Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
max engines for 21' Outrage
|Author||Topic: max engines for 21' Outrage|
posted 03-10-2001 03:25 PM ET (US)
I have a '71 21' Outrage that is currently powered by twin 75hp Evinrude's. I would like to upgrade the engines with Yamaha 4 strokes. I was thinking that 100hp 4 strokes would do the trick, but I want to put on the maximum hp. I am also concerned with the additional weight of the 4 strokes. Any suggestions appreciated as always.
posted 03-10-2001 05:04 PM ET (US)
Do you have any pic's fo your boat?I love those older Outrages
posted 03-10-2001 05:54 PM ET (US)
Sorry I don't have any pics right now. But I will after I find a digital camera.
posted 03-10-2001 06:52 PM ET (US)
Somewhere on the forum, recently, someone indicated they had a pair of 100HP 4 strokes on an old outrage 21. Look around for it and send him an e-mail. He should be able to help.
posted 03-11-2001 01:12 AM ET (US)
I have the same hull.I replaced my 1982 70's with Honda 90's. 300 hrs and still very happy. I looked at the Yamaha's for my Nauset and was impressed. Take good care of your "ribbed banana",they are a great boat.
posted 03-11-2001 08:25 AM ET (US)
My '71 "dump-truck-banana" was originally outfitted with two 65 Johnsons. Ten years ago I repowered with a 200 Mercury. While you wish to stay with twins, I'll throw out some random observations on what I encountered.
The 65s lacked PT, and were mounted as low as possible, with trim pins all the way "in." The boat planed easily and ran at a nice trim at low speeds. Top speed was in the low 30s. It cruised happily at 23-25 mph and 3500rpms.
The boat is rated for 200, but sure doesn't need it! Overall a 150-175 probably would be my choice "next time." The 200 was mounted about two holes "up." This configuration was excellent for all running except slow plane. In hindsight the rig probably would have benefited greatly from some transom wedges or a Doel-Fin. The boat simply ran too bow-high at anything less than 4000rpm. At that rpm you were running faster than you generally cared to (35+). Best running angle unfortunatly was acheived from about 4500rpm up. Top end was 5600rpm and an honest 54mph. Simply too much for that boat. Too much stuff is happening way too fast at those speeds in that boat. While short of chine-walking the boat is just ricochetting along at anything much more than the lower 40s. And as you are no doubt aware, those early Whalers rode exponentially rougher the more throttle was applied. Most of those early hulls were designed by a Chiropractor. But the 21 and more so its 19' little brother were designed by a Chiropractor and hp-rated by a Dentist...each with four kids in college! Comfortable running (seems this is true for most boats) is about 25mph.
The boat was an altogether different creature with the high hp single vs the lower hp twins. My opinion is that save the low-speed plane problems, absolutely everything about the boat's performance improved dramatically. To repeat, a means of stern-lift would have solved the low-speed problem.
So...where are we? Well, if I were to do it again I'd go for a single of 150-175hp, mounted one to two holes up, with a stabilizing fin or wedges. Would give great performance and reasonable economy. By the way, I had switched to NFB steering prior to the 200. But after a little wheel time with the 200 I installed hydraulic steering...a "must have."
Good luck with your project, and I hope I've helped, not hindered.
posted 03-11-2001 12:37 PM ET (US)
James, we're practically next-door-neighbors, so I'd be pleased to come by and take some digital photos for you. 366-6995. Don
posted 03-11-2001 08:03 PM ET (US)
I bought my '73 Outrage with an 78(or so...) 150Merc. Would top out at low 40's.
Repowered with a 200hp Yamaha, long shaft. In short, I'd second Harrys comment about top end, it does get squirrely... you only want to go in a straight line, DO NOT try any hard turns.
I do like the power for skiers, but I end up cruising in the mid to high 20's.
A current short shaft is to short, and the long shaft will require a jack plate of some design or another to get the cavitation plate up high enough. It's a spring time project for me this year.
Best - Don
posted 03-12-2001 11:25 AM ET (US)
I have a '72 21 outrage with an 81 evinrude 140 (really 115). Despite it's age the motor still runs reasonably well, and takes to about 33 mph. but, like everyone else, we cruise around 24-26. We have even waterskied behind it.
When we repower, a 115-130 4 stroke is my choice. Since we stay coastal, twins have no appeal for us whatsoever. a 20" shaft is the standard. but I have considered a jack plate so that I could run a 25" shaft.
as for planing aids, I have seen no need for one. (the evinrude weighs about 330 lbs, and we only have 36 gallons of gas in the saddle tanks). she planes at very low speed, with almost no bow rise.
posted 03-13-2001 06:12 AM ET (US)
I agree with Don and Harry, 200 hp is too much for this old shucker. I have a 1979 Revenge 21 (same hull as the 21 Outrage and a little heavier). When I bought her she had a 200 hp (1989) Merc carb engine and would do about 55 mph.. there was no wake , just vapor and it was a handfull! I added hyd steering right away and named her el'Nino (when you opened the throttle, it created its own weather). Now, the top speed limit in Volusia County Fla. is 30mph so you can see my delima... the 200 Merc just wasn't even breathing at 30mph.. I sold the motor and replaced with a 1996 Merc 90 that I had run on a montauk and a Newport and it was a dream! It would cruise at 25-28 mph (my favorite speed) and would do this all day with a full load of fuel (80 gals. thanks to the twin saddle tanks from Don, above) and 4 to six adults... accelleration was moderate and top speed was 35mph with a 20" pitch Merc high five prop @ 5500rpm. I sold the 90hp (with a little over 2000 hrs on it) and bought a new 2000 Merc 135 Optimax. This is, for me, the ideal engine for my purposes and performance is more than expected! Accelleration is as good as the 200 and maybe better in the mid-range and top speed is 45mph at 5600 rpm (swinging a Merc Vengence 19" prop)... and it will cruise nicely at 28mph (3600 rpm) and will run all day at 40mph (4800 rpm).. The fuel mileage is so good that I hesitate to mention to others as they will think I lying, bragging or smoking something, but really it gets about 5mpg overall and at a steady 28mph gets over 6mpg.. I logged 6.2mpg on a 300mile plus run up Apalachicola River last spring when engine was new! The old 21'4" hull is very efficient, though hard riding compared to a deep V. The shallow draft is a must for my useage.. Happy 21 Whalin.. Clark.. The Old Man and the Sea
posted 03-13-2001 09:31 AM ET (US)
PS> I wonder if anyone has put a 115 Merc/Yam 4 stroker on a 21 hull? The 115 weighs about 75lbs less than the 135 opti (the 21 carries weight quite well, however) and may be a good match! Don't know what fuel mileage to expect but it should be good. Extrapolation would lead to predicted top speed of about 40mph....????? Clark
posted 03-13-2001 05:53 PM ET (US)
Clark, I once had an occasion to run along side a 1973 21' Outrage with a Merc in-line 6 115HP. The boat was surprisingly fast, and I clocked him at about 42mph. Admittedly, those Mercs put out a little more than the rated 115HP, probably more like 135. Assuming the new fuel injected 115 4 stroke is not quite as fast, the 40mph sounds about right to me.
posted 03-14-2001 04:39 AM ET (US)
Clark and Don, Are all 80 gallons in saddle tanks? Did you fabricate them? What happened to your teak rod holders under the gunwales?
posted 03-14-2001 06:54 AM ET (US)
Orca, I bought the tanks from Don. They are by Tempo and are model # TP18G, capacity 21.5 gals (20 gals useable) and are plastic (polyolefin). They are a very snug fit under the gunwales and are top fill (through gunwale). The fit is so tight that the half inch thick plywood backing must be removed from under gunwhale. I insulated outside of the tanks with Whaler pleated upholstery , also looks terrific! The tanks feed through a 3 way valve so that fuel can be selected from either saddle tank or the main (under deck) 40 gal tank. Don had special stainless brackets to secure the inside corners to the deck. Great installation but I had to go into a trance to accomplish since space is so tight. The rod holders had to go! Thanks again, Don! Happy Whalin'... Clark
posted 03-14-2001 10:52 AM ET (US)
Thanks for all the responses. It looks as though I have some major decisions to make before repowering. I like the twin engines, but I sure miss having tilt/trim.
My whaler originally was equipped with the side saddle tanks. I think that they are about18gal each. The originals rusted out but I found some plastic ones for $99 each from Cabelas. I compared the dimensions of the plastic ones with the originals and everything matches up, fill ports, vents, etc. A person could use these instead of the originals and the only modification should be mounting the tank holders. The originals were held in place by two flat pieces of metal screwed into the teak rod holders that sandwitched each rim of the tanks on the ends. The only modification for the plastic tanks would be to mount the "L" brackets that hold the tank above it, but it should work out OK. Thanks again JC
posted 03-14-2001 05:04 PM ET (US)
A little history is appropriate here, from someone old enough to remember the introduction of this very first Outrage in 1971. You can see where it got it's name - it WAS an outrageous looking craft back in 1971, even compared to the 13 & 16" Whalers!
Hulls with ribbed sides simply never existed before. I still wonder why they removed them in 1973 edition.
But what many have forgotten is that "way back then" there was no such thing as a V-6 200HP, 2.5 litre outboard engine. In 1971, the biggest you could get was a Johnson or Merc 135, both 99 cubes. In 1972 Merc upped the in-line six to 140, then to 150 in 1973. To get to 200HP, twins were needed. And the engines were powerhead rated, not prop rated, and slower than today's models. I think today BW would have never rated the boat for the current 200's. Maybe more like 150.
I would agree that if you're going to stay with twins, the 75-100HP Mercury/Yamaha 4 strokes would be very nice. But these engines are a lot wider than your current in-line 3's, so with such a narrow transom, they could be very close together. The 26" centerline is minimum engine spacing these days. I'd definitely switch to hydraulic steering and a pair of transom jack brackets. Just be sure your transom, and pocketbook, will take all of this weight.
What about a pair of the Merc 4 stroke 60's, a huge weight saving. From what I can tell, they would run about 40-42mph. Or if the 2008 technology is not that important to you, a pair of the Merc or Yamaha 90HP 2 strokes. Some of the best 2 strokes out there, and quite powerful for their compact size.
Great boat you have. I'd love to have your re-powering problem myself.
PS The list price of that boat new in 1971 was $6600.
posted 03-14-2001 07:10 PM ET (US)
At what point does all this get kinda hairy? I remember buying a Montauk in the early 80s. My son, then about 12, suggested to the mechanic setting the boat up, that he mount the motor on a raised jack plate and put on a chopper prop. After staring at him for a few deconds, the mechanic said "right idea...wrong boat.
Is there a lesson here for us?
When we start talking about twin transom jacks to accomodate a couple hundred horsepower on a 30 year old boat with an indented transom, designed to probably go the outrageous (sorry) speed of 35mph, have we let our winter cabin fever get to us?
It's great that we share our boating and Whaler experience with one another. But let's not forget some safe, practical and fiscal common sense.
Knowing I'm going to be "Harpooned" Harry...
posted 03-14-2001 07:58 PM ET (US)
Harry: Your mechanic (and son) were partially right and partially wrong on the Montauk. As for Mercury Chopper series props, the mechanic was right. They are a pure racing application, and barely sold any more, and don't hold below 4000rpm on most boats. Jacking the engine WAY up on one of the older style brackets, to accomodate the Chopper props, is also not appropriate for a Montauk.
But Props and brackets have improved, and are used for other than all out racing, as they originally were.
I believe the 21 Outrage can reasonably handle 45mph, as Clark has indicated above. I had a friend with twin 85HP Mercs on one, and it would also run comfortably around 45. Nice boat. I have also seen a few 21's with engine installed on brackets, as setting the engine back helps in trim control and planning attitude, I believe. They look nice, and seem to run fine. They were not, however, racing/Bass Boat setups, as you correctly indicate is not correct for most Whalers.
posted 03-14-2001 08:38 PM ET (US)
After my Yamaha dealer informed me that the 80hp 4 strokes are over $8K each, I am now leaning more towards a single 150hp as you all suggest. Right now my boat cruises at about 30-35mph with the twins but they sure drink the gas and don't have power trim.
FYI my Outrage originally cost $2,800 in '71 from the factory w/o engine or trailer and included Pompanette fishing seats instead of the bench pilot seat. The first engine on it was a single 75hp evinrude which was later updated with twins. I have a lot of work to do to totally restore it, but from the looks and comments I get when i'm cruising around it'll will be worth it. thanks JC
posted 03-14-2001 09:39 PM ET (US)
I just noticed that Bass Pro Adventure Worlds are selling the Merc 75HP 4 stroke for $6700, and the 90 for $7100. These are the same engines as the Yamaha 80 & 100 respectively. The Merc 2 stroke 90s are a great price at $4600.
posted 03-14-2001 09:41 PM ET (US)
Mistake, sorry. The 115 fuel injected 4 strokes are 7100, the 90's are 6700 and the 75's are 6300.
posted 03-15-2001 03:07 AM ET (US)
OK everyone, I am the son "Harry" is talking about! I vividly remember the conversation, although I came up with an additional suggestion that sice at that time the Johnson 90 and 115 were nearly identical, that we should mount the 115 and put the 90 hood on it!
As far as Dad's outrage with the 200 Merc on it, just let me tell you, that if you were standing alongside the console and not holding on, and he hit it, there was a very good chance that you could end up in the transon area. And I am talking from about 5/8 throttle to WOT!
Lets also not forget as my father so succinctly put it, that these boats rode like they were designed by a team of chiropractors and dentists looking for an annuity.
I can't imagine anyone needing to go for more than 200 hp on this boat. In my opinion, it would be great with a 150 or 175 and a good stainless prop.
Jack brackets and twins? Well now it would seem that you would have a hull worth about 1/3 the cost of all of that hardware, twice the maint. cost, higher fuel consumption, and generally making the anacronym for BOAT (Break Out Another Thousand) seem cheap.
However, the memory of that day with Pete the mechanic is pretty cool. I wonder how that Montauk would have preformed????
posted 03-15-2001 04:33 AM ET (US)
lhg RE: rib design. I was told that getting them out of the mold was too expensive. The smooth upper half was the fix.
posted 03-15-2001 09:16 AM ET (US)
There is no doubt that the early 21s are one of the coolest looking boats on the water. At rest, the rub rail sitting on the waterline, the ribbed hull, banana flair and teak console would steal a scene. I never have, nor will I probably ever again hear so many enthusiastic comments about a boat. But talk about a labor of love! All the ribs (the foredeck had them too) made waxing and polishing a real effort. The gunwhales had some not too effective drain channels in them, and the indented transom with elaborate motor well added to the "fun." Cripes, come to think of it, I had to take a couple of weeks vacation ever
y spring just to get her ready! To add to Orca's comment about the mold, the old axiom "When they made that one they broke the mold" applies. And after they broke the mold they beat the snot out of the mold-maker too!
too weary to Harpoon, Harry
posted 03-15-2001 10:40 AM ET (US)
When I bought my '21 in 1992, I was told by the factory (still in Rockland, MA then) that indeed they dropped the ribbing because it was very hard to get them out of the molds.
just as an aside, supposedly the transom is wide enough to take two OMC v-4s. which have to be wider than any inline-4, four stroke or not. I think I saw one once with twin 85hp evinrudes. But i wouldn't recommend a repower that way.
posted 03-15-2001 01:51 PM ET (US)
With almost any old Whaler that one repowers with new 4 stroke or DFI twins, the "hardware" is going to be more than the value of the boat, maybe with the exception of a more recent 25 or 27.
posted 03-15-2001 04:33 PM ET (US)
I'm not really worried about the cost of new hardware. The enjoyment of cruising around in a cool Whaler is worth any price isn't it?
posted 03-21-2001 09:53 PM ET (US)
I have a 1981 20ft Outrage with twin 90's ('99 Johnson's). It runs in the low 40's using low pitch props. My boat also has bottom paint so I lose some speed. I originaly had twin 75 hp Merc.s. I could tell
the new engines added weight to the boat. I had to reposition the boat farther up on its trailer (no longer had the needed tongue weight). I would be hesitant add the weight of two 4 strokes. If I remember right a Johnson 90hp is about 315lbs each. I will say the torch developed with the 90's out of the "hole" is incredible. It's like the boat is going to jump out of the water. You really need to hang on. I mainly fish offshore, so the top end speed is more than enough for me. Hope this info helps.
posted 03-22-2001 09:23 AM ET (US)
In case you are wondering what a 21-Outrage from the 1970's looks like, see http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage36.html .
posted 03-22-2001 09:08 PM ET (US)
Just for some addtional info; as of December 1, 1971 you could walk into a Whaler showroom as purchase a 21' Outrage for $3950.00 With some notable options:
flying top canvas set 375.00
reversible pilot seat with teak back 284.00
bow rail 150.00
saddle tanks, tempo 18 gal 270.00
ritchie explorer compass 21.00
lee outriggers - attach to console windscreen 110.00
posted 03-22-2001 11:51 PM ET (US)
BW told me that there were many additional options that came on the '71 Outrage's. Mine came with all that you mentioned except that it was equipped with the Pompanette fishing seats instead of the reversible pilot seat. I would like to see one looks like with full Mill's canvas on it. JC
posted 03-23-2001 01:23 AM ET (US)
JC, I'll get together some pic's for Jim. I have the original three piece system but have changed canvas from the original Mills. The system is very funtional and has saved the day on many occasions.It consists of a suntop(bimini),a dodger and a zip in windshield.The bimini and the dodger can be used separately.
posted 03-23-2001 02:50 PM ET (US)
Thanks Orca, I would like to see it. I can't figure out how my top sets up. It has two bows and two other small tubes that come off of them. I don't know it it's a 3rd bow or if they are struts or something else. I haven't ran across my canvas yet, so i'm not sure how it is when put together. When I am rich I am going to buy the complete canvas set. Jim
posted 11-05-2001 03:15 PM ET (US)
Hello to all, This is the first time to post on the forum. I have owned several 21' Outrage boats in the last 10 years. I use them for commercial fishing here in San Francisco for crab, salmon, halibut, etc. I must say that that particular hull has exceptional seaworthiness. I have been in some very nasty situations in my career over the last 30+ years on the ocean and have had many other boats from 30 to 90 ft. Of all the boats I have experienced, pound for pound, the 21' Outrage is the most seaworthy.
posted 11-05-2001 03:38 PM ET (US)
Hello, It's me again. I was reading this thread and wanted to mention that I put twin 75hp. Merc. 4-stroke engines on my 21' Outrage about a year and a half ago. I was concerned about the weight of the two motors since they would nerly double the weight of the former 150 2-stroke I had on before. As it turns out the weight difference for me is not a big deal. The effect on the hull at idle is minimal. During operation there is no noticable difference. The fuel consumption is one third of the 2-stroke. Trimming the engines is much more responsive than the single probably due to the larger overall area of the cavitation plate. There is plenty of room to service the engines even though the engines are in a relatively small transome area. As for power, the 75hp. motors are fine. I can go as fast as the hull will handle safely even with a load of gear onboard. With a light boat the speed at wot is enough to make the boat squirlly. The props are all that is in the water at times and since the props are both rh the boat tries to walk at high speeds. I would not go over a total of 150hp. no matter what engines you use. I found that moving the two 12 gal. fuel tanks from under the stern platforms to the step-ups in the bow helped with the weight difference. I fish offshore and the twins are a must for me. I need the security of the " other " motor if trouble happens. I also do a lot of trolling and in doing so I use only one motor at a time. This further increases my fuel and reduces wear and tear. Hope this helps. -ED
posted 11-06-2001 12:25 AM ET (US)
Another vote for 150hp on your OR21. Mid summer I obtained a 73OR21 with 88 Merc 150(SS prop) in Florida and brought back to Ohio to restore. First thing was having engine thoroughly worked on and had it out twice before starting to dismantle boat completely for restoration. The mechanic has the engine screaming. For the sake of comparison, I have a 68 Sakonnet powered with 79Merc 115, no powerT&T. The Sakonnet at WOT will do between 40-43 as measured with pitot tube speedometer and paddlewheel speedometer on fishfinder - both register over 40. Couldn't measure actual speed in OR21 because no working instruments but when I took son and son-in-law out for its "maiden" voyage, the first thing they both said when I hit WOT, "WOW, this one really outdoes the Sakonnet!" Now, it is down to BARE hull, totally stripped. Doing all teak restoration, most fiberglass repair, and electronics myself. Am having topside professionally painted with Imron. New RPS cushion, new fuel tank, new NFB steering system, all new instruments, and replate necessary hardware; can't wait to get it finished and back into water next spring. Believe me, a single 150 is plenty.
posted 11-07-2001 12:08 PM ET (US)
I had a 1974 19 revenge with a 140 zuki. That boat would do about 43+. I think everyone is correct in their assuptions about a 150hp. As for twins, only if you NEED them. Keep it simple and light. Remember it is 30 years old.
posted 11-08-2001 09:21 PM ET (US)
The new Suzuki 140 HP looks good. Light(er), efficient and plenty of power. I have a 1975 19ft outrage with a 1990 150 Johnson. It is almost overpowering. At 3000 RPM's it does 32 MPH which is too fast. In other words it can't go slow (in the 20's)on a plane. With a full load it is out of the hole in three seconds and on a plane in under 5. With one person you have to hang on for dear life. The hull weighs 1400 lbs. I love it. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE MAKE A BOAT LIKE THIS ANYMORE?
posted 11-08-2001 09:44 PM ET (US)
I just completed the restoration of my '72 Outrage 21' and have installed twin 90 Yamaha's with teleflex hydraulic steering. plans are to get it in the water this weekend for a shakedown. I will certainly let you know how things go. I know the hp is more than necessary, and twins can be a hassel, but the boat came out of the box with twin Johnson 65s and looked great. Had to go back together in that configuration. I would be happy to provide any and all details / photos of the project if anyone is interested. Thanks to all of you that posts on this site, you made the project more enjoyable for me!!
posted 11-08-2001 10:11 PM ET (US)
Tried to send you e-mail requesting details on your restoration but e-mail didn't go through.
posted 11-09-2001 12:32 PM ET (US)
Just thought I would add to the on-going conversations. I currently have a 1971 21' Outrage with the original twin 55hp Bearcat four stroke engines. The motors still run like a top. They push the boat 20mph at 4000 rpm's and 29mph at WOT. Granted a little slower than I like, but they are cool to listen to as you are cruising along. I also have a '77 21' outrage with a 200hp Johnson. I do agree that this is too much horsepower and quite a gas guzzler. I plan on repowering with a 140 Suzuki four stroke as soon as I sell the 71' outrage mentioned above.
If anyone is interested in pictures of the '71 outrage with the Bearcat's I would be happy to send them. The boat is in great shape and looks like the one on Cetacea Page 36. If anyone knows of someone who might be interested in the boat, please let them know it is for sale. I posted it on the Marketplace several months ago and got some response, but no buyers. I have reduced the price and I am willing to negotiate to serious buyers.
posted 11-09-2001 02:43 PM ET (US)
Sorry about the e-mail address. It has been corrected. just to save you looking back, it is firstname.lastname@example.org. Look forward to hearing from you.
Outrage, I would appreciate photos of your 4 stroke boat. There are a few people that expressed interest in my 21, which is not for sale, but I will forward info on yours to them. As soon as I figure how to e-mail photos from my digital camera, I will get some to you. Never really had the time to get too far in the computer stuff, guess I will have to ask my 11 yr old daughter for help!
posted 10-27-2002 09:46 PM ET (US)
I am restoring a 1972 21' outrage . hull #00530 and am interested in info and pictures . If anyone has any "tips " to pass on about the do's and don'ts please e-mail me . Hope to be in the water this spring !
posted 10-28-2002 02:53 PM ET (US)
go with the new dfi motors from nissan, the new LPDI 70 are amazing and cheap!
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000