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.

Montauk 17 repower
RichAndrews	#1  Posted on 08/26/12 - 10:31 AM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/25/12	I have a 1988 Montauk which came with Merc motors. I replaced the Merc 9.9 kicker a couple years ago with a Honda 9.9...great motor. Now I am thinking of replacing the original 100hp Merc with a 90hp Honda. I have dual starting batteries located in the stern. Per published specs the Merc 100 weighs 340 lbs. and the Honda 90 weighs 359...which is only 19 lbs more. I have read some forum comments about the Honda being too heavy for that boat. I could relocate the batteries to the center console but would rather keep them where they are. Does anyone out there have this 2 Honda setup on an older Montauk? Any and all advice appreciated.
Joe Kriz	#2  Posted on 08/26/12 - 11:35 AM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	359 pounds for the Honda 90 http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5 Around 100 pounds for the Honda 9.9 kicker http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=7 That's a total of about 460 pounds on the transom of a Montauk 17' That's a lot of weight plus 2 batteries in the stern. I had an Evinrude 70hp @250 pounds plus an Evinrude 8hp @50 pounds for a total of 300 pounds on the transom. http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Montau...ntauk.html I also only had one battery and it was in the console.
RichAndrews	#3  Posted on 08/27/12 - 8:56 AM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/25/12	Thanks Joe, what do you think about going with the Honda 60hp (239lbs)? I use the boat primarily for fishing, some cruising and may one day want to pull a grandkid on a wakeboard. Frankly, with the 100hp Merc it is almost too fast.
saumon	#4  Posted on 09/02/12 - 9:56 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 142 Comments: 0 Joined: 05/15/12	I know you were looking for a Honda, but the newer (2010 and up) Yamaha F70 at 257lbs is hard to beat for the power to weight ratio (for a 4-stroke, of course). As an example, the Suzuki DF70 weight 341lbs, but the comparision may be unfair cause the DF70 is a detuned DF90 when, on the other side, a F70 share the same block than the F50/60... Edited by saumon on 09/02/12 - 10:17 PM 1991 Outrage 17' I - 2005 E-Tec 90hp
Phil T	#5  Posted on 09/03/12 - 6:14 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 7043 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	Look at the Engine Choices article for the options for your hull. On the left sidebar. I would not lower power to save weight. A Montauk with a properly rigged 70 hp has a WOT speed of 37-39 mph. A 90hp is good for 41-43 mph. If you have 2 adults and 2 kids, full gear, gas, etc most of the time, a 90hp is recommended. Given the economy of a 4 stroke, you may want to remove the kicker or find a smaller hp that weighs less.
DennisVollrath	#6  Posted on 09/03/12 - 12:08 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 298 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/29/10	I am very pleased with my 70hp and Montauk combination. Yesterday we were out with 3 adults and our lab, plus gear. With the Stiletto 13.25" x 13" we got on plane very quickly, and could go as fast as the water permitted, at times 33mph. This was not WOT. Don't mean to sound too evangelistic, but there is plenty of power and safety with a 70hp motor on a Montauk. Dennis 1985 Outrage 18 with Suzuki DF140A
Maxman98	#7  Posted on 09/06/12 - 3:57 AM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/05/12	Gents, I will be repowering an 1988 montauk also. My first choice would probably be the e-tec, but due to financial consideration and some dealer loyalty (great price from a Merc dealer I know), I'm inclined to try a 60hp Bigfoot. I'm less concerned with top end speed than low end performance. I'd be satisfied with 30mph WOT with low 20s cruise which I believe the 60hp will deliver this based on a number of engine tests reports on various hulls. I have less confidence that it will provide adequate hole shot when pulling medium sized skiers and wakeboardwrs up and out (130 to 150 pounders). Whaler outfits the new 150 montauk with the 60hp BF swinging a 13.25x14 stainless prop. Performance tests look very good with this combo but I've not seen any first hand accounts of results with water sports. If the 90hp 4s were not so heavy and awkward looking for the hull, I'd surely opt for more hp, but 400 lbs plus battery and occasional kicker is too much IMO. Any comments would be appreciated. I plan to go with the Merc 60 BF unless I'm told it is completely inadequate for the task. Thx, Jon Edited by Joe Kriz on 09/06/12 - 10:43 AM
Phil T	#8  Posted on 09/06/12 - 9:26 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 7043 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	I doubt you will be able to pull a skier out of the water with a 60hp.
Maxman98	#9  Posted on 09/06/12 - 11:19 AM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/05/12	thx, Phil. I was afraid someone would say that. bummer.
mtnsherpa	#10  Posted on 09/06/12 - 11:49 AM
Member Posts: 74 Comments: 0 Joined: 10/25/11	My 150 lbs have been pulled up and out and skied behind a 50hp, 4-stroke powered Montauk 17 with 2 adults onboard. Just last year...first time skiing in about 25 years! 1997 Montauk 17, stock with comfort package and bimini. 1998 50hp, 4-stroke Mercury (non-Bigfoot), non-optimized setup (1-hole up, original aluminum prop).
Finnegan	#11  Posted on 09/06/12 - 3:19 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	Since Rich already has a Honda kicker on the boat, I think he should stay with Honda for the main motor. I don't like the look of two different brand engines on any boat. If you are happy with the weight of the Mercury 100, I can't see how a few more pounds could make a difference.