Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Anyone ordered a New MONTAUK?

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

Author Topic:   Anyone ordered a New MONTAUK?
tabasco posted 03-03-2002 07:42 PM ET (US)   Profile for tabasco   Send Email to tabasco  
Just wanted to know if I am the only person among all you thousands of Whaler lovers that ordered a New Montauk.

I know you are all waiting for BW to come to their senses and raise the HP rating to 130. My thought is that I may end up having a rare boat, the only one with lower HP rating, 1/3 more weight, longer & wider than the classic.

In case I don't respond during the next few days's because I am having a very long session with my anaylist.

tabasco posted 03-04-2002 08:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Sorry .........should have been "raise HP rating to 135"
JFM posted 03-04-2002 09:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
tabasco, many have Montauks with 50's to 70's that are OK with them. The boat is rated for max 100HP. I don't know what the difference in weight ratio is with a new Montauk and if it wasn't monday morning I might be able to figure it out for you. Regards, Jay
whalerron posted 03-04-2002 09:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for whalerron  Send Email to whalerron     
I am very curious to hear how you like the new boat. You must let us know. I have a 33 year old whaler which I love but I like the new one too. I suspect that they lowered the hp rating so that 4 strokes would fall under the horsepower rating. If the boat was rated at 100 hp and somebody tried to hang a 4 stroke 100 on the boat, I suspect there would be some problems. I am willing to bet that the new hp ratings are selected for 4 stroke motors!

- Ron

Blackeagle posted 03-04-2002 12:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Blackeagle  Send Email to Blackeagle     

The old Montauk is still listed on the Whaler website at 950lbs dry (sans engine). The reference page for the new model on this site gives a dry weight of 1440lbs (without engine). That's half again as much boat to push around with less horsepower.

Salmon Tub posted 03-04-2002 01:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
I don't think that just because you add more weight to the hull, you will need more power. The weight of the new hull is 50% more than before but the boat is also wider. A perfect example is the following, I have 2 small aluminum boats, a 12' and a 14', the 12' weighs 95 lbs, the 14 is 185 lbs. the bottom width of the 12 is only 44" with a rounded chine. The bottom on the 14 is 54" with a hard (sharp) chine. with a 6 hp outboard, I was able to actually go 2 mph faster in the bigger heavier hull. With an 18hp I was able to increase the range to a 5mph difference (gps). The 18hp was much more than the spec. allowed for the 12' so I could not check acceleration, had to baby it up to full. Also, did not have a tach. but the engine sounded more or less the same on both hulls. I think that if you took say the classic montalk and the new version, and rigged with identicle power, you would not see any real difference in top end. As far as acceleration, I am not sure. The only real effect I think that this figure will have is that it will make potential buyers sceptical as it has made all of us as to the strength of the hull or transom. I think most people relate the hp rating directly to this. If they bump it up to 115 or 135, It may be a bit overpowered. If you look at the dry weights of other center consoles in this size range, length and width, most other hulls are heavier. I think if they would have even kept it at 100, then most would be satisfied. It is the downgrade that is causing all the questions. A local boat maker in my area (SF Bay area) which makes aluminum boats had also reduced the max hp on some of their models. When I asked them why, they gave the following reason. Since we are required to buy new engines that are 4 stroke ( up to say 50 hp) these engines weigh more and add more stress to the transoms, and also, that they felt their original ratings were a bit excessive, allthough they were clear to assure me that their boats were tough and well built and so on. It smelled a little like they were scared of perhaps Liability-itis from their lawyers. In any case they swear that their new hulls are not at all inferior to their previous ones, they just felt that they needed to lower the hp rating, go figure.
JFM posted 03-04-2002 01:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
Blackeagle and tabasco, it does sound like a dog. However, when they did the same to the 13 the weight % went up and the HP went down without much complaint. Perhaps the same will be true of the Montauk. I remember a post of Clark's to calculate speed . Maybe this will help to determine how much of a dog it will be. Regards, Jay
JFM posted 03-04-2002 02:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
P.S. maybe we use the 180# instead of the 200 based on the new hull. Regards, Jay
phatwhaler posted 03-04-2002 02:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
According to the 17 Montauk is 9500lbs, but it says above "Specified measurements are approximations and are subject to variance." Has anyone actually weighed both boats to see what the real world difference is? My buddies 94 24 Outrage only went a couple of knots faster with twin 2000 opti's than iit did with twin 150EFI's. So I'm guessing that the loss of a maybe a couple of mph is all we are talking about.
phatwhaler posted 03-04-2002 02:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
Sorry, 200's and (it). I'm trying to B.S. and day trade at the same time.
JFM posted 03-04-2002 02:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
Phats, we're talking about the "NEW Montauk" with new hull design and a new dry weight of 1440lbs. Regards, Jay
Salmon Tub posted 03-04-2002 04:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
JFM, I just tested this formula, and it has a flaw, if you use it on an extreme case, say a real light hull, and a large hp engine, you get unrealistic figures. I used 90 hp and 500 lb, and got 84+ mph. I am sure a boat could be built that light with a transom that would handle 90hp, but there is no prop that would be able to have a high enough pitch to push 80+ mph. Do the math. I suggest a different approach, take your prop pitch, say 17, then your gear ratio, say 2:1, then your WOT RPM, say 5500, and calculate your theoretical top speed: 5500/2*17. This gives you 46750 inches per minute, divide by twelve, to get feet per minute, 46750/12=3895.83, and multiply by 60, (60 minutes in an hour) for a total of 233750 feet per hour and divide by 5280 (feet per mile), to get 44.27 MPH. That is your theoretical top speed at this pitch and this RPM, and faster requires steeper pitch at same RPM or more RPM. Now that you have this, the difference between your real speed and your theoretical speed is from slippage, more wieght make a deeper sitting hull, make a less efficient hull, makes for more slippage. I have actually had my boat exceed the theoretical speed at some RPM settings, but only by a small amount, I attribute this to accuracy error on the part of either Speedometer (paddlewheel style) and or GPS unit. The error is never more than 1.5 mph, and never sustained. For the most part, I am running about 2 mph less than the theoretical speed at WOT for my engine and am satisfied, it amounts to about 5% loss in speed. I get 42 mph when I should be getting 44. To get 50mph, I would need an engine that could swing a 19" prop, at 5554 rpm, with a 2:1 gearbox. On the Merc. site, their standard 90 (2 stroke) has WOT at 5000-5500 and a gear ratio of 2.3, so with this info, I calc. that you need a 22 inch pitch prop and be able to hit 5500 rpm with that gearing to reach a theoretical 50 mph. That is either a super slick hull, or a super hot 90 hp engine.
JFM posted 03-04-2002 04:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
Salmon Tub, try it with REAL #s on the new Montauk and you get 38 mph based on the total weight of 2000 lbs (boat, motor and fuel) that's not to doggy for me. In your example are you being realistic with motor # fuel # and boat #. Your 90 hp motor and fuel will weigh close to 500lbs.. Regards, Jay
hauptjm posted 03-04-2002 04:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
I think Clark's numbers that JFM uses are more acurate than you think, Salmaon Tub. You don't consider hull design in your figures. Your statement that you couldn't design a prop that would carry that speed is incorrect. Case in point that uses numbers like yours is the old vintage 7 litre hydroplanes. 650 h.p. and weighed 2000lbs. and capable of 140 m.p.h. I now this is an extreme hull design, but it does illustrate the speed "designed" into the hull.

All hulls have a theoretical hull speed. No matter what you do to horsepower, the boat will not exceed that limit. I think Clarks numbers are a fair predicter to that extent.

hauptjm posted 03-04-2002 04:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
Sorry for the mis-spellings! Hit enter by accident.
tabasco posted 03-04-2002 06:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
It seems that all you people are so concerned about top speed. YOUR ALL MISSING THE BOAT. It's torque we should be concerned about. I myself am concerned about being able to pull two water skiiers, Well I guess I am dreaming again (being a Pisces). Ok I would just be happy to be able to pull a 200lb skier out of the water. Naturally we would have, by law, two people on board, One to watch the skier and one at the helm.
If the new montauk did 40 or 45 I wouldn't care as long as it had the torque which I believe 90HP does not have. At least 115HP but 135HP would be excellent.
FISHNFF posted 03-04-2002 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for FISHNFF  Send Email to FISHNFF     
Great point tabasco.
I put a queation about rating engine torque on another site and no responses for two postings. Either nobody had any idea about torque just didn't care to answer. I think torque has more to do with boats than cars. Cars can use gearing to compensate for torque. I has a car with 130 lbsft torque and over 200bhp, while my truck had 180bhp but 270lbsft torque. Which do you think I tow my boat with!? For cruising and fishing, we need torque to accelerate people, fuel, bait tanks, and gear. We need torque to push through, up and over swells. We need torque to pull skiiers. Bassboats may better relate to horsepower. I would love to see torque curves, or HP curves for that matter. My car only puts out thase 200HP at over 7500RPM! Not really useable all the time.
Salmon Tub posted 03-04-2002 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
Jfm, actually, I did not use 500# as a weight for my boat, I used it as an example of the equation's results with extreme figures. I calc. my boat weight at: 1000# hull, 300# Engine, 130# Fuel, 170# Driver, 50# Misc. Total of 1650. Using Clark's factor of 200 for Tri-hulls as he set it for whalers, I get 46 mph. I wish! To get my figure, I either have to set my factor at 180, or otherwise, I am not sqeezing out every ounce from my engine. It has only about 40 hours on it and I have not yet wanted to mess around with the timing or carbs. I did that with previous motors but my theory is that it is like a horse, if you max it out, it will give you a little more performance, but you are putting all the parts through a lot more stress. For what, I have not been able to hit WOT since I broke it in because of where I go, it just doesn't get calm enough for a small hull like this. What I would like to know is what other guys with 90hp are getting with their montalks. As far as waterskiing, Tobasco, I would imagine that with a 90, you would have no proble with a 13 to 15 pitch, but you would handycap yourself as far as overall performance. If speed is your game though, you may want to visit they have some interesting info.
James posted 03-04-2002 09:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

As a mechanical engineer, I also lament the day that engine manufacturers stopped publishing the actual engine HP/RPM and torque/RPM figures for their engines. It allowed boaters to make intelligent model selections based on the engine performance figures and the intended use of the craft.


lhg posted 03-06-2002 10:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I don't think anyone here congratulated Tabasco on his new purchase. So I will! let us know how you like it.

The BW published performance figures for the boat/engine combination, if true, look pretty good. Maybe they're furnishing a secretly souped up Merc 90 on the boat! I would run the 90 for a season, and then if you don't like it, go for a 115 4-stroke or 135 Optimax if that's what you want! The 90 would be easy to sell used. You're practically getting it for free, anyway.

On another note, we had talked about what this low pricing on the Post classic Montauk might do to the newer Classic Montauk models.
Well, I just saw a brand new left-over 2001 Montauk, with Merc 90 2-stroke, for sale for 19,000. Previously it had been at $22,000.

But I'm sure the introductory price on the new Montauk will be bumped about $2000 for next year.

tabasco posted 03-06-2002 10:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     

Thanks for the congrats.

I feel that's exactly what they will do......... that's why I ordered mine now.

tabasco posted 03-12-2002 04:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I can't believe it ..........all these member to this forum and I am the only one to order the new Montauk??


TightPenny posted 03-12-2002 04:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for TightPenny  Send Email to TightPenny     
After buying a new one in 2000, it is way too soon to consider another new boat.

Good luck on your new one. I hope you like it as much as I like mine.

hughmcmillan posted 03-12-2002 07:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for hughmcmillan  Send Email to hughmcmillan     
I am trading up from a 2001 13 Sport, 40 4 cycle Merc, to a new Montauk with a 90 4 cycle Merc. I hope that the 90 is OK. My dealer really can't wait to try the new hull and motor. I believ his first units are arriving the 18th or 19th of March.

We really need the extra room as we have outgrown the 13 Sport. My son, 9 in June, and I use our Whaler for fishing and swimming on a large freshwater lake. I am really looking forward to the swim platform/ladder as the 13 had neither and was a bit of a pain to clamber aboard from the water.

I would really like a Fishing Package on the Montauk and have asked my dealer if one could bow mount an electric trolling motor. I like the fishing Dauntless but it is too much money...


tabasco posted 03-12-2002 10:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Who is your dealer? Where in Connecticut did you buy the boat? Did you trade your 13 in on it because I know Hardensheetmetal on this site is looking for a used 13ft
hughmcmillan posted 03-13-2002 06:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for hughmcmillan  Send Email to hughmcmillan     
My dealer is (Skip) Birbarie Marine Sales, Route 1, Branford, CT 06405. The number is (203) 488-2568.

I have really enjoyed doing business with Skip Birbarie. He has had my 13 Sport for the winter. The Sport was outfitted with padded thwarts and the folding padded back on the helm thwart. The tach was also swapped out for one with an hour meter and a second fuel tank was supplied.

I recommend Birbarie Marine to everyone/anyone. It is located just east of New Haven.


tabasco posted 03-13-2002 11:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I hope you join out get together on the sound this summer. So far we have 15-16 boats coming.Check out the trips section on the forum.
GAwhale posted 03-14-2002 12:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for GAwhale  Send Email to GAwhale     
tabasco - What fuel tank/tanks is the dealer installing on your new Montauk?

Two 6.6 gallon tanks are a joke for a 90 HP Outboard.

I would get with your dealer and see if he would install a Pate (24 Gallon?) for a couple extra bucks.

phatwhaler posted 03-14-2002 01:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
Here's a formula you can use to figure torque.


5252 is a mathematical constant based on James Watt's 1 HP rating divided by the circumference of a cirle. For all engines the circumference of a circle is @6.28.

Anyway based on the above, if an engine makes 90 HP at 5600 RPM it makes @85 Ftlbs of Torque. Two Stroke or Four!

No I'm not a Mech. Engineer, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Comments welcome James.

Phatwhaler out.

tabasco posted 03-14-2002 02:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Im already talking with Pate about their 27 Gallon tank. Waiting for them to confirm that it will fit under the new RPS. As soon as I have confirmation I will order it.
daverdla posted 03-14-2002 03:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for daverdla  Send Email to daverdla     
5252 - very interesting ...
Isn't the web neat. Instead digging out my old physics books, I trust a total stranger who may not know what he's talking about to explain it to me:) Hyperlink
(I always wondered why those curves jived 5252 rpm)
James posted 03-14-2002 10:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

My Yamaha and Mercury catalogs do not list that specific type of information (90 HP @ 5600 RPM).

I would prefer to be able to be able to identify and plot the intended engine's total peak power performance curve. Consider trying to choose between two outboard engine brands with identical manufacturer's HP ratings. For the sake of this example, imagine that you find that one engine achieves the same torque rating at a desired 4000 RPM engine crusing speed that the other engine achieves at 6000 RPM. All else being equal (which it would not be), the outboard engine operating at 4000 RPM range is doing less mechanical work, which should potentially create less mechanical problems for the end user.


phatwhaler posted 03-15-2002 03:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
I assume that since most engine manufacturers state max rpm at @5600 rpm that that is the peak HP rpm. I agree that an engine that reaches it's peak torque at a lower rpm and then maintains it throughout the remaining rpm range would be the better engine. I suspect that the 4 stroke may achieve it's peak torque at slightly lower tpm than the 2 stroke. Of course I have no empircal evidence to support my claim. It would be nice to look at some dyno print outs.

I have also never seen a outboard that only runs at 4000rpm max. They all turn at least 5000rpm for their peak hp rating. Some even higher!

phatwhaler out.

daverdla posted 03-15-2002 08:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for daverdla  Send Email to daverdla     
I don't have any data in front of me but as I recall four strokes can generate more power at much lower rpm's than two strokes.
I believe that the advantage of two strokes has always been less weight/HP and less cost/HP. Four strokes seem to be narrowing the gap on both accounts.

All other things being equal I think the four stroke, because it can generate power at a lower rpm than the two stroke and typically has a flatter torque curve, should provide better acceleration. Of course all things are not equal like weight and props. It would be interesting to see an unbiased test of identical boats with the same HP rated motors, one with a 4 stroke and one with a 2 stroke. According to Tohatsu , their direct injected 2 stroke beat a 4 stroke in 200 foot acceleration tests (do they always measure boat acceleration for such short distances?) I couldn't find the brand name of the four stroke they were comparing themselves to. They list several four strokes on their weight comparison chart.

Your right about seeing dyno outputs. Do any of the manufacturers publish them? I looked on some web sites and didn't find any. In fact I didn't even find any torque listings.

BTW - the HP/Torque curves for my SAAB do not cross at 5252RPM. Those crazy guys do everything differently:)


JFM posted 03-15-2002 08:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
Phat, I ain't no mechanic. But isn't RPM differn't on differn't types of motors. Doesn't an inline rev higher to achieve the same speed and have much more torque than an opposing type.
Also, there was a question about speed, "why does it matter?" It matters to many of us who go way out to fish when a storm comes up. I always like to beat them home. Regards, Jay
hughmcmillan posted 03-15-2002 08:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for hughmcmillan  Send Email to hughmcmillan     
Thursday morning Skip Birbarie called to tell me that the two new Montauk 170s he ordered had just arrived. I drove the 100 miles and pulled into his yard. He had the boat displayed by the road and throughout my visit people pulled off the road to check out the new Whaler.

My thoughts, for what they are worth, follow.

The Bimini top is high but it collapses and stores aft. Stowed, it effectively blocks the use of the two aft "seats" which I think would be used by kids.
The two aft seats, while small, do provide some useful built-in and out-of-the-way seating not found in the Classic Montauk.

The two six gallon gas tanks lash to the sole as in the Sport 13. Gone are the raised blocks used in the Classic and it appears that Whaler has not only saved itself some labor expense but also saved the owner some fussy cleaning.

The four position helm seatback seemed very solid and useful. There are really only three useful positions; forward seat, forward leaning and aft seat. Skip postulated that making the position plates symetrical allowed them to not have specific port and starboard pieces. It is possible that someone might lean aft...

As far as I could tell the fit and finish appeared to be excellent. It seems like the boat will be very easy to clean.

Skip showed me the Dauntless 16 and the Classic Montauk. While there were features I like about both I remain convinced that the new Montauk is the right boat for my purposes. It is also significantly less expensive.

I must admit that I like the new Montauk hull as it appears to be a larger Sport 13 which I really love.

I have ordered the Fishing Package; tackle drawer, compass, cooler seat with cushion (72 QT.) and backrest, console mounted rod holders (4), $660. I also ordered the swim platform with handrail and ladder for $256. I opted to take the 90ELPT 4-stroke for $2,308 instead of the $1,122 60 Bigfoot 4-stroke.
There is a Comfort Package with the cooler seat/backrest and bow cushion for $641. The Suntop with boot is $822, Console cover with windshield is $201 and the reversible pilot seat cover is $192.

I can't wait for its arrival but I am afraid it will be a while...


JFM posted 03-15-2002 08:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for JFM  Send Email to JFM     
Thanks for the report Hugh. You mention the gas cans are lashed. Are they under the helm seat? Thanks, Jay
Salmon Tub posted 03-15-2002 10:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
Daverdla, I went to the link and cut and pasted the second equation they have. Here it is, torque = HP * 5252 / RPM
Do you see an inconsistency with it? Lets say I want to figure out the Torque produced by my 90hp at 750 rpm (idle): t=90(5252/750)
t=630.24 WOW!!!!!!!!

I think it is a typo and should have been:
torque = HP * RPM / 5252

Salmon Tub posted 03-15-2002 11:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
As a matter of fact, just calced the first Equation, doesnt work either, unless, Torque is supposed do decrease as RPM's increase, but that is how it works only in Bizzaro world isn't it? I always understood that torque was a factor of how much weight it would take at 12" distance (leverage ) from center point of circle (spinning object) to either stop rotaion or vice versa, how much this spinning object could lift I.E. mount an engine horizontally, as in a car, attach a 24" diameter or 12" radius gear to flywheel, put chain over gear with weight. 100 FT/lbs of Torque in theory could lift up to 100lb of weight and chain before the resistance was too much and stopped engine. If so, then torque increases with RPM because of centrifugal force.
daverdla posted 03-15-2002 11:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for daverdla  Send Email to daverdla     
What he's saying is that horsepower is calculated from the torque measured at that a specific RPM. If your motor produced 90ft lbs of torque at 750 rpm. It would equate to (90*750)/5252 or 12.9HP. But without a torque curve we really don't know what the torque is at that value. I think you were trying to calculate torque based on 90HP at 750 rpm. Your motor is generating very little power at 750 rpm.

Those Saab marketing guys changed the values for HP and Torque on Y axis of the chart (and I thought they were fudging it). The values really do cross at 5252 rpm.

hughmcmillan posted 03-15-2002 12:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for hughmcmillan  Send Email to hughmcmillan     

Yes the two 6.6 gallon, if memory serves, tanks are side-by-siide, each running fore and aft, with a web strap and delrin (?) buckle running thru small ss pad eyes set in the sole.

The tanks are under the console thwart but do "stick out" 3 or 4 inches.

Skip mentioned that the Miami tank maker, I forget the name, was going to make a larger tank to fit the Montauk. I am happy with the twin sixes.


Salmon Tub posted 03-15-2002 02:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
I used to run twin 7.5 gal. tanks in mine, the Tempo tanks. They fit ok, and when empty would shift around a bit. I had never used a strap. The 27 Gal Tempo makes for the Montalk is too clumsy (try moving 27 gals of fuel back under the seat with little clearance, especially when the weight is resting on the fuel line.) Now I run with 2 13 gal Tempo PBT tanks. they are same size as the 7.5's but taller. Super tight fit at the gas cap. the 7.5's gave me about 60 miles of range and could milk them for 70-75, but hated that. The 13's give me over 100 miles easy, and that is plenty to go, troll, and get back give or take a few stops along the way.
Salmon Tub posted 03-15-2002 08:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Salmon Tub  Send Email to Salmon Tub     
Thanks for the clarification Daverdla, the question then is does it matter what the engine torque is - figure this way, in a car it matters because you shift gears throughout the whole ride. If you tow something, you may want to stay out of overdrive. In a boat your only option is to change props. Say you are water skiing, and you don't have enough torque, well, you can change the prop to a lower pitch, or I guess you could swap the engine. It is logical to say then that since most engines WOT are in the 5000-6000 range, then at WOT their torque is about equal to their rated horsepower. Any discrepancy in actual horsepower and stated would entail modification of the engine. We know that if the engine we have is say not adequate to do what we want then we either put a larger engine on, modify our existing engine, or pitch down the prop. You will loose top end but that only matters when you need it, if you ski, who cares if top end went from say 41 to 37, either are too fast. If you actually gain top end and are still within the specified WOT then you were probably overpitched to begin with. In any case, after this whole shpeel, I guess what I am trying to say is I don't think you could find one 90 with 90 Ft Lbs of Torque, while another 90 has 150 Ft Lbs of Torque, Most likely the one with 150 Ft Lbs, would be rated at around 150 HP. What do you think?
phatwhaler posted 03-15-2002 08:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
The torque calculation above is based on the engine making 90 HP at 750 rpm. I'm sure it makes like 5 hp at 750 rpm. The only reason I used 90 is becasue that's the published hp rating.
tabasco posted 03-15-2002 08:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
Well here goes ............I also went to Branford, Connecticut to Skip's (Birbarie Marine) to see the new Montauk. Here are my findings:

First I agree with Hugh that they may have made a big mistake with the sun top. Instead of resting in the forward position it rests in the rear of the boat virtually blocking the use of the two rear side seats....:-(

The second thing that immediately came to my attention is the the console is much smaller in width than the classic. Not that this is a bad thing because now there is much more room in the walkway on each side. However one thing to consider is that you will be able to place only two items on top (a compass and a chartplotter or fishfinder one or the other or one combo unit) no room to put another item on top.
The new hull looks great and the boat has the same quality of construction as the classic. One thing that I find GREAT is the higher freeboard. This will be much appreciated on Long Island sound where it can blow up in a very short time and if your stuck on the Long Island side and have to return home to connecticut it will be much dryer.

The next item is that you will have to cover the inside of the trailer fenders with some carpet. It's a very close fit and pulling the boat on to the trailer i'm sure you would scape the boat's sides.

In the rear section near one of the small built in seats there is a cover that is removable ( on the verticle surface ......Starboard side of the boat) which gives access to all the cables. I am wondering what is under the seat on the port side. There is no access panel on that side.

Under the RPS there is room for a larger tank but I'm not sure if the 27 gallon Pate will fit. I called to order one from them but am waiting until they measure to see if it will fit. It may be that only the 24 gallon tank fits.

This one was fitted with a 90 HP 2 stroke.

My final opinion is that I love the boat. I am glad I ordered it and hope that the ride is half as good as it looks. It LOOKS like a much larger boat than it actually is.

I will return tomorrow to have a closer look. I f I see anything else that i have missed I will report to you all. I think this boat will be a great success. They will sell them like hot cakes especially at that price. The boat had a SOLD sign on it.

jimh posted 03-16-2002 09:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thanks for the first-person reports on the new Montauk. I will add the pricing info to the REFERENCE page. I assume that is the dealer's quoted price on the options.

As for the price, it does seem attractive. A recent boating mag reviewed a "fishing" boat with 90-HP 4-stroke outboard (POLAR CRAFT KODIAK V168SC 16-ft 8-in length) and it came in at retail $17,134, no trailer! That's for an aluminum boat with riveted hull and plywood decks covered in carpet.

A same-size Boston Whaler at essentially the same price? It's a no-brainer.

(OK, there may be more "discount" room in the fishing boat's price, but it shows how competitive this new Montauk's sticker really is.)

jimh posted 03-16-2002 09:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
What is the price for the drum brakes on trailer upgrade? That's the only one missing now.
Dick posted 03-16-2002 10:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
Being a factory packaged rig I doubt that trailer brakes would be an option and would have to be added at the dealer level.
My E-Z Loader price list shows a retail price for the brake package at $694.00 plus what the dealer is going to charge to put them on. I am sure the brake package could be purchased for much less through other sources.
triblet posted 03-16-2002 11:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for triblet  Send Email to triblet     
Trailer brakes are a factory option on the
new Montauk.


James posted 03-16-2002 03:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     
I spoke with Pate and Whaler regarding the Montauk 170 fuel tank situation. I was surprised to hear that there has been no communications between these consumer related companies. Pate, as of early last week, was not sure as to which tank will fit under the new reverse seat. Whaler said that the reverse seat used is the same size as the 16 Dauntless.

I have arranged to try out the boat next week. In the meantime, how does the anchor locker compare in size/depth to the previous model. I have already considered using a GPS/DF combo unit on top of the console but is there sufficient console depth clearance space for a radio to flush mount in front of the drink holders. How many tackle drawers are inside the console compartment?


tabasco posted 03-17-2002 08:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for tabasco  Send Email to tabasco     
I returned to take another look today at the new Montauk. I took a tape measure along this time to give you some acurate measurements.

First ........Jimh- The posted sign says the brake package is available as a factory option for $577.00

Second - for those of you that were thinking of keeping the boat in a garage.......the width taken from the outside of the fenders across the boat is 89 inches. This should fit in most garages.The measurement from the ground to the top of the rail on the console is 6 and 1/2 feet also will fit in most garages. It looks to me like you garage will have to be 22ft. long. :-(
17ft for the boat 3 Ft for the tongue and 2 ft for the motor. and that is cutting it close.

Today they had a big sign on the boat "DO NOT BOARD BOAT .....SOLD" so it
made it difficult to take the following measurements however they are very close to being acurate without boarding the boat. The new console is only 28 inches wide. The measurement inside the windshield is 26 & 1/2 inches wide.The top of the console measures 10 inches deep however the flat section is only 8 inches deep. This is the very top where you would mount a compass & Chartplotter etc. (Not much room) The entire console is much deeper but this is the usable surface on top.

Inside the boat from the base of the rail down to the boat floor is 18 inches. This is a great improvement over the previous Montauk. I found no coastguard plate on the boat giving a max HP rating.The hull number was 103

The RPS seat was 3 ft wide 17 inches high 16 1/4 deep. The rear cut out to slip in a tank was 14 inches high and 31& 1/2 inches wide

Well I hope this is helpful to you all. I would have taken more measurements, however i respected the no boarding sign.

Hopefully my boat will arrive around the end oth the month and then I can answer any and all questions.

James posted 03-17-2002 09:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for James  Send Email to James     

[I found no coastguard plate on the boat giving a max HP rating.]

Very interesting comment. Next year they only have to change the brochure to list a higher HP. If the brochure is the only place that lists the maximum as 90 HP, then it sounds like you can power her up anyway that you see reasonably fit (i.e. within the usual boat dimension/HP Coast Guard formula). LHG please correct me if I am entirely wrong thinking this, from a general insurance liability point of view.

A dealer should not have much of a problem exchanging a Merc 90 HP for a 115 HP.


Dick posted 03-17-2002 10:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
The boat can not be legaly sold without the max HP and capacity plate. If it was not on the boat it is possible that they were not ready and will be provided to the dealer prior to delivery.
jimh posted 03-17-2002 10:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thanks for pricing info--I added it to the REFERENCE article. --jimh

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.