c.1988 OUTRAGE 20 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  c.1988 OUTRAGE 20

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   c.1988 OUTRAGE 20

SEAJ posted 06-21-2011 02:56 PM ET (US)
I am thinking of buying a c.1988 OUTRAGE 20. The boat needs cleaning and elbow grease. My main concern is the aft deck access cover was removed. I asked the dealer why. His response was, to pump the rain water out of the hull. I think the boat was kept at a dry storage facility and the cover for the access hatch was left off? Once water is between the deck and fuel tank, what keeps the water from entering into the foam, and becoming trapped or water logged?
In addition, the main reason I am interested in the boat, is the newer Yamaha 150 four-cycle outboard engine. [Solicits] opinions on this motor and hull combination. The boat will be used as an all-round family cuiser, skier, and fisher. Of course fuel economy is a factor with the today's fuel prices, but there is nothing worst than an underpowered boat. My last boat was an Outrage 18 with a Suzuki 140-HP, and I was very pleased with the all-around performace. Assuming the hull is okay, and the performace is close to the same as the Outrage 18 and 140-HP set-up, this is the boat for me. Thanks you in advance for your input, Stephen

Jeff posted 06-21-2011 03:25 PM ET (US)
The water can not travel from the fuel tank cavity into the inner hull foam because the fuel tank cavity is lined with gelcoat and fiberglass mat like the rest of the hull.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/outrageRestore.html
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/outrageRestore2.html
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/centerDeckRepair.html
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v472/sraab928/ 1982%20Boston%20Whaler%20Outrage%2025/
Lil Ole Boat posted 06-21-2011 07:04 PM ET (US)
My first thought would be to say that the boat is underpowered. The 20 is obviously more boat than your 18, and the 150 isn't much more than the 140. I would hate to see you invest time, effort, and [money] only to be disappointed in the performance. If you decide to sea trial the boat, I would suggest taking the whole family and the fattest skier you can find. This will keep you from living in regret. I have seen four-smoke engine and boat combo's that were completely different animals when adding or subtracting only one passenger.
pcrussell50 posted 06-21-2011 07:22 PM ET (US)

quote:
I have seen four smoke engine/boat combo's that were completely different animals when adding or subtracting only one passenger.
Are you saying there is something about 4-strokes that causes them to perform less well than an equivalently rated 2-stroke? I have no real dog in this fight as the only 4-stroke I own is 90hp on my heavy 17 Alert, (special services Montauk), and that is in no way a performance boatto me, as most days I can't go anywhere near it's top speed in the ocean. My fast lake boats both use 2-strokes.
-Peter
Lil Ole Boat posted 06-21-2011 08:03 PM ET (US)
While my experience with [four-cycle outboard engines] is limited, it is my opinion that [two-cycle] outboard engines are more suited for performance tasks like pulling skiers. [Four-cycle engines] are the new technology, and they are all around better for general boating. They just seem sluggish.
If SEAJ plans to ski and pull his kids skiing, he needs to make sure that he has a boat that will perform. Perhaps a 200-HP four-cycle engine on a 20-foot boat would be better. He would have power in reserve, and we all like that!
elenakagan posted 06-21-2011 08:29 PM ET (US)
Have a surveyor do a moisture check. Virtually all Whalers will have an elevated moisture reading around thru-hulls.
jimh posted 06-21-2011 10:17 PM ET (US)
A classic Boston Whaler boat hull that was intact and not suffering from some major damage to the laminate and gel coat could be left out in the rain for a decade and would not be likely to have water absorbed into the foam of the Unibond hull.
An OUTRAGE 20 needs only 90-HP to get on plane. A 150-HP engine should have no trouble getting the boat on plane and giving good performance. As with any boat, pulling a water skier may require using a propeller with lower pitch to get the best acceleration under a heavy load. It is much cheaper to buy a propeller for water skiing than to buy an engine with excess power that is not needed for normal operation.
jimh posted 06-21-2011 10:24 PM ET (US)
It is unlikely that an OUTRAGE 20 with 150-HP will perform as well as an OUTRAGE 18 with 140-HP. Performance is related to the power-to-weight ratio. The OUTRAGE 20 will weigh more than the OUTRAGE 18. The hull weights are listed in
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/specifications.html
The bare hull of an OUTRAGE 20 is 1,850-lbs. The bare hull of an OUTRAGE 18 is 1,250-lbs. The power-to-weight ratios are
OUTRAGE 18 = 140/1250 =0.112
OUTRAGE 20 = 150/1850 =0.081
We see that the OUTRAGE 18 with 140-HP has a much better power-to-weight ratio than the OUTRAGE 20 with 150-HP. It is not reasonable to expect that the two boats will have the same performance when their power-to-weight ratios are so different.
jimh posted 06-21-2011 11:05 PM ET (US)
My comparison above exaggerates the difference between the two boats because it neglects the weight of the other components. The total weight of each boat will consists of the hull and other components such as the engine, batteries, rigging, fuel, gear, and passengers. These will add perhaps 1,500-lbs to each boat. We might compare on that basis:
OUTRAGE 18 = 140/(1250 + 1500) = 0.051
OUTRAGE 20 = 150/(1850 +1500) = 0.045
We see there is still a difference in favor of the 18-footer, but the difference is not as dramatic as in the first comparison on just the bare hull weights.
Speed is proportional to the horsepower-to-weight ratio to the 0.5-exponent, so we need to apply that factor. First let's normalize the power-to-weight ratios so the OUTRAGE 20 is the normal value
OUTRAGE 18 = 0.051 --> 1.13
OUTRAGE 20 = 0.045 --> 1.0
Now we apply the 0.5-exponent:
OUTRAGE 18 = 1.13^0.5 = 1.06
OUTRAGE 20 = 1.0^0.5 = 1.0
We see the OUTRAGE-18 is still a better performer, but the difference in speed is unlikely to be quite as dramatic.
We also need to consider the hull factor constant of the two boat. Since the two hulls are of similar design, we can consider their hulls will have similar hull factor constants.

SEAJ posted 06-22-2011 10:39 AM ET (US)
I appreciate everyone's comments and information, especially concerning the water in the hull. And thanks to the 'Wave for making this information platform available. I was hoping another member of CW would have the same boat motor combination to say "yea, it is a great combo and I wouldn't change a thing, or either say, it is dog and don't buy it." As far a "two smoke" or a four stroke, my personal preference is a four stroke motor so comparing to a two stroke is not relevant. I am assuming the "perfect" four stroke motor selection would be a 175hp four stroke, but like the Stones say "you can always get what you want, but you get what you need." Well, I am in serious NEED of a new old Whaler. I made a huge mistake selling my 18' (to move up to a 22' or 20'), and I am starting to have whaler withdraws. I just don't want to make a bad purchase because I am inpatient and wanting something now. Thanks again to all for you help and support.

PS--I have heard that the Yamaha 200-HP performance is not that great, leaving some owners a little disappointed. This is one of the few Yamaha models I have not have any experience. And to say disappointing is not the right narrative, but I have "heard" that the difference in the 150hp and 200hp is not great, and the difference in a 200hp and the 225 hp is huge. Jimh, do you have any information or experience to confirm or disprove. Thanks again and look forward to reading your comments.
Pss BTW Lil Ole Boat Higher HP is not always the best choice...I very recently was informed of a two-stroke 75hp Evinrude crushing a 90hp Yamaha in a friendly race between family members having the same size boats.

prj posted 06-22-2011 04:20 PM ET (US)
Internet rumor and anecdotal reports repeatedly have that 140 Suzuki putting out about 125 HP and that 150 Yamaha 4 stroke putting out 162 HP.
Take that for what it's worth.
montauk madness posted 06-23-2011 09:56 AM ET (US)
I have a 2001 200hp Yamaha 2 stroke on my 1989 20' Outrage and it is very quick to plane and tops out mid to upper 40's with bottom paint.
I'm sure you could get by with less power but I love the combination of this boat with the 200 for water sports etc...
-Jeff

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: c.1988 OUTRAGE 20
SEAJ	posted 06-21-2011 02:56 PM ET (US) I am thinking of buying a c.1988 OUTRAGE 20. The boat needs cleaning and elbow grease. My main concern is the aft deck access cover was removed. I asked the dealer why. His response was, to pump the rain water out of the hull. I think the boat was kept at a dry storage facility and the cover for the access hatch was left off? Once water is between the deck and fuel tank, what keeps the water from entering into the foam, and becoming trapped or water logged? In addition, the main reason I am interested in the boat, is the newer Yamaha 150 four-cycle outboard engine. [Solicits] opinions on this motor and hull combination. The boat will be used as an all-round family cuiser, skier, and fisher. Of course fuel economy is a factor with the today's fuel prices, but there is nothing worst than an underpowered boat. My last boat was an Outrage 18 with a Suzuki 140-HP, and I was very pleased with the all-around performace. Assuming the hull is okay, and the performace is close to the same as the Outrage 18 and 140-HP set-up, this is the boat for me. Thanks you in advance for your input, Stephen
Jeff	posted 06-21-2011 03:25 PM ET (US) The water can not travel from the fuel tank cavity into the inner hull foam because the fuel tank cavity is lined with gelcoat and fiberglass mat like the rest of the hull. http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/outrageRestore.html http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/outrageRestore2.html http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/centerDeckRepair.html http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v472/sraab928/ 1982%20Boston%20Whaler%20Outrage%2025/
Lil Ole Boat	posted 06-21-2011 07:04 PM ET (US) My first thought would be to say that the boat is underpowered. The 20 is obviously more boat than your 18, and the 150 isn't much more than the 140. I would hate to see you invest time, effort, and [money] only to be disappointed in the performance. If you decide to sea trial the boat, I would suggest taking the whole family and the fattest skier you can find. This will keep you from living in regret. I have seen four-smoke engine and boat combo's that were completely different animals when adding or subtracting only one passenger.
pcrussell50	posted 06-21-2011 07:22 PM ET (US) quote: I have seen four smoke engine/boat combo's that were completely different animals when adding or subtracting only one passenger. Are you saying there is something about 4-strokes that causes them to perform less well than an equivalently rated 2-stroke? I have no real dog in this fight as the only 4-stroke I own is 90hp on my heavy 17 Alert, (special services Montauk), and that is in no way a performance boatto me, as most days I can't go anywhere near it's top speed in the ocean. My fast lake boats both use 2-strokes. -Peter
Lil Ole Boat	posted 06-21-2011 08:03 PM ET (US) While my experience with [four-cycle outboard engines] is limited, it is my opinion that [two-cycle] outboard engines are more suited for performance tasks like pulling skiers. [Four-cycle engines] are the new technology, and they are all around better for general boating. They just seem sluggish. If SEAJ plans to ski and pull his kids skiing, he needs to make sure that he has a boat that will perform. Perhaps a 200-HP four-cycle engine on a 20-foot boat would be better. He would have power in reserve, and we all like that!
elenakagan	posted 06-21-2011 08:29 PM ET (US) Have a surveyor do a moisture check. Virtually all Whalers will have an elevated moisture reading around thru-hulls.
jimh	posted 06-21-2011 10:17 PM ET (US) A classic Boston Whaler boat hull that was intact and not suffering from some major damage to the laminate and gel coat could be left out in the rain for a decade and would not be likely to have water absorbed into the foam of the Unibond hull. An OUTRAGE 20 needs only 90-HP to get on plane. A 150-HP engine should have no trouble getting the boat on plane and giving good performance. As with any boat, pulling a water skier may require using a propeller with lower pitch to get the best acceleration under a heavy load. It is much cheaper to buy a propeller for water skiing than to buy an engine with excess power that is not needed for normal operation.
jimh	posted 06-21-2011 10:24 PM ET (US) It is unlikely that an OUTRAGE 20 with 150-HP will perform as well as an OUTRAGE 18 with 140-HP. Performance is related to the power-to-weight ratio. The OUTRAGE 20 will weigh more than the OUTRAGE 18. The hull weights are listed in http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/specifications.html The bare hull of an OUTRAGE 20 is 1,850-lbs. The bare hull of an OUTRAGE 18 is 1,250-lbs. The power-to-weight ratios are OUTRAGE 18 = 140/1250 =0.112 OUTRAGE 20 = 150/1850 =0.081 We see that the OUTRAGE 18 with 140-HP has a much better power-to-weight ratio than the OUTRAGE 20 with 150-HP. It is not reasonable to expect that the two boats will have the same performance when their power-to-weight ratios are so different.
jimh	posted 06-21-2011 11:05 PM ET (US) My comparison above exaggerates the difference between the two boats because it neglects the weight of the other components. The total weight of each boat will consists of the hull and other components such as the engine, batteries, rigging, fuel, gear, and passengers. These will add perhaps 1,500-lbs to each boat. We might compare on that basis: OUTRAGE 18 = 140/(1250 + 1500) = 0.051 OUTRAGE 20 = 150/(1850 +1500) = 0.045 We see there is still a difference in favor of the 18-footer, but the difference is not as dramatic as in the first comparison on just the bare hull weights. Speed is proportional to the horsepower-to-weight ratio to the 0.5-exponent, so we need to apply that factor. First let's normalize the power-to-weight ratios so the OUTRAGE 20 is the normal value OUTRAGE 18 = 0.051 --> 1.13 OUTRAGE 20 = 0.045 --> 1.0 Now we apply the 0.5-exponent: OUTRAGE 18 = 1.13^0.5 = 1.06 OUTRAGE 20 = 1.0^0.5 = 1.0 We see the OUTRAGE-18 is still a better performer, but the difference in speed is unlikely to be quite as dramatic. We also need to consider the hull factor constant of the two boat. Since the two hulls are of similar design, we can consider their hulls will have similar hull factor constants.
SEAJ	posted 06-22-2011 10:39 AM ET (US) I appreciate everyone's comments and information, especially concerning the water in the hull. And thanks to the 'Wave for making this information platform available. I was hoping another member of CW would have the same boat motor combination to say "yea, it is a great combo and I wouldn't change a thing, or either say, it is dog and don't buy it." As far a "two smoke" or a four stroke, my personal preference is a four stroke motor so comparing to a two stroke is not relevant. I am assuming the "perfect" four stroke motor selection would be a 175hp four stroke, but like the Stones say "you can always get what you want, but you get what you need." Well, I am in serious NEED of a new old Whaler. I made a huge mistake selling my 18' (to move up to a 22' or 20'), and I am starting to have whaler withdraws. I just don't want to make a bad purchase because I am inpatient and wanting something now. Thanks again to all for you help and support. PS--I have heard that the Yamaha 200-HP performance is not that great, leaving some owners a little disappointed. This is one of the few Yamaha models I have not have any experience. And to say disappointing is not the right narrative, but I have "heard" that the difference in the 150hp and 200hp is not great, and the difference in a 200hp and the 225 hp is huge. Jimh, do you have any information or experience to confirm or disprove. Thanks again and look forward to reading your comments. Pss BTW Lil Ole Boat Higher HP is not always the best choice...I very recently was informed of a two-stroke 75hp Evinrude crushing a 90hp Yamaha in a friendly race between family members having the same size boats.
prj	posted 06-22-2011 04:20 PM ET (US) Internet rumor and anecdotal reports repeatedly have that 140 Suzuki putting out about 125 HP and that 150 Yamaha 4 stroke putting out 162 HP. Take that for what it's worth.
montauk madness	posted 06-23-2011 09:56 AM ET (US) I have a 2001 200hp Yamaha 2 stroke on my 1989 20' Outrage and it is very quick to plane and tops out mid to upper 40's with bottom paint. I'm sure you could get by with less power but I love the combination of this boat with the 200 for water sports etc... -Jeff