Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
Montauk 170 vs. Outrage 17
|Author||Topic: Montauk 170 vs. Outrage 17|
posted 03-18-2003 10:11 PM ET (US)
Debating purchase of new montauk vs discontinued outrage 17. will use vessel in icw and offshore fishing mostly trolling will trailer quite a bit with volvo station wagon. what is the difference in ride 2-4' is all we will take her out in. 3 of us daughter 8 years. dont like the idea of buying a used outboard and have decided on only a 4 cycle due to smokless.
posted 03-18-2003 10:57 PM ET (US)
I have seen, but not ridden in a 170 Montauck and have a '96 17 OR. In my opinion, given that you will be taking her offshore, you would be better with the 17 OR - primarily because of the deeper V which gives a smoother ride in big water and the higher free-board. ---- Jerry/Idaho
posted 03-19-2003 12:03 PM ET (US)
He is absolutely right!
posted 03-19-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
I Third that!
posted 03-19-2003 01:51 PM ET (US)
That makes it unanimous (for now). I got re-interested in buying a Whaler because of the Montauk 170, but ended up purchasing a 97 Outrage 17. The deeper V, higher HP rating, and the big plus of the 58 gallon tank made the Outrage 17 a no brainer. Using this in the SF Bay area and out into deep water as well.
posted 03-19-2003 03:18 PM ET (US)
If going offshore I would go with the Outrage (I have an 18').
However check the weight of the 17' Outrage with an engine, full fuel load and trailer. I do not know the specifics but it may be awfully close to the maximum on your Volvo.
posted 03-19-2003 10:26 PM ET (US)
The new Montauk does weight less(350lbs?), carries 44 gallons less fuel(268lbs) and has a smaller/lighter motor(100lbs?) thus it could be your choice based on tow vehicle.
My opinion, get a new tow vehicle, if needed. Get the 17' OR.
I'll give you the reasons for my opinion if your interested.
posted 03-20-2003 10:23 AM ET (US)
wife does not want a used engine and prefers the 4 stroke. So on Monday I will test drive the Dauntless 16 and the quickly take the 170 again for a spin. The dauntless has the 2 aft corner seats and a slight vee that i need to see if the ride is smoother. I have a daughter 8 w/ downs so safety is paramount. On the 170 she would have to sit on the cooler or at the helm. I have been in contact w/ Anderson upholstery who are supposed to finish a prototype rear removable bench seat for the 170 this week. The dealer down in FTL has a 2002 dauntless w/ a 135/70hrs. he'll sell it for 24k w/ trailer. But I saw that w/ the euro transom and the bench seat down it would make it difficult to land a fish off the stern unless you stand on the platform and without any freeboard there in a ocean chop it would be hairy. My wife happens to be in the area of Edgewater today will visit the factory. I am thinking that after Monday I will probably go back to the 170, I believe the design on it is more pleasing than the dauntless and its simplicity, not being dolled up, is an attraction in itself. The ride will decide.
posted 03-20-2003 12:51 PM ET (US)
Chaimemet, I have owned a Montauk and now own a Dauntless 160. The ride is much better in the Dauntless. I have taken it 20 miles out in rough seas and it handles it fine. I also have young kids and the rear seats come in handy with the family aboard for pleasure cruising. Take them both out and decide for yourself....Good luck
posted 03-20-2003 01:06 PM ET (US)
If that 2002 Dauntless with the 135 motor is a 160 model, then that motor is 20HP over the max rating for that boat.
posted 03-20-2003 01:09 PM ET (US)
no, excuse me the 18 has a 135 the 16 has a 4 stroke 115
posted 03-20-2003 10:08 PM ET (US)
If you are comparing the new 170 montauk vs a classic 17 outrage, then I think the difference in ride is probably very slight. The dimensions of the new montauk is very close to the 17 outrage and it weighs 420 lbs. more. Believe me, you can feel the benefit of the addtional weight in the chops and swells.
I owned a 1983 montauk before buying the new version and the difference in ride quality is startling. I've been 20+ miles offshore here in Hawaii and have never lost confidence in the boat.
Of course there are other attributes inherent in the outrage line that might make it a better buy, but I would definately give the new montauk a close look.
posted 03-21-2003 02:29 AM ET (US)
Hey kbay, I live in Kailua and fish outside Kaneohe often in my Dauntless. Small world huh?
posted 03-21-2003 01:26 PM ET (US)
If you are at the factory take a look at the new Nantucket. Yeah it is more $ but it may be what you are looking for.
posted 03-21-2003 03:18 PM ET (US)
Howzit Perry, it is a small world indeed. I was never much into fishing when I had the older montauk; mostly crusing inside the bay, hanging out at the sand bar, etc.
Now with the new boat, I've caught the fishing bug and try to head out to the FAD's every weekend. Haven't really caught anything big yet mostly because I'm just learning how to fish in deep water.
What amazes me though is how many small boats (under 18') are out in the deep water outside Kaneohe.
posted 03-21-2003 03:40 PM ET (US)
Hawaii in a 170 Montauk. I smile and sigh just thinking about it. WOW!
posted 03-22-2003 11:56 PM ET (US)
nantauket is a fine machine but wont fit in the garage, a necessity. wife told me the tour sucked big time just a bunch of molds laying around saw no pouring of foam they only make a boat when a purchase order comes in, there are 4 montauk molds and they are building a fifth. so basically they can make
4 montauks a day.
posted 03-24-2003 11:29 AM ET (US)
Picked up my new Montauk on Saturday. While I was at the dealer, they had a 96 17' Outrage for sale. I checked it out while I was waiting for them to pull my boat out of the water. Looking at the two boats for your purpose, the new Montauk is the way to go. It seems more rommier than the outrage and it has the grab rails all around the boat. Just have your daughter sit on the cooler seat or on the bow cushion and you'll be fine.
posted 03-24-2003 03:28 PM ET (US)
Went for ride out of port evergldes this morning 1-3 and a beaautiful cool 15 knot wind blowing. The Dauntless 16 does not track at low speeds as well as the 170. When one of the three of us shifted the bow aspect changed, it does have bow up before planing and more pronounced if one sits in one of the aft seats. You have to trim up yes.It does have a nice dry ride and very stable maybe maybe a little less pounding than the 170 but i could not tell really. The Montauk does not really get out of a hole to get up on plane it just elevates itself a bit and goes more like a cat. We put the deposit down on the Montauk. Will equip it with a Garmin 188C, a 4 pole larger bimini, dodger and isenglass, 2 batteries, Merc 4 stroke 90hp, swing away tongue trailer with brakes, swim platform w/ ladder, mooring cover. I am very pleased that we made the right decision. Anderson mfg, had delevered the final #1 rear aft bench for the new Montauk we decided to wait a bit to see if we really need it. I think my wife is still a little nervous about our daughter sitting back there. BW salesman told me in 4 months BW will present an after market or factory installed rear live well. It will install over the area of the sump.
posted 03-25-2003 08:54 AM ET (US)
Chaimemet....Would you mind emailing me your final package price? I live in FTL and I am looking at a used Outrage 17 and a Dauntless 16. If the package price on the Montauk(with the 4 stroke) is good enough, I may just go new. Thanks
posted 03-26-2003 10:23 AM ET (US)
Trailer brakes on a 17?
posted 03-26-2003 10:50 AM ET (US)
vehicle Volvo V70 Cross Country Ocean Race Edition tow w/o 1100lbs w/brakes 3500lbs, of course they underestimate but for insurance and G-d forbid some lawyer if something happened! I mean talk about overloading... I grew up in a construction/commercial roofing family, how many trucks did I brake, (pun intended).
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.