Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Max engine weight on an OR 22

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

Author Topic:   Max engine weight on an OR 22
Plotman posted 08-02-2003 03:22 PM ET (US)   Profile for Plotman   Send Email to Plotman  
I'd like to get some input from folks that have twins on an Outrage 22 with the standard notched transom.

I'd really like to go the route of twins, but this is an '87 with the older-style splash well, and I wonder how much I'm going to take water over the transom when trolling, or coming down off of a plane.

How much weight do you have back there? Are there any published specs for engine weight?

Becuase of proximity to dealers, I'm going to go either Yamaha or Merc. The Yamaha or Merc 115 4 strokes are right around 800 lbs for a pair, about 100 lbs less for a pair of carbed 2-strokes from either manufacturer.

Thanks,

David

Peter posted 08-02-2003 07:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Ideally, you should keep the transom weight below 700 lbs. the 22' hull was designed for twin small block 2-stroke 4 cylinder engines such as the 115. I believe that those weighed under 350 lbs. If you seek twin power, I recommend that you go with the simple carbureted 2-stroke 115.
Plotman posted 08-03-2003 12:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
Thanks, Pete, but what I'm really trying to get a feel for is do people that have more than the 700 lbs originally envsioned of engine on the transom of an OR 22 feel like they are pushing the limit - does the boat squat at rest? Do you take a lot of waves that get past the splashwell?

jimh posted 08-03-2003 09:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Fresh water weighs about 64 pounds per cubic foot. If you increase the weight on the transom by, let's say, 128 pounds, your hull will sink lower into the water until is has displaced a volume of water that weights 128 pounds.

This implies that the hull will have to displace 2 additional cubic feet of water. At rest, we can assume a waterline of about 20 feet or less on a 22-foot hull, and a displacement width of 8 feet (approximately).

22 X 8 = 176 feet in area;

Since we only need two additional cubic feet of displacement,
the boat would only need to sink into the water by

2/176 = 0.011 feet or about 0.14 inches.

But this is assuming a square bottom and weight distribution evenly loading the hull.

First, we need to accommodate the shape of the bottom, which is a constant-vee with a deadrise of about 18-degrees. If the deadrise were 45-degrees, then the boat would sink twice as far. Let's use that figure to be safe. Now we have the boat submerged about 0.25 inches to displace the the additional 128 pounds of water.

Next we have to account for the distribution of the weight being uneven and all of it loading the stern. Lets make a simple assumption: if the center of gravity is about two-thirds of the distance from bow to transom, then loading on the transom will affect the transom three times more than the bow. Now we are sinking down about 0.75 inches in the stern to generate the 128 pounds of new displacement.

To find more exact figures for you boat, mark the static waterline with no one aboard. Have someone who weighs about 100-lbs (or really any known weight) go aboard and sit on your engine cowling. Observer the new waterline at the transom and compute the increase draft.

Let me know if my rough guess was close.

Peter posted 08-04-2003 09:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I believe that some information that you are seeking might be found in the discussion occuring in the following thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005488.html
Barry posted 08-04-2003 09:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Check out this long topic on the "best power for 22 Outrage" continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001095.html
Chap posted 08-04-2003 10:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Hello,
I have had my 22 Outrage with your transom in the brine for sometime now. She has twin 1989 120 Johnsons at I believe 365lbs. each. You have to be mindful of the weight. I also have the stern seat, large oil tank and batteries in the back. She is maxed out and bordering on uncomfortably heavy in my opinion, even without the seat. Running is fine, in fact bliss. Stern positioning and backing down, you have to be mindful at all times. Initially, the weight did not bother me too much and wouldn't at all with the full across splashwell dam.

The bow up static trim also catches some decent wind.

Something not often discussed is, for lack of a better term, the bobbing that takes place. At rest and drifting, the weight will bob severely with wakes etc. During a nice bob, at best, water will only come out of the wet stern well and at worst the transom will dip below the surface. If you put some folks in the stern seat, well, you hope they don't have nice shoes on. Backing down and bobbing is entertaining.

I took the time to find these threads of which some I was involved in, both pre-purchase and post. There are some secondary links.

www.continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001095.html

www.continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000599.html

My bottom line is if you go with twins, I agree with Peter, don't stray too far from 700lbs.
I think the only choice right now are the 115 Johnson carbs at I think 640lbs., but you have to deal with the weight and placement of an oil tank.
Thanks
Chap

Chap posted 08-04-2003 11:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Hello again,
What do the 100 or 105 Commercial Johnson's weigh?
I think they may have v-6 legs, does that mean they can swing a larger prop on this hull?
Stay as light as possible.
Somthing else not mentioned. I believe that twins on plane run shallower, if that is good for you.
Thanks
Chap
lhg posted 08-04-2003 03:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
For twin mid-range engines on a notched transom 22, I think rigging and placing the 2 remote oil injection tanks is a problem for a really nice installation. Accordingly, and staying within the rated HP, I would recommend the Mercury 115's, 90's or Yamaha 90's in that order, since they have integral oil tanks. Other than that, the 115 Yamaha or Johnsons I'm sure would also be good performers.

If you want clean engines, you might take a look at the brand new Optimax or Ficht 115's also. Probably the highest cost too. I think the boat could handle the weights.

SWarren posted 08-04-2003 03:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for SWarren  Send Email to SWarren     
I emailed Chuck Bennet at whaler and he said that the transom was rated for 720 lbs. If you move your batteries and from the back under your console you should not have a big problem with 4 strokes. I have seen several 22 whalers outrages and revenges with twin 4 strokes. I am repowering myself with twins right now, and am moving my batteries to the cabin of my revenge.
Peter posted 08-04-2003 06:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I wouldn't go as low as twin 90s on the 22' hull. I believe a single 90 hp on the 22' is just marginal, and might even be inadequate if the boat is loaded.

However, if 90s are a must, I would go with Johnson, Mercury, then reluctantly Yamaha. The reason is simple, the Johnson has 105 cubic inches displacement, the Mercury has 85 cubic inches and the Yamaha 70 cubic inches. Except for top speed, the Johnson 90 should perform more like the 115 that is built on the same block.

The reason you get twins is for offshore safety and I don't believe that a single Yamaha 90 has enough displacement to get a reasonably loaded 22' hull on a plane if one engine goes down. While it has a nice integral oil tank to keep the boat looking uncluttered, the integral oil tank doesn't help much to push the boat home when one of the two engines conks out at the worst of times which, as we all know, is when it usually happens. The extra 35 cubic inches of displacement, or 15 in the case of Mercury, does.

Also, its worth mentioning that the manufacturer's stated weight of any outboard very often understates the actual final weight when installed (no oil in the tank or crankcase, no propeller, shortest shaft, etc.). I would add at least 10 to 20 lbs to any manufacturers stated weight in this horsepower range. So a pair of 20 inch Mercury 4-stroke 115s should put over 800 lbs on the transom, a pair of Yamaha 115s will weigh in at around 840 lbs, and a pair of Suzuki DF 115s a whopping 870 lbs, almost 130 lbs more than Chap's hefty 120 Johnsons. To put it into single power perspective, that is like having two 170 lb persons standing on the transom of a 22' hull equiped with one of the big 500 + lbs 225 hp motors.

If the Mercury 115 2s hasthe integral oil tank, which is what I think Larry has said here, then that might be the ideal twin power for the 22' hull.

alkar posted 08-04-2003 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for alkar  Send Email to alkar     
Unless the second motor stalls while you're already on plane, a single 115 isn't going to plane an Outrange 22' (in a twin configuration). I don't think twin 135's would do it either, but I can't say that with confidence.

I have a 22' Outrage with whaler drive and twin Honda 115s. The boat will stay on plane if one motor stalls while it's already up, but one motor will not get the boat up on step by itself.

If I could wave a wand and make it happen, I'd consider putting twin Suzuki (or Johnson)140s on my boat. I could even put twin Evinrude 175 (Fichts) on it - and STILL save a bunch of weight over the Hondas at 505 lbs per engine. A single 175 might actually have the juice to get the boat on plane by itself.


Chap posted 08-04-2003 11:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Folks, I don't see much Desert Tan in between the Barnegat Bay bog iron cedar water stain and the top of the transom on the Ebay 22 with twin Merc 90's. She does however have the large tank.
I think doobee is on to something here......
Chap posted 08-04-2003 11:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Folks, I don't see much Desert Tan in between the Barnegat Bay bog iron cedar water stain and the top of the transom on the Ebay 22 with twin Merc 90's. She does however have the large tank.
I think doobee is on to something here......
SWarren posted 08-05-2003 08:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for SWarren  Send Email to SWarren     
I got my revenge on plane running 21kts on one 115 johnson about two weeks ago. There were two people on board loaded with fishing gear, and about 110 gallons of gas. I had the other motor trimmed up. So it can happen. Maybe not with 4 or 5 people though.
kneucker posted 08-05-2003 09:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for kneucker  Send Email to kneucker     
I have a 22 '86 Revenge with twin 140 Suzukis FS weighing in at 410 each (no oil tanks saves 20-30 lbs). This is the same hull as the 22 outrage but with the cuddy up front that probably helps to counteract the extra weight in the rear. The boat performs beautifully going foreward, either at speed or at troll. However, at drift in a 1- 2 foot chop it takes some water over the transom, particularly when loaded with fuel or fat fisherman. It sits slightly deeper in the water than last year when I had twin Yamaha 115s @ 358 lbs ea.

P.S.


This boat always wants to drift with bow pointed in direction of drift i.e. with water pushing at stern)
I'm looking into a splash guard to combat the wet feet problem.

mhoyt01 posted 08-06-2003 08:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for mhoyt01  Send Email to mhoyt01     
My brother and I own a outrage 22 W/D. It had twin merc cerb's at 378# each. Rode great, went fast, and absolutely sucked fuel. Having seen the benefits of technology on my dads outrage 18 with 200 HPDI, I knew we had to go FI or FS FI. I found this Merc 300 FI and was ready to buy, but my brother was set on twins, Honda's specifically. Twins cost more, weigh more,and break twice as often =]. Then I was worried about weight so I said Suzuki 140's. Being the staunch Honda supporters that we are, he vetoed that. You see he still carries the younger brother complex and immediately says no to anything I suggest. So we moved on a set of '99 Honda 130's with 240 pampered hours. We mounted them are ourselves. First off, they are the best engines anyone could ever own. Those guys at Honda are brilliant. You can't even tell they are on, and I think they actually inject salt water into the chamber, casue our gas tank is always on full. BUT, they are wWAY to heavy. 1010's to be exact. We are having a porpoising problem which some of hte guys on teh forum are trying to help us with.

Ask yourself why you want twins, if the answer is only reliablility, then the answer for you is simpl.e I single brand spanking new Honda VTEC 225. It's the most awesome engine on the planet. I have a 3 liter VTEC in my nsx, and you simply can't ask for anything. That thing will get you home from anywhere, be in your transom weight range, and probably push you the same as twin 115's.

Just my .02,

Porpoising until further adjustment in SoCal,

Matt

Plotman posted 08-07-2003 12:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
Thanks.

I want twins because we play on Lake Superior, often times a long way away from help -100 miles plus away from the nearest coast guard on a lake where the temps even in mid-august are in the low 40s just 2 feet below the surface.

It's looking like on a 22 it is going to be a comprimise.

fina posted 08-07-2003 12:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for fina  Send Email to fina     
peter, why did youmention 20" Mercurys? Doesn't he need 25"?
lhg posted 08-07-2003 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
It's interesting to see that the weight recommendation on the 22 hull is exactly the same as a pair of Mercury, Yamaha or OMC 115HP 2 stroke engines, or the new Mercury Optimax 115's (360# each).
jstachowiak posted 08-08-2003 08:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for jstachowiak  Send Email to jstachowiak     
The reason for 25" versus 20" transom shaft length is it appears from the CD-Rom brochures that there were to different setups. Single outboard 25" and twins 20". I'm guessing that there are two different transoms out there. One setup for twins 20" and one setup for single 25". Right?

Same for the 25 Outrage too.

How is the transom area different?

David T posted 08-08-2003 10:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for David T    
The reason you use 25" single and 20" for twins is the shape of the transom, or the deadrise.

The bottom of the boat when viewed from astern is a "V". A sinle mounted on the centerline needs to reach all the way to the point of the "V". Since twins are mounted to the sides, you need less in the way of shaft length to get the same amount of lower unit sticking out below the hull.

If you know you are only going to use twins when you build the boat, you can design it for 25" twins. You just can't change your mind later and use a single.

Since the CPD boats are essentiualy custom made, they can set it up however you want. Recreational boats are more or less stock, hense the lower transoms.

jstachowiak posted 08-08-2003 11:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for jstachowiak  Send Email to jstachowiak     
David T,

Thanks it is all clear to me now.

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.