|
1989 17 Montauk Repower
|
| 3whalers |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 11:14 AM
|
Member
Posts: 2
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/20/07
|
I currently have a 1989 Johnson 90 on my 17 Montauk. Thinking about upgrading to either a 90 Etec or a 115 Etec. Any thoughts from 17 owners having either of these motors hanging on the transom?
|
| |
|
|
| wing15601 |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 12:13 PM
|
Member
Posts: 699
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/14/12
|
90 E-TEC weighs about 320. 115 E-TEC weighs about 375. I think 375 is too much weight on the transom of that boat. The 90 is plenty of power and if you ever sell the boat it may be harder to sell if it is over powered.
I winter in Ft. Myers and summer in St. Joseph, Michigan. It’s now about 12 years since I’ve joined this group. I gave my 1972 whaler to my daughter and sold the 17’. Bought an O’Day 28 sailboat and sailed on Lake Michigan. Yesterday I bought a 2005 130 Sport. |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 2:01 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
If you do a search, (Under MAIN menu) for "Montauk repower E-TEC" you will find dozens of threads and hundreds of comments.
Often searching will give you the answer.
|
| |
|
|
| rvschulz |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 3:08 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 145
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/28/10
|
I put the 115 on my 1987 Montauk. I moved the starting battery to the console plus I have the oil tank and the trolling motor battery there too. I have a trolling motor (usually) on the boat.
It works fine. I got a great deal. I am never selling so that thought of a 'problem to sell' is of no consequence to me. It runs very efficiently - most 90 Etec numbers I've seen are comparable to what I get with the 115. I am going to try a different prop Sunday since my top end is a little low.
1987 Montauk 17, 2013 Etec 115 |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 3:09 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
The E-TEC 90 weighs in @ 320 pounds.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5
The E-TEC 115 weighs in @ 390 pounds.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=6
|
| |
|
|
| crbenny |
Posted on 04/10/14 - 8:40 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/20/05
|
In my opinion, the E-tec 90 is the perfect match for a 16'7" Whaler. The weight, power, performance, and size are perfect. In every case where the boat was set up properly, they ran in the low to mid 40s which is all that boat was ever meant for. Why I say that is because when one considers every intended application for the 16'7" Whaler; fishing, watershiing, towing, rescuing, patrolling, and so on, this combination excels. In addition, it's economical to a point where the 2 original 6 gal. tanks are all I've ever needed on a day of boating. The storage challenged 16'7" doesn't have the added clutter of a separate oil tank as it's mounted under the cowl. No doubt the 115 is faster, but how often do you run a 16'7" over 45 MPH? 15 or 20 seconds a month? For that you pay more, and not just at purchase, but every time you fill the gas tank, and every time you pay an insurance premium. Plus the added stress on the transom of an aging boat. Makes no sense to power above the E-tec 90.. in my opinion.
Chris
|
| |
|
|
| 3whalers |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 6:41 AM
|
Member
Posts: 2
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/20/07
|
Whaler family,
I sincerely appreciate the inputs! Leaning more towards the 90 option but still have to run the numbers$$.
Chris
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 7:24 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
The E-TEC 115 would both grossly overpower that hull and it would be way too heavy as well.
|
| |
|
|
| rvschulz |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 9:12 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 145
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/28/10
|
I wanted a 90 - I think it's a wonderful motor. I don't run mine full throttle. my decision was based on economics - between the additional warranty, free rigging, and sale prices in the 115 and larger motors when I wanted to purchase - I saved over $2k vs. a 90.
good luck with your purchase. I'm not a whaler traditionalist although I tremendously respect Mr. Clark's posts, I do acknowledge that a 'traditional' whaler setup - I would probably be much more attuned to the weight distribution and settle on a 90.
the separate oil tank does not bother me, and with the oil and batteries in the console, my boat sits very level. I fish near offshore and have no 'waves over the stern issues' ... especially when I am bringing the trolling motor too.
I have no porpoising and followed the forum advice on engine mounting - perfect.
1987 Montauk 17, 2013 Etec 115 |
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 12:42 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
I disagree that a 115HP on a Montauk would be grossly over powered, in fact if you do the appropriate calculation for HP the boat can be rated at 115HP. Whaler choose to rate the boat at 100HP based on the outboards available and their desire to rate there smaller boats more conservatively.
I am not saying that some changes would not be necessary such as redistribution of weight, but putting a 115HP on the hull in the hands of an experienced owner would not be inherently dangerous. Since you would be overpowering the boat, assuming no state laws prohibit the overpower, you should at the very least consult with your insurance agent and let them know the boat, make and model and the intended HP.
|
| |
|
|
| crbenny |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 6:29 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/20/05
|
Kamie, I agree with you that it can be done and it's not that far from the ideal set up, but to what end? What's the objective? The ideal IS the E-tec 90. Maybe if his son is 6'4" 275 lbs and is the barefoot national champion and needs the boat for training? Maybe there's a reason for the 115 which outweighs the cons. Without that reason, the E-tec 90 for every other reason, is the way to go. Isn't it?
Chris
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 04/11/14 - 7:33 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
There are plenty of Montauks (and other 16'-7" Whaler models) out there that have been overpowered. I've seen them up to 175 HP.
I've owned three Montauks myself and operated quite a few more. This hull does not need 100, let alone 115 HP. Can it handle it? Well, sure, there is no reason you *have* to operate it at full throttle, but if you are not, then why have all that HP?
Usually, you would pay MORE for a higher horsepower motor, not less.
Transom weight is something that should be considered.
|
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 04/12/14 - 7:46 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
Tom W Clark wrote:
This hull does not need 100, let alone 115 HP. Can it handle it? Well, sure, there is no reason you *have* to operate it at full throttle, but if you are not, then why have all that HP?
Tom, do you really run at WOT every time your away from the dock, I doubt it? Maybe you do but I don't although based on your comment I should run WOT every time i take the boat out or the engine on my 18 is a waste. Thankfully I don't believe the engine on my 18 is a waste and that is really what matters.
crbenny wrote:
Kamie, I agree with you that it can be done and it's not that far from the ideal set up, but to what end? What's the objective? The ideal IS the E-tec 90. Maybe if his son is 6'4" 275 lbs and is the barefoot national champion and needs the boat for training? Maybe there's a reason for the 115 which outweighs the cons. Without that reason, the E-tec 90 for every other reason, is the way to go. Isn't it?
Chris
Nope, there are many reasons to purchase a 115 over a 90, perhaps the promotion on the 115 is better making the higher HP cheaper, or perhaps he lives in water spout alley and wants the extra HP to get home quicker or perhaps he just wants the 115. none of that we know although he did indicate he needs to check price for affordability.
Having a 115HP vs a 90HP is not terribly more expensive to run, the oil is the same, depending on your usage and speed gas costs should be similar for comparative usage, and since you don't have an service for 3 years or 300 hours whichever is later, maintenance schedules are similar. Even if the maintenance costs a bit more on the larger engine you have to consider the price over the years it took you to get there. The only reason the maintenance would cost more is that your shifting from the inline to the V4, not just due to the larger HP. The kits for maintenance are priced by engine type. Unless you run both engines at WOT all the time, where the 115HP will cost you more to achieve WOT the price difference in running them is small.
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 04/12/14 - 8:04 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
Kamie -- No, I do not run WOT every time I use my boat. I never said I do or suggested most people do.
What I do know is I like to run my boat at a speed where the fuel economy is best and that is really much faster than the boat's most comfortable cruising speed. My own boat would be better with less horsepower, not more.
But we are talking about a Montauk here, not an Outrage 18 or a Revenge 25 Walk Through.
There is this notion that extra horsepower is the way to go. It is there if you need it but you don't have to use it.
But that extra horsepower does come with extra costs. In this case they are significant:
- The 115 will cost more
- The 115 weighs a LOT more
- The 115 will need a separate oil tank consuming interior space
- The maintenance costs will be slightly more
- The fuel consumption will be slightly more.
Now none of those cost by themselves, or together, *necessarily* mean you should not buy a 115 E-TEC and put it on a Montauk (apparently rvschulz got an unusually good deal on one and actually saved money, so that helped him make his decision) but here, 3whalers asks for advice and I am offering my observations based on my long history of Montauk ownership and operation.
The question to be answered is: What benefits would one get from choosing an E-TEC 115 over a 90 for a Montauk?
The one obvious answer is: The boat will go faster. Indeed if the goal were a Montauk that goes 50 MPH, then the higher horsepower motor would be preferable. But who operates their Whaler at WOT every time they go boating? I don't
|
| |
|
|
| crbenny |
Posted on 04/12/14 - 4:17 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/20/05
|
Lets try looking at it another way. Which would be preferable when we consider the following;
-Initial purchase price -90
-Dealer support at time of purchase -90
-Gas is $4 a gallon -90
-Oil is $15 a gallon -90
-Cost of liability insurance -90
-Others besides me will drive this boat -90
-Oil tank configuration -90
-I may sell and need max marketability -90
-I may keep forever and hate stress cracks -90
-I trailer alot and don't want excess weight dancing on transom -90
-I moor my boat and don't want paint half way up the sides -90
-I live in the litigious USA -90
On the other hand, if;
-The name if my boat is,'Life starts at 46 mph' and I've
always yearned to experience the joy of a kidney transplant. -115
-Champion has sold 999,996 spark plugs this year. I'm next at the
checkout with my tune-up parts and the 1 millionth spark plug
promotion is a trip for 2 with your boat to the Scotish Highlands for
a week, all expenses paid -115
-I'm waterskiing in Scotland admiring the back of my boat
and my favorite song happens to be,'I like big butts' -115
-While waterskiing and singing my favorite song, I turn around and
realize I'm being chased by Nessie who tops out at 46 mph -115
12 for E-tec 90 and 4 for E-tec 115. Actually, it's closer than I thought..
Chris
|
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 04/13/14 - 5:41 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
Chris,
it's clear what your preference is, and so when purchasing an E-TEC for your boat I would suggest that you stick with the 90HP. Especially since you don't have a choice, as you live in FL and it's illegal to repower your boat above it's rated HP. Clearly your list is skewed in favor of the outboard you would drop on your boat. Lets redo your list a bit
-Initial purchase price - possibly the 90 unless BRP has really good promotion
-Dealer support at time of purchase - depends on the dealer, some will and some won't install the engine, most will service the engine as long as they didn't install it. Aside from actually hanging the engine a E-TEC is about as hard to install as plugging in a table lamp. May favor the 90 but dealer dependent so it's a wash
-Gas is $4 a gallon -yep and the faster I go the more i pay. Since i can't drive the 90 as fast as I can drive the 115, then i guess the 90 wins, unless of course i need to go that fast and now i loose.
-Oil is $15 a gallon - actually they both use XD-100 @ 34 dollars a gallon. the more gas you use the more oil you use, see above.
-Cost of liability insurance -depends on your insurance company. you may pay a premium but then this should be in your affordability calculations.
-Others besides me will drive this boat - yep and your buddy that has a 150 on the back of his 17, well be glad he is driving your boat and the two of you are not racing.
-Oil tank configuration - the 90 does have an internal tank, but an external tank is an option. The down side to the internal tank is you really need to carry oil on the boat. the external tank provides a lot of reserve
-I may sell and need max marketability - although you may loose a sale if your cash buyer wanted a 115 - wash
-I may keep forever and hate stress cracks - then there are at least a dozen boats owned by members of this forum that are in danger of sinking, they should be warned!
-I trailer a lot and don't want excess weight dancing on transom - the 115 does weigh more, see comment above.
-I moor my boat and don't want paint half way up the sides - if your painting half way up the sides because you dropped a additional 70 pounds on the transom, move your batteries and disown fat Albert.
-I live in the litigious USA - just because you have a 115 on the boat does not make you a dangerous boater. if your worried about this, you should take all engines off your boat and only use oars. Better yet, sell the boat.
3whalers,
if the calculations work for you and you have explored your tolerance for risk then there is no reason why a montauk should not handle a 115HP. Many of them have in the past and will again in the future. You need to evaluate your financial situation and look at your individual hull to determine if the additional weight will be a problem. To get a good idea about how your boat will handle the additional weight, toss sand bags in the stern and see how she floats. If you can take her for a spin, see what effect moving the battery as far forward as you can will have, when you stop down hard do you get lots of water over the transom?
Check with your dealer, many will not over power a hull for insurance reasons, some will not service the engine but most will. The 90 will push the boat at least as fast as your current engine, additionally it will be more fuel efficient and a lot quieter. I believe your current engine is ~300# so while the 90 will be heavier not terribly so but you should know that so with either new engine the boat will sit differently at rest and will ride different.
best of luck in your decision.
|
| |
|
|
| wing15601 |
Posted on 04/13/14 - 8:02 AM
|
Member
Posts: 699
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/14/12
|
Kamie, I've been following your posts for a long time and don't find much I disagree with. However, you stated that because of the limited capacity of the oil tank under the cowling of the E-TEC 90, one would have to carry extra oil onboard. I disagree. The oil tank holds 2 quarts. At 100 to 1, you could burn almost fifty gallons of gas before needing oil. Most Montauks have a tank of 24 to 26 gallons so I don't see why carrying oil would be necessary.
I winter in Ft. Myers and summer in St. Joseph, Michigan. It’s now about 12 years since I’ve joined this group. I gave my 1972 whaler to my daughter and sold the 17’. Bought an O’Day 28 sailboat and sailed on Lake Michigan. Yesterday I bought a 2005 130 Sport. |
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 04/13/14 - 11:09 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
Wing,
perhaps your correct. My only experience with under the cowling oil tanks was on a friends whaler. He did have a larger fuel tank so maybe that was why he was surprised he was low on oil.
The oil mix is not exactly 100 to 1 so perhaps an owner with a 90 E-TEC on a 17 can chime in with how much oil they use per year.
|
| |
|
|
| mb159 |
Posted on 04/14/14 - 6:12 AM
|
Member
Posts: 12
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/25/11
|
Kamie, it appears that you are trying to convince yourself that you need the additional horsepower. Why do you seek advice here and then proceed to argue or attempt to shoot down the advice given? It is YOUR boat, YOUR money! Buy the engine YOU want!
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 04/14/14 - 7:10 AM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
Our old Montauk had a 115 initially, but it was a used engine and went bad after a few years. We replaced it with a 90. This was back in the 80's and the boat was used for fishing on the east side of Vancouver Island, and occasional water skiing.
The 90 was a little bit less exciting ( I WAS n my late teens ) but NEVER short of power, so I would choose the 90 again in a heartbeat.
|
| |
|
