1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:16 pm

1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Postby suede » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:05 am

I have an [1988--please use four digits for years] Outrage 22 Whaler Drive with an [2006 E-TEC 200 H.0. engine with] 25-inch shaft. I need advice on propeller selection.

The engine mounting height is good.

The current propeller is a REBEL Rebel 15-1/2 x 17. The engine can only accelerate 4,900-RPM or maybe to 5,000-RPM down sea and down wind. Engine speed data is via a Lowrence HDS Gen3 via NMEA 2000 and is confirmed on my RPM gauge.

I know my target engine speed for this motor is 5,500 to 5,600-RPM at full throttle.

My hope is improved fuel economy fishing offshore. Currently getting 1.6-MPG, which based on my reading, is abnormally and excessively low. But I have lots of (expensive) data points confirming this.

Based on research estimates of engine RPM changes due to pitch, diameter, number of blades, I used 200-RPM change for each inch of pitch or diameter or number of blade changes. The change in RPM I want to make is +700-RPM.

I'm looking at the Viper 15 x 14, three-blade. I would like to try the four-blade Cyclone 14-1/2 x 15 (but I think it would leave me shy about 200 to 300-RPM. Of course these are based on my approximations for effects.

Is there any real world data on effects with a similar combo out there?

Some additional info about my boat that I think factors in:

I've read a lot and everyone seems to run or suggest a 17-pitch propeller, but that's obviously not working for my boat. My guess is that the foam on this 1988 OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat is totally waterlogged.

In its past life, the previous owner had the OURAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat moored in Newport Beach and a large knot head sea lion lived on it. A big one, like 700-lbs. A lot of the back of the boat would be under water and it was there for years--or so I've heard.

A few years ago I replaced the fuel tank and had to cut a couple holes from the fuel tank well to stern floor compartment, and another hole from that compartment to the rigging tunnel section on the starboard side. During that process, I confirmed the foam is wet. Bummer, but it is what it is. Someday I'll go weigh the boat somehow.

The boat has T-top, 77-gallon fuel tank, 45-gallon bait tank mounted just behind and partially under a leaning post, terrible bottom paint chipping all over the place but stored on a trailer. I usually run with two other guys but hardly makes a difference with fuel economy. I actually have no complaints about power, getting on plane, or top speed. I never run at full speed 40-MPH.

Since the last time I was on here, I've replaced the fuel tank, re-wired the boat, power coated T-top and leaning post, installed new under deck plumbing bait tank, overhauled the teak gunnels and rear hatches with varnish, new electronics, and other minor improvements.

Any advice on a prop would be much appreciated.

I'm also looking for a place that will let me try different props until I'm properly fitted.

I'm in Orange County, California

Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:17 pm

Re: 1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Postby Newportme » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:52 am

Read my prior discussion at

OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive, E-TEC G2 225 H.O.

My [OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat] does not have bottom paint, a T-top, or a bait tank. My boat also has an E-TEC G2 225 H.O. and thus more horsepower. Results from my propeller testing are given in the above thread.

[To summarize the outcome of the testing described in the linked thread above, which is quite a long read, a REBEL 17 worked well on an OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat with an E-TEC G2 225 H.O. engine that was mounted three-holes-up from lowest position, and at full throttle the E-TEC G2 225 H.O. engine accelerated to 5650-RPM and produced a boat speed of 46-MPH.--jimh]

I think REBEL 15-pitch will be the propeller for you.

Also you mentioned that the motor height is good, how high is the motor mounted?

My [engine is mounted in the three-holes up position--as was laboriously determined in a prior discussion in which all sorts of methods were used to describe the engine mounting height; please always describe the engine mounting height in terms of the number of units of 0.75-inch or "holes" the engine in mounted above the lowest position. This method of description is carefully laid out in a fixed article in this forum, Please see ENGINE MOUNTING HEIGHT at http://continuouswave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=739. Please do not use other methods to describe engine mounting height as they just lead to confusion and ambiguity--jimh].

I think [I will increase engine mounting height to four-holes-up] after running the boat for a full season. I am still experiencing some porpoising at the top of the RPM range. I have no loss of water pressure, or any problems with propeller grip in sharp turns or otherwise, so I am going to raise the motor.


Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:33 am

Re: 1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Postby PATXBill » Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:41 am

My boat may be a decent comparison: it is a 1984 Outrage 22 with 128 gallon tank, 1987 Evinrude 225 (this is a 2.7 liter carburetor engine). I found the best results with a 14.25-inch diameter 15-pitch Stilletto brand propeller (now Yamaha).

Loaded down with full tank of gasoline, two people, and supplies for fishing I get 5600 rpm at 42-MPH. I have no bottom paint and no T-top.

The STILETTO 15 pitch made the boat come alive, lifting the stern, getting the bow down, and feel much lighter and more responsive.

Stiletto propellers used to have a reputation as being good value propellers. However, it seems that Yamaha has increased the prices for them as new, Yamaha-branded propellers. However, they can be found on ebay (new old stock or used) for prices that at least make them worth trying and keeping as a spare.

Posts: 6905
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula

Re: 1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Postby jimh » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:30 am

I do not think comparisons to an E-TEC G2 or a carburetor engine are particularly close to your legacy E-TEC 200 H.O.

I do not think comparisons to 22-foot hulls without a Whaler Drive are particularly close to your boat with a Whaler Drive.

suede wrote:Is there any real world data on effects with a similar combo out there?

My boat is an REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive. The hull is the same as the 1988 OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat under discussion. The boat just has the cabin superstructure added, so it is heavier and most of that added weight is forward. The engine is a 2010 E-TEC 225. This engine is very comparable to an E-TEC 200 H.O. (I think the 200 H.O. model was just a way to sell a 225-HP engine to owners of boats with 200-HP maximum limit.)

You may find my data about propeller testing to be of interest. See my most recent tests of a MIRAGEplus 17-pitch and a CYCLONE 17-pitch at

1990 REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive, E-TEC 225

Earlier testing is described in articles at

REVENGE 22 W-T WD with 225-HP, Three Propellers

and at

TURBO Offshore II Series Three-blade

I also have published data on the same boat with an E-TEC 250 H.O. engine. See

Evinrude E-TEC 250 H.O.
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/refere ... 250HO.html

All of this data is "real-world" data I have collected and published. As you mention in your own summary of your reading, a 17-pitch propeller was found to be very good for this application.


Regarding choosing a new propeller for the 1988 OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat with E-TEC 200 H.O. engine under discussion, it is clear that many factors have affected the ability of this boat to use a 17-pitch propeller, namely:

--the T-Top; a T-Top adds considerable wind resistance and reduces boat speed

--bottom paint; generally bottom paint is considered to reduce boat speed

--possible added weight from ingress of water into the hull interior; weigh always reduces speed

The reported testing with a 17-pitch propeller and the engine only reaching 4,900-RPM demonstrate a need to reduce pitch.

I suggest decreasing pitch to 15 and using a three-blade propeller. In general the three-blade propeller will be the best all-round choice. The REBEL is a very good propeller. The TBX hub system is an excellent system for using with E-TEC engines. The REBEL three-blade propeller I tested many years ago produced the best fuel economy of any propeller I tried. (I did not buy one because I already had a similar MIRAGEplus and the difference in fuel economy was only a matter of perhaps 0.1-MPG).

I do not think a VIPER propeller is a going to be optimum for your boat. The VIPER is a propeller that I believe is more useful on higher-speed and lighter boats. The diameter of the VIPER 15-pitch propeller is only 13-7/8-inches, and that seems very small for use on a large and heavy boat like yours. However, if you can access a VIPER 15 for testing, you should try it.

There are many MIRAGEplus propellers available as used propellers. I suggest you try a MIRAGEplus 15-pitch as a trial horse. You can probably purchase one used at a reasonable price. The FLO-TORQ hub system is not as good as the TBX hub system, but it is certainly workable and has had decades of reliable use.

If a 15-pitch propeller does not allow your E-TEC to accelerate into the 5,500-RPM range, consider taking the propeller to a propeller shop and asking them to reduce the pitch slightly.

My experience with the legacy E-TEC 3.3-liter V6 engine has led me to believe that the engine really would like to run at 4,000 to 4,100-RPM to be happy when at cruising boat speed, and to be able to hit 5,500-RPM (or higher speed) at full throttle. Running below 4,000-RPM at cruise the engine running note just does not sound as happy as at 4,000 to 4,100-RPM. With the higher engine speed the engine note just seems to sing.

Regarding fuel economy, your report of only 1.6-MPG is very unusual. The fuel economy should be at least 2.2-MPG. Read my comments about fuel economy when our boat was extremely heavily loaded and running into head seas in my recent article on performance. Weight changes and wind resistance changes will have very immediate and direct effects on fuel economy.

Also, every propeller has a boat speed range at which it will work most efficiently. For a 17-pitch propeller that boat speed range is likely 27 to 30-MPH. A 15-pitch propeller will be most efficient at a lower boat speed, perhaps 25-MPH. Changing to a lower pitch propeller should improve the fuel economy you obtain.

With a Whaler Drive the engine mounting height will already be elevated compared to a notched transom mounting. I have used both the lowest mounting height and one-hole-up mounting height on the engine with my Whaler Drive. I prefer that the propeller be completely free from any tendency to ventilate in rough seas, and do not care if I have lost 1-MPH of ultimate top speed due to running the engine gear case slightly deeper. The ability to run well in rough seas is more important to me than squeezing out a little increase in top speed in calm water.

Regarding a tendency for the bow to oscillate up and down at high speeds on plane, I have observed this tendency on my 22-foot Whaler Drive. It usually occurs at speeds of 40-MPH or higher. The engine trim must be adjusted to keep the bow down. Since I seldom run at speeds above 30-MPH, the notion that above 40-MPH the hull behaves with a bit of a tendency to oscillate has no effect on my use of the boat.

Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area

Re: 1988 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive E-TEC 200 H.O.

Postby biggiefl » Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:59 pm

If you are running 40 with a W/D I doubt your foam is totally waterlogged. A W/D model is rated for 300hp I believe so a 200(even a H.O) is at the bottom of the range and in my opinion 40 is not bad. Dropping to a 15 you will get higher rpms and possibly get into the 42-44 range which would indicate your hull is not waterlogged.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall. :roll: