OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive: Fuel Tank Modification; Engine Mounting Height

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
  OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive: Fuel Tank Modification; Engine Mounting Height

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive: Fuel Tank Modification; Engine Mounting Height

wjd posted 10-24-2014 04:10 PM ET (US)
Hi. My 1989 Boston Whaler Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive is my project boat. Do these modifications make sense?
The OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive had a 129-gallon fuel tank, which I removed. I glassed in a bulkhead to create a rear locker and fabricated a 75-gallon tank, which will be installed as far forward as possible. This is in an effort to move the center of gravity forward as much as possible.
I am getting set to mount a pair of counter-rotating Suzuki DF140 four-cycle engines with 25-inch shafts. I think I will set the engine height as far up as possible.
picflight posted 10-24-2014 04:58 PM ET (US)
Yes, makes sense. You have reduced the fuel load, moved the tank forward and are attempting to mount a 140-HP engine on an OUTRAGE 22 with a Whaler Drive (outboard engine bracket).
Don't you want to drop in water with a simulated engine weight to see where the static waterline is and then determine the mount position?
deepwater posted 10-25-2014 02:56 AM ET (US)
Twin 140s and you cut your fuel almost in half. You're either hauling heavy loads short or you have fuel close by along the route. WHY? ^@^
jimh posted 10-25-2014 08:40 AM ET (US)
Re engine mounting height for twins on a Whaler Drive, and does it make sense to install the engines at the highest possible mounting height:
No. I wouldn't start at three-holes or four-holes up. The ability to run the engines at an elevated mounting height will be determined by the propellers. The Whaler Drive creates a lot of aerated water by itself, and this is also a consideration in setting the engine height.
Let me share some experience with a 22-foot hull and Whaler Drive. I have a 22-foot hull and Whaler Drive combination, but with a single engine. My boat's engine is a 25-inch shaft, and it is mounted one-hole up. This puts the anti-ventilation plate just about at the waterline when on plane. The anti-ventilation plate is not running completely dry, but it is not buried. I suspect the engine could be raised one-hole higher, but I have not tried it. I am quite satisfied with the performance I have now. The propeller never ventilates, even in very rough water operation. That is more important to me than gaining a small improvement in top speed that might occur with the engine raised even higher.
With twin engines, 25-inch shaft is also recommended with a Whaler Drive. The engine mounting height could certainly be at least one-hole up. Two-holes up also seems like a reasonable starting point. Assuming the water flow on the Whaler Drive will be similar, I think two-holes up ought to put the anti-ventilation plates just above the water flow on plane.
The results for your boat will depend on the propellers you are using. Some propellers are able to tolerate running in a lot of aerated water without ventilating. Others are not. While it is a pain to move twin engines up and down on the transom, I think starting a little lower might be more conservative.
jimh posted 10-25-2014 08:49 AM ET (US)
Re the fuel tank reduction to 75-gallons and does it make sense:
For modern engines like your Suzuki DF140 engines, 129-gallons of fuel would have given the boat a very long range. The best fuel economy will probably be around 3-MPG, and with 129-gallons that would have been a 400-mile range. A range of 400-miles is certainly more than most 22-foot boats will have. It is certainly a distance that would be very unlikely to ever play any sort of limitation on your boating in a 22-footer.
By cutting fuel capacity to 75-gallons you are back to the typical fuel capacity of the usual 22-foot hull with the standard 77-gallon tank. My 22-footer has a 77-gallon tank. I have never felt constrained by the fuel capacity. I figure on a cruising fuel economy of about 2.7-MPG, and that gives a range of 200-miles. In several decades of boating with a 22-foot outboard boat, I have never approached going 200-miles in one day of operation. The only time I have ever given consideration to fuel capacity has been in planing for a cruise along a very remote section of the northern coast of Lake Superior, where no fuel is available for over 150-miles of the coastline.
On that basis, I think it made perfect sense for you to abandon the 129-gallon tank and replace it with a 75-gallon tank.
jimh posted 10-25-2014 10:28 AM ET (US)
I don't understand exactly how you made the new bulkhead and fuel tank. If you could link to some images showing these modifications, I think many readers would be interested to see them.
wjd posted 10-25-2014 03:09 PM ET (US)
Hi all, Thank you for your replies.
picflight - You are correct in that by launching the boat things may become more clear. However, at this time there are still way too many variables. Simulating 820 lbs on the Whaler Drive would be a challenge too - close to 100 gal of water...or??? Also the fuel tank is not yet installed nor the console, rigging etc... Furthermore the static waterline is of less interest than is the water line at speed.
deepwater - I believe the 22' Outrage WD sits too low at the stern when rigged with twins. Many of the models sold with twin outboards were sold with the optional XL 129 gal fuel tank to feed the thirsty 2 strokes of that era. This makes the stern low situation even worse as the extra fuel is carried right at the back. I wanted to run twin four strokes on this project and by going from twin 2 stroke 115s to the 140s I am actually adding more weight to the back of the boat. By cutting the fuel capacity while keeping the tank as far forward as possible I hope to mitigate some of the stern low tendencies. I expect to maintain a range of nearly 175 miles which is 75 miles further than I anticipate needing.
jim - thanks for your input on the mounting height. I wonder which model of 22'er you have. If it is a Revenge, for example, I also wonder how much the 3-400 lbs of cabin may influence the balancing act. Good point on the propellers. I haven't considered that yet. The bulkhead was constructed of 2" thick 8 lb polyurethane foam. The foam was shaped to fit the contours of the tank cavity and then bedded in polyester resin thickened with cabosil. Next, I glassed it all in with 6 layers of alternating CSM and cloth. As for the fuel tank, I designed and cut the parts out with my CNC machine. The original fuel tank was fabricated from 0.125" aluminum - presumably 5052. I decided to make my tank using 0.188" 5052. While I can weld aluminum reasonably well, I chose to cut the parts and have them welded by someone who specializes in this field. He will also pressure test the tank for me. I will be glad to post some pictures of this project as I get a chance.
jimh posted 10-25-2014 10:45 PM ET (US)
WJD--My 22 is a Revenge Walk-Through. With a light-weight two-cycle single engine on the transom, the Whaler Drive rides quite high. You can get a feel for it from this image:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ staticTrim600x450.jpg
With a modern two-cycle like an E-TEC, it rides just about the same:
http://continuouswave.com/sail-logs/irnp2010/images/ rockHarborDockPostGale0331.jpg
You can see that the engine splash well drains on the Whaler Drive are sitting at least two inches above the static water line.
When the boat is on plane, the anti-ventilation plate rides just a bit below the waterline, as see with the E-TEC in this view:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ E-TEC_WhalerDriveOneHoleUp816x612.jpg
jimh posted 10-25-2014 10:48 PM ET (US)
WJD--Thanks for the further details. It sounds like you recreated the bulkhead that normally separates the fuel tank cavity from the stern live well on a standard 22-foot hull with the 77-gallon fuel tank.
Was there any evidence in the turtle or hull-liner molded part that something had been cut away to make the fuel tank cavity larger? I assume the 129-gallong tank was one big tank, not two smaller tanks jointed together with a coupling hose or pipe.
wjd posted 10-27-2014 11:57 AM ET (US)
Yes, there was evidence of several parts of the inner liner being cut away to house the one piece tank. I essentially replaced the bulkhead that would normally be at the rear of the 77 gal tank. There were other parts of the original liner that were also removed - not too sure what purpose they served. I am still thinking about how to deal with the rear locker. One option that I am thinking of is to build a drop in removable bin that would allow for a bilge pump to be installed beneath. I will try to get some pictures for you at some point. Here is a link to some miscl. photos. One shows the full tank prior to removal. Another gives a bit of a view of the removed bits. [url]<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://s96.photobucket.com/user/wdunlop1/embed/slideshow/"></iframe>[url/]
picflight posted 10-27-2014 12:35 PM ET (US)
Re-posting wjd's link to wonderful pictures. Would love to see captions on the pictures.
http://s96.photobucket.com/user/wdunlop1/embed/slideshow
wjd posted 10-27-2014 07:45 PM ET (US)
Thanks for helping with the link picflight. I added a few descriptions, and will try to add more photos next week.
andygere posted 10-27-2014 10:48 PM ET (US)
That was a highly spec'd boat when new: outrage Cuddy, Whalerdrive, super console, commercial rub rail, etc. it looks like you are doing a real pro restoration job, the Whalerdrive looks like new. Are you putting the Cuddy cabin back on?
wjd posted 10-28-2014 06:14 PM ET (US)
Andy, I will not be reinstalling the cuddy cap. It had some previous damage that might have been repairable but I want to end up with a completely open boat. There are a few photos showing the process of building new front fiberglass hatches. The original cuddy came with plywood hatches - not the molded fiberglass ones on the open Outrage. I know many Whaler fans would object to cutting up a classic Whaler. I would agree depending on the boat. This particular Whaler was pretty far gone in many ways so I like to think I'm saving one.
andygere posted 10-28-2014 11:01 PM ET (US)
When I saw the hatch molds, I figured the cuddy was going away. What kind of shape are the cuddy doors and door trim in? What about the big hatch? Nice work on the boat by the way, looks like you have a good facility to work in as well.
picflight posted 10-29-2014 12:33 PM ET (US)
I too admire the facility.
Looking forward to project progress with pictures.
dfmcintyre posted 10-29-2014 03:13 PM ET (US)
Bill -
Very nice renovation! Quick question: how did you determine the waterline for the bottom paint?
Regards - Don
wjd posted 10-29-2014 06:13 PM ET (US)
Thanks for your comments.
I still have the doors and hatch. They are in fair to poor condition. The hatch is definitely salvageable but I would build new doors before I reused the old ones. Don, you asked the "million dollar question" - I guessed. After I removed the cuddy, I put the boat in the water and placed 5 gallon pails of water on the deck and Whaler Drive to simulate the changes in weight I was planning. I know I will be close, but I also left the bottom paint a bit low with the idea that I will do a final line when all is finished.
jimh posted 11-04-2014 02:22 PM ET (US)
Thanks for sharing many interesting images of the OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat hull during restoration. I was particularly interested in the image at
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l168/wdunlop1/IMG_2270_zps734b1290. jpg?890
It shows how the hull and liner molds are configured in the forward half of the hull. On my REVENGE model, the original liner is cut away at the aft end of the cabin to create a stairs to the main deck level. It looks like there is a sprue hole in the liner in that same area.
andygere posted 11-04-2014 03:02 PM ET (US)
jimh, on the Outrage Cuddy models, the cabin bulkhead is immediately aft of the two port and starboard hatches. The area aft of the companionway door is covered by the deck, and it creates a pocket for the porta potty, which is slid out for use. There is a small sump and a single through-hull near the aft end of that pocket. It's interesting to learn about the minor differences that allowed Whaler to offer several different boats from a single hull design.
wjd posted 11-04-2014 03:56 PM ET (US)
I added a few more pictures to the photobucket. The rear of the liner was extensively cut away to make room for the larger tank. The bulkhead that I added back in is visible although I have yet to fair it and spray it with gelcoat. I re sprayed the bow area with gel and spent considerable time sanding. I guess theres more of that in my future.
jimh posted 11-06-2014 10:05 AM ET (US)
The captions on the new images showing details of the fuel tank cavity where the factory cut away some portion of the hull as originally molded fit with my understanding of how the larger fuel tank option was implemented. I believe that the originally molded hull had a smaller fuel tank cavity with a second area behind it for the live well. If the larger fuel tank option was required, the bulkhead between the original fuel tank cavity and the live well was just cut away, creating one large fuel tank cavity area into which the 129-gallon fuel tank would be installed.
My 22-foot hull also has a plastic tube running across the aft wall of the live well connecting the Port trough in the deck liner to the Starboard trough. Without that drain from Port to Starboard there would be no exit for any water that accumulated in the Port trough.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive: Fuel Tank Modification; Engine Mounting Height
wjd	posted 10-24-2014 04:10 PM ET (US) Hi. My 1989 Boston Whaler Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive is my project boat. Do these modifications make sense? The OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive had a 129-gallon fuel tank, which I removed. I glassed in a bulkhead to create a rear locker and fabricated a 75-gallon tank, which will be installed as far forward as possible. This is in an effort to move the center of gravity forward as much as possible. I am getting set to mount a pair of counter-rotating Suzuki DF140 four-cycle engines with 25-inch shafts. I think I will set the engine height as far up as possible.
picflight	posted 10-24-2014 04:58 PM ET (US) Yes, makes sense. You have reduced the fuel load, moved the tank forward and are attempting to mount a 140-HP engine on an OUTRAGE 22 with a Whaler Drive (outboard engine bracket). Don't you want to drop in water with a simulated engine weight to see where the static waterline is and then determine the mount position?
deepwater	posted 10-25-2014 02:56 AM ET (US) Twin 140s and you cut your fuel almost in half. You're either hauling heavy loads short or you have fuel close by along the route. WHY? ^@^
jimh	posted 10-25-2014 08:40 AM ET (US) Re engine mounting height for twins on a Whaler Drive, and does it make sense to install the engines at the highest possible mounting height: No. I wouldn't start at three-holes or four-holes up. The ability to run the engines at an elevated mounting height will be determined by the propellers. The Whaler Drive creates a lot of aerated water by itself, and this is also a consideration in setting the engine height. Let me share some experience with a 22-foot hull and Whaler Drive. I have a 22-foot hull and Whaler Drive combination, but with a single engine. My boat's engine is a 25-inch shaft, and it is mounted one-hole up. This puts the anti-ventilation plate just about at the waterline when on plane. The anti-ventilation plate is not running completely dry, but it is not buried. I suspect the engine could be raised one-hole higher, but I have not tried it. I am quite satisfied with the performance I have now. The propeller never ventilates, even in very rough water operation. That is more important to me than gaining a small improvement in top speed that might occur with the engine raised even higher. With twin engines, 25-inch shaft is also recommended with a Whaler Drive. The engine mounting height could certainly be at least one-hole up. Two-holes up also seems like a reasonable starting point. Assuming the water flow on the Whaler Drive will be similar, I think two-holes up ought to put the anti-ventilation plates just above the water flow on plane. The results for your boat will depend on the propellers you are using. Some propellers are able to tolerate running in a lot of aerated water without ventilating. Others are not. While it is a pain to move twin engines up and down on the transom, I think starting a little lower might be more conservative.
jimh	posted 10-25-2014 08:49 AM ET (US) Re the fuel tank reduction to 75-gallons and does it make sense: For modern engines like your Suzuki DF140 engines, 129-gallons of fuel would have given the boat a very long range. The best fuel economy will probably be around 3-MPG, and with 129-gallons that would have been a 400-mile range. A range of 400-miles is certainly more than most 22-foot boats will have. It is certainly a distance that would be very unlikely to ever play any sort of limitation on your boating in a 22-footer. By cutting fuel capacity to 75-gallons you are back to the typical fuel capacity of the usual 22-foot hull with the standard 77-gallon tank. My 22-footer has a 77-gallon tank. I have never felt constrained by the fuel capacity. I figure on a cruising fuel economy of about 2.7-MPG, and that gives a range of 200-miles. In several decades of boating with a 22-foot outboard boat, I have never approached going 200-miles in one day of operation. The only time I have ever given consideration to fuel capacity has been in planing for a cruise along a very remote section of the northern coast of Lake Superior, where no fuel is available for over 150-miles of the coastline. On that basis, I think it made perfect sense for you to abandon the 129-gallon tank and replace it with a 75-gallon tank.
jimh	posted 10-25-2014 10:28 AM ET (US) I don't understand exactly how you made the new bulkhead and fuel tank. If you could link to some images showing these modifications, I think many readers would be interested to see them.
wjd	posted 10-25-2014 03:09 PM ET (US) Hi all, Thank you for your replies. picflight - You are correct in that by launching the boat things may become more clear. However, at this time there are still way too many variables. Simulating 820 lbs on the Whaler Drive would be a challenge too - close to 100 gal of water...or??? Also the fuel tank is not yet installed nor the console, rigging etc... Furthermore the static waterline is of less interest than is the water line at speed. deepwater - I believe the 22' Outrage WD sits too low at the stern when rigged with twins. Many of the models sold with twin outboards were sold with the optional XL 129 gal fuel tank to feed the thirsty 2 strokes of that era. This makes the stern low situation even worse as the extra fuel is carried right at the back. I wanted to run twin four strokes on this project and by going from twin 2 stroke 115s to the 140s I am actually adding more weight to the back of the boat. By cutting the fuel capacity while keeping the tank as far forward as possible I hope to mitigate some of the stern low tendencies. I expect to maintain a range of nearly 175 miles which is 75 miles further than I anticipate needing. jim - thanks for your input on the mounting height. I wonder which model of 22'er you have. If it is a Revenge, for example, I also wonder how much the 3-400 lbs of cabin may influence the balancing act. Good point on the propellers. I haven't considered that yet. The bulkhead was constructed of 2" thick 8 lb polyurethane foam. The foam was shaped to fit the contours of the tank cavity and then bedded in polyester resin thickened with cabosil. Next, I glassed it all in with 6 layers of alternating CSM and cloth. As for the fuel tank, I designed and cut the parts out with my CNC machine. The original fuel tank was fabricated from 0.125" aluminum - presumably 5052. I decided to make my tank using 0.188" 5052. While I can weld aluminum reasonably well, I chose to cut the parts and have them welded by someone who specializes in this field. He will also pressure test the tank for me. I will be glad to post some pictures of this project as I get a chance.
jimh	posted 10-25-2014 10:45 PM ET (US) WJD--My 22 is a Revenge Walk-Through. With a light-weight two-cycle single engine on the transom, the Whaler Drive rides quite high. You can get a feel for it from this image: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ staticTrim600x450.jpg With a modern two-cycle like an E-TEC, it rides just about the same: http://continuouswave.com/sail-logs/irnp2010/images/ rockHarborDockPostGale0331.jpg You can see that the engine splash well drains on the Whaler Drive are sitting at least two inches above the static water line. When the boat is on plane, the anti-ventilation plate rides just a bit below the waterline, as see with the E-TEC in this view: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ E-TEC_WhalerDriveOneHoleUp816x612.jpg
jimh	posted 10-25-2014 10:48 PM ET (US) WJD--Thanks for the further details. It sounds like you recreated the bulkhead that normally separates the fuel tank cavity from the stern live well on a standard 22-foot hull with the 77-gallon fuel tank. Was there any evidence in the turtle or hull-liner molded part that something had been cut away to make the fuel tank cavity larger? I assume the 129-gallong tank was one big tank, not two smaller tanks jointed together with a coupling hose or pipe.
wjd	posted 10-27-2014 11:57 AM ET (US) Yes, there was evidence of several parts of the inner liner being cut away to house the one piece tank. I essentially replaced the bulkhead that would normally be at the rear of the 77 gal tank. There were other parts of the original liner that were also removed - not too sure what purpose they served. I am still thinking about how to deal with the rear locker. One option that I am thinking of is to build a drop in removable bin that would allow for a bilge pump to be installed beneath. I will try to get some pictures for you at some point. Here is a link to some miscl. photos. One shows the full tank prior to removal. Another gives a bit of a view of the removed bits. [url]<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://s96.photobucket.com/user/wdunlop1/embed/slideshow/"></iframe>[url/]
picflight	posted 10-27-2014 12:35 PM ET (US) Re-posting wjd's link to wonderful pictures. Would love to see captions on the pictures. http://s96.photobucket.com/user/wdunlop1/embed/slideshow
wjd	posted 10-27-2014 07:45 PM ET (US) Thanks for helping with the link picflight. I added a few descriptions, and will try to add more photos next week.
andygere	posted 10-27-2014 10:48 PM ET (US) That was a highly spec'd boat when new: outrage Cuddy, Whalerdrive, super console, commercial rub rail, etc. it looks like you are doing a real pro restoration job, the Whalerdrive looks like new. Are you putting the Cuddy cabin back on?
wjd	posted 10-28-2014 06:14 PM ET (US) Andy, I will not be reinstalling the cuddy cap. It had some previous damage that might have been repairable but I want to end up with a completely open boat. There are a few photos showing the process of building new front fiberglass hatches. The original cuddy came with plywood hatches - not the molded fiberglass ones on the open Outrage. I know many Whaler fans would object to cutting up a classic Whaler. I would agree depending on the boat. This particular Whaler was pretty far gone in many ways so I like to think I'm saving one.
andygere	posted 10-28-2014 11:01 PM ET (US) When I saw the hatch molds, I figured the cuddy was going away. What kind of shape are the cuddy doors and door trim in? What about the big hatch? Nice work on the boat by the way, looks like you have a good facility to work in as well.
picflight	posted 10-29-2014 12:33 PM ET (US) I too admire the facility. Looking forward to project progress with pictures.
dfmcintyre	posted 10-29-2014 03:13 PM ET (US) Bill - Very nice renovation! Quick question: how did you determine the waterline for the bottom paint? Regards - Don
wjd	posted 10-29-2014 06:13 PM ET (US) Thanks for your comments. I still have the doors and hatch. They are in fair to poor condition. The hatch is definitely salvageable but I would build new doors before I reused the old ones. Don, you asked the "million dollar question" - I guessed. After I removed the cuddy, I put the boat in the water and placed 5 gallon pails of water on the deck and Whaler Drive to simulate the changes in weight I was planning. I know I will be close, but I also left the bottom paint a bit low with the idea that I will do a final line when all is finished.
jimh	posted 11-04-2014 02:22 PM ET (US) Thanks for sharing many interesting images of the OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat hull during restoration. I was particularly interested in the image at http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l168/wdunlop1/IMG_2270_zps734b1290. jpg?890 It shows how the hull and liner molds are configured in the forward half of the hull. On my REVENGE model, the original liner is cut away at the aft end of the cabin to create a stairs to the main deck level. It looks like there is a sprue hole in the liner in that same area.
andygere	posted 11-04-2014 03:02 PM ET (US) jimh, on the Outrage Cuddy models, the cabin bulkhead is immediately aft of the two port and starboard hatches. The area aft of the companionway door is covered by the deck, and it creates a pocket for the porta potty, which is slid out for use. There is a small sump and a single through-hull near the aft end of that pocket. It's interesting to learn about the minor differences that allowed Whaler to offer several different boats from a single hull design.
wjd	posted 11-04-2014 03:56 PM ET (US) I added a few more pictures to the photobucket. The rear of the liner was extensively cut away to make room for the larger tank. The bulkhead that I added back in is visible although I have yet to fair it and spray it with gelcoat. I re sprayed the bow area with gel and spent considerable time sanding. I guess theres more of that in my future.
jimh	posted 11-06-2014 10:05 AM ET (US) The captions on the new images showing details of the fuel tank cavity where the factory cut away some portion of the hull as originally molded fit with my understanding of how the larger fuel tank option was implemented. I believe that the originally molded hull had a smaller fuel tank cavity with a second area behind it for the live well. If the larger fuel tank option was required, the bulkhead between the original fuel tank cavity and the live well was just cut away, creating one large fuel tank cavity area into which the 129-gallon fuel tank would be installed. My 22-foot hull also has a plastic tube running across the aft wall of the live well connecting the Port trough in the deck liner to the Starboard trough. Without that drain from Port to Starboard there would be no exit for any water that accumulated in the Port trough.