160 Dauntless Engine Height - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  160 Dauntless Engine Height

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   160 Dauntless Engine Height

mikemdd posted 06-16-2009 02:58 PM ET (US)
I have followed for some time numerous threads about props and engine height, generally, on various Whaler models. However, rarely do the posts reference the engine height and props in the same posting. My interest is specifically for the later model 160 Dauntless. From past postings, I have a good idea on what props people are using for this specific model.
I have the newest Merc 115 HP Four Stroke engine (Veridito?), currently mounted in the second hole down. I am raising the engine two holes, putting it in the 4th hole down (ie one hole from the highest level). I also have a Trophy Plus 17P four bladed prop, repitched to around 16P to keep the rpms at WOT at the 5800 - 6400 rpm target when trimmed out.
I am interested, as reference, in hearing specifically from later model 160 Dauntless owners how high you have your engines mounted, along with your observations.
Thanks
Mike

Jefecinco posted 06-16-2009 07:21 PM ET (US)
One hole from the highest hole. Don't know if my 1999 Dauntless 16 qualifies as a later model but the hull design, AFAIK, is unchanged from my model to the 2009 model except for the minor existence of the "notch".
The easy way to find out is to try it. Simple, easy, and no cost.
Butch
Marlin posted 06-16-2009 09:32 PM ET (US)
My 160 with its Mercury 115 4-stroke (older one with the Yamaha powerhead) was delivered in the lowest position. I moved it one hole up, and it noticeably reduced porpoising. When I switched from the Vengeance to the Trophy Plus, I went one additional hole higher. That worked out pretty well too, but when I switch to the ski prop (a Black Max aluminum) it was way too high, so I went back to one hole up from the lowest.
-Bob
mikemdd posted 06-16-2009 10:06 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the replies. It seems that the 160 Dauntless generally requires a higher engine position to control porposing due to how low it sits at the stern. Of course, prop choice is a big factor also. The repitched 4 blade Trophy Plus prop (based on Marlin's excellent writeups a while back) made a big difference in planing speed, but I still had to play with the trim level way too much. I considered raising one hole only, but thought I would go all the way and try 2 straight away. I am encouraged that my new setting seems to be the same as Butch's. Will see how it works next week.
Mike
mikemdd posted 07-01-2009 01:37 PM ET (US)
Got the boat on the water after raising the engine this last weekend. All I can say is....unbelievable. It is like a totally different boat. As background:
- 2007 160 Dauntless
- 115HP Mercury 4 stroke (newest model)
- Trophy Plus 4 blade stainless prop, repitched from 17 to around 15+
- Engine height 4 holes down...one hole from the highest setting (original height at 2 holes down).
Key differences by raising the height:
1) Boat now gets on plane in half the time as before
2) Stays on plane at around 3200 rpm at around 18 mph, depending on water conditions
3) Before, I had to trim the engine constantly to maximize efficiency but prevent porpoising. Now, I need to trim very little and porpoising is virtually non-existant.
4) Gained around 200 - 250 rpm. Now I can reach 6100 rpm at WOT, vs. only 5800 before (maximum for this engine is 6400 rpm)
5) Zero prop blow out, even under really nasty conditions.
Again, my expectations were exceeded. It is hard to believe how just moving the engine up a couple of holes (2 inches?) makes such a big difference.
Mike
chuck130 posted 07-01-2009 02:47 PM ET (US)
I have the 230 Dauntless which is an incredible ride but the trim tabs do make a big difference. It has the split bow rail in the front which is great. It was offered at no extra charge choosing standard rail or split rail.
Chuck
chuck130 posted 07-01-2009 08:43 PM ET (US)
Sorry my post was intended for the 200 dauntless inquiry.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 160 Dauntless Engine Height
mikemdd	posted 06-16-2009 02:58 PM ET (US) I have followed for some time numerous threads about props and engine height, generally, on various Whaler models. However, rarely do the posts reference the engine height and props in the same posting. My interest is specifically for the later model 160 Dauntless. From past postings, I have a good idea on what props people are using for this specific model. I have the newest Merc 115 HP Four Stroke engine (Veridito?), currently mounted in the second hole down. I am raising the engine two holes, putting it in the 4th hole down (ie one hole from the highest level). I also have a Trophy Plus 17P four bladed prop, repitched to around 16P to keep the rpms at WOT at the 5800 - 6400 rpm target when trimmed out. I am interested, as reference, in hearing specifically from later model 160 Dauntless owners how high you have your engines mounted, along with your observations. Thanks Mike
Jefecinco	posted 06-16-2009 07:21 PM ET (US) One hole from the highest hole. Don't know if my 1999 Dauntless 16 qualifies as a later model but the hull design, AFAIK, is unchanged from my model to the 2009 model except for the minor existence of the "notch". The easy way to find out is to try it. Simple, easy, and no cost. Butch
Marlin	posted 06-16-2009 09:32 PM ET (US) My 160 with its Mercury 115 4-stroke (older one with the Yamaha powerhead) was delivered in the lowest position. I moved it one hole up, and it noticeably reduced porpoising. When I switched from the Vengeance to the Trophy Plus, I went one additional hole higher. That worked out pretty well too, but when I switch to the ski prop (a Black Max aluminum) it was way too high, so I went back to one hole up from the lowest. -Bob
mikemdd	posted 06-16-2009 10:06 PM ET (US) Thanks for the replies. It seems that the 160 Dauntless generally requires a higher engine position to control porposing due to how low it sits at the stern. Of course, prop choice is a big factor also. The repitched 4 blade Trophy Plus prop (based on Marlin's excellent writeups a while back) made a big difference in planing speed, but I still had to play with the trim level way too much. I considered raising one hole only, but thought I would go all the way and try 2 straight away. I am encouraged that my new setting seems to be the same as Butch's. Will see how it works next week. Mike
mikemdd	posted 07-01-2009 01:37 PM ET (US) Got the boat on the water after raising the engine this last weekend. All I can say is....unbelievable. It is like a totally different boat. As background: - 2007 160 Dauntless - 115HP Mercury 4 stroke (newest model) - Trophy Plus 4 blade stainless prop, repitched from 17 to around 15+ - Engine height 4 holes down...one hole from the highest setting (original height at 2 holes down). Key differences by raising the height: 1) Boat now gets on plane in half the time as before 2) Stays on plane at around 3200 rpm at around 18 mph, depending on water conditions 3) Before, I had to trim the engine constantly to maximize efficiency but prevent porpoising. Now, I need to trim very little and porpoising is virtually non-existant. 4) Gained around 200 - 250 rpm. Now I can reach 6100 rpm at WOT, vs. only 5800 before (maximum for this engine is 6400 rpm) 5) Zero prop blow out, even under really nasty conditions. Again, my expectations were exceeded. It is hard to believe how just moving the engine up a couple of holes (2 inches?) makes such a big difference. Mike
chuck130	posted 07-01-2009 02:47 PM ET (US) I have the 230 Dauntless which is an incredible ride but the trim tabs do make a big difference. It has the split bow rail in the front which is great. It was offered at no extra charge choosing standard rail or split rail. Chuck
chuck130	posted 07-01-2009 08:43 PM ET (US) Sorry my post was intended for the 200 dauntless inquiry.