1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
boblessing
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:46 pm

1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby boblessing » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:05 pm

My 2005 Suzuki 225 [on an 1989 OUTRAGE 22] just threw a rod, I am looking at re-power options for the boat. In the days of two-stroke-power-cycle outboard engines, [twin 115-HP engines were] a great option for the OUTRAGE 22.

Do [twin Yamaha F115 engines] weigh too much [to be used on an OUTRAGE 22]?

Do [twin Yamaha F115 engines] have the same power [as a single 2005 Suzuki 225]?

Has anyone re-powered an OUTRAGE 22 with twin Yamaha F115 engines?

[This thread has been moved to PERFORMANCE for discussion. The PERFORMANCE forum discusses the performance of Boston Whaler boats--jimh]

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby Phil T » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:41 pm

Bob--if the old motor was DFI and not EFI, you will notice the power band is a more shallow with the EFI motors. You will want to take care when selecting mounting height and propeller selection.

I ran a single F115 on my Outrage and liked it very much. Quiet, reliable, very easy to do DIY maintenance. They are a bit on the heavy side at 405-lbs dry.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

padrefigure
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Texas, Hill Country

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby padrefigure » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:21 am

Twin 115's seem really heavy to me. Plus double maintenance. Unless you are getting a fantastic deal, a single 200 to 225 would be a drastic savings in cost and weight. At least the 1989 has the full width shallow splash well. If you had the old bathtub splash well, I would say twins are out of the question.

But that is just my opinion. Good luck with whatever you choose. Post pictures when you get it done.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby jimh » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:15 am

Several years ago I speculated that use of twin engines of 150-HP or less might become less common as there were 300-HP single engines being produced. Twin 115-HP engines on an OUTRAGE 22 would be an interesting rig. The concern will be with the total transom weight, which should be quite heavy, and if the boat can be pushed onto plane by one engine.

Boston Whaler did not publish any specification for maximum transom weight for an OUTRAGE 22, but they did for the equivalent commercial and government hull, the 22 GUARDIAN. The maximum transom weight was 720-lbs. See

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002449.html

for more discussion on maximum transom weight for older classic Boston Whaler hulls.

According to Yamaha, their F115 outboard engine weighs 377-lbs. Two of them would weigh 754-lbs, just slightly over the recommended maximum transom weight. The 377-lbs figure is for the long-shaft (20-inch) model, which would be appropriate for use on the 22-foot hull in twin engine configuration. Compare at

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/specifications.html#hulls20-22.

To the 754-lbs total weight you should add the two propeller weights, the two hydraulic steering rigging weights, and a few more pounds for the lubricants in the engines. (The manufacturers like to quote the lowest possible weight in their specifications and usually exclude a propeller and lubricants.) I would expect that the total transom weight will be over 800-lbs.

The best indicator of the transom weight load on the hull is perhaps inferred from the position of the engine splashwell drains. The drains in the engine splash well ought to be just at the static water line or just above the static waterline. Otherwise those through-hull openings are not working as drains but as inlets for water to come aboard. I base this analysis on the notion that the designer of the hull must have located the engine splashwell drains on the transom to work as drains, which requires that their outlet not be underwater. That said, however, seeing Boston Whaler classic hulls carrying so much weight on their transom that the engine splashwell drains are submerged at static trim is fairly common.

If you have a twin engine rig on a planing hull boat, and the hull won't plane with just one engine, the utility of twin engines is reduced somewhat. I had a set-up on my 20-foot hull, a REVENGE 20, with twin 70-HP engines. (I bought the boat used and rigged that way.) With a single 70-HP the boat just could not overcome its bow wave and get onto plane. It was close, but a plane was never achieved. With a 22-foot hull and twin 115-HP engines, I suspect that it may be possible to get on plane, but it may require careful selection of the propeller pitch. To get on plane with one engine, the pitch of the propellers might need to be a bit smaller than optimum for two engine operation, if you don't want to change propellers for running on a single engine.

I did run for a short while on another REVENGE--I can't recall if it was a 20 or 22-foot--with twin 90-HP Honda engines. What I remember from that ride along was how quietly the engines ran. They sounded more like electric motors than outboard engines, at least compared to my twin 70-HP classic Yamaha two-stroke-power-cycle outboard engines that made a lot more noise when running. I don't recall if we tried to plane on one engine.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby jimh » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:34 am

Re whether twin 115-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engines will provide as much propulsion power for an OUTRAGE 22 as would a single 225-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engine: I suspect the propulsion power will be close. The single 225-HP may produce a faster top boat speed due to having only one gear case in the water creating drag. A moderate planing hull boat running at its top speed probably has significant drag forces created by the gear case in the water, and having two gear cases should just about double the drag force. With double the drag force of a single engine, the twin engine rig may run slower. The 5-HP advantage of the twin engines is unlikely to overcome the added drag.

boblessing
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:46 pm

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby boblessing » Wed May 17, 2017 10:58 am

Thank you for the feedback. I am sorry for the delayed response. Work has intervened in my efforts, and I have not made any progress on my problem. I am still looking into a twin rig on the 22. Do y'all think twin ETEC 115s would solve the weight problem discussed in the earlier post? I have also wondered about adding a bracket. Does anyone have any suggestions in this regard. I have a friend who has added a bracket to a guardian 22 and likes it. What brackets are available for this aftermarket approach. Is the Whaler bracket available as an "add-on"

Marko888
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:43 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby Marko888 » Wed May 17, 2017 3:55 pm

Guardian 22's had a max transom weight specification of 720 pounds, and many treat this as a good guide for the Outrage/Revenge models.

Also, if your boat has the 129 gallon fuel tank, transom weight is a larger concern due to the fuel load being carried further aft in the boat. If you have the 77 gallon tank, its less of a problem.

The latest Yamaha F115's weigh 377 pounds each, exclusive of oil and propeller, in 20" shaft length, which is what is required for twins on a notched transom Outrage 22. Adding oil and propellers, you'll be approaching 775 pounds on your transom. I don't believe the F115 is available in counter-rotation, so that presents another negative. The E-TEC 115 weighs 405 pounds.

Your Suzuki weighs approximately 600 pounds.

There are many great threads in the archives of the previous Continuouswave forum. I would suggest some searching, as you will find the research very worthwhile. As I own an Outrage Cuddy 22, I've read many of those threads. In summary, most seem to think a big single (lighter the better) plus a 9.9hp kicker, is the way to go on the notched transom 22 hull in order to minimize transom weight, and have the best best performance. Excess weight is the main concern with twins.

Brackets: Whalerdrive boats were built with a full transom. Whalerdrive added 30" of running length to the hull, so require more power to achieve equal speed compared to a notched transom model. Counter-rotating twin engines in the 150hp range are typical. They are said to ride quite nicely but I've not been out in one. The notched transom boats I've seem with an aftermarket bracket, such as an Armstrong, added don't look right to my eye.
Mark
1984 Outrage Cuddy 22

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1989 Outrage 22 Re-power

Postby jimh » Wed May 17, 2017 5:42 pm

To find old posts in the old forum, start here:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/oldForum/