Page 1 of 1

1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:21 am
by Gater

[Give me your] opinion for re-powering a [1997] Outrage 24.

The boat currently has twin Mercury OptiMax 225-HP engine, which [at 450-HP] is 50-HP over the [maximum power] rating. I also think [the twin OptiMax 225-HP engine are] too much weight.

Should I [re-power] with twins?

Or use a single 300-HP?

I was told the the Suzuki 175-HP engines work well for this hull. The best I can tell there is only 2-lbs difference in the 225 OptiMax and the 175 Suzuki. Right now the transom scuppers stay under water when I think they should float out of the water. I would normally make about six offshore trips a year out 20 to 50 miles on the Texas coast.

Down the road if I wanted to sell would a single engine hurt me?

Let me hear what you think.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:56 am
by Phil T
A decision like this has, in my view, 4 parts:

Twins or Single
Brand of Motor(s)

If you go offshore you should really have twins or a decent kicker.

Horsepower - Being over the rating is not a concern. It only applies to the manufacturer at the time of first sale. If you want to reduce the weight to get the scuppers clear, that may solve your hp ? Do you need the maneuverability of twins?

Pricing may also be a determining factor. The price of a 300 with a kicker is far cheeper than twin 175's or is it?

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:51 am
by Jefecinco
New Verado or [Evinrude E-TEC] G2 engines, like any of the new engines, are extremely reliable. We see a lot of offshore boats here in coastal Alabama with single engines. I believe the most realistic possibility of a problem with these engines is because of a starting battery failure. This concern is virtually eliminated with a pair of properly set up AGM batteries. The next most likely problem would be fuel related. I carry extra filters in case of fuel problems.

Resale and the twin vs single question seems to be very regional. Do you see offshore boats in Texas with single engines?

Weight is something you'll need to investigate carefully. Advertised weights seem to leave out rigging, power steering pumps, and fluids. I believe the steering pump for the OMC G2 is integral to the engine.

A single will save a lot of money to purchase and maintain.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:59 am
by Acseatsri
I have a 1993 23 WALKAROUND, which I believe is the same hull as yours, with a single 2013 Honda BF250, re-powered from old twin 150-HP Oceanrunner engines. I get near 3-MPG at any speed below 30-MPG and below 4500-RPM--literally burns half the fuel as the twins. I lost 6-MPH going from 300 to 250-HP, 47-MPH to 41-MPH.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:04 pm
by Gater
Thanks for the responses, keep them coming.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:37 pm
by msirof2001
I repowered my 1995 OUTRAGE 21 with a Yamaha F200 XB four cycle, four cylinder. On mine, minimum horsepower rating was 150, maximum was 300. Originally, I had a Yamaha 2-cycle 200 TXRT. Performance was similar with better mid-range power with the F200 XB, more hole-shot (power from a standing position) with the 2-cycle. I studied your boat and almost purchased one in Oct 1994 when I got the OUTRAGE 21. It has a dry weight of 3300lbs without engines and a 195 gallon fuel tank. It has a minimum 200 HP rating and maximum 400 HP. Knowing that boat, and mine, we both have very large fuel tanks. Decent bait tanks, deep-V accutrack hulls, and can accommodate a lot of weight. My 21 was rated for 11 people.

For these reasons, I would recommend staying near the maximum HP rating. I love the Yamaha 200XB. For me, it weighs 486lbs and the 2-cycle 200 weighed 435. Adding 51lbs to the transom was negligible. I went from 2mpg at cruise with the 2-cycle 200 to over 4mpg with the 4-cycle. Knowing both boats, and having over 5000 hours experience with the OUTRAGE 21, if it were me, I would go with twin Yamaha F200XB hands down. My second choice may be a single Yamaha 350. I think you'll add 100lbs to the transom with the twin F200 XBs, get great mileage and reliability. I like the Yamaha Reliance SDS (no-clunk) prop.

That is what I would do.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:48 pm
by jimh
If you run the boat 50-miles offshore, troll offshore, and return 50-miles to port, and you do this six times per year, I would get twin engines. You will be running over 100-miles and spending hours fishing 50-miles at sea. That is not the best situation for a single engine boat. If you only go 20-miles offshore, that is a different situation. A single engine is more acceptable at that range from shore.

When you are 20-miles from shore you are still in the U.S. Coast Guard primary VHF radio coverage zone, and if you were in distress you should be able to make VHF Marine Band radio contact with the Coast Guard. At 20-miles offshore they would probably come to your aid, rather than dispatch a commercial towing boat like they do if you are 1-mile from shore. At 50-miles from shore you are effectively cut off from radio contact with shore via VHF Marine Band radio and also via UHF Cellular Mobile Telephone service. You'd need an HF Marine Radio to have reliable radio coverage to shore at 50-miles, and even that could be spotty and subject to vagaries in radio propagation. Or maybe a satellite phone. At 50-miles out you need to be very self-reliant--you need more than one propulsion engine.

I don't know what you find 50-miles off the Texas coast. If there were a fleet of recreational boats out there fishing every day, maybe you could go out with a single engine and get a good samaritan tow back if there were a failure. Or maybe someone could relay a distress call to shore.

Since you are accustomed to having 450-HP on the transom, moving down to 300-HP will probably not be seen as an improvement in performance. Your top speed will drop about 20-percent. Going to twin 175-HP engines reduces power to 350-HP from 450-HP. I also suspect that the four-stroke-power-cycle Suzuki engine won't have a power band as wide as the OptiMax engines. Top speed will be reduced and acceleration will probably not be as good.

If you re-power with twin engines, I recommend testing to see if the boat can get on-plane with only one of the engines running and in the water. If you cannot get on plane with one engine of a twin engine rig, and you are 50-miles offshore, you are looking at a very long and slow return to port at the typical off-plane speeds a boat with a short waterline.

Going to a single engine from twin engines will cause the boat's handling to be different. Another problem with going to a single from twins will be the transom mounts and rigging. You will have to repair the holes in the transom from the twins and make new holes for the single. The steering may also need to be modified or updated. And the gauges and controls will need refitting. However, you will save a bundle with a single engine re-power compared to twin engines.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:34 pm
by msirof2001
I was out in Newport Beach (Newport harbor) yesterday in my new Everglades 295cc and saw a couple of these Orange County Sheriff Boston Whaler [JUSTICE 24] patrol boats. See this article:

The [JUSTICE 24] is the commercial version, still available at least in 2014, of the old 1993 to 1997 OUTRAGE 24. I looked at the specs of both the [JUSTICE 24] boat and the 1993-1997 Outrage 24, and the only notable difference is [the JUSTICE 24] has a 125-gallon fuel tank and the 1993-1997 Outrage 24 has a 195-gallon fuel tank. Everything else looks the same.

These [JUSTICE 24] sheriff boats have twin Yamaha 200XB Four-cylinder, four-stroke-power-cycle engines--the same as the single engine I had on my Outrage 21 and the same as what I was recommending in an earlier post in this thread. In my opinion, twin Yamaha F200XB engines would be a good choice for the 1993 to 1997 Outrage 24. Again, each engine is 486-lbs which is 51-lbs heavier than the Yamaha two-stroke-power-cycle engines available in 1993 to 1997--[or a total of] 102-lbs considering twins. The Orange County Sheriff seems okay with this setup.

Hope all goes well.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:56 am
by jimh
[In another thread GATER asked for advice on engine mounting height if re-powering with twin Suzuki 175-HP engines. I moved his question here to follow up on his original thread and keep responses about PERFORMANCE in this forum.]

Gater wrote: I’m going to be re-powering with twin Suzuki 175-HP engine. What mounting hole would be the best?

I suggest you start your performance testing with the twin engines mounted one-hole-up. It is hard to predict the "best" engine mounting height for a particular boat, engine, and propeller combination, but one-hole-up is a good starting point.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:57 pm
by Acseatsri
Just curious, did you look at the Suzuki 350 horsepower? At about 750 lbs with props, about 250 lbs lighter, and with the duo-prop arrangement, torque steer should be minimal or non-existent, as well as the duo-prop drive being about 15% more efficient than a conventional lower unit. You could add a high-thrust kicker and still come out lighter than the twins and get better fuel mileage.

With the high reliability of today's engines, I wouldn't fear going 50 miles out with the single, but I also run very conservatively both to conserve fuel and engine longevity. And I would bet that any day you'll be running that distance to fish, there will surely be a small fleet within radio distance.

For me, the additional maintenance and cost of twins would be detrimental to the resale value of the boat.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:03 pm
by Acassidy
In regards to going offshore with twins in Texas: most offshore boats in Galveston, Texas, are larger than a c.1990 Outrage [24] and have two to five engines on them. A 24-foot offshore boat is considered small in Texas nowadays.

Most 23 to 25-foot boats around here have single outboards on them. I think that has more to do with manufactures more than anything. Many 23 to 25 boats nowadays do not even accommodate two outboards. Maybe a big 300 to 350-HP on the back of a boat is sexier than twin 150-HP engines. And a lot of these new boats around here are super-sexy--and super-expensive. A 24-foott boat around here is really considered a bay boat, and I have never seen twins on a bay boat. Most bay boats are 20 to 25-feet.

I own a 1995 Outrage 24, and even though it is big in my driveway it is usually one of the smaller boats on the water. I have a Yamaha 250-HP on mine.

I only fish Galveston bay and do not go offshore. Most boats in Texas offshore waters do have multiple outboard engines but for a different reason. They are big boats and need the power.


Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:15 am
by Pjwelch73
I have a 1994 OUTRAGE 24 [with] a new VERADO FOURSTROKE 350-HP on a Bob's Machine Shop jack plate with 6-inch setback. The propeller is a ENERTIA ECO with 16.5-pitch and 16-inch-diameter.

On flat water with calm wind, with a bimini, two people and 60-gallons of fuel:

  • [best fuel economy] is 3-nautical-miles-per-gallon at [an engine speed of] 3,850-RPM;
  • top [boat speed is] 41-nautical-miles-per-hour at 6,100-RPM.

When trimmed for heavy chop and depending on wind, [fuel economy is then] about 1.9 to 2.6-nautical-miles-per-gallon.

Does anyone [reading this thread] have a similar setup?

Tomorrow [December 31, 2018] I am ripping out the 195-gallon fuel tank to put in a Moeller plastic 142-gallon, which should shave 200-lbs.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:06 am
by jimh
Pjwelch73 wrote:... propeller is a ENERTIA ECO with 16.5-pitch...

The Mercury website does not list an ENERTIA ECON with a 16.5-inch pitch. It does show a 18.5-inch pitch. How were you able to get a Mercury ENERTIA ECO propeller is 16.5-inch pitch?

Compare at:

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:11 pm
by Acassidy
Where did you find the 142-gallon Moeller fuel tank?

What model is it?

I am planning to replace [a fuel tank in another boat] with Moeller tank, but have never seen the 142-gallon model.


Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:16 am
by jimh
Acseatsri wrote:[The boat] lost 6-MPH going from 300 to 250-HP, 47-MPH to 41-MPH.

This is interesting data, and it gives us a chance to test the general theory of boat speed. Most simply, boat speed is a function of the power-to-weight ratio to the 0.5-exponent. We see:

300-HP = 47-MPH
250-HP = 41-MPH

We will assume the total boat weight remained constant. Then we can predict the ratio of speeds from the ratio of the horsepower.

(250/300 )^0.5 = 0.913

This means the predicted new speed would be 47-MPH x 0.913, or 42.9-MPH. The reported new speed is 41-MPH. More speed loss than predicted occurred.

Let's assume the twin 150-HP engines perhaps had a bit more than 150-HP, say 155-HP each, and the 250-HP rated engine is a bit light on power, say, 240-HP, and re-calculate:

(240/310)^0.5 = 0.88
47-MPH x 0.88 = 41.3-MPH

Now the predicted performance is very close to the reported performance. I think this data affirms the general theory of boat speed potential.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:52 pm
by Pjwelch73
Acassidy wrote:Where did you find the 142-gallon Moeller fuel tank? What model is it?

Moeller part number 14202. I think it will fit. [The vendor is MARINE.COM, see:]

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:47 pm
by jimh
At $1,165, I hope it does fit.

Re: 1997 OUTRAGE 24 Re-power

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:47 am
by Acassidy
How did the 142 moeller fit? Did you get it installed? Do you have any picture of the install?

I will be replacing my tank on my 1995 Whaler Outrage Limited. First I have to figure out how to remove a monstrous t-top to move the console to pull the rear deck. I pulled the rear tank deck on my mine summer before last and re-cored it with Marine grade fir. Now that it is stiff and strong I must move the console to get it back out!

I am considering removing the T-top permanently because it is so big. Also I like to look of an open deck. And it is easier to fish front with out it.

Thanks a lot,