posted 05-05-2013 01:10 AM ET (US)        

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/andygere/library/ Outrage%2022%20with%20twin%20ETECs

Here are a few links to photos of my boat from some similar perspectives. The first shows it floating at a distance with two aboard. In the second photo. the tape line shows where the waterline is on my boat.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/andygere/ Fleet%20Week%20Cruise%202006/Picture020.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/andygere/Bottom%20Painting/taped. jpg

I think these photos show that the classic Outrage 22 can easily carry twin V4 ETECs without giving up any measurable freeboard.

posted 05-05-2013 11:21 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for the post. If my financial situation had been more favorable, I would have loved to set up my boat with twin 115 Etecs. I really like the idea of twins.

That being said, my single 200 Etec is working out well for me.

Thanks again,

posted 05-05-2013 11:27 PM ET (US)            

The wrap around stern rail on my Outrage was installed by the original owner. I really like it, especially when setting up trolling gear in pitching seas.

posted 05-06-2013 02:43 PM ET (US)            

I have a '91 22 outrage cuddy with standard transom which has the original '91 yamaha 115 COUNTER ROTATING engines. I have had this boat for 5 years here in Alaska and the boat has always seamed to handle the weight on the transom just fine (I believe those engines weight ~360 each.) I have the newer style transom dam but have never had trouble with too much water on the deck. I am sure that the weight of the cuddy and all the Alaska essentials I have crammed in there also helps my static trim. The boat is not bottom painted, trailer kept, and I average just under 1.8 mpg for a season of boating. Top speed is just over 41 knots at 5600 and usual cruise is between 28-32 knots depending on sea state. I can plane on one engine.

In the next year or two I am going to need to repower. When I do I am going to replace gas lines and steering, as well as some other minor repairs. I feel I have gotten my money out of the current engines and although they have always served me well, they are now 22 years old and I would like the range that the increased fuel economy would provide (many of my trips are 150-250 miles RT and necessitate carrying extra fuel.)

I had already decided that when I repower, it will be with twins. I have spent endless hours reading arguments pro and con, but the truth is, there are lots of things to hit in the water up here, and having come home 50 miles on one engine after encountering a log with the other, I'm sticking with twins.

At present, the only option I feel viable is the etec, because of the weight issue. I had been hopeful that yamaha or suzuki would come out with a new lighter weight 115 (the new v4 yamaha 200 gives some room for hope) but have heard of nothing coming in the next year or so...

Which brings us to the issue of counter rotation - and your comments. Like singles vs. twins, twin counter vs non counter has been greatly debated on this and other forums. Most of what I can gather has been that twins under 150 hp with hydraulic steering will be fine, with hardly any noticeable effect. Have you personal experience which would suggest otherwise, or know someone who has? I would really like to hear, as it is something that is of tremendous consideration since my current setup IS CR, and I have even explored buying a CR lower unit and having it installed on a 20" shaft 115 etec.

posted 05-06-2013 11:55 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The E-tec 130's had to be taken off the market because of 3-star emission failures.

---

posted 05-07-2013 07:38 AM ET (US)            

The owner of that Outrage 22 had a choice of outboards to hang on the transom (wasn't forced to put a Mercury on the transom of that Whaler). That owner chose E-TEC 115s over the Optimax 115s (and other 115s). For the same weight on the transom, they got 8 cylinders instead of 6, they got 3.4L instead of 3L of displacement, they got two battery independent DFI systems, they got the ability to connect a laptop to the motors to review stored information, they got motors that are plug and play on a NEMA 2000 network without any extra cost gateways, and they got turn key winterizable motors.

posted 05-07-2013 08:54 AM ET (US)            

"I see the 3 cylinder Merc Opti's (75-125HP) all over the place."

posted 05-08-2013 02:06 AM ET (US)            

why include an Otimax in the mix the decision was made with the Etecs and how they appear to be well balanced in relationship to weight. Staying on topic is about that.

For example: Yes I agree the transom looks great and the weight doesn't appear to be a problem. (on topic) Or I not sure the weight looks not to be a problem but will the power be adequate?

(Off Topic)

"The E-tec 130's had to be taken off the market because of 3-star emission failures."

"If the VERADO were not propped up by sales of better performing Three-Star rated low-emission engines made by Mercury, the entire VERADO line would be off the market."

Providing links to videos to compare the Optimax and Etec? really?

Who cares! and no there was no mention of the Optimax in the original post so anything otherwise would be changing the topic or perhaps provoking pokes at people who favor them and it goes both ways as we have seen so many times before. For once can we please stay away from that stuff thats all Im asking. Sorry but it just gets crazy after a while you just want it to stop.

posted 05-08-2013 11:50 AM ET (US)         

"At present, the only option I feel viable is the etec, because of the weight issue. I had been hopeful that yamaha or suzuki would come out with a new lighter weight 115."

He had already mentioned Yamaha and Suzuki, so I thought it reasonable to say the 115 Mercury Opti's weighed the same as the Evinrudes, and might be worth a look. What's the big deal? He had already mentioned that he may have preferred a Japanese brand if they weighed less.

We get those kind of comments here, all engine brands, all the time. E-tekkers don't need to be so threatened.

posted 05-09-2013 02:02 AM ET (US)            

LHG's tossing out the "emission failure" remark is nothing more than his usual tactics about BRP, Evinrude, and E-TEC.

I do admire LHG's five decades of allegiance to Mercury, his unwavering dedication to their outboard engine products, and the shiny condition of all nine Mercury outboard engine cowlings that he maintains, but I am getting a bit weary of the constant and ineluctable entry into every E-TEC discussion of the Mercury OptiMax.

posted 05-09-2013 12:35 PM ET (US)         

"--the EPA emission requirements are becoming more stringent every year, and rather than calibrate and qualify the V4 at 130-HP it was probably decided at Evinrude to calibrate and qualify the V6 at 135-HP".

posted 05-09-2013 01:03 PM ET (US)            

There is nothing in my statement you have quoted that indicates the E-TEC V4 high-performance engines were incapable of meeting 2013 emission.

posted 05-10-2013 12:14 PM ET (US)            

The occurrence of this change in the Evinrude model line gave an opportunity for the FUD-meisters to spread more FUD about the E-TEC.

Above Larry has excerpted one sentence fragment from a posting I made regarding the replacement of the V4 with the V6. In that posting I gave several other reasons for the change. I won't encumber this discussion with a repetition of all that discussion. You can find it here:

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/021894.html

posted 05-10-2013 12:31 PM ET (US)            

https://picasaweb.google.com/104849459662897493902/ May102013?authkey=Gv1sRgCPyautryjbi1FA#

posted 05-10-2013 04:16 PM ET (US)            

However one thing I would like to know about these twin Etecs in the topic is can the captain operate the engine or engnines at slow trolling speeds such as a four stroke? From what I understand the etec is still a two stroke by nature but I'm not familiar with the Etec but most if not all two strokes are much too fast for paticular trolling speeds.

posted 05-10-2013 06:36 PM ET (US)            

The slow idle is a very nice feature for maneuvering around a dock. The boat speed can be 3 to 4-MPH instead of 6 to 7-MPH that results from a faster idle.

posted 05-10-2013 06:54 PM ET (US)            

Perhaps I can help to get this back on track. Andy - I have uploaded some pictures to picasa and will post a link at bottom. Let me know if you can view them, as first time using picasa.

Peter - no more discussion about the lack of CR being a problem?

Bert - thank you so much for chiming in and adding real value to this discussion. You state that you have no CR and you don't miss it - what kind of steering are you running?

Here are some pics of my 22 outrage cuddy:

posted 05-11-2013 12:19 PM ET (US)            

I do not understand why you are asking about a kicker AND twins - it would make sense to just alternate which twin you operate for trolling to maintain similar hours on the motors.

posted 05-11-2013 02:46 PM ET (US)            

Its just a concern I saw with the boat with these twins its not all roses all the time it looks great performs great but what about low speeds such as like four stroke then it would be necessary to add a kicker and then the weight on top of this rig. Would it now sit like it does or would it start to show too much. Hey Im sure whoever purchased this would careless about slow speeds but there are reasons to others that may be applicable to.

posted 05-11-2013 07:12 PM ET (US)         

Reducing transom weight and high mpg at 20-30 mph cruise were main goals.

Because of the large displacement, the boat has no trouble getting up on plane. I fill the 120 gallon tank up for winter and first Spring Chinook run with two onboard she's up and away. That's equal to half tank (60 gal) and crew of four.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24867843@N07/8726407095/

posted 05-12-2013 09:23 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

andygere - I started this thread primarily because I had often thought that DFI twin engines were not a practical power alternative for my Outrage 22 Cuddy, and these photos made me think otherwise. As I said earlier, the ETEC V4s were not out at the time I needed to repower due to the powerhead failure of my carburated Mercury 200.

---

Andy...only difference between our boats is the weight of the front cuddy. I carry a three battery (27D) bank in the console and 60-120 gallons of fuel so that might make up for some of the weight difference between open and cuddy.

You are going to get my 150 Merc Four Stroke speech. Its 183 cu. inches vs. your current 200 ETEC's 153 cubic inches.

Merc is 455# vs. the ETEC's 410#.

You would likely gain low end torque and cruising fuel efficiency and maybe lose some wide open throttle mph.

I haven't even fooled around with props yet.

posted 05-12-2013 09:36 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Martyn1075 - Now sorry I'm the one going a bit off topic now but I need to know what is underneath your Outrage on the first pic? Is that what I think it is a device that keeps your boat out of the water?

---

It is an AirDock. $3K. World's greatest in the water boat storage device. Eliminates need for bottom paint which, with sealant and paint, was same initial cost plus none of the issues with paint, all of them bad.

posted 05-13-2013 04:19 PM ET (US)         

[Changed topic to discuss his perception of what motors are seen in use.]

[Changed topic to speculate about relative advantage of a non-E-TEC engine compared on another non-E-TEC engine.]

posted 05-14-2013 10:17 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

[Please try to stay on topic here. We are discussing the use of twin E-TEC engines to power a classic Boston Whaler boat.--jimh]

---

Wouldn't that discussion include all options? I looked at EVERY combo of mfg and engine when I repowered my Outrage 22. I wanted feedback on EVERY option.

Created a spreadsheet with the combos of twins and singles with kickers, weight, displacement.

In case of 115 ETEC's, Yamaha twin 115 four cycles weigh the same per Evinrude comparison. Need to carry and purchase oil as well as gas and engine efficiency would say that Yamaha twin four cycles would be the best replacement.

I went single and kicker on my Outrage 22 to get the weight down as twins (all mfgs) are in the 750 range vs.single/kicker. Also for max fuel efficiency, emissions, fuel cost, range, need to carry less fuel.

Going Evinrude 200/9 setup would save 150# on the transom, less drag in the water and even more twin engine security. Nailing a submerged object at speed could as likely disable both engines while a kicker would be safe. Additionally, dead battery you can start kicker by hand.

I even went with manual tilt on my 9HP kicker because a dead battery leaves you stuck in the up position. The release for all the power tilt kickers is a small painted in screw down on the shaft that you will NEVER be able to open out on the water.

I was originally looking at Suzuki 175 for weight to power ratio. Suzuki's advertising mantra is "No replacement for displacement" and they expand on this in their literature (displacment providing basis for low end torque and mid range fuel efficiency...my main concerns).

I went with max displacement (thanks for the primer Suzuki) and lowest power/wt ratio...and got the Mercury 150.

So someone looking to repower an Outrage 22 should consider all the options and the small community of classic Outrage 22 who have made that choice might have some valuable information to share for all engine choices. Results of those choices are the best measure not matter what the mfg.

If I liked Yamaha (I do) and local service is good (a bit of an issue here), a Yamaha 150 might be a good choice. For an ETEC person, Andy Gere's choice of a 200 single at 419# would be good.

posted 05-14-2013 03:15 PM ET (US)            

Born and raised on Curacao and started a small dealership 2 years ago selling Evinrude ETEC outboards.