Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Max motor weight for 22 Outrage?

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

Author Topic:   Max motor weight for 22 Outrage?
johnnyb posted 08-07-2002 02:19 PM ET (US)   Profile for johnnyb   Send Email to johnnyb  
Drawing upon the experience and expert opinions of the forum, what is the max safe motor weight (twin motors) for a classic 22 outrage and the same with a WD? I am preparing to start the buying process for a 22 outrage this fall and would like to power to the boat's maximum recommended HP, preferably using 4-stroke motors. The boat would be used for offshore fishing in the mid-Atlantic. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Chap posted 08-07-2002 02:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Great help here on the site.
I had the same questions:

I am running twin 1989 120's and would not want any additional weight on my '89 22 with notched transom. They're just under 750lbs. I think. The WD would allow for more weight and hp. Don't know the specs on the WD.


johnnyb posted 08-07-2002 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for johnnyb  Send Email to johnnyb     
Thanks Chap for your reply - Very helpful. Since you have the set-up similar to what I am looking for, would you mind sharing performance results? (anyone else as well)? i.e. cruise/max speed, fuel economy, etc. Also make of motors and if your boat has any features that might impact performance (T-top, larger fuel tank, etc.). Thanks again and I have really enjoyed this site.
Peter posted 08-07-2002 08:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The notched transom 22 Outrage maximum power rating is 240. At the time the Outrage was designed, the only V-4 OMC engines available were the smaller displacement cross-flow type. The 20" shaft version of these weighed approximately 305 lbs with power trim and tilt. So I assume Whaler took into its design consideration that a pair on the notched transom would weigh about 610 (I'm not sure what the equivalent Mercurys weighed but I'm going to guess that they weighed about the same.)

The 20" version of the later, larger displacement loop-charged OMC V-4s weighed about 365 lbs. So a pair of these added about 120 lbs over the smaller cross-flow V-4s. I'm not sure what, if any, safety margin Whaler might have considered, but 120 lbs is 20 percent higher, which I think is a significant amount. My guess is that with the pair of 120s (I assume these are the loop-charged type), water washes over Chap's transom pretty easily.

The WD version was rated for a maximum of 300 (twin 150s). Back when the WD version was introduced, an OMC 150 weighed approximately 400 lbs (I use OMC here because that's all I know). So, once again I assume that Whaler took into design consideration that a pair of 150s would put about 800 lbs on the WD transom.

If I were considering a repower of a 22 Outrage/notched transom with twins to get to the maximum hp rating, I would try to keep the pair of engines close to the 600 to 650lb range. I don't think there are any 4-stroke offerings that get you there. They weigh too much. Two F115 Yamahas or Suzi DF 115s, for example, would put more than 800lbs on a transom that was probably designed for hanging about 650lbs. That's the equivalent of having one of the 11 or 12 hypothetical coast guard rating 150 lb. persons (Outrage is rated for 11 or 12 of these) stand on the transom all the time.

As far as a WD version goes, I would try to stick with a pair of motors around the 800 to 850 lb. range. A pair of Suzuki DF 140 4-strokes weigh in at about 820 to 850 so they would probably work pretty well, but I don't believe that a pair of 130 hp Hondas at 500lbs each would. With a pair of Hondas, I would expect the a 22 WD with Hondas to sit quite low when the boat is at rest and the motors to get a considerable wash over when slowing down from a plane.

Chap posted 08-08-2002 10:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Well done Peter.
She's heavy alright and does take on water under the right circumstances such as drifting in a good sea with MOST going into the well; it is not unsafe by any means. Clearly potential for wet feet with people in the back if you don't watch out. I certainly don't make it a habit of backing down into anything big and I consider her a small 22-23 foot boat anyway.

The pet peave is that the water goes into the teak drop-in hatched livewell in the stern, 77 gal tank on this hull. It does not have the full across splashwell dam like Kingfish's or Reelescape's boat which are similar to the other 18, 20 and 25's. I like to think my design was to better evacuate shipped water. Pipe dream. Coasties probably ran twin screws for redundancy and sea keeping ability but may have used 100's to keep the weight down.

I was shopping hulls and this one happened to come with twin 120 Johnson loopers. I've been on the same hull with a single and I know it was faster WOT. A single walked by me the other day AFTER he caught up. The twins make her behave like a dragster anywhere in the RPM range/out of the hole etc., run more shoal on plane while tracking like it is on rails.

It's a 1989 standard transom Outrage, no cuddy, standard console no t-top, bimini on board, RPS, stern couch, oil and 2 batteries in stern, paint, stern ducer, cooler, Hamby's and neglected teak at this point. This thing is a bear with no hydraulic steering. She can plane on one motor and planes with 2 at 3100 or so.
At 3500 the '89 paddle wheel shows 25mph with the paddle maxing out at 40mph at 4800+-, she goes to 5800. I think they are 15" wheels. I need to get a gps on board for some reality.

I also believe that my mpg are lower at any given reasonable SPEED to a similarly(carbed) powered single but have no idea about fuel usage. Burn it on the weekend and fill it for next time while obeying the rule of thirds. Certainly burns more fuel(and oil) than our family's 20' Shamrock.

I'm no motorhead but would like to raise the motors up one notch. My fear is I may lose bow down trim range which the added weight on the back limits. Also with a full tank the trim rams are just out of the water.

I love the twins and will probably put 2 fresh ones on in the future but also believe that this hull may be the ultimate speed/mpg platform for a single 225 four banger, not too deep V, light and good length to width ratio etc.

First to the steering.
Hope this helps.


Peter posted 08-08-2002 12:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Thanks Chap.

I've got the Revenge verion of the hull with a 225 Yamaha OX66 EFI (~500lbs) hanging on the transom and two batteries, a trim tab pump and oil tank (probably another 100lbs total) mounted just outside of the curved splashwall surounding the motor well. I don't think I'd want to have too much additional weight back there. Sometimes while drifting in a following sea I will also take water over the transom and into the motor well. Never had it cross the splashwall yet. The water usually sneaks over one of the sides of the transom in a following sea because the Revenge rocks and rolls more than the Outrage due to a higher center of gravity caused by the cabin structure.

If you don't need redundancy, a 225 four stroke might be a good repower choice for the notched Outrage/Revenge 22.

I have previously mentioned here that I've seen a 22 Outrage with twin OMC V-4 Sea-drives. My guess is that the combined weight of those is around 900lbs and in my estimation, the center of that mass sits at least a foot astern of the transom. That Outrage sits way too low at rest. Based on the way it sits, I can't imagine that it handles all that well at speed, and particularly in a headsea.

jimh posted 08-08-2002 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Editorial comment: how refreshing to read these well-written and informative postings. Your participation is greatly appreciated.--jimh.]
johnnyb posted 08-08-2002 02:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for johnnyb  Send Email to johnnyb     
I agree with jimh. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the time and effort both Chap and Peter took to provide such informative detail. As a information junkie (especially technical info), I would have spent weeks making contacts on foot, and not have gotten the feedback I've enjoyed here in just one day.

This is a great site. Thank you all.

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.