---

My crew is growing, and in a few year's my sport 15' will be too small, I was thinking of moving up to the 17' Montauk w/ the standard 90 HP package. The fuel consumption of a "Sport 13", and a "Sport 15'" is about the same 4-5 gallon's a day (depending on driving habit's, distance, etc.). I'm figuring that the fuel consumption should be about 2x that of the "Sport 15", on a 17' Montauk because, of the big leap in size between the 15' and 17' models (wider, longer, heavier), it's much more boat than the sport 15', would this assumption be correct ? I'm trying to figure out if I can afford it. I keep thinking of the old saying in the boating world "If you have to worry about the price of gas to operate it, YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT". I see other family's of four in 17' Montauk's and figure that in a few years this is where I want to be, the higher sides, and more "Freeboard" on the 17' Montauk is better for the safety of the "Crumb Snatching" crew. Any input is appreciated, Thank's !
mw

---

Montauks are very efficient hulls. The boat slides through water with minimum drag when up and on plane. Boats use the most fuel when they are breaking out from stopped to plane. The transition is where the most resistance is overcome and the most motor work must be done. A properly powered 17' hull will not use much more fuel than what you have now if weight is distributed correctly, the prop is chosen correctly, and the boat is driven correctly.

There is a perverse logic to powering a hull. In an effort to save money on gas, some owners opt for the smaller motors. In effect, they create a situation where the small motor they thought would save them fuel actually winds up burning more fuel because it can not effectively bring the boat to plane and hold it there. If you choose a Montauk, the hull is rated for up to 100 HP. Power your boat within no less than 70% of the rating. The math is easy! Most people now use motors in the 90 HP range, a good mix of efficiency and speed.

I agree with you that a larger boat with a deeper freeboard and rails is better for twirps! You're going to need room for the tube, the skis, the cooler, etc. Been there, done that! :D
Best of luck!
Grady

---

Thank's Grady,

I'm going to start saving, I figure I could swing it in about 2 years, and if I sell my "Sport 15" (ACK), I suggested to "Mrs. mw" that we buy a "Carolina Skiff", they are built just like "Whaler's", I then ran out of the kitchen for fear of my hair being parted by a "Rolling Pin". Thank's again.
mw

---

MW, I am on Long Island also, I usually launch at Captree, if you want we can meet up and you can check out my 86 Montauk. I have a 1987 70hp engine. In my opinion it is the most fuel efficient 2 stroke for this boat. The 90 will have more torque for skiing or tubing but they are gas hogs and weight 100 lbs more. The 70 is looped charged and the 90's are crossflow, loopers are more efficient. I burn about 6 gallons a day running around that area fishing. 4k rpm is the most efficient speed. Send me a PM if you want more info...Rich
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/starrynt/IMG_1356.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/starrynt/IMG_6385.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/starrynt/IMG_1366.jpg[/IMG]

---

MW -

I owned a Montauk prior to my Outrage 17.

Take advantage of spending time in a 17 to evaluate it for your crew. While it is a step up, consider 4 persons (versus 2 adults, 2 children) in the boat.

To add to your mulling, I suggest you also consider an Outrage 18. Reasons? It is a bit heavier than a Montauk (1200 lbs vs 950) but adds a significant amount of space. I also think it will be more comfortable/drier ride for you in the Sound or on the ocean.

Hope it helps.

---

I agree with CBO about an Outrage 18. I bought a 17 Montauk last year and use it primarily in smaller local rivers where it is perfect. However, when I head down the Piscataqua River to Portsmouth, where boat wakes can create pretty good waves on the weekends or I head out to the ocean where seas can be a little rougher, the Montauk can have a very wet and uncomfortable ride. If you are boating on the Sound or anywhere you might run into a lot of boat traffic I'd suggest trying both boats before deciding; especially if you take your family boating with you.

Jack

---

MW, the effiency of the outboard will seal this deal, sure you'll burn more gas with the old carbed engines. I had a 17 with a 80's Merc 115 and would often go to an island the crumb snatchers liked, burned 12 gallons, last year same run with an Opti 150 on the old Outrage burned less than 6 gallons ! Go figure bigger boat cheaper to run= more time on the water ! With a community like this one I'm sure when you ask you'll have a thousand eyes looking for your new vessel, P.S. there's one near my house now ,1977 and sweet.

---

Smart woman that Mrs MW! ;)

There is a mystique associated with the Whalers that no Carolina Skiff is ever going to match. Moms want their kids kept safe. They KNOW what a Whaler is. You are not going to talk her out of this one buddy. Now, go and tell her that for another one foot of length, she can have them even safer, dryer and more comfortable. While I love my 17' Montauk as a fishing boat and could go on talking about it forever, I raised my family in Grady White boats. Why? Because they are big, strong, super safe battlecruisers. My wife need not concern herself with the safety of her offspring. Our family boats have been substantially larger than Montauks.

CBO picked up on this point, and I think it's a good one. We can find you a nice one of those which again, powered and piloted correctly will not break the fuel budget. There's even more room, higher sides, and Mom still gets the chainsaw proof boat she has in mind! I would personally give consideration to this if I were again looking for a family sedan boat and wanted to stay with the BW line.

Just food for thought. I know you're just toying with ideas right now. Keep posting and we'll get you 100 perfectly good opinions to choose from. Great group here.

Best of Luck,
Grady

---

I have a 79 Montauk w/ 70 HP 2 stroke that is pretty efficient. Only have a 12 galloon tank but can make it most of one weekend under normal use of local fishing in the Hudson. I love the Montauk and also have a Bertram 28 FBC (let's not talk about fuel costs here....), and that makes me agree on that person's suggestion to check out an Outrage 18, will handle the growing family, the sound/ ocean better, more storage and up to 3x gas capacity.

---

last fall i sold my 15 which i owned for 15 years and purchased an 86 montauk with a 99 yamaha 2-S. the 15 was under powered with a 30 evinrude but suited my needs. anyway with the 15 i always ran at full throttle at 23 mph. with the montauk i cruise at 28 mph @ 3900 rpm's. i don't have an accurate method to measure fuel consumption but i think my gallons per hour are about the same because with the 30 i was always at WOT.
the montauk is certainly more child friendly because the kids have more room to move around. i don't see a whole lot of difference in the ride but because i can stand up now my back sure feels better after a day on the boat. if you fish the montauk is a definite thumbs up.
good luck,ric

---

All great opinions and facts. I love my 17 and love most everything about it. That being said, I already find myself looking at 18 outrages when they pop up. I think I do my boating in the same area as you MW, and it can get kinda snotty in the bay. You will be very happy with a montauk, but you cant rule out the 18 either. I was alittle surprised by the amount of fuel my 1995 mariner 90 2 stroke burned last summer after I got it all going. But I think part of that was cause I had an issue with one of the carbs. I am only running 2 6 gallon portable tanks because of the flexibilty it gives me. Now with the ever rising gas prices I am glad I can throw the tanks in my truck and atleast go to the station. Good cocktail conversation.
:p

---

Well I'm convinced ! I've read everyone's reply (multiple times), and clearly I feel that the 17' Montauk is in order, I would LOVE the "Outrage" but, I think I can only swing the 17' (I will still be on the lookout of a deal on an outrage). Mrs. MW has really taken to love boating over the past few years ( this is purely because, of B.W's reputation ), When I 1st got the Whaler, I got "one of those looks", and figured maybe she'll tolerate it, she really liked the "Chain saw" trick when she saw it, and can now explain in detail "Unibond" construction when discussing boats, so she's totally "On Board" for a 17' Whaler. I'm sure that the kid's will be much safer in this model too. My goal is too come up with the cash, and purchase a 17' from another WC member, I would also like to sell my boat to another WC member when the time comes, I would like to THANK everyone for their input and time on my question, the "Whaler community" is a wonderful one, and "W/C' is a "God send". One of my FAVORITE Whaler memory's was one time out on the bay, I was "Chasing a 13' footer around, and a 17' model, 22' model, and another 13' joined in the "FUN", nobody knew ea. other and we "sprayed and played" like a bunch of Dolphins for about 15-20 minutes, leap frogging ea. other and just having a BLAST "SAFELY" up on the "Flats" at high tide with plenty of room. It broke off as fast as it started, and everyone just went on their way grinning and waving.

rfilglia: I would love to hook up for a blast around the Bay, will drop you a line when in the water.
CBO: An "outrage" would be a "TRUE SCORE" for me.
Capnj: Good Point about the ocean, and the "Outrage"
Scrimshaw: They love "Island Hopping", great point.
Grady95: My friend has the 25' Grady White CC with twin 150 Yammy's and crash bars, I never felt unsafe in that boat, ya right, it does feel like a battleship going down the Canal.
C Capio: Thank's for the fuel info., and "Berty's" are a top of the line "Boat", do they still advertise them with no price ? (If ya gotta ask, ya can't afford a "Berty").
Catboat: Thank you for the comparison to the 15'
Egerrity: I see that you know your "L.I Bays", it does get "Snotty", keep me in mind if you find an Outrage that you like.

Thank You all !
mw

---

MW,

I have a 1994 Montauk with a 1994 2 stroke Yamaha 70HP. We are a family of 5, and the Montauk has been a great boat for us. While I have no experience with a 15 Sport, I do have experience with a 1994 13 GLS. The move up to the Montauk was a no brainer. If we use more than 6 gallons of gas in a day, it is the exception, not the norm. I have not found the Montauk to be any more expensive to operate and maintain than the 13 GLS.

All that being said, I would very much like to move up in size, as I do most of my fishing in the Raritan Bay/Sandy Hook area, and a larger boat would increase the number of days I can get out, as well as the number of friends I can bring along to split the cost of bait.

Good luck.

Dan

---

I have had my 17 for a couple years now and have a wife and 2 children (3 and 7) that fit in the boat easily. The rails are a great addition and the ride is fine under normal conditions. I have a 90 Ocean Pro that pushes the boat a comfortable 30 mph at 3500 rpm and burns around 5 mpg. I love the boat but just bought a 19 outrage that I am picking up on Saturday. I am going to keep the Montauk for another year or two while I get the 19 restored. I love the Montauk but want to move up to carry more load.

---

I've got a '68 16' BW with a 90hp yamaha. I cant speak for other engines but will give you an estimate of fuel use on mine.

I spent a summer commuting to and from work 6kn each way. I worked 5 days a week and used somewhere in the range of 8-10gals/week. This included times when I was late and running WOT dock to dock, times when the fog was so thick I never got above headway speed, and some quick jaunts afterwork and weekends.

Although you can always do better, I am happy with my boat/engine setup. I would NEVER downsize HP and have always wondered how she'd do with a 100hp!

Although not always a smooth ride, the 17' size will handle seas most of us would rather never see.

Goodluck.

---

MW, I sent you an e-mail