Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Best power for 22 Outrage?
|Author||Topic: Best power for 22 Outrage?|
posted 09-11-2002 06:34 PM ET (US)
I am going to buy a Used Outrage 22 This Fall. I hope to buy one without power. If I can't find a good used hull I will order a new Guardian 22.
I would like to power it with either a Single 225 4 stroke Yamaha or Dual 115hp 4 stroke Yamahas.
I would really like dual engines on my next boat. Do you think the Outrage 22 Transom can handle 800lbs of motors?
Do you think that I would get a lot of porposing with the heavy 4 stroke engines?
I would appreciate comments and suggestions from all 22OR owners.
posted 09-11-2002 08:00 PM ET (US)
For many owners of classic Boston Whaler OUTRAGES (20/22/25) with a full-width notched transom, the question of suitable twin engine availability is a troubling one. The boat was clearly designed with twin engines in mind, but these days finding a pair of engines in the 100-115 HP range that don't weight half a ton is difficult. As you mention, a pair of 115-HP 4-stroke engines will weigh about 800#. In contrast, a traditional 2-stroke EFI single 200-HP engine will only weigh about 435#
This really is a dilemma. It is like having two 180-pound friends riding around sitting on the cowling of your engine all the time. It has to have an effect on trim, on fuel economy, and on performance.
I am hoping that this fall Mercury will introduce a new I-4 block 4-stroke outboard that will shave some of this extra weight. This might become the engine of choice for dual-engine powering.
posted 09-11-2002 08:07 PM ET (US)
Whalerdude- I'll review what I have and then tell you what I intend to do down the way.
See pic 45. I am running a 1989 225 Johnson with rebuilt powerhead. The engine swings from a 2 1/2- 3' custom single bracket. The 22'OR with standard transom maxs at 240 hp. Whaler drive on the same 22' permits hp up to 300 hp.
I have enjoyed the boat with the 225 hp engine for 3 yrs-- use is heavy. The old 225 carb engine moves the boat along plenty fast at top end- pushes 50 mph. Bracket helps. Out of the hole pulling kids/watersports the 225 does just fine. Actually more power than needed is available.
Sooner or later my old girl 225 Johnson is going to go south. I will repower with a new BombB 225hp Ficht. I like the engine from everyone I speak with or chat with on this site. I understand that a new 225 will actually generate more horsepower than 225 as listed. The weight is approx 100 less than 4 stroke Yams or Honda. If you look at pic 45 on this forum you will see that the static trim of my 22' OR is impacted by the Johnson 225 on the bracket. I do not want more weight out there than I have at this time.
I have a friend with an '89 22'OR and he uses a 200 hp Johnson, no bracket. That boat moves plenty fast.
Thoughts on twins. I fish 20% and cruise/watersport 80% of the time. If it were reversed I go with twins. Otherwise, you are just doubling your possible problems. Stick with the single engine unless you are a biiiiiig offshore guy. Twins are the more expensive setup anyway you cut it.
posted 09-12-2002 10:37 AM ET (US)
Here is something from the past.
If my motors blew up today and I chose to stay with twins(I like them), I would buy a pair of fire breathing carbed Johnson 115's at 640lbs(How long before they are not available?). Given the current offerings, you would seriously regret hanging two four bangers on this hull, too heavy.
Anybody know what the Commercial 100's the CG used weighed and how they performed?
There is also a thread when I was shopping where Louis stated the CPD, at the time of his purchase, recommended against twins.
I would even venture to say that would go for a new Guardian 22 with a 30" transom. The water may stay out better but it would be considerably more unwieldly and you would lose the desirable attributes of the 22; nimble and light while retaining an ability to handle a decent sea state.
If Ficht proves to be dependable, a single 250 on a hydraulic jackplate would create a monster out of this hull.
posted 09-12-2002 12:21 PM ET (US)
I had twin Evin. 88 SPL's on my '90 22' OR. I liked the twins, but it was really hard to plane on one. I have recently repowered with a single Yam 225 EFI and am VERY happy!!
posted 09-12-2002 12:49 PM ET (US)
have a 1980 22revenge bought it in 1986 she has a 235johnson on her now and have been thinking of the repower, just talked to a friend at the black company and he said if i can hold on he wants me to change to black. the next generation will "blow the compition away" operative word blow. lighter weight same or more ponies and the wife won't remind me of old smokey on the back just might have to do it. right now if light on fuel i can still pull away from a 19ft checkmate with a 175 blackmax. did't really want to loose the speed with a four stroke and maybe now i won't have to.
i'm in fresh water so shore isn't really that far away, soooo big engine and a small kicker for me. don't fish that much so the kicker is normally at home.
good luck on your search. you'll love the hull
posted 09-12-2002 02:49 PM ET (US)
I debated dual or single- Glad I went single, with a 15hp kicker for Bahamas trips. Would have been very expensive and double the problems with duals. The little kicker is quiet and economical for trolling and those scenic cruises. I got an EZ-something or other to connect the kicker to the main for steering by wheel. Unless you do a lot of really way far out boating, forget duals. You might not even need the kicker, just towing insurance. In ten years I used the kicker once to get me home, no life saver.
posted 09-12-2002 02:50 PM ET (US)
For Classic Whaler Outrage/Revenge models, 22' and shorter, the overwhelming consensus and application from users of this site is for single engine installations.
Only the 25's are seen as twin engine boats, and even there I am continually surprised to see the number of single installations.
I think most of this is simply because of a cost-to-performance return to the owner, certainly valid in these days of outrageously priced outboards, going on used boats. It is further aggravated by the high weights of the mid-range clean burning engines, necessary for twin installations. These Classic Whalers simply weren't designed for these heavy engines. When the 22 Outrage was designed, a pair of 115's weighed about 275 lbs each. Now, the lightest 115 4-stroke, by Mercury, is 386lbs, which is what a Mercury 200HP 2-stroke weighed in 1989. Yamaha's 115 is 415#, because it uses a bigfoot V-6 gearcase.
I think this is also the reason why BW's research in the early 90's indicated the boats shorter than 23' should not even be designed for twins, and the space could better be used to conceal batteries, oil tanks and provide stern seating for the ladies. The consensus on this site seems to indicate they were correct, and still are.
posted 09-12-2002 03:39 PM ET (US)
lhg- Agreed - hit it on the head. From my observations of type of use, it would have made more sense for Whaler in the 80's to stick with a transom designed for a large single for the 20 and 22'fters. While these boats fish well, their use is generally more diversified. Fish, cruise and suprisingly watersports. The 25' Outrage is a fishing boat, pure and simple. It needs a transom cut for twins. The boat is seldom used in a cruise-watersport capacity. Frankly, about every other 25'OR in the Central Florida area has a tuna tower on it. Power twin 150's - but bigger twin set ups exist. David
posted 09-12-2002 04:04 PM ET (US)
How about twin Suzuki/Johnson 140HP 4-strokes at 410 lbs. each? That goes along with your powering suggestions. They come in counter-rotation too.
820 lbs. of engines is serious weight, though. It would be nice to see how that setup performs.
posted 09-12-2002 04:08 PM ET (US)
The BW CPD site lists the maximum engine weight for a 22' Guardian at 720 lbs.
Based on that number you couldn't go with twin 4-strokes. A 22' with Whaler Drive might be OK.
posted 09-12-2002 06:08 PM ET (US)
Yes, I think 22 Whaler Drive models wouldn't
have the weight restriction problems with that extra floatation back there. I would also think those twin Johnson/Suzuki 140's might be nice on a 25. But still anxiously awaiting Merc's new lightweight 4-stroke high HP engines to see what they have to offer.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 09-13-2002 08:08 AM ET (US)
Consider a single large OB on that 22' Outrage. I am very happy with a single Yamaha 250hp.
To me at least, less engines mean 1/2 the chance of problems. Sure.....if she breaks down I am dead in the water, but that's what Sea Tow is for and the Yamaha EFI's are probably amongst the most reliable engines made.
This engine weighs ~500lbs and pushes my 22' Outrage with Tee Top, Front Curtain and W/D to 45mph.
Also, I can get 3mpg at varying speeds. I'm curious how twin 4 strokes would compare, I bet not much better if at all.
posted 09-13-2002 11:51 AM ET (US)
Some good points are made in this thread...
The 25's really are a twin engine boat. They are rated at an annoying HP and really need a minimum of 300hp just not to be a dog. That doesn't leave much room but to have twins.
Because of this need on the 25+ crowd.. the 19-22 foot boats are really really desireable boats... big enough to have the "big boat" feeling and small enough to use be well powered from a single engine... and the engine makers of the world really markey to this crowd.
It could be that the 21-22 Outrage is the ultimate boat... $ versus fun.
posted 09-13-2002 03:24 PM ET (US)
For more information about weight limits on Classic Boston Whaler hulls, I recommend reading http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000749.html
posted 09-13-2002 04:47 PM ET (US)
Capt - A properly set up notched transom 25, with a stong pair of 2.5 liter (hint, hint) 150's will do 50 mph. I don't think that's being too big of a dog.
Just recently saw a 25 with a pair of Merc 150 Opti's on it, on hydraulic brackets, and he say's it will do 52 on his GPS. Also said his 1998 Opti's have been totally trouble free.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 09-14-2002 07:50 AM ET (US)
I don't know but I bet a 25' Outrage with a WD Bracket or similar bracket would do fine with a single Yamaha 250 OB.
Let's assume it has a Tee Top etc like my boat. Granted it's longer and heavier, but let's say you lose 10mph top speed, that would still give you a solid 35mph.
Twin 150's with all their drag, cannot be all that different than a single 250hp.
Just thinking out loud.
John from Madison CT
posted 09-14-2002 09:43 AM ET (US)
Until last fall, I had a 22' Outrage w/WD. Now for my Whaler fix, I drive the 22' Outrage WD Cuddy Water Rescue Boat.
On my 22 I had a 250 Yamaha V-x. On the rescue boat we have twin Merk 115 4 strokes.
Based on my experience, I would (assuming the boat had WD) drop a pair of CR Merc 150 Optimaxs on the back.
The 250 gave the boat a lot of torque list (solved by adding a Stingray Hydrofoil). The CR twins would solve this problem and give great performance.
The 22 cuddy rescue boat is significantly underpowered for my tastes. And the engines are not CR.
One thing to remember about this discussion is all of the different HP rating the 22 got. The rescue boat actually has a smaller rating than my 22 had! I think that Whaler actually had 3 or maybe 4 different rating for the 22. There seems to be no corrolation between model and options, and weight etc., to account for it.
posted 09-14-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)
Thanks to everyone here who responded to my post! I greatly appreciate all of your imput. It seems as though the consensus is that the way to go is with a single large 225 -250 hp outboard with a kicker for back up.
I want to be able to go straight across Lake Michigan from time to time. It is an 80 mile offshore run. I can put the kicker on the boat for those days. I can leave it off on the 2mile offshore days.
I am even more excited to get my new 22 OR upon hearing your enthusiasm for your 22 Outrages.
posted 09-14-2002 02:31 PM ET (US)
Whalerdude - Crossing Lake Michigan by yourself at it's widest point is serious business. It can be like a Millpond, but it can be otherwise also, on short notice, especially heading west from Michigan, and the weather forecasts are not always completely accurate on wave heights. I'd put maximum or excess HP twins on it for that duty, such that one can plane off the boat.
The idea of relying on a trolling motor to keep you safe and get you home when it's 45 miles of cold big seas in all directions does not have much appeal to me. Even incapacitating sea sickness can be an enemy at trolling speeds. When the going gets bad, or looks bad on the Great lakes, you need to move fast, and at least keep the boat at slow planing speeds.
Even with a twin engine 25, I have only crossed Lake Michigan once, and that was way up north where it's narrower and the islands make it only a 45 mile open run. When you're out there with NOTHING in sight, it's nice to see two engines behind you.
Good luck in your search for a 22. They ARE great boats.
I agree with Brian, I think a pair of 150's on a Whaler Drive is the ultimate power configuration for a 22.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 09-14-2002 08:20 PM ET (US)
My 22' Outrage with WD and 250 Yammie does not list all that much. In fact, with any passenger on the starboard side, it runs level.
If money was no object then heck, I'd go with twin 150's, but Yamaha HPDI's. The price difference with twin 150's of any brand vs. a single 250 Yamaha is huge.
Just my $.02.
John from Madison, CT
posted 09-15-2002 03:00 PM ET (US)
My 1988 22' Outrage with Setback bracket, standard console,stingray foil, hydralic steering and 250 Yammie does not list unless
weight is way unbalanced. Like John in Madison The 250 is outstanding with 15 1/4 x 19 saltwater prop, 50mph wot 2.5 3mpg at 3-4000. Great hole shot and all the low end power you need.
posted 09-15-2002 03:24 PM ET (US)
PS. This Hydofoil seems to do a great job with minimum cost $40 and lifetime warrantee. No problem holding steady at low speed in heavy cross seas. Also the holes in anti cavatation plate are easily filled if you want to remove later. Mine is same color as Yamaha 250hp. http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/standard-pod-wrapped.jhtml?id=0000919&navAction=jump
posted 09-15-2002 06:06 PM ET (US)
I should also say, that my 22 had a T-Top, that added to the listing.
posted 09-16-2002 04:30 PM ET (US)
Admittedly, I'm a price shopper for outboards, but if I'm correct a Yamaha 250 costs about $13,000 and pair of carbed Merc 150's costs $15,000.(I know this is correct on the Mercs) I don't think that is a huge amount to pay for a classy looking twin engine upgrade. Add a kicker to it, and where are you? Same place! No comparison, either in function, or appearance, or convenience. A kicker, by any means, can be an awkward appendage to a Whaler. How many Coast Guard rescue craft have we seen, either BW or RIB, with a main engine and a kicker?
For the same price, I'll take twin 150's any day for 90 mile offshore crossings on the Great Lakes. In spite of an earlier "Lakeboater" thread, this can be some of the most serious offshore boating in the county.
As I said earlier, this is a mostly single engine Forum, but I think there can be valid points made for a twin installation. Superior handling and offshore stability (two rudders in the water) in large seas is one of them.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 09-16-2002 05:26 PM ET (US)
Please forward the location where you can buy a Carb'd Merc 150 new for $7500
posted 09-16-2002 06:37 PM ET (US)
John - Sundance Marine in Ft Lauderdale (954-522-2800 ask for Joe), who will ship an engine to you in the box, publishes the following price list on Mercs, no hidden gimicks:(these are 2002 pricing-haven't seen 2003 yet)
150Hp Saltwater carbureted: $7454
150 HP EFI Saltwater: $9127
150Hp Optimax Saltwater: $10,584
With these prices, the carbureted engine seems awfully hard to pass up on a pair basis. I can't imagine an Opti could be worth $3000 more each. The block is the same.
They also are Yamaha and Bombardier dealers, see their website sundancemarine.com, but don't know how competitive they are on those brands.
I have bought 4 Mercury V-6 engines from Sundance over the years, including my present 200 EFI's, and they are nice to deal with. Short of Bass Pro, I think they are one of Mercury's largest high HP engine dealerships.
Get a 2002 at these prices while they last!
|John from Madison CT||
posted 09-17-2002 07:47 AM ET (US)
Thanks ! Those are pretty good prices. The carb'd 150hp would be hard to pass up at that price.
John from Madison
posted 09-17-2002 10:15 AM ET (US)
You can also do twin 115 Zuki for under $7k a piece which makes it cheaper than a single 225 4s. On my Bud's 23 SeaCraft, the twin 115's blow away his single 225 but she does sit a lot lower.
posted 09-17-2002 12:21 PM ET (US)
I canít believe I missed this thread:(
I agree that twins look and sound better. I also have to agree that twins offer better maneuverability in tight places. Ok, getting home on plane vs displacement speeds is also a definite plus.
22ís are VERY sensitive to excessive weight at the stern - especially open transom models. Twins will usually weigh more, but some Single + kicker combinations will also exceed the transom rating. For example a Honda 225 and 15 - 4-stroke combination will exceed the 22ís 720 lb. transom limit!
Larryís assessment of initial cost savings not being there for the single is also right on. A large 4-stroke main with smaller 4-stroke kicker will cost more than 2 smaller carbureted 2-stroke motors.
While operating costs are definitely lower with the single / kicker combination, I find the savings primarily from fuel, with negligible (if any savings) from maintenance. Although there are fewer spark plugs, and parts for the kicker are priced slightly lower, there are still 2 motors to maintain. Kickers usually get more use, so they require more frequent tune-ups. If the kicker is a 4-stroke monthly (sometimes twice per month) oil and filter changes are required. This dwarfs any savings realized from not having to add oil to the fuel.
Having said all that, a single will outperform twins. And while I agree that maneuvering a larger boat with a single can be a nightmare, a 22 Whaler is very maneuverable with a single.
Depending on the conditions and distance from shore, a kicker may or may not get you home. It will however give enough control to keep the boat out of trouble if need be. I also love trolling all day without alternating engines or worrying about fouling plugs. The largest benefit however is the amount of wear and tear the kicker saves the main engine.
Depending on how you intend to use your boat; twins, a single with kicker, or a single without a kicker may be right for you. We troll slowly for Salmon, so a kicker is mandatory. If I were trolling for tuna, I would probably rig with twins. If I didnít troll, there would only be one (large) engine back there. I think the key is to have the lowest amount of weight possible hanging from the transom.
There are always exceptions.
Bigshot: A single 225 (2-stroke) will definitely outperform twin 115ís.
posted 09-17-2002 02:06 PM ET (US)
It did'nt on his 23 SeaCraft. He maxed at 37knots now hits 40 and cruise is up about 3 kots as well. It will also plane on 1 engine...not well but will plane. Gas consumption is about the same being the 115's are 4 strokes. Overall he would never go to a single again and he draws less draft.
Like I said this is with a SeaCraft, I have no experience with a BW.
posted 09-17-2002 03:06 PM ET (US)
John try this link:
posted 09-17-2002 03:53 PM ET (US)
Thanks for your reply.
I am frequently admiring the photos of your boat in the Cetacea section of this site.
I used to have a Guardian 19. I am sorry that I sold it 8 yrs ago.
I really like the way your boat is rigged.
Would you recommend the dealer that you bought your Guardian from?
If you would buy from them again, please give me their name and phone #. I want to deal with a dealer that has experience in ordering commercial whalers.
lhg has me thinking about twins again. I really want to be able to confidently cross Lake Michigan (85 miles) on a fair day. I do not troll at all. I just like to cruise/explore for long distances.
posted 09-17-2002 04:29 PM ET (US)
First of all, I want to emphazise that my comments on 22 powering were based solely on Whalerdude's expressed interest in the 80-90 mile crossings of Lake Michigan. Secondly, from having ridden in both notched transom and Whaler Drive full transom 22's, I think for twin heavy engines like the Yamaha 115 4-strokes, a Whaler Drive model MUST be selected, or ordered new as a Guardian full transom model. My experience is that the Whaler Drive model definitely rides better and can carry more engine weight easily, without the excess splash over the notch that is mentioned on the conventional 22's with twins. This would apply to the 25's also. I also would think the Whaler Drive model could more easily accomodate the 129 gallon fuel tank, the problem with which is that the ramining fuel is always in the back of the tank, where it's weight is least needed. For long distance work in in a 22, the larger tank may be needed, as the 77 tank is marginal with twins should the going get roungh and fuel consumption go way up. An alternative is to order the RPS, and install two 13's under it, Montauk style.
Finally, Whalerdude, you might want to E-mail Outrageman up in Door County regarding these 4-stroke twins on a 22 WD. He may be able to take you out for a spin.
Now, all of that being said, I think Louie K once told me that the CPD told him not to get a Whaler Drive model, much to my surprise. Louie, can you fill us in on that?
posted 09-17-2002 10:36 PM ET (US)
Bigshot: Weíve both been around here for a while now, and the last thing I want to do is piss you off. But, I have my doubts about the validity of your friendís observations, so please accept my comments as a friendly discussion vs a flame.
It could very well be that the SeaCraft isnít as susceptible to the extra weight. But, the twins totaling 230 HP with 2 legs, 2 props, and the extra weight should not match a single 225 HP motor. I can see it happening if the 225 was at the bottom of the 10% variance outboard manufacturers are allowed (obviously not a Merc :-)), while the 115ís are at the top (ie 200 hp vs 260 HP). What really confuses me is how he can add a couple hundred (possibly more) extra pounds at the transom, have the boat sit lower, yet draw less water?
My experience with the 22 Whaler hull have shown it to be very susceptible to weight at the transom. Iíve found that the single consumes less fuel, draws less water, and performs better. I do however believe that the 4-strokes offer better economy.
posted 09-17-2002 10:48 PM ET (US)
Larry: My original order was a 22í Guardian, Whaler drive, twin 150ís, and tank upgrade.
I will always remember a couple things:
The first is the passion that both Whaler and the Dealer put into recommending that I buy a 25Ö.overÖ and overÖ and over again.
The next is being told that a Whaler drive was NOT available for the 22í hull : (
Although the WD allowed for higher HP and made the running surface longer, it required more HP, which required larger tanks, which added even more weight to the stern, which really had a negative effect on the hulls performance. Apparently the 22 handles most sea states better when it is light at the transom. One of the chronic problems was the motors being forced underwater while stopping, if backing down, and while running in steep following seas. Apparently the length to width ratio also made it more Ďtippyí under certain conditions.
Oh yeah, I also remember the tears flowing from my eyes (I really wanted the Whaler Drive), and something about an even more wonderful 25 footer - a 25 foot Whaler Drive :)
posted 09-17-2002 11:47 PM ET (US)
Whalerdude: Make sure you order the boat that will suit your application. Listen to everyone who is willing to say something, and then decide for yourself.
As for my dealer, YES, I would recommend him, and the other 2 CPD dealers on the West Coast anytime! I bought my boat at M&P Mercury in Vancouver; there is also The Outboard Motor shop in San Francisco, and Shock Boats in LA - all are very knowledgeable dealerships. Iím curious though; donít they have one in Chicago?
Not all Dealers are allowed to sell CPD, for example most of the newer SeaRay/Whaler dealers do not offer CPD models at all. Odds are that if you find one in your area he will be just as knowledgeable, and it will save both you and the distant dealer a bunch of headaches.
Iím sure that Larry, or a quick call to the factory can locate the nearest one to your location. I should also add that Larryís advice about the twins is solid. If I wanted to cruise vs fish, I would strap a couple of 2-stroke 115ís on the back and GO. Putting the 135ís on my outrage was clearly a mistake brought on by youth, lack of knowledge, and inability to take good advice ;)
posted 09-18-2002 09:48 AM ET (US)
Louie....you never piss me off:)
You are correct on all aspects except for draft. The single is in a notch and in the center of the hull so the 24 degree deep v now has a lowerunit hanging at its lowest point. The 115's are on the sides so therefore it drafts less water.
He had a 1990 or so Johnson 225 and she was pretty much a dog....maybe 42mph. With the 130 Yamahas she ran about 46 and the 115 Zukis about 44-45. The boat is a BIG 23' and built like a brck SH(Potter 1978 hull). The boat was actually designed to handle twin 235's(believe it or not) so the weight may not be the issue like it is in a whaler. It also has a 170 gallon tank which adds balast.
Like I said I have no experience with the BW with twins being everything I and my friends own(ed) are smaller classics. He is having a foam filled Armstrong bracket made(which is a great alternative to a WD for under $2k) and I will let you know what it does performance and static trim wise.
posted 09-18-2002 01:22 PM ET (US)
Bigshot: True, but he may find that the stern will squat further during displacement speeds and or while coming on plane. This is definitely the case with an overloaded whaler, especially at low cruising speeds and at the point where the boat is coming onto plane. The extra weight also effects the transom in a slow turn where the inside prop (which is now exposed from banking) is actually forced lower.
I had these problems with my old hull. After talking to Whaler it became clear that the problem was the extra weight. I think if I was ever to put twins on my boat Ė it would be any 2 that didnít exceed 700 lbs, most likely a couple of 90 2-strokes that weigh in at 620 lbs Ė 115 2-strokes weigh in at just over 700 lbs so IMO they would be the biggest for me. 4-stokes are definitely out of the question :(
posted 09-18-2002 01:30 PM ET (US)
Your comments regarding weight of the engine affecting performance echo my feelings about weight/performance on my Montauk. I am sticking witht the Yamaha 90 on it because it feels very nimble and balanced. This is really important quality to me in a boat.
Perhaps a single 225 will optimize the good sea handling qualities of the 22 Guardian.
If I do a crossing once in a while I'll just have to find another Whaler friend to go across in a 2 boat convoy.
posted 09-18-2002 02:52 PM ET (US)
Iím still thinking about Larryís advice.
Larry knows your area, and from discussions Iíve had with him, it also appears that he cruises more than he fishes. By mounting a couple of 90ís you can still keep the weight down, be able to plane on a single, and really have the best of all worlds. You will sacrifice some top end and cruise speed, but will gain all the benefits of twins.
We never troll for less than 700 hours annually, so in our case the single with a kicker was great advice. In your case however, I would take a serious look at twins.
If you decide to go with a single, I would ask around about the reliability of the new 250ís before settling for a 225. My first choice was a 250; propped right a 250 will make the boat a rocket!
At the time my dealer swayed me away from the 250 and all Optimax products. Iíve since heard that Optimax are doing well, so it could very well be that there are no more problems.
Either way you decide to do it, the hull will not disappoint you.
posted 09-18-2002 08:47 PM ET (US)
Iíve received a few emails regarding my statement
ďThe next is being told that a Whaler drive was NOT available for the 22í hull : ( Although the WD allowed for higher HP Ö.Ē
I think that this is the best place to respond.
1) Yes, it is true that the Whaler Drive was not available for the 22í when I ordered my hull. In í98 it was available for the 25í ($8395) and 27í ($3224), but they would not install it on a 22í at any price.
3) The statement above represents the reasons that I was given for the WD deletion from the 22í hull. Iím sure there where more, it was a while ago, and yes, I would have bought one anyway. (I believe my note reflects this)
4) I only responded to one of the emails because it wasnít a flame and the sender included his real name Ė not a hotmail alias.
I have removed the link to my email address.
posted 09-19-2002 10:00 AM ET (US)
People flamed you because of a post discrepency? What a world....what a world:(
posted 09-19-2002 12:27 PM ET (US)
Bigshot: I donít see where I posted a discrepancy other than my reply to you. Even that was a discussion based on my observations, I didnít call you a liar, nor do I doubt that your friend is happier with twins. I also know that youíre not shy about posting whatís on your mind, and highly doubt you would email me vs post a reply here.
I think my posts are clear. I didnít bash the idea of twins; I actually think that in Whalerdudes scenario itís probably the way to go.
As for the WD. I donít see why anyone would doubt that I wanted one. I think they look cool Ė thereís nothing like trailering a 22 footer that will make most 25ís look tiny. Yeah, thereís some compromise, but isnít there with everything?
Another email bashed me for taking up so much bandwidth and professing to be an expert with the 22 hull. I have experience with the 22 but donít think I ever claimed to be THE expert here - all I did was add my 2 cents.
I also received an email from a fella who is considering a 22. We ended up exchanging emails and talking on the phone for a while. He had some concerns, and for his own reasons decided to email me direct vs post here.
To make a long story short, I didnít mean to offend anyone.
posted 09-19-2002 12:48 PM ET (US)
Disregard any bashers out there. I don't get it.
YOU ARE a 22 Hull expert in my opinion. You are a true classic hull 22 enthusiast that went to a lot of planning and expense to acquire the outstanding rig that you have today.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
Jack --Aka Whalerdude
posted 09-19-2002 12:50 PM ET (US)
What do you think of Louie's idea of twin 90s?
It is a fantastic engine on my Montauk!!
The power is high and the weight is real low!
I think the Yamie 115 twins might be too heavy.
posted 09-19-2002 01:30 PM ET (US)
Louie....calm down....I was on your side. You posted this and I responded in your favor:
4) I only responded to one of the emails because it wasnít a flame and the sender included his real name Ė not a hotmail alias.
I have removed the link to my email address.
I find it sad that people send flame mail because you said the 22 did not come with a WD or whatever(a discrepency).
That is what I meant.
posted 09-19-2002 02:57 PM ET (US)
Well, this certainly has been interesting.
First of all I was wondering if the "225" issue needed clarification on "whose" engine. Not all 225's are created equal, nor maintained in equal running condition. On a general basis, I would also agree with Louie, that apples for apples, a single 225 should outrun a pair of 115's. An old 1990 running against a pair of modern 4-strokes is not apples to apples.
As for Whaler dealers, much less CPD dealers, in Chicago, forget it, except for SeaRay operation way out in small lake country! There are none, as surprising as it seems. Whalers are seen few and far between on lower Lake Michigan. Just never very popular around here. SeaRay rules the area. My Whaler's were bought out of state by necessity.
As regard to my trying to answer questions on this thread, I want to emphasize that I've never owned a 22, although some of my Whaler cruising friends do have the hull, mainly JimH and Kingfish. Regarding twin engine installations, I am interpolating more through experience with twin 18's and 25's.
Jack. I didn't realize you were in greater Chgo (I thought Milwaukee). If you want a spin on a twin engine Whaler, 18 or 25, let me know! I would think modern twin 90's would be good on a 22, but in that HP range I would opt for Johnson or Mercury over Yamaha, even though you have one and like it on your Montauk. The Yamaha 90 is a little low on cubes, and the engines visually look a little small on a 22. See JimH's Revenge 20 with twin 70's, the same size engine overall. For years, the USCG ran twin OMC 100's on their 22. I would guess the new 90's would put out the same HP.
But I would not rule out twin 115's, by any brand, and especially if Yamaha is your preferred choice. They're all about 350 lbs each. My CPD catalog shows a Guardian 22, with raised 30" transom to accomodate twin 25" 115 Mercs.
Way back in 87 or 88, I was cruising along in my 18 Outrage, twin 115 Mercs, up around Gills Rock in Door County, and I see a Coast Guard 22 coming up on me fast, and motioning for me to stop. When I asked what I had done, they indicated nothing, and just wanted to see my Whaler and engine setup. Not even a safety inspection. It was the engines they were most interested in, and kept saying that's what they needed on theirs. They didn't like the old OMC 100 commercials, and felt they needed more HP. So who knows?
New Guardian with twin engines? You're going to be spending some big bucks! Good luck with your project. It's nice to see someone buying a new Classic.
posted 09-19-2002 03:41 PM ET (US)
.03 Guys, I think the captain is going to be unhappy with twin 90's on a 22'OR, especially the heavier commercial variety. Underpowered. The normal set up for the 22'OR recreational years ago was 200, kicked up was 225 and the standard transom would take 240hp. With twin 90's you'd be fine if you used the boat to creep around in a bunch of canals in Ft. Lauderdale. Would one 90hp plane a 22' Commercial? David
posted 09-19-2002 07:53 PM ET (US)
In my opinion there are many good choices for singles on the 22 Outrage but there are very few good choices for twins due to transom weight considerations. If I were planning on putting twins on a 22 Outrage or CPD version, I would go with Chap's suggestion: the current 60 degree V-4 version of the carburated Johnson 115 2-stroke. The combination weighs under 650lbs and I think these motors have a lot of low end punch based on my experience with the 90. The carburated 2-stroke Yamaha 115 and the Merc 115 would be close second choices with my personal preference going to Yamaha based on 120+ hours of completely trouble free experience with the 225 EFI. Each of these weigh about 350lbs which puts a pair close to the transom weight limit.
With respect to a person leaning towards a pair of Yamaha 115, it seems that they might as well go for a pair of 130s since the 130 weighs the same as a 115 and they would have a little more power for those rare single engine only occasions. No doubt that LHG has proved that the Outrage hull can be significantly overpowered without harming it so with an extra 20 over the max it would be hardly overpowered and might yield a performance equivalent to a single strong 225 (like Mercury's or Bombardier's 225) if a single is faster than its twin equivalents.
posted 09-19-2002 08:25 PM ET (US)
Further to Peter's post, the 1988 Whaler catalog shows a notched transom 22 Outrage with a pair of Yamaha 115's. I would also go with the 130Hp versions, for no extra weight and a little more go.
posted 09-20-2002 05:24 PM ET (US)
Deciding on power is probably the toughest decision to be made. In an effort to add more confusion to the equation, here are some more pennies :)
My reasoning for thinking 90ís vs 115/125 is that I donít like the Merc 115 / 125ís because of the Ď4/2 cylinder cutoff gizmoí at 1800 rpm! This (along with counter rotation) was the only reason I powered with 135ís on my last boat. The Johnsonís @ 650 lbs look good; I just canít say one way or another since Iíve always owned Mercs.
The 22 will probably still plane with a 90 since minimum HP is 85 and I donít believe they add tabs to the calculation. Once again, I canít say for sure since Iíve never used the motors, some input from JimH could prove helpful though.
Jim, will the Revenge plane on a single 70?
My first choice is still a single 225 or 250 2-stroke without a kicker. But, if twins are a must, the 22 will perform better with less weight at the transom, so I would definitely go with the lightest.
Another consideration is the larger tank. Iíve had both and prefer the smaller one, again because of less weight. My reasons where that fuel is never more than 50 miles away and my average trip offshore is 25miles (NEVER more than 40). We use the kicker while fishing, and carry extra fuel when heading towards Japan. I should also add that 90% of our fishing is done no further than 10 miles out.
You may need the larger tank :(
posted 09-20-2002 05:57 PM ET (US)
I have not called the dealer yet on the price, so after being humbled by that I may have to go with a single motor. That's OK.
I get out a lot in Lake Michigan. Last Friday I took out 4 friends from Waukegan to Navy Pier & Back in 3 hours flat (80 miles).
Where do you usually launch in the Chicago area? I would like to meet up with you on the water this fall.
Jack --aka Whalerdude
posted 09-20-2002 06:36 PM ET (US)
Jack - Burnham Harbor is where I usually go. If the area is a zoo, I sometimes go up to Winthrop Harbor. If I'm out, I'll look for you.
posted 09-23-2002 11:58 AM ET (US)
Thanks for tracking me down at Montrose Harbor.
I thought I was dreaming-When I was stepping out of the sailing club whaler I looked across the dock and saw your boat Whale Lure tied up!! Then you let me drive it!! WOW. What a fantastic end to my day on the water.
I had never driven a twin engine boat before. It was fun docking with the twin engines.
Thanks again LHG!
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.