Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  repowering 22 outrage

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   repowering 22 outrage
rgfdds posted 09-11-2001 08:35 AM ET (US)   Profile for rgfdds   Send Email to rgfdds  
need new power on 1989 outrage, blown 175hp johnson. considering 175-225 2 cycle yamaha versus 4 cycle technology. besides the cost difference, i am concerned about the weight on the already low transom. my buddy just installed a 225 4 stroke yamaha on a 22ft cabo and it is now a completely different riding boat.i.e. too low at rest bow up on plane. 600lbs on the back of the 22ft outrage????
Peter posted 09-11-2001 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I repowered a 22 Revenge with a Yamaha 225 OX66 EFI SWS last year. It has run flawlessly since new and gets an average of 2.5 mpg. I don't know anything about the Cabo but the Outrage 22 can accept twin V4s on its transom. Combined, these weigh more than 600lbs. However, I don't have any personal experience concerning any differences in ride caused by the additional weight of a twins versus a single configuration on a 22 Outrage. It would be interesting to know.
John from Madison CT posted 09-11-2001 12:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     
One of my favorite boats of all time was an Outrage 22 Cuddy a friend of mine had.

His ran with twin OMC 115hp outboards. The boat moved very well and the great part about it was that it could plane on 1 motor. These V4's are reliable anyway, but the luxury of being well offshore and having one motor go down and STILL make it home at planing speeds was a real comfort.

If you can afford it, maybe you can go with twin 115 4Strokes?

John

FISHNFF posted 09-11-2001 09:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for FISHNFF  Send Email to FISHNFF     
Know someone with a 1988 22 Outrage repowered with twin 90 Merc 4S's. Originally had 90 Yamaha's. While fuel economy got better, as well as top speed and torque, the boat does squat in the rear, and the bait tank previously in the rear was moved to in front of the console for better balance. Without the bait tank forward, water over the transom while drifting was problem.
kingfish posted 09-12-2001 09:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfish  Send Email to kingfish     
I have a '92 Outrage 22 with a '92 225 Evinrude (450lbs, +/-), 2 batteries (100 lbs, +/-) and I will be installing a 9.9 to 15 hp 4s kicker (100 to 140 lbs) this winter, without a second thought. With the 550 lbs(+/-) that I am carrying back there right now, there is no discernable stern-squat or bow rise at all, and performance is un-affected. I wouldn't concern myself if I were you about the weight of a 225 4s back there. If you decided to add a kicker to that, you might see some drop at rest and idle.

kingfish

reelescape1 posted 09-12-2001 11:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for reelescape1  Send Email to reelescape1     
I have a 90 22 OR with twin Evin. 88 SPL's, my manual says they weigh 288 lbs. ea. Their weight is not a problem, however, in my search to repower I'm having second thoughts on the 115 Yam. 4 stroke...they are heavy!! I think they are close to 400 lbs ea, that might present a problem with full (40+) live well, etc.
rgfdds posted 09-18-2001 07:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for rgfdds  Send Email to rgfdds     
thanks for all the info i am leaning toward one single engine probably a two stroke efi. the newer high compression injected motors still seem to be under developement with some problems am hesitant about them . again thanks for the help
Jurisproodenz posted 09-18-2001 11:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jurisproodenz  Send Email to Jurisproodenz     
Without doubt duck the direct injection motors. Run screaming.
dfmcintyre posted 09-18-2001 01:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for dfmcintyre  Send Email to dfmcintyre     
Recently, I had a conversation with one of my uniformed marine counterparts regarding engine reliability. They are having continuous problems with the Merc Opti's. As I've always had Merc's until a Yamaha dropped in my lap, I was disappointed to learn this. He stated the main reason to equip their recently purchased 22' Justice (which is enroute to the factory due to transom cracking) was that Mercury was selling the motors and an "unbelieveable" price.

I don't think the new engine technology is quite as robust as they seem.

After reading the above, please keep in mind that the loads and stresses that those engines and hull is considerably higher than most of us will ever encounter.

Don

humboldt jim posted 09-18-2001 06:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for humboldt jim  Send Email to humboldt jim     
I just finished my first season with a 2001 Merc Optimax powering my 22' Outrage. Thankfully I am happy to say I am very pleased with its performance. With a 4 blade SS Quicksilver prop, and the added weight of a 9.9 4 sroke Evinrude kicker, I am hitting a max speed of 39 knots. I must say that part of my decision in purchasing the Merc was due to the lack of authorized dealers in my area. It was either the Merc or OMC. Given the uncertainty of the company earlier this year, OMC did not seem like a smart buy. However my bud who owns an identical boat purchased the FICHT Evinrude 250, and so far so good for him. He is getting an additonal 4 knots above my max speed.
humboldt jim posted 09-18-2001 07:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for humboldt jim  Send Email to humboldt jim     
Forgot to mention, it's a 225HP Merc.
rgfdds posted 09-23-2001 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for rgfdds  Send Email to rgfdds     
seems some guys are doing well with the new technology, i am kinda of retro mentality (the old style hull) probably the older 2 cycle technology for me wish i could wait a year or two for this to work itself out but a blown motor is forcing my hand thanks again for the info

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.