Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  170 Montauk, 160 Dauntless, or 180 Ventura

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

Author Topic:   170 Montauk, 160 Dauntless, or 180 Ventura
rbruce posted 11-01-2004 09:39 PM ET (US)   Profile for rbruce   Send Email to rbruce  

Which of the three would be the boat to keep (actually to buy) in terms of acquisition cost, hull performance in high seas, family worth, fuel efficiency and proper motorization.

I am comming from a Sport 11 which is a very humble boat, but so easy to tow, so easy to launch where there are no ramps (I live in Costa Rica).

I currently own a GMC Jimmy with a 4.3 liter V6 and I love fishing as much as I love expeditions. Having done expeditions of 5 hours in length, I am looking forward for a larger boat but cannot break the bank yet!

Finally, what would be the correct motorization for each of these boats: four stroke, two stroke or Optimax (Verado is still so far out of my league)?



Marlin posted 11-02-2004 08:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
Here are some previous threads comparing some of these boats:

There are many more threads if you search with a variety of keywords. You may also find Moe's posts of scaled line drawings of different boats very useful in your decision making.

As for engines, it depends on what you think is important. The classic 2-strokes are lighter, less expensive, and arguably more powerful. The Optimaxes are more expensive but much more fuel efficient. The 4-strokes I think are more expensive still, possibly even more fuel efficient than the Optis, are generally the quietest, and have no oil smoke, but they are heavier. I'm personally a fan of 4-strokes, but you can easily find others who can justifiably tell you why their favorite type is best.

With either the Montauk or the Dauntless, you're best off with maximum power (90 and 115, respectively). I don't know about the 180 Ventura, but I'd think that the standard power of 115HP just wouldn't be enough for good performance.


rbruce posted 11-02-2004 01:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for rbruce  Send Email to rbruce     
Thanks Bob! I have been reading some comments on the separate boats but now I look forward for the comparison.



rbruce posted 11-03-2004 08:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for rbruce  Send Email to rbruce     

What happened to the 160 Ventura? It seemed like a nice package for family oriented boating not fishing, however.



Marlin posted 11-03-2004 09:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
I've only seen a 160 Ventura once. It was built on the same hull as the 160 Dauntless. My opinion was that the dual-console layout was just too tight a fit in that hull.
rbruce posted 11-06-2004 12:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for rbruce  Send Email to rbruce     

There's this Ventura 160 on the net with a Mercury 90 ELPTO which I rather have than a four stroke and in pictures it looks marvelous!

In your past comment regarding the tight bow-rider configuration of the Ventura 160, I would only guess that it would be cumbersome for big persons, but since I'm only 6'01" and my wife is 5' then this would be the boat meant for exploration on top of a Dauntless 160 or a Montauk 170? Which would you rather use in inshore exploration?

Another thing, do you think that one could still find two stroke motors down in '05? These are less expensive and less heavy than four strokes, and since my usage would be conservative, then I would not realize the savings in fuel consumption.

I look forward to your opinion on this matter.


Robert H. Bruce

jimh posted 11-06-2004 12:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Moved from another forum. The Post-Classic forum tries to concentrate discussion of newer boat designs from Boston Whaler.]
Marlin posted 11-06-2004 09:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
The Ventura has a lot going for it. I prefer the center console design for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that I prefer to pilot standing up, and the additional open deck space is important when the retrievers are aboard. Running the boat while seated, and sitting in those bow seats, gets a lot less like fun when the chop comes up above a foot or so. If you're primarily a flat-water boater, that may not matter much to you.

If you think the 160 Ventura might be a good boat for you, I'd suggest you check it out. It would be best to try it out on the water, since small boats always get a couple feet smaller on the water than they seem on the trailer in the parking lot.

Regarding 2-strokes, the classic carburated versions will be gone in another year or so, but the direct fuel-injected versions (like the Optimax) should be around for quite a while.


Sal A posted 11-08-2004 11:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
I had the 2003 160 Ventura with a 90 2 stroke before I moved up for a bigger boat. It was prone to bow rise, and I suspect with what I have since learned she would have benefitted from trim tabs greatly. It was just too small for a family of 5 to cruise, as the aft corner seats are really rather wet, and if you have the 90 2 stroke on it like I did it is also especially noisy back there. The height of the gunwales was rather low as well.

I think if you are looking at that Ventura layout, you are well served to focus on the 180 if you can swing it. It has that nice aft bench seat, and is a susbstantial "little" boat.


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.