1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Wed May 11, 2016 1:41 am

[Multiple threads on this same topic have been merged into one thread.--jimh]

[I am] re-powering a Boston Whaler Outrage 21 that has been in the family (and garaged) since new. If you can believe it, she still has the original twin Johnson 65-HP engines with top-end and carburetors rebuilt less than 30 hours ago. But I want more. The [1973 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 21] is rated for 200-HP, and the two Johnson engines [combined] weight 460-lbs. I frequently have four adults and four kids on the boat. I use it mostly in saltwate, but and sometimes fresh [water].

I was considering new E-TEC 150, but then a buddy started convincing me that I would be happier with a 175 or 200 if I am going to pull a tube or a skier with all those folks aboard.

I am considering the following Evinrude E-TEC engines with 20-inch-shaft:

--150 H.O. at 420 lb and only a few hundred dollars more than the regular 150

--175 2.6-liter at 420 lbs and $1,200 more than the 150 H.O.

--200 2.6-liter at 420 lbs but I don't know the price on this yet and I have told it may no longer be available in 20-inch-shaft

--200 H.O. at 520 lbs and $1,400 more than the 175 and may no longer be available in 20-inch-shaft


My concerns with the 200 H.O. were

--the weight on the transom (although Boston Whaler customer service told me 520-lbs should be a-ok),

--the weight's effect on shallow water abilities; and

--the old boat's ability to handle the 218-HP. A SEAL friend of mine who worked on these boats for many years told me that the boat should be able to handle that power easily.

Thoughts would be appreciated. I look forward to learning a lot here.
Last edited by WReiter on Fri May 13, 2016 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jefecinco
Posts: 1592
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:35 pm
Location: Gulf Shores, AL

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Jefecinco » Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 am

It may be worth your time to look into the four-cylinder 200 HP Mercury Verado engine. I have the same engine in the 135 HP version on my 190 Montauk and it has amazing torque and is a superb overall performer. The engine is normally installed with hydraulic steering and electronic throttle and shift with SmartCraft gauges.

I'm also an E-TEC fan and had an early version 1999 FICHT which was a wonderful performer and reliable for the ten years I owned it.
Butch

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Wed May 11, 2016 11:00 am

Thanks, Butch. I looked at the Verado 175, but was a bit put off because of the weight (and there is a 6 week wait for one here).

Looks like I posted this in the wrong category. Oops!

russellbailey
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby russellbailey » Wed May 11, 2016 12:24 pm

I'd go with the 150 H.O. if it were me.

It will have more than enough power for any watersports. Using just one of my two Optimax 150s on a much heavier 1984 Outrage 25, it can easily pull a slalom skier up with 8 people in the boat (that was me as the slalom skier and a buddy driving the boat when it was new to us, and he forgot to turn on both engines before pulling me up). The Optimax 150 should be similar to the 150 HO overall, but your boat planes off so easily compared to the Outrage 25 and weighs maybe half as much. We mainly do watersports so I'm very used to pulling skiers, wakeboarders, kneeboarders, and the occasional tube.

I don't think the 100 lb engine weight difference would be substantial on your hull.

I do think you would get an acceleration difference with the bigger block 200 HO, but I doubt you would notice the extra power for watersports as you can only use so much power before you rip the rope out of the person's hands as they get up. I think the acceleration of the three 2.6L blocks (150 HO, 175 and 200) would not likely differ enough to notice.

Maverick
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am
Location: Padre Island, Texas

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Maverick » Wed May 11, 2016 1:49 pm

1987 Guardian 18, hull weighs about 2200 pounds. Huge police T-top with goodies on it...catches some wind. About a year ago I bought a new ETEC 150 HO. With me, the dog, and about 20 gallons fuel I recently hit around 50mph top speed ... Motor has like 24 hours on it. Is quick out of the hole, sips gas, sips oil, quiet and impressive.

E-TEC had a special promotion deal when I bought so was fairly easy decision after lengthy gnashing of teeth, hah, and a lotta loot but I am very pleased would buy again. Email me if you want to see pics. Best, Mav

Bamaskeetshooter
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:42 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Bamaskeetshooter » Wed May 11, 2016 3:46 pm

I suggest you look at a Yamaha F150. It weighs the same as your current motors and produces more than 150 hp.

PJMSport15MY1984
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:20 pm
Location: Marysville, WA

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby PJMSport15MY1984 » Thu May 12, 2016 1:48 pm

WReiter,

You are definitely doing your homework with regard to your transom's weight capability on your Boston Whaler Outrage 21 when selecting outboard power. This is an imperative variable when selecting an outboard. The other extremely critical variable is the height of the outboard on the transom. Are you sure your old Johnson 65 horsepower outboards are only 230 pounds a piece? I thought they were more in the neighborhood of 250-260 pounds each. I would find out the maximum outboard weight your transom can safely hold before going any further.

All of the outboards you are looking at will have significantly more power than your old twin Johnsons. They will all far exceed your expectations in terms of performance. The Evinrude high output 200 is not gong to be worth the extra money in terms of the output you will receive. You will only really see the difference on that one at wide open throttle, which is rarely used when recreational boating. It might hole shot a little quicker, but I don't know if that would be a detectable difference from the others.

Remember in the horsepower range you are pursuing, there are plenty of good used outboards out there so don't limit yourself to just new outboards. I also noticed that you are only looking at Evinrudes. There are a lot of good four strokes out there as well so don't limit yourself to just one manufacturer. JimH always comments about how you should select a reputable dealer before selecting an outboard, and he is correct about this because you want to make sure you have a good dealer to do the service and work out the new bugs when purchasing an outboard. I have the pleasure of living in the Pacific Northwest and there are tons of dealers out here so finding a reputable dealer is pretty easy.

Good Luck!
Paul

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Thu May 12, 2016 3:40 pm

Thanks for the advice!

I think that with all of the considerations, including price, I've narrowed it down to an Etec 150 HO, or a Mercury Verado 200. I can't find reliable info on how much our original twin Johnson 65's weight -- (420-460). The etec only weighs 420 (plus the oil tank -- 40-60 lbs full). Boston Whaler says I should be ok going to 550 weight. (Makes sense, since it was rated for 200 HP in '73 when putting that kind of power on the boat probably would have taken 600 lbs.) Believe it or not, with incentives going on right now, the Verado 200 is not much more than the Etec 150HO, and it is way less expensive than an Etec 200HO.

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Thu May 12, 2016 4:03 pm

Thanks, Russell and Mav.

Mav, although my hull is 3' longer than yours, it weighs in at 1600 lbs vs. your 1800 so that is a good sign for the 150HO.

I think that with all of the considerations, including price, I've narrowed it down to an Etec 150 HO, or a Mercury Verado 200. I can't find reliable info on how much our original twin Johnson 65's weight -- (420-460). The etec only weighs 420 (plus the oil tank -- 40-60 lbs full). Boston Whaler says I should be ok going to 550 weight. (Makes sense, since it was rated for 200 HP in '73 when putting that kind of power on the boat probably would have taken 600 lbs.) Believe it or not, with incentives going on right now, the Verado 200 (510 lbs.) is not much more than the Etec 150HO, and it is way less expensive than an Etec 200HO.

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Thu May 12, 2016 6:31 pm

New horse in the running -- Suzuki DF200A (498 lbs) -- with incentives, it is even less expensive than the etec 150HO!!

Maverick
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am
Location: Padre Island, Texas

Re: Advice Needed Re: Repowering '73 Outrage 21

Postby Maverick » Thu May 12, 2016 6:56 pm

I've read favorable posts about Suzuki but never owned one. Is there a big difference in dollars and specifications?

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Thu May 12, 2016 11:00 pm

Maverick wrote:I've read favorable posts about Suzuki but never owned one. Is there a big difference in dollars and specifications?


The 200 Zuke weighs in at 498 and is essentially the same price installed/out-the-door as the 150 HO. The 200 Verado is 510 lbs and approx. $700 more.

Jefecinco
Posts: 1592
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:35 pm
Location: Gulf Shores, AL

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Jefecinco » Fri May 13, 2016 10:31 am

Suzuki engines have good reputation in the Lower Alabama coastal area and I've seen them on several commercial guide boats. My only concern would be a good local dealer for service and parts.
Butch

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Fri May 13, 2016 11:08 am

Jefecinco wrote:Suzuki engines have good reputation in the Lower Alabama coastal area and I've seen them on several commercial guide boats. My only concern would be a good local dealer for service and parts.


Funny, you should mention that, Butch. One of the factors that is in the calculus is the fact that despite the fact that there is a huge boating industry/market here in San Diego, there are only two Evinrude dealers in San Diego county -- one on the Eastern edge of the county (45 minutes inland from the Western edge --the coast -- and the other on the far northern edge (over an hour north of the southern part where I live), while there are multiple Suzuki, Mercury, and Yamaha dealers within 15-30 minutes of me. I find it quite odd that there would not be a single Evinrude shop truly in the boating "center" of coastal San Diego.

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Fri May 13, 2016 12:50 pm

A used-engine dealer tried to sell me on using a jack plate and going with 25-inch-shart engine rather than 20-inch-shaft engine. I am going to research jack plates, but don't know much about them. My first thought is that I would worry that this would put extra stress on the transom. Other than that, I'm not sure if the boat would still fit in my garage.

Any thoughts on the jack plate option?

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

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Phil T » Fri May 13, 2016 3:31 pm

You don't need a jackplate. The dealer is trying to sell a motor he has in inventory. Find a different dealer.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Fri May 13, 2016 6:42 pm

Thanks, Phil. That's just what I wanted to hear.

grizzly
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:42 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby grizzly » Sat May 14, 2016 12:29 am

I was thinking of repowering my 1972 Outrage 21 Ribside with an E-TEC 135 H.O. Apparently similar power to the 150 but costs much less. I'm not pulling any skiers and don't care much about top speed.

One thing I do care about is how the motor looks in proportion to the boat. I installed a F150 on my '86 Outrage and thought it was too big and out of proportion to the boat. Also too heavy since it affected static trim. So I replaced it with a 2-stroke Yamaha 150 and I'm much happier with that set-up.

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Sat May 14, 2016 12:43 pm

grizzly wrote:I installed a F150 on my 2986 Outrage and thought it was too big and out of proportion to the boat.


What model year was the F150?

jimh
Posts: 11672
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby jimh » Sat May 14, 2016 12:59 pm

Moderator's note: I was browsing the website on a smartphone interface, and I think I may have accidentally deleted one of the replies in this thread. Sorry for that error. I learned: never browse the website with smartphone logged in as the moderator, because one fat-finger press on the screen can cause all sorts of havoc.

User avatar
Don McIntyre - MI
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:33 pm

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Don McIntyre - MI » Sun May 15, 2016 12:05 pm

The 200 Yamaha Salt Water Series lists a weight of 488lbs. The one we purchased (new, going out of business auction, so we couldn't be choosy about a long shaft. It was a deal...) ended up needing a jack plate. Click the link below and scroll down to the Friday, October 23rd post area, there's a sunrise stern shot. Weight distribution was not a problem. Note that the oil tank and two batteries are in the console.

http://continuouswave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28

Regards - Don

grizzly
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:42 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby grizzly » Sun May 15, 2016 6:03 pm

2007 F150. Aren't all F150s the same size and weight?

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Wed May 18, 2016 6:54 pm

Looks like I'm going with the Evinrude E-TEC 150 H.O. in graphite (black)!

I chose the E-TEC 150 H.O. over a Suzuki DF200, which would have only been about $700 more, out-the-door--not too much real-world power difference and 80-lbs more weight on the transom.

Is there an XD-100 setting on the 150 H.O.? I see from on-line research that earlier years did not have this setting --It was recommended to still use the XD-100 oil even though the engine did not have a specific setting for it. Is this still the case?

Thanks for all of the excellent advice.

Maverick
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am
Location: Padre Island, Texas

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby Maverick » Wed May 18, 2016 7:19 pm

Bill--I went with the XD100 oil option at the recommendation of my dealer. He set the [EMM] for this oil, and I can only use this oil unless I take it back to have the[EMM] set for something else. I've been very pleased with the XD100, [which is] extremely clean, [produces] no smoke, and [the E-TEC] sips oil (and gas too)--amazing economy.

The oil is around $50/gallon, but I was able to catch it on sale for around $32/gallon--not a big savings and still more than standard oil but very very clean; even the prop exhaust is very clean.

Post some photos so we can see that admirable Whaler and E-TEC setup. Very happy for you. Mav

jimh
Posts: 11672
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby jimh » Wed May 18, 2016 8:20 pm

WReiter wrote:Is there an XD-100 setting on the 150 H.O.?


Sorry--I don't know the answer to that. Generally the engines marked H.O. cannot be set for reduced oiling, but if the engine is a larger displacement model that is under-tuned then generally the XD100-only option is available.

I would not be too upset if there is no special setting for XD100 only. The savings in oil consumption would not be huge. Many people expect that the XD100 setting is going to cut oil consumption in half, but that is not my experience. When I have run my E-TEC on the XD100-only setting the oil consumption is reduced compared to the standard oil rate setting, but the reduction is NOT to 0.5-times the other setting. It is more like 0.75-times. The savings probably depends on how you run the engine, what throttle settings, and how much time at those throttle settings. If you ran exclusively at idle speeds, the savings would be greater. If you run at full-throttle most of the time, the savings won't be nearly as much.

The cost of XD100 oil is higher than generic TCW3 oils. My Evinrude dealer sells XD100 from a bulk drum and refills customer's containers for much less than the usual $50 price. I think the last gallon I bought was about $32.

XD100 is the oil that Evinrude recommends. Many E-TEC owners use XD100 oil and do not elect to set the oil rate to the reduced XD100-only setting on their engines.

WReiter
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 1:23 am

Re: 1973 Outrage 21 Re-power

Postby WReiter » Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:19 pm

Update: The dealer recommended XD50, so that's what I've been running.