Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  17 Montauk Purchase

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

Author Topic:   17 Montauk Purchase
maybe posted 11-19-2005 09:25 AM ET (US)   Profile for maybe  
Hello, Let me start by saying I always admired BW'S. I am in the market for a small light tackle fishing boat and the 17 Montauk seems to fit. But I have a slight hesitation because I am 6'6" and wonder if the console height will be an issue. It doesn’t seem so bad... Any comments???
kingfish posted 11-19-2005 09:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     
The Montauk would be a wonderful boat for you; you'd never regret the purchase and properly cared for, it will have a very respectable resale value.

Many folks have raised the console on their Montauks (myself included), as well as the reversible pilot seat. Not a big job. I raised the seat about 3" and the console about 4-1/2", both with blocks of teak. While I was at it, I hinged the front of the console to the teak blocks and pinned it to the blocks on the backside, to enable quick and simple access to the battery which resides in a battery box anchored to the deck under the console. Having raised the console 4-1/2". only the battery box cover protrudes up through the opening I cut thrugh the console floor.


maybe posted 11-19-2005 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for maybe    
That is a good suggestion… Do you have any photos?

Does anyone know of any major differences from the first model 2002 to the 2006? A pre-owned Montauk might be an option for us.

kingfish posted 11-19-2005 10:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     

I have to offer you a quick and meaningful apology and then back on out of this one. For some reason (Post-Classic Whaler forum notwithstanding!) I "missed the boat", and I was writing about a Classic Montauk. I've had no experience with the current Montauks.



Joe Kriz posted 11-19-2005 12:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     

kingfish and everyone else here, including myself always get confused when someone is calling the new Montauk 170, a Montauk 17 like in the title of your post. We realize many people don't think much about the difference in the names but we need to know which model a person is referring to. There is a big difference in the boat and the name.

The Montauk 17 is the Classic model.

The Montauk 170 is the newer model.

So, I believe you are referring to the newer, Montauk 170.
Is that correct?

maybe posted 11-19-2005 12:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for maybe    
My apologies... Indeed I was referring to the Montauk 170.
Sorry for any confusion
Joe Kriz posted 11-19-2005 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Joe Kriz  Send Email to Joe Kriz     
No problem maybe.
Now we know exactly which model you are referring to.

You might want to take a look at this thread which has a NY dealer post.

And here is their post:


Dave, your comments of your boat vs. the new montauk are the exact comments we get about the 160 Dauntless and 170 montauk. Most upgraded items come on hte dauntless and not on the montauk ie built in tank, tilt wheel, extra storage. The reason for the extra horsepower available on yours is the same as on the 16'. It just takes more power to plane a Deep V hull. The Montauk/Sport hulls are faster to plane with less bow rise than the Dauntless series. A larger engine would be nice but being that it shares the 150 sport hull i'm not supprised it carries the same max HP. The console as stated earlier is the same as the 170 montauk. I always thought it to be a good size on the 170 until I drove the 150 Montauk. The console and RPS are a good fit for the 150 but now seem small for the 170. I think this should be a popular model as long as they don't over do what it offered. The big problem was all the features on the 14 dauntless made it expensive for a 14' boat.

I hope this helps and gives you a start in the right direction.
Try one out at your local dealer and see for yourself.
Also, look at the new catalog and see the 'tall' guy bending over with his legs spread. Doesn't look to comfortable to me.

high sierra posted 11-19-2005 07:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for high sierra  Send Email to high sierra     
Maybe , the console is a problem as is the seat (to me). Go to Photo bucket and look up the modifications to my 170 Montauk. The console is raised 5 inches. The seat base 5 and a half forward. The site is, at photo bucket , high sierra 1959 The purists were dismayed, but I bought it for me to fish. Works great High sierra
nydealer posted 11-19-2005 08:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for nydealer  Send Email to nydealer     
at 6'6" you may have a little trouble standing and driving. I'm 6' and I feel comfortable in a slouched lean position on the RPS. You may find it more comfortable to raise the console. I believe one of the main reasons behind the height of the 170 console is that it still fits in most garages. The higher console on the other models is difficult to fit in smaller garages. If you are interested in the Bimini, check how that fits you as well. Even though the Whaler bimini is great, You may want to find someone who can make a custom bimini taller if you want to stand under it. Get in the boat and see what you personally think. I prefer a high console similar to what is on the 190 Nantucket/Outrage but many of our customers do not care for it. This forum is wonderful to pick up what other's like and dislike but don't get carried away with opinions. They may have a reason for why something doesn't work for them, but it may be perfect for you.
David Livingstone posted 11-20-2005 06:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Livingstone  Send Email to David Livingstone     
Here are High Seirra's pictures . Forget the purtist, this boat looks great!


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.