posted 11-01-2004 02:39 PM ET (US)            

If you wish to have a 9, the 9.9 Yamaha high-thrust has everything the T8 has except tilt, but it also has a bigger prop throwing a lot more water for a little more speed, and its charger puts out 10 amps (compared to the T8's 6-A). The 9.9 weighs less than the T8 due to no tilt. The high thrust 9.9 is a very popular engine as a sailboat auxiliary. They have been around in pretty much the same form for a long time now.

Both these high thrust engines are designed specifically for pushing good size boats at displacement speeds. Quite a few small outboards, in fact, most, are designed for pushing small, light boats faster and do a poor job with a large boat. You get lots of propeller slip with their high turning props, and the props are small, so little effective thrust.

By the way, I have a kort nozzle setup that I think fits a T8. I got purchased it on Ebay as it looked like it was sized right for the T9.9. The prop with it fits, but the nozzle is too small for the gap from cavitation plate to skeg. This nozzle will increase the thrust of the outboard in both directions by about 50 percent. As it does not fit what I have, I will be selling it off. Here's what it looks like set up:
http://naturerecordist.home.mindspring.com/handler.gif

posted 11-01-2004 03:21 PM ET (US)            

Walt-
Where can I read some more poop about that nozzle, and how much do you want for it?

posted 11-01-2004 05:57 PM ET (US)            

Everyone has great opinions here and great ideas. There is no wrong answer.
For everyone's benefit that doesn't know, thekidd has an Outrage 18 that this question is directed about.

I have been thinking about repower also and of course have my own opinions and needs. Everyones needs are different.

I think if I had a 22' or 25' Outrage, the T8 would probably be my choice if I wanted to control everything from the helm just like kingfish has done with his fantastic intallation.

You and I have Outrage 18's, and I personally don't like the idea of an extra battery to carry around and maintain on my 18. I would rather not have the extra weight. In my case, I would go for the F8 4 and be satisfied with controlling just the throttle and shift from the helm and manually starting it.

I also believe that boats look better with Matching brands of engines. Just what I prefer... Most of you already know that I have matching Evinrude, main and kicker, engines with Dual engine controls at the helm to operate them.
http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Outrage/outrage.html

I see myself has having a couple of repower choices in the future as this will also include my main engine as it is getting older.
1. E-Tec 150 (White is the only color choice I believe with the 25" shaft) and keep my existing 2 stroke kicker for awhile (they would be the same brand but the colors wouldn't match)
2. Same as above but eventually include a Johnson 8hp 4 Stroke in White color to match the E-Tec white..
3. Yamaha 150 4 Stroke with Yamaha F8 4 Stroke kicker.
4. Yamaha 115 4 Stroke with Yamaha F8 4 Stroke kicker.
(Always open to other ideas)

Just some of my thoughts as I am not a Mercury man.. Nothing against Mercury as I know you are running a Mercury and this brings up another choice for a kicker for you from this thread by jimh:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003050.html
Looks like a nice kicker but of course the engine is just on the market and may take time to prove itself.. Maybe not...

Now, having said all of the above. Sometimes it is not feasible to go out and buy a brand new main engine along with a kicker just so they will match. Especially if your main engine is only a few years old and you are happy with it.
Then, you would want to look for the best kicker for your use which brings us back to your original question.

A. Yamaha T8 if you want to control everything from the helm and live with the extra weight of the electric model and the battery.
B. Yamaha F8 without the electrics and battery but can control throttle and shift from helm.
C. Johnson 8hp 4 stroke with ability to control throttle and shift from helm.
I have checked with the dealer and the engine already has built-in mounts for external throttle and shift linkage.
D. Mercury Pro 9.9 kicker as in above link. Might want to check if they have the ability for external throttle and shift cables..
E. All of the above :-)

There are several other choices like Honda, Suzuki, Tohatsu, but I would keep a watch on the weight and the ability to control the engine from the helm if this is what you are looking for. Obviously, some people have no need to control the kicker from the helm but Kingfish and I both prefer to have this control and he even goes further by adding the Tilt & Trim, Electric Start, etc. and he is very happy..

posted 11-01-2004 06:36 PM ET (US)            

You've reminded me about the Johnson 8 hp Four Stroke. Here is mine (in Evinrude decals) that could be a good deal for somebody:

posted 11-01-2004 11:06 PM ET (US)            

Jim,
I do appreciate the “built-in” spelling and grammar check, although I usually do my best to proof read my posts prior to sending them. I would like to stick with matching engines and I am almost sure the Yamaha T8 will be the winning candidate, but aesthetics isn’t my number one priority; hence the post.

posted 11-01-2004 11:13 PM ET (US)            

Kort Nozzles are almost universal in heavy pulling boats like tugs and towboats. Because they apply power so much better. Some even have these on rotatable extensions so thrust can be applied in any direction, kind of like with a outboard, except such units can be huge. Think 10'-20' propellers, maybe more. A google on kort nozzles will turn up more than you want to read about them in general.

I got the used Handler nozzle off ebay for $112.50. The person auctioning it did not know what it was. It has the number H915-111-3 stamped in the nozzle. It's in near new condition. A couple small paint chips missing inside. I'm only interested in getting as much of my money back out of it as I can.

It came with nozzle, a matched prop, and some hardware. There appears to be enough hardware to mount it twice and even two drills. It mounts with 4 bolts on the cavitation plate and one through the bottom of the skeg. The special prop mounts the normal way, it's a regular looking prop with the blade tips machined off so it rotates in the nozzle with a very small clearance. The prop has marks on the blade tips that probably line up with the ring mark inside the nozzle. This prop is about 9" dia, no markings except a felt tip 15, not sure on pitch.

The nozzle I have will fit a outboard with about 10.25" between cavitation plate and tip of the skeg. On my 9.9 that's about 2" shorter than the distance, though it matches the cavitation plate shape and the skeg pocket is right if it were just larger. Since the prop has the right spline for the 9.9 and mounts fine, I've assumed it's for a smaller Yamaha high thrust. Sure wish it would fit mine, not only more thrust, but some prop protection.

There's not a lot of info online as the company appears to have given up. They probably priced it too high. It was a new product in about 1999. A google on "handler outboard nozzle" will turn up about all there is. Here's a few quotes:

"A Yamaha 9/9 hp high thrust outboard equipped with a standard 9.25" X 11.75" prop generates 70 lbs. of forward thrust at 2000 rpm - 110 lbs with the Handler installed. Reverse thrust with the standard prop is 45 lbs.; with the Handler, 70 lbs."

"Port Kent Marine, Inc." Handler
P.O. Box 311 Port Kent NY 12975-0311 U.S.A. (514) 637-2566 (514) 637-8449
Outboards 4-45 (most Outboard Makes) Serge Harrison $419-725

"This is a Kort nozzle propeller and is not marketed as a direct prop-guard. The product has some customer testimonials as well. Manufacturer statement: ""Bi-directional power-control-economy""; increased fuel economy (20%), markedly greater thrust (up to 100%), eliminates cavitation, increased engine life by reducing RPM levels 30-40% for same thrust."

I've not contacted that number, but the website that was also listed is dead. Note the prop size listed above is reversed as the standard prop on the T9.9 is a 11.75" dia x 9.25 pitch. A T8 is probably turning a 9" dia x 7 pitch.

Note there are a few other outboard nozzles, including one the defense department paid for that's very nice, fully enclosed for working around troups in the water. It's a full lower unit replacement. But I'm not sure any are specific to the high thrust Yamaha. Nozzles have a rep like propeller guards of slowing the boat, but these engineered ones may have the opposite effect.

posted 11-01-2004 11:18 PM ET (US)            

Yes, I found it nearly irresistable when I found the 1999 T9.9, same graphics and color as my 1998 50 4 stroke. Not that they are a matched pair. The T9.9 looks tiny next to the 50. But it does look nice to have the two engines the same style.

posted 11-01-2004 11:22 PM ET (US)            

My apologies about the statement saying that you had a Mercury for the main engine...
I got you confused with someone else..

By all means, with your Yamaha 150 as the main motor, a Yamaha kicker would be my first choice. Either the T8 or the F8... Whatever you want the electric start and Tilt & Trim or whether you don't. That would be up to you.

posted 11-01-2004 11:44 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/nozzle.jpg

This is an installation of a Yamaha auxiliary engine on a Boston Whaler REVENGE 22 WT WD. This auxiliary engine has a nozzle mounted to enhance the thrust. The term "Kort nozzle" refers to a particular brand or patented device. I think there are other nozzles available besides "Kort nozzles", and I wonder if Kort even makes a nozzle for an engine that small?

This picture was taken in British Columbia. The boat was used in a guided fishing charter operation. I think that engine is also a T8 model. I saw several similar nozzle installations on auxiliary engines up there in BC. It must be a popular add-on for enhancing thrust from the auxiliary engine.

posted 11-02-2004 12:21 AM ET (US)            

Yes Kort is the company that invented these nozzles, or at least makes them and attached their name to them. However, in general usage throughout the internet and elsewhere, the term kort nozzle has become generic. I, too doubt that Kort makes small nozzles. It refers to a nozzle ring that's usually a airfoil sort of cross section with a prop that's got cut off blade tips that run extremely close to the ring. It takes that linkage of prop and ring to get the high performance.

BTW, you can buy kort nozzle sets down to a inch or less in diameter and that's what they are called, also not made by kort. For radio control models. That's the only size I've actually used. I'm in the early stages on a model right now for which I need 60mm diameter. A twin nozzle tug. Also will have a 50mm bow thruster, which is sort of a nozzle.

The ring you show is on there because the boat is used for whale watching. It will provide maybe a slight thrust improvement, but it's primarily for protection of the whales. It's possible you saw so many because a regulation is in place for commercial whale watching boats. And a bent steel strap ring is the simple thing to make. It's not a engineered ring exactly.

Here's a link to a florida list of guards for manatee protection. They tried to cover everything that might help.
http://www.floridaconservation.org/psm/prop/propguide.htm
Manatees are easily hit as they are not the brightest things.

I've run with killer whales in a small boat in that area long before it became popular, or even known. They are intelligent enough that the protection is probably overkill. BTW it took full throttle in a 14' aluminum skiff with a 10hp to keep up with ones that were just cruising slowly for them. One time we ran for so long right with the pod that we used most of a tank of gas. They kept hanging around the boat surfacing right beside us like porpose. Some even came along after we cut off to go for gas. I think current regs don't allow you to run with them, just cruise slowly in the area and hope they hang around. Which is why that boat had it's small motor rigged.

Walt

posted 11-02-2004 12:31 AM ET (US)            

In the Pacific Northwest these devices are actually marketed as propeller guards. When trolling in heavy tide and wind conditions, downriggers cables and fishing lines can come in contact with your prop thus the need for a guard. The additional thrust might be a benefit however, I would question how additional thrust. I too, run a 9.9 HT Yamaha as a kicker, great motor.

posted 11-02-2004 09:12 AM ET (US)            

You made a statement that may have caused my thinking to clarify a little (only temporarily, I'm sure); I had been equating increased thrust to higher speed, and now I'm not so sure I'm on the path I thought I was. I am pretty sure I'd continue to be interested if that nozzle increased my speed along with the increased thrust (I top out about 6mph without a head wind now,and if I could get, say, 7mph with the nozzle, that would be atractive), but I'm not sure I need the increased thrust at no gain or some loss of speed, and I don't need a prop guard.

I will take some measurements, and will keep you posted as to my continued interest. Thanks for the detailed response.

posted 11-02-2004 01:26 PM ET (US)            

Thrust is one way you can be limited, propeller pitch is another. With a heavy boat pushed by a small motor it's usually thrust that's limiting. Particularily where the small motor has a high rev prop which has a lot of propeller slip. Slip is lost thrust. However, the T8 has a prop that's slow rev and designed to have good thrust at slower speeds.

The T8 has a 7 pitch propeller. Yamaha rates that propeller on that motor as being capable of a top speed of 8-14 mph, presumably with light loads. That would imply that you are thrust limited, but I can't be sure. The unknown is propeller slip.

There is a 7.5 pitch propeller that will fit the T8 according to Yamaha's 1998/1999 rigging data. It's rated for a top speed of 11-16 mph. If you could borrow one of those and try it you might can sort out if it's pitch or thrust that limits you. The part # on that prop is 6G1-45943-00-EL Note that higher pitch prop is not a dual thrust prop, and is a little smaller diameter, so you probably would not want it permanent.

Unfortunately, to test the nozzle you would need to drill holes in your motor. Only place I've heard of these being used is on sailboats. Sailboats up to 40' or so use these motors. Sailboats like trimarans which are easily moved through the water sometimes report that they feel the motors pitch limit on them. The symptom is reaching max speed before max throttle. Though that's not always pitch if slip is increasing rapidly.

I'll give you first grab on the nozzle, so let me know when you sort it out, I'm not in a rush on it. If you cover shipping I'm perfectly willing to ship it up to you for test before buying.

posted 11-03-2004 12:25 PM ET (US)            

Regarding the wood for my bracket question. I answered it in my own post...Mahogany it is.

The only thing I am up in the air with is the Steering Arm System. I have seen a handful but three stand out.

Teleflex System seems to be the best. And most $$$$$

Panther Marine looks very simple and cheap?

EZ steering? Not cheap, but don't know about the rear attachment?

posted 11-03-2004 12:47 PM ET (US)            

The Teleflex does look like an excellent connector rod as kingfish describes.
I will probably add this to my next Whaler.

GoldenEye:
When I purchased my Stainless Steel Rod from my Eviinrude dealer, the package said GoldenEye. Golden Eye was later taken over by Panther Marine and packaged the same.
I assume the GoldenEye you see for $29.00 is probably not SS and is the cheaper version as the SS model is $49.00 from Cabelas...

Most people find that the EZ Steer is much too dificult to take off or on when in the boat and much more cumbersome than either of the above 2...

I will send you a photo of my GoldenEye package...

posted 11-03-2004 01:03 PM ET (US)            

The Golden-Eye product and the Panther Marine product are one and the same. I believe the company was acquired or the name changed.

Be warned that there are two different but very similar versions of that tie rod kit. One is zinc plated steel, the other is stainless steel. Do not bother with any but the stainless steel version. It costs a bit more but I believe it can be bought for about $50.

This tie rod kit is very simple and effective and is almost identical to the auxiliary tie rod kit sold by Whaler for Whalers back as far as the 1960s.

I've owned two of these kits (on my second Montauk and an Outrage 18) and they work perfectly with no interference regardless of which motor was up or down or running or not. It is easily accessible from inside the boat (which the EZ Steer is NOT).

Though the tie rod is easy to disconnect, I never did so as there was no need.

I also like the look of what John (kingfish) has but have no personal experience with it.

posted 11-09-2004 05:58 PM ET (US)            

http://photobucket.com/albums/v408/andygere/Whaler%20details/?action=view¤t=tiebar.jpg

posted 11-10-2004 07:17 PM ET (US)            

I've been considereing a kicker for my 18 Outrage also and was wondering if most of the installations are what would be considered permanent or semi-permanent?

I would like a kicker for trolling and back up and also like the idea of control from the helm. Electric start wouldn't be necessary but an alternator that maintains charge on the battery would be nice. My kids use the boat for wake boarding and tubing and I think this would be in conflict with the kicker. Are these motor installations easily dismounted and reinstalled? Something using quick connectors may create potential points of failure but would be acceptable.

posted 11-10-2004 08:42 PM ET (US)            

I can remove my kicker in less than 3 minutes...

1. Loosen the engine clamps
2. Disconnect the fuel connector
3. Remove the quick disconnect throttle and shift cables...
4. Lift the engine off....

DONE.......

posted 11-10-2004 09:09 PM ET (US)            

If you are talking control from the helm you will have a lot to deal with to remove the motor. Let's see, based on the T9.9 I'm doing:

Throttle and Shift cables - Disconnect inside motor then remove cables from clamp outside the motor. That still leaves the cables. To remove them involves disconnect from the console and removal from the utility tunnel.

Battery connection - A long cable from battery to inside the engine, no breaks. In my case the cable will go to the console. Disconnect at motor involves three connections inside the cowl and removing it from the front grommet. You'd want to kill power from the battery at the other end. Speaking of batteries, if electric start and charging, minimum is two batteries, two outboards cannot safely share a single battery. Disconnect at the engine leaves a battery cable with the throttle/shift cables.

Wire harness - in mine this is a 7 pin cable. But, it has a short cable from the engine then a connector to the long cable to the console. Runs the instruments for that motor, start key, oil pressure light, kill switch. While the disconnect is easy, add another cable to the pile at the stern. These are not cheap cables, and will need protection of the ends.

Fuel - Easy, a standard quick connect on engine. In my case run through the utility tunnel. Another addition to the pile.

Steering - A rod link to the main engine steering. As I've not settled on which not sure, but probably a few bolts to undoo. Could probably be cleanly removed to not add to the stern clutter. I'm probably talking a hydraulic steering installation similar to the one on the T8 installation in the reference section.

Mounting - I'll be thru bolting the motor to the transom. Unbolt and handle the holes.

Motor - 100lbs to lift off.

As you can see from that list I consider the installation semi-permanent. Getting quick connects for all of it would be tricky. About as hard to remove as the main engine, and lots of stuff left at the stern without even more removal work. I do get everything the main engine has in the way of control except tilt. I'm still working on power tilt. That will be the only thing I need to go back to the engine to do.

Note you can put a simple small outboard on, control it sitting in the stern and so on, and remove it fairly easily. As long as it's manual start and no charging. But I consider that for folks that like hair shirts and cold showers, not at all a comfortable way to run a boat like these. I've this nice console and will use it. There are compromise installations with only partial remote too. But as soon as you remote anything removal gets more complex.

Note the T9.9 occupies one side of the stern. Other side is a swim platform for folks climbing in out of the water, etc. If I did the sort of activities you describe I see no problem with the motor in place. In any case the motor will see a lot of use, anytime I don't need to go fast.

posted 11-10-2004 10:09 PM ET (US)            

Why in the world would you even consider removing the entire controls cable from the helm and the rigging tunnel temporarily?? Doesn't make sense to me..

Paul didn't mention anything about having electric start. He even mentioned it wasn't necessary.

I think you might be trying to read too much into his post...

My kicker weighs 58 pounds... No electrics.... No battery... The control cables from the dual binnacle have quick disconnects at the engine..

I have photos.... Do You???????

http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Outrage/outrage.html

Photos can make a big difference on what people decide...

Paul,
Why do you think you need another battery?
Why do you think you need to remove the kicker as Walt mentions?
I also have a swim platform on the opposite side fo my kicker so I see no reason to remove the kicker for water sports...

I forgot about my connected steering arm.... Quick discoonnect also... Less than 3 seconds... NO BOLTS....

posted 11-11-2004 12:16 AM ET (US)            

Paul did mention that charging was desirable. While this does not mean electric start, the connections are the same. Cables to the battery. And two batteries. It's not the starting that get's killed when one battery has two outboards hooked to it, it's the charging.

Let's see, you have to start your engine at the transom? Fine in good weather, but in a storm and heavy sea? That's not reading too much into it, a emergency engine must be usable in all weather. Personally I want to be able to handle the motor as fully as possible from the console. That includes electric start. If I can manage to do tilt, that too.

Yes, you can do a partial remote, and have less to disconnect. Yes, you can use simple, less durable quick connect methods. And, yes, you can leave all those cables laying in the stern when you take the motor off. And, yes, you can use a small, light motor. But if you want a motor that can run the boat for extended periods as the main motor at a good displacement speed? Not everyone is just putting on a trolling motor for rare use. Even for emergency, I assume that emergency will occur in the worst possible weather. That way I'm covered as best I can. I prefer that my aux motor can easily handle the wind and wave conditions I might have to use it in. Not just hold it's own but continue my trip.

I only described what I'm doing. Virtually identical to the T8 installation in the reference section. And what would be involved in removing it. That T8 installation seems acceptable and would take as much to remove. As far as a race to remove it, I could do it pretty fast. Even faster just using bolt cutters. But I don't consider speed of removal to be a issue.

I leave it up to others to describe their less elaborate installations. Nothing wrong with them, but for a different level of use and a different level of protection. I expect if you examine most of those installations the motors are rarely removed too.

Walt

posted 11-11-2004 08:29 AM ET (US)            

The set up I have with my Yamaha T8 that is illustrated in the reference section is such that the throttle and shift cables can be quickly disconnected at the motor (throttle inside the shroud, shift outside), and the fuel line and the wiring harness quickly disconnected at the motor outside the shroud. Since I am paranoid having had an un-bolted 30 HP yamaha stolen off a Zodiac right outside my bedroom window while I was asleep, and I really wanted it to be a more permanent install on my Outrage 22 anyway, my kicker is bolted on and the steering link arm (one 9/16" nut) would have to be disconnected.

posted 11-11-2004 04:22 PM ET (US)            

How do you handle disconnecting the battery connection? Or is it part of the harness you mention? On the T9.9 it's a heavy 16' two conductor cable which is connected into the starter solenoid, and ground near the starter. With a lighter wire running into the main wiring junction area that is the feed for charging. And it's separate from the main electrical harness, though both exit the skirt through the same grommet. I'm seriously considering putting a junction in near the transom for both motor's battery connects rather than running them through the tunnel. I don't like having to monkey with long cables to remove a motor for service or whatever. Why Yamaha put a disconnect on the harness but not the battery cable is a mystery.

I should note the T9.9's throttle and shift are quick disconnects inside the engine, Yamaha's standard design. The bolt that must be loosened is for the anchor clamp for the cable housing, which is just outside the skirt. Though the other little problem is that the cables go through a heavy rubber grommet, so the quick connect couplings would have to be unscrewed or that grommet unbolted to free the cables. The holes in the grommet are only big enough for the bare cables.

All the cables, remote connections and so on I'm using on the T9.9 are the official Yamaha parts. Except for the console dual control, which is a dual Morse control, replacing the original single control. I have a set of Yamaha throttle & shift cables that came with the engine, but will use some new Uflex cables as the Yamaha's have some rust in the cable sheath.

I'm not worried about having the motor stolen. But I've had friends have clamped on motors suddenly disappear into davey jones locker. At minimum I'd never have a motor on without a safety, but in this case I'll thru bolt the motor. A different kind of paranoia.

posted 11-11-2004 04:42 PM ET (US)            

After seeing your wonderful article on the T-8 4 Stroke with Trim & Tilt and Electric Start, I had to compile one for an OMC 8 Hp, 2 Stroke or 4 Stroke.

http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Outrage/Kicker/

For people that don't need the electric start, this is another option.

Although still a little rough, I will be adding things to it in the future.

The installation will work on Outrages and Montauk 17's.
I was working on a Montauk 17 but the boat is temporarily gone South for awhile. All I have left to do on the Montauk is install the control cables as everything else has been installed.

posted 11-11-2004 05:24 PM ET (US)            

I'm embarassed - I forgot the battery connection entirely! 4' +/- twin cable pigtail coming out of the cowling with ring connectors on the ends of each cable; one pos. and one neg.

Joe-

Nice article! I got to tell you I look at that Panther tie bar and think of the $2 big ones I could have saved, and
Ii am conflicted...

posted 11-11-2004 05:48 PM ET (US)            

I like the Teleflex link arm you put on. If I ever convert to Hydraulic steering I think I will also purchase the Teleflex link arm even though it is more expensive.

posted 11-11-2004 07:49 PM ET (US)            

Of course the 4' battery cable is only enough for a battery mounted right at the kicker. Due to the greater weight restriction of a Montauk my battery will be in the console, both of them. Thus the problem of a disconnect at the stern. I believe BW uses a disconnect like that when it mounts batteries forward. I'd like to know what they are using for that disconnect. I can probably machine up some weatherproof junction box arrangement, but would like to look at all options first.

Re Paul's original question, I believe the issue is less how long it takes to disconnect and remove the motor than what clutter was left in the stern to get in the way of the kids with their float tubes and so on.

In terms of time, I estimate when my system is done I could remove the engine, all those connections, in way under a hour, I am designing in removability. I did note how much was left in the way of the kids. Or perhaps more to the point vulnerable to damage from the kids. The ends of control cables are not designed for a lot of abuse. Nor things like wiring harnesses. So, you'd have to count into your removal time the time it takes to get all that stuff protected and out of the way.

The real solution is that the aux is not that much in the way. It will occupy one stern quarter, but you have two. Put a swim platform or whatever on the other and you are all set. If you go taking it off for various things I'll bet it will be off when your main goes down and you need it. A guy by the name of Murphy says that's the way it works.

posted 11-12-2004 10:32 AM ET (US)            

In addition to trolling and having something for backup I find myself on rivers quite often and the old Johnson doesn’t like to idle too long without developing a little cough. My original thinking on this was to throw on a kicker and install a tie bar for the motors. After reading the posts and studying the articles it’s apparent that there is a better way to go about this. Control from the console seems to make a lot of sense both from safety and convenience. Also leaning toward a bolting the motor through the transom. I don’t mind a little extra work for a more secure installation.

The clutter left in the back is something that needs to be considered. I was thinking about locating all of the quick disconnects at or near the main fuse. I have the fuel filter/ water separator located near the fuse and this seemed to be a logical place to make all of the connections. It would be simple enough to add an OEM fuel connection to the open port on the filter head and electrical connections could be handled with some 6’ cables. The motor control cables would be a different matter. I was thinking about some kind of a sleeve to secure and protect them when not in use.

The conflict I imagine is between the tow rope bridle and the kicker. The kicker needs to be located inside of the port lift eye. The bridles for the tube or tow rope connect to both lifting eyes. When a skier or tube is out to starboard the bridle would lay across the kicker if down and possibly create a lever if the kicker were up. I would imagine that some of the forces created on these lines would be enough to work a kicker loose, induce stresses on the transom and raise some havoc with the kicker. I really need to look at the geometry of the setup to see if there is a conflict or not my thinking is that there will be.

Each installation is a little different depending on the motors. I’m running an 89 Johnson 150 with VRO and am considering another Johnson for the kicker. Haven’t decided on two or four stroke. Need to look at the budget a little bit and see what makes sense as far as cost benefit is concerned.

Thanks for all of the responses.

Paul

posted 11-12-2004 12:09 PM ET (US)            

Both Joe and John has done excellent jobs of installing their kicker motors on their respective Outrages and have done a good job explaining the process.

I have a little experience with kickers on Whalers too and can present a slightly different point of view based on my slightly different use of the kickers.

I owned an Outrage 18 for many years that was equipped with a 1990 Johnson 150 and a Johnson 9.9 kicker. My boat was set up with a dual binnacle mount control for both motors and used the same tie bar kit that Joe has (and which I have recommended many times over the years here on the Forum).

It's funny but one of the things that attracted me to the Outrage 18 that I bought was the dual binnacle mount controls it had. I thought it would be the ultimate, but I found it wasn't.

My experience with the remote operation of the kicker was mixed. While the ability to steer the kicker from the helm is wonderful, the remote operation of the shift and throttle was unsatisfactory. After many years I simply disconnected them. I would NOT install a dual control again in the future.

But my use of a kicker is purely for fishing (trolling). While I certainly enjoyed knowing I could use it as back-up power in an emergency, that has never been necessary in the 30 some years I have been operating power boats. That doesn't mean it won't happen in the future of course, it may.

When used for fishing here in Puget Sound or the coast of Washington State, the kicker is used at nothing more than idle speed or maybe a bit more. We sometimes troll with downriggers and other times "motor-mooch" cut plug herring. This latter technique requires steady but extremely slow boat speed and why one cannot use the main motor for propulsion.

When using the kicker motor for slow trolling the throttle often needs to be VERY slightly adjusted and adjusted quite often. I found that the binnacle mount control was not nearly as precise in adjusting the throttle because of the extra friction and play in a 20 foot long control cable making many bends.

Likewise, when trolling we go in only one direction at a time and it is usually forward (though in a very stiff wind the kicker is sometimes used in reverse to merely slow the forward drift of the boat). Thus the ability to shift from the helm was pointless; the motor is shifted into gear and that's it for the day.

When fishing out of the Outrage (or my Montauks for that matter) I am in the stern of the boat tending my gear. I often found it awkward to have to lean over backwards or twist around from the aft facing Reversible Pilot Seat to adjust the throttle. In the end I found it much easier to control the throttle at the motor itself since I am usually closer to it.

Regarding the installation of the motor itself on an Outrage I can tell you you need to [b]relocate[/c] the stern tow/lifting eye because the kicker will clamp on where it is now. Simply unscrew the eye, install the kicker (fill the old hole if you like) and then drill a new hole for reinstallation of the eye between the kicker and the main motor.

On my boat I was able to waterski with no trouble with a bridle. Yes, the bridle will touch not only the kicker but the main motor as well in a turn, but it causes no damage or undue stress. Don't worry about that. Do worry that when starting, the spotter managing the tow line has the bridle free and clear of the kicker leg as the line goes taught.

On my Outrage I ended up installing a ski pylon which ended up making the kicker interference issue a non-issue. This was back when I was doing a lot of slalom skiing and the pylon is a really nice addition.

Regarding the necessary size of a kicker I can tell you I had at one time all of the following kickers on my Outrage 18: Johnson 15 two stroke, Johnson 9.9 two stroke, Yamaha 6 two stroke and Evinrude 8 four stroke.

For the purposes of trolling, there was not a lick of difference between them speed wise. Remember you will be limited by the hull speed on your boat so no matter how big a kicker you put on it will not go faster that 7 or 8 mph. You would need a 30 hp motor or larger to get past that and begin to bring the boat up onto a semi-plane and at that point it's no longer a kicker motor.

Of course if you are using the kicker for other purposes and anticipate needing good control and forward progress in strong wind and/or nasty seas, then the greater thrust of a bigger motor will definitely be an asset.

Regarding the removability of the kicker, I suggest you through bolt the kicker using the auxiliary bolt holes if the motor is so equipped. I would NOT trust the motor clamps by themselves. Be sure to use stainless steel nylock lock nuts and fender washers.

While the bolts are not much work to remove, my experience is that once everything is installed, you will not be removing the kicker. That's just reality and human nature, regardless of how clever you are in providing quick disconnects. Don't worry about it. Set it up correctly and forget about it.

If you are worried about theft, the only real thing that will slow a thief down is a good old lock and chain. I used a bicycle lock and 3/8" chain on my boat. For years I stored my boat on dock with a locked fence that the public could walk onto. One summer I was the only boat owner who did not have their kicker stolen. There were almost two dozen kickers that were stolen. My chain did have the marks of a bolt cutter on it though.

In 1997 my Johnson 9.9 WAS stolen of my boat while parked in front of my house on the streets of Seattle one night. The auxiliary bolts and nylocks did not slow the thieves down. They took both my batteries too. I had foolishly failed to use the bicycle lock and chain.

posted 11-12-2004 05:53 PM ET (US)            

Having had a Montauk with a tiller controlled kicker, and an Outrage 22 with a helm controlled kicker, my preference is the helm control. The primary use for my kicker is downrigger trolling in deep water. When a downrigger hits, my typical procedure is to reduce throttle, keep the boat in gear and turn the boat towards the fish to give the angler more room for landing the fish, and to keep it clear of the opposite downrigger. I found this difficult to do in the Montauk, which required leaning over the transom in sometimes rolling seas to adjust and steer the kicker. The most difficult thing to do was shifting it in and out of gear. The Quicksilver controls on my current give me enough throttle adjustment, however for trolling I do not need the fine adjustment Tom requires for motor mooching. Also, on the bigger Outrage, there is plenty of room in the splashwell for routing the rigging without much difficulty.

posted 11-12-2004 09:39 PM ET (US)            

There are few small 2 strokes designed for displacement running. 4 strokes is where you find those. It's a relatively new type of motor, slower turning large prop. It's virtually universal with sailboaters. With two stroke you will end up with a motor designed for running a light boat, having to run it at considerable more rpm than the high thrust 4 stroke would need to drive your heavy boat. At very poor propeller efficiency. I've done that, no thanks. Think about how many tries it might have taken with the extra control and power of a high thrust aux.

If my combination of two 4-strokes is overweighting a Montauk, then everybody better take off their 90 hp. The total of the two engines is about 325 lbs. And, I've chosen one of the heaviest 4 strokes used as a aux on the Montauk. I do have the advantage in that I have no need to hotrod, or tow skiers, so my main can be a much smaller engine. Let's not think that everyone must have the max hp on their boat. Having the max hp on your boat is shutting yourself out of a lot for a relatively small increase in speed. Including many aux choices. Yes, maybe that choice of that big engine left you with nothing but a tiny 2 stroke that you could use. That was your choice, that does not mean it has to be everybodies choice.

There are many advantages to using a 4 stroke aux, particularily with a 4 stroke main. Same fuel is only one. Adding a oil mixer for your 2 stroke aux added weight which has to be included with the motor weight. Avoiding that and adding a separate tank adds weight. Again, your total motor weight is greater. That difference in weight is not quite as great as you thought. And, separate tank or mixer both used up some inside space.

A 4 stroke aux will also be even less fuel hungry than a small 2 stroke. One valid use of a aux is to save fuel when speed is not needed. Switching to a 2 stroke from a fuel saving 4 stroke main will at least partially negate this.

By all means, if you have a 2 stroke that runs well, use it. It would not be sensable to buy a new motor. I'd do the same thing. But, I was starting from having no motor for a aux. Choosing the optimum, which was a 4 stroke, was easy. Anyone else, particularily if also choosing a main, has the option to come out much better than a small 2 stroke.

Note I like the small motors, over my life I've run many small two strokes. But, that also means I know their disadvantages. Particularily at dead slow speeds. Those that are stuck on them are welcome to my share.

posted 11-13-2004 12:18 AM ET (US)            

I like the idea of the lower weights of 2 Strokes myself. Also less maintanence and a lot fewer moving parts to go wrong. Some people like 4 strokes. To each his own.

I believe my repower in the future is going to be the new E-Tec 150 Hp and for a kicker, possibly the E-Tec 9.9 when it becomes available in 2006. As it stands now, Bombardier has not mentioned anything about the availability of an 8 Hp E-Tec although it is a very good possiblilty they will eventually offer it.

I'm not a speed freak, but I do like to have the power if and when it is needed. If a 115 Hp weighs the same as a 135 Hp and 150 Hp, then the decision would be easy. The 150 Hp would win as why go for less Hp at the same weight. Same goes for a kicker. If the 6 Hp weighed the same as the 8 Hp or 9.9 Hp, I would purchase the 9.9 Hp. (the above weights aren't factual).

I have not heard from anyone on this site how many gallons of fuel their kicker burns in an 8 hour period of trolling. My 2 stroke burns 2 1/2 gallons in that 8 hour period. I can't imagine a 4 stroke doing much better. At that point, let's say they burn 2 gallons per day. That is a big savings of a 1/2 gallon of fuel or equal to about $1.25 per fishing day in fuel. I haven't broken down how much 2 stroke oil I used it that 8 hour period because it has been hard to measure as it was such a little amount. But then again, I have not had any maintanence bills going out either and that includes oil changes etc.

posted 11-13-2004 05:16 PM ET (US)            

Probably the best approach for this installation is to phase it in over time and experience with the set up. This would require thinking through and deciding on all of the components first with an eye to flexibility and the ability to add the additional components as desired. The only down side to this would be the initial outlay for a kicker with electric start that may not be needed. I'd like to keep the boat as clean as possible and this approach would keep holes and modifications to a minimum.

The weights of the motors I've been considering run from about 75 lbs. to about 110 lbs. I don't think the difference in weight would be a factor in performance on the Outrage. I find I'm leaning toward the 4 stroke. Noise, fumes and ease of rigging being the primary factors.

One of the great things about these boats is that everybody sets them up to their own preferences and needs. I guess the boats are as varied in personality and character as the people that use them. I wouldn't want it any other way, gives us something to talk about and debate.

Paul

posted 11-13-2004 08:43 PM ET (US)            

You might want to check out a Quick Reference guide I just posted for the weights of various Auxiliary motors.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003079.html

posted 11-13-2004 11:38 PM ET (US)            

Thanks. That's a good bit of information. It's interesting how close these motors weigh across manufacturers for any given horsepower and features. The selection of the motor gets closer to being based on features and manufacturer. Nice presentation of information.

posted 11-14-2004 12:14 AM ET (US)            

I think it's a bad idea to mount a kicker without thru-bolting the motor to the boat. Kickers are easy to steal and they also occasionally fall off; I do whatever I can to avoid either result.

Once, while I was working for a boat manufacturer, the warranty guys were asked to look at a nearly new boat that had burned. The Yamaha kicker on the boat had apparently fallen off during the owner's drive north. The battery wires had been pulled out of the motor, stripping and shorting in the process. The resulting fire in the motor box grew until it was visible to other motorists. The owner/driver had no idea that he had even lost the kicker until another motorist flagged him down and pointed to the burning boat. (The boat was a total loss.)

I have owned the Honda and Yamaha kickers, including the High Thrust Yamaha 8 & 9.9. The boat manufacturer I worked for also sold hundreds of them. My motors were all wonderful in every respect, and I can not recall a single warranty return on any of three motors I just listed.

I can not think of any reason to install a kicker larger than the T8 on an 18 foot Outrage.

I would never buy another 2-stroke kicker. Four strokes are perfectly suited for trolling. (I would expect the 2.5 gallons to last more than two days on the little 8.)

posted 11-14-2004 12:34 AM ET (US)            

Alex,
I agree. It is much better to have the kicker bolted once you are sure of it's final mounting position.

On the 2.5 gallons..... I am still waiting for any of you 4 Strokers to get in here and give me some real numbers.

These are my facts on a 2 stroke 8 Hp kicker.

Start the engine at 8 AM...... Turn off the engine at 5 PM
2.5 gallons of fuel burned.
This consisted of trolling around 2 to 2.5 miles per hour on the paddel wheel all day long with the exception of idleing when landing a fish.

I realize that 4 strokes should do better but no one has been able to verify or tell us what they get.

I also believe an 8 Hp is just right for an Outrage 18 and even up to 22 as kingfish has although he has the high thrust.

posted 11-14-2004 03:07 AM ET (US)            

The fuel consumption data are available, but the differences just are not significant in motors this small.

When "Powerboat Reports" tested the fuel consumption of five hoursepower two-stroke and four-stroke motors they were about the same. The differences seem to grow in size and significance with motor displacement.

As a very rough/general rule, when compared with "old technology", carburated, two-strokes, I have observed four strokes to deliver fuel economy that is about 30% or 40% better at moderate to higher engine speeds, and substantially better than that at idle to trolling speed.

Although the four stroke fuel economy advantage may be significant as a percentage, it doesn't translate into a significant factor in determining which little kicker to buy: nobody really cares if they burn 1.75 gallons or 2.5 gallons in a day. It just doesn't matter.

posted 11-14-2004 02:22 PM ET (US)            

Walt makes a great point about total motor weight (kicker and main) particularly on smaller hulls like the Montauk. I think his thinking is right on line, and it's also applicable to the bigger hulls as well. In that case, the question is more about twins vs. a big main and a kicker, but looking at the total transom weight is still key. Add-ons like extra batteries, brackets, oil tanks, oil blend systems and the like all need to be considered when putting together the "ultimate" power system. How the boat will be used and stored is also a consideration. A few of the guys on my dock lament the need to haul their boats regularly to change the oil in their 4-strokes. These guys seem to fish a lot and put the hours on quickly, so it's probably a frequent occurrence. For a trailered boat, this is much less of an issue. For me, it's an easier thing to add oil than to change it.

As far as bolting vs. clamping, I think that one is a push for me. My 1972 Sport 13 had a 40 h.p. Mercury that was clamped to the transom, with the clamps getting a bite into the gelcoat as Whaler intended. I checked the tightness of those clamps all the time, and never needed to adjust them. The kicker on my Outrage is clamped with one bolt, which I assume the original rigger added for an extra measure of safety. For a clamped motor, a safety chain or cable is probably a good idea. For kicker theft deterrence, I've always used the Master brand motor lock that consists of a section of plastic-coated steel channel that slides over the motor clamps, and is secured by a padlock with the shackle protected. http://www.masterlocks.com/outboardmotorlock.htm Not impossible to steal the kicker with one of these, but harder. My only beef with this device is that the plastic coating eventually wears off and the unit starts to look shabby. I may consider having a local shop fab one out of stainless steel to replace my rusty looking unit.

On high-thrust 4-strokes vs. comparable h.p. 2-stokes, there is no question that the high-thrust design makes more sense. That said, with a low pitch prop, a correctly sized standard 2-stroke provides more than enough thrust, and the inefficiency caused by extra prop slip can be lived with in most applications. The difficulty I had getting the boat on the trailer in my example earlier in this thread had more to do with the offset alignment of the kicker and the big swell than having enough thrust. By using plenty of throttle, I had more than enough thrust to put it on the trailer, it was getting it lined up in the surge, wind and current that was tricky.

posted 11-14-2004 04:13 PM ET (US)            

The Yamaha T9.9 uses the same space on the motor for the starter motor or the rope crank, it's one or the other, not both. I looked into that, would have put both if possible.

However, the T9.9 can still be rope started. Pull the cowl, pull a pin on the plastic flywheel cover and remove it, wrap your starter rope into the rope groove on the flywheel and you are set. Not something I'd really like to do in a storm, but it's there. Does not require any tools to do. Some T9.9's, if not all, come with a starter rope stuffed in under the cowl in a plastic pouch. I've got one for mine.

The T8 appears to be capable of having both. Normally only the tiller models have the rope start, but it's not mounted the same place as the starter motor. So you could probably add it to a remote T8 by buying enough parts. I'd have to do some digging to make sure on the T8. At minimum it's going to add cost.

I expect having both is one part of why that Mercury pro kicker is so heavy. Interesting motor anyway. If it had of been a high thrust it would be even more interesting. Mercury has another 9.9 model they seem to market for sailboat aux.

My effort on designing a good battery system will probably take care of starting. It would take multiple simultaneous failures to take it all down and both motors having starter failures. Folks that don't have a good battery system or don't maintain what they have are at more risk of needing the rope start. I'm at more risk right now with the single motor and battery.

As far as changing the oil on a 4 stroke, there are pumps (both hand and power) that are designed to remove the oil via the dipstick hole. That's a standard problem on sailboat inboards, in fact a lot of inboards. So, you don't have to haul the boat just to change the oil. Though you better be careful if doing it on the water not to spill any, the cg frowns on that big time. At least with my 4 strokes adding oil is not the same, they don't use any between changes.

As noted each person designs a system suitable for their needs. I'm happy with what I'm doing, it's designed to fit what I do with the boat. The comments about Kingfish's installation indicate that I'm not alone in what I'm trying to do. I'd sure have a hard time buying a old motor at a garage sale and calling it a emergency motor, but obviously that's fine with some. If trolling was the only thing then obviously a motor like that is just fine if it runs.

I should note changing pitch on a normal small motor won't make it a high thrust. High thrust has huge props compared to normal motors of the same HP. The prop for my T9.9 is nearly a inch larger diameter than the one on my F50. The large diameter moves a larger amount of water. No way a small low pitch prop turning faster will make up for that. Though you are right, for some uses it will work though less than ideal. The difference will be more noticable in reverse.

As far as cost, note I got a motor that needed work, thus a lot cheaper than a normal T9.9. And I'm spending lots of time getting things as cheaply as possible off Ebay. I don't have the amounts of money that so many on this group obviously have with their spending on larger boats and very expensive outboards. I spend my money carefully, but know that cheapest is not always the best use of money. I'm going to really enjoy what I'm putting together.

I'm having a hard time bringing myself to chew up the fiberglass to mount the motor. I'll pad and bolt. The clamps will be tightened but not mess up the fiberglass. I've not decided if I want to get into a wedge to fix the transom curvature there. Once I get the motor repaired and ready to hang I'll have to decide. When I hung it when it first arrived I padded with cardboard.

Walt

posted 11-14-2004 08:56 PM ET (US)            

In mid 2000 going down the road, I found the ultimate fishing machine, a 22 ft. center console Starcraft. With downriggers, planer mast, bait well under the reversible seat, and a trolling motor bolted to the transom. WOW! With too much money in my pocket I just had to have this machine. It was one of those boats I should have run away from. A spongy deck with an underpowered 115 Merc. and a 15 hp Yamaha that had to bring us home on its maiden voyage.

Then 5 months later a business acquaintance financial position forced him to unload his 22 whaler. The ridiculously low price made up for the mistake I made on the Starcraft.

The Whaler needed a kicker and the 3hp’s were out of the question unless I bolted one of them spring down things or something similar on the transom. {After buying this boat I was cautioned by a few people this boat was more than just a good boat, it was a classic whaler.{ Be tasteful to anything you do and think before you drill.} The 3’s wouldn’t push it very well anyways. Had a 9.9 Evinrude but the shaft was too short? It got down to that 15hp. Yamaha, the best part of that Starcraft.

First of all I’m going to use what I got and if I don’t have it I’ll try to make it. If I can’t make it I’ll buy it if it’s really needed.

The first order of the installation was to move the lifting eye. The Yamaha was just a touch small to fit on the transom, so I had to knock off the swivels from the clamps and slip a stainless steel plate to prevent the rounded ends from digging into the gel coat. And of course theirs a wedge.

The steering tierod was cannibalize from the Starcraft and bolted up to the OMC controls and works flawlessly.

With the batteries in the console I decided the easiest way was to pick up the hot lead was to loop into the 235 starter terminal . If there is a power failure the Yamaha has a rope on her.

I Started looking at some controls for the console and wow! Costly and a lot of work to bring it up. And the choke was a pull push and no power tilt so I still have to go back and lean over the sofa, lower the motor squeeze the bulb, pull the choke and press the starter button.

Speaking of the squeeze bulbs, just wondering why the high tech'ers didn’t bring up your bulbs to console or why you didn’t have some kind of of contraption to squeeze the bulbs remotely or maybe an electric fuel pump to pressurized the bulb.

Back to the Starcraft for more parts. The previous owner adapted an old simplex control and mounted it on the port coaming of the Starcraft. That would look a little tacky mounted on the teak so it went under and mounted to the inner hull forward of the rod rack. A remote push button starter switch and an on-off killer mounted in the removable panel completed that part. Simply speaking it’s a good set up for trolling and ease of operation.

The fuel system for the motor was the 6 gal. Yamaha tank under the starboard side of the sofa with a bungee and would balance any weight problems. That 6 gal. Tank last for days trolling. A few cans of dry gas solved the water separator problem. My theory is if you need them water separators you got some problems that need attention.

Where I boat, this set up is perfect, especially working with what I had. But If I had to start from scratch I may have went the higher tech route including some form of pressurizing the bulbs from the helm.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jechura43/album?.dir=/c7fa

posted 11-15-2004 12:22 PM ET (US)            

You mentioned battery quick connects. Do you have a link or name of the product? It would be stupid to use regular welding quick links as they are not waterproof or built out of suitable material for marine use. I'd like to find something that was a proper marine connect before I have to design and machine my own.

I'm perfectly happy with a waterproof junction system that I have to use a wrench to disconnect. (gasp of dismay from the crowd) I can turn a wrench plenty fast enough. The main thing is it needs to be compact and well insulated. And built out of non corroding materials.

Incidentally, don't anyone try using welding cable or connectors for battery cables in a boat, particularily around salt water. The covering is not UV shielded, nor gas and oil proof. It's considered disposable cable for frequent replacement. And the conductors are made of very fine wires for flexability, will corrode through very fast. The connectors will be a continual short in your battery system in a saltwater environment. Use of any of the welding stuff in a boat will fail it on marine survey, and the cg definitely does not approve either.

posted 11-15-2004 02:17 PM ET (US)            

And Walt...is that you who keeps outbidding me on EBAY?...

Thanks for the advice guys...

posted 11-15-2004 10:26 PM ET (US)            

If you check the parts manuals for the Yamaha's anyway, they list bolts for thru bolting. I've the one's listed for the T9.9, and they are 8mm dia x 90mm. It's a relatively fine thread, but I can't tell metric thread pitch by eye. The stainless washer they supply for inside is a very thick one, 3mm thick x 37.5mm dia. The bolt is plated steel with no grade marks on the head, the nut is a stainless nylon lock nut.

Note the T9.9 only has two thru bolt holes in it's clamp. They seem to expect you to use the clamps in combo with the bolts. The T8 clamp has 4 bolt holes.

I pretty much would operate on the size of the holes in your outboard as far as bolt dia. They don't have to be high strength, particularily for a aux. I'm not happy with Yamaha's choice of bolt material, will probably go stainless with the bolt. Would then like to go monel for the nut to avoid siezed nuts. But may have to settle for stainless there. I'm thinking of making a surface pad for the outside, and bigger support plates for the inside. BW talks of putting them on by digging the clamps into the fiberglass, but I'm not keen on that. I don't consider that necessary if bolting on.

I'm not sure on wood location on your Outrage. I would assume you would be mounting in a location similar to what Kingfish used. I'd expect that's pretty solid wood. He gave some mounting notes.

As far as Ebay, I'm in the parts accumulation phase of my aux installation, even as I work on the motor and boat. My watch list stays pretty long. And I've been doing Ebay quite a while. I know exactly what I can get whatever it is for elsewhere. 90% of what goes on my watch list I never bid on as it goes too high. But, I've got time to try again. I've been doing pretty good off ebay lately. Saving a lot of money. Not near all of it boat related. Ebay is just one of the stores I shop at. So, I suppose I may have outbid you sometime.

Walt

posted 11-15-2004 11:13 PM ET (US)            

The outbidding part was a joke....just wanted to make sure you noticed that.

posted 11-16-2004 10:04 AM ET (US)            

I spent half an hour trying to Google-up the connectors that were being used without success, so I'll have to call the guys I used to work with to answer your question. I'll try to remember to do that when I get home. Feel free to remind me if I forget.

posted 11-16-2004 12:38 PM ET (US)            

If I remember correctly, you have an 19' Outrage II which will not allow a kicker to be clamped directly to the transom. Is that correct?

The first thing you need is the wood locating diagram for your hull to see where there is plywood backing for an outboard mounting bracket which you will need to use.

You will want to mount the bracket in a spot where the through bolts are accessible from inside the hull. I am unfamiliar to the modifications Whaler made to the mold for the 19' Outrage II but it should be apparent to you.

As far as fasteners for the bracket and the outboard, use whatever size bolts the mounting holes allow for. An auxiliary bracket will require only four bolts and I suspect they will be 3/8".

Use stainless steel bolts (cap screws to be precise.) Type 304 (18-8) is fine but if you happen to have access to type 316, that's even better. Type 203 is what you will found at most hardware stores.

Use fender washers and nylock lock nuts for both the bracket and the motor itself, assuming the kicker you have has a provision for a pair of bolts in addition to the clamps.

When clamping the kicker on, do not use a pad. Clamp directly to the bracket's mounting block and let the clamps dig in.

As far as a recommendation for a kicker bracket itself, the one that used to be known simply as the OMC bracket (do they call it a BRP bracket now?) is by far the best, but not cheap.

I do not think a fixed bracket will work with the transom configuration of the 19' Outrage II but if you can make use of a fixed mount bracket work on your hull, that might be better but you have to have the correct combination of shaft length and clearance to tilt the kicker to make it work well.