Twin Power for Outrage 18 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Twin Power for Outrage 18

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Twin Power for Outrage 18

coddad posted 02-05-2003 07:24 PM ET (US)
Currently have a 1989 Outrage 18 with a 1998 150 hp yamaha. Anyone have any experience putting twins on these? THe weight of the 150hp is somewhere in the mid 400s and I dont want to go higher than that as she already takes enough water in the drain. twin 70hp 2 stroke yammies? twin 4 stroke 75 yammies? Honda 75? What do you think the performance will be. any experience?
BTW, have a 65 (i think) gallon tank, would prob need to increase?
spotsnspecks posted 02-05-2003 08:27 PM ET (US)
Although I don't have any experience doing this, one of my dream boats is an 18 OR with twin 70's. You would have to go 2 stroke for size and weight (I would think). I've ridden in a 19 Robalo with that setup (twin yammie 70's) and what an awesome ride. I would expect the same or better performance from the 18 OR. I think I remember reading about someone one this board with that set up as well. Yes, it's less efficient than 1 motor all the way around but you have 2 motors! I'm curious to see responses as well.
spotsnspecks posted 02-05-2003 08:33 PM ET (US)
BTW 20 gallon saddle tanks under the gunwales would be more than sufficient.
DaveS posted 02-05-2003 09:10 PM ET (US)
I might be a bit off base but has anyone ever thought about putting twin 4-stroke 60hp mercs on the back? From what I've heard people have had good results with them on their montauks, with weight being a consideration, I know they come in lighter than the 75hps...Just a thought...
DaveS
alkar posted 02-05-2003 10:18 PM ET (US)
Drop lhg a line. He has an 18 with twins - I think they're 115 mercs.
andygere posted 02-05-2003 10:26 PM ET (US)
Check out Tom Byrum's Outrage 18:
Cetacea Page 08
I had the opportunity to drive this boat a few years ago, and the performance was good. I don't have any numbers but it seemed to get up on plane pretty fast. I don't know if he could plane on a single engine, and I recall him once saying he thought twin Yamaha 90's would be ideal on that hull.
hooter posted 02-05-2003 11:55 PM ET (US)
Welcome aboard, codad! Is something wrong with that 150? If yes, at less than 5 years old, she's probably still got an overhaul in her. And for best weight-to-horsepower at max-rated performance on the 18', you're not going to improve on a single two-stroke 150. It's what that classic hull was built for.
jimh posted 02-06-2003 12:09 AM ET (US)
[Changed TOPIC slightly--jimh.]
lhg posted 02-06-2003 03:11 PM ET (US)
DaveS - In answer to your question, I have.
But I've been afraid it would be like driving your boat around in the proverbial second gear, a little underpowered for quiet engine speed, long engine life and optimum cruising speed. I still think twin 90's are the way to go, in reality putting out the same top speed as a single 150. If Yamaha is your brand, I would definitely buy the 90's. You'll get a little more alternator output from them over the puny 6 amp alt in the 70's.
Coddad - see the Rendezvous section, North Channel 2000 articles for more info on a twin powered 18 Outrage.
coddad posted 02-06-2003 06:23 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all the input guys. We havent had any problems with the 150 yamaha (knock on wood) but I more wanted to know what people thought about it. I think twin 90's would be too much weight in back. Anyone else have issues with water coming up the drain with a single 150? I would imagine this would be much worse if we went any heavier. Also, I'm not thrilled about carrying extra gas containers onboard and I'm thinking that my range is not going to be great with twins.
Thanks for the input!
hooter posted 02-06-2003 06:55 PM ET (US)
In answer, it's normal for the splash well to take in no more water when the boat's at rest, nobody aboard, than an inch at the bottom of the li'l sump up against the transome. That's bone dry under the batteries. Our 18', with OMC 150, three batteries and an 11 gallon live well all in the splash, will take in a couple inches of water up the side of the battery boxes with two fat fishermnen standing in the stern. She drains out soon as one of'em heads to the bow or we get underway. No worries.
SSCH posted 02-06-2003 07:31 PM ET (US)
I will offer a contrary view.
The 18 Outrage is a wonderful boat. I owned one several years ago and wish I had never sold it. (Assuming that I could have bought my current boat anyway!) I don't think the 18 is large enough to really use twins. There is nothing a single can't do on this boat that twins can, except get home when one engine fails. The 18 is a dream boat with a single 4 cyclinder 2 cycle 130 Yamaha. The transom stays light and the boat has almost as much speed as the 6 cyclinder 150 gives it. Fuel economy is excellent with the 130.
Twins will not plane this boat boat well if you say under the max transom rating (150 hp). If you don't, the boat will be stern heavy.
My current boat has twins and needs them to get reasonable performance. I have come to respect the simple systems on a single engine rig. I wonder if reliability isn't as high on a single as it is on a twin when you take into consideration the complications of twin maintenance and operation (eg. twin steering, dual fuel pickups (and filters) or separate tanks, multiple oil tanks, complex battery charging problems associated with multiple batteries, backup counter rotating props, etc). Remember that twice as many things means twice as many failures.
zpeed7 posted 02-06-2003 08:39 PM ET (US)
LHG was kind enough to answer a lot of my questions about this subject a while back. Here's the link...
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001652.html
PS The yammie 70 and 90 have the same weight so that isn't a problem.
Good Luck....
Zpeed7
lhg posted 02-07-2003 03:37 PM ET (US)
Coddad - check out the engine bracket reference articles for some photos of a twin installation on an 18. Each engine weighs 305# , and is set back an additional 10" on the brackets. The boat is NOT stern heavy, and planes off like a rocket, using little throttle, never over 2500 rpms. Note that the three 1 1/4" transom drains are rubber plugged in favor of an 800 gph bilge pump to get rid of splash. Smartest thing I ever did.
In response to SSCH's closing remarks, I think both sides of this argument need to be heard:
Steering: hydraulic is mandatory, but only requires a lower cost single side mount cylinder and a simple tie bar. I don't know what he means by "twin steering". Cylinders, cables?
Dual Fuel pickup and filters: The boat comes factory rigged with two fuel hose fittings off the "fuel manifold". These feed a single fuel filter, all that is needed for the engines of that size. Mercury water separating filters have a max flow rate of 60 GPH.
Multiple oil tanks: Not unless you use OMC engines. Mine are pre-mix, so I have none, but 4-stroke and Merc/Yamaha's with integral oil injection systems solves that nightmare also. Even with a big single, you get an oil injection tank. With twins, you don't.
Batteries: Yes, twins require one in each transom coner, oriented bow/aft. That is all that is required, and they should be combo starting/deep cycle. Many 150 singles use twin batteries anyway, plus the oil tank. The transom splashwell is no more cluttered with twins than with a big single.
Counter rotating prop backups: Not applicable, as none of the engines used for twin installation even come in CR versions.
Yes, there can be more expense involved, but when compared to a single with a pony motor, not as much, if any, as you would think.
Twice as many failures? Isn't that the whole reason for twins on a boat this size anyway?
Twins also give the boat a better ride, expecially with the use of bow lifting props.
You have twice as much lift, to get the chop back under the hull. The difference in ride between a single engine 18 and a twin engine rig is amazing. You also have two rudders in the water for big wave stability. I'm speaking from 16 years of experience. Several owners of single engine 18 Outrages have told me, when riding in mine, "Gee, thing rides much better than mine." Mine rides almost as well as my 25. Seriously.
I know I'm not selling anybody here, but this has been my experience. I would never own any Whaler over 18 ft without twins. So now you have both sides of the story. In my years of boating, I have seen only a few 18 Outrages rigged with twins.
coddad posted 02-07-2003 05:44 PM ET (US)
where is the engine-bracketed link u guys are talking about?
lhg posted 02-07-2003 07:19 PM ET (US)
In the Reference section of this site. This is separate from the Forum.
doobee posted 02-07-2003 07:23 PM ET (US)
I have long been a proponent of single engine over twin, however the 18 OR with twin 70s does offer a better ride. I don't think that's enough to justify repowering though. If your engine is running well, you're better off with a single and a kicker, or a good towing policy. If you do go twins, I'd stay away from 4 strokes due to excessive weight. Too much weight aft encourages porpoising.
alkar posted 02-07-2003 10:27 PM ET (US)
Doobee, I have twin 4-stroke (Hondas) on my 22'. They're about the size of two Volkswagons, and they're very heavy. In fact, they're so heavy they cause a distinctly stern-down static trim - even with the added buoyancy of the whaler drive. There is, however, NO problem with porpoising.
jimh posted 02-07-2003 10:39 PM ET (US)
coddad,
The REFERENCE section of the Whaler portion of the website contains many long form articles that have been researched and written by me and others. While the FORUM offers an excellent way to interact and exchange information with others, I think the REFERENCE section contains a great deal of information that has been carefully organized and presented.
The article to which LHG refers on engine brackets is a two part article and begins at:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/engineBrackets.html
LHG also mentioned the extensive description of his twin-engine 18-Outrage from the RENDEZVOUS section. That article is located at:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/rendezvous/NC2000/dayTwo.html#outrage-18
doobee posted 02-07-2003 10:56 PM ET (US)
I encountered many porpoising complaints, primarily with the 20' and 22' hulls, less so in other models. In almost every case, the boat had excessive weight aft due to engine selection, custom accessories, etc. None of them had Whaler Drives. The Whaler Drive radically changes the location of the outboards relative to the hull, and the center of gravity. You would think that this would have the effect of increasing the weight aft, however the Whaler Drive also acts like a giant fixed trim tab, stabilizing the hull. The Whaler Drive was a substantial improvement to the original hull design.
The smaller the boat, the more sensitive it will be to a shift in weight distribution. Before I put a couple of 4 strokes on an 18, I'd want to hear from somebody who has done it.
whale on!
lhg posted 02-08-2003 01:52 PM ET (US)
I agree with doobee, from my experiences. The 18 Outrage easily handles the 610# of engine weight I get from my twin 115's, set back 10" on brackets, each weighing about 20#. But that is about it.
So for twin four strokes, the Merc/Yamaha 60's are no problem, even on brackets. The boat would probably handle the Suzuki/Johnson 70's, not on brackets. The Mercury, Yamaha and Honda offerings, above 60HP, could be too heavy, and too large in profile.
Until new engines hit the market, I still say that if twins are going on the boat, either the Yamaha or Mercury 2-stroke 90's are optimum, both in power and weight, with self contained oil injection tanks. Mercury 75's would also be a decent alternative if HP rating is an issue.
SSCH posted 02-08-2003 09:14 PM ET (US)
lhg
What I meant by more failures is that more parts usually means more failures. You're right, of course, that many people buy twins to get home when one engine fails. The point I was making is that it is more likely to have an engine failure if you have two engines. You'll get home alright, but in theory, you should have to limp home on one twice as often as you would be stranded if you only had one.
Many of the other points you raise about smaller twins I acknowledge. For example, counter rotation is a real advantage on bigger boats where it is available, but if you can't get it, you don't have to worry about two spare props (one lh and one rh). Your simple two battery system works, too, but you lose the house battery that I've always found useful. If you have only the starting batteries on board (even if they are dual purpose), if either is run down you must parallel the alternators on your twins to get both running. You might be able to switch between the two if you rig everthing just right, and remember the switch configurations, without paralleling the systems but it isn't simple, which is my point. Paralleling the alternators can lead to some really interesting electrical problems.
A few years ago, when nuclear plants were in the news all the time, there was a study done on system complexity. It was the point of view of the author that the more safety systems the government required on those already very safe and complex plants, the more likely a bad event would occur. In general, he wrote that more parts cause more points of failure, and more need for maintanence, as well as for more complex operation training. That's the premise of my arguement.
To your point on the ride of twins on an 18, I have no experience with twins on this small a boat. I'm very surprised that this is true. I have spent a lot of time in 18's with 150's and my 130. I'd argue that a lighter transom makes a safer and better handling boat. I did at one time locate a large (128 quart Igloo) just ahead of my splash well and found the boat to be much less seaworthy in following seas particularly. Unfortunately, the weight problem was ice, bait, and soft drinks, not fish on that trip. I eventually emptied that chest after taking on water over the splash well the second time. I'll admit that I shouldn't have been out that time in the 18 anyway. The trip didn't start out that rough.
I due believe that the 18 is a wonderful bay boat. If you are using it offshore where twins might actually be needed, I'd really worry about all that transom weight in bad weather, regardless of how well your boat rides in smooth water.
Do any of you guys worry about the transom horsepower ratings on these boats? You have 230 hp on a boat rated for 150?
Steve
andygere posted 02-08-2003 11:21 PM ET (US)
Another consideration for twin power on an Outrage 18 is the Tohatsu TLDI 90. At 315 pounds, they are about the same weight as Larry's 115's, but meet 2006 EPA and CARB emissions standards, which is mandatory in California. With direct injection, integral oil tanks and a slim profile, a pair of these could be the hot setup on the Outrage 18. My understanding is that the TLDI injection uses the same technology as Mercury's Optimax.
doobee posted 02-10-2003 12:48 AM ET (US)
I agree 230hp is unnecssary. The Coast Guard actually rated the boat for 180hp, but Whaler moved it down to 150hp because they thought the boat too squirrely at 180hp. I found twin 70's to be more than adequate.
lhg posted 02-10-2003 05:29 PM ET (US)
I'm not advocating twin 115's on an 18. I was 16 years younger when I did it, and I already owned one of them before I even thought about buying the boat. I was only using the weight of them as an example in this thread.
captbone posted 02-10-2003 09:25 PM ET (US)
A big single and a kicker is best performer on this vessel. If your going to put twin weighing over 600 lbs on it, then you may as well just put 200+hp, any V6 on it with a kicker. You will weigh in at the same weight, be just as reliable. Unless you go with big twins, a 9.9high thrust will go alittle less than a 70hp when its brother dies.
lhg posted 02-11-2003 03:33 PM ET (US)
But on an offshore boat, riding around 99% of the time with a tilted pony motor slopping around on the transom just doesn't look right. I used that solution on my Nauset, and hated it. Never again.
Twins just look right on a Classic Whaler Outrage. And there is not much difference in the overall cost, either, if any.
Somebody's got to stick up for twins on this single engine site!
Swellmonster posted 02-11-2003 04:30 PM ET (US)
Ill stick up for twins!
Yepper! The Coors lite twins!!
captbone posted 02-11-2003 07:57 PM ET (US)
They now have a bracket for the kicker bracket. You can remove the kicker and bracket and all that will be there will be a single plate on the transom.
Ed Z posted 02-12-2003 01:35 AM ET (US)
I think a pair of Bearcat 85hp motors would be the ticket... 280 lbs each
hooter posted 02-12-2003 10:38 AM ET (US)
With all due respect t'Mr. Goltz and other lovers o'twins (Coors does have the right idea 'bout 'em), so long as the desired horsepower is available in a single engine, Ah'm f'goin that route, regardless the hull length in front o'that motor. We're talkin' generally 'bout boats under 25 feet here. Simple 'rithmatic does it f'me. Less of ever'thing: weight, purchase cost, maintenance expense, headaches, etc. The single condition t'this position is that y'simply GOTS t'stay ahead o'the curve with yer maintenance. Waitin' f'stuff t'break before you replace or maintain it is bone-headed (no offence, Captbone). Some think Ah'm nuts f'replacin' seven and ten year-old fuel pumps and power packs that woik perfectly good, but that's the cost o'goin' it alone on the transom, f'me. Ever time Ah've traded up in boats, Ah've sold 12 to 17 year-old engines that had most o'the parts, other than the block and carbs, at less than five years of age. You can stick a dozen motors on the back o-yer rig if they's room, but just one well-maintained max-rated motor will always out-perform yer collection on any given hull. Redundancy ain't no substitute f'maintenance, and maintenance is far preferable t'repairs. So pony up on maintenance, not on repairs or more motors, is the motto. This is not t'imply that any o'you veteran Whaler people do skimp on yer maintenance, just tryin' to make the pernt for some o'the newbies here.

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.

Author	Topic: Twin Power for Outrage 18
coddad	posted 02-05-2003 07:24 PM ET (US) Currently have a 1989 Outrage 18 with a 1998 150 hp yamaha. Anyone have any experience putting twins on these? THe weight of the 150hp is somewhere in the mid 400s and I dont want to go higher than that as she already takes enough water in the drain. twin 70hp 2 stroke yammies? twin 4 stroke 75 yammies? Honda 75? What do you think the performance will be. any experience? BTW, have a 65 (i think) gallon tank, would prob need to increase?
spotsnspecks	posted 02-05-2003 08:27 PM ET (US) Although I don't have any experience doing this, one of my dream boats is an 18 OR with twin 70's. You would have to go 2 stroke for size and weight (I would think). I've ridden in a 19 Robalo with that setup (twin yammie 70's) and what an awesome ride. I would expect the same or better performance from the 18 OR. I think I remember reading about someone one this board with that set up as well. Yes, it's less efficient than 1 motor all the way around but you have 2 motors! I'm curious to see responses as well.
spotsnspecks	posted 02-05-2003 08:33 PM ET (US) BTW 20 gallon saddle tanks under the gunwales would be more than sufficient.
DaveS	posted 02-05-2003 09:10 PM ET (US) I might be a bit off base but has anyone ever thought about putting twin 4-stroke 60hp mercs on the back? From what I've heard people have had good results with them on their montauks, with weight being a consideration, I know they come in lighter than the 75hps...Just a thought... DaveS
alkar	posted 02-05-2003 10:18 PM ET (US) Drop lhg a line. He has an 18 with twins - I think they're 115 mercs.
andygere	posted 02-05-2003 10:26 PM ET (US) Check out Tom Byrum's Outrage 18: Cetacea Page 08 I had the opportunity to drive this boat a few years ago, and the performance was good. I don't have any numbers but it seemed to get up on plane pretty fast. I don't know if he could plane on a single engine, and I recall him once saying he thought twin Yamaha 90's would be ideal on that hull.
hooter	posted 02-05-2003 11:55 PM ET (US) Welcome aboard, codad! Is something wrong with that 150? If yes, at less than 5 years old, she's probably still got an overhaul in her. And for best weight-to-horsepower at max-rated performance on the 18', you're not going to improve on a single two-stroke 150. It's what that classic hull was built for.
jimh	posted 02-06-2003 12:09 AM ET (US) [Changed TOPIC slightly--jimh.]
lhg	posted 02-06-2003 03:11 PM ET (US) DaveS - In answer to your question, I have. But I've been afraid it would be like driving your boat around in the proverbial second gear, a little underpowered for quiet engine speed, long engine life and optimum cruising speed. I still think twin 90's are the way to go, in reality putting out the same top speed as a single 150. If Yamaha is your brand, I would definitely buy the 90's. You'll get a little more alternator output from them over the puny 6 amp alt in the 70's. Coddad - see the Rendezvous section, North Channel 2000 articles for more info on a twin powered 18 Outrage.
coddad	posted 02-06-2003 06:23 PM ET (US) Thanks for all the input guys. We havent had any problems with the 150 yamaha (knock on wood) but I more wanted to know what people thought about it. I think twin 90's would be too much weight in back. Anyone else have issues with water coming up the drain with a single 150? I would imagine this would be much worse if we went any heavier. Also, I'm not thrilled about carrying extra gas containers onboard and I'm thinking that my range is not going to be great with twins. Thanks for the input!
hooter	posted 02-06-2003 06:55 PM ET (US) In answer, it's normal for the splash well to take in no more water when the boat's at rest, nobody aboard, than an inch at the bottom of the li'l sump up against the transome. That's bone dry under the batteries. Our 18', with OMC 150, three batteries and an 11 gallon live well all in the splash, will take in a couple inches of water up the side of the battery boxes with two fat fishermnen standing in the stern. She drains out soon as one of'em heads to the bow or we get underway. No worries.
SSCH	posted 02-06-2003 07:31 PM ET (US) I will offer a contrary view. The 18 Outrage is a wonderful boat. I owned one several years ago and wish I had never sold it. (Assuming that I could have bought my current boat anyway!) I don't think the 18 is large enough to really use twins. There is nothing a single can't do on this boat that twins can, except get home when one engine fails. The 18 is a dream boat with a single 4 cyclinder 2 cycle 130 Yamaha. The transom stays light and the boat has almost as much speed as the 6 cyclinder 150 gives it. Fuel economy is excellent with the 130. Twins will not plane this boat boat well if you say under the max transom rating (150 hp). If you don't, the boat will be stern heavy. My current boat has twins and needs them to get reasonable performance. I have come to respect the simple systems on a single engine rig. I wonder if reliability isn't as high on a single as it is on a twin when you take into consideration the complications of twin maintenance and operation (eg. twin steering, dual fuel pickups (and filters) or separate tanks, multiple oil tanks, complex battery charging problems associated with multiple batteries, backup counter rotating props, etc). Remember that twice as many things means twice as many failures.
zpeed7	posted 02-06-2003 08:39 PM ET (US) LHG was kind enough to answer a lot of my questions about this subject a while back. Here's the link... http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001652.html PS The yammie 70 and 90 have the same weight so that isn't a problem. Good Luck.... Zpeed7
lhg	posted 02-07-2003 03:37 PM ET (US) Coddad - check out the engine bracket reference articles for some photos of a twin installation on an 18. Each engine weighs 305# , and is set back an additional 10" on the brackets. The boat is NOT stern heavy, and planes off like a rocket, using little throttle, never over 2500 rpms. Note that the three 1 1/4" transom drains are rubber plugged in favor of an 800 gph bilge pump to get rid of splash. Smartest thing I ever did. In response to SSCH's closing remarks, I think both sides of this argument need to be heard: Steering: hydraulic is mandatory, but only requires a lower cost single side mount cylinder and a simple tie bar. I don't know what he means by "twin steering". Cylinders, cables? Dual Fuel pickup and filters: The boat comes factory rigged with two fuel hose fittings off the "fuel manifold". These feed a single fuel filter, all that is needed for the engines of that size. Mercury water separating filters have a max flow rate of 60 GPH. Multiple oil tanks: Not unless you use OMC engines. Mine are pre-mix, so I have none, but 4-stroke and Merc/Yamaha's with integral oil injection systems solves that nightmare also. Even with a big single, you get an oil injection tank. With twins, you don't. Batteries: Yes, twins require one in each transom coner, oriented bow/aft. That is all that is required, and they should be combo starting/deep cycle. Many 150 singles use twin batteries anyway, plus the oil tank. The transom splashwell is no more cluttered with twins than with a big single. Counter rotating prop backups: Not applicable, as none of the engines used for twin installation even come in CR versions. Yes, there can be more expense involved, but when compared to a single with a pony motor, not as much, if any, as you would think. Twice as many failures? Isn't that the whole reason for twins on a boat this size anyway? Twins also give the boat a better ride, expecially with the use of bow lifting props. You have twice as much lift, to get the chop back under the hull. The difference in ride between a single engine 18 and a twin engine rig is amazing. You also have two rudders in the water for big wave stability. I'm speaking from 16 years of experience. Several owners of single engine 18 Outrages have told me, when riding in mine, "Gee, thing rides much better than mine." Mine rides almost as well as my 25. Seriously. I know I'm not selling anybody here, but this has been my experience. I would never own any Whaler over 18 ft without twins. So now you have both sides of the story. In my years of boating, I have seen only a few 18 Outrages rigged with twins.
coddad	posted 02-07-2003 05:44 PM ET (US) where is the engine-bracketed link u guys are talking about?
lhg	posted 02-07-2003 07:19 PM ET (US) In the Reference section of this site. This is separate from the Forum.
doobee	posted 02-07-2003 07:23 PM ET (US) I have long been a proponent of single engine over twin, however the 18 OR with twin 70s does offer a better ride. I don't think that's enough to justify repowering though. If your engine is running well, you're better off with a single and a kicker, or a good towing policy. If you do go twins, I'd stay away from 4 strokes due to excessive weight. Too much weight aft encourages porpoising.
alkar	posted 02-07-2003 10:27 PM ET (US) Doobee, I have twin 4-stroke (Hondas) on my 22'. They're about the size of two Volkswagons, and they're very heavy. In fact, they're so heavy they cause a distinctly stern-down static trim - even with the added buoyancy of the whaler drive. There is, however, NO problem with porpoising.
jimh	posted 02-07-2003 10:39 PM ET (US) coddad, The REFERENCE section of the Whaler portion of the website contains many long form articles that have been researched and written by me and others. While the FORUM offers an excellent way to interact and exchange information with others, I think the REFERENCE section contains a great deal of information that has been carefully organized and presented. The article to which LHG refers on engine brackets is a two part article and begins at: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/engineBrackets.html LHG also mentioned the extensive description of his twin-engine 18-Outrage from the RENDEZVOUS section. That article is located at: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/rendezvous/NC2000/dayTwo.html#outrage-18
doobee	posted 02-07-2003 10:56 PM ET (US) I encountered many porpoising complaints, primarily with the 20' and 22' hulls, less so in other models. In almost every case, the boat had excessive weight aft due to engine selection, custom accessories, etc. None of them had Whaler Drives. The Whaler Drive radically changes the location of the outboards relative to the hull, and the center of gravity. You would think that this would have the effect of increasing the weight aft, however the Whaler Drive also acts like a giant fixed trim tab, stabilizing the hull. The Whaler Drive was a substantial improvement to the original hull design. The smaller the boat, the more sensitive it will be to a shift in weight distribution. Before I put a couple of 4 strokes on an 18, I'd want to hear from somebody who has done it. whale on!
lhg	posted 02-08-2003 01:52 PM ET (US) I agree with doobee, from my experiences. The 18 Outrage easily handles the 610# of engine weight I get from my twin 115's, set back 10" on brackets, each weighing about 20#. But that is about it. So for twin four strokes, the Merc/Yamaha 60's are no problem, even on brackets. The boat would probably handle the Suzuki/Johnson 70's, not on brackets. The Mercury, Yamaha and Honda offerings, above 60HP, could be too heavy, and too large in profile. Until new engines hit the market, I still say that if twins are going on the boat, either the Yamaha or Mercury 2-stroke 90's are optimum, both in power and weight, with self contained oil injection tanks. Mercury 75's would also be a decent alternative if HP rating is an issue.
SSCH	posted 02-08-2003 09:14 PM ET (US) lhg What I meant by more failures is that more parts usually means more failures. You're right, of course, that many people buy twins to get home when one engine fails. The point I was making is that it is more likely to have an engine failure if you have two engines. You'll get home alright, but in theory, you should have to limp home on one twice as often as you would be stranded if you only had one. Many of the other points you raise about smaller twins I acknowledge. For example, counter rotation is a real advantage on bigger boats where it is available, but if you can't get it, you don't have to worry about two spare props (one lh and one rh). Your simple two battery system works, too, but you lose the house battery that I've always found useful. If you have only the starting batteries on board (even if they are dual purpose), if either is run down you must parallel the alternators on your twins to get both running. You might be able to switch between the two if you rig everthing just right, and remember the switch configurations, without paralleling the systems but it isn't simple, which is my point. Paralleling the alternators can lead to some really interesting electrical problems. A few years ago, when nuclear plants were in the news all the time, there was a study done on system complexity. It was the point of view of the author that the more safety systems the government required on those already very safe and complex plants, the more likely a bad event would occur. In general, he wrote that more parts cause more points of failure, and more need for maintanence, as well as for more complex operation training. That's the premise of my arguement. To your point on the ride of twins on an 18, I have no experience with twins on this small a boat. I'm very surprised that this is true. I have spent a lot of time in 18's with 150's and my 130. I'd argue that a lighter transom makes a safer and better handling boat. I did at one time locate a large (128 quart Igloo) just ahead of my splash well and found the boat to be much less seaworthy in following seas particularly. Unfortunately, the weight problem was ice, bait, and soft drinks, not fish on that trip. I eventually emptied that chest after taking on water over the splash well the second time. I'll admit that I shouldn't have been out that time in the 18 anyway. The trip didn't start out that rough. I due believe that the 18 is a wonderful bay boat. If you are using it offshore where twins might actually be needed, I'd really worry about all that transom weight in bad weather, regardless of how well your boat rides in smooth water. Do any of you guys worry about the transom horsepower ratings on these boats? You have 230 hp on a boat rated for 150? Steve
andygere	posted 02-08-2003 11:21 PM ET (US) Another consideration for twin power on an Outrage 18 is the Tohatsu TLDI 90. At 315 pounds, they are about the same weight as Larry's 115's, but meet 2006 EPA and CARB emissions standards, which is mandatory in California. With direct injection, integral oil tanks and a slim profile, a pair of these could be the hot setup on the Outrage 18. My understanding is that the TLDI injection uses the same technology as Mercury's Optimax.
doobee	posted 02-10-2003 12:48 AM ET (US) I agree 230hp is unnecssary. The Coast Guard actually rated the boat for 180hp, but Whaler moved it down to 150hp because they thought the boat too squirrely at 180hp. I found twin 70's to be more than adequate.
lhg	posted 02-10-2003 05:29 PM ET (US) I'm not advocating twin 115's on an 18. I was 16 years younger when I did it, and I already owned one of them before I even thought about buying the boat. I was only using the weight of them as an example in this thread.
captbone	posted 02-10-2003 09:25 PM ET (US) A big single and a kicker is best performer on this vessel. If your going to put twin weighing over 600 lbs on it, then you may as well just put 200+hp, any V6 on it with a kicker. You will weigh in at the same weight, be just as reliable. Unless you go with big twins, a 9.9high thrust will go alittle less than a 70hp when its brother dies.
lhg	posted 02-11-2003 03:33 PM ET (US) But on an offshore boat, riding around 99% of the time with a tilted pony motor slopping around on the transom just doesn't look right. I used that solution on my Nauset, and hated it. Never again. Twins just look right on a Classic Whaler Outrage. And there is not much difference in the overall cost, either, if any. Somebody's got to stick up for twins on this single engine site!
Swellmonster	posted 02-11-2003 04:30 PM ET (US) Ill stick up for twins! Yepper! The Coors lite twins!!
captbone	posted 02-11-2003 07:57 PM ET (US) They now have a bracket for the kicker bracket. You can remove the kicker and bracket and all that will be there will be a single plate on the transom.
Ed Z	posted 02-12-2003 01:35 AM ET (US) I think a pair of Bearcat 85hp motors would be the ticket... 280 lbs each
hooter	posted 02-12-2003 10:38 AM ET (US) With all due respect t'Mr. Goltz and other lovers o'twins (Coors does have the right idea 'bout 'em), so long as the desired horsepower is available in a single engine, Ah'm f'goin that route, regardless the hull length in front o'that motor. We're talkin' generally 'bout boats under 25 feet here. Simple 'rithmatic does it f'me. Less of ever'thing: weight, purchase cost, maintenance expense, headaches, etc. The single condition t'this position is that y'simply GOTS t'stay ahead o'the curve with yer maintenance. Waitin' f'stuff t'break before you replace or maintain it is bone-headed (no offence, Captbone). Some think Ah'm nuts f'replacin' seven and ten year-old fuel pumps and power packs that woik perfectly good, but that's the cost o'goin' it alone on the transom, f'me. Ever time Ah've traded up in boats, Ah've sold 12 to 17 year-old engines that had most o'the parts, other than the block and carbs, at less than five years of age. You can stick a dozen motors on the back o-yer rig if they's room, but just one well-maintained max-rated motor will always out-perform yer collection on any given hull. Redundancy ain't no substitute f'maintenance, and maintenance is far preferable t'repairs. So pony up on maintenance, not on repairs or more motors, is the motto. This is not t'imply that any o'you veteran Whaler people do skimp on yer maintenance, just tryin' to make the pernt for some o'the newbies here.