---

I have a 1978 Montauk. My Dad purchased it new. Boat has been stored inside all its life. Lightly used. Its in really good shape. It has a 85 Johnson Seahorse. I purchased a new trailer for it (Original one was beyond repair). Now I'm ready to repower it. Im leaning toward a 90 HP engine. Weight between 70 hp and 90 hp is pretty close. Can anyone convince me why I shouldnt go with the 90 hp? And I'm leaning toward Suzuki. If anyone has experience with newer model Suzuki's, I would like to hear your experiences with them. Thanks!

---

Hard to beat the weight of the Yamaha F70 at 253 pounds.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5

90hp motors weigh considerably more and are more expensive.

Does anyone really use the full potential of a 90hp on a Montauk?
Not very many days that you can really open up a 90hp on a Montauk or a 70hp for that matter.

---

Joe gives good advice above.

When you say "weight between 70 hp and 90 hp is pretty close", that may be true of certain makes, such as Suzuki who bases both those engines off the same 1.5L block. Merc is sthe same, as their 75-90-115 hp engines share a common 2.1L platform and are all the same weight.

To see some weight savings, your search should include 70 HP engines that are not from the same platform as their 90 hp stable mates. The Yamaha 70 that Joe mentioned is a perfect example of this. It's still 4-cylinders, but it only displaces roughly 1.0L so it is much lighter.

It might be worth your time to read several relatively recent threads discussing re-power options for the classic Montauk 17:

http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...d_id=24036

http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...pid=152624

---

All the 90 hp motors weigh about the same. Going to a 70 will reduce the weight by about 100 pounds. I like the Yamahas. I've owned a 30 tiller 2 stroke and a 150 2 stroke. Both good motors. The issue I have with the Yamaha is the pricing. It it worth the $2k extra over the Suzuki. I'm thinking about relocating the battery to under the console to shift that weight off the back end.

---

Going to a Yamaha 70 will reduce the weight by about 100 lbs. The Suzuki 70 won't save you any weight over the 90. If you're dead set on Suzuki, you might as well get the 90 since it's the same weight as their 70.

That said, if I was going to hang that much weight on the transom of a Montauk 17, I'd opt for the 2.1L Merc 90 HP Fourstroke. You get 40% more displacement, a maintenance free valve-train, and user-friendly maintenance features.

Then again, maybe Suzuki is just offering a better deal? Here are Jaco's prices for the Mercs:

Merc 75 ELPT 4S -- $7,120

Merc 90 ELPT 4S -- $7,430

http://jacosmarine.com/mercury-engine...e-pricing/

---

I saw the Jacos link on another post and checked them out. Good pricing, but not sure what all it includes. Plus is at least an 8 hour drive from me.
The Suzuki includes complete rigging, installation, and taxes for $1800 more than the Jacos price. And its just 45 minutes from my home.
I priced out 90, 80, 75, and 70 hp from 7 different dealers. Suzuki was definitely the most competitive. Yamaha and Mercury were at the top cost wise, with Tohatsu in the middle.
I do like the Yamaha. They definitely are good motors.

---

In addition to price and weight, the one significant difference is performance.

A Montauk/16'7 hull running a properly rigged 90 hp with a stainless steel prop with light load and sole occupant will reach 42-46 mph at wide-open-throttle (WOT)

A 70hp motor will reach 37-41 mph.

If you run 75% of the time with 2+ passengers, gear and cover significant distances on the ocean, go with a 90hp. If on lakes/rivers, a 70hp will be fine.

Jacos prices are for new engines in a crate. Rigging is separate. Installation is available. Prices do not include current factory rebates.

---

Since you seem to be leaning toward the engines at the heavier end of the spectrum, one more to consider is the Honda 100. It weighs right in the same range as most of the 90 HP engines, but you get that extra HP bump. And I believe it is still within the HP-rating of the Montauk hull. Might be worth getting a quote?

[Honda is running a good rebate right now. And there is some kind of deal where the rebate gets doubled if the engine is ordered at a boat show: http://marine.honda.com/promotions/po...elebration]

Me, I'd want the 40% extra displacement of the Merc 90 if I was going with the engines in the +/-350lbs range..

---

Of course if one was not dead set on a four stroke, there's the Evinrude ETEC 90 that weighs in at 320 lbs. Decisions ....decisions..

---

I'm sure all options have their benefits. I have the ETEC 90 on my 1988 Montauk and love it.
My brother has a Yamaha 70 on his and also likes it.

---

I repower my 1979 montauk with F70 3 years ago and love it. I choose the F70 because I also run a kicker motor trolling for salmon and did not want the extra weight of a 90hp. My boat does around 35mph though hardly able to that fast in the ocean due to conditions off coast of San Francisco.

---

I went with a 90 Merc 2.1 L, with almost 300 hrs on it now not 1 single issue. Just change oil once a season & lower unit oil. Its almost maintence free.

---

Check out the pictures on my personal page.
Just got my 1978 Montauk 17 back from her re-power. That white Suzuki looks good on the back! Plan on taking out this Saturday for the break in. I'll post results after the excursion.

---

Very nice! I like the white and the motor is not visually large like some of them are.

It looks like you have an aluminum prop on there - hope that's just for trial purposes, as your nice, new motor deserves a quality stainless prop.

---

I bought a 1977 sport (17 foot) last year with a Yamaha 100hp motor. It is a great set up but a lot of motor weight. When I repower I am probably going to drop down to 90 or even 70 hp. It sure is a lot of fun cruising at full speed in the boat, but most of the time with boat traffic on the intercoastals I don’t need or want the higher speeds. In addition my teens are starting to use the boat and they certainly don’t need to go that fast. Hopefully the motor will last a lot longer though.

Some days when I’m the only boat out on flat water it sure is fun though.

---

Hungerwater - Where are you from in SC? My wife and I are going to run the intracoastal from Georgetown to Southport in a few weeks. I've done it before. Its a fun little trip.

---

Hampton Hager - I live in Greenville, SC. Most of my boating time is on the intercoastal around Sunset Beach, NC. Very familiar with the trip from Sunset to Southport. I haven’t headed towards Georgetown yet but that is on my list. My boat is in the garage now about 2/3 of the way through a re-do and custom update. HOpefully I’ll be back on the water by mid July. Have a great trip. Hit Provision Company in Holden on your trip. Maybe some day my boat will be done and I can meet you out on the water.

---

Hampton Hager: The photographs you posted of your new outboard show bolts securing the engine to the transom using only the upper bolt holes in the engine bracket. Your outboard was not installed properly. Check out the various articles on the website to learn more about proper outboard installation, e.g., Standard Engine Bolt Pattern vs. Blind Holes. http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=82

---

Good eye there - that is an UNSAFE installation and the boat should not be operated until that is corrected.

---

Hampton -

You have a great boat. A few suggestions:

The mounting position is very conservative. Since you need to address the mounting, I strongly urge you to raise the motor at least 2 holes. See http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...cle_id=106

Bilge hose routing - I see the hose is routed through a hole made in the splashwell back wall. If there is any foam/wood exposed, that is ill advised and should be sealed up. Many members route the hose either up and over the splashwell wall or route the bilge hose with the steering cable

In doing a search of the archives, I found a decent thread between a member with a classic Montauk 17 and a DF90. The recomended prop is the Suzuki 14x18. Note the prop rattle is solved with a different hub insert. http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...ost_110090

Once you have resolved the mounting issues, please provide some performance numbers (in a new thread). Members will want to know for future reference when considering repowering.

---

I have a similar generation Montauk to yours, and I agree with the others on engine mounting. These boats have a shallow engine well, and the standard 8" vertical separation between top and bottom bolt sets can not be accommodated. This is what evidently confused your installer.

As mentioned, instead use the 6-1/2" vertical separation, accomplished by putting the bottom bolts in the top holes, and top bolts in the THIRD set of holes from top (two empty holes above the bolt). This will allow the bottom bolts to come through the transom and receive washers and nuts. These bottom bolts should go in from the outside. This will effectively raise the engine 1-1/2" instead of Whaler's recommended 3/4". Whaler never recommended the engine be all the way down on the transom. Performance will be improved and you should not get any prop slippage, even with an aluminum prop.

See linked photo of mine. The bottom bolts don't show in the picture but they are there.
For $25, the stiffener bar across the top bolts is a good idea with a heavy engine.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/l...Gc=/?ref=1

Phil is right about the bilge pump hole in the splashwell. That definitely should be filled in. The discharge hose can be bundled up with the engine rigging to dump over the transom. If you look at my photo, you can see the 90 degree clear "L" fitting just above the fuel bulb.
Black hose makes it disappear in the rigging bundle.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/l...Gc=/?ref=1

---

Thanks for the responses. Currently the motor is located in the 2nd hole from the top of the motor bracket. The only way I can have a bolt in both the top and bottom and lower blind hole is to mount all the way up in the bottom hole on the motor. That would be raising it 2.25". I was very squeamish about using a lag bolt on the bottom. The current 2.25" separation had good transom wood, and I felt good about mounting the second set of bolts here.Wish I had the sketch showing the bent/cut washers next to the well curve. That would have given me more thought. I am good with moving the motor all the way up. How will this affect performance? Performed break in on Saturday. 38 mph @ 5600 RPM's with the aluminum prop. We searched hard for vibration. Couldn't find any.
The hole in the well that carries the bilge hose was cut in by the dealer that sold my father the boat new. It had a plastic sleeve that cracked and I removed it. I was informed by someone on whalercentral this wasn't a common way to route the bilge hose. Nonetheless, it was done. I purchased a 3" hard plastic cup holder from West Marine, cutting the bottom out to fit. Used some silicone caulk. Came out really good and is all sealed up.
Also, earlier someone had posted that the motor was sitting on the transom. Since then their post has been edited. FYI - There is more than an inch from the transom to the bottom of the bracket.

---

What are the performance advantages of a properly installed outboard on a Boston Whaler Montauk 17?

Less draft.
Less drag.
Better economy.
Faster hole shot.
Faster top end performance.
Lighter steering.

---

Hampton, no one is telling you to use lag bolts or to use the blind holes. If you read the article posted earlier carefully, you'll see the best option is to drill the green holes and mount the motor high, which is better in your situation anyway.

Yours is not the first motor I have seen mounted that way, but I continue to believe that it's simply unsafe to have the bolts that close together, concentrating all the stress on a small area of the transom.

With the motor mounted higher, you'll immediately notice lighter and more responsive steering, and increased effect from motor trim changes.