|
2002 Montauk 170 Repower
|
| Rappahannock |
Posted on 09/03/18 - 4:28 PM
|
Member
Posts: 3
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/03/18
|
Looking for suggestions to replace my 4 stroke 90 hp. Mercury. Is a 70 or 80 hp enough power? The Merc has been good but it is heavy.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 09/03/18 - 5:07 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
2002 was a transitional year of the Montauk hulls.
Do you have the older hull or the newer Accutrack hull?
Montauk 17' (older hull)
http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...lbum_id=14
Montauk 170 (newer Accutrack hull)
http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...hoto_id=41
Here are some current choices on motors
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5
Let us know which hull you have so we can help you better.
|
| |
|
|
| Rappahannock |
Posted on 09/03/18 - 5:33 PM
|
Member
Posts: 3
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/03/18
|
Newer hull, Joe.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 09/03/18 - 6:14 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
OK.
I would go with a 90 hp or 90 H.O. hp.
That hull is rated for a max hp of 90 and would not go any less.
Anything less would probably not be enough power for the newer hull.
|
| |
|
|
| Rappahannock |
Posted on 09/03/18 - 7:14 PM
|
Member
Posts: 3
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/03/18
|
Thanks. Maybe the lighter new engines will not seem so overwhelming. The 90 hp Merc feels heagy on the transom.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 09/04/18 - 4:12 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Rappahannock wrote:
Thanks. Maybe the lighter new engines will not seem so overwhelming. The 90 hp Merc feels heagy on the transom.
You have an older generation of Merc 90 Fourstroke.
The current Merc 90 Fourstroke is an all-new design compared to yours. It is MUCH lighter (359 lbs), and more powerful with higher displacement (2.1L). It is also a very good value (you can look up the price online at Ed's Marine Superstore in Ashland.)
By sticking with Merc, you will take a lot of weight off your transom and save money both in the purchase price of the engine as well as rigging savings (you can re-use your existing rigging.)
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 09/04/18 - 4:26 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Having driven that boat, I agree, would not go less than max power. In my opinion, the boat felt underpowered even with the 90. Staying with Merc to use the existing rigging makes sense. I note that the Merc 115 is the same weight, just as food for thought.
What did the old motor weigh?
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 09/04/18 - 8:01 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Tedious makes a good point. The Merc 115 Fourstroke is the same weight as the 90 (they are essentially the same engine tuned for different hp ratings.)
But as I recall, the max hull rating for your Montauk 170 is 90 hp. So while the 115 would not add any weight, you’d have to consider the implications of going over the max hp rating. (The very latest 2018+ Montauk 170 has a higher hp rating (115) and uses a 25” shaft engine.)
The good news is that the current Merc 90 Fourstroke is not only lighter, but has a lot more grunt than your old 90 owing to about 40% more displacement.
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 09/04/18 - 9:35 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
The rating for the Montauk 170 I is ridiculously low given it is the same LOA as the classic Montauk 17 but is wider and significantly heavier.
Don't fret going to a 115. One of the first owners of a Montauk 170, Barney, did this exact thing way back in 2004. Very smart move.
If you insure, check they don't have an issue. If they do, find a different carrier. There are many that will insure. And, no, it is not against the law.
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
| |
|
