Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Expected top end

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

Author Topic:   Expected top end
Al_A_Buy posted 03-04-2003 09:18 AM ET (US)   Profile for Al_A_Buy   Send Email to Al_A_Buy  
I know that this is a loaded question but I am just looking for a range number.

I have a 1974 21 ft. Outrage with a 185 hp Johnson . What should my expected top end be? At WOT, with a full load of fuel (40 gal)only,I am currently doing about 29 - 31 MPH.

Thanks in advance....

Tom W Clark posted 03-04-2003 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
That boat should have been able to do about 50 mph with that motor when it was new.
Bigshot posted 03-04-2003 10:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Yup.....she should be near or at the 50 mark. How is compression? What size prop and what RPM are you running. You should be running a 14.5x19" SS prop and hitting about 50 mph in the 5500rpm range. My bud has a 21' Mako with that 185 spinning a 15x15 SS prop and he hits about 40mph.
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-04-2003 11:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
A 14.25x19 is to much prop for that setup, he needs a 14.25x17 .
Yes, when new that rig should push 50 but if the engine is over 15 years old, 35 - 38 is about right.
Sal
captbone posted 03-04-2003 01:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
I cannot see a motor dropping 12 to 15mph just because it is 15 years old. If the engine is BEAT with low compression and the boat is water logged then I can see 35 mph. But if the hull is good and the motor has good compression then it should do at least 45mph. They made the 185 hp OMC is 1984, but at the wheel it should be at least 165hp. I would think that the 130 honda weight pig would hit 35 mph. What wheel do you have and what is WOT rpm?
Al_A_Buy posted 03-04-2003 02:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Tom, et al, Thanks for your input. The reason I asked is I had her out this weekend and it seemed a bit sluggish and top end didn't seem right. Called my mech and he'll check it out later today. I needed a baseline to offer some hints so I didn't seem like a complete idiot.

captbone - As odd as this may seem, I don't realy know what the prop spec's are, never figured out how to determine it. As far as RPM, the tach was having senioritis during the trial run and refused to help out.

Thanks again, Al

captbone posted 03-04-2003 03:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Some props are tricky and hide those numbers but it should be some where on that prop. Just tell the mechanic that she is not spinning up to the rpm that she should be. He will then tell you its a problem with the motor, the prop, or the boat.
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-04-2003 03:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
If that engine is an 84, figure it only put out about 165 hp at the prop,"back then", now run it for 19 years & she's lucky to put out 150 hp if that.
She's a tired old woman, so don't even dream about 50 mph cause it wont happen no matter how much you pray.
A brand new 175 wont see 50 on a 21' outrage, be realistic.
Sal
Al_A_Buy posted 03-04-2003 04:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Sal - Interested as to why you assert that the motor only generated 165 hp new, when it is rated at 185. Further, am also curious as to the reasoning behind the assumption that HP would deteriorate over time.

Thanks, Al W.

captbone posted 03-04-2003 05:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
I "believe" that in 1984 that omc still rated the motors at the powerhead for horsepower instead of the prop shaft as they do today. They switched over to the shaft rating in the mid 80's sometime. So you are looking at a 5 to 10% difference in the powerhead to shaft rating. If the compression is still good, I personally dont see any reason that it should be producing much less HP from the day it was built. If it used to have 185hp at the powerhead then IMO I would say that a 1984 motor in good conditon today will still make over 180hp at the powerhead today. I personally dont think a well maintained engine will lose alot of power over the years. I think that it would only be slightly slower (1mph to 2 mph) then a new 175hp. But I still think it would be solid in the mid 40's.
Tom W Clark posted 03-04-2003 05:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Let's get a few things straight as there seems to be some confusion and misinformation here. The Johnson 185 is the same as a powerhead rated 200. When they switched to rating the motors at the prop shaft, they simply renamed it 185.

Boston Whalerís own performance figures indicate that an Outrage 21 with an OMC 200 (power head rated) will go 51 mph. Hell, a powerhead rated 175 would push it to 49 mph and a powerhead rated 150 would push it to 42 mph. Even if you only had a powerhead rated 85 hp motor mounted it would still go 32 mph!

If Al_A_Buy's 185 can only push his Outrage 21 to about 30 mph then something is terribly wrong. Either the motor has a serious problem or the boat is saturated with water and weighs a ton (or a combination of the two).

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-04-2003 06:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Tom, yes, the powerhead is the same as the old 200s, but it certainly didn;t put out 185 hp at the shaft.
My powerhead is the same as the 250s, but it isn't a 250.
The 115 & 140 are the same powerhead, but the 115 can't even come close to the 140 for performance.
Fresh horses will "ALWAYS" out perform old tired horses, so that means, old horses don't produce as they did when new.
I'v seen everyone [ almost every one ]of my 40 or so different outboards slow down through the years, it's normal.
Why, because the cylinder walls get slightly larger, the rings wear smaller & compression gos down, things wear out or don't function as they did when new, it's the same as your car or truck,.....new, they run & ride beautiful, 19 years down the line,...........well, you figure it out.
Sal
brisboats posted 03-04-2003 07:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Hate to add fuel to the fire fellows but you are talking about one of the lowest compression engines OMC has built. If my memory serves these 84-86 V-6 motors were made to put out low compression when new because of changing fuel requirements. These motors typically have 80-90psi per cylinder when healthy. For this engine to drop that much horsepower/performance it would have to be something more than just 15 years of use.
Especially considering that a lower compression is less efficient to begin with.

I agree with Tom ..bottom line something is terribly wrong here. A horsepower is a horsepower, a constant measure. Can't wait for the prognosis, my bet is a dead or low compression cylinder on the motor.

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-04-2003 07:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
I totally agree theres something wrong with the engine.
As you say, most likely a hole in a piston or rings are gone on at least 1 cylinder.
Those old engines were designed to run on the fuel of many moons ago, those were days when gas resembled gas, not the crap were burning today.
Granted, if the engine was to be totally re-built, it should see mid 40s, but if it hasen't been re-done,....nope, maybe 37 - 38 mph max , but it's certainly not running right as of now.
Sal
prm1177 posted 03-04-2003 08:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
A similar question without opening another thread...

I'm getting a 99 Outrage 17 with an Optimax 135. What can I expect as my top speed? (no prop info, sorry)

Tom W Clark posted 03-04-2003 08:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Sal,

I think you are totally missing the big picture here. I don't think anybody here would argue that an 18 year old motor is not going to be as powerful as it was when it was new. Heck, even I'm not as strong as I was 18 years ago.

But to say that a boat that should have gone around 50 mph when new, now only goes 30 mph simply because the motor is "...a tired old woman" is laughable! We can split hairs all day long about if it's really a 200, 185, 175, 165 150, ect. It's all really beside the point.There is something terribly wrong with Al_A_Buy's motor. It may only be running on three cylinders.

I also think you are confusing the change in the method of rating horsepower, to different models of outboards within a given line up sharing the same displacement power head.

In the mid 1980's manufacturers of outboard motors changed from rating their outboards at the power head to rating them at the prop shaft. This change did not occur all at one time, not even within a single brand of outboard. In the case of the 185, what OMC did was simply put a new label on the 200 that said 185, in other words 200 hp at the power head or 185 at the prop shaft. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Either way, it should have pushed an Outrage 21 to about 50 mph.

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-04-2003 09:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Tom, I didn't say it's only going 30 because it's old, theres definitly a major problem with that engine.
The engine is 19 years old, & most likely hasen't been touched, i'm sure if it had any use at all, the lower unit gears are pretty worn & sloppy, the rings are most likely about shot, the cylinders should be scored pretty good, the carbs certainly need rebuilding, the coils are probably cracked & right on down the line.
Apparently you didn't read my last post, agreeing there something dreadfully wrong with it, as 30 mph is unacceptable, but 38 , max 40 is about what that tired old horse should be capable of pushing her.
I'v been around engines for longer then most on this site have been alive, raced 20' boats with 2,500 hp.
We rebuilt our race engines every 30 minutes of running, for the simple reason, "they get tired" & don't put out like a fresh engine will.
A tired engine is just "NOT" going to perform as a new or rebuilt engine.
As I have said 2 or 3 times already, theres more wrong with that engine then just being tired.
If you don't comprehend that, yes, it is laughable.
I'v rebuilt many, many engines,.not because they were broken, because they were just plain tired out.
Engines don't maintain their output forever without tearing them down & redoing them.
From the sounds of it, i doubt that engine has ever even been de-carboned, let alone rebuilt.
Yes, if it's rebuilt, it could push 50, but most likely 47 will be tops.
The 185 hp was their 185 hp, not their 200 hp.
If they changed the name of their 200 hp to a 185 that only put out 165 hp at the prop, what did they replace the 200 with ?
They started rating the engines at the prop in 1986, not 84.
I'm not trying to start a pissing match, just being logical & relying on my experience with engines.
Sal

mag posted 03-04-2003 11:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for mag  Send Email to mag     
Al, Here is another data point that may help: I have a 1978 20' Outrage with a 1979 175 hp Johnson, and a 14.5 x 19 inch aluminum prop. It does 33 knots at 4200 rpm. My throttle lever actually bottoms out on the dash and limits me to the 4200 rpm, instead of the rated WOT of 5500 rpm. I have thought about fixing the throttle, but the ocean swells here would normally still limit me to about 30 knots. -- mag
Swellmonster posted 03-05-2003 01:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Swellmonster  Send Email to Swellmonster     
Tom,
Where do you find whalers posted speeds w/motors?
jimh posted 03-05-2003 08:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
In the REFERENCE section there is an article that contains a large table of speed predictions for most common Boston Whaler models when equiped with the maximmum rated horsepower engine.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/performancePrediction.html

baybug posted 03-05-2003 09:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for baybug  Send Email to baybug     
I had the same boat with a '76 175hp V6 Merc. It ran about 48mph WOT with a good load.
baybug posted 03-05-2003 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for baybug  Send Email to baybug     
That last time I ran that boat was in 1999 so the Merc 175hp V6 was 23 years old. Compression was 130-135 in all six.

Yes, an older outboard should be able to run that boat around 50mph.

Tom W Clark posted 03-05-2003 11:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Pat,

Whaler published performance figures for the Outrage 21 (and their other models as well) in their catalogs from 1974 to 1979. These were real world results, not predictions.

Of course both the boats and motors were new and were not laden with numerous pieces of optional equipment, but the results are entirely consistent with what owners of these boats have reported, baybug's being a good example.

All the motors used in those tables were powerhead rated, NOT prop shaft rated. In the case of the 150, Whaler in one flyer explicitly states the motor is a Merc in-line six.

I have made an error in what I reported above. The speed for the Outrage 21 with a powerhead rated 200 is 52 mph, not 51 mph. We know this motor is an OMC because in 1976, 1977 and 1978 that was the only 200 hp outboard made.

Here are all the speed figures for the Outrage 21:

200 hp - 52 mph
175 hp - 49 mph
150 hp - 42 mph
140 hp - 39 mph
115 hp - 36 mph
85 hp - 32 mph
70 hp - 28 mph

Again I would point out these motors were all power head rated, not prop shaft rated. Even greater speeds would be expected with modern outboards.

Sal,

We all want to learn from you and your years of experience. Thatís why we are glad to have you participating in the Forum. But when false information is given out I think it needs to be corrected so others wonít be confused.

OMC started rating their motors at the prop shaft in 1984. As I have already said, not all motors changed over in the same year. I know for a fact that the 90 was prop shaft rated in 1984.

Al has said his motor is a 1985 model (OMC made the 185 hp in 1984 and 1985) and I would presume his is a model 185TLCO if this is the case. Maybe someone could just look this model up in a manual and see how the power is derived? Then we can lay that silly argument to rest.

But either way, to say: ...when new that rig should push 50 but if the engine is over 15 years old, 35 - 38 is about right. just isnít right.

Al_A_Buy posted 03-05-2003 05:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Team - Great discussion. Not to keep you in suspense any longer.... My mechanic checked her out today and found the motor was in fact running on 3 cyl. One had a bad plug wire and the two center cyls were not firing due to carb problems. Rebuild will occur tomorrow and the Al-A-Buy will be back on the water by Friday.

Thanks for all of the help, advice, and data...

Al W.

brisboats posted 03-05-2003 06:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Thanks Al_A_Buy

Thats actually good news, actually glad my dead cylinder therory was wrong. A little concerned about the "not firing due to carb problem", I think what he meant was the plugs fouled on the center 2 because of a carb problem there.
Out of curiousity did he give you any compression numbers?

Brian

captbone posted 03-05-2003 06:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Good to hear, just hope it did not cost an arm and a leg. And like I said in the 4th post, you should get 45mph out of that 19 year old engine.
Al_A_Buy posted 03-05-2003 07:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Brisboats - Actually I was there when he pulled the plugs and the two center plugs were like new. All others showed signs of firing. Initialy Barry (my mech) showed some concern until he found water in the preload jets (?) of the center carbs. The plugs look new from being washed with water laden fuel or fuel starved, either way he feels that I got water in the fuel and it may have fouled the jets closed. Post rebuild of all the carbs, everything should be OK, well, as OK as a 19 year old engine can be. To be truthful, the powerhead was rebuilt about 5 years ago.

Thanks,

AL W.

Al_A_Buy posted 03-07-2003 12:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Team - Put the boat in the river this morning and, praise be to all that is holy, she ran like a top. Top end, flat water, two people, 20 gal of gas and a 6 pack, 43 mph, per GPS and fishfinder.

Thanks to everybody who chipped in. Love this site....

AL W.

captbone posted 03-07-2003 03:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Congrads!
brisboats posted 03-07-2003 04:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Great news!

Your mechanic was expedient too. Super

Brian

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-07-2003 05:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Great news.
Hmmmm, what happened to the 50 mph.....& it was rebuilt 5 years ago, only 5 years old.
Stand by what I say, ...old horses don't run like fresh horses, even when their only 5 years old.
How many of you can say your 10 year old engine runs just as strong today, as it did when you first got it.
I'm not talking about people who only put 10 - 20 hours a year on their engines, i'm talking people who use their boats regularly.
Personally, my engine will be 3 years old in June, I'v put 658 hours on her in less then 3 years.
I can honestly say, no, she dosen't perform as good as she was when she was brand spanking new, but she still gets 60+ on the right water [ 1 ft chop ], whereas before, she got 60+ on any water, even flat as a pancake.
I'v got to ask this question, why did you have the engine rebuilt ?.........did it blow a ring or blow up, or was it just getting tired?....be honest now.
Sal
captbone posted 03-07-2003 06:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
45mph like I said. I never said 50mph.
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-07-2003 06:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Bone, I wasen't refering to you.
Tom said that engine was their 200 hp with a different decal, Boston Whaler says it should go 52 with a 200, and 49 mph with a 175.
I say not with a tired engine, yet some of you seem to think these engines put out the same hp even if the engine is 20 years old & never been rebuilt.
Now can someone please tell us why that boat is only going 42 or 3 mph.?
I don't buy the boat is waterlogged.
I say that engine isn't putting out anywhere near what it was when it was new.
Still waiting for him to tell us why the engine was rebuilt in the first place, was it tired or broken ?
Sal
captbone posted 03-07-2003 09:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Sal
Do you like yours with that 225HO, do you think it is over powered or does it feel well balanced? I figure that a light 200hp would be perfect but I always love extra power. Thanks
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-08-2003 01:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
I'll be dead honest.
My engine is a 2000.......200 hp Evinrude FICHT, putting out 222 hp at the prop on the dyno.
My boat is a "V'20 outrage, rated [ per tag ] 175 hp max.
With the 15 hp kicker, she sits much lower in the stern then she should.
I had to build a locker from a 152 quart Igloo ice chest in front of the center counsel to put the 2 group 29 batteries in [ approx. 60 lbs each ].
Sitting dead still, theres water coming in the well drains just under the engine.
I feel she's 100 lbs to much at the stern.
No I do not recommend this rig for everyone, as it's far to powerful for someone who hasen't raced or run "very, very" fast boats before.
She can get pretty scary for most people.
60+ mph is just for straight shots, no turning at that speed & she takes a looong time to come to a stop when you back off.
To be honest, I feel the 175 - 180 hp recommended max hp is just right, with plenty of speed like early 50s to mid 50s, but over that, you better know what your doing or your gonna hurt yourself & whoever is in the boat with you.
I had to mount the engine myself, as no tech would even talk to me about putting the engine on her, because she's just plain over powered.
Before you go out & buy an over powered engine for yours, I recommend you fly out here & take a ride in mine, or drive it yourself & make up your own mind, as I don't want to have to live with saying, sure, go for it, & possibly you getting hurt.
Oh yes, it's a rush when you put the hammer down & trim her to max, but your flirting with an accident big time.
Example, one real cold day 2 years ago, I was coming back from duck hunting on my property, [ only accesable by boat ] & a bass boat was running right along side of me at 40 mph, he kept playing with me & egging me to a race.
I put the hammer down, trimmed to max safe trim, then went beyond the safe zone as i'v done many times before, she turned 6,150 rpms on that freezing morning & as she went past 60 on the gps, sonar & speedo, the bow went straight up & the boat was vertical, with just the prop in the water going over 60 mph, any normal person would have backed off right there, but thats not the right thing to do, because you wont come down straight or flat & you will flip.
Through the years of racing, I knew I had to get the boat back down straight, but slowly, not all at once, & just backed off the throttle a hair & trimmed her back down to gain control back.
I wasn't wearing a life jacket & if she would have gone over in the 70 ft of 49 degree water, I would have made crab bait of myself.
Back to your question,....I really don't recommend over powering your boat, but your welcome to run mine [ with me in it ]to be sure.
Sal
Barry posted 03-08-2003 09:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Al, I'm glad to hear you got it fixed. 43mph isn't bad. If you want to provide info on how you had it trimmed, how high your engine is mounted, what your rpms were at WOT, and what prop you are running these guys may be able to offer suggestions on how to get even more out of her.
captbone posted 03-08-2003 03:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Well put, thanks for the imput. That is a heavy boat to get vertical.
Bigshot posted 03-10-2003 10:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Hitting 43 is good but more info is needed as stated above. My 19 with a 140hp 4cyl would hit 43 and she was only 200lbs lighter so I think 45-50 range.
Al_A_Buy posted 03-11-2003 12:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Sal - to answer your question, I don't know why the motor had been rebuilt. The prevoius owner had it done and kept all the receipts.

BS and others - I am happy with the performance and probably wouldn't be comfortable with much more, besides, it is hard to keep the cherry on my cigar as it is.

As far as other specs on the boat, I still have not found any markings on the prop that help determine the specs. I did weigh the craft the other day and suspect that I am carrying about 400 lbs of unidentified weight. I suspect that is is mostly water weight with some portion being the fighting chairs, and other add-ons. Total weight was 3700 lbs including trailer (single axle, Drydock brand with PowerWinch), 20 gal gas, motor, etc... Depending on which chart is consulted, the dry hull should have weighed 1600 - 2000 lbs new.

All in all, I am very happy with the boat the way it is and it more than fits my needs.

Thanks again to all who chipped in...

Al W.

Bigshot posted 03-11-2003 04:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
keep looking, try another prop. Speed might be enough but if she runs correctly she will last 10 times longer and burn half the gas. If a 2 stroke runs poorly, it won't be around much longer.
captbone posted 03-11-2003 08:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
T. Clark published a pretty good list of where a 21 outrage will perform will what power. Does anyone know if a 21 outrage will plane off will a 70 or 85 hp. I have faith in T. clark but it just sounds too good to be true. That would be a very economical rig with a 70 or 90 4 stroke.
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-11-2003 10:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Are you smoking grass or what ?
A 70 or 90 on a 21 rage,....maybe for a kicker.
That boat needs 200 hp to make it perform, not half of it's minimum hp recommendation.
Sorry to be so blunt, but why not just put a 25 hp on it, you would probably get better performance at troll speed.
Sal
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-11-2003 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Bone, sorry to jump on you like that, really.
Your pretty sharp, but a 70 or a 90 isn't going to do squat on that boat.
Sal
Tom W Clark posted 03-12-2003 01:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
captbone,

Apparently the Outrage 21 will perform satisfactorily with a 70 or an 85 hp motor. Even with a 65 hp motor the 1974 Outrage 21 would do 28 mph according to Whaler.

Even though 65 hp is the specified minimum horsepower to plane satisfactorily, there is a photo in the 1972 catalog of an Outrage 21 scooting along just fine with two guys on board. The boat is powered by an old Bearcat 55 (powerhead rated) which is like a modern 50 hp motor. There are numerous photos of the Outrage 21 with 85 hp motors on it.

So yes, I imagine a 70 or 85 will make it plan just fine. I believe Clark Roberts has had some personal experience with relatively low horsepower on this hull.

captbone posted 03-12-2003 02:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
That must be some heck of a hull design to be able to plane off with that low of power. A carolina skiff 21 takes 50hp to plane off and that is just a flat bath tub. Twin 40 hp merc EFI mercs would sure make that a head turner. If I ever saw that I would have to ask the guy to plane it off to prove it. I would love to see those pics with that low of power. That would be a true testimate to old hulls design. I thought the same thing as Sal when I first read that.
Clark Roberts posted 03-12-2003 08:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Clark Roberts  Send Email to Clark Roberts     
I ran a 90 Merc (1995-96) on my 1979 Revenge 21 for two years and maybe 600hrs and found it quite adequate for leisure cruising. It would run about 35mph top end and carry four adults and gear at around 25mph cruise all day long @ approx 3 mpg. Now, hole shot was poor with a load but she would get going rather nicely with just me aboard. My current 115EFI four stroker will run same boat at 38-39mph and cruise at 24-28 with about the same hole shot as the 90 2 stroke.
captbone posted 03-12-2003 11:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Those 21's are more impressive then I knew.
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-12-2003 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Putting a 70 hp on a 21' banana rage is an insult.
Your sure not doing the boat any justic.
I'm having a tough time digesting a 70 or 90 on that boat,.
Theres no way you could run that rig on the Pacific ocean, as you couldn't climb the back of a wave in any kind of following sea.
You would find yourself in big trouble in heavy weather, as the boat would be controling you, instead of you controling it, as it would flounder around like a sailboat with not enough engine to get you through some tough stuff.
A buddy of mine has a "V" 20 outrage with twin 70s, it's the biggest dog i'v ever seen, he can't get 35 mph with the wind waves & tide.
He changed to twin 90s [ mercs] absolutly hates them, still dosn't run or ride as it should, still can't break 40 mph.
Just wondering if you ran that boat on a lake only cause that isn't a good setup.
Why would anyone buy a 21' boston Whaler Outrage & put a single 70 or 90 on it.
Like buying a lexus & putting a corvair air cooled 90 hp engine in it, makes no sense to me.
Hell, if you own a 20' outrage or bigger, put enough ponies on it, to allow it to perform as it was designed for.
Might as well buy a big 32' thunder boat & put a 4 banger 120 hp chevy in it, sure, it will move, but will it even think of performing as it was intended to?....absolutly not.
Nothing is worse then an under powered boat, & i mean nothing.
Sal
Bigshot posted 03-13-2003 10:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
You know what they say Sal.....opinions are like.......

Different strokes for different folks so stop insulting the man.

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-13-2003 05:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
BS, thats not an opinion, it's a fact.
You will find yourself in major trouble with an under powered boat & bad weather.
Believe me, i'v seen what happens to people in boats that could climb the back of a following sea wave,.... they swamp from the stern.
I'v seen boats in Alaska not return because the weather got bad & they couldn't control the boat.
When in an under powered boat, the boat controls you,...you can't control the boat.
You can only do what the boat is capable of doing, & when it's under powered, it's not capable doing what you want it to, to keep you in a safe state.
If your on a lake, fine, put an electric motor on it, but don't do it if you fish the big lake [ ocean ].
Under powered boats have the tendancy to broach in a following sea, some boats don't broach well & capsize.
Still feel like supporting an very badly under powered boat ?
That boat was not designed or engineered to to put a 70 or 90 hp engine on it, as it will not function correctly.
Most, i say most under powered boats have people who don't know much about boats as owners, & end up in major trouble, because they are floundering around instead of being propelled as the should & down they go, stern first.
In this caser it's a whaler, so it wont sink, but going down, is going down period.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but thats a rediculous set up.
Might as well buy a Peterbuilt truck & put a 4 cylinder gas engine in it, sure, it will move, but certainly not be functional.
Sal
.
brisboats posted 03-13-2003 06:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
"theres nothing worse than an underpowered boat"

Obviously Sal has never met my ex- wife.

All this talk about needing power in the heavy seas makes me wonder how a displacement hull, like an Albin 36 trawler does it with its 120hp engine. Once your boat is off plane in big seas hasn't it become at that moment a displacement hull? These passage makers aren't high powered rigs at all yet they seem to comeback from distant voyages.

I do believe a 55hp Bearcat would push an OR along on plane. I have seen one pushing a heavy old 21' Center console along quite nicely on the finger lakes for years. If you know Bearcats the motor out performed the 2 stroke 70hp's of the era so this is feasable. Sure I like power but if someone wants to cruise along at 30mph ,45mph or 5mph its his boat and therefore his choice not everyone wants or needs a boat that will do a mile a minute.

Brian

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-13-2003 08:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Brian, i owned a 55 hp homelite bearcat [ in 1962 ], absolutly one of the worst engines every made, next to the Chrysler force.
Out performed the 70 johnson ? ,...not a chance.
Brian, theres displacement hulls & theres planing hulls, & a 21 ft Outrage is about as far from a displacement hull as you can get .
You mention lakes, thats the "ONLY"
place that boat should be run.
It's a classic example of buying the very best of boats, but not being able to afford the correct engine to push it, or being to conservative.
Not you nor anyone else, is going to convince me or anyone else that knows anything at all about boats, that a 70 or 90 hp engine on a 21 Rage is even close to being enough hp.
I don't always run around at a mile a minute, i fish the pacific ocean outside the Golden Gate, the 2nd most dangerous inlets on the entire west coast.
You could very well loose your life in a 21 ft Rage with a 70 hp on it, because you couldn't control the boat going through the straights with 12 ft waves breaking all around you.
I don't say that boat needs 200 hp for everyone, but certainly a minimum of 140 hp.
There are times you need just plain brute power, not speed, & you wont get that with 70 or 90 ponies.
By the way, dissplacement hulls are built to run soft & slow, with round sides & bottom, very "unlike" the flatness of the plaining hull.
Sal
brisboats posted 03-13-2003 10:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Sal, I know the difference between a planing hull and a displacement hull. My point was that in real heavy seas a lot of times the boat is off plane and you don't need a mega motor to manuver a boat through the ocean. In case you missed it, I was making an anaolgy to a large boat with limited power, less power (120 hp) than your prescibed minimum (140hp) for a 21' Outrage. By the way not all planing hulls are flat bottomed and not all displacement hulls have rounded sides and bottoms.

Sal, and your wrong about the bearcat. I also have owned them and believe they are great motors. Read the reference article about them here. They were run head to head against a OMC 70hp and out performed them. Again your stated opinion seems to be opposed to fact.

If you read the thread above an owner's testimonial says a 90hp would push that boat to 35mph. Thats a respectable top end and right in line with what the manufacturer states to be true. Whether you or "anyone that knows anything about boats" wants to believe it is up to them. In this litagious society you think a manufacturer is really going to make a false claim? I am not here to flame but do some research before you spout off trying to prove yourself correct at every instance.

Brian

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-14-2003 12:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Brian, show me a 21 Outrage with a 90 hp that gets 35 mph & i'll kiss your lower unit.
Check the beguining of this thread & you will find this boat with a 185 hp only getting 30 mph, ....engine got fixed & it's now getting 43 mph.
Hmmmmm, 35 mph with a 90 & 43 mph with over twice the hp, on a 21 ft Outrage......I don't think so, no matter who says it.
Being I didn't read it from whaler, how about you telling us what prop that 90 is twisting, & what rpms is that engine getting & what engine is it.
A new 90 hp Evinrude FICHT on a new Montauk gets 45 mph, your trying to tell us an old 90 is pushing a 21 ft Outrage thats 4 ft longer & much wider at 35 mph.
As Tom said, an 85 hp should push it to 32 mph, your saying the extra 5 hp [ 90 ] is going to get 3 mph more when doubling the hp [ plus 5 ] to 185 can only get 43., only 8 mph more.
You do the math, it dosen't equate.
I call that wishfull thinking.
Sal
brisboats posted 03-14-2003 09:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Sal, I don't know what prop, and rpms etc. If you would read carefully you would see I was referring to an owners testimonial in the thread (Tom Clark) on a 95-96 Merc 90. I was not referring to an old 90 and at no point was mention made of that. Its seems that throughout this thread you adjust the data to suit your argument. Anyway, I am not trying to convince you obviously that is a lost cause. I am saying that I believe it is plausable and thats my opinion. My opinion seems to be supported by the Whaler Data that Tom W. Clark has graciously provided and by an actual owners testimonial. I respect your opinion and would expect the same from you. When you make a statement like "your not going to convince me or anyone that knows anything about boats" the implication is that I do not know anything about boats and that you are the almighty wise one. That is simply arrogance encompassed in ignorance. I think Socrates said " I know, I know nothing and therefore I am already wiser". I apoligize if you are taking this personal, lets just agree to disagree on this one.

Brian

John W posted 03-14-2003 11:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for John W  Send Email to John W     
I agree with Sal that I would want more than 70hp on that hull, and I'd probably want at least 115. But I completely disagree that thee is something unsafe about that hull with a 90hp. Perhaps lots of holeshot and/or top speed is needed in the particular conditions Sal runs in, but from my experience I don't use much throttle or speed in rough offshore conditions, particularly in a flat bottom boat like a '70's Outrage. I doubt a flat bottom Outrage is an ideal boat for the Bearing Sea or running up the backs of breaking waves in the Pacific under any power.

When the original Outrage hull was designed, a 115 hp (powerhead rated) motor was the most powerful motor made. I believe many of them were sold in the early days with twin 55hp Bearcats, which would be more weight & less speed than a single 110hp. You're not going to convince me that running that boat with a 90 is somehow unsafe.

There are boaters who don't need or care about holeshot and top speed. Sal, what might not be ideal power for you, or for me, may suit others just fine.

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-15-2003 12:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
I'm gonna try & make this fast, because AOL has knocked me off 6 times tonight, [ talk about insufficient power ].
2 years ago, I took 3 guys salmon fish out the Golden Gate.
It was sloopy but fishable.
The wind shifted from NW to straight South, [ pure poison at Pt Bonita for about 3 miles.
The wind picked up to 25ish & I told the guys, we gotta go "NOW".
I took off & headed straight SE for 11 miles, taking a royal beating, I came up on a 55 footer that was off my starboard about 200 yds, all I could see of him was his roof & antennas, then his props & rudders.
Behind me was 7 other boats in tandom.
I'v fished this area for 30 years & know how bad it gets.
I radioed the Coast Guard about 40 minutes befor where I knew it was going to be pure hell.
When we reached the area I expected to be the worst, there was the CG helicoptor.
The waves were just popping up in front of us, no set pattern, as they were coming in with the wind, pilling up on 4 fathom bar & going across the inside channel, jitting the rocks & bouncing back, 12 to 14' high & all breaking, only 20 ft apart.
Couldn't take em head on because my boat is 20' long & i'd bury the bow in the base of the one in front & the one behind me would just push me in farther.
Took em at the quarter, my dad yells to me, the boat behind us just swamped, & the 2 behind him are gone & they were just there.
There was no way I could saftly turn my boat around to help, as we would swamp for sure.
The CG helo was over the 24' fiberform that went down from the stern & 3 CG boys jumped out & saved those 3 guys, a second helo showed up & picked up the people in the other 2 boats.
Meanwhile i'm trying to make headway in this mess at dead idle.
The toughest part will be when i'v got to put my stern to these monsters & try & power over & on top & stay there & try & ride them in.
I was running a 1991 - 150 hp Jphnson & many times i was at full throttle trying to keep the one thats breaking almost in our stern from doing so.
If I would have had anything less for power, we would have swapped for sure.
All the while one of the helos was 50' on top of us, with the captain telling me, just keep doing what you doing, cause it's working.
The helo stayed right over me for almost an hour, he commented, thats one hell of a boat your running & you certainly know what your doing.
All the ranting & raving i'v done pertains to situations such as this.
I'v gone through the same straights & encounted the same conditions many, many times.
Had I had less power, my boat would now be fiber splinters & possibly i wouldn't be here.
That is why I say an underpowered boat will get you in trouble.
Lakes, maybe, but certainly not this arera.
Sal.
captbone posted 03-15-2003 11:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
I have been in similar situation where if I did not have enough power I would have never been able to get the bow around into the next wave. Being underpowered in open waters is dangerous. Having said that, on protected water for cruising around I could see having a 21 with less than 150 hp. The way that I boat and in the North Altantic I would never go with anything less than 10% of max hp. But if I was to be on Lake George in Upstate NY, I would love to have a 21 with twin 50 EFI four stokes.
Bigshot posted 03-17-2003 09:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Hmmm....maybe the Andrea Gale should have had more Hp or possibly an overpowered 20' Whaler instead? This is the dumbest thread I've read in a while. Mnay people have owned old 21's with 100hp equiv. engines and are still here today and don't run on lakes. Unless you have driven an older 19 or 21' (which I owned for many years), you will not appreciate the simplicity and efficiency of their design. I bet a 21' outrage with a 90 will plane faster than your 20 with a 140 on it.
brisboats posted 03-17-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Yeah and the 729 foot Edmond Fitzgerald went down in a "lake" kind of hinders any validity to the underpowered theory for "the big lake" travel IMHO.

Brian

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-17-2003 06:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Bigshot, I would take that bet in a second.
Is there a special reason why you contiually knock my posts ?
I admit I don't know it all, but niether do you.
By any chance, your title, is bigshot, is that something you would like to be ?
Sounds like something a 16 year old would use.
No, I don't believe the Andea Gail was underpowered.
By the way, it was a small ship, not an outboard.
The great lakes are concidered a sea as far as weather is concered, as they can be just as bad as the open ocean.
I certainly was not refering to the great lakes.
Sal
captbone posted 03-17-2003 11:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
I would love for someone to tell me and the families of the sailors aboard the Edmond Fitz and the Andrea Gail why and how those vessel went down. Just because you saw it on TV or read a book does not mean anything. No one but god himself knows why those vessels went down and it is pretty piss poor that they are used as bad examples to try to sway someone opinion on a good subject. If underpowered vessels are unsafe on open water is what this subject has turned into not how much horsepower should be used.
brisboats posted 03-18-2003 09:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
Just like the Gale and the E. Fitzgerald this thread has sunk to the murky depths of the bottom. What started out as intelligent interaction about the expected top end of a BW hull and motor combination. Instead has evolved into a peeing match about whether a testatorone laden boat is safer than a reasonably powered boat with a level headed skipper. Let it rest, "boys its been good to know ya" ,..sailor dive into the lake ,ocean whatever.

Brian

Bigshot posted 03-18-2003 11:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
I don't knock your posts Sal, just the way you slam people for not agreeing with you. I never claim to know anything, I give my opinion, not act like a drill sargent. If I act like a 16 year old at times it is because I am only 17.

I quote: "Are you smoking grass or what ?
A 70 or 90 on a 21 rage,....maybe for a kicker.
That boat needs 200 hp to make it perform, not half of it's minimum hp recommendation.
Sorry to be so blunt, but why not just put a 25 hp on it, you would probably get better performance at troll speed.
Sal"

We all appreciate input here but jamming it down somebody's throat is not what we need. We can all be a tad crass at times or come off as harsh, etc being the media we are using and sorry if it sounds like I am busting your chops. I am just trying to calm things down some so it does not become a pissing match. We all know you like going fast and I agree that max hp or close to max is smart but there are MANY people on this forum that are tickled pink with their 17's with 50hp on it so who are we to mock them? Like I said above "different strokes for different folks." Let's just keep an open mind and speak from experience, not expectations when it comes to threads like these.

Have a nice day!

Sal DiMercurio posted 03-18-2003 06:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Agreed, Just one question, how could you have bought & owned sooooo many boats if your 17.
You mention about 25 boats you owned in the last 20 years ???...but your 17.
Also, I totally agree that this is not the place to slam each other, as this site is a great site & helps many people who aren't as experienced as others to learn from them.
Agree to dissagree.
I guess from being the Captain of many commercial vessels in my 64 years of living, I sometimes say things in a no nonsense way.
Sal
Bigshot posted 03-19-2003 08:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Got ya on my age!
andygere posted 03-19-2003 07:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Say, you guys are always pretty sharp, but I think everyone missed something here. What is the condition of the bottom of Al_A_Buy's boat? Bottom paint in good condition will cost a little top end. Bottom paint in bad condition, or worse yet, shaggy with marine growth, barnacles or mussels will really eat up a boat's performance in a hurry. Could it be that the "missing" 7 mph is a function of hull condition rather than motor output?
Sal DiMercurio posted 03-20-2003 12:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Andy, about 12 years ago, I left my boat in the harbor in Richmond Ca. [ salt water ] for 14 days.
I lost 9 mph.
Felt the bottom, [ no paint ] & it was covered with a zillion tiny barnacals, about the size of 400 grit sand paper.
You could very well be right.
Sal
Bigshot posted 03-20-2003 08:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
No doubt, I have driven boats so crummy that they would not plane. I and all here "assume" that the bottoms are clean. A rough bottom job will rob a couple mph over a smooth paint free bottom but not as much as people think. Get a thin coat of slime on a smooth bottom and she will react very strange. I had a 15' with no piant and it got a thin layer of yellow slime, when planing it would slip like my hub was spun....weird.
Al_A_Buy posted 03-20-2003 12:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Al_A_Buy  Send Email to Al_A_Buy     
Andy - Bottom condition - old bottom paint, in fair condition, no growth (trailer kept).

Sal - to answer an earlier query, the prop is a 14.25 x 19, cupped SS in near new condition.

Al W.

andygere posted 03-21-2003 12:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Al, I saw a 2-3 MPH top-end decline on my Montauk with fresh bottom paint on it. I imagine you are losing at least that with old or irregular bottom paint.

For what it's worth, my (heavy) Montauk did 39 mph with a '79 Johnson 85 h.p. and an aluminum 17" pitch prop before I bottom painted it 2 years ago. I say heavy because it has a 15 hp kicker, dual batteries, and teak platforms on the bow and stern. The point is that I think hours on a motor are more important than age. I have no doubt that outboards lose power through usage due to mechanical wear, but an hour meter is better than a calendar for determining the "age" of a motor. This particular boat does not have an hour meter, but based on the way it performs and the physical condition of it (and the boat), I believe the hours are very low.

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.