Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Here's the me

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

Author Topic:   Here's the me
jafra98 posted 02-13-2005 05:43 PM ET (US)   Profile for jafra98   Send Email to jafra98  
Ok this are the prices for the models I am interested. I am deciding towards the 130 sport or the 170 montauk.

130 Sport 40 hp 2 stroke $12,500

150 Sport 60 hp 2 stroke $17,000

170 Montauk 90 hp 2 stroke $23,000

This prices are with almost every option except bimini top. I am leaning towards the 130 sport or the 170 Montauk. Help me decide. I am not considering too much the 150 because it resembles me a bigger 130 with a $$$$ difference and the Montauk is not that far away in price, my 2 cents.

Troutman767 posted 02-13-2005 05:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Troutman767  Send Email to Troutman767     
Buy what you want and want what you buy.
dittybag54 posted 02-13-2005 06:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for dittybag54  Send Email to dittybag54     
If you are considering between the two extremes of 12,500 and 23,000 then, as troutman says, you need to want what you buy and for reasons that matter only to you. They are two quite different boats. As a proud owner of a 130, even I realize the advantage put forth by the deeper vee, bigger beam and length of the 150. It is more like a 'mini' Montauk than a 'super' 130. Then again, if you have the ready ability to go for the Montauk and the size fits your life then it would be a great choice. You likely would never regret buying something bigger than you thought you needed; that is, unless it strained the budget you've allotted. Let us know what happens.


Sal A posted 02-13-2005 06:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
To help you Jafra I think we might need some more information. Where do you boat (lake, bay, near shore ocean)? What do you want to use the boat for primarily? How many people would be going with you the vast majority of the time when you go boating?
jafra98 posted 02-13-2005 07:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for jafra98  Send Email to jafra98     
Ok like I said in other post I had a 1986 BW 13 in the past. I used the boat in the ocean(sometimes going 3-4 miles offshore)mostly for island cruising, fishing etc. I will be boating mostly with my wife and baby. I liked the simplicity of the 13, like launching and reloading by myself etc. I know that the 170 is not that big so the simplicity should be there somewhere. My boat had a 50 hp outboard so I know that the new 130 shouldn't be near the performance of my old boat....
Sal A posted 02-13-2005 07:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
1) You, your wife, baby makes three

2) you are not boating in an inland lake

3) The 150 Sport has pretty much the same interior room as the pre 2003 170 Montauks (see this diagram done by forum member, Moe, a very knowledgeable 150 Sport owner and boating enthusiast in general: [url][\url]

I actually think the 150 Sport is your ticket. Just my opinion.

Sal A posted 02-13-2005 07:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
corrected hyperlink:

Moe posted 02-13-2005 08:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here are the three boats, side by side with others, all aligned at the rear of the bow locker:

As you can see, there's more difference in size between the 130 and 150, than between the 150 and 170.

The 150 is 2'2" longer than the 130, while the 170 is only 1'7" longer than the 150, and most of that difference is taken up by the motor splash well and wider deck on the bow, where the 2'2" difference between the 130 and 150 is all in cockpit sole length.

The 150 is 7" wider than the 130, while the 170 is only 4" wider than the 150.

The same is true for the differences in weight carrying capacity.

The 150's max weight load capacity is 465 lbs greater than the 130's, while the 170's is 250 lbs only greater than the 150's.

The 150's swamped capacity is 1300 lbs greater than the 130's, while the 170's is only 500 lbs greater than the 150's.

The differences in freeboard are the same, with the 150 being 2" deeper than the 130, and the 170 being 2" deeper than the 150. However, the 170 also sits 2" deeper in the water off plane.

The opposite is true for the differences in weight and price.

The 150 w/60HP (900 + 219 lbs) is only 315 lbs greater than the 130 w/40HP (600 + 204 lbs) while the 170 w/90HP (1400 + 303 lbs) is 584 lbs heavier than the 150 w/60HP. The 130 and 150 can be towed with a Class I vehicle and hitch, while the 170 cannot be.

The difference between the 150 and 130 prices is only 43% of the difference between the least and most expensive, while that between the 170 and 150 is 57% of the difference between the least and most expensive.

The 150 and 170 hull designs are virtually identical, with a deeper V bow and signficantly reduced sponsons for better ride, while the 130 Sport maintains more of the traditional relative sponson size for stability with its narrower beam.

In summary, the 150 is much more than halfway between the 130 and 170 in terms of size (especially usable size) and weight carrying capacity, but much less than halfway between them in terms of weight and price. Your observation of the 150 being closer to the 130 than to the 170 isn't correct.

jafra98 posted 02-13-2005 09:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for jafra98  Send Email to jafra98     
The only thing the 150 needs is to accept a 75hp engine. That should be a plus on that boat. I'm not saying that the 130 and 150 are identical. Just to see them in person you can view that the 150 is bigger. But no one can argue that the 150 and the 130 are identical twins in seating arrangement. If BW made a Center Console version of the 150 it would sell them like hot cakes(I am the first in line).
Sheila posted 02-13-2005 10:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sheila  Send Email to Sheila     
Jafra, how long do you expect to keep the boat? Infants (Congratulations!) grow, and as soon as they can speak, they want to bring a best friend along. And if you and your wife provide siblings, they will follow this same course of development.

Just a thought.

Moe posted 02-13-2005 10:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
If you'll never have another couple with you, the additional seating space of the 150 over the 130 wouldn't matter. Either have more than the minimum room required for two adults and a baby. As said above, however, the hull design and weight of the 150 will give a better ride, the higher freeboard will be a little drier, while keeping the same shallow water draft as the 130 and staying in the Class I towing category.

I will suggest before you decide which seating arrangement is better, you sea-trial both, with your wife holding the baby. You may find she may not like being crowded next to you on a reversible helm seat, or sitting forward with the baby on a cooler in front of the console, where the vertical motion is greater. Maybe not, but it would be good to know before buying.

I think you'll find with a wife and baby on board, 40HP on the 130 or 60HP on the 150 Sport will provide more than enough power and speed.

All this being said, if you have the money and want a 170, and the wife agrees, go for it. It's a great boat.

billsa posted 02-14-2005 02:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for billsa  Send Email to billsa     
Jafra 98
You mentioned that the 150 is a larger version of the 130 except for more $$$$. If you are willing to shop around and buy a 1 or 2 year old boat you may find the 150 priced for what you have the 130 listed for. I was able to pick up a year and half old 2003 150 (very low hours, like new) for about the amount you listed the new 130 for. The 150 is a lot more boat than the 130 for the reasons that Moe listed and more. Then again the 170 is a lot more boat than the 150.
2004_130_SPORT posted 02-14-2005 03:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for 2004_130_SPORT  Send Email to 2004_130_SPORT     
go with the 130 sport its a great boat
Mako posted 02-14-2005 08:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mako  Send Email to Mako     
If have have the room, the budget and the truck, go with the Montauk. It's really not that big once it's in the ocean.

I store my 130 in a small garage and because I'm usually out by myself, I like being able to tow with a passenger car and launch single-handedly. I love the boat, but if I had the means I'd trade up to a 150 for the better ride. Now that I'm married and broke, I'm just glad to have a boat!

AllanR posted 02-15-2005 02:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for AllanR  Send Email to AllanR     
With the three choices that you mentioned, I would say that the best of them is the Montauk. Even though there are those that say the 150 is like a "mini-Montauk, it really is not for one simple reason. You cannot stand up in it when you are under way. That will make a huge difference in your enjoyment of boating as it will give you a much more comfortable ride when you are standing.

My first whaler was a 1981 13 footer. A great boat and it was all I could afford and tow at the time. I loved it. But after awhile, my back would bother me. I later upgraded to the 17 Montauk (1994). I have never been sorry and never plan to sell it, as it does everything well, fishing or cruising.

I think that if you get either the 130 or the 150, as good as they are, the Montauk is far and away the best all around boat and much more comfortable. I read all of the posts about the need for seats with a good backrest for the 15 footer.(The old one). Those are great boats, and fast. But no more of that sitting down at speed for me. Your legs are far better shock absorbers than your back. And the Montauk will still fit in your garage and use just a litle more gas.

The other thing I like about mine is that you can walk all around the boat and there are always guard rails to hold onto. You just can't beat it.

Moe posted 02-15-2005 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
There's no doubt that standing with the legs partially bent to act as shock absorbers works great. When I used to ride dirt bikes off-road fast, I hardly ever had the ass on the seat. However, running down the highway on the Road King, it's the opposite. We stand for crossing railroad tracks and other large bumps, but otherwise sit.

It's no different on the water. If you want to go fast in the rough stuff, standing with the legs bent can't be beat. But on the smoother stuff, there's no reason not to sit. The 170 offers the best of both worlds, and as someone mentioned, that's probably why the console and wheel is lower.

Admittedly, if we try to go 25 mph or more in the 150 Sport, where we encounter chop 3 foot or higher, the boat launches off the big waves. Depending on where it lands on the following wave, it can either cut in smoothly or hit hard enough to partially knock the breath out of you if you are sitting. It's also hard on my wife's ruptured disk.

We can continue to go 25 mph if 3 foot or greater waves only happen occasionally, leaning forward and partially standing as we do on the Harley. But if there are a lot of 3 foot or higher waves in the chop, that continuous partial standing is like doing deep knee bends and gets tiring pretty quickly. So we have to slow down to about 20 mph or less. At that speed, the 150 Sport follows even fairly narrow chop in Lake Erie, without launching or pounding, and we're okay, including my wife's back.

So if you want to hold speed in chop 3' or greater, the standing position of the 170 is the way to go if you can afford it. Its greater weight also smoothes the ride out in the first place. If you can't afford it, you can still ride comfortably in the sitting position by slowing down.

And if you aren't ever in 3' or higher chop, it isn't really an issue.


dittybag54 posted 02-15-2005 12:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for dittybag54  Send Email to dittybag54     
I am 5'9" and actually stand up often going through moderate chop on my 130 Sport. It works for me very well. Anything bigger would be easier on the body but everything's relative. This boat rides like the Queen Mary compared to my inflatable. Bigger and heavier may not always be better but it usually is smoother; no doubt in my mind.

So far, what little discomfort we have dealt with in the 130 has been more than OK with us. Ask us again in ten years how OK it is and there might be a different answer.


newport jack posted 02-15-2005 07:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for newport jack    
Buy a 2003 Montauk instead, "Holycow" listed one in the post classics section on 2-14...sounds like an option!...Jack
seasicknes posted 02-15-2005 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for seasicknes    
I would go for the 170.
You can use it for lakes, bays, and the ocean.
WT posted 02-15-2005 10:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     

Get the Montauk.

You go out 4-5 miles offshore? Get the Montauk and go out 25 miles.


njwhaler posted 02-21-2005 07:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for njwhaler  Send Email to njwhaler     
Look for a 2003 Montauk with less than 100 hours. You will pay about $17k. Your best option for the money based upon your original choices referenced at the beginning of the thread. A wise old navigator once said to me "always go for the bigger boat".

After a year or two, whatever boat you buy will be "used", so it may as well be the Montauk 17.

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.