1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

Intro and Question on Recommended HP Montauk 17
JRP	#1  Posted on 08/29/14 - 2:24 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Hi, I hope I'm posting in the proper location. I'm a new member and wanted to introduce myself. We do most of our boating on the Chesapeake, primarily sailing. But we enjoy motorboating too. We are currently in the market for a small-mid-size, trailerable, center console outboard and are considering the Montauk 17. My question concerns the recommended engine horsepower for a mid-1990's Montauk 17. I understand the manufacturer specifies a fairly broad range, but I wanted to hear from experienced owners about what really works well. We are focussing on 4-stroke engines, in case it matter. Typical load would be 2-4 occupants, very rarely 5-6 passengers. Also, primary use would be on Chesapeake Bay, usually rivers/tributaries as opposed to wide open water. While my question concers recommended engine HP, I would welcome any suggestions or insights concerning the Montauk 17. Especially what to look for when appraising a used model from mid-90s vintage. Many thanks in advance.
Joe Kriz	#2  Posted on 08/29/14 - 2:35 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11430 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Welcome aboard WhalerCentral. I owned a Montauk 17' for 15 years with a 70hp 2 stroke on it. So for me, a 70hp would be the smallest I personally would want. It was great for me 90% of the time as even with the 70hp, you could not always go full speed due to water conditions, etc. My first choice today would be the Yamaha F70 4 stroke as it is the same weight as my 1985 Evinrude 70hp. Look through our Articles section and view the "Current Engine Choices and Weights" charts. Here is for the 16/17 models. http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5 For those that want more in the 90hp range, then the lightest would be the E-Tec 90 2 stroke with others not too far behind.
JRP	#3  Posted on 08/29/14 - 2:49 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Thank you very much for the quick reply and warm welcome. I will spend some time studying those links you provided -- much appreciated. How would you feel about a 75 hp 4-stroke Honda? Edited by JRP on 08/29/14 - 2:50 PM
Joe Kriz	#4  Posted on 08/29/14 - 3:03 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11430 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Honda 75 and 90 weigh the same. No brannier for me. The 90 I fish in remote locations and need a kicker not only for fishing, but to get me home should something happen to the main motor. Everyone's boating is different. The lighter motor the better. 257 pounds for a 70hp is very hard to beat. Add a kicker motor? http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=7 Here's my prior Montauk: http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Montau...ntauk.html 250 for the 70hp plus a 60 pound kicker is a total of 320 pounds. The 320 pounds for both motors is the same weight as just the E-Tec 90. So, I would not have a kicker if I had a 90hp motor. Edited by Joe Kriz on 08/29/14 - 3:05 PM
ursaminor	#5  Posted on 08/29/14 - 3:19 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 67 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/12/12	We needed to repower our Montauk 17 a couple of years ago when the original 90 HP Mercury 2 stroke failed. We ended up staying with 90 HP on our boat and chose the Evinrude ETEC. Regardless of what manufacturer you choose or whether it's DI 2 stroke or 4 stroke technology, you should be most concerned with the weight of the engine. These hulls were designed well before 4 stroke engines were widely available and the 2 stroke engines of the day were typically much lighter for a given output than the equivalent engines today. My point to this is the balance of the hull, particularly low speed performance is greatly affected by the amount of weight on the transom. With a light engine such as the Yamaha F70 or one of the Evinrude options, the boats will plane at very low speeds. This is very important when the water is choppy. It's possible to put a heavier engine on these boats but that will typically require relocating the battery into the console, lower freeboard at the stern and so on. If you search through similar threads, you'll find a ton of valuable information on this site to make an informed choice. Good luck in your search. 1989 Montauk 17 / 2012 90 HP Evinrude E-TEC
JRP	#6  Posted on 08/29/14 - 3:31 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Joe and Ursa, Thanks for the additional replies. I just spent some time reading a number of threads on repowering the Montauk 17. I am beginning to get a better feel for the engine and hull characterisitics, and see the virtue of the lighter engine options, power-to-weight, etc. In my case, however, I am not repowering. I am looking at a couple different used Montauk 17 examples in my vicinity. So I will be taking the engine that comes with whatever package we purchase. If it were me buying new and going Honda, I would probably have gone for the lighter 60 HP engine, or at least got the extra power of the 90 with all the weight. But I would have been more likely to choose that lightweight Yamaha 70! One of the local used boats has the Honda 75. Sounds like this engine is not considered ideal, but not necessarily a deal-breaker? Thanks again. P.S. Joe, your old Montauk was sharp! What Whaler do you have now and why the switch from the Montauk 17?
Phil T	#7  Posted on 08/29/14 - 3:53 PM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 6985 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	I owned a Montauk 17 and Outrage 17 and ferried many people over the years. You will not be able to fit 5 passengers (with you is 6) for anything longer than a short cruise. There isn't room and not a lot of weight capacity. At most: 2 seated on RPS facing backward 1 Driving 2 sharing forward cooler seat. In a calm bay, inlet or river will be fine. In the wide open part of the Chesapeake, forget it. An Outrage 18 or 20 would be more comfortable. I circumvented NYC years ago (6 hrs on the water) with a total of 4 and it was somewhat uncomfortable.
JRP	#8  Posted on 08/29/14 - 3:59 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Sorry, I meant 5 total with me, very rarley 6 total, and then only for short ferrying or slow cruising in protected waters. Usually 2-4 total occupants for general operating, including open Chesapeake. One of the examples I'm considering has an additional bench seat across the transom. Is that just a gimmick? Or only used at anchor? Edited by JRP on 08/29/14 - 4:01 PM
Joe Kriz	#9  Posted on 08/29/14 - 4:20 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11430 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Look through the members personal pages to get more ideas. http://www.whalercentral.com/viewpage...page_id=65 Some of the Montauks have the factory optional stern seat. Very nice for cruising. Here is a Custom stern seat a member made and it is removable. http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...lbum_id=55 And here is an Article by a member who installed the factory optional stern seat. http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=36 (Note the E-Tec 90hp) Edited by Joe Kriz on 08/29/14 - 4:21 PM
JRP	#10  Posted on 08/30/14 - 2:38 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Those are some nice rear seat installations. So, I guess the rear seat is actually a truly useful option -- good to know. I've spent quite a bit of time this weekend reading a variety of threads relating to Montauk 17s and 170s. But one thing I'm still not sure about yet, is whether there is much if any difference in the capabilities of these two models? Or are they considered comparable?
Phil T	#11  Posted on 08/30/14 - 3:02 PM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 6985 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	The Montauk 17 and 170 are completely different boats. The 170 is more stable and offers a significantly better ride.
Joe Kriz	#12  Posted on 08/30/14 - 3:07 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11430 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Depends upon whether you want a Classic Montauk 17' or the newer design hull of the Montauk 170. Two completely different boats thus two different names.
JRP	#13  Posted on 08/30/14 - 3:26 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- just trying to get a sense of the differences between these two models. I see both on the used market, without much more price difference than you would expect given the age differences. Which left me wondering if there were other qualitative differences beyond hull volume and weight. How does the 170 do with the extra 500 lbs of hull weight and a lower max engine HP rating?
Joe Kriz	#14  Posted on 08/30/14 - 10:30 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11430 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	You are definitely asking the right questions. However, you have changed from your original question and the topic of this thread. Many members have not ridden in both models so you might not get too many responses. Do you have the opportunity to test ride in both models? I have been in a Montauk 170 but not on the water. However, I did own a newer Accutrack hull Outrage 17' and can tell you it does ride better then many of the classic hulls. I see some test rides in your future.
blacksmithdog	#15  Posted on 08/31/14 - 3:53 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 417 Comments: 0 Joined: 06/26/06	I've had a 1976 17' Montauk, and we now have a 2006 Montauk 170. Both great boats. The 170 has the edge though. It's better in rough water, lower maintenance, the motor comes mounted in the right spot (as opposed to where there dealers decided to mount them in the old days), it's made for mounting a heavier 4 stroke motor, and roomier inside.
JRP	#16  Posted on 08/31/14 - 6:19 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Thanks for the great feedback regarding the 17 v. 170. Very helpful!
EJO	#17  Posted on 09/03/14 - 8:29 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 669 Comments: 6 Joined: 11/25/12	JRP back to your original question the 75HP Honda would do, on either a 17 or 170 but will be a little heavy for the 17 and slightly under powered for the 170 especially with a "full" load. If the pricing for both the older 17 (with newer power) and a 170 are inline/equal i would recommend the newer 170 for where you boat (bay area) due to its stability and better ride. The newer 170's also have a Port and SB stern seats option if not not a full bench seat. These single seats are nice next to the live well which becomes a nice table surface in between the seats. (see the build your boat on the BW site) Skipper E-J m/v "Clumsy Cleat" a 2008 Montauk 150
JRP	#18  Posted on 09/04/14 - 6:16 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Thanks, EJO. I appreciate your insights. What you say about the engine HP and weight makes sense for the respective models. Hearing this feedback, makes me wonder if the Montauk 150 is closer in size/capability to the the Montauk 17. The 150 weighs more, is beamier, and is only a foot shorter in length than the 17. So if comparing an older Montauk 17 to the comparable newer model, should I be looking at the 150?
Finnegan	#19  Posted on 09/04/14 - 6:50 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	If you are looking at 170 Montauks, and unless you are 5'-6" or less, I would ONLY look at 2007 Montauk 170's and later. In 2007, faced with a lot of complaints, they GREATLY improved the height and design of the center console, realizing that the original 2003-2006 was way too low for most people. The low console made that boat basically sized for teenagers (those that were not basketball players!), and less safe and uncomfortable to operate from a standing position. The 2007 and later models have greater long term value in my opinion, and also you will get the more powerful Mercury 90 4-stroke engine, based on the Verado block. The 2006 and earlier used a less powerful 90 based on the Yamaha 90 powerhead. The 2007's are several MPH faster than the earlier ones. The 2003-2004 models came with a CARBURETED Yamaha block engine, a troubled engine even more reason to stay away from. You only want EFI on 4-stroke engines. On any classic Montauk, in my opinion a 90 is the way to go.
JRP	#20  Posted on 09/04/14 - 7:00 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Finnegan, wow, thanks! That is exactly the kind of inside scoop/info I'm interested in hearing about. I would not have realized that (change in console height) otherwise. Are there any similar evolutionary changes that were made to the Montauk 17 over its long production run? I guess I'm asking if there are certain years considered more desirable than others?