Dauntless 160 or Montauk 170 for this app: - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Dauntless 160 or Montauk 170 for this app:

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Dauntless 160 or Montauk 170 for this app:

sisu posted 07-15-2005 07:53 AM ET (US)
I'd like to get a ski/cruising boat for Lake Michigan and wonder what recommendations you have regarding the Dauntless vs. the Montauk. We don't fish, and with young kids, we won't be out on Lake Michigan when she really kicks up.
Thanks for any input.
millerbr posted 07-15-2005 08:36 AM ET (US)
I can not comment on the Montauk as I have not been on one, but I have a 160 Dauntless that I use on Lake Michigan. I have been very pleased with the boat and it handles the lake very well for a boat its size.
Marlin posted 07-15-2005 09:27 AM ET (US)
Sisu,
You can find lots of previous discussion comparing these two boats, use the search function on "montauk dauntless" and you'll get a slew of hits. Here are a few to start you off with.
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001278.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008904.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008286.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000509.html
The Montauk has a bit more space to it, especially in the bow (frequent contributor Moe has posted a number of same-scale diagrams of all the smaller Whalers, which really point out the size differences). The Dauntless has far more storage space, even I'm amazed by how much stuff I can tuck away on my 160, and has the very large advantage of a 45 gallon internal fuel tank. I used to say that the Dauntless should have a better ride in chop because of its deeper V-hull, but now I think that the Montauk's longer waterline length might make the ride factor about even. Both are safe and competent boats, even in surprisingly rough conditions, but neither are comfortable or fast in 3 foot chop.
If skiing is a main use for you, the Dauntless offers a ski tow pole and a maximum of 115 HP, compared to the Montauk's 90 HP limit. For cruising, it seems that the Montauk's slightly lighter, slightly flatter hull performs about the same with a 90 as the Dauntless does with a 115, both will top out in the mid-40s.
For a well-built, good performing small boat, it's hard to go wrong with either choice. Sea trial both if you can before making a decision.
-Bob
sisu posted 07-15-2005 12:04 PM ET (US)
Thanks Bob, I appreciate the help.
strain posted 07-15-2005 03:23 PM ET (US)
I can't image my Montauk could pull a skier out of the water.
Maximus posted 07-15-2005 07:06 PM ET (US)
My 170 with a 90 4 stroke is more than capable as a ski boat for a 200+ person.
Barney posted 07-15-2005 07:44 PM ET (US)
Yep, single ski from idle start at that. Jim

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: Dauntless 160 or Montauk 170 for this app:
sisu	posted 07-15-2005 07:53 AM ET (US) I'd like to get a ski/cruising boat for Lake Michigan and wonder what recommendations you have regarding the Dauntless vs. the Montauk. We don't fish, and with young kids, we won't be out on Lake Michigan when she really kicks up. Thanks for any input.
millerbr	posted 07-15-2005 08:36 AM ET (US) I can not comment on the Montauk as I have not been on one, but I have a 160 Dauntless that I use on Lake Michigan. I have been very pleased with the boat and it handles the lake very well for a boat its size.
Marlin	posted 07-15-2005 09:27 AM ET (US) Sisu, You can find lots of previous discussion comparing these two boats, use the search function on "montauk dauntless" and you'll get a slew of hits. Here are a few to start you off with. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001278.html http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008904.html http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/008286.html http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000509.html The Montauk has a bit more space to it, especially in the bow (frequent contributor Moe has posted a number of same-scale diagrams of all the smaller Whalers, which really point out the size differences). The Dauntless has far more storage space, even I'm amazed by how much stuff I can tuck away on my 160, and has the very large advantage of a 45 gallon internal fuel tank. I used to say that the Dauntless should have a better ride in chop because of its deeper V-hull, but now I think that the Montauk's longer waterline length might make the ride factor about even. Both are safe and competent boats, even in surprisingly rough conditions, but neither are comfortable or fast in 3 foot chop. If skiing is a main use for you, the Dauntless offers a ski tow pole and a maximum of 115 HP, compared to the Montauk's 90 HP limit. For cruising, it seems that the Montauk's slightly lighter, slightly flatter hull performs about the same with a 90 as the Dauntless does with a 115, both will top out in the mid-40s. For a well-built, good performing small boat, it's hard to go wrong with either choice. Sea trial both if you can before making a decision. -Bob
sisu	posted 07-15-2005 12:04 PM ET (US) Thanks Bob, I appreciate the help.
strain	posted 07-15-2005 03:23 PM ET (US) I can't image my Montauk could pull a skier out of the water.
Maximus	posted 07-15-2005 07:06 PM ET (US) My 170 with a 90 4 stroke is more than capable as a ski boat for a 200+ person.
Barney	posted 07-15-2005 07:44 PM ET (US) Yep, single ski from idle start at that. Jim