Hanging twins on a 22 Outrage - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Hanging twins on a 22 Outrage

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Hanging twins on a 22 Outrage

Chap posted 04-12-2002 11:19 AM ET (US)
Hello all,
I'm getting ready to awake the Whaler from hibernation.
Tom W. Clark recommended I bring this to the Forum. As some of you may recall, I picked up at the end of the summer a stock 1989 22 Outrage standard transom with twin 1989 Johnson 120 VRO's, thanks to all that helped me during my quest. I don't recall what props I'm running but they are the original stock OMC aluminums that came on the boat 1n 1989, this thing even has cable steering(first thing on my wife's list to replace). To be honest I am not much of a motorhead but I am trying to learn and bring this hull up to speed. There has been much discussion concerning mounting height of single engine powered Classic Outrages but little regarding twins. My motors are hung as low as they can go on the transom, if not slightly below the bottom of the hull. I was wondering if I should bother raising them a hole or two. The shallower I can run the better for me without losing good bite, if top end improves great but that is not what I am after.
What was recommended?
What would be the proper reinstallation torque were I to get into this?
I have the resources available to lift the motors. Tom replied to me and I agree that trial and error is probably the way to go given the nature of the twin motor's relation to the deadrise area of the transom and not the very bottom of the vee. I plan on sticking with the aluminum, sacrificial, props at this time. She runs fine now with appropriate WOT in the lower end of the manual's range, don't remember specifics but around 5600, but would like some critical input if possible from the Forum. Thanks to all in advance for any info. :)
Chap
DIVE 1 posted 04-12-2002 09:54 PM ET (US)
Chap,
We have the twin 155s on DIVE1 mounted 1 hole up. We can go higher but we need as much low end torque as possible. We also can not risk a WOT blowout while on a call in rough seas. We are runnig 15x17 SST props.
Jim
Tom W Clark posted 04-13-2002 02:24 PM ET (US)
Jim,
The term "one hole up" is only useful if the distance between the motors is the same for both DIVE1 and Chap's boat. This may well be the case but not necessarily. Is there a standard distance? Do you know the distance on DIVE1?
reelescape1 posted 04-13-2002 04:54 PM ET (US)
My '90 22' OR has a Whaler sticker in the back that basically says...."Twin engines should be mounted on 29 3/4" centers". Thats with 20" engines.
Bugsy Malone posted 04-13-2002 05:02 PM ET (US)
Hogwash distance between the motors ain't that critical!
As Dive 1 states try to get them up as far as possible with out risking blow out or poor water intake. Better performance and handling.
Experiment for optimum height only way.
Chap posted 04-15-2002 10:04 AM ET (US)
Thanks everyone. I think an experiment may be in order and more of a true performance indicator. I looked at the props this weekend, 13 1/2 X 17, 3 blade aluminum elephants, sound right? I also noticed what looked to be green Trilene wrapped around my props, I use original Stren. I will expect a six pack from my Trilene friend at the prop party. I did not check the distance between the motor's centers. I don't think I would mess with that anyway at this point. Like Tom related to me, the cavitation plate is below the hull bottom on the outboard sides at this time. One hole up probably won't hurt the boat's bite especially sitting low already with the twins.
We shall see.
Thank you all.
Chap
lhg posted 04-15-2002 05:37 PM ET (US)
Reelscape's information is correct, and is what BW recommended on the notched transom Outrages, 18-22. It's not hogwash. On a notched transom boat, transom deadrise dictates engine spacing for installation at standard mounting heights. This also gives maximum FLEXIBILITY for future adjustments in mounting height. If you mount closer than this recommended 29 3/4", the engines will be running higher, which may or may not be acceptable, but you will not be able to drop them down if necessary.
On all Whaler drive models, engine spacing was 28".
DIVE 1 posted 04-15-2002 10:20 PM ET (US)
Tom,
I measured DIVE1 and the motors are on 29 3/4" centers. We have 20" shafts and the original motors were mounted at CPD.
Tom W Clark posted 04-17-2002 11:40 AM ET (US)
Thanks DIVE 1
OK, if the o.c. distance is 29 3/4" on all 22's then describing the motor elevation by hole position IS relevant. My point was simply that if the o.c. distance is not the same then "one hole up" on one boat will not be "one hole up" on another boat with the motors at a different sepacing because the transom height decreases as you move out from the keel.
What we are really trying to describe is where the cavitation plate is relative to the bottom of the hull.

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: Hanging twins on a 22 Outrage
Chap	posted 04-12-2002 11:19 AM ET (US) Hello all, I'm getting ready to awake the Whaler from hibernation. Tom W. Clark recommended I bring this to the Forum. As some of you may recall, I picked up at the end of the summer a stock 1989 22 Outrage standard transom with twin 1989 Johnson 120 VRO's, thanks to all that helped me during my quest. I don't recall what props I'm running but they are the original stock OMC aluminums that came on the boat 1n 1989, this thing even has cable steering(first thing on my wife's list to replace). To be honest I am not much of a motorhead but I am trying to learn and bring this hull up to speed. There has been much discussion concerning mounting height of single engine powered Classic Outrages but little regarding twins. My motors are hung as low as they can go on the transom, if not slightly below the bottom of the hull. I was wondering if I should bother raising them a hole or two. The shallower I can run the better for me without losing good bite, if top end improves great but that is not what I am after. What was recommended? What would be the proper reinstallation torque were I to get into this? I have the resources available to lift the motors. Tom replied to me and I agree that trial and error is probably the way to go given the nature of the twin motor's relation to the deadrise area of the transom and not the very bottom of the vee. I plan on sticking with the aluminum, sacrificial, props at this time. She runs fine now with appropriate WOT in the lower end of the manual's range, don't remember specifics but around 5600, but would like some critical input if possible from the Forum. Thanks to all in advance for any info. :) Chap
DIVE 1	posted 04-12-2002 09:54 PM ET (US) Chap, We have the twin 155s on DIVE1 mounted 1 hole up. We can go higher but we need as much low end torque as possible. We also can not risk a WOT blowout while on a call in rough seas. We are runnig 15x17 SST props. Jim
Tom W Clark	posted 04-13-2002 02:24 PM ET (US) Jim, The term "one hole up" is only useful if the distance between the motors is the same for both DIVE1 and Chap's boat. This may well be the case but not necessarily. Is there a standard distance? Do you know the distance on DIVE1?
reelescape1	posted 04-13-2002 04:54 PM ET (US) My '90 22' OR has a Whaler sticker in the back that basically says...."Twin engines should be mounted on 29 3/4" centers". Thats with 20" engines.
Bugsy Malone	posted 04-13-2002 05:02 PM ET (US) Hogwash distance between the motors ain't that critical! As Dive 1 states try to get them up as far as possible with out risking blow out or poor water intake. Better performance and handling. Experiment for optimum height only way.
Chap	posted 04-15-2002 10:04 AM ET (US) Thanks everyone. I think an experiment may be in order and more of a true performance indicator. I looked at the props this weekend, 13 1/2 X 17, 3 blade aluminum elephants, sound right? I also noticed what looked to be green Trilene wrapped around my props, I use original Stren. I will expect a six pack from my Trilene friend at the prop party. I did not check the distance between the motor's centers. I don't think I would mess with that anyway at this point. Like Tom related to me, the cavitation plate is below the hull bottom on the outboard sides at this time. One hole up probably won't hurt the boat's bite especially sitting low already with the twins. We shall see. Thank you all. Chap
lhg	posted 04-15-2002 05:37 PM ET (US) Reelscape's information is correct, and is what BW recommended on the notched transom Outrages, 18-22. It's not hogwash. On a notched transom boat, transom deadrise dictates engine spacing for installation at standard mounting heights. This also gives maximum FLEXIBILITY for future adjustments in mounting height. If you mount closer than this recommended 29 3/4", the engines will be running higher, which may or may not be acceptable, but you will not be able to drop them down if necessary. On all Whaler drive models, engine spacing was 28".
DIVE 1	posted 04-15-2002 10:20 PM ET (US) Tom, I measured DIVE1 and the motors are on 29 3/4" centers. We have 20" shafts and the original motors were mounted at CPD.
Tom W Clark	posted 04-17-2002 11:40 AM ET (US) Thanks DIVE 1 OK, if the o.c. distance is 29 3/4" on all 22's then describing the motor elevation by hole position IS relevant. My point was simply that if the o.c. distance is not the same then "one hole up" on one boat will not be "one hole up" on another boat with the motors at a different sepacing because the transom height decreases as you move out from the keel. What we are really trying to describe is where the cavitation plate is relative to the bottom of the hull.