Montauk 170 vs Dauntless 16 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk 170 vs Dauntless 16

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk 170 vs Dauntless 16

whalerdude posted 01-16-2005 03:13 PM ET (US)
I am thinking of buying a new garagable Whaler.
It seems like the Montauk is by far the best value.
Has anyone ever done a side by side test of the Dauntless 16 Vs. the Montauk? The Dauntless can be purchased with a 115EFI 4s engine which is nice. But they sure are a lot more money! I think they are about ten grand more. I can't imagine anyone buying a dauntless these days. Am I missing something about the dauntless?
Moe posted 01-16-2005 06:15 PM ET (US)
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008286.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000509.html

--
Moe
Marlin posted 01-16-2005 09:14 PM ET (US)
This seems to be a popular topic lately. One thing you may be missing about the Dauntless is, in my experience at least, they sell for a substantial discount from list, while the Montauk does not. The price difference probably isn't anywhere near what you think it is.
Here's a selection of similar threads, which in turn reference a selection of similar threads:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002422.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008904.html
-Bob
LHG posted 01-17-2005 12:17 PM ET (US)
Jack - I think the 170 Montauk would be a superior offshore boat when compared to the Dauntless.
However, I have one major problem with the console and pilot seating in the boat - it is not designed for tall people, and is poorly scaled for heavy duty offshore use while standing. Hunching over a low center console, with low wheel and grab rail height, while piloting the boat in offshore conditions is not my idea of comfort, nor safety. I believe BW should offer the great looking Dauntless 18 console in the boat, at least as an option. Higher pilot seating would also be of value. So before you purchase one of these, check out your interior operating comfort.
The current 170 center console and pilot seat would make for a nice center console 150 model
Marlin posted 01-17-2005 12:53 PM ET (US)
Larry, I'm interested in why you think that the Montauk would be a superior offshore boat to the Dauntless. With the deeper vee hull of the Dauntless and 45 gallons of fuel under the deck giving a low center-of-gravity, I'd be inclined to think the opposite.
I believe both boats share the same console, and yeah, a little taller wouldn't hurt. It would make it even tougher to squeeze into a garage, though.
-Bob
LHG posted 01-17-2005 01:08 PM ET (US)
I think I should have not ventured into this discussion, as I have never been in either boat, except in boat showrooms. But I did spend 17 years in a 16' Nauset, the predecessor of the 170, and found it to be an excellent offshore bathtub. So I assumed the 170 would be better, based on what I have read here about it's performance, along with BW's advertising of the Dauntless series as an "Inshore" boat.
Perry posted 01-17-2005 01:53 PM ET (US)
I have been in both the Dauntless 160 and Montauk 170 in rough offshore conditions. The 160's higher freeboard, deeper V hull and under deck fuel cell make it ride better in rough seas. The 170 can handle it well but not as well as the 160. I agree that both would benefit with the addition of the 180's console. I hate being hunched over the wheel in rough seas.
SteveFC posted 01-17-2005 02:30 PM ET (US)
When I first looked at the Montauk 170, I too was turned off by the low center console height. (I’m six feet even.) But someone on the forum suggested putting the seat back to the second notch and using it as a leaning post, sliding your feet into the notch at the base of the console. I tried that and found that position very comfortable, safe and secure even on a trip of eight hours or more.
Marlin posted 01-17-2005 05:16 PM ET (US)
Larry, I hope you did not take my message the wrong way; I was genuinely interested in your reasoning. I have not had the pleasure of running a 170, and my experience in the classic 16'7" hull consists of an hour of waterskiing some 25 years ago. I've had my 160 about 10 miles off NC's Outer Banks, but it was a day when I'd have done the same thing with my old Sailfish (okay, maybe not). I've also run the Dauntless on the Chesapeake in 3-foot closely-spaced breakers. I certainly never felt like it was a dangerous situation, but it was pretty wet and we got the snot beaten out of us a little. A companion on that trip was running a Nauset, and they also made out fine but were probably a bit more sore in the back than we were.
In short, I think both the 170 Montauk and 160 Dauntless (as well as the Nauset and the rest of it's classic cousins) would be reasonably safe boats in good to moderate conditions, but none of them would be my first choice for an offshore boat.
whalerdude posted 01-17-2005 10:04 PM ET (US)
Thanks for your imput guys, I appreciate it.
Anyone of you planning on attending the Miami boat show?
I am planning on visiting it while I am in Ft. Lauderdale on the 17-21st of Feb.
lakeman posted 01-18-2005 07:04 AM ET (US)
I should stay out of the oppinions but here is my .02. Any boat under say 19 feet is a near shore boat, except on very very nice days. In Florida, I spend more time fishing the flats, near shore or protected waters than I do offshore and that is why I got rid of my Grady and went with a 18 Dauntless I still miss the bigger boat but not at the gas station. My personal preference is the 170 over 16 Dauntless, there is more useable room in the 170 for potential passengers and room to move around , the fishing goes to the Dauntless, but that depends what kind of fishing you like to do. Maybe my best statement is, I just like the simplicity of the 170 for long term care and ease of ownership.
nydealer posted 01-19-2005 10:04 PM ET (US)
While the Montauk is longer the 16 is wider with a deeper V hull. The 160 has a better ride is rougher water. You specific use will determin which boat will work best for you. The 160 has a built in 45 gallon tank for greater range as well as more storage space in pilot seat(or livewell). The Montauk has twin 6 gal. tanks which provides shorter range but is easier to fill in remote areas where you have to bring gas in. While you have more room in the montauk the 160 has better seating accomidations with the stern seats. If you are looking for shallow areas the montauk has a slightly shallower draft and the modified V hull makes it very stable. The montauk carries a significant difference in price but there is a difference in components. You will find scuppers, side storage racks and under seat storage. If you do skiing you may benifit from the availability of a ski pylon on the 160 dauntless. My recomendation is to consider your use and look at what each boat could offer you. Feel free to email me if you have more specific questions I can answer.
Moe posted 01-19-2005 11:03 PM ET (US)
The 160 is 3" wider, but because the railings are inboard of the gunnels, on about a 1.5" wide shelf, where the 170's railings are on top of the gunnels, there's interior width advantage to the 160. In fact, the width between the railings may even be slightly greater on the 170.
http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/160DTdetail1.jpg
--
Moe
mikeyairtime posted 01-20-2005 11:36 AM ET (US)
For whatever it's worth, my Boston Whaler corporate connection (who will remain nameless) steered me in the dirrection of the 170. His reason was the ride mainly because in his oppinion the 160 hull was prone to porposing.
andygere posted 01-20-2005 12:28 PM ET (US)
My dad has a '99 Dauntless 16 That I've spent some time on, in both protected bays and the atlantic off of Chatham and Orleans (Cape Cod). The ride in the chop is a little softer than my old '79 Montauk, but it's still just a 16 foot boat, so you have to be realistic about what it will handle. I had no qualms about taking it through the Chatham cut with a 2-3 foot swell and a strong outgoing tide running. I've also used it numerous times on Cape Cod Bay (shallow, exposed, and windy) and stayed reasonably dry.
Regarding room and comfort, the Dauntless is pretty nice. There is the typical RPS type helm seat, which makes a nice leaning post in the forward position. The helm is a tilt unit, making stand up driving very comfortable, even for my 6'2" dad. Visibility over the console is decent from a seated position as well. The stern quarter seats are usable and pretty comfortable, with big bolsters that snap over the stern rails. Passage around the console is much easier than on a classic Montauk (I can't speak to the 170), with several inches more room to walk, rather than shuffle, around it. Storage is good as well, with a large locker under the helm seat (used for tanks on the 170) and a decent sized locker in the bow as well. There is also storage under the stern quarter seats, great for anchors, fenders, lines, tools, etc.
This boat needs the 115, being a bit slow in the holeshot for my tastes. The 90 performs fine, but the boat is a little slow to plane, and has some bow up tendency until it planes out. A Doel Fin or other foil would probably help, as would a little more low end power.
Fishability is great on this boat, with a nice platform in the bow for casting. There are no built-in rod holders, so everything has to be rail mounted like the Montauk. It does have folding, horizontal rod racks that are fairly functional. Overall, it's a nice boat, well made and does great double duty for fishing and cruising/beach use. The built-in tank is probably the nicest feature, outside of the hull design.
Marlin posted 01-20-2005 12:48 PM ET (US)
mikey,
You're right, the 160 Dauntless is prone to porpoising, and is extremely sensitive to trim. When I first took delivery of the boat in spring '03, the porpoising was terrible below about 30 mph. After raising the motor by one hole (it had been all the way down) it improved considerably. It was even better 2 holes up, but the prop ventilated too easily in chop or turns. For '04 I added a foil to the antiventilation plate, with excellent results. So, porpoising is a problem, but one that can be dealt with fairly cheaply and easily.
To further comment on what andy said about storage, there's lots of it on the 160. My bow locker holds an anchor and 150' of line, the center console has 6-8 PFDs, a dry bag with spare sweatshirts, a dry bag with a blanket, and sometimes the mooring cover. The pilot's seat has 2 type V cushions, 2 dog PFDs, flares, dock lines, spare oil, emergency water, a first aid kit, and room for more. Under the aft seats are 4 fenders, sandals and water shoes, wheel chocks, a small toolbox, a 30' hose and a deck brush on a pole, and sometimes an uninflated tow tube. On the 170 Montauk, I'd get the bow locker and the same console, and that's it. The 160 even has more storage space than the 18 Outrage or 190 Nantucket. Not that the boat with the most storage wins or anything, but it's something to think about.
-Bob
whalerdude posted 01-20-2005 03:05 PM ET (US)
Thanks again for all of your feedback.
I like the dauntless because I can get some features that are very important to me:
Factory installed Merc (Yamaha) 115 EFI engine.
Built in fuel tank.
More comfortable seating
Ski pylon
Higher center console
More storage
More comfortable for family cruising.
Will probobly fit in my 20' long garage with folding tongue trailer (I hope)
I am concerned about :Resale value (depreciation may be much steeper than the montauk), Porpoising, High initial price, Odd styling (it's not the classic style I have loved for so long).
The Dauntless is a neat package that I am starting to lean towards.
I would love to hear from a few more dauntless owners please. I'm still concerned about the porpoising. I like to cruise long distances in Lake michigan in calm to medium chop conditions within 5 miles of shore. I will usually have 2 or 3 kids along for ride and weight.
Thanks.
RLSmith posted 01-20-2005 10:19 PM ET (US)
I have a 2000 Dauntless 16' with 115hp, which is essentially the same as the current 160 Dauntless except the 2000 has a small notch at the base of the transom. I purchased this used two years ago for a good price so am not concerned about depreciation.
The boat is indeed sensitive to trim. I grew up driving a similar style boat without power tilt/trim, so I was surprised by this, but figured it was normal. I do not have the porpoising problems others have experienced, perhaps because I have trim tabs. They are fully raised when the water is calm but are quite helpful in rough water (Chesapeake Bay) or when I want to plane at low speed.
I have never operated a 170 Montauk so I can't compare. I am quite please with my Dauntless but would probably like the Montauk as well. I would think a test drive of each would clear things up.
G MASTER posted 01-20-2005 11:08 PM ET (US)
I have a 2004 Dauntless 160. It has a 115 Merc classic 2 stroke. I have the fishing package with the live well under the pilot seat, and the ski pole. I do 50% serious fishing on the Texas coast and 50% cruising and skiing with my family in local lakes. I also have a removable bow mounted trolling motor. When I fish(trolling motor on, water in live well, pedestal fishing seats for the stern seating, and no bimini top) the boat is rigged totally different than when I ski(no trolling motor, more cushioned standard stern seats instead of pedestal seats, ski pylon, live well used as storage, and bimini top up).
I looked hard at the new Montauk but the lack of stern seats, no live well, and no built in gas tank made the dauntless my choice.
I have never had porpoising problems. As Marlin also did, I raised the motor, added a stingray hydrofoil, and a stainless steel prop. The boat plains at a much lower speed and much more quickly and has more adjustment room to trim the motor now.
I have been extremely happy with the boat. It feels a lot bigger than a 16 footer. I had a 83 15 striper for many years and the dauntless seems like a 18-20 footer compared to my old 15. If I only used the boat for fishing the Montauk may have been more attractive to me. The Dauntless is a perfect combo of fishing boat and skiing/fun boat.
Bryan
erik selis posted 01-21-2005 06:56 AM ET (US)
Larry(LHG) is right about the low console and RPS height in the 170 Montauk. I sometimes loose my balance when things get rough. It's also not the best therapy for a bad back. But I guess the 160 Dauntless will have exactly the same problem.(same console and same RPS height) Other than that I think the 170 Montauk handles rough weather extremely well.
It's true that the 160 Dauntless has some nice features that the 170 doesn't have like: internal fuel tank, rear seating, a bit more storage room...but I feel the 170 Montauk has much more fishing room. Also, I think a 90-hp engine on a 170 Montauk is sufficient but on a 160 Dauntless a 90-hp would be a bit on the light side.
Finally, the price: a 170 Montauk costs approx. $7.000 less than the 160 Dauntless with the same engine.
Erik
cmarques posted 01-22-2005 06:33 PM ET (US)
I have a 2002 Dauntless 160 with a 90 2 stroke that has been great- I put a Doel-fin on for porpoising and keep talking about raising engine but never get around to it and also have a stock aluminum prop. It will run side by side with a 90hp Montauk so power is not a huge issue but would love to have a 115. I've never been on a Montauk so can't comment too much on them. I think the 45 gallon tank is a must as I've taken it pretty far offshore (27 miles). The rear seats are great but do compromise some fishing room. With the cushions out it makes a good flat area for prepping baits, etc. Mine fits straight back in my garage on a magictilt trailer without a removable tongue (22'9")but watch overhead clearance on console rail is real close.
I have the comfort package I think with rails and front cushion but not the sun lounge, took the ski pole off before it ever hit the water so never used for skiing. I like the sorage under the rear seats for life jackets, extra oil and safety equipment. One of my few complaints is with the top up it is hard to get in or out at a dock as all the railing and straps don't leave much access to climb out and the straps the connect to the console rail block your view a little but not that bad.
Yiddil posted 01-22-2005 11:27 PM ET (US)
I just gotta say Marlin HI! Marlin really knows his boat, and if he says its like this...then it is...I had the pleasure of being on his boat this summer with 4 people and a Dog and that boat was extremly FAST! and ran like a top!!!And it dose have lots of storage as compared to most other CC's WHat a Pleasure it was to ride in that thing...I think he got up to like 40-45 as I recall!
Just a bit small for me so I went to the Nantucket! But what a fine Boat, Id vote for that one:))
andygere posted 01-23-2005 02:08 AM ET (US)
I'm not sure that the 170 Montauk Console is identical to the 160 Dauntless console. From the catalog photos, they look different. Also, the bottom of the Dauntless console is lover than the deck of the boat, I'm not sure if that's true on the Montauk. This feature adds a lot of storage space to the console, which would otherwise be small. Also, the Dauntless comes with a tilt helm, which makes stand-up driving much nicer.
Take a look at these images. The console shape looks similar on both boats, but the rails are clearly different.
http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/160DTdetail5.jpg
http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/170MTdetail3.jpg
Marlin posted 01-23-2005 10:19 AM ET (US)
Andy, you raise a good question. The two boats' consoles look very similar, so I had "assumed" (yeah, yeah, I know...) that they were built from the same mold. Why have two almost identical molds? Certainly the rails are quite different, and in various pictures I've seen different placement of the ignition switch, the kill switch, and I think the cupholders. Still, I'd continue to think that the consoles themselves are identical. There's plenty of 5/8" or so plywood in there to attach rails wherever you like.
An even better point that you make is that the deck inside the console is recessed on the Dauntless. The cavity for the fuel tank actually begins under the console. While it's not huge, I'd say that there's another 6-8" of depth provided by that cavity. That's enough to swallow the battery and a couple life jackets before you even get up to deck level and start filling the console itself.
Just as a note, the console-to-deck joint is not completely sealed, and a small amount of water sometimes gets in. It tends to pool in the bottom of the cavity before running aft to the bilge sump. Stuff used to get wet in there, but last year I lined the bottom of the console (and the RPS, and the aft hatches) with Dri-Deck. Nice and dry, no mildew. That's good stuff.
Henry, thanks for you kind words. We had a great time that day, and I look forward to doing it again next spring! 42 MPH fully loaded, that's not too shabby. Too bad she doesn't ride in chop like your Nantucket.
As a last comment, and then I promise I'll shut up, I think that everybody likes to think that the decision they made is the best possible one, and I suppose I'm not immune to that either. I haven't yet had the pleasure of experiencing a 170 Montauk on the water, but I have every reason to expect that it's an outstanding boat that will meet some goals better than the Dauntless, and others slightly less well. I have yet to see a Boston Whaler that I thought wouldn't make an excellent boat to meet the right set of needs. For myself, I'll enjoy my Dauntless for a few more years, take another look at getting some full canvas made up, and then take a real hard look at the 205 Eastport.
-Bob

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.

Author	Topic: Montauk 170 vs Dauntless 16
whalerdude	posted 01-16-2005 03:13 PM ET (US) I am thinking of buying a new garagable Whaler. It seems like the Montauk is by far the best value. Has anyone ever done a side by side test of the Dauntless 16 Vs. the Montauk? The Dauntless can be purchased with a 115EFI 4s engine which is nice. But they sure are a lot more money! I think they are about ten grand more. I can't imagine anyone buying a dauntless these days. Am I missing something about the dauntless?
Moe	posted 01-16-2005 06:15 PM ET (US) http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008286.html http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000509.html -- Moe
Marlin	posted 01-16-2005 09:14 PM ET (US) This seems to be a popular topic lately. One thing you may be missing about the Dauntless is, in my experience at least, they sell for a substantial discount from list, while the Montauk does not. The price difference probably isn't anywhere near what you think it is. Here's a selection of similar threads, which in turn reference a selection of similar threads: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002422.html http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008904.html -Bob
LHG	posted 01-17-2005 12:17 PM ET (US) Jack - I think the 170 Montauk would be a superior offshore boat when compared to the Dauntless. However, I have one major problem with the console and pilot seating in the boat - it is not designed for tall people, and is poorly scaled for heavy duty offshore use while standing. Hunching over a low center console, with low wheel and grab rail height, while piloting the boat in offshore conditions is not my idea of comfort, nor safety. I believe BW should offer the great looking Dauntless 18 console in the boat, at least as an option. Higher pilot seating would also be of value. So before you purchase one of these, check out your interior operating comfort. The current 170 center console and pilot seat would make for a nice center console 150 model
Marlin	posted 01-17-2005 12:53 PM ET (US) Larry, I'm interested in why you think that the Montauk would be a superior offshore boat to the Dauntless. With the deeper vee hull of the Dauntless and 45 gallons of fuel under the deck giving a low center-of-gravity, I'd be inclined to think the opposite. I believe both boats share the same console, and yeah, a little taller wouldn't hurt. It would make it even tougher to squeeze into a garage, though. -Bob
LHG	posted 01-17-2005 01:08 PM ET (US) I think I should have not ventured into this discussion, as I have never been in either boat, except in boat showrooms. But I did spend 17 years in a 16' Nauset, the predecessor of the 170, and found it to be an excellent offshore bathtub. So I assumed the 170 would be better, based on what I have read here about it's performance, along with BW's advertising of the Dauntless series as an "Inshore" boat.
Perry	posted 01-17-2005 01:53 PM ET (US) I have been in both the Dauntless 160 and Montauk 170 in rough offshore conditions. The 160's higher freeboard, deeper V hull and under deck fuel cell make it ride better in rough seas. The 170 can handle it well but not as well as the 160. I agree that both would benefit with the addition of the 180's console. I hate being hunched over the wheel in rough seas.
SteveFC	posted 01-17-2005 02:30 PM ET (US) When I first looked at the Montauk 170, I too was turned off by the low center console height. (I’m six feet even.) But someone on the forum suggested putting the seat back to the second notch and using it as a leaning post, sliding your feet into the notch at the base of the console. I tried that and found that position very comfortable, safe and secure even on a trip of eight hours or more.
Marlin	posted 01-17-2005 05:16 PM ET (US) Larry, I hope you did not take my message the wrong way; I was genuinely interested in your reasoning. I have not had the pleasure of running a 170, and my experience in the classic 16'7" hull consists of an hour of waterskiing some 25 years ago. I've had my 160 about 10 miles off NC's Outer Banks, but it was a day when I'd have done the same thing with my old Sailfish (okay, maybe not). I've also run the Dauntless on the Chesapeake in 3-foot closely-spaced breakers. I certainly never felt like it was a dangerous situation, but it was pretty wet and we got the snot beaten out of us a little. A companion on that trip was running a Nauset, and they also made out fine but were probably a bit more sore in the back than we were. In short, I think both the 170 Montauk and 160 Dauntless (as well as the Nauset and the rest of it's classic cousins) would be reasonably safe boats in good to moderate conditions, but none of them would be my first choice for an offshore boat.
whalerdude	posted 01-17-2005 10:04 PM ET (US) Thanks for your imput guys, I appreciate it. Anyone of you planning on attending the Miami boat show? I am planning on visiting it while I am in Ft. Lauderdale on the 17-21st of Feb.
lakeman	posted 01-18-2005 07:04 AM ET (US) I should stay out of the oppinions but here is my .02. Any boat under say 19 feet is a near shore boat, except on very very nice days. In Florida, I spend more time fishing the flats, near shore or protected waters than I do offshore and that is why I got rid of my Grady and went with a 18 Dauntless I still miss the bigger boat but not at the gas station. My personal preference is the 170 over 16 Dauntless, there is more useable room in the 170 for potential passengers and room to move around , the fishing goes to the Dauntless, but that depends what kind of fishing you like to do. Maybe my best statement is, I just like the simplicity of the 170 for long term care and ease of ownership.
nydealer	posted 01-19-2005 10:04 PM ET (US) While the Montauk is longer the 16 is wider with a deeper V hull. The 160 has a better ride is rougher water. You specific use will determin which boat will work best for you. The 160 has a built in 45 gallon tank for greater range as well as more storage space in pilot seat(or livewell). The Montauk has twin 6 gal. tanks which provides shorter range but is easier to fill in remote areas where you have to bring gas in. While you have more room in the montauk the 160 has better seating accomidations with the stern seats. If you are looking for shallow areas the montauk has a slightly shallower draft and the modified V hull makes it very stable. The montauk carries a significant difference in price but there is a difference in components. You will find scuppers, side storage racks and under seat storage. If you do skiing you may benifit from the availability of a ski pylon on the 160 dauntless. My recomendation is to consider your use and look at what each boat could offer you. Feel free to email me if you have more specific questions I can answer.
Moe	posted 01-19-2005 11:03 PM ET (US) The 160 is 3" wider, but because the railings are inboard of the gunnels, on about a 1.5" wide shelf, where the 170's railings are on top of the gunnels, there's interior width advantage to the 160. In fact, the width between the railings may even be slightly greater on the 170. http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/160DTdetail1.jpg -- Moe
mikeyairtime	posted 01-20-2005 11:36 AM ET (US) For whatever it's worth, my Boston Whaler corporate connection (who will remain nameless) steered me in the dirrection of the 170. His reason was the ride mainly because in his oppinion the 160 hull was prone to porposing.
andygere	posted 01-20-2005 12:28 PM ET (US) My dad has a '99 Dauntless 16 That I've spent some time on, in both protected bays and the atlantic off of Chatham and Orleans (Cape Cod). The ride in the chop is a little softer than my old '79 Montauk, but it's still just a 16 foot boat, so you have to be realistic about what it will handle. I had no qualms about taking it through the Chatham cut with a 2-3 foot swell and a strong outgoing tide running. I've also used it numerous times on Cape Cod Bay (shallow, exposed, and windy) and stayed reasonably dry. Regarding room and comfort, the Dauntless is pretty nice. There is the typical RPS type helm seat, which makes a nice leaning post in the forward position. The helm is a tilt unit, making stand up driving very comfortable, even for my 6'2" dad. Visibility over the console is decent from a seated position as well. The stern quarter seats are usable and pretty comfortable, with big bolsters that snap over the stern rails. Passage around the console is much easier than on a classic Montauk (I can't speak to the 170), with several inches more room to walk, rather than shuffle, around it. Storage is good as well, with a large locker under the helm seat (used for tanks on the 170) and a decent sized locker in the bow as well. There is also storage under the stern quarter seats, great for anchors, fenders, lines, tools, etc. This boat needs the 115, being a bit slow in the holeshot for my tastes. The 90 performs fine, but the boat is a little slow to plane, and has some bow up tendency until it planes out. A Doel Fin or other foil would probably help, as would a little more low end power. Fishability is great on this boat, with a nice platform in the bow for casting. There are no built-in rod holders, so everything has to be rail mounted like the Montauk. It does have folding, horizontal rod racks that are fairly functional. Overall, it's a nice boat, well made and does great double duty for fishing and cruising/beach use. The built-in tank is probably the nicest feature, outside of the hull design.
Marlin	posted 01-20-2005 12:48 PM ET (US) mikey, You're right, the 160 Dauntless is prone to porpoising, and is extremely sensitive to trim. When I first took delivery of the boat in spring '03, the porpoising was terrible below about 30 mph. After raising the motor by one hole (it had been all the way down) it improved considerably. It was even better 2 holes up, but the prop ventilated too easily in chop or turns. For '04 I added a foil to the antiventilation plate, with excellent results. So, porpoising is a problem, but one that can be dealt with fairly cheaply and easily. To further comment on what andy said about storage, there's lots of it on the 160. My bow locker holds an anchor and 150' of line, the center console has 6-8 PFDs, a dry bag with spare sweatshirts, a dry bag with a blanket, and sometimes the mooring cover. The pilot's seat has 2 type V cushions, 2 dog PFDs, flares, dock lines, spare oil, emergency water, a first aid kit, and room for more. Under the aft seats are 4 fenders, sandals and water shoes, wheel chocks, a small toolbox, a 30' hose and a deck brush on a pole, and sometimes an uninflated tow tube. On the 170 Montauk, I'd get the bow locker and the same console, and that's it. The 160 even has more storage space than the 18 Outrage or 190 Nantucket. Not that the boat with the most storage wins or anything, but it's something to think about. -Bob
whalerdude	posted 01-20-2005 03:05 PM ET (US) Thanks again for all of your feedback. I like the dauntless because I can get some features that are very important to me: Factory installed Merc (Yamaha) 115 EFI engine. Built in fuel tank. More comfortable seating Ski pylon Higher center console More storage More comfortable for family cruising. Will probobly fit in my 20' long garage with folding tongue trailer (I hope) I am concerned about :Resale value (depreciation may be much steeper than the montauk), Porpoising, High initial price, Odd styling (it's not the classic style I have loved for so long). The Dauntless is a neat package that I am starting to lean towards. I would love to hear from a few more dauntless owners please. I'm still concerned about the porpoising. I like to cruise long distances in Lake michigan in calm to medium chop conditions within 5 miles of shore. I will usually have 2 or 3 kids along for ride and weight. Thanks.
RLSmith	posted 01-20-2005 10:19 PM ET (US) I have a 2000 Dauntless 16' with 115hp, which is essentially the same as the current 160 Dauntless except the 2000 has a small notch at the base of the transom. I purchased this used two years ago for a good price so am not concerned about depreciation. The boat is indeed sensitive to trim. I grew up driving a similar style boat without power tilt/trim, so I was surprised by this, but figured it was normal. I do not have the porpoising problems others have experienced, perhaps because I have trim tabs. They are fully raised when the water is calm but are quite helpful in rough water (Chesapeake Bay) or when I want to plane at low speed. I have never operated a 170 Montauk so I can't compare. I am quite please with my Dauntless but would probably like the Montauk as well. I would think a test drive of each would clear things up.
G MASTER	posted 01-20-2005 11:08 PM ET (US) I have a 2004 Dauntless 160. It has a 115 Merc classic 2 stroke. I have the fishing package with the live well under the pilot seat, and the ski pole. I do 50% serious fishing on the Texas coast and 50% cruising and skiing with my family in local lakes. I also have a removable bow mounted trolling motor. When I fish(trolling motor on, water in live well, pedestal fishing seats for the stern seating, and no bimini top) the boat is rigged totally different than when I ski(no trolling motor, more cushioned standard stern seats instead of pedestal seats, ski pylon, live well used as storage, and bimini top up). I looked hard at the new Montauk but the lack of stern seats, no live well, and no built in gas tank made the dauntless my choice. I have never had porpoising problems. As Marlin also did, I raised the motor, added a stingray hydrofoil, and a stainless steel prop. The boat plains at a much lower speed and much more quickly and has more adjustment room to trim the motor now. I have been extremely happy with the boat. It feels a lot bigger than a 16 footer. I had a 83 15 striper for many years and the dauntless seems like a 18-20 footer compared to my old 15. If I only used the boat for fishing the Montauk may have been more attractive to me. The Dauntless is a perfect combo of fishing boat and skiing/fun boat. Bryan
erik selis	posted 01-21-2005 06:56 AM ET (US) Larry(LHG) is right about the low console and RPS height in the 170 Montauk. I sometimes loose my balance when things get rough. It's also not the best therapy for a bad back. But I guess the 160 Dauntless will have exactly the same problem.(same console and same RPS height) Other than that I think the 170 Montauk handles rough weather extremely well. It's true that the 160 Dauntless has some nice features that the 170 doesn't have like: internal fuel tank, rear seating, a bit more storage room...but I feel the 170 Montauk has much more fishing room. Also, I think a 90-hp engine on a 170 Montauk is sufficient but on a 160 Dauntless a 90-hp would be a bit on the light side. Finally, the price: a 170 Montauk costs approx. $7.000 less than the 160 Dauntless with the same engine. Erik
cmarques	posted 01-22-2005 06:33 PM ET (US) I have a 2002 Dauntless 160 with a 90 2 stroke that has been great- I put a Doel-fin on for porpoising and keep talking about raising engine but never get around to it and also have a stock aluminum prop. It will run side by side with a 90hp Montauk so power is not a huge issue but would love to have a 115. I've never been on a Montauk so can't comment too much on them. I think the 45 gallon tank is a must as I've taken it pretty far offshore (27 miles). The rear seats are great but do compromise some fishing room. With the cushions out it makes a good flat area for prepping baits, etc. Mine fits straight back in my garage on a magictilt trailer without a removable tongue (22'9")but watch overhead clearance on console rail is real close. I have the comfort package I think with rails and front cushion but not the sun lounge, took the ski pole off before it ever hit the water so never used for skiing. I like the sorage under the rear seats for life jackets, extra oil and safety equipment. One of my few complaints is with the top up it is hard to get in or out at a dock as all the railing and straps don't leave much access to climb out and the straps the connect to the console rail block your view a little but not that bad.
Yiddil	posted 01-22-2005 11:27 PM ET (US) I just gotta say Marlin HI! Marlin really knows his boat, and if he says its like this...then it is...I had the pleasure of being on his boat this summer with 4 people and a Dog and that boat was extremly FAST! and ran like a top!!!And it dose have lots of storage as compared to most other CC's WHat a Pleasure it was to ride in that thing...I think he got up to like 40-45 as I recall! Just a bit small for me so I went to the Nantucket! But what a fine Boat, Id vote for that one:))
andygere	posted 01-23-2005 02:08 AM ET (US) I'm not sure that the 170 Montauk Console is identical to the 160 Dauntless console. From the catalog photos, they look different. Also, the bottom of the Dauntless console is lover than the deck of the boat, I'm not sure if that's true on the Montauk. This feature adds a lot of storage space to the console, which would otherwise be small. Also, the Dauntless comes with a tilt helm, which makes stand-up driving much nicer. Take a look at these images. The console shape looks similar on both boats, but the rails are clearly different. http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/160DTdetail5.jpg http://www.whaler.com/Rec/images/boats/170MTdetail3.jpg
Marlin	posted 01-23-2005 10:19 AM ET (US) Andy, you raise a good question. The two boats' consoles look very similar, so I had "assumed" (yeah, yeah, I know...) that they were built from the same mold. Why have two almost identical molds? Certainly the rails are quite different, and in various pictures I've seen different placement of the ignition switch, the kill switch, and I think the cupholders. Still, I'd continue to think that the consoles themselves are identical. There's plenty of 5/8" or so plywood in there to attach rails wherever you like. An even better point that you make is that the deck inside the console is recessed on the Dauntless. The cavity for the fuel tank actually begins under the console. While it's not huge, I'd say that there's another 6-8" of depth provided by that cavity. That's enough to swallow the battery and a couple life jackets before you even get up to deck level and start filling the console itself. Just as a note, the console-to-deck joint is not completely sealed, and a small amount of water sometimes gets in. It tends to pool in the bottom of the cavity before running aft to the bilge sump. Stuff used to get wet in there, but last year I lined the bottom of the console (and the RPS, and the aft hatches) with Dri-Deck. Nice and dry, no mildew. That's good stuff. Henry, thanks for you kind words. We had a great time that day, and I look forward to doing it again next spring! 42 MPH fully loaded, that's not too shabby. Too bad she doesn't ride in chop like your Nantucket. As a last comment, and then I promise I'll shut up, I think that everybody likes to think that the decision they made is the best possible one, and I suppose I'm not immune to that either. I haven't yet had the pleasure of experiencing a 170 Montauk on the water, but I have every reason to expect that it's an outstanding boat that will meet some goals better than the Dauntless, and others slightly less well. I have yet to see a Boston Whaler that I thought wouldn't make an excellent boat to meet the right set of needs. For myself, I'll enjoy my Dauntless for a few more years, take another look at getting some full canvas made up, and then take a real hard look at the 205 Eastport. -Bob