Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
I have Outrage 22 questions.
|Author||Topic: I have Outrage 22 questions.|
posted 08-28-2000 10:18 AM ET (US)
Hello all. Shopping Whalers.
-Availability of stern bench seats and backrests/rod holders for the front of the console.
-Any pitfalls to the '84-'86 22' Outrages to avoid etc.
-Most I see have single engines some have twins. Aside from cost and care, are there other considerations specific to 22's with the different rigging of motors?
-Could a single screw rig be converted? Use the same holes etc. or just a ridiculous consideration. I saw one with twin 115 four strokes blaze by me the other day.
-Exposed batteries etc.....my only Outrage turnoff, have the systems(oil etc.) been successfully run from the console?
-Weight of a 22?
It's a list I know but I have nowhere else to turn.
posted 08-28-2000 11:29 AM ET (US)
Some other issues.
-Stern splash well......was the splashbox made "taller" in later years?
-Amount of fuel?
posted 08-28-2000 11:48 AM ET (US)
22' outboard mode weights about a hair over a ton less engines and fuel. Standard fuel tank I think was 77 gallons. You'd have to fill in a singles holes if you go for twins. If I'm not mistaken you can mount your oil tank in the console (we have two mounted in our 27 for twins) with no pick up problem. Batteries I believe can be mounted under the aft bait well tanks on each side -- not sure of that though--
Max hp was 240, depends on your use--- twins for offshore are safer but the new engines are pretty dependable -- she only needs about 100 hp to get up and plane so a couple of 100 - 115 hp engines would do the trick or single 225 and maybe a 15hp kicker --- this is all more a use decision on power and safety -- and of course cost!
You should get a lot more opinions shortly -- just hang in there!
posted 08-28-2000 12:03 PM ET (US)
That would be.....Trim Tabs.
Thanks for the reply.
posted 08-28-2000 12:30 PM ET (US)
PLEASE CONSIDER THE POWER/ WEIGHT RATIO WHEN GOING TO DUAL POWER. MY EXPERIANCE IS THAT THE 90HP, 3CYL, YAMAHA'S CAN'T BE BEAT. AT 250# EACH YOU GET REDUNDENT POWER, TOP QUALITY AND THE BEST PERFORMANCE FOR ABOUT 500#. THE OMC AND MERC PRODUCTS ARE OK BUT THE EXTRA HP ONLY SERVES TO CARRY THE EXTRA WEIGHT.
posted 08-28-2000 12:47 PM ET (US)
Chap -- you say TRIM TAPS --- well would go with Lenco -- electro-mechanical tabs ---
JAC has a good point -- a 90 Yam would work but maybe not plane a loaded 22 by itself if the other crapped out-- One thing on twins make sure they are proberly prop-ed so that if you have to use just one motor and move fast you don't tear your lower unit up -- Clark Roberts can commit on this much better than I can maybe he'll jump in --- Tom
posted 08-28-2000 07:53 PM ET (US)
Chap, I’ve owned a 22 with twins and a single IMO the single with a kicker is the way to go (see my pics in cetecea). Other than close quarter maneuvering (ohh yeah… the sound of 2 synced motors at WOT) I’ve yet to miss twins. The boat doesn’t’ require tabs to help it plane, but they sure make a difference in some sea-states, I would definitely recommend them. My oil reservoir & batteries are in the console, it may be a pain to run the hoses and wires – but worth the effort.
PS i think the min HP requirement is 75 not 100.
posted 08-28-2000 07:59 PM ET (US)
The twins aren't faster, and you will notice the extra 600 lbs hanging at the transom. Having said that, the boat will plane and run over 20 mph with a single 135.
posted 08-29-2000 12:35 AM ET (US)
I have twins and I wouldnt trade them for nothing. Ive had a motor alarm go off several miles offshore in rough conditions and if you would have been out there with me, you would be buying twins. A little 15 hp motor dont cut it when you need some power to get home. The instant acceleration is way cool also. Saving a little money on gas and upkeep is not worth the benefits of having twins IMO. Tom, what are you talking about blowing a lower unit with the wrong prop?
posted 08-29-2000 03:13 AM ET (US)
IMO the boat performs better with the single. It doesn't squat like it does with twins, it planes at lower speeds, and handles rough water better.
I originally ordered the boat with 2-135's. It was a whaler engineer who convinced me to go with a single - I'm glad I did.
PS The twins (one up) will get home faster than the kicker, but the bigfoot pushes the boat at displacement speed effortlessly. I'll just have to watch for sailbotes zooming past me on the way home 8-))
posted 08-29-2000 06:44 AM ET (US)
Actually Louie, according to BW's specs an 85hp with a light load is all that's needed for planing --- well heck what's a light load -- so to simplify life I added 15 hp thus 100hp as a safe bet for a plane -- chuckle Tom
PS I agree with you on a single with a kicker -- more economical, better trim, in general less headaches ---
posted 08-29-2000 08:20 AM ET (US)
I have an Outrage 22 and am more than happy with a 225 hp single - it GPS's at a fine hair under 50 mph with a full tank (80 gal. +/-), bimini up and me alone in it. I am planning on installing a kicker, and trim tabs, but so far as performance and ride are concerned, it's better than not bad just like it is.
I believe your question about the low splashwell/splashbox is a refernce to the forward motor well bulkhead - it is low by design in order to allow the boat to stabilize fully swamped high enough in the water to keep the engine(s) running and to act as a scupper to dump big water taken over the bow when under way. However, as Louie Kokonis said elsewhere, you can pull the drain plugs in this boat and it will only settle an inch or two (the deck stays dry)and in fact if swamped at the dock, you can pull the plugs and it will rise, though slowly, until the deck is dry - truly self-bailing.
posted 08-29-2000 09:55 AM ET (US)
Thank you everyone!
Single screw seems most appropriate as I would not venture toooooo far offshore. Always close enough for a helicopter pick-up.
I took a ride in a 22 with a super console and a super leaning post with my son. The set up takes up way too much room for me and the boat had pedestal seats in front of the console. All Whaler though and located in NJ, no bottom paint and a tired Yami. Also, I have seen the small console arrangement with a leaning post/rocket launcher. Pole holders set in white fiberglass or plastic or something. Was there an in between size or should I stick with the smallconsole search? The steering wheel was quite vertical. I don't like those batteries out in the open. Two batteries may fit in there with the oil, but would the cable be too long and create problematic electrical resistance.
Any difference between '84 and and say a more recent vintage? Originally I was looking for an '88 or '89.
Did Whaler use tinned wires?
posted 08-29-2000 10:13 AM ET (US)
Tom Byrum ---
Let me pull Clark Roberts in on your question he can fill you in on twins and props and if one craps out what you should have prop wise so you don't have to muddle back or the possibility of blowing your lower unit --- Tom
posted 08-29-2000 01:04 PM ET (US)
The commercial boats have the batteries forward. The wires are thick (I don't know the gauge) so running them may present a challenge.
If you are going to be replacing the console, you may consider removing the floor to run the battery cables.
posted 08-29-2000 02:15 PM ET (US)
On all of the Classic Outrages, 18, 20, 22 & 25, I have always liked the smaller (Standard/Montauk) console because of the space it frees up in the boat. There is a trade off, however, when you go for this smaller console. It tends to be scaled a little small for the Outrages, and for that reason I like it raised 4". The Super Console addressed the issues of instrumentation, electronics and dry storage more thoroughly. Each to his own. Same goes for pilot seating options, which included either the twin pedestal chairs (standard), Reversible Pilot Seat or Leaning Post options. All have good and bad points.
Engines, as one can see, people either HATE or LOVE twins on these Outrages. Below 25', I'll bet 90% of the new Outrages were sold with singles, pricing being a major factor. In the commercial products military versions, almost all had twins. The Coast Guard bought hundreds of 22's for station duty, and all had twins, and so do the orange RIB's they replaced the 22's with. But they need twins for different reasons. On the new Whalers, you can't even buy a boat that accomodates twins until you get to 23'.
If you're looking for a Classic Outrage, 18-25, I think the years 86 to 90 were Whaler's finest, before the company was first sold. I pick 86 only because of the standard console design, which was improved that year, moving the steering wheel off the almost vertical position so that the instrumentation can be read while standing. This was also the year a teak bow pulpit option was first offered. In 89, all welded 1" rails were introduced, another nice feature, although in some respects they are not as high quality as the previous jointed 7/8" rail system by CMI. In 87-93, you could get all models (except the 18) with the full transom, Whaler Drive engine bracket option, which I think is the finest form of the 20'-25' boats. Those models require twin engines. And I only picked '90 because after that you couldn't get any teak trim in the boat. Many would think that 91 & 92 were the BEST years because of that reason alone!
I urge readers to research all of the prior threads on this Forum if they are considering a first purchase of a Whaler , and look at the pictures. There is already a wealth of information on the Outrages. It just has to be ferreted out. This Forum has been running long enough that the same questions are being re-opened time & time again, mainly because participants are not "READING & RESEARCHING BEFORE YOU POST". Please help out in this regard.
posted 08-29-2000 04:27 PM ET (US)
I read prior to posting until my eyes hurt.
I will continue to research prior to posting.
posted 08-29-2000 05:30 PM ET (US)
Tom, will try to add to answer from BigZ. HIs 27 Outrage Cuddy with twin 200 Yamahas will plane with one engine to about 25 mph with other engine tilted free of water.. nice to be able to do that.... but rpm at WOT was only about 4500 as I recall.. his top rpm was 5000 with both engines at WOT. So we figured that he should get a new set of props (counter rotators) for spares and drop pitch by 4 inches to get rpm up to 5500 or so and also this would allow more rpm with the single ..etc..etc.. well, Tom ordered the new props and no rpm gain... seems that being a different (and design) made the difference... anyway, if your boat wont plane with a single engine you need to lower the pitch... try out some test props is best.... don't know whether this answers question or not....???? Clark
posted 08-29-2000 11:05 PM ET (US)
I have to disagree with most of you on the twins vs single subject. When Chap started this thread he said "setting aside cost and upkeep" Are you guys trying to tell me if you had a choice between Larrys 18 with twin 115s or an identicle 18 with a 75 hp four stroke that trolls slower and gets great gas mileage that you would choose the four stroke? How did Jim describe it ...uh Ferrari? If money dont count I say strap two cruise missles on the back of mine. Maybe I could stack em up amd fit four of em back there.
posted 08-29-2000 11:11 PM ET (US)
Clark if I ever get a chance to play with different props on my boat(18 outrage with twin Yam 70s)are you saying I should do my testing with a single or both motors at the same time? Why is there such a big difference in rpms when you turn off one of the motors?
posted 08-29-2000 11:40 PM ET (US)
I forgot to add that my boat will get up on plane with one motor tilted up. Clark while I got your attention I have heard you mention that some 70 hp motors can be turned into 90 hp by just changing the reed valves or something. Is it that simple with Yamahas?
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000