on water. They are there to curb drinking and driving (which is very good) and write tickets. I was responding to the dangers others said I was putting everybody in by having a boat that'll run 50mph, which is the average speed of most any new boat by the way.

The boat will run exactly 13 knots faster than previously with the 90 4-stroke. That equals roughly 55-58mph and is really not scary at all. You just have to feel the holeshot to believe, my boat mechanic rode in it and said he believed it to be one of the fastest boats to plane he had ever experienced. I have some pics with the motor and kicker rigged but dont know how to post so I'll try to get them up.

I like the fact you put "what yall think" in qoutes. I bet you got a real kick out of posting that. Well YALL be good now you hear...

Perry posted 05-13-2004 02:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
58 MPH in a Montauk is not scary at all? Come on, give us a break. My friend used to have a 140 hp V4 Evinrude on his Montauk. It went a close to 50 MPH and at that speed the hull was barely on the water. It was very hard to keep it under control at that speed. At 58 MPH only the prop would be in the water and the Montauk would chine walk like crazy. It would take a very experienced captain to keep it under control and to say it would not be scary at all is rediculous. 58 MPH in a bass boat is nothing but the Montauk was not built for that kind of speed.
bigjohn1 posted 05-13-2004 05:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
Good point Perry....while I suspected what you stated about bass boat hulls, I did not mention it as I have no data or experience in bass boats to back that up.

And....just to ensure accuracy here, I was the one who stated others would be at risk and that is now being taken out of context. I did not make that statement based upon the quote,

"I was responding to the dangers others said I was putting everybody in by having a boat that'll run 50mph, which is the average speed of most any new boat by the way."

That glazes and over-simplifies things, I stated others will be at risk due to numerous other issues not the least of which is installing a motor which is twice the rated horsepower. You can check my previous posts for accuracy but its not right to misquote someone just to justify your assertion that this boat (anbd others on public waterways where it will be operated) are not hazarded.

As I stated Buddy....I hold no malice and this is not meant to start a flame war - just swap opinions and give input. Since you have made your decision though and installed the motor already, just be safe and be careful with all that excess power. My hope still stands though that if you crash it when it chine walks, you will be the ONLY one who buys the farm.

Big John

cape_rover posted 05-13-2004 12:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for cape_rover  Send Email to cape_rover     

Have you trimmed the boat out yet to max out the speed? Do you notice any chine walking or are the new hulls stabler than the older ones?

SteveGMP posted 05-13-2004 10:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for SteveGMP  Send Email to SteveGMP     
I now own my first Whaler, 18' Dauntles, prior to this boat I owned 3 bass boats. The bass boats, Astro, Stratos,and Triton, where all shorter than eighteen feet. Each boat had a large outboard and could easily exceed 60mph. A 17' Whaler hull is much more ridgid and better constructed than most bass style boats, there are some bass boats that are capable of 75-80mph that are good quality boats. I think that people forget the reality of situations sometimes. You can't operate a 17' Whaler at high speeds unless the water conditions are correct and you are in a location to respect others safety. Even given that this boat will have excess horsepower and the bass boats I owned had excess horespower this boat like every boat will spend most of its running time with the pilot trying to run as economicaly as mechanicaly possible. Short bursts of high performance and excess are still cool.
buddy79 posted 05-13-2004 10:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
I have trimmed it out at WOT, roughly 58mph. Please believe me when I say it really doesnt feel that scary. A little yes, tempting fate, no. There is still quite a bit of the boat still in the water, in fact it looks to be relatively the same. I'm not much faster than the guys with the 115, maybe a couple mph's. Time to plane is unreal and the boat feels altogether different. I admit I respect it MUCH more than before and for that maybe I'm better off in the end anyway. Most of the running I have done is at 3k rpm which is about 25mph. It feels good when I take somebody out on my Whaler for the first time and they say, WOW, this thing's nice or boy this thing moves. Before if it was more than a few of them it was difficult to plane. I had 800lbs of people in it yesterday and it still jumps out on plane. 25-50mph roll ons are even better, much easier to manuever at speed with that kind of throttle response. My dad owned a 19ft Allison with a 300hp Mercury and it was clocked at over 100mph. He had it chine walk one day pretty bad and never road in it again. This is nothing like that. My dad is 47 and he even likes my boat much better now, he actually tried to trade me out of it. I would never operate my boat in a manner which would endanger anybody other than myself. Before when the water was rough I was afraid to get WOT, the boat just isnt capable of high speeds in chop. Gas is getting ever closer to that $3 mark so I'll probably be doing more riding with the 6hp kicker anyway. :-)
Legobusier posted 05-13-2004 10:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     
buddy79 wrote : "I would never operate my boat in a manner which would endanger anybody other than myself."

Do you think anyone EVER says "I would operate my boat in a matter which would endager everyone else". Of course not. Nobody THINKS they will endanger themselves or others. I'm sure this guy thought so to:

Personally, I think it's a bit crazy. Sounds like fun, but crazy still. Can it be used resposibly? Sure. Will it? I hope so for your benefit and the other's around you.

I wish you luck...hopefully you won't need it.

divefan posted 05-25-2004 01:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for divefan  Send Email to divefan     
Well, I have changed my mind about what a 170 should have in the way of power. When I first started reading up on this topic several months ago I believed like many others that the Montauk 170 was just fine with a 90 HP 4 stroke. However, after just returning from 3 days in the Keys and running on the bayside with all the flats boats my opinion has changed dramatically. Listen, in the bay running in flat water this boat is outright sluggish running at 40 miles an hour. It can take much more with no problem. I was getting hammered by 17' flats boats running 150,175, and larger motors. These boats fly. Mine felt like it was standing still. I will admit I usually run in the ocean where it is never this calm and flat. So, I have never been able to run the boat safely at maximum speed for very long. I usually run at maybe 25-30 except on rare days. But man, on the bay in glass flat water I could have done at least another 15 miles an hour with no problem at all.

I must agree with all those that have said that this boat is underpowered with just a 90.

poker13 posted 05-25-2004 04:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
Sluggish at 40 mph? What are those flats boats doing-- 70?

I just looked at the specs for the 17-foot Makos:

Mako 171
weight: 1,250 lbs.
max hp: 135

Mako Inshore 1701
weight: 1,190 lbs.
max hp: 125

Both are foam-filled, good quality boats and have a choice of Merc, Johnson and Evinrude power. Hmmn....

Marsh posted 05-25-2004 06:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Marsh  Send Email to Marsh     
I for one am sick and tired of having literally every boat on the lake out run me in my 2004 MT170 with the 90 Merc. The only boats I can keep up with are pontoons. I am always the last to the fishing hole, and the last back to the launch. It's friggin embarrassing!! I might as well be paddling a canoe or a rowing a boat!

The Whaler may be a good boat, but it's a dog on the lake. It needs at least a 225. If bass boats can be certified legal for a 225, why can't a Whaler????

I don't get it. I'd MUCH rather be in a Whaler at 70 mph than a Ranger, or a Nitro, or a Skeeter at 70 mph. Who wouldn't?? The Whaler has gotta be safer.

If the other makes get big motors, then why can't the Whaler owner?

Call me Speedy,

Barney posted 05-25-2004 07:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Marsh, I hear ya, and the 115 or a 125 sounds like magic on the 170. Would be nice. Wish they offered those myself.
You are correct the Montauk is safer:
Scenario Number 1:
Bob says "Let's take the Skeeter to Ship Island" (which is 12 miles out in the sound).
Frank, the smart brother, replies "I'll follow you in my Montauk and pull you out on the way".
I had to say that. Sorry. Jim :)
poker13 posted 05-25-2004 07:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
I didn't know fishing was a competitive speed sport. Fishing, which is a slow, quiet, relaxing pastime doesn't seem to combine well with speed.

BTW, you are NOT safer in a BW at 70 mph. If you have an accident, you'll be sent flying just the same from a bass boat or a BW. You will also be endagering the life of others. The MT 170 does 40 mph with the 90--that seems like plenty to me.

RJM posted 05-25-2004 07:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for RJM  Send Email to RJM     
"The only boats I can keep up with are pontoons". Now that was funny! I’m still smiling.
AQUANUT posted 05-25-2004 09:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     

I run with the big johnsons...
on my lake

there are few things I have learned in the boat business...

a 9.9 evinrude/johnson was a hellava dependable old motor

mercury has always made an awesome 115hp motor....2 or 4 stroke

and old volvo's were slow, dependable dinosaurs.

115hp E.F.I. 4 stroke hauls the montauk bacon just fine for me!

WT posted 05-26-2004 01:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     

What's your speed at WOT with your 115 hp EFI?

I have a 2004 Montauk with a 90HP 4 stroke. I also wish I could keep up with some of the boats in the lakes and rivers where I fish.


AQUANUT posted 05-26-2004 08:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
WOT....wide open throttle is 6000...

the 115hp maintains WOT @ 6000 with the following props

vengeance s/s 14p @ 38.5 MPH [gps]
3 blade aluminum [mercury] 15p @ 43 MPH [gps]
3 blade aluminum [ " ] 17p @ 47 MPH [gps]

these are average over a three run test...mph varied very little with three additional passengers..or by myself.

I have a Mercury speedometer, a speed wheel on my Lowrance
X-87 and a Magellan Meridian Marine

gps, X-87, speedo.... reliability and accuracy in that order.

divefan posted 05-26-2004 11:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for divefan  Send Email to divefan     

Don't forget these flats boats just to name a few:

Grand Slam

Not to mention many others that I didn't name. Any one of these boats will blow the doors off of a 170 in the Bay.


There is no one more laid back and in tune with "fishing" than a Florida flats fisherman (which I am not). But, when you are traveling many miles to get to that out of the way special spot in the middle of Florida Bay, getting there fast and getting home late in the day fast so you can devote more time to fishing is the thing. Believe me, you are not endangering anyone out there at all. We are talking glass flat water with sometimes no one around you for miles.

I do agree that speed must be used along with proper judgment. You can't go balls to the wall every where you go every time you go there. And that may be part of the problem. BW may feel that they need to govern this decision making process for us. Rather than trust the consumer to use his good judgment on where to use the speed they have just made the choice for us.


A 115 would be a good compromise if it were offered on a new 170 and rated as such. In my state if you swap it out after market you exceed the HP on the plaque and are in violation of the law.

Hey, bottom line.....will it run with a 90? Yes. Will it be a better boat and run better with a 115 or larger motor? Yes. That is my point. Making a good product better.

prm1177 posted 05-26-2004 02:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
I suspect the lowered max HP of many new boats results from a desire to limit liability. Many hulls can handle higher HP, but may stray into unstable territory at various trim settings and loadings. The fact is that the same boat will be very stable at lower speeds, when rigged with lower HP. If a manufacturer states a boat can handle higher HP and it can be demonstrated that this can result in an unstable condition (no matter how ludicrous the load and trim), the manufacturer can be held liable. I suspect my Outrage II 17, if built today, would be rated for 115 rather than the 150 it has on the plate.
poker13 posted 05-26-2004 05:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for poker13    
I don't know that liability would have much to do with the decision, given the fact that BW seems to be the only boat maker out there limiting their max hp specs so severely. I think if the industry perceived the liability risk of high hp to be a real problem, many more boat manufacturers would be doing what BW is.
buddy79 posted 05-26-2004 11:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for buddy79  Send Email to buddy79     
Well thanks for all the opinions. The 175 is really the way to go. I'm gonna be selling the boat now so it'll be listed in the marketplace or email me at I've found me a bigger boat I'm buying and so I must part after all this money I spent. I can assure the new owner he will be the happiest Montauk owner out there. Thanks.

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.