---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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)

---

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?

---

The Montauk 17 and 170 are completely different boats. The 170 is more stable and offers a significantly better ride.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Thanks for the great feedback regarding the 17 v. 170. Very helpful!

---

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)

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

Re: console height

I don't want to hijack the OP thread but does anybody know, by chance, the measurements of that updated console on the 2007 and newer Montauk 170?

I'm asking because the tall console on my 1991 Outrage 17 is right as it can be for driving while standing (I'm 6'2"). If the updated console on the Montauk 170 is about the same height, you'll like it.

For reference, here's the measurements on mine:
http://www.myfishingpictures.com/data..._07921.jpg

---

I'm not worried about hijacking. All this info is helpful.

---

Finnegan,

A follow-up question about the taller center consoles on the Montauk 170.... I take it this change was made for calendar year 2007, not model year 2007? The reason i ask, is that I am looking at an ad for a model year 2007 Montauk 170, and it has the shorter center console. This example was actually built in June 2006, based on the HIN (last four digits "F607").

Just trying to clarify the exact date of the taller center console on the Montauk 170....

---

If members give us more input, we can add that info to this list.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...cle_id=115

Here are the members with Montauk 170's
http://www.whalercentral.com/viewpage...age_id=173

---

In case it matters/helps for figuring out where the transition took place, the the ad for the MY2007 I saw with a shorter center console had HIN: BWCE0293F607

---

Here is a 2006 in the personal page section we have with BWCE3760E606
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=18064
Is that the shorter or taller console?

And another 2006 year model.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...er_id=6612
HIN not known to us.

Probably a good idea to start getting some photos of the 2 different consoles.
Below is a 2003 Montauk 170 so I assume it is the shorter none.

I believe all that really matters is the height to the center of the steering helm.
What is this height on both variations of Montauk 170 consoles?

---

i am by no means an expert, and it can be tricky to tell without good photos, but based on my recent studying of ads, those all look like the shorter consoles to me.

CORRECTION: The consoles in the linked boats look like the shorter version. The console in the photo Joe posted appears to be the taller version.

I grabbed a couple photos that show the difference, but I haven't figured out how to post them here yet?

---

Photos are difficult to tell any difference.
How about anyone taking some measurements of the height of the center of the steering wheel.
That will tell us for sure and really the only measurement we need as the height of the steering wheel would either be too low for some if it was the shorter version.

Just put a link here to your photos.
Add measurements if you have them.
This goes for other members that own the Montauk 170 model.

What is the height of the center of the steering wheel on your Montauk 170?

EDIT:
Wow, that photo is of a 2003 model unless they changed consoles? I guess measurements would be the best.
Here is skram's personal page of his 2003 Montauk 170
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=26617

---

I am going to take back my correction above. That photo shows the shorter console.

I just realized an easy way to tell the difference. The new taller console has tiered or faceted steps formed into the console where the wheel mounts to the console. Whereas the old console has just a one angled flat surface.

The tenth photo in this Craigslist ad for a 2014 Montauk 170 shows the console in profile, and the tiered facets nicely:

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/bod/4642830005.html

Maybe someone with a photo hosting account can grab that photo and show it here?

---

I do see a difference but not much. 2 or 3 inches.

I also see the angle of the wheel has changed. More towards vertical in the newer models.

Maybe we need 2 measurements.
1. To center of steering wheel
2. To top of steering wheel

---

The model year change for 2008 contained a redesigned console that added 2". They also changed the RPS cushion and added 1".

In reviewing Whaler parts diagrams, I see the part # for the console changed for 2008 and the drawing is different.

For 2007 and earlier:
http://www.bostonwhaler.com/boat_grap...3141PM.pdf

For 2008 and later:
http://www.bostonwhaler.com/boat_grap...4249PM.pdf

The Whaler press release on the model year changes is no longer available on whaler.com.

---

Great info!

Sounds like the change to the taller console was made for Model Year 2008, with some of those boats probably arriving in mid-late-Calendar Year 2007. The drawing showing the changed console is date 1/23/07.

---

I've never really looked at the newer Montauk but I'm sort of surprised the fuel capacity is only (2) six gallon tanks. I know my older 2 stroke 90 Yamaha (which is a very reliable engine BTW) is much less efficient than the newer 4 strokes but I'm regularly pushing the limits of my fuel capacity ((2) twelve gallon tanks on my Montauk 17) running around the Chesapeake, something to consider.

---

The goofy 2 - six gallon tank thing surprised me as well. I think most folks put that 24/25 gallon Moeller tank under the RPS. The 4 stroke 90 goes a long way on 24 gallons.

---

Is Moeller the preferred brand for larger aftermarket tanks? I saw some references to another brand that was all the rage but apparently has now fallen out of favor (and maybe gone out of business) due to ethanol issues. Should boats/engines that had these tanks be avoided?

Also, I have seen some aftermarket tanks by Tempo. How do they compare to Moeller?

---

I think your choices are pretty limited with regard to fuel tanks. Moeller makes a really nice 22 gallon white one specifically for the 150 and 170 Montauks that is unobtrusive. If you google "Moeller Boston Whaler" you'll come across it. I think the older red Moeller was 24 or 25 gallons.

---

I have a pair of the Tempo 12 gallons in my Montauk, they fit well on the factory mats and have held up well. I like two tanks for several reasons but mainly because I have a 6hp kicker so I can leave them both hooked up on separate tanks/lines. Not sure if they'd fit in the 170 though.

---

Thanks blacksmithdog and whalerbob for the fuel tank feedback. Between the Tempo and the Moeller tanks, it sounds like there are some very good options out there for increasing fuel capacity over the stock 12 gallons (2x6 gallons). Just FYI, the white 22 gallon Moeller tank for Montauks is Product # 031626, in case anyone is searching.

---

We have that info listed along with many more parts in our Parts Photo and Info section in the Photo Gallery menu. Take a look around.
http://www.whalercentral.com/photogal...hoto_id=68

---

My unmolested 1976 montauk 17' came with a 1976 evinrude 115 HP