OUTRAGE 18: Using an On-Deck Fuel Tank Forward of the Console

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  OUTRAGE 18: Using an On-Deck Fuel Tank Forward of the Console

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 18: Using an On-Deck Fuel Tank Forward of the Console

high sierra posted 12-09-2009 10:27 PM ET (US)
I'm considering the mounting of that new Moeller [26-gallon on-deck fuel] tank forward of the console in my 1983 OUTRAGE 18. [The on-deck fuel tank] would go where the cooler sits. Besides not having to keep a 63 gallon tank near full, [an on-deck fuel tank forward of the console] would move the balance of the boat forward, cutting down on the porpoising that occurs at times. My gas supply would stay a little more fresh as well. Anyone made this change? How did it change the handling of the boat? Regards, high sierra
Jefecinco posted 12-10-2009 09:02 AM ET (US)
High,
A minor issue for your consideration would be that the center of gravity of your Outrage would be raised by the combination of less weight below deck and more weight above.
I doubt it would be a serious issue except in extreme conditions and it could well help any porpoising conditions you have. Unless you use your boat in extreme conditions it's probably worth a try. Have you considered how you'll arrange the Moeller tank to engine fuel supply hose?
Before going to the expense of a new tank you may want to consider filling the cooler full of water and adding any additional ballast forward of the cooler to mimic the weight of the full Moeller tank and try your boat's behavior when the under deck tank is near empty.
Butch

Peter posted 12-10-2009 09:21 AM ET (US)
That sort of defeats the beauty of the Outrage 18 design, fuel, which sloshes around abit, is stored below deck keeping the center of gravity of the boat low. As your motor consumes fuel from the forward tank, the bow/stern balance of the boat will be constantly changing and your purpose for putting it their in the first place gets defeated.
Buckda posted 12-10-2009 09:22 AM ET (US)
I run with a Tempo forward of the console (or under the leaning post) as one of the versatile configurations available to me.
I have twin 90's on the back of the boat, so there's plenty of bow lift available - but she runs great with that weight up there - especially into a chop!
The extra tank gives me about 300 miles of range (280 being more conservative), which is plenty for any expedition on the Great Lakes. That can usually last me two and a half to three days on a fishing/camping expedition.
I think it is a good option and you will be pleased with it.
The only challenge that I've not yet found a fully satisfactory solution to is running the fuel hose.
In an effort to keep my boat fully convertible, I rigged a T fitting and selector switch to the main fuel supply line AHEAD of the fuel filter/water separator. This allows me to connect a coiled hose to the auxiliary tank when needed, but stow it when not.
Buckda posted 12-10-2009 09:26 AM ET (US)
Incidentally, I run the auxiliary tank FIRST so the belly tank is full, helping maintain the boat's lower center of gravity.
However, I have done it "Backwards" so I could see how much range I actually have on the belly tank. I really didn't notice a difference.
Regards,
Dave
high sierra posted 12-10-2009 01:04 PM ET (US)
All good points. The low center of gravity is a good point and is one of the reasons I bought the boat. The looks are important as well but I fish with this boat and changes are part of owning it. Fish residue is usually in the boat after a "hard" day of trolling. I do find a change in the hull when the main tank fuel supply goes down but it's over a long period of time so it's not so noticeable. It feels heavier and more stable in the water when full. I have had a buddy go forward when running with a half tank and the hull is more stable in rough water for sure. I would intend to run the fuel line into the console at the front edge, down into the tunnel, then to starboard and up under the teak side decks back to the filter. The new tank would make a difference in the fore and aft feeling, but normally I only use 10 to fifteen gallons before I refill as I use a 8hp Yamaha for trolling. The change in the handling might be less than that 63 gallon tanks going empty over a period of time. Thanks for the well thought out replies. high sierra
elaelap posted 12-10-2009 01:21 PM ET (US)
I think [using a 26-gallon on-deck fuel tank foward of the console on a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18] is a great idea, Jim. I used the cooler seat forward of my [unclear, used acronym for Boston Whaler boat model name--please use the model name] console for tools, fishing gear, USCG safety stuff, and purposely kept seventy or eighty pounds of salmon weights up there, wrapped tightly in a duck-taped burlap bag, on the starboard side of the cooler to offset the weight of my 8-hp portside-mounted kicker. I never had any problem whatsoever with porpoising, and as Dave/Buckda has experienced, having some weight further forward is helpful when pounding into chop.
Is there any way your new fuel tank could fit right into a cooler seat? That way you wouldn't lose that very functional forward seating area. You could drill a hole in the cooler for the fuel line and lead it aft under the console; and perhaps you'd want to drill several other holes to allow venting and prevent dangerous fumes from building up inside the cooler. Just a thought, and obviously it would depend upon the dimensions of the fuel tank and cooler.
Tony
littleblue posted 12-10-2009 02:31 PM ET (US)
I'm a bit confused.. Are you planning to use [a 26-gallon on deck fuel tank] instead of your main tank? The only application I see for having a spare tank is if your running a distance where you are in danger of running out of fuel, or boat camping, or something like that. Otherwise, I think your just wasting deck space and creating clutter no?
high sierra posted 12-10-2009 03:39 PM ET (US)
I plan to try [using a 26-gallon on-deck fuel tank] as my main fuel supply. high sierra
Perry posted 12-10-2009 03:42 PM ET (US)
Is there something wrong with your fuel tank under deck?
high sierra posted 12-10-2009 03:42 PM ET (US)
Tony, I'm not sure that Moeller would fit in my 120 Igloo but it is sure worth a try. high sierra
high sierra posted 12-10-2009 03:49 PM ET (US)
Perry, no ,there is nothing wrong with the built in tank. In fact I just replaced that SOB fill hose and the vent hose. The tank is not corroded and doesn't leak. I mainly want to put weight forward and carry less fuel so it is fresher and replenished more often. My boat is a working boat so this is a minor change which can be reversed if necessary. high sierra
pglein posted 12-10-2009 03:50 PM ET (US)
I could see this being useful for extended range, that's about it.
littleblue posted 12-10-2009 05:14 PM ET (US)
If you don't need the extra fuel capacity, I wouldn't use the forward tank. I wouldn't want my main 63 gallons of fuel to go bad, that would be a big headache. And you definitely would want to keep the tank full.
I think you should just address the proposing issue directly...do you know what is causing it? Is you engine mounted high enough?
I keep all my fishing weights in a super tough canvas bag that has lots of pockets...I got it at the hardware store, maybe for electricians? It goes in the anchor well along w/ a bunch of unused Salmon weights.
high sierra posted 12-10-2009 11:43 PM ET (US)
TANK ordered. $236 high sierra
number9 posted 12-11-2009 12:36 AM ET (US)
When mine comes it's going under the RPS even though the weight forward would be nice.
high sierra posted 12-11-2009 03:59 PM ET (US)
Tank on backorder. high sierra
high sierra posted 12-16-2009 10:28 PM ET (US)
Company called clrmarine.com has 13 of the Moeller Boston Whaler tanks in stock. $206 plus shipping. Mine is on the way. I have no connection to the company . high sierra
Peter posted 12-17-2009 05:31 AM ET (US)
I'm curious to know whether anyone who has installed an above deck fuel tank forward of the console has a fuel pickup problem caused by the fuel getting jostled around. In other words, with all the bouncing up and down that the bow of the boat does, does the fuel pick up ingest air, particularly as the fuel level gets lower in the tank? This curiosity assumes that the forward above deck fuel tank is plumbed to feed the motor directly.
The way I would construct a dual tank system with the auxilliary tank forward of the console, above deck, is to plumb it so that it fills the main below deck tank such that fuel is only drawn from the pickup at the rear of that tank. There would be a shut off valve between the above deck and the original below deck tank to control the fuel distribution.
Jefecinco posted 12-17-2009 10:04 AM ET (US)
Peter,
Your idea for connecting to the main tank with an above deck aux tank could be very useful for those planning long trips or trips to areas with iffy fuel quality or high prices.
Such an installation would require a lot of operator care to ensure the aux tank discharge line valve was always closed until it is CLEAR that there is sufficient space in the main tank to accept all the fuel in the aux tank.
It would be very easy to over flow the main tank via the vent line if one was a little absent minded. Perhaps if the vent outlet is sufficiently higher than the aux tank fuel level it would not be an issue except in snotty conditions. Still, it would seem dangerous to impose greater than atmospheric pressure on the fuel supply system. Certainly it would make it easy to find any leaks in the fuel supply system.
Our friend Murphy would recommend a tag or some other reminder on the aux tank line valve and/or the fuel level gauge. Certainly those of us approaching advanced middle age would need a reminder once in a while.
Butch
high sierra posted 12-17-2009 12:41 PM ET (US)
Since I thought I had a problem with the fuel I was using, I have been using an above deck 6.6 gallon Merc.( I HAVE 2). tank and there is no problem with air getting into the fuel supply. Have you ever shaken a small can of gas and seen how little air is ratained in the fuel? That 63 gallon internl tank probably has more of a problem with that scenario when it is low sloshing back san forth. The ondeck fuel supply will flow easier than the onboard below deck tank as well. The whole idea of this project is to carry LESS fuel that is always fresh. That Yamaha 150 needs it. Good suggestions though. high sierra
Peter posted 12-17-2009 01:21 PM ET (US)
My concern is not with aerated fuel but rather that the fuel will be jostled around when placed forward of the contact such that the fuel pickup will, at times, simply be pulling air rather than fuel so your fuel line have some air in it which is never good.
In most boat designs, the fuel tanks, and especially their pickup tubes, are located in the stern where they will be exposed to the least amount of bounce. Have you run your Outrage with the two above deck fuel tanks located forward of the console?
Why not just carry less fuel in the main belly tank and put in whatever it is that you think you need for that day plus a little cushion?
Blackduck posted 12-17-2009 05:10 PM ET (US)
I have the same issues with the 63 gallon tank. I need no more than 20 gallons of fuel per use. Because of condensation, I know it is best to keep that tank full. However, why do I want to carry around 250 extra pounds of a fuel that technically begins to degrade the minute I put it in the tank? What I was going to do is add a 24 gallon tank under the RPS, Montauk style. However I think I will keep doing what I have been doing, keeping only 20 gallons in the tank, and keeping my fingers crossed. I add some fuel treatment, and do I have a fuel- water separator. No water has shown up in the filter bowl, yet. If and when I have a problem with the belly tank, I will abandon it, go with an on deck tank, and let someone else install a new internal tank.
high sierra posted 12-17-2009 05:40 PM ET (US)
I will let all know how this works out. The tank is on the way and I can hardly wait to install it and test it.
On a different note isn't it amazing how you can write something and overlook a spelling error that you know is wrong but you just don't see it. The words retain, and, and internal are spelled wrong in my blurb but the eye and the brain didn't catch it. HA Oh well , high sierra

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: OUTRAGE 18: Using an On-Deck Fuel Tank Forward of the Console
high sierra	posted 12-09-2009 10:27 PM ET (US) I'm considering the mounting of that new Moeller [26-gallon on-deck fuel] tank forward of the console in my 1983 OUTRAGE 18. [The on-deck fuel tank] would go where the cooler sits. Besides not having to keep a 63 gallon tank near full, [an on-deck fuel tank forward of the console] would move the balance of the boat forward, cutting down on the porpoising that occurs at times. My gas supply would stay a little more fresh as well. Anyone made this change? How did it change the handling of the boat? Regards, high sierra
Jefecinco	posted 12-10-2009 09:02 AM ET (US) High, A minor issue for your consideration would be that the center of gravity of your Outrage would be raised by the combination of less weight below deck and more weight above. I doubt it would be a serious issue except in extreme conditions and it could well help any porpoising conditions you have. Unless you use your boat in extreme conditions it's probably worth a try. Have you considered how you'll arrange the Moeller tank to engine fuel supply hose? Before going to the expense of a new tank you may want to consider filling the cooler full of water and adding any additional ballast forward of the cooler to mimic the weight of the full Moeller tank and try your boat's behavior when the under deck tank is near empty. Butch
Peter	posted 12-10-2009 09:21 AM ET (US) That sort of defeats the beauty of the Outrage 18 design, fuel, which sloshes around abit, is stored below deck keeping the center of gravity of the boat low. As your motor consumes fuel from the forward tank, the bow/stern balance of the boat will be constantly changing and your purpose for putting it their in the first place gets defeated.
Buckda	posted 12-10-2009 09:22 AM ET (US) I run with a Tempo forward of the console (or under the leaning post) as one of the versatile configurations available to me. I have twin 90's on the back of the boat, so there's plenty of bow lift available - but she runs great with that weight up there - especially into a chop! The extra tank gives me about 300 miles of range (280 being more conservative), which is plenty for any expedition on the Great Lakes. That can usually last me two and a half to three days on a fishing/camping expedition. I think it is a good option and you will be pleased with it. The only challenge that I've not yet found a fully satisfactory solution to is running the fuel hose. In an effort to keep my boat fully convertible, I rigged a T fitting and selector switch to the main fuel supply line AHEAD of the fuel filter/water separator. This allows me to connect a coiled hose to the auxiliary tank when needed, but stow it when not.
Buckda	posted 12-10-2009 09:26 AM ET (US) Incidentally, I run the auxiliary tank FIRST so the belly tank is full, helping maintain the boat's lower center of gravity. However, I have done it "Backwards" so I could see how much range I actually have on the belly tank. I really didn't notice a difference. Regards, Dave
high sierra	posted 12-10-2009 01:04 PM ET (US) All good points. The low center of gravity is a good point and is one of the reasons I bought the boat. The looks are important as well but I fish with this boat and changes are part of owning it. Fish residue is usually in the boat after a "hard" day of trolling. I do find a change in the hull when the main tank fuel supply goes down but it's over a long period of time so it's not so noticeable. It feels heavier and more stable in the water when full. I have had a buddy go forward when running with a half tank and the hull is more stable in rough water for sure. I would intend to run the fuel line into the console at the front edge, down into the tunnel, then to starboard and up under the teak side decks back to the filter. The new tank would make a difference in the fore and aft feeling, but normally I only use 10 to fifteen gallons before I refill as I use a 8hp Yamaha for trolling. The change in the handling might be less than that 63 gallon tanks going empty over a period of time. Thanks for the well thought out replies. high sierra
elaelap	posted 12-10-2009 01:21 PM ET (US) I think [using a 26-gallon on-deck fuel tank foward of the console on a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18] is a great idea, Jim. I used the cooler seat forward of my [unclear, used acronym for Boston Whaler boat model name--please use the model name] console for tools, fishing gear, USCG safety stuff, and purposely kept seventy or eighty pounds of salmon weights up there, wrapped tightly in a duck-taped burlap bag, on the starboard side of the cooler to offset the weight of my 8-hp portside-mounted kicker. I never had any problem whatsoever with porpoising, and as Dave/Buckda has experienced, having some weight further forward is helpful when pounding into chop. Is there any way your new fuel tank could fit right into a cooler seat? That way you wouldn't lose that very functional forward seating area. You could drill a hole in the cooler for the fuel line and lead it aft under the console; and perhaps you'd want to drill several other holes to allow venting and prevent dangerous fumes from building up inside the cooler. Just a thought, and obviously it would depend upon the dimensions of the fuel tank and cooler. Tony
littleblue	posted 12-10-2009 02:31 PM ET (US) I'm a bit confused.. Are you planning to use [a 26-gallon on deck fuel tank] instead of your main tank? The only application I see for having a spare tank is if your running a distance where you are in danger of running out of fuel, or boat camping, or something like that. Otherwise, I think your just wasting deck space and creating clutter no?
high sierra	posted 12-10-2009 03:39 PM ET (US) I plan to try [using a 26-gallon on-deck fuel tank] as my main fuel supply. high sierra
Perry	posted 12-10-2009 03:42 PM ET (US) Is there something wrong with your fuel tank under deck?
high sierra	posted 12-10-2009 03:42 PM ET (US) Tony, I'm not sure that Moeller would fit in my 120 Igloo but it is sure worth a try. high sierra
high sierra	posted 12-10-2009 03:49 PM ET (US) Perry, no ,there is nothing wrong with the built in tank. In fact I just replaced that SOB fill hose and the vent hose. The tank is not corroded and doesn't leak. I mainly want to put weight forward and carry less fuel so it is fresher and replenished more often. My boat is a working boat so this is a minor change which can be reversed if necessary. high sierra
pglein	posted 12-10-2009 03:50 PM ET (US) I could see this being useful for extended range, that's about it.
littleblue	posted 12-10-2009 05:14 PM ET (US) If you don't need the extra fuel capacity, I wouldn't use the forward tank. I wouldn't want my main 63 gallons of fuel to go bad, that would be a big headache. And you definitely would want to keep the tank full. I think you should just address the proposing issue directly...do you know what is causing it? Is you engine mounted high enough? I keep all my fishing weights in a super tough canvas bag that has lots of pockets...I got it at the hardware store, maybe for electricians? It goes in the anchor well along w/ a bunch of unused Salmon weights.
high sierra	posted 12-10-2009 11:43 PM ET (US) TANK ordered. $236 high sierra
number9	posted 12-11-2009 12:36 AM ET (US) When mine comes it's going under the RPS even though the weight forward would be nice.
high sierra	posted 12-11-2009 03:59 PM ET (US) Tank on backorder. high sierra
high sierra	posted 12-16-2009 10:28 PM ET (US) Company called clrmarine.com has 13 of the Moeller Boston Whaler tanks in stock. $206 plus shipping. Mine is on the way. I have no connection to the company . high sierra
Peter	posted 12-17-2009 05:31 AM ET (US) I'm curious to know whether anyone who has installed an above deck fuel tank forward of the console has a fuel pickup problem caused by the fuel getting jostled around. In other words, with all the bouncing up and down that the bow of the boat does, does the fuel pick up ingest air, particularly as the fuel level gets lower in the tank? This curiosity assumes that the forward above deck fuel tank is plumbed to feed the motor directly. The way I would construct a dual tank system with the auxilliary tank forward of the console, above deck, is to plumb it so that it fills the main below deck tank such that fuel is only drawn from the pickup at the rear of that tank. There would be a shut off valve between the above deck and the original below deck tank to control the fuel distribution.
Jefecinco	posted 12-17-2009 10:04 AM ET (US) Peter, Your idea for connecting to the main tank with an above deck aux tank could be very useful for those planning long trips or trips to areas with iffy fuel quality or high prices. Such an installation would require a lot of operator care to ensure the aux tank discharge line valve was always closed until it is CLEAR that there is sufficient space in the main tank to accept all the fuel in the aux tank. It would be very easy to over flow the main tank via the vent line if one was a little absent minded. Perhaps if the vent outlet is sufficiently higher than the aux tank fuel level it would not be an issue except in snotty conditions. Still, it would seem dangerous to impose greater than atmospheric pressure on the fuel supply system. Certainly it would make it easy to find any leaks in the fuel supply system. Our friend Murphy would recommend a tag or some other reminder on the aux tank line valve and/or the fuel level gauge. Certainly those of us approaching advanced middle age would need a reminder once in a while. Butch
high sierra	posted 12-17-2009 12:41 PM ET (US) Since I thought I had a problem with the fuel I was using, I have been using an above deck 6.6 gallon Merc.( I HAVE 2). tank and there is no problem with air getting into the fuel supply. Have you ever shaken a small can of gas and seen how little air is ratained in the fuel? That 63 gallon internl tank probably has more of a problem with that scenario when it is low sloshing back san forth. The ondeck fuel supply will flow easier than the onboard below deck tank as well. The whole idea of this project is to carry LESS fuel that is always fresh. That Yamaha 150 needs it. Good suggestions though. high sierra
Peter	posted 12-17-2009 01:21 PM ET (US) My concern is not with aerated fuel but rather that the fuel will be jostled around when placed forward of the contact such that the fuel pickup will, at times, simply be pulling air rather than fuel so your fuel line have some air in it which is never good. In most boat designs, the fuel tanks, and especially their pickup tubes, are located in the stern where they will be exposed to the least amount of bounce. Have you run your Outrage with the two above deck fuel tanks located forward of the console? Why not just carry less fuel in the main belly tank and put in whatever it is that you think you need for that day plus a little cushion?
Blackduck	posted 12-17-2009 05:10 PM ET (US) I have the same issues with the 63 gallon tank. I need no more than 20 gallons of fuel per use. Because of condensation, I know it is best to keep that tank full. However, why do I want to carry around 250 extra pounds of a fuel that technically begins to degrade the minute I put it in the tank? What I was going to do is add a 24 gallon tank under the RPS, Montauk style. However I think I will keep doing what I have been doing, keeping only 20 gallons in the tank, and keeping my fingers crossed. I add some fuel treatment, and do I have a fuel- water separator. No water has shown up in the filter bowl, yet. If and when I have a problem with the belly tank, I will abandon it, go with an on deck tank, and let someone else install a new internal tank.
high sierra	posted 12-17-2009 05:40 PM ET (US) I will let all know how this works out. The tank is on the way and I can hardly wait to install it and test it. On a different note isn't it amazing how you can write something and overlook a spelling error that you know is wrong but you just don't see it. The words retain, and, and internal are spelled wrong in my blurb but the eye and the brain didn't catch it. HA Oh well , high sierra