Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Power for Outrage

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Power for Outrage
MichWhaler posted 05-20-2000 04:51 PM ET (US)   Profile for MichWhaler   Send Email to MichWhaler  
Hello All,

Looks like most of the 18' Outrages I see are equiped with a 150 or 140hp outboard. Does anyone on the list have one so equiped, and how does it work for you (under or over powered, too heavy etc.) And how do you think a 130 Honda 4 stroke handle an 18' outrage. I am speaking of the older hull design, 1981-1994.


David Reid posted 05-21-2000 03:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Reid  Send Email to David Reid     
Repowered our '86 vintage O/R 18'6" hull last fall with another Johnson 150 h.p. Tops out at 5000 r.p.m. and 46 mph on the G.P.S. That 130 may suit you, but it'll be 20% under rated power for the hull, will probably peak at about 30 mph. If re-sale is ever an issue, being under-powered will also probably cost you some.
tbirdsey posted 05-21-2000 07:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for tbirdsey  Send Email to tbirdsey     
My 84 Outrage has an 84 150 Merc. Its a perfect match as far as I'm concerned. Don't know top speed (but its certainly fast enough), gets up on plane quickly, easily handles a boat load of people, etc.
lhg posted 05-21-2000 08:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
A friend just sold his 1990 18' Outrage with a Yahama 130 V-4 on it, and it would do about 42mph lightly loaded. A Whaler factory rep used to tell me that he thought the most efficient power for an 18 was 115, which should do about 40. But, you're right, I'll bet 90% of the boats ever sold left the Dealerships with 150 on them. Regarding the engine choice, Mercury advertises that their 135 Optimax is 5mph faster than a Honda 130, and with lower fuel consumption, so you might want to look at that also.
dougs posted 05-23-2000 09:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for dougs  Send Email to dougs     
Just a quick $0.02. First, a 130hp motor is 13% less than the maximum rating, not 20%. Second, if you look at the torque produced at similar rpm for both engines you will find that the value is higher for the 4-cycle engine. That means more thrust if properly propped.

In any event, it's a great boat and I'm looking for another one.

Doug Sowles
Portland, Oregon

Richard Thomas posted 05-24-2000 11:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Richard Thomas  Send Email to Richard Thomas     
I had a 17' 96 Outrage with a 95 Merc 150. That boat had more than enough power. The mid 30's was a nice cruising speed at about 3500 RPM. as per the paddle wheel on the fish finder, if the conditions were right the boat would do lower 60's, although it was reare that I ran it that hard. Good Luck, Richard
Flying Nutshell posted 05-24-2000 08:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Flying Nutshell  Send Email to Flying Nutshell     
I have an 88 with a 115Merc (6cyl), which will push 40mph with 2 aboard. I can cruise at 3500-4000rpm, in the low-mid 30s, getting almost 4 mi/gal. However, I can certainly feel the difference getting on plane with 4+ people, and I don't do any skiing.

The boat is balanced well, with the motor weighing in at about 350lbs, and would fear the Honda130 at nearly 500lbs would be quite a load on the stern. The newer 2 stroke 150s are in the 450 range, with 130/115s at 400. Not sure if you can wait, but I'm intrigued with the Yamaha 115 4 stroke, at about 400lbs, much lighter than the Honda, and hoping they'll soon have a light 130 4 stroke in the same range.

Peter posted 05-31-2000 08:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Better late than never, I have a 1987 18 with a 150 Johnson. It works great. Cruises at 30 mph at about 3200 rpm. Top speed is still about 45 mph at 4800 rpm (14 1/2 x 21 prop). Not bad for a 14 year old motor. I am an advocate of putting the maximum horsepower on a boat. It may not, in some cases, be the most efficient, but the power is there when you need it. Because the engine is not working as hard, it should, in theory, last longer.
hauptjm posted 05-31-2000 11:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
I've got a Oceanrunner 150 (OMC) on my '85 18, and I love it. As far as weight goes, my 150 is attached to an Armstrong bracket (solid transom Outrage manufactured in '85 & '86) which puts the engine weight outboard another 24 inches. You would think that I would really have a weight problem. Not so. With all of that power put completely out of the spoil from the hull, I jump up on plane like a rocket. Also, I get the efficiency of a bracketed motor. It's not for everyone, but if you have a solid transom or wish to convert to one, don't hesitate. Just make damn sure you know what you're doing, or find a VERY competent professional.
dfmcintyre posted 05-31-2000 04:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for dfmcintyre  Send Email to dfmcintyre     

I'm getting ready to mount a 200 Yama on a 21' Outrage, and spotted your comment about the bracket being more efficient. Could you enlighten me?

Thanks - Don

Walt Steffens posted 05-31-2000 05:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Walt Steffens  Send Email to Walt Steffens     
Don: I think the efficiency is the ability to mount the engine higher on the transome, ala bass boat w/jack plate.
Backlash posted 05-31-2000 08:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Backlash  Send Email to Backlash     
I've got a 200 Yamaha mounted on my '91 21' Walkaround with a Springfield Marine 10" setback manual transom bracket. As stated previously, this allows you to raise the engine slightly higher than possible if only mounted to the transom. The real benefit is that the engine is no longer taking up all the space in your motor well, which can be used for storage, etc.
This is a fairly easy installation, since the Yamaha has a built in lifting ring at the top of the motor. Just rent a hydraulic motor lift from your local U-Haul dealer...around $19.95/day. The transom bracket mounts in the same 4 holes your outboard did and the outboard mounts in 4 similar holes on the bracket. Let me know if you need additional information. Larry Goltz tipped me off to this.
Tom Byrum posted 06-02-2000 01:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom Byrum  Send Email to Tom Byrum     
Mich I have a 18' Outrage with twin 70 Yamahas. My boat does 45 with 2 men and 60 gallons of gas on my gps. Gas mileage is definitly not on par with a four stroke but is not all that bad. Acceleration is fantastic. Last weekend while fishing at Point Arena CA in 15' seas with a 35 mph wind one of my engine warning buzzers went off. It was worth a few bucks extra to have the other motor to get back home on. If you plan on going offshore I say you gotta at least consider twins.
MichWhaler posted 06-03-2000 05:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for MichWhaler  Send Email to MichWhaler     
Thanks to all that posted reply to my inquiry. It looks like mabye 135 optimax might be the way to go? Light weight good power.
Pat Smith posted 12-23-2000 01:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Pat Smith  Send Email to Pat Smith     
Thought I'd bring this thread back up for Wildeone,who thinking about repowering his outrage.I found it to be a very useful thread,hope it helps-Pat
wildeone posted 12-26-2000 08:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for wildeone  Send Email to wildeone     
Thanks Pat, I should have looked alittle further in the past threads!

Looks like another 150 will be the way, assuming OMC pulls out ok.

Pat Smith posted 12-27-2000 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for Pat Smith  Send Email to Pat Smith     
I've got a 150 Johnson 1985 on my outrage,I know its getting up there in age but it still gets me were i need to go.I know one day I'll get a new motor, so I always like to here others opinions.happy holidays-Pat
frank posted 12-28-2000 12:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for frank  Send Email to frank     
i have a 94 yamaha 150 on my 87 outrage (guardian) it tops out at 47-48 mph(g.p.s.) on smooth water. the motor gets the whale up to speed in no time at all. i always advise the crew to hold on tightly.
hauptjm posted 12-29-2000 09:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for hauptjm    
to dfmcintyre:
Sorry I didn't respond back in May. I'm not sure how I missed your question. If I'm not to late, the bracket accomplishes two main functions. First, the height is raised, which has already been mentioned. This allows the wetted surface of the engine to be reduced, thereby reducing drag. Less drag equals less effort, and so on. The second advantage, which allows for the first, is the movement of the engine back out of the "spoil" coming off the stern of the boat. Water basically leaves the horizontal plane of the hull bottom and does two things; first it goes straight up, then immediately down (-^). This creates a spoil that interferes with the engines efficiencies. Air gets trapped in this spoil and the prop looses some of its effectiveness. One last advantage a bracket allows that you don't get in just a jack plate is the steering leverage of having your motor moved further away from centerline effort. Like a lever, the longer the better. Please remember, before you attempt to convert to this design though, do your homework. Not all boats really benefit from off the shelf brackets, particularly smaller boats. They are expensive to convert, so make sure it's worth the cost beforehand.
bigz posted 12-29-2000 09:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Go over to the Performance section and read the article and comments on OB set backs ---
for the pro and cons --- Z

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.