Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
First impressions 130 Honda on Outrage 18
|Author||Topic: First impressions 130 Honda on Outrage 18|
posted 09-22-2002 01:18 PM ET (US)
Well it finally was installed, and we took the Outrage out with the 130 Honda this evening. Extremely disappointed with the low end on the motor. Not much grunt on the bottom end. Actually it struggles to get on plane with a full tank of gas and 2 people on board. Once the engine starts to rev out and with the motor trimmed in all way it gradually builds enough power to lift the hull onto plane about 15 seconds. The motor is quiet at idle but not as quiet as I thought it would be. At wide open it reaches 5600 on the tach with 2 people on board and trimmed up somewhat. Do not have top speed yet as the motor is not broke in. But for first impressions if it had of been my boat I would have went with the 135 Evinrude. Maybe I will have some GPS data for speed as well. The prop on the boat is a 19 “ pitch 3 blade stainless steel.
Just got back with the GPS readings. The Outrage 18 will do 38.5 mph with 2 people on board and a quarter tank of gas. That is at 5500 rpm and a 19 pitch stainless Honda prop. I am advising that he switch the propr and go down to a 17" prop. This should help with the bottom end and allow the motor to run and the top of the range. One thing though that bothers me.... the outrage is extremely sensitive to trim changes on the motor. As we approached the ½ way trim point the outrage will porpoise really badly. And the more you trim the worse it gets. I can trim my 70 Evinrude up all the way with a 17" prop and fly without porposing. I do have a doel fin on the motor which I think helps. Should we look at putting a doel fin the 18 with the Honda 130 and would it help? What it affect will it have with the whole shot ? As usual your thoughts are always appreciated.
posted 09-22-2002 09:45 PM ET (US)
Three things might be contributing to the porpoising;
Motor mounted too low
Too much weight in the stern
Too much bow lift from the prop.
I'd start with the easy one first and try raising the engine mount a hole up.
posted 09-23-2002 10:21 AM ET (US)
Too much weight? That darn beast weighs 505lbs....without the prop or oil. I think 38 is too slow though and maybe a 17" would help. My 70 pulls a mean holeshot when I run the 17", almost mimics my 90 Yammie. 130hp is 130hp and top speed should be equivelent to a 2stroke or at least darn close.......something aint right.
posted 09-23-2002 03:51 PM ET (US)
130hp is not 130hp, at least not as stated on the engine cowl. Where the peak torque occurs across the RPM band will make a big difference in the hole shot and time to plane. Some brands are also noted for having motors that dyno at the top of the +/- 10% leeway granted for rating motor Horsepower. A 135HP Merc Opti f'rinstance will move a boat quite a bit more smartley than an inline 4 Merc 135, even with the extra weight. The opti will also hold the boat on plane at a lower RPM as it carries that torque down lower in the powerband. The consensus on a lot of the new four strokes is that they need a lot of RPMs to make their rated power, and that the torque curve is peaky and biased to the high end of the RPM range. Fishing off shore where the objective is often to achieve minimal planing speed to not beat yourself silly, I'll take my power in the midrange.
posted 09-23-2002 04:35 PM ET (US)
True but a 130 Yammie vs a 130 Johnson, vs a 130 Honda should be reasonably close at WOT. The Honda might plane like a 115 but somewhere it has 130hp and 38mph is more like 90hp-100hp.
posted 09-23-2002 09:17 PM ET (US)
I think the beast should be revving higher. Raise the motor and retry the top speed. Torque vs. RPM will influence time to plane, but peak HP is main factor for top speed. If you don't hit peak HP RPM, you won't max out top speed. As I recall, the redline is 6,250 for the 130.
posted 09-24-2002 01:06 AM ET (US)
[Readers may also find it interesting to read the thread which preceded the actual purchase and installation of the Honda engine. See http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001061.html
posted 09-24-2002 07:08 AM ET (US)
According to the tach on the boat from Honda the redline is 6000 rpm. If memory serves me correctly every inch we drop in pitch will increase the rpm by 300 rpm. So dropping to a 17" pitch prop should make a difference. I have seen reference that the speed will increase once the motor is broke in.... in a 2 stroke this is not the case so why would it be in a 4 stroke ?
posted 09-24-2002 07:17 AM ET (US)
Here is a picture of the whaler. Sorry for the fuzzy picture my son tells me I should have selected fine as the camera setting.... However you can clearly see that the stern is fairly low with the honda's weight.
posted 09-24-2002 09:21 AM ET (US)
I thought my 1987 Johnson 150 looked big on my old Outrage 18, but that Honda looks huge!
It doesn't sit as low as I thought it might but it is hard to tell from the picture. Also, the transom weight is being countered a little bit by the fact that it is tied to a mooring. At rest, my Outrage sat with the two side transom drain holes just barely above water. This was with the transom connected to the dock with a pair of steel legs connected to the towing eyes, a battery and the oil tank in the splash well, a full tank of fuel, a plug in the center transom drain hole and a plug in the cockpit drain hole. I'm sure it was probably a bit of a shock to go from an approximately 330 lb 140 to a nearly 500 lb 130. That is nearly the equivalent of having a 170 lb person standing on the transom all the time with the 140. I think that 500 lbs on the transom is something between 50 and 100 lbs more than the maximum that was expected with a twin installation when the 18 Outrage was designed.
I also question whether there will be any appreciable difference/improvement in performance after the break-in period is over.
posted 09-24-2002 04:49 PM ET (US)
Yes the battery is in the aft section where the splashwell is. That is a good idea, I will pass it on. Th boat is now at the dock the owner had put in. The first fine day I will get a piture up close of the motor and of the stern and I will use the fine setting as my son indicated I sure.... technology you got to love it ! And as for the increase in speed after been broke it....I am not sure....it goes against evrything I understand about outboards....but hey I am open to new learning experiences. Ont other thing I forgot to mention is that he also had a new hydraulic steering sytem installed on the boat when the motor was installed...what a dream to drive.
posted 09-24-2002 05:26 PM ET (US)
I can assure you that the weight of the Honda on the transom is not a problem for the boat. Maybe for a 4-stroke, low torque 130HP engine, but not for the Whaler itself.
I have same boat, with 610 lbs of old lean and mean 2-stroke 115's (running high pitch 24" Merc Laser props), set back 10", lifted about 1 1/2", and with dual start/deep cycle batteries in the splashwell. The boat sits a little stern low, (see photos in North Channel Rendezvous section) but it is not a problem at all. The higher stern weight actually makes the boat ride smoother. It accelerates like a rocket out of the hole, even loaded with a full tank of gas.
Even within it's 150Hp rating, the boat will easily carry twin Merc or Johnson 75's, also about 300lbs each.
One of the reasons for the poor performance appears to be the crudded up bottom evident in the photo. A poor bottom condition can take a lot off top end.
posted 09-24-2002 06:03 PM ET (US)
Yes the picture does not indicate but the bottom has been painted for the last 4 years with a racing anti fouling paint. The yellow type line you see there is actualy from just the scum off of the water and the owner did not ever clean it.... However the bottom is black and in good shape. Glad to know the weight is not the issue. Does raising the motor up really help that much ???? Any thoughts are appreciated.... The trim plate on the motor is even with the bottom of the keel.
posted 09-24-2002 06:43 PM ET (US)
BW's engine installation instructions on the 18 Outrage were to raise any brand engine up 3/4" (usually one bolt hole) over the lowest possible position. Mercury's engine installation instructions generally don't recommend raising the engine more than that until you are into speed capability of over 40 MPH, where a surfacing type of performance prop is usually needed.
posted 09-24-2002 09:07 PM ET (US)
The 3 cylinder Johnson 70s or 75s weighed about 250 lbs each so I stand corrected. Until I just checked, my recollection was that the OMC motor weighed about 225 lbs which is how I got to 450lbs. So it seems that the maximum expected motor weight on the transom was probably about 500lbs.
I note that your 18 Outrage has a teak platform in front of the console. Is that necessary to counterbalance the twins on the brackets? How much does it weigh? Do you use the Outrage with and without it?
posted 09-25-2002 04:06 PM ET (US)
Peter - Acutally I was assuming that Johnson's 75 was on the V-4 90HP platform like Mercury's is. I had forgotton about the 3 cylinder design.
I designed and built the teak forward platform to level out the bow floor step for cruising and sleeping aboard, using the full Mills canvas system. The Igloo 86qt cooler seat goes to the stern splashwell at night. Not long ago, we did 12 nights aboard cruising the British Columbia coast. The platform is not too heavy, maybe only 40 lbs or so. It adds a little weight in the bow, but it's purpose is not for ballast. It's also nice for for fair weather lounging around in the bow and sunning. When not cruising, I lift it out, and put back my large 162 qt Igloo seat.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.