Montauk comparison.... - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk comparison....

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk comparison....

Sixer posted 05-05-2005 10:14 AM ET (US)
I currently have a 1988 Montauk and have been considering moving to the current Montauk. If anyone has real life experience with both hulls, could you please give a comparison of both; regarding ride, stability & performance with a 90hp(3 adults onboard at most). Thanks.
Liteamorn posted 05-11-2005 08:14 PM ET (US)
I rode in my friends brand new 170 Montauk and it sure is differant than my 98 Montauk.
The extra weight is evident, this new hull wants to cut through the 3' chop we ran thru much more than the old 17 that seems to like to bounce on top of the wave. The ride was dry even in a quartering sea. The boat takes a little more power to get up on plane (probably due to the new v-shaped hull design more than the weight)but was more comfortable while on plane in rough seas. The v hull also allowed the boat to roll a little more than the old hull when drifting. I also think the 170 is a little less maneuverable than the classic, a minor annoyance I am sure.
The new cockpit is roomier and easier to navigate than my classic due to the 5" in length and 6" in width increase, I believe the console is narrower than the classic which really makes passing from the stern of the boat to the bow an easy transition.
The only drawbacks I saw were the new rps has no storage or rod holders on it and the bowrail vibrated pretty good at about 1100rpm's.
Would I trade my classic for a new 170 just for the sake of getting "the new Montauk"? No
If it was time to replace my classic though I would definitely replace it with a 170.
Ed
Chuck Tribolet posted 05-11-2005 08:28 PM ET (US)
I've got a '97ish Montauk ('98 hull with the HW off a wrecked
'97 IIRC) with a 90HP carbureted 2-stroke Evinrude.. My buddy
Kawika has a 2003 (IIRC) Montauk with a 90HP 4-stroke Merc.
Kwaika's rides better (I think it's the deeper V, not the
heavier hull). I don't think it's any dryer. It's a
bit roomier, but only a bit as there's more waste space. His
has higher gunwales, which my be an advantage or disadvantage
depending on what you do. His gas mileage is only a little
better (10%). The gas advantages of the 4-stroke are
counter-balanced by the heavier hull and deeper V. He's had
a LOT more quality problems than I have. Kawika's is a bit
less stable, but close. Top speeds on flat water are close,
but I've got a knot or two on him.
I wouldn't replace mine with the new hull because it wouldn't
fit im my garage. And I think I'd stick with my current
hull because I know it.
Don't upgrade for 5" Two or three feet at least.

Chuck

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 comparison....
Sixer	posted 05-05-2005 10:14 AM ET (US) I currently have a 1988 Montauk and have been considering moving to the current Montauk. If anyone has real life experience with both hulls, could you please give a comparison of both; regarding ride, stability & performance with a 90hp(3 adults onboard at most). Thanks.
Liteamorn	posted 05-11-2005 08:14 PM ET (US) I rode in my friends brand new 170 Montauk and it sure is differant than my 98 Montauk. The extra weight is evident, this new hull wants to cut through the 3' chop we ran thru much more than the old 17 that seems to like to bounce on top of the wave. The ride was dry even in a quartering sea. The boat takes a little more power to get up on plane (probably due to the new v-shaped hull design more than the weight)but was more comfortable while on plane in rough seas. The v hull also allowed the boat to roll a little more than the old hull when drifting. I also think the 170 is a little less maneuverable than the classic, a minor annoyance I am sure. The new cockpit is roomier and easier to navigate than my classic due to the 5" in length and 6" in width increase, I believe the console is narrower than the classic which really makes passing from the stern of the boat to the bow an easy transition. The only drawbacks I saw were the new rps has no storage or rod holders on it and the bowrail vibrated pretty good at about 1100rpm's. Would I trade my classic for a new 170 just for the sake of getting "the new Montauk"? No If it was time to replace my classic though I would definitely replace it with a 170. Ed
Chuck Tribolet	posted 05-11-2005 08:28 PM ET (US) I've got a '97ish Montauk ('98 hull with the HW off a wrecked '97 IIRC) with a 90HP carbureted 2-stroke Evinrude.. My buddy Kawika has a 2003 (IIRC) Montauk with a 90HP 4-stroke Merc. Kwaika's rides better (I think it's the deeper V, not the heavier hull). I don't think it's any dryer. It's a bit roomier, but only a bit as there's more waste space. His has higher gunwales, which my be an advantage or disadvantage depending on what you do. His gas mileage is only a little better (10%). The gas advantages of the 4-stroke are counter-balanced by the heavier hull and deeper V. He's had a LOT more quality problems than I have. Kawika's is a bit less stable, but close. Top speeds on flat water are close, but I've got a knot or two on him. I wouldn't replace mine with the new hull because it wouldn't fit im my garage. And I think I'd stick with my current hull because I know it. Don't upgrade for 5" Two or three feet at least. Chuck