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.

17' 1996 outrage II
kajan	#1  Posted on 08/08/07 - 7:43 PM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/08/07	Have been looking high and low around Mass for a good used montauk, always a day late and a dollar short though. Recently found a 1996 17' outrage II locally ( very scarce) and am planning to take a look at her tomorrow. Looks to be very promissing. Deep V, larger fuel capacity, easy to trailer and put in alone and a bit more comfortable when the family joins in. She's within my budget and appears to be more boat than I was originally looking for but I don't know anyone who's ever had one. Any input would be greatly appreciated. I was convinced that a montauk was the boat for me until I came across this outrage. Any personal experience regarding ride comfort, handling chop, range with the added 56 gallon fuel capacity ( 1996 115 johnson ocean pro on transom) would be welcomed. I plan to obviously fish around the islands and cape cod bay, but also frequent race point and with this boat I'm thinking that on a good day I might be able to sneak out to stellwagon bank ( about 8 miles out of P-town). Any and all pros and cons would be appreciated. Thank you.
Jeff	#2  Posted on 08/08/07 - 8:41 PM
Member Posts: 1987 Comments: 34 Joined: 04/02/05	Kajan, As much as I loved our montauk it was a bit of a harsh ride in sloppy seas. Not to much for me but, others found it to be a bit much. The 17 Outrage II is going to give a me better ride with the deep v and more weight. It has a better layout which gives more comfort for the family than the Montauk. It will also get you more fuel storage which is always nice to have. However, the thought the Outrage has all of that it is heavier and can not bet towed behind as small of a vehicle as a Montauk and the other thing is....it does not have is the classic lines. All and all it would be a better large open water boat. Joe Kriz will be your best person for info as he has owned both of these hulls. 1993 23' Walkaround Whaler Drive
kajan	#3  Posted on 08/09/07 - 1:02 AM
Member Posts: 2 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/08/07	Well, its 3:50 a/m and I'm on my way to take a look at her. Long drive ahead of me but had too check for a response before I left. I appreciate the input. I think that this may be the boat for us, providing that she's in as good a condition as described. Will find out soon. New too this site, not quite sure how to navigate around yet. Will try and contact Joe upon my return. Wish me luck! Feel like a kid at christmas..HA! Thanks for the response.
Joe Kriz	#4  Posted on 08/09/07 - 5:18 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	kajan, The 1996 to 1999 Outrage 17' II is a good boat. As Jeff mentions, it is not a Classic model however. It has a much better ride than the Classic Montauk or other 16'/17' hulls. It even has as good a ride or better than the Classic Outrage 18' hull. Especially in rough conditions. As with any boat, there are pluses and minuses..... I moved up to a 1997 Outrage 17' II from my 1978 Montauk... Big difference... The only thing for me is I found out I preferred the Classics with the Teak so I sold the Outrage 17' II and purchased a Classic Outrage 18'.... Whatever Floats Your Boat.... Good Luck and let us know what you buy.
Royboy	#5  Posted on 08/10/07 - 6:52 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 127 Comments: 2 Joined: 04/23/07	I have a 1999 model and I like it a lot. It handles the slop well and is about as dry as a boat gets. I did find that it was sensitive to stern weight (mine has the 135 optimax at 492 lbs) and tends to porpoise with a full tank of gas. Installing Smart Tabs (or full trim tabs) mostly solves this. I rarely run with a full tank, however because it is just not necessary and depending on who is with me the scuppers may be underwater along with the aftmost portion of deck. I have heard of one late 90's model needing a new fuel tank due to corrosion. I'd have to describe the ride as "Sporty". When it's rough you need to be hanging on, but this is true of most any boat. I had to buy a full sized truck to tow it with, but we tow a lot. My 6 cyl Ranger was not really up to the task. It's quite a 17 footer though, and we love ours. Great fishing platform for two or three people. Four is a little tight for fishing, unless one just drives.
egly69	#6  Posted on 02/25/08 - 7:56 AM
Member Posts: 9 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/27/06	Hi to all, I have an outrage 17' II (1997) and I'd like to know if it's better a 150 Hp (4 stroke) or a 115 hp (4 stroke)? Is it too heavy the 150hp? Many thanks for your help. Best regards. Egly
SkipS	#7  Posted on 02/26/08 - 12:44 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 9 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/19/07	Kajan, I have the exact same boat with a 150 Johnson on back. I was lucky enough to purchase the boat locally in Michigan. I use it as a family vehicle and it is a pretty smooth ride. On large rollers - it can be up and down ride but good for a small boat. I tow it locally with a 6 cyl Nissan and do not have a power problem. We usually launch on an inland lake and motor out to Lake Michigan to spend the summer afternoons on the water. Let us know if you picked it up! Skip
egly69	#8  Posted on 02/27/08 - 6:02 AM
Member Posts: 9 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/27/06	Dear friends, I live in Venice, Italy, and in the log-book it's written that I can use up to 420 lb (max 110 kW/150 hp)...and any 4 stroke are about 474 lb. Is it the same in USA?