1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
Theine
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:03 pm

1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Postby Theine » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:06 pm

I recently bought a 1992 Outrage 17. Currently the boat has a 115HP mercury that weighs 315-lbs. I'm wondering if there would be a concern in re-powering with a new Mercury that is also 115-HP and weighs 359-lbs. My concern is more about the increase in torque than the additional 46-lbs.

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

Re: 1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Postby Phil T » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:39 pm

Congratulations, [a 1992 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 17] is a fantastic boat, I owned a 1991 model. You are a member of a proud but small group.

Engine weight of 350-lbs is the most you want. I had a F115 at over 400-lbs, and its weight was too much. To see and feel the difference [between the existing engine and the proposed new engine], add 46-lbs of bags of sand, dirt, bricks, etc., to the stern well.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

jimh
Posts: 11673
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Postby jimh » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:44 pm

I can't imagine that there is any difference between an engine weight of 350-lbs and 359-lbs in terms of a perceptible change in boat handling. On that basis, I cannot see why the 359-lbs engine would be disqualified from consideration.

I am not sure why there would be a great deal of difference in loading on the boat or its transom from engine torque. There really are no published specifications for any of the elements involved in your comparison, that is:

--no specification for the hull for maximum engine torque

--no specification for torque of the original 115-HP engine, and

--no specifications for the torque of the proposed new 115-HP engine.

In the absence of any data, I am not sure how you develop a concern about engine torque being too much for the boat.

The actual torque at the propeller shaft is affected by the gear ratio. And the effect of the torque on the boat is affected by the propeller. You'd have to consider all those variables, too.

RMS
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:16 pm
Location: Central Jersey

Re: 1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Postby RMS » Mon May 02, 2016 9:26 pm

I am the second owner of a 1993 Outrage 17, which came off the dealer's lot with a Johnson 120hp on the transom. This motor weighs in at 365 lbs. The vessel handles this weight fine. Bob

kwik_wurk
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: 1992 OUTRAGE 17 Re-power

Postby kwik_wurk » Mon May 02, 2016 11:27 pm

I just did a boat test of that Mercury motor, the 90 hp version actually. I was really impressed with the overall performance and fuel economy. The [acceleration onto plane from a standing start at full throttle] was better than expected (with aluminum propeller. The idle was quite to the point of having to walk aft to hear it.

The local shop I would have gotten the motor from puts MercMonitor gauge as standard package. And there was a lot of information that can be displayed. What I was most interested in is the troll control which allowed 10 RPM adjustments of the idle down to 500 RPM which on the 17-foot boat tested was 1.8 to 2 nautical-miles-per-hour.

The only negative I have was the lower cowling was rather large, due to the shape. Compared to a Mercury 115 it won't be as bad. (But I compared it to a E-TEC 90, it was rather noticeable.)