Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Montauk 17 vs 170

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

Author Topic:   Montauk 17 vs 170
continuousdave posted 04-14-2008 06:05 PM ET (US)   Profile for continuousdave   Send Email to continuousdave  
I'm did a quick search on here and found a million mentions of montauks but was unable to find a focused discussion on comparing the classic Montauk to the new 170. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions but specically, I am very interested in the difference in ride performance, etc between the two. I'm sure the new 170 is better, (heavier hull + deeper vee) but how much better? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks

Dave

gbcbu posted 04-14-2008 06:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for gbcbu  Send Email to gbcbu     
I have the 170 2006 I love it. Never owned the 17 but I wanted to chime in. I'd be curious to see additional comments from others who have personal experience with both.
continuousdave posted 04-14-2008 08:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for continuousdave  Send Email to continuousdave     
gbcbu,
thanks for the reply. where do you use your 170? what kind of conditions do you often find yourself in (open ocean swells, choppy, etc). Thanks again
fisherman posted 04-14-2008 08:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for fisherman  Send Email to fisherman     
I also have a 2006 170. I find it handles extremely well and is very stable. However, it is not a dry boat on those days when the winds are above 10 to 15 mph., and there are 2' or greater seas that you are quartering through. On those occasions I wish it was equipped with a bow enclosure. Maybe next year?? Notwithstanding, I love it.

WT posted 04-14-2008 08:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage58.html
WT posted 04-14-2008 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/170Montauk/
Traveller posted 04-15-2008 10:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Traveller  Send Email to Traveller     
My wife and I test drove a 17 Montauk about ten years ago. The test ride was in the St. John's River near Mayport, FL. There was a considerable chop on the water, and my wife didn't like the ride at all. We also test drove a Dauntless 16 that same day, and though she liked the ride, we weren't ready to buy a new boat then.

In November, we purchased a 2008 Montauk 170. We have used it in three lakes in NC and upstate SC, the open ocean from St. Augustine to Jacksonville, FL, and the ICW from Jax to St. Augustine.

The ride is everything people have said it would be. It is substantially more boat than the classic Montauk 17 - longer, wider, heavier - all of which contribute to the quality of the ride. My wife and I love the boat, and only wish we hadn't waited so long to buy one.

fishinchips posted 04-15-2008 11:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for fishinchips  Send Email to fishinchips     
I have owned both.
There are differences between the two (classic versus 2003+).

Some things I like about the classics:
*drier ride
*center console is taller
*steering wheel has better height
*classic lines (nice shape)
*instant planning

Some things I like about the 2003+:
*rides smoother because of weight, shape of the hull. (does not pound like the classics)
*wider
*deck is flat, no angle near the front
*railing is taller and does not come loose.

There are things that I dislike too. Both of the classics and 2003+. In which I will not go into.

Ken

continuousdave posted 04-16-2008 06:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for continuousdave  Send Email to continuousdave     
thanks all who have replied. This is helpful. Any idea how the new 170 ride compares with a classic Outrage 18? I have riden in those boats years ago but never owned one and never took one in the open ocean. I used them on the Barnegat Bay in NJ. I'll looking for a boat that is relatively inexpensive, and good on fuel. I'll be using it in Southern CA in the open ocean. Run to Catalina Island, etc to fish. Again, any feedback is helpful. Thanks again. Dave
high sierra posted 04-17-2008 01:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for high sierra  Send Email to high sierra     
Dave, I sold my 2004 170 right after I bought my 1983 18 Outrage. The 170 was a good boat but the ride in rough water was not that good due to the round bottom at the rear section of the boat. It was a fast boat with a 115 Mercury on it and quite economical. There was not enough room for me and my buddy and all the fishing gear but the same problem occurs in the 18 outrage. The 18 has a better ride by far with it's deeper V and has a more stable feeling to it in rough water. It does tend to porpoise at full speed and I'm working on that. The Outrage is powered by a new 150 Yamaha four stroke and is much better than the Merc at least on the 18. The workmanship on the 170 is much better than the 18. Everything fits and has a good finish to it. The 18 does not.
Overall the boats are both very nice and fun but the 18 Outrage gets my vote. Any questions, feel free to ask. high sierra
fishinchips posted 04-19-2008 12:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for fishinchips  Send Email to fishinchips     
I put a fin on my motor and the rough water ride is much better.

ken

gbcbu posted 04-25-2008 02:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for gbcbu  Send Email to gbcbu     
continuousdave. re-visited this article and see you asked a couple of questions;

I boat mainly in the greater Boston area. As far south as Minot light, east to Stelwagon Bank and North to Marbelhead. I have the opportunity to go out weekdays as well as weekends. Yes you have to pick your weather but the plus side is you can put it on your trailer and take it places. Last summer I met up with Greatbaynh in his neck of the woods, went to Newport, RI for a rendevous hosted by Ianabus, had a great trip on the Conn. River up near Hanover, NH, and trailered it down to Easthampton, LI and got up to Montauk Point and Geenport. Have 170 will travel!

swist posted 04-26-2008 08:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for swist  Send Email to swist     
Would disagree with fishinchips only on one thing - I thought the 170 had a drier ride. But maybe we're talking different sea conditions.

I have a bad back and although neither boat would win any prizes for not rattling your bones at speed in any kind of sea, the 170 was noticeably smoother.

I do agree that the fit & finish is better on the 170, with the possible exception of console electrical wiring (I am fussy about this subject as I do DC wiring in my job - I don't like what I see on most boats, so take that for what it's worth).

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.