BW Introduces New 2018 Montauk 150 and 170
|
tedious |
Posted on 09/04/17 - 5:08 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
The internal fuel tank in the new 170 would be a big negative for me. You're gaining 3 gallons of capacity and a LOT of additional complications over the life of the boat. That's a terrible tradeoff.
I do like the additional horsepower option though - and the larger motor has both better cruise speed and better mileage. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
|
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/04/17 - 10:31 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
ClevelandBill wrote:
Oh, I am not so sure I like the stainless rub-rail all around. ......
The stainless rubrail is an option. It would probably outlast the standard rubrail by a longshot, though.
tedious wrote:
The internal fuel tank in the new 170 would be a big negative for me. You're gaining 3 gallons of capacity and a LOT of additional complications over the life of the boat. That's a terrible tradeoff. ...
The tradeoff is you are gaining a ton of storage space that previously was taken up by fuel tanks under the RPS.
Previous versions of the Montauk suffered from a lack of storage -- most gear had to be piled on deck instead of stowed away properly. The new 2018 170 Montauk II now not only has a second bow locker, but has a large storage locker under the RPS where the fuel tank used to sit on deck (optionally this can be a livewell.)
I feel the built-in tank is a big plus.
Edited by JRP on 09/04/17 - 11:04 AM |
|
|
|
Walt Krafft |
Posted on 09/04/17 - 1:49 PM
|
Member
Posts: 168
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/16/14
|
Is there access to the fuel tank, or is it molded in? I couldn't tell from the pictures.
|
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/04/17 - 2:39 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Walt Krafft wrote:
Is there access to the fuel tank, or is it molded in? I couldn't tell from the pictures.
Walt, if you go to BW's website and click on the 2018 170 Montauk model, there is a "gallery" of photos. In photos 3/10 and 7/10, I see what looks like a deck hatch under the RPS and extending back to the sump. It appears to be screwed down. My guess is the 25 gallon fuel tank resides under this hatch. Hopefully it is a removable/replaceable variety of tank, and not molded in.
|
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/04/17 - 3:03 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Boston Whaler has now added performance tables for the larger 115 hp Merc Fourstroke/CT engine option.
The 90 hp Merc Fourstroke/CT does somewhat better on fuel economy at slow displacement speeds, but the 115 actually does better and has a greater range at mid-range planing speeds.
The 115 has the boat up on plane doing 16.3 mph at 3000, whereas the 90 only has it at 11.1 mph (at 3250 rpm, the 90 hops up on plane.) The 115 yields a top speed of 46.0 vs 40.0 for the 90.
It sure seems like the 115/CT engine is a worthwhile option for this new Montauk model. However, it's a $990 option!
|
|
|
|
1978sport15 |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 2:10 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/27/13
|
https://youtu.be/pLB6oecnYBs
Peter Shannon |
|
|
|
tedious |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 4:27 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
JRP wrote:
Boston Whaler has now added performance tables for the larger 115 hp Merc Fourstroke/CT engine option.
The 90 hp Merc Fourstroke/CT does somewhat better on fuel economy at slow displacement speeds, but the 115 actually does better and has a greater range at mid-range planing speeds.
The 115 has the boat up on plane doing 16.3 mph at 3000, whereas the 90 only has it at 11.1 mph (at 3250 rpm, the 90 hops up on plane.) The 115 yields a top speed of 46.0 vs 40.0 for the 90.
It sure seems like the 115/CT engine is a worthwhile option for this new Montauk model. However, it's a $990 option!
The cruise speed (defined as the planing speed which gets the best mileage) for the 115 is 3 MPH faster. That is very significant and would make a lot of difference to me.
Honestly they should have offered the 115 on the previous 170 - it always felt to me like it needed more power. With the newer model being quite a bit heavier, I'd expect it to feel even more underpowered with the 90.
|
|
|
|
Phil T |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 7:14 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6979
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
One of the first 170 owners, Tabasco, replaced his new Mercury 90 with a 115 on a Montauk 170 back in 2002.
Extrapolating from this would infer the Montauk 170 II should have a 135 or 150hp.
Remember Boston Whaler tests the boat light. 25 gallons of gas, 20 lbs of gear (anchor probably) and two people in 80 degree weather.
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 10:02 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Phil T wrote:
One of the first 170 owners, Tabasco, replaced his new Mercury 90 with a 115 on a Montauk 170 back in 2002.
Extrapolating from this would infer the Montauk 170 II should have a 135 or 150hp.
Remember Boston Whaler tests the boat light. 25 gallons of gas, 20 lbs of gear (anchor probably) and two people in 80 degree weather.
Maybe the Merc 115 ProXS Fourstroke would be a good choice? California ARB certified that engine at 126 HP.
I can't see why Whaler wouldn't offer it as an option on the 2018 170 Montauk?
|
|
|
|
Phil T |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 12:35 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6979
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
Max engine weight listed is 410, the actual weight of the 115.
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 12:52 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Phil T wrote:
Max engine weight listed is 410, the actual weight of the 115.
Phil, Which 115 is 410 lbs? Is that the ETEC 115 dry weight you're referring to?
The Merc 115CT Fourstroke 20" and the 115 Pro XS 20" have a spec dry weight of 363 lbs. Plus 5.5 qts crankcase oil, and maybe 1.5 qts gear case oil? So let's add another 10-11 lbs? That gets us to just under 375 lbs "wet."
Or do you have some intel about the "actual weight" of these engines that is not published? I'm genuinely curious to know. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Joe Kriz |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 1:25 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11424
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
JRP,
Don't forget to add about another 15 lbs for a 25 inch shaft for the 170 Montauk II
http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...lbum_id=84
Mercury seems to be the only outboard manufacturer today that wants to keep everyone in the dark about how much any of their longer shaft motors weigh.
They only list the "lightest model available"
https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/e...ifications
One of the reasons I discontinued the Engine Weight Reference Guides.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...p?cat_id=4
Never have been impressed with those type of tactics from any manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
Phil T |
Posted on 09/06/17 - 3:35 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6979
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
Most of the 115hp were around 400-420 dry but then Yamaha and Mercury introduced lighter 90 and 115 hp's.
Adding fluids, prop adds a good 20 lbs to get you very close to 410.
There is a reason why the max rating matches up to the Mercury 115 hp weight. The rating is synched to the product offerings. That is why whenever a new engine or reduced weight motor is introduced, the hp offered rises on subsequent model years.
i.e The Nantucket was first introduced with a max hp of 115 and a weight limit of 510. When the I-4 Verado line was introduced the hp max increased. First to 135, then 150 and now stands at 200. Engine weight for the 200? 510.
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/10/17 - 1:21 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
I missed that they had increased the transom height on the new 2018 170 Montauk II to 25". Aside from the extra engine weight from the longer shaft, that actually seems like another improvement over the previous Montauks.
So if the Merc 115 Fourstroke CT 25" shaft with prop and fluids is pushing the 410 lbs weight envelope, that would likely make it the only 115 on the market that will meet the weight spec for this new 170 Montauk II. (All the other 115s on the market are heavier.)
|
|
|
|
JRP |
Posted on 09/21/17 - 12:27 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
FYI, BW has added a more extensive photo gallery of the new 2018 Montauk 170, including quite a few interior detail shots:
https://bostonwhaler.smugmug.com/Seri...ew-Photos/
Also, on the 2018 Montauk 150 page, they now have at least one photo of an actual boat.
|
|
|
|
EJO |
Posted on 09/22/17 - 9:36 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 669
Comments:
6
Joined: 11/25/12
|
They show 3 photos of the new 2018 Montauk 150 and I noticed a single tank under the RPS instead of the two 6 gallon tanks of past. Also the CC shows a much larger access door and a nicer face for the electronics. Simple changes but for the better. The different color options would be liked by my admiral and the teak steps won't work for me as I have retractable cleats for spring line and/or fender mounted there https://photos.app.goo.gl/KVbM0Aaivjk...ivjkIecDG2&https://photos.app.goo.gl/qBYxCvssKXD...sKXDq57K22 plus when the bimini frame is up (allways when we boat) a 6ft big guy like myself has a hard time stepping on board thru that triangular opening. I just step on the corner aft deck steps behind the side rails next to the motor.
Does anybody know if they show 60th Anniversary in the Boston Whaler arrow logo on the aft sides for either the 170 & the 150 as they did in 2008 on my boat. See below
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WGPiFiF7ITf...7ITfWqTJq2
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Nz3RXJyyMOD...yMODhhj963
Edited by EJO on 09/22/17 - 9:46 AM
Skipper E-J
m/v "Clumsy Cleat" a 2008 Montauk 150 |
|
|