Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  150 Montauk: WHALER Model 4350 FishFinder; Auxiliary Motor Bracket

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

Author Topic:   150 Montauk: WHALER Model 4350 FishFinder; Auxiliary Motor Bracket
FRSam posted 02-02-2006 12:39 PM ET (US)   Profile for FRSam   Send Email to FRSam  
[This discussion has moved to the POST-CLASSIC area. The POST-CLASSIC area concentrates on Boston Whaler boats which were first designed after c.1990.]

I'm thinking of picking up a new 150 Montauk powered with a 60-HP four-stroke Mercury. The boat includes the Coast Guard package, anchor and chain, fishing package, swim ladder and that's about it. Dealer asking price is $20,500. This is west coast pricing so I would assume it's a bit higher out here. I defiantly want a fish finder depth gauge.

Does the WHALER 4350 fishfinder have a side scope as well as the bottom scope? I spend most of my time flyfishing shallow coves up to maybe 8ft. It seems to me the bottom scope would be useless under these circumstances?

I'm also thinking about a kicker, just in case, and I'd like to drop a long shaft 5-HP four-stroke Honda off the back. Would a bracket have to be added for the Honda?

For the record the reason for the small Honda is this is what I use on my 10-foot Spring Creek Pram so it's available.

Thanks for any suggestions?

Pete

Troutman767 posted 02-02-2006 03:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Troutman767  Send Email to Troutman767     
Pete,

Not trying to change your mind... but are you sure you want a 15 over a 17 Montauk. There are many used late model Montauks available for much less than a new 15. And I'm sure many would pass as nearly new.

I have both a 15 Super sport w/poling platform and a 90 hp 2 stroke Mercury and a new 2003 Montauk 4 stroke. If I had to chose new 15 or used 17, I'd go with the 17. I'm sure you could find a nice late model 170 for less than 17k.

Regards,

Troutman767

FRSam posted 02-02-2006 06:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for FRSam  Send Email to FRSam     
That's certainly a reasonable suggestion Troutman and I've given that quite a bit of thought. I initially was looking for 1980's 17ft Montauk in good shape and realized my idea of good shape varied quite a bit from what others considered good shape. It also seems the selection of Montauks out here in Northern Ca is somewhat limited. Ideally I wanted one that hadn't seen a lot of salt water and this further reduced what was available.

I flyfish stillwaters for trout. I'm not a troller, I like to get into the shallow coves and ideally target my fish. You flyfish so you know there's a certain intimacy evolved here and my current 10ft glass pram maintains this intimacy. However when I get out of these coves my ability to travel any distance is limited by this small pram and I've been in too many bad situations when the wind kicks up, as it often does and that little pram of mine is just plain out of its element.

I love the look of the 80's 17 Montauk but it's really more boat than I need. I've got no kids and 99% of the time it's just me and my golden which works out just fine. I like the center consul and the fifteen foot length offers plenty of room for my needs. The safety record of the whaler goes without saying so I will be able to relax a bit when the big water does show up. By keeping the boat size down I feel I can maintain some of that intimacy that I now enjoy with the pram. And finally it will fit in my garage which isn't the usual garage here at the cabin where I now live.

Sorry to carry on like this but I guess I'm just trying to convince myself that the extra money is worth the product. Even if the worst should happen and I'm not happy with the 150 Montauk I know I could sell it in a heart beat and pick up a 16ft Lund, Lowe or Tracker which all my friends have and swear by.

That whaler smirk has just got me hooked and I don't seem to be able to shake the hook. And after seeing that new 150 Montauk it just seemed to be the perfect fit.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Pete

Buckda posted 02-02-2006 06:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
Pete -

Sounds like you really should keep up the search for a great condition classic 17. I know of one in Michigan that is in near-immaculate condition; however it's pretty far from you!

That said - the classic 17 can be bought and sold for the exact same price. If you don't like it, or it's too much boat for your needs and you decide to go with the Lund; you can wait till next spring and sell that Montauk for the same price you bought it for - and only be "out" the registration fees and usage.

It is also a smaller initial investment for more boat, more motor, etc.

You won't have the 10-year hull warranty, but then again, you probably won't need it.

I'm sure the 150 is a great boat that will enjoy good resale value in the Whaler tradition; but a new boat will always lose value faster than the older one.

Good luck in your decision.

fishinchips posted 02-02-2006 09:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for fishinchips  Send Email to fishinchips     
Well, I like options.
Option to go to lakes as well as the ocean.
I chose the 170.

Saw the 150 montauk at the boat show in pleasenton. Very cute boat ;-)
I also noticed that it has a slight hump on the front corner inside deck. The 170 deck is flat.

Ken

BWLucky13 posted 02-02-2006 10:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for BWLucky13  Send Email to BWLucky13     
Pete,

My favorite dealer tells me the BW15/Merc 4-cycle is his top recommendation in small boats. This dealer is the kind of guy who will gently push your money away if you want to buy the wrong motor or wrong boat (even when it's all he has in stock).

Just listen to that inner voice. The Montauk 17 is a great used boat. But, they typically come with a well used trailer and vintage, 2-cycle outboard. You can be happy with either boat, just pay your money and make your choice.

FRSam posted 02-02-2006 11:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for FRSam  Send Email to FRSam     
Come on now guys...here I am on a whaler website and you're all trying to talk me out of the 150 Montauk. If the Classic 1980's 17 Montauk was available in this area, in the condition I'm looking for, I'd jump on it. I'm in a somewhat remote area up here in the Sierra's so the prospect of coming across one is pretty unlikely.

I just drove 6 hours to look at one which didn't live up to my expectations. I've been scouring the net for the last 3 months looking for this boat and anything which has surfaced is well beyond the 300 or 400 miles I'm willing to drive.

The more I think about it the new 150 sounds better and better. So unless one of you has a 17ft 80's Montauk with preferably a 70hp motor (less than 400 hrs on the motor) with a hull in very, very good condition (no spider cracks, no soft spots, no cracks in the teak, no corrosion on any of the metal components) a swing tongue trailer and all this located less than 300 or 400 miles from Reno I think I'm going to go with the 150 Montauk.

Now about that fish / depth finder I'd sure appreciate any recommendations - GPS would also be something I'm interested in picking up.

Once again thanks for your input,

Pete

FRSam posted 02-02-2006 11:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for FRSam  Send Email to FRSam     
Thanks Lucky 13. All points were well made, but it all boils down to what is avalible and, as you pointed out, what feels right.

Good Drifts,

Pete

deepwater posted 02-02-2006 11:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for deepwater  Send Email to deepwater     
Take a month off and find a 17 and test out the waters from there to home. It is the biggest jet ski youll ever have under your feet.
jimh posted 02-03-2006 12:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The factory-rigged electronics included on smaller Boston Whaler boats are usually the NAVMAN brand. There is an extensive website available from NAVMAN which can help you evaluate their products' features.

See:

http://www.navman.com/marine/

Re the notion that one ought to install an auxiliary motor on a 15-foot boat as a back-up for the main motor: I don't think most 15-foot boats go out to sea far enough that they generally carry auxiliary motors. If the transom is not notched with enough width to mount a second motor you likely will have to install some sort of bracket.

The weight of two four-stroke motors on the transom of a 15-foot boat may affect the trim and handling. I would caution that you should give some consideration to this before committing to using two four-stroke motors on a 15-foot boat.

WT posted 02-03-2006 12:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
FRSam:

Get the 150 Montauk if you plan on fishing fresh water exclusively.

Until I bought my 170 Montauk, I never thought I would venture out in salt water. I have since been addicted to salt water fishing. They isn't much more exhilaration than taking a 17 foot boat off shore 30 miles.

If you even think there is a 5% chance that you would try salt water fishing, get the 170 Montauk.

My 2 cents,

Warren

Moe posted 02-03-2006 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
We own a 2003 150 Sport and have rented a classic Montauk 17. We have not been aboard a 170 Montauk, but were beached between Jim Barnett's 170 and Chris Marque's 160 Dauntless at the 2004 Orange Beach (Hurricane Ivan) rendezvous. The bottom line is that while the 170 and 160 ARE larger, and have 2" deeper freeboard, there's not a LOT of difference in the cockpit dimensions of these boats. I've also scaled Whaler's line drawings of these boats, but am in the process of moving websites and don't have them on-line.

The 150 hull is 4" wider than the classic 17, plus its railings sit on top of the gunwales rather than on interior ridges that take up even more of the cockpit width. The overall length x beam boat area is about the same, and in the case of the 900 pound 150 Sport, the weight is almost the same as the 950 pound classic 17 Montauk. The 150 Montauk weighs the same. We found our 150 Sport to be more roomy than the 17 classic Montauk. I'd expect them to have approximately the same speed with the same 60 HP and load, but some here report slightly lower speeds with the 14" longer, narrower 17 classic. We've taken both out in the Pensacola pass and found them to ride about the same, the 150 a little better, if anything.

The 150 and 170 hulls are virtually identical in shape, the former just scaled down. On the 150, the reverse chines are closed off at the transom (assumedly for more lift) while those on the 170 are open. The 150 hull is 4" narrower than the 170 Montauk, which also puts its railings on top of the gunwales for more cockpit room. The 170 is 19" longer, however, the 150 doesn't lose space to a motor well, and its deck over the bow is narrower because the bow cleat is mounted laterally rather than having the 170's longitudinally mounted 8" bow cleat. The length from behind the bow locker to the transom or motor well is pretty close. From what I see of the two Montauks, the 170 does have considerably more room in front of the console, with a 72 quart cooler vs the 150 Montauk's36 quart. I recommend you take a tape measure to the dealer show room, climb into the boats and do the comparison for yourself.

Although we've not been out in one, I have no doubt the 550 pound heavier 170 hull, with 100 pound heavier motor, rides better in chop than the 150 just due to weight. The biggest difference we saw is that the 170 with 90 HP cruises at close to the 150 with 60 HP's wide-open throttle speed, and best cruise speed for the 150 is about 20 knots (23 mph). OTOH, we've never gotten less than 8 mpg, while the 170/90 combo reportedly runs about 5.5 mpg average. Despite the much heavier hull, the power to weight ratio for the 170 with 90 HP is better than the 150 with 60 HP, and the former will definitely be better for pulling up skiers and towing tubes. The 150 is rated 2" shallower draft than the 170, and I can tell you we've taken ours through some pretty skinny water.

Most of our use has been on the shallow west end of Lake Erie, where there are no swells, just very steep chop. We've found the 150 Sport to be fine in 1-3' seas. If we don't slow down in 2-4' seas, we have to partially stand with bended knees for any waves over 3', because the boat will launch off them and the landing can be pretty hard. My wife has ruptured disks so we usually slow down. The day I had my son out without her, we didn't slow down until I was pretty worn out. :-) If there are a lot of waves over 3', constantly partially standing becomes like doing squats and it can get pretty tiring. So we slow down.

We've been out in 3-5' chop twice, once anchoring for me to bottom fish while the wife was passed out on the main seat on Dramamine. We never felt unsafe, but it's wet, especially with beam seas, and more like work than play. We have to slow down a lot. But that being said, we typically took on less than a couple of gallons of water per hour, and there was no rush to bail (we don't have a bilge pump). Tombro has regularly taken his 150 Sport out in the Atlantic off New Jersey, although in smaller seas, and Techmage takes his out in the Gulf of Mexico. I wouldn't hesitate to do the latter with ours on good days. BTW, it's pretty easy to judge 4'+ waves when you're seated and their tops are at or above horizontal with eye level.

Obviously, a center console would let us stay standing with less leg bend. We're both short people, so the short console in the 150 and 170 (the same it appears to me) wouldn't be a problem for us as it is for many here. Whaler keeps it short so it will clear the typical 7' high garage door. However, both of us can't stand in one place long at all for medical reasons, so we much prefer the seated position of the Sport models. We're not comfortable squeezed together on a center console reversible pilot seat. Its height also puts my tiny wife's feet off the deck, while the seat height of the Sport is better for her.

If I can critique anything about the 150 Montauk, it would be the 36 quart Igloo cooler. We have used one of those, along with a 5-day, 50 quart Igloo cooler in our 150 Sport. For what we do, spending 4-5 days up at Lake Erie in a campground and launching every day, the 36 quart cooler is worthless and the 50 quart Ultra (now called Max, I believe) is wonderful. While the latter would hold ice for more than the whole trip, the 36 quart went through a couple of bags a day. We eventually just used it for dry storage. If I had the cooler arrangement to do all over again, I'd replace the 150 Sport's hinged center seat with a cooler. I think a 70 or 72 quart 5-day would fit there, but I haven't worked out the tie-down arrangement.

In our case, the 170 Montauk just wasn't right for us, even ignoring the huge premium (and we wanted a new boat). Had Whaler offered a 170 Sport, for a lot less money than the Montauk, we might have considered it. But we're really comfortable with the size of the 150 Sport. We're older and not in a hurry. 20-23 mph is fine, especially when seas are up. Do a search here on 150 Sport and you'll find quite a bit on it that probably relates to the 150 Montauk.

--
Moe

fishinchips posted 02-03-2006 10:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishinchips  Send Email to fishinchips     
If your aim is strickly fresh water. Then the 150 montauk would be an awesome boat !

You can set up a electric trolling motor and have a bow chair that is removable.

Set that up with a bimini top and your set.

Ken

fairdeal2u posted 02-03-2006 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for fairdeal2u  Send Email to fairdeal2u     
How many whaler owners have had sever cases of
2 footitis?

I started with a 13, used a 15 for a while, bought a 17 and now have an equivalent 19.

If I absolutely did not want to fish the ocean..due to seasickness or its just too far or whatever.

I would look for a classic 15 with a 4 cycle honda.

I use my friends commercial grey 15 with the honda 40.
For the lake fishermen who wants to be able to handle the windchop and to be able to fish the flats in less than a couple of feet of water to jump bass in the shallows
or for a fly fishermen like Pete.

If you are lucky, you should be able to pick it up for 5-6 K. and more than likely, it was only used on freshwater.

good luck Pete.

There are advantages to financing a new boat.
The best value , in my experience is to buy a one or two year old , practically new boat....if you can afford it.

WT posted 02-03-2006 12:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
FRSam:

I recommend getting the largest color screen that will fit on the console when purchasing a fishfinder/gps. The most popular has been Lowrance for freshwater fishing.

I've heard but have yet to see the fishfinders that scans for sideviews. Sounds very interesting.

Since you are fly fishing from the bow, I also recommend installing a fishfinder on the bow. My electric trolling motor has a built in transducer for the bow mounted fishfinder.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk170/?start=0

I have $35,000 into my Montauk. The goodies add up fast.

Good luck with the 150 Montauk,

Warren

FRSam posted 02-03-2006 05:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for FRSam  Send Email to FRSam     
Moe your information, as always, is terrific. The best way to make any informed decision, IMHO, is starting with the facts.

I'm not considering a new 170 Montauk as I'm stretching the rubber band just about as far as it will go with the new 150 Montauk, particularly after I get it rigged with all the little extras. The dry hull weight of the 150 Montauk is 950lbs the same as the classic 17 Montauk. So if weight is a factor in ride this should help. I also plan on putting on a 24 gallon Pate gas tank which will further increase the weight...no live wells to deal with and fly's are light ;-).

As far as space the 150 should be fine...I too noticed that small 36qt cooler and thought dry storage as well. On the Montauks storage doesn't seem to be something BW is too concerned with.

As far as cruising speed 23mph is great - I'm used to about 4mph in that pram of mine with an old Seagull 4 1/2hp motor pushing her. High speed is not a priority of mine - pulling skiers is not in the plans unless my dog decides to take it up.

The center console height might be an issue as I'm 6'1" and I've heard it discussed here before but I'm pretty sure I can live with it. Besides I'm shrinking as I age - maybe I'll shrink into it. If it were any higher I wouldn't be able to get it in my garage which has less than the standard 7' clearance. And during the winter up here the boat will be in the garage.

It sounds like your 15 Sport handles the chop fairly well...is there a big difference between the East Coast waters and the West Coast waters?

Thanks for you time Moe - it's greatly appreciated.

Pete

Bulldog posted 02-04-2006 10:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bulldog  Send Email to Bulldog     
Pete, the 15' Montauk sounds like a great option for you, and as you say the size is just right, moving to a 170 or a classic Montauk doesn't sound like the choice for you, the 150 Montauk is true to Whaler classic lines and style. A boat is not an investment, it's a toy to have fun, you will take a hit on value right away, but your other choice is to wait until used ones come out, what is the fun in that...Jack
MBW posted 02-05-2006 02:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for MBW  Send Email to MBW     
One thing that I don't like about the 150 is the lack of a speedometer and compass. I looks like that there was enough room to add these things.
tombro posted 02-06-2006 08:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
Pete, you didn't mention the water you will be fishing, but I'm thinking Tahoe or something like it. That being said, I owned a 150 Sport for 3 seasons, and fished it on big water. From Lake George, NY (which is a large, deep mountain lake) to 5 miles off the New Jersey coast in the Atlantic. I usually ran solo, and can tell you this would be the perfect boat for your intended use. I have rented both a classic Montauk 17 and a Montauk 170 over the years. The 170 is a very sweet rig, and would be much more desirable if you plan on more saltwater fishing, where longer runs and bigger water are in the plan. The simple reason for that is the extra horsepower for tidal current, and more hull weight to soften the blow while standing and operating. I did fine in my 150 Sport, and typically made runs of 20 miles round trip to the ramp and back. I had the 2 stroke Merc, as we bought the boat in 2003. I never felt unsafe, and always felt I was in a mini-yacht. A garage stored boat, hands down, is the way to do it. You will love having it there to tinker with. I added: additional rodholders, a compass, swim platform, Garmin 188 chartplotter, stern cleats, load guides, SS wheel, Edson powerknob, and bowstop roller. My VHF was a handheld.
We traded up to a 210 Ventura this past July, as I found myself needing more boat for both my fishing and cruising needs.
Moe posted 02-08-2006 07:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I agree that not offering a compass as an option, or part of the fishing package as it is on the 170, is a mistake, especially since it appears the 150 Montauk uses the same console. One of the first things we did was to replace one of the cup holders with a Ritchie F50. Whaler may believe that one might not be taking the 150 out of sight of land like they would with the 170, but that's not the case with all owners. Plus, it doesn't take much fog to achieve the same effect. Even though we have a GPS/chartplotter, we wanted a compass backup.

In one or two of my previous posts, I may have posted misleading information about the 150 Montauk, saying that it came with a horn. That appears now not to be the case. I feel this is an important piece of safety equipment that should be on all Whalers. The horn Whaler uses is an Aqua Signal black dual Hidden Horn, with the stainless cover.

--
Moe

bigjohn1 posted 02-10-2006 06:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
FRSam - I own a NAVMAN 6600 chartplotter/fishfinder and the sonar portion of my unit is the same as the 4350. I use my 170 MONTAUK exclusively in DEEP ocean water up to 15,000ft deep. For my style of fishing, the 6600 is great as NAVMAN sonar technology is powerful, reliable, and has great resolution. I leave the unit in A-Scope mode as it gives very fast real-time returns and that is very good when high-speed Wahoo trolling. That said, I see a few negatives on the 4350 you should think about. It has a tiny screen as ff screens go and is not side-scan. For your particular style of fishing (very shallow coves) a sidescan unit would be better. The 200kHz sonar cone on the 4350 isn't going to show you a very wide peice of the bottom. You might want to think about omitting the 4350 and use the savings to buy your own "aftermarket" fish finder after you buy the boat.
bigjohn1 posted 02-10-2006 06:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
Oops, looks like I goofed. The 4350 sonar is not the same as the 6600. It is single-frequency 200kHz. That is still fine for shallow waters though.
Moe posted 02-10-2006 08:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Here is an interesting thread on side scan sonar:

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000588.html

--
Moe

Barney posted 02-11-2006 10:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Wow, great input from Moe as usual. Man, the 2003 170 Montauk I have is slowly becoming a classic, at least price wise and they the new ones ain't getting cheaper.

I'm now a believer in the fuel injected 4 strokes. I am my own mechanic of 4 stroke carbs. Mine is a carbed 4 stroke. I guess fuel injection will cause pricing to go up too, (worth it). But the price you are paying is close to what I paid. Inflation, Kalifornia pricing, fuel injection, center console, these I guess have made for a 150 priced as you have to pay.

I know the 170 has gone up in price, but to what I don't know.
You won't go wrong with a 150 Montauk tho.

Jim Barnett

MBW posted 02-12-2006 12:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for MBW  Send Email to MBW     
Has anyone seen this boat with a livewell? You can see a what it would look like in the manual on Whaler's site. It looks like it will take up quite a bit of room in the stern area.
bben posted 02-21-2006 10:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for bben  Send Email to bben     
I have seen the livewell on the Montauk 150 at the Philly boat show. It does take up most of the rear space behind the seat. It is a tough call whether to buy. While it would be nice, it does take a lot of room. The livewell itself is fairly small in any event.
Moe posted 02-22-2006 08:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
It is certainly no substitute for a real livewell, but I use a 3 gallon insulated "Cool Bubbles" bait bucket with flashlight battery-powered aerator in the stern area of our 150 Sport. Some use the same aerator with a 5 gallon paint bucket without the insulation. Frankly, I don't believe the insulation helps much after about 1/2 hour, especially with the aerator pushing 80-90 degree air through the water, where a livewell would be providing water at 70 degrees or so. All this being said, the bait bucket does keep most of the shiners alive for a day.

For those who've seen the 150 Montauk livewell, does anyone have a guess as to its volume? Just eyeballing the drawings, it doesn't look like more than 5 gallons, if even that much.

BTW, are those cup holders instead of rod holders in it?
--
Moe

MBW posted 02-22-2006 09:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for MBW  Send Email to MBW     
I had a similarly designed livewell in my previous boat. It seemed to slosh around in the least bit of chop and overflow all over the deck. I think I would opt for the small bait bucket instead.
Fish Stick posted 02-22-2006 01:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Fish Stick  Send Email to Fish Stick     
If you really want a good live well in the 150 it can be done. I installed a 22 gallon Kodiak tank with a transom mount pump in the 150 Sport.

It takes up most of the space behind the rear passenger seat, but the engine has room to tilt completely forward, and you can still walk around each side. It is just a litle tight between the RPS and tank.

Works great for west coast fishing and a full scoop of bait.

You can see the mounting brackets on the deck in the pictures posted recently. (stearn cleat photo) If you want to see the tank mounted, I can put it in this weekend and take a picture for everyone to see.

-Joe

bben posted 02-22-2006 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for bben  Send Email to bben     
I'm not sure of the volume, but after seeing it I would say not much more than 5 gallons. Those are cup holders on either side, somewhat useless in that spot I think...Overall, when I saw the livewell, it looked like and sounded like a good idea, but it seems like an afterthought in its design, although I am still on the fence about getting it or not.

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.