Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  190 Montauk: Advantages and Disadvantages

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

Author Topic:   190 Montauk: Advantages and Disadvantages
whaler007 posted 08-09-2010 01:41 AM ET (US)   Profile for whaler007   Send Email to whaler007  
I'm interested in your thoughts on the Montauk 190.
Dauntless 180 posted 08-09-2010 07:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dauntless 180  Send Email to Dauntless 180     
I sea trailed both the 190 [MONTAUK] and 180 Dauntless. I like the Dauntless much more. My impression was the Dauntless had a smoother ride. It wins hands down when it comes to creature comforts and storage. Is this going to be a fishing boat or family boat?
Jefecinco posted 08-09-2010 10:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
007--I recently bought a 2009 190 Montauk with a 135 Verado. I use the boat for fishing. I sold my 160 Dauntless with a 115 HP Evinrude FICHT just prior to the 190 purchase.

So far I've found no downside to the 190. I find it to be far superior to the 160 for fishing but it is a much larger boat. The 190 has less storage space but the larger console and pilot seat helps to make up for that.

I bought the 190 without the bow rail and find I prefer that arrangement for fishing and anchor handling.

The 135 HP engine is a very nice fit for my needs. Excellent hole shot and speeds a little over 40 MPH but the engine is still very tight. Throttle response with the supercharger is incredible. Performance is superior to the 160 with a 115 HP DFI two stroke. I believe the 190 weighs about 500 pounds more than the 160.

Based on performance with a 135 HP Verado I can not recommend the 190 equipped with the 115 HP standard equipment engine. Because the 135 is no longer offered I would opt for the 150 HP Verado.

Price wise I believe the 190 Montauk is far easier to buy than the 180 Dauntless although adding the 150 HP Verado is a lot more expensive. Still, I believe the more satisfying performance of the Verado justifies the added cost.

The Montauk is a roomier boat. With the optional seating it will make a fine family cruiser and water sports boat.

I loved my 160 Dauntless and miss it but I find the 190 Montauk to be superior in all but one thing. The Dauntless had a slightly better ride in slop. Only slightly but probably because of the size difference.

The Dauntless is a much sexier looking boat with lots of railing here and there and it is a very pretty boat despite the euro transom.

They're both very nice Boston Whaler boats and regardless of your choice you will enjoy your purchase.


Gezafishes posted 08-09-2010 11:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for Gezafishes    
As advertised, this is a utility boat, like an SUV. Mine has the 115 which has been fine for my use. I had the front section of the bow rail modified so that it is removable when I intend to use the trolling motor. After 3 years of heavy use, this vessel has held up remarkably well, as I'm sure all Whalers would. I wish the cushion and rod holders on front of the console were configured differently so that a passenger could lean back without fishing reels pressing into their back.
GreatBayNH posted 08-09-2010 12:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for GreatBayNH  Send Email to GreatBayNH     
I agree with Dauntess180. Of course at 13K more (at base prices) you should be getting a lot more boat.
Dauntless 180 posted 08-09-2010 01:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dauntless 180  Send Email to Dauntless 180     
As Butch said, they are both very nice boats. The only way for you to see if the boat is a good fit is to sea trail one. You'll then have the tools to decide if the boat if right for you.
WT posted 08-09-2010 01:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
Pros and cons of a 190 Montauk? In relation to what?
Jefecinco posted 08-09-2010 07:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     

007 asked for "thoughts" on the Montauk 190s. As my 190 has no cons I only listed pros. I also compared my experience with a 160 Dauntless with the 190 because that is my only basis for comparison as I've owned both boats.

Seems to me that Dauntless180's comment that the only way to see if the 190 is a good fit is to sea trial one is very valid.

Opinions expressed in the thread can be useful to 007 to determine if what he hears is enough to decide a sea trial is called for or if he wants to look into another boat model.


SJUAE posted 08-09-2010 08:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
If you look at these pictures you can see where some of that 13k goes and just how rounded the transom of the Montauk 190 is compared to the Dauntless 180

By BW standards and prices the difference in fittings etc between the 2 is almost good value. Don,t be lured by the apparent deck space provided by the bow of the 190. The 180 is a cute boat & the 180 is more of a utility/fishing platform IMO

Both are nice but the 180 has more all round appeal


WT posted 08-09-2010 08:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT

SJUAE posted 08-09-2010 09:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
Thanks WT, so he,s done a bit more than a sea trial :)
whaler007 posted 08-09-2010 09:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for whaler007  Send Email to whaler007     
Thanks for the replies guys.
After spending most of my second summer with a 190, I was curious to what some your thoughts were. I've had pretty much the same fortune as Butch - same set up and all. The only issue I seem to have is a lack of rod storage. Makes it hard to switch from walleye to perch.

Jefecinco posted 08-10-2010 09:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     

I would not object to a little more rod storage aboard the 190. I have mounted a pair of West Marine's clamp on stainless steel rod holders to the side rail center stanchions. That provides eight rod holders.

I've considered adding more but so far we seem to get along well with the eight. A decent way to add additional rod holders would be to use the two existing holders at the live well as a mount for a multiple rod holder which would have to be custom fabricated.

The fabrication could slightly mimic the optional center seat back rest with a series of rod holders instead of a cushion. I believe as many as six rod holders could be added with a nice appearance maintained. That would allow for an even dozen rod holders aboard including the two rail mounted holders.

A benefit of this type holder would be it's portability for those times when it is not needed.

Boston Whaler should consider something like that. It could be popular with 190 owners who fish a lot.


whaler007 posted 08-10-2010 05:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for whaler007  Send Email to whaler007     

I do the same thing with the west marine holders on the rails. However, I don't trust them to hold rods, other than when trolling. I really like your idea about a holder mount in place of the back rest. If I was more engineering inclined, I'd try to come up with something on my own.

BTW - be careful of the west marine holders scratching your rails. I've got some minor scratches on mine from them. I used painters tape underneath the claps last time I was out, but the holders didn't really hold well on the tape. I seem to remember a couple sailboaters that used athletic tape as a base, and I'll try that next. Do you use anything as a base for your holders?

How has your Verado performed? I had an issue with the fuel float and it was replaced under warranty. The moderator on the Verado owners club forum swears by non-ethanol fuel, which I've used since I had the issue. Overall, I'm very pleased with the engine. The boat can easily get airborne at about 30mph in a chop. Fun stuff. I've topped out at 42mph on a flat Lake Erie with two passengers and myself. The trolling settings are outstanding as well. They basically serve as curse control for the engine at trolling speeds.
No need for a kicker motor.

- James

jimh posted 08-11-2010 09:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The deck mold on the Boston Whaler 190 MONTAUK lacks a raised ridge around the perimeter of the cockpit at the bow. On the classic hulls, like an OUTRAGE 18, the deck mold has a raised ridge there. The raised ridge provides a base for attaching weather canvas, such as for a bow shelter. The raised ridge also tends to keep water that comes on the deck from draining into the forward cockpit.

The general shape of the deck at the bow seems a bit too squared-off. The appearance is a bit sled-like. I think that a bow with a more rounded curve might improve the aesthetics of the design. The shape is much like that smaller 13-footer, but just scaled up. Often in design when the scale of an object is enlarged it become necessary to made a few changes to retain a pleasant appearance. While the very square bow looks fine on the smaller boats, on the 190 MONTAUK is seems too square to my eye.

In the aft cockpit, there is a molded-in bait well that occupies an important position just in front of the engine. I am uncertain about the utility of that structure for the non-fisherman. I imagine it can be used for storage. It seems to intrude into the cockpit right at a place where you'd like to not have an obstruction.

Jefecinco posted 08-11-2010 10:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     

The molded-in bait well is indeed a storage space when the boat is not equipped with the fishing package. An optional seat package is available to convert the space into a center rear seat. I'm told it is a very comfortable seating space. The shelves on both sides of the motor well may also be equipped with optional seating. For a boat used for water sports or cruising with several aboard that increases the seating to seven without using the bow seating area. The space between the bait well and the RPS is quite wide and I don't find the bait well to be intrusive. With a crowd aboard it may be in the way.

Due to the large nonskid area at the bow gunnel (?) it makes a nice standing area for fishing and anchor handling. I prefer it without a raised edge so I can move back and forth from the raised bow deck to the bow gunnel easily. Adding a bow dodger would be much easier with a ridge for making a weather resistant connection forward.

I share your opinion about the appearance of the squared off bow shape and it's somewhat awkward integration with the boat's lines. From a functional perspective I find it very useful compared with the bow of the 160 Dauntless I had. It is particularly useful for boarding when the tide is low. The lack of a bow rail increases it's utility.


Jefecinco posted 08-11-2010 10:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     

I used the same rod holders on my previous Dauntless and had no issues with slippage or marring. I don't use any type of wrapping or tape at the mounts but I snug them up pretty tightly. I use the holders as a place to transport rods and in even very snotty conditions I've not lost a rod. Years ago I would use some miniature bungee cords to hold the rods in place but on the day I forgot to use them the weather turned very foul and I found them to be unnecessary. I'm giving serious consideration to having a rod holder arrangement fabricated. As ever, cost will determine.

Performance wise my experience mimics yours. Eventually I hope to coax another 2 MPH out of the boat. I believe the engine could go up a hole without any problem and the engine should turn a couple of extra RPM at WOT when fully broken in. Imagine your boat with the 150 Verado??

I fully expect to eventually encounter the fuel float issue although I hope not. Until a few weeks ago non-ethanol fuel could be found at some local gas stations. Alas, no more. Marinas which reportedly continue to sell non-ethanol fuel are few and far between on my side of Mobile Bay so I stick with the local gas station.


SJUAE posted 08-11-2010 11:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     

I think that squared off bow is probaly only useful at rest as any heavy passenger sitting there underway is likely to have a greater affect on the boat trim port/starboard as they would be sitting a few feet further of centreline than a conventional V shaped fore deck

I think the back rest fitted to the rear batwell/storage is almost essential due to the low freeboard, The sides seem better due to the high rails IMO


WT posted 08-11-2010 07:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
Twin engines for a small ocean going Whaler is an advantage.

The 190 Montauk can accommodate up to 530 pounds of engine weight.

25 inch shaft Mercury 60's weight 260 pounds.

25 inch shaft Honda 60's weight 251 pounds.

In theory, a 190 Montauk can be repowered with twins. :-)


Jefecinco posted 08-12-2010 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     

True. Twins would be possible, if difficult.

I think the 190 would be woefully underpowered with twin 60 HP engines. Triples, however, might just fill the bill. ;=)

I can almost picture it. Low in the stern at idle looking just like a cigarette boat, then zoom right up to 48 MPH at WOT.


WT posted 08-12-2010 12:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
Butch, you don't need triples to hit 48 mph in a 190 Montauk. Your 135 Verado hits 44 mph and 150 Verado hits 47 mph before you tweak your setup.

The 190 Montauk with the 399 pound 115 hp Mercury hits 40 mph. Twin outboards on a 190 Montauk would weigh around 500 pounds which I'm guessing would hit mid-30's mph.

I can't average much more than 25-28 mph in the ocean in my 170 Montauk. And that would be a very very very calm day.

Not sure if a single 60 hp outboard could get a 190 Montauk on plane though.


SJUAE posted 08-12-2010 02:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
Minimum hp is 90 for a 190 Montauk so twin 60's would be struggling


whaler007 posted 08-12-2010 10:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for whaler007  Send Email to whaler007     
Regarding the shape disadvantage...

When I look at the rectangular shape of the 190, I sometimes think, "I bought a floating bathtub."
My father (life long boater) is a frequent passenger, and never cared for Whalers. The general looks of their boats were always a turnoff for him. "Blasphemy!" you may say. This boat, in all its boxy glory, has won him least I think it has. (Although a big part of that can be attributed to the Verado.)

That said, I can see where the looks of a Whaler, esp. the 190 could be seen as a major con for many boaters. To each his own. I don't mind the looks of the "floating bathtub." In fact, I like them...a lot. The only issue i find with the squared bow, is the difficulty i have getting the anchor out of the the storage when the pad is fastened and the canvas top is laying in in the forward storage position. This poses no problem if the pad is left off with the canvas in the upright position or left off the boat altogether. my wife and children enjoy riding/playing in the front when anchored or moving from spot to spot at slow speeds.

I have the back seat option over the livewell. We rarely use it because we fish often. When we have, its comfortably seated two moms holding little kids.

Butch - if or when you do get the verado fuel float issue, an alarm will sound and you'll get a message to return to port immediately. i got lucky when it happened. We were just about to leave our cut out into Lake Erie, as opposed to being miles out in the water. After shutting the the engine off, (Lucky for me) it restarted, (although it stalled a few times), and we were able to return to the launch without major incident. Buy the non-ethanol fuel at the marina if you can, it *might* help prevent the issue.

Rick U posted 08-12-2010 11:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Rick U  Send Email to Rick U     
If everything is a trade off in boating, then the squared off front end is a big one. Advantage space and square footage. It's great for fishing up there even with 2 people. I might be wrong but I think the trade off is it makes for a shallow V at the point of entry and won't cut through chop very well without slap. Mine does fine in 1 - 2 but has hurt my back in snotty conditions. As far as looks go, it looks like a Montauk. What I really like about the boat is all the deck space. I wish I had the rear seating option for my kids but I priced the parts and it's too expensive.
Jefecinco posted 08-13-2010 10:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jefecinco  Send Email to Jefecinco     
The " big bathtub" look is growing on me. The functionality helps. I don't notice it much anymore... really, I don't.:)


What cost were you quoted for the seat parts? Was that for the cushion, snaps, two handles, and backrest w/cushion?


Rick U posted 08-13-2010 11:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Rick U  Send Email to Rick U     
Butch I dont remember the quote. I just remember it was too much for me. It was just for the backrest and lower cushion.
SJUAE posted 08-13-2010 03:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
According to build this boat options on BW website

Aft seating with removable backrest and base cushion (not compatible with ski tow) $712.00


Whalerdog posted 08-14-2010 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdog  Send Email to Whalerdog     
Well a 115 is slow my 07 just pulled 34.xx mph near full of fuel, no gear, one person (220 lb.) and bottom paint. No clue why that was the limit in 07. Just installed a GPS today. I like my boat and feel safe in the rough Jones Inlet. I'll go out in the 7-8 breaking waves and play in them. Good solid boat.
Whalerdog posted 08-26-2010 11:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdog  Send Email to Whalerdog     
My revision to my speed after cleaning the bottom is 39 MPH two way average with bottom paint. I pulled the boat and could not believe the crap on the bottom. I did not use it as much this year and have the same paint on the bottom as before.

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.