ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
First Boat: 190 Montauk or 190 Outrage
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
First Boat: 190 Montauk or 190 Outrage
|
| Author | Topic: First Boat: 190 Montauk or 190 Outrage |
| triplem |
posted 01-03-2007 11:25 PM ET (US)  
Hello All. I've been lurking for some time now. What a great informative and friendly board. I am looking to purchase my first boat and need some guidance on whether a 190 Montauk with its modified V hull will work for my needs or whether I need to step up to a 190 Outrage with a true V Hull. I live in Southern California and the primary use of the boat will be to ocean fish with one other adult and about 50% of the time we will also have two small kids onboard (ages 4 and 6). We will be making runs along the coast of up to 10 miles and generally will fish within a mile or two from shore. At the right time of year there will be a few times when I would like to go 5-10 miles offshore to chase yellowtail and dorado or go 26 miles to Catalina Island (weather and water conditions permitting). I have read plenty of threads where the rough ride of old 17 Montauk hull could be downright painful. How is the ride of the new Montauk hull particularly in swell and/or chop? Based upon my intended use should I really be considering a 190 Montauk without a true V hull? Instead, should I be looking at a 190 Outrage? I'd really like to hear from those that have ridden in both the Outrage and the new styled Montauks. Thanks for the help. Neal |
| highanddry |
posted 01-04-2007 03:58 AM ET (US)
The Outrage 190 is not a true Vee hull but is a modified Vee. I cannot answer your question, we love our 190 Nantucket which is the same as a the Outrage 190 but we would probably look closely at the Montauck 190 save for one thing, the horsepower seems to low. The price on the Nantucket/Outrage 190 has gone up quite a bit with the Montacuk 190 filling the lower range of the Nantucket's original price range. My boat now would cost me another 10,000 today and that would definitly have a bearing on which one I chose. |
| Sal A |
posted 01-04-2007 07:06 AM ET (US)
The 190 Outrage might be marginally better in tight chop; in a swell I can't imagine the two would be much different. The 190 Montauk and the 190 Outrage share the same beam, although the Montauk is 2 inches longer. The 190 Montauk weighs about 12% less than the 190 Outrage, when you consider a smaller engine as well. Both have 60 gallon tanks (so I guess the 190 Montauk has more range given the same tank). I loved my 190 Nantucket, but the added benefits of the 190 Montauk's fuel economy/efficiency, and its price advantage might be too much of a positive trade-off against a potentially marginally inferior ride in chop. I'd probably get the Montauk and add trim tabs. |
| aubv |
posted 01-04-2007 09:21 AM ET (US)
triplem, Of the 2 boats you listed, The 190 Outrage is the boat I would recommend, based on your stated use. The 190 Outrage has gunnel mounted rod holders for trolling and under gunnel rod storage, The 190 Montauk does not. Additionally, the 190 Outrage is a self bailing boat and has higher free board. I would find the rear railings on the 190 Montauk to be troublesome as they limit ingress/egress to the boat and make releasing a fish without removing the fish from the water more difficult. As to the comments by Sal about fuel economy I would look at the features of each boat and think long and hard about what boat meets my needs, not worry about what probably amounts to a couple of hundred dollars difference in fuel costs a year. I've fished 2 Montauks, a 17 Outrage II, a 190 Nantucket and a 23' Outrage. There is a price difference because you get more features on the Outrage series than the Montauk series. Those features can make a huge difference when it comes to the use and function of the boat. Best of luck with your purchase. |
| Sal A |
posted 01-04-2007 09:27 AM ET (US)
I agree with many of your comments, Brian; your points are valid about the fuel economy difference. However, I like the rear side rails, as a father with smaller children, and the price difference between the two boats is about $15,000 from what I understand. |
| triplem |
posted 01-04-2007 09:48 AM ET (US)
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. I do realize the 190 Montauk would get better fuel economy and would cost less then a 190 Outrage, about $7K - $8K less when factoring in the $2K rebate on the outrage. My real focus / concern is on the ride in chop and swell. In my mind, the 190 Montauk, while essentially the same size as the 190 Outrage, is still a skiff style boat. When I think about being in the ocean, it is my observation that most boats have true V hulls. I know I can test drive both boats but to me the short amount of time in the test drives will not be a real test. Kinda like when I bought my first kayak. I didn't know the true benefits from one over another and the salesperson guided my first purchase. Now that I have been in a number of kayaks (and own 5) I now know what works and today I would have never even considered buying the first kayak the salesperson sold me. Am I kidding myself in thinking the ride in the new Montauk hull will be decent riding / comparable to the Outrage? How about this, if I'm 10 miles offshore and the water conditions unexpectedly turn snotty, will I be regretting the Montauk after the ride back to shore? Thanks again everyone. Neal |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-04-2007 11:14 AM ET (US)
I dont know much about the other 19, but I have been on my Nantucket in 4 and 5 feet malstomes...and although I got beat up pretty bad, the nantucket ran through it it like it wasnt even their!!!! There is a reason you pay 10-15 thou more for a boat! It has something the lessor boat dosnt have. I know one is way heaveir than the other, and for my money, when Im out in snotty stuff, Id like something heavier as it alwasy seems to me to ride better in it.....what a fantastic boat the nantucket is...and I think you would be hard pressed to find better in that range.. Im biased, but I went throu the pros and cons a few years back and made the right choice for me! You have to choose for you.... |
| Jordi |
posted 01-04-2007 11:57 AM ET (US)
Neal, Both boats are excellent choices and would handle most conditions very well. The Outrage 190 has a higher center console which is very good for wind blocking while cruising and the leaning post is extremely comfortable either sitting or standing during navigation. I also enjoy the rear seats during "down" time while fishing. I personally like to be as high as possible from the water which the Outrage 190 is most likely to sit higher at rest. Per the specification on the BW site both boats weight almost the same (dry weight). This forum is filled with "which boat is better" threads.....you need to take both boats out for a good ride under moderate/rough conditions and make the decision accordingly. A good captain will get you home in both boats in rough conditions and a bad captain will make both excellent boats ride like.....You have small children and like many of us safety is number one during the outings. Will you feel as safe in both boats with your family in moderate/rough conditions? Can you maneuver both boats in the dock with a "crowded" ramp as well? This forum is an outstanding place to gather information...sound like you need some water time. Good luck, Jordi |
| Buckda |
posted 01-04-2007 12:34 PM ET (US)
Were it me, there would be no question. I'd be looking for the 190 Outrage and a safety lanyard for my kids. That is my opinion. I've ridden in neither, however the 190 Outrage is designed for what you intend to use it for. The Montauk series of boats are legendary. They are often used for what I consider uses beyond their intended use - although they do what they're asked to do admirably well. Today's Montauk is being marketed as an activity and bay boat, whereas the Outrage series is designed and geared towards those who would venture into open waters of the oceans. Don't get me wrong. A Montauk handles the big water fine, but the Outrage series has always been the boat of choice for the bigger water. So! If the price/budget is the deciding factor, then you may need to consider the Montauk. Afterall, forum members here have and will continue to venture offshore in their Montauks - WT is a prime example - but if you plan to get out there often, with small kids aboard, I'd be planning the safer/better small boat for the likely conditions - and that is the Outrage. Dave |
| Perry |
posted 01-04-2007 01:57 PM ET (US)
The 190 Outrage gets my vote over the 190 Montauk. I take mine out in some nasty conditions and I always feel safe. It hase a deeper V, higher freeboard, self bailing cockpit, higher HP rating and is heavier. It also has some of the creature comforts like aft quarter seats. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-04-2007 02:38 PM ET (US)
The Nantucket 190 (Outrage) is a very capable 19 footer, but, it is a 19 footer. Our boat is beyond a doubt the most solid feeling boat I have come across, it is rock solid. It also get very good fuel economy so I would be surprised if you do much better with the Montauk 190. We are getting up to 5.5 MPG with the Opti 150 running around 24 MPH. In common use it is easy to see 4 plus MPG and commonly 5.0 MPG. The Nantucket cuts through small chop easily and even when it gets rough it hangs in there as well as any 19 footer would--regardless of what the bashers here and on hulltruth claim. You just have to remeber, these are 19 foot boats, not 24 foot Regulators or such as that. H&D |
| Jordi |
posted 01-04-2007 03:56 PM ET (US)
Neal, You might find the following reference useful(Nantucket 190 is the same boat as the Outrage 190): http://www.marinews.com/details.php?recordid=122&PHPSESSID= |
| Scott Grey |
posted 01-04-2007 04:34 PM ET (US)
I just went thru the same questions you are having and i decided to buy the 190 outrage with the 150 verado. I took delivery on tuesday and feel i got a fair deal and picked the right boat. |
| Scott Grey |
posted 01-04-2007 04:39 PM ET (US)
I also would like to thank everyone for there input to help me make the decision on the 190 nantucket/190 outrage. |
| Perry |
posted 01-04-2007 04:55 PM ET (US)
highanddry says: quote: What bashers here are you talking about? That ONE kid who said his parent's Nantucket with a 115 handled like a tub? I find that people here who own one or have ridden in one say it is a good, capable boat. I don't think people here bash the Nantucket. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-04-2007 05:21 PM ET (US)
Scott - Welcome to the forum - please keep us updated with performance reports of the 190 Outrage with 150 Verado! Dave |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-04-2007 11:47 PM ET (US)
Scott Congrates on your new boat! You will love her more each time you use her:) highanddry, Perry, Ive not seen any bashers here either...maybe one person said that...PS I have a 115-2 and love the darn motor...sips gas and gives me plenty of power for what I do:) I agree with Buckda ....even if I didnt have a Nantucket... A while back TG_190 did a review...check that out...it sure cleared my head!! |
| highanddry |
posted 01-05-2007 04:39 AM ET (US)
"I find that people here who own one or have ridden in one say it is a good, capable boat. I don't think people here bash the Nantucket."
H&D |
| highanddry |
posted 01-05-2007 04:53 AM ET (US)
Some users will find the 115 on an Outrage very limiting even if Yiddal does not. For example, four divers, eight tanks, equipment, provisions (food, drinks, water etc), two deck hands and 60 gallons of fuel and a thirty mile run. I would not want less than my 150 horses, it needs it all to get going and to manuver with authority when heavily loaded. I worry that the Montack 190 will suffer under heavy loads with to small an engine or a marginal one. Who can answer this for certain, probably nobody currently on this forum until the boat is more widely in use. I expect that for casual use, inshore, generally moderately loaded or less then the 115 will do fine. "Sips gas" Quote from Yiddal concerning the 115 Merc on a Nantucket. Explain, how many MPH, GPH and at what speed defines "sips gas"? H&D |
| alb1661 |
posted 01-05-2007 10:06 AM ET (US)
I have a 2005 190 Nantucket with a 115 Merc 4 stoke. I changed the prop from a 14" Vengeance to a 16" Vengeance. 4700 rpm @ 30 mph "that's sipping gas" HD...do you have a fuel flow meter on board? Great Boat! Steve |
| Perry |
posted 01-05-2007 11:45 AM ET (US)
I think Yiddil has the classic 115 2 stroke Mercury on his Nantucket which does not get as good fuel economy as a 4 stroke or DFI. The Honda on mine gets 6+ MPG at cruise according to my Navman 3100 fuel flow meter. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-05-2007 02:02 PM ET (US)
Yes, I have the Smart set up that comes with Mercury OptiMax. I get, roughly, depending on load and circumstances, something in the range of 4.5 GPH at about 24 MPH and at 28 to 30 MPH I burn 6.0 GPH. I just went and looked in the log book so regardless of what I said that is what I wrote down from my instruments. Obviously heavily loaded or other conditions can severely effect these numbers. At 24 MPH, I can see a fairly wide variation in fuel flow depending on load, it varies less with load at higher speeds. I assume this is because the boat is working harder to stay up on plane when heavily loaded. We "cruise" at different speeds, anywhere from 24 MPH to about 35 MPH, probably most of the time around 30 MPH. I believe that increasing fuel economy by maintaining low speed efficiency would be one of the things that would make tabs benificial on this boat and it may be one of the real life advantags of the Montauk 190 over the Outrage 190 in that it may plane more efficiently at low speeds--time will tell. H&D |
| fno |
posted 01-05-2007 07:28 PM ET (US)
Don't make the mistake of not maxing out the horsepower on whichever boat you choose. New Whalers are heavy hulls, period. I didn't think twice about the $2k upcharge to take the 175 Optimax off my 210 Outrage and put on a 225 hp Yamamerc before "before" it left the dealers lot. I am positive two years later that I would not be smiling near as much when I lay the throttle down to get up and go. Oh, and go for the 190 Outrage. Two adults and two monsters will only add to the smallness of that boat when the wind and the waves kick up. |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-06-2007 08:36 PM ET (US)
Don't make the mistake of comparing the old Montauk ride to the new Montauk ride. I'm a SoCal guy (who owns a 170 Mountauk) and I'd go for the 190 Montauk. Everyone seems to forget about the Montauk's stability and superior down swell manners. It's just too bad they don't offer it with a 150. Either of the two boats in question is capable of SoCal/Channel Islands work. We've run our 170 Montauk (fitted with a 51 gallon fuel tank)from San Diego to Avalon and back, from Long Beach to San Clemente Island and back and chased Dorado and Tuna 40 miles off Pt. Loma all with my wife and two kids on board. We run it to Catalina fish all day and then run home through the afternoon nasties on about 15 gallons of gas. |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-06-2007 08:52 PM ET (US)
Yes, It sips Gas....not exactly sure what the exact MPG is ...but it would probabaly safe to guesstimate @ 4MPG...some one a while ago did the exact on her...., but if your getting such and such on a 150, then I got to be getting a bit better with the 115-2........ Ive heard the 115-4 was a problem for Sal, but with the 16 prop, maybe its diofferent... Having said that, Id have dome the 150 at the time except I wanted some Garmin stuff and canvas more!(188C,501radio, bow doder, extended sun lounge,to name a few!) But the 115-2 has never let me down :) |
| highanddry |
posted 01-06-2007 09:48 PM ET (US)
Having a smaller engine may or may not result in better fuel economy. Depends on speed and load. I figure at some low speeds you will see better economy than the Opti 150 but overall I bet your not getting but a marginal improvement at a significant loss of performance. That is fine for many I suppose but not me. Concerning "downswell" stability of the Montauk being better than the Outrage, I doubt it. H&D |
| Perry |
posted 01-07-2007 12:39 AM ET (US)
Yiddil says: quote: You are comparing apples to oranges. As far as fuel consumption goes, your carburated 2 stroke is old technology and is not nearly as efficient as a modern EFI 4 stroke or a DFI 2 stroke (Optimax, ETEC). Just because your motor produces 115 HP does not mean it will get better fuel economy than a 150 HP motor. I think 4 MPG for your set-up is an optimistic estimate. |
| WT |
posted 01-07-2007 02:17 AM ET (US)
I went to the Northern California Boat Show today and looked at the smaller Whalers. I love my 170 Montauk but wouldn't mind having an 190 Outrage for ocean use. The 190 Montauk is nice but the 115 hp outboard may be a little weak. For your intended use, I'd get the 190 Outrage with the 150 Verado. http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Misc/?action=view& current=DSC_4368.jpg Good luck, Warren |
| highanddry |
posted 01-07-2007 04:37 AM ET (US)
Yiddal, I am getting MPG in the range of as high as 5.5 MPG at 24 MPH approximate. Truth is that had I been offered an opportunity to buy this boat with my choice of engines I am not sure that the 150 Opti would have been the engine I chose. I like the Yamahas and Hondas also. Just don't know but what I do know is that this engine is very efficient and very powerfull and --lol--a bit noisy at high cruise speeds. I love the growl it gives though when you put the hammer down on it and I like the way it moves the boat even loaded down. That is not a bad price on the link above with the Verado 150, of course, the original Nantuckets were in that same price range. The Montauk 190 has 19 inches of freeboard and the Nantucket is 22 inches I think. Not only that but the Nantucket has a deck that is above water level and is clearly self bailing. It also has a lot more real estate on the console for electronics and other toys. BUT, I think the Montauk 190 is a nice boat, I think they need to offer at least a 135 for top power on it. All things considered the Outrage is the better boat except for price, that might sway me heavily toward that really nice Montauk 190. H&D |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-07-2007 02:18 PM ET (US)
The deeper the V the worst the down swell handling plain and simple. What do you think was the point of the origional smirk. The same deep V that allows a boat to cut through a head sea also allows it to burry its bow deeply into a wave while surfing downswell. When enough of the bow digs in it'll decelerate rapidly and can broach. You can't have it both ways, if you say the Outrage is superior in a chop because of it has a deeper V and less smirk it'll be equally more of a handful running down swell plain and simple. The bottom line is the two boats are more the same than different but if you run offshore you know downswell is far more dangerous even if the ride is smoother. |
| WT |
posted 01-07-2007 02:31 PM ET (US)
The above pricing for the 2007 190 Outrage includes; 1) Fishing package 2) Dual pedestal seats 3) Swim Platform 4) Mercury DTS throttle and shift 5) Smartcraft gauges 6) Karavan trailer 7) dealer prep of $1,000. Total is $46,249 I found that the 160 Dauntless was around 18% off and the 240 Outrage was also about 20% off sticker pricing. The adds also indicated that 2006 models could be had for a "very low" price and to ask the salesmen. Time to get your deals now!!!!! Warren |
| Sal A |
posted 01-07-2007 03:20 PM ET (US)
That is a great price Warren. They are not that aggressively priced here in NJ. I will let you guys/gals know what I see at the Atlantic City Boat Show coming up. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-07-2007 04:18 PM ET (US)
"The deeper the V the worst the down swell handling plain and simple. What do you think was the point of the origional smirk." Oh baloney! The Nantucket will not bury it's bow in the way you describe and broach, I don't care what the original purpose of the smirk was--your wrong about the Nantucket and Outrage 190--period dude. This is just like that other Natucket bashing thread where the guy swore up and down his Montack was more seaworthy and could support more weight/bouyancy than the Nantucket---yeah--you believe that if it makes you feel good--but--it is not true. The aft raked sheer line, the higher gunwales, the greatly increased bouyancy, the flared bow and good balance of the Outrage/Nantucket negate these issues present in poorely designed boats. It is a proper boat. Here it is plan out--in any condition, in any sea, the Nantucket is more seaworthy and can carry a greater load more safely and with more reserve capacity than any Montack. Hey, Yiddal, this is one of those "bashing" statements (the one in quote above) you never seem to see. H&D |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-07-2007 04:59 PM ET (US)
A boat that can defy the laws of physics, marine architecture and stability. A little sensitive about the Outrage are we? Like I said they're more the same than different but like I also said you can't have it both ways. Make the V deeper you sacrifice stability and down swell ability. Not rocket science. As far as bouyancy the smirk actually creates reserve bouyancy as the boat rolls. As far as a boat that "will not" burry its bow, there isn't one made. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-07-2007 05:10 PM ET (US)
"As far as bouyancy the smirk actually creates reserve bouyancy as the boat rolls. As far as a boat that "will not" burry its bow, there isn't one made" Don't try and educateme in physics. Per the above quote--so does the greatly flaed bow of the Nantucket, unlike the bashers, I admit that I am a long time fan of the Montauk and think it to be a fine boat, one of the very best in it' class if not the best but against the Outrage, it is simply outclassed and physics my dear fellow is on my side and not yours and most people realize this factually. The Outrage/Nantucket does not plow and broach in a following sea and has plenty of reserve bouyancy. here is a fact, you could take a Montauk 17 and put it inside of a Nantucket fully loaded, it is a much larger boat and putting them side by side quickly demonstrates that your Montack 17 is up against the laws of God and Nature that you so wish to educate me on, you better go back for a refresher course. H&D |
| Sal A |
posted 01-07-2007 06:25 PM ET (US)
highanddry, You are taking commentary on these boats way too personal. I didn't see mikey's commentary as "Nantucket bashing." Relax. Life is short. They are all great boats. Mikeyairtime's commentary about the 190 Montauk less likely to stuff the bow riding down swells makes a certain amount of sense to me, and I am a hugh fan of the 190 Nantucket; I wish I still owned mine. |
| Jordi |
posted 01-07-2007 06:43 PM ET (US)
Yet another "my boat is better than your boat" thread to educate us.....get a life, or better yet go fishing/boating and enjoy your Whalers. Jordi |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-07-2007 06:54 PM ET (US)
We're comparing a 190 Montauk not a 17 or 170. What if the 190 Montauk turns out to be an updated classic 18 Outrage on steroids? It has the potential and pedigree to be one of the finest skiffs to come down the pike in a long time. Like I said though it really should come with a 150 hp outboard. If I was in the market I'd pick up the 190 Montauk. Viva La Diferance. |
| Perry |
posted 01-07-2007 07:23 PM ET (US)
mikeyairtime, the 190 Outrage is by no means a "deep V" hull so your analogy doesn't really apply. It would if the Outrage had a 24 degree constant deadrise hull but it doesn't. Your physics are sound but don't really apply in this case because the Outrage has a "modified V" hull. I don't think there is any question that the Outrage series is a blue water boat. Just read the description on Boston Whaler's web site. The Montauk series is capable but it is not designed as a rough water boat. I primarily run my 190 Nantucket in the rough Hawaiian ocean and have never buried the bow while surfing down swell. I've also never had the bow broach either. highanddry, I don't think mikeyairtime was bashing the 190 Nantucket/Outrage. I just think he was trying to say that a "deep V" boat will not track as well as a boat that does not have a "deep V". (Even though the argument doesn't really apply to this case). |
| highanddry |
posted 01-07-2007 08:07 PM ET (US)
"Another my boat is better thanyour boat" Well, the OP did ask for exactly that, info on the better boat for his use. Only he can ultimately decide that but whether you call it bashing or misinformation, let's stick to reasonable pontifications and stating that a smirked Montauk (which does not include the Montauk 190) is better in a following sea and therefore more seaworthy than a considerably larger Ourage 190 is a disservice to anyone trying to sort facts from internet fiction. Yes, life is to short to tolerate misinformation being provided to help a gentleman decide which boat to spend his hard eanred money upon. Is the Montauk of any sort a seaworthy and capable boat--yes--is it more seaworthy and capable than the larger/deeper/heavier/higher powered Nantucket/Outrage 190--NO. BTW, just looking at the pics, aside from lower free board and the "square" styling of the bow planform in order to produce that "smirk" look there does not appear to be that much difference between the basic form of the two boats in question. The Montauk 190 is also a modified Vee hull as is the Outrage, it is not the sea sled design ofthe classic Montauks we all love, inclduing me. H&D |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-07-2007 08:57 PM ET (US)
Perry, you're searching. I say deeper V in every reference to the Outrage except for a generic referce in my second post refering to a boats handling compared to it's deadrise. Please read all the posts before you get comment. Like I said for SoCal a utility skiff is my choise for fishing, spear fishing and paddy hopping. If you think one 19'x8' whaler skiff is vastly more sea worth than another 19'x8' whaler skiff the brochure is working. Like I said if it were my money I'd get the 190 Montauk. |
| triplem |
posted 01-07-2007 09:21 PM ET (US)
Thanks again everyone for the replys. Interesting to see some of the friendly banter that has taken place in this thread. I'm a little surprised no one that actually owns a 190 Montauk has chimed in. Not to completely change the subject but the new 188 Edgewater has caught my eye as well. Basically the same price range as a 190 Outrage with a 150 Yamaha. It has some features I really like (i.e. anchor box & front fish box, room in console for a porta potty, padded thigh high inside edge and a few other touches). Yamaha is also offering a free extended warranty like Merc. My impression is that the 188 Edgewater is a well designed and feature rich boat that looks to be a quality product (which makes sense since Dougherty used to run Edgewater after he left Whaler). I'm still not sure which way I may go. Nothing wrong with saving $7k if the 190 Montauk will make me happy but I don't want to be penny wise & dollar foolish. I'd love to hear from people that own the 190 Montauk. Thanks again. Neal |
| Perry |
posted 01-07-2007 10:37 PM ET (US)
mikeyairtime, you say the bottom line about the 190 Outrage is the: "downswell is far more dangerous even if the ride is smoother." In fact, the bottom line is you do not own a 190 Outrage. I do and I'm sure others who own them will agree that going downswell in one is not the least bit dangerous. Have you ridden in one? What do you base this ridiculous assumption on? I think it has been established that the 190 Outrage will handle the chop smoother. With first hand experience, I can tell you that the 190 Outrage will not broach when surfing down swell and it tracks great. We know you love your 170 Montauk but stop with the misinformation please. |
| WT |
posted 01-07-2007 11:07 PM ET (US)
Get the 190 Outrage with the 150 Verado. Pay the dealer a few bucks to swap the Verado for a Yamaha (If that is your outboard of choice.) The dealer could probably sell the Verado in a nanosecond. Warren |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-07-2007 11:43 PM ET (US)
Wrong again Perry. You aparently don't see the difference between a generic statement to make a point and one pertaining to a specific vessel. Read the post, I said if you run offshore you know that down swell is more dangerous. That's all. The point being that downswell handling is very important and often overlooked in todays deep V's are better world. Not a word about the Outrage there. Now go back to triplem's second post and you will see that he seems to think a "true V" is better than a skiff style boat when in reality the guys who work offshore daily in small boats favor skiff style boats. Once again I will say the two whalers are more the same than different but the Outrage leans more one way and the Montauk the other and again you can't have it both ways. If the Outrage is so much more of a blue water boat than the Montauk as some would have you believe where do you think that ability is coming from. Sure it's only a few degrees of deadrise but some seem to think that makes one way more capable than the other. All I'm saying is however much more capable it is one way the other is that much more capable the other.
|
| highanddry |
posted 01-08-2007 01:01 AM ET (US)
milkyairtime, wow, since your not getting satisfaction with Perry you direct the OP to a boat show. Actually good advice to get a good feel for some different boats. I can assure you at the boat show they will not tell him the classic Montauk is more seaworthy than an Outrage 190, they will just laugh. Nonetheless, your assumptions are incorrect and I will just tell you that your plain wrong--again. The Nantucket 190, Outrage 190, Edgewater 188 or even the modified Vee Montauk 190 are not more dangerous down swell than your Montauk 17 footer. Your WRONG. H&D |
| WT |
posted 01-08-2007 01:21 AM ET (US)
OK Let's meet at the Bodega Bay ramp and we can have a shootout between the Montauks and Outrages. I'll lead with my 170 Montauk. :-) MON MON NIGHT TUE TUE NIGHT WED THU FRI |
| WT |
posted 01-08-2007 01:59 AM ET (US)
Triplem wants to go offshore up to 26 miles. I say get the Outrage with the 150 Verado because sometimes you need the extra power. The 115 hp on the 190 Montauk is great for 95% of the time but may let you down when you need extra power if ocean conditions turn ugly. I was stupidly out on the crab opener November 11, 2006. The weather buoy read 12 foot swells and 30+ mph winds. I was coming back uphill at 4000-4500 rpm going less than 5 mph. I didn't want to push any harder because I didn't want to run out of fuel. I'm glad I had my 90 hp instead of the minimum rated 60 hp option. If you're boating on calm waters, it's fine to "underpower" your boat for economical reasons. Warren |
| Jordi |
posted 01-08-2007 08:00 AM ET (US)
Is this thread....."Fact or fiction", the Outrage 190 vs. Montauk 170/190 debacle has once again proven that many strong opinions are aired and very few facts are known. This debate could go on forever....Triplem, do your homework and take the boats out for a ride. Your request to have a Montauk 190 owner tell us how great his boat is vs. the Outrage 190 is useless. Unless you find MANY owners of the Outrage 190 that have bought a Montauk 190 or vice versa the opinions will continue to flow and waste good space on this forum. The forum is as good as the community and information that is shared between Whaler owners. For those of us that take the time to educate ourselves in this forum the "my boat is better that your boat" threads are a disservice to the Whaler community and reflect immaturity and pettiness. The Continuous Wave community has a long history of providing useful information...at a minimum let’s try to keep that tradition alive. Jordi |
| mikeyairtime |
posted 01-08-2007 09:19 AM ET (US)
When did we start talking about classic Montauks and 170's. We're comparing 19's. Did triplem ever express interest in a 170? Nope. We're really talking about weather an Outrage 190 is worth the extra cash over a 190 Montauk. Read again 190 Montauk. Once again, I posted that my 170 worked in the SoCal Channel Islands environs (comparing it to nothing). I suspect the 190 will work even better in the SoCal Channel Islands environs, but I'm still of the mind a 190 Montauk with a 150HP would be better. |
| fno |
posted 01-08-2007 12:41 PM ET (US)
So far, nobody has much in the way of "real" help for this guy. When is somebody with either of these two boats going to offer him a ride? Neal, you can probably find a slightly "used" 190 Outrage for the same price as the 190 Montauk and still have plenty of motor warranty left. Basically, Neal is asking for info that most of us don´t really have. That´s first hand experience form someone who has been on "both" of these boats. |
| Livingwater |
posted 01-08-2007 02:41 PM ET (US)
Find a reputable dealer and ask them for comparisions on the two boats. I would venture to say most of the Boston Whaler dealers have been on all of the models during sea trials for their customers and are a good resource for 1st hand experience. |
| WT |
posted 01-08-2007 04:45 PM ET (US)
I asked my Boston Whaler dealer which he preferred and his response was the 190 Outrage. The big reason for him was that the 190 Outrage had the 150 Verado on the transom. |
| triplem |
posted 01-08-2007 09:14 PM ET (US)
Hello Everyone. I want to again thank everyone that has given constructive information. I never envisioned the thread going in the direction it has. Good to see some people really love their boat! Mikeyairtime's use of his 170 Montauk going offshore in my neck of the woods is probably as close as I'm going to get re an opinion of the 190 Montauk. I've climbed all over both boats and have been talking to my local Whaler dealer. In order to do a test drive in open water they use a crane to drop the boats into the water and then it is a 45 minute boat ride just to get out of the harbor! This is one of the reasons why I was soliciting information between the two boats. I'll let everyone know what I end up with. Sincerely, Neal |
| Mudkap1 |
posted 01-08-2007 10:12 PM ET (US)
Neil, If you get the 190 Montauk, have your dealer install dual tackle boxes underneath each of the stern seats! The size that is 1 larger then the center console tackle boxes fit perfectly and will increase your tackle storage space 8 fold (3 boxes will fit in each). This should be helpful in your offshore fishing adventures. I own a 170 and I have been on the 190 Montauk, twice, and fould the ride to be super. I believe that this is largely due to the fact of it's size increase (beam included) and built in fuel cell providing stability. The power was similar in every respect to my 2006 170 (90 Fourstroke) with 3 adults on board and full gas. I have never been on an Outrage 190. Cannot comment on that comparatively. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-11-2007 02:07 PM ET (US)
There is a good video clip of the Montauk 190 on the BW website. Tour of the boat and video of it running. Very pretty boat except for one thing, they go on and on about the eight foot beam being carried all the way to the front and while not ugly, it does make the boat look like an aircraft carrier. At some point a sense of scale has to kick in and if there ever is a Montauck 210 then they might want to taper that front--just a bit. Another thing I notice is that the console does not have room for large displays like my Humminbird 900 series or other types of large and larger displays. One thing I do like, the cc access door will open fully without hitting the side of the boat like it does on the Nantucket. |
| Perry |
posted 01-11-2007 05:01 PM ET (US)
quote: highanddry, that's odd, my door has plenty of clearance to swing all the way open. |
| Jordi |
posted 01-11-2007 05:59 PM ET (US)
The door clearance issue seems to the earlier models 03-04. My 05 does not have that problem. Jordi |
| highanddry |
posted 01-12-2007 04:07 AM ET (US)
I wonder what they did to correct the problem, well, it has never really been a problem, just a minor annoyance since the door easily lifts off for greater access during maintenance. I am planning to bifold mine. |
| Jordi |
posted 01-13-2007 08:10 AM ET (US)
highanddry, I am guessing they made the door smaller so that it could swing 100% open without hitting the side. (The door is the same one as the 190 Outrage) Jordi |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-20-2007 11:30 PM ET (US)
WOW! whata thread this has turned out to be..... Here is my take.............. I LOVE MY NANTUCKET! Period, wouldn't trade it for any other boat, period! DOn't want to compare it to any other boat! Period!......... If you like the other model, buy it, if you like what you have said about why you think one is better than the other, fine, enjoy it!, I dont even care if you have never been on either boat, Its okay....... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when some are right and some are wrong........and their is always lots of that! Bashing a Nantucket????Where? Why? When? WHaever?....go right ahead, or maybe its just an opinion..not a problem..........I really can't get all that riled up about all this.... You ask yourself why? Ill tell you......... I have the best boat in the world for me....my NAntucket 2004 "Das BOat"and thats all that really matters... Enjoy what you have too:) and please try and lighten up, there is enough anger in the world... |
| Scott Grey |
posted 01-28-2007 10:22 PM ET (US)
Yiddil, I couldn't agree more! People who do the necessary homework when buying a boat end up really attached to their purchase. After saving for four years and seeing what's out there, I bought the 190 outrage/nantucket. I guess things can change but I bought this boat with the idea of hanging on to it for good. Even if someone beaches next to me in a big fancy boat, I still know that this is the boat for me. |
| Kencvit |
posted 01-29-2007 12:00 AM ET (US)
my door hits on the 04 model....but lifts off if you`ve got to crawl in to get at the battery or wiring. If I recall it hits at the bottom and not by much so they could have trimmed it on the 05` without really changing the opening much. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-29-2007 03:04 AM ET (US)
It would be very easy to bifold this door and I will do it this summer. It does lift off easy to get access. odd that they changed it,I bet like you say they trimmed the corner and changed the shape of the opening slightly. |
| Livingwater |
posted 01-29-2007 01:47 PM ET (US)
The 2007 model console door is smaller then my 2004 model. I can remove my door and get completely inside of my console as for the 2007 model I could never fit through the opening to work on my electronic's wiring. |
| highanddry |
posted 01-29-2007 02:16 PM ET (US)
I can easily get inside the console to work on stuff. I did remove the bait tray from the front. I never used it and it took up alot of useful space. |
| sheikofthesea |
posted 01-30-2007 01:40 AM ET (US)
I have been a fisherman all my life and about 6 years back started renting skiffs on City Island, NY to get out on the water. Once I got a steady job as a college professor I bought a used 19 foot Sundance skiff with 60 HP that I have used for the last four years in Western Long Island Sound City Island area. I needed to repower the boat so I convinced my wife to let me take out a home equity loan so I could get a new engine, but while I was out in California her very wealthy brother bowled me over by saying he wanted to give me a boat ( please don’t begrudge me my luck). After doing my research and for me an unlimited amount of money I decided on my superskiff the Montaulk 190 . The only concessions I had to make for my wife was to get a bimini top and the front cushions (not the sun lounge) but if you get the front cushions you can't delete the bow rail. The side rails are factory installed. I got the aft tackle boxes. I wish the livewell was bigger. What do people do to position more rod holders(something attached to the grab rails? I am a bit concerned with the comments on the engine but I am not hung up on speed and the vast majority of the time I just have my fishing gear, beer, and my buddy D-Drift. Can easily envision fishing four. I love all the open space for fishing. Striper cows beware. The center console storage area looks huge.And the boat is nice enough that I can convince my wife to come out with me and sunbathe. I do hope I will feel confident enough to take it out in snotty weather and down the East River and out into the New York Bight over to Raritan Bay or Breezy Point or up the Hudson River. Maybe do some cruising. For me what's important is its crossover abilities as a back bay boat that can also handle difficult river cross currents and plowing across open water. I am picking it up in a couple of weeks and can't wait to get it out on the water the first week of April. I had the smallest boat at the marina before but I took it out more than anyone and I am looking forward to many adventures on and out of the Sound on the Debunker2. I'll make sure to post some of my stories and what the Montaulk 190 is all about. I'm hoping it will be the super skiff of my dreams. See you on the water |
| highanddry |
posted 01-30-2007 03:48 AM ET (US)
Hurry and post some pictures. I am glad for you that a generous relative purchased this for you. I have expended huge resources on my family and some friends with hardly a thank you---but---did I ever expect it. Please, thank him for his patronage of you with that wonderful boat. H&D |
| |
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.