repowering 18 Outrage - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  repowering 18 Outrage

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   repowering 18 Outrage

pmmeca posted 09-17-2003 06:35 PM ET (US)
I have a 1983 18ft Outrage with twin 70HP Johnsons. I want to repower, and am considering 115HP options such as Honda or Merc 4-stroke or Merc Optimax. Most 18ft Outrages have 150HP motors, which is the max. for that hull. It will plane with just one 70HP (I've done it with two people in it). The new Edgewater 19 (same hull as new Whalers, weight 1750 LB vs. 1250 for the 1983s)comes standard with a 115HP.
Any experiences/opinions on how a 115HP will perform? Do you think it will hurt resale value?
hauptjm posted 09-18-2003 10:58 AM ET (US)
We've been down this road many times and you'll get many different responses, but as an 18 Outrage owner there is only two choices: 150hp single or two 90's. Of course, that's just my opinion. I would think a 115hp engine would not be very attractive to the largest market for resale. Someone might like it, but the majority would probably not. Besides, you would miss alot of the boats upper performance on those calm, glassy days.
Tom2697 posted 09-18-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)
Obviously a 115 on that boat would sell for less than a 150. You also would be limiting your potential market by powering the boat with the smaller motor.
As for how it would handle with the little motor, I don't know. If you are comfortable with a longer time to plane than you had and a low-to-mid 30's top end, go for it! You will still have one of the best boats ever made! If you want to waterski and run offshore, I would not go with less than a 135. If you are requiring a 4-stroke, I would suggest going for the 140 Johnson/Suzuki.
Since you already have a twin engine setup, I'd keep that but repower with the newer motor technology.
Florida15 posted 09-18-2003 01:23 PM ET (US)
Do NOT underpower. You will regret it. You will not enjoy the boat near as much and you will lose any savings that you thought you had when you re-sell.
Bigshot posted 09-18-2003 01:32 PM ET (US)
She will probably do close to 40 with a 115. Being you can get the 140 Suzuki/johnson for $7-7500, I would snag one for the few $$$ more than the 115.
onlyawhaler posted 09-19-2003 12:57 AM ET (US)
My opinion is max hp with either twins or a 150 single. A 115 with a load of gas, guys, gear would struggle.
Most complaints from people regarding horsepower is "I wish it had more". Rarely does one hear complaints about too much horsepower
Sterling
Onlyawhaler
hooter posted 09-19-2003 12:14 PM ET (US)
Just never fails t'amaze me when a feller wants to under-power one of these boats. Most scientific fishermen, like me, and outboard mechanics will tell you never power a boat less than 80% of the max rating for that partic'lar hull. On the hull in question, that would be a recommendation of nothin' less than 120 h.p. Reasons are not too hard for most folks to understand. 1) Sure, that li'l 115 might plane ok, if you run it wide open. So pretty soon you runnin' that rig on WOT about 90% of the time and 500 hours into the thing you've blown a engine that should last you over 1,000 hours. 2) You'll also pour about 40% more fuel through that thing at 5000+rpm than you will at 3500rpm, so fuel economy is a ser'ous consideration. 3) If you is not with the fast movin' crowd, you might be plenty happy puttin' around at 3500 rpm in that li'l motor 75% of the time. And that'll be fine if you never plan to sell that rig. The gen'ral market does believe in the 80% rule, something you will discover once you list the under-powered boat for sale. 4) There are times when full throttle runnin' at 45+mph makes a lot of sense. Big thunderstorms typically get mah attention and horsepower. So safety is a ser'ous reason to reconsider the li'l-bitty motor route. 5) And finally, there's just the pennywise/pound-foolish reason. When faced with a new re-power decision, why anyone would scrimp a grand or less by choosin' to under-power as an economic move, just beats me. What you save in gasoline alone with the larger engine will prob'ly cover the difference in upfront cost in under a couple years if you use the boat at all. So there you have it.
Bigshot posted 09-19-2003 01:55 PM ET (US)
Hooter in most cases I agree with you and yes 115 would be the minimum I would run but i don't think she would be a dog with a 115 being it only weighs 1250lbs. My Montauk I run 70% and am quite happy with it's performance but that is an easy to plane hull. point being 80% rule is not always true. On my 20' Hydra-sports she is rated for 225hp which is what I run and she does 50+mph. I was talking to a guy with a 175 and he only ran about 41. With 5 guys and full fuel that 225 has trouble getting on step so I would NEVER want less than 200hp on it. My point is I would instill a 90% rule on that boat. Trim tabs would help though.
I think the 140 or 150 4 strokes are a great engine for it, especially when a 140 can be had for about $7500 which is only about $600 more than the 115's.
hooter posted 09-19-2003 02:36 PM ET (US)
Big, Ah do agree with your recommendation of the Suzuki 140 4-stroke as much more appropriate for that hull than the 115. Mah own proclivities, however, would lead me to spend that same $7,500 on a brand new Johnson saltwater 150 2-stroke. Lighter engine than the smaller 4-stroke and still more horsepower for the money. Yes for same-same comparison, the fuel efficiency might be a bit better with a four x 150, but Ah remain partial to the older technology and lighter weight on the transome of these older hulls.
doobee posted 09-19-2003 11:57 PM ET (US)
According to the formula, an 18 Outrage is rated for up to 175HP. Whaler felt the engine was too much for the boat and voluntarily lowered the rating to 150HP.
I have fished the boat with a 130 on Buzzard's Bay with 3 people in moderate chop with good performance.
Underpowering will affect resale. You also have to consider the extra weight of a 4 stroke. If you're going to repower at the lower end of the scale, a lighter engine would be preferable.
Bigshot posted 09-20-2003 11:44 PM ET (US)
150 is about 390 lbs, 140 4 stroke is like 410.....aint no big thing.
Mumbo Jumbo posted 10-07-2003 05:46 PM ET (US)
I have a 1989 Outrage. It came with a 130 hp Yamaha V4 2 cycle engine and I consider it the perfect engine for this Whaler. The 130, propped correctly, is more than adequate for riding in rough offshore conditions. Mine lasted 11 years, never had a mechanical problem until the bearings failed, and was used two or three times a week offshore from May until mid October. I re-powered with a Yamaha Saltwater Series 150 two stroke (due to a very good deal on an unused three year old engine still in the box) but think the 130 was a better match since it was lower in height, lighter, and got slightly better milage. I have no regrets about the 150 but, all things being equal and standard pricing, I would choose the 130. I guess it is still made.
alkar posted 10-07-2003 06:41 PM ET (US)
Larry has twin 115s on his 18' Outrage...and that boat reportedly goes lke a scalded ape. :)

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.

Author	Topic: repowering 18 Outrage
pmmeca	posted 09-17-2003 06:35 PM ET (US) I have a 1983 18ft Outrage with twin 70HP Johnsons. I want to repower, and am considering 115HP options such as Honda or Merc 4-stroke or Merc Optimax. Most 18ft Outrages have 150HP motors, which is the max. for that hull. It will plane with just one 70HP (I've done it with two people in it). The new Edgewater 19 (same hull as new Whalers, weight 1750 LB vs. 1250 for the 1983s)comes standard with a 115HP. Any experiences/opinions on how a 115HP will perform? Do you think it will hurt resale value?
hauptjm	posted 09-18-2003 10:58 AM ET (US) We've been down this road many times and you'll get many different responses, but as an 18 Outrage owner there is only two choices: 150hp single or two 90's. Of course, that's just my opinion. I would think a 115hp engine would not be very attractive to the largest market for resale. Someone might like it, but the majority would probably not. Besides, you would miss alot of the boats upper performance on those calm, glassy days.
Tom2697	posted 09-18-2003 12:42 PM ET (US) Obviously a 115 on that boat would sell for less than a 150. You also would be limiting your potential market by powering the boat with the smaller motor. As for how it would handle with the little motor, I don't know. If you are comfortable with a longer time to plane than you had and a low-to-mid 30's top end, go for it! You will still have one of the best boats ever made! If you want to waterski and run offshore, I would not go with less than a 135. If you are requiring a 4-stroke, I would suggest going for the 140 Johnson/Suzuki. Since you already have a twin engine setup, I'd keep that but repower with the newer motor technology.
Florida15	posted 09-18-2003 01:23 PM ET (US) Do NOT underpower. You will regret it. You will not enjoy the boat near as much and you will lose any savings that you thought you had when you re-sell.
Bigshot	posted 09-18-2003 01:32 PM ET (US) She will probably do close to 40 with a 115. Being you can get the 140 Suzuki/johnson for $7-7500, I would snag one for the few $$$ more than the 115.
onlyawhaler	posted 09-19-2003 12:57 AM ET (US) My opinion is max hp with either twins or a 150 single. A 115 with a load of gas, guys, gear would struggle. Most complaints from people regarding horsepower is "I wish it had more". Rarely does one hear complaints about too much horsepower Sterling Onlyawhaler
hooter	posted 09-19-2003 12:14 PM ET (US) Just never fails t'amaze me when a feller wants to under-power one of these boats. Most scientific fishermen, like me, and outboard mechanics will tell you never power a boat less than 80% of the max rating for that partic'lar hull. On the hull in question, that would be a recommendation of nothin' less than 120 h.p. Reasons are not too hard for most folks to understand. 1) Sure, that li'l 115 might plane ok, if you run it wide open. So pretty soon you runnin' that rig on WOT about 90% of the time and 500 hours into the thing you've blown a engine that should last you over 1,000 hours. 2) You'll also pour about 40% more fuel through that thing at 5000+rpm than you will at 3500rpm, so fuel economy is a ser'ous consideration. 3) If you is not with the fast movin' crowd, you might be plenty happy puttin' around at 3500 rpm in that li'l motor 75% of the time. And that'll be fine if you never plan to sell that rig. The gen'ral market does believe in the 80% rule, something you will discover once you list the under-powered boat for sale. 4) There are times when full throttle runnin' at 45+mph makes a lot of sense. Big thunderstorms typically get mah attention and horsepower. So safety is a ser'ous reason to reconsider the li'l-bitty motor route. 5) And finally, there's just the pennywise/pound-foolish reason. When faced with a new re-power decision, why anyone would scrimp a grand or less by choosin' to under-power as an economic move, just beats me. What you save in gasoline alone with the larger engine will prob'ly cover the difference in upfront cost in under a couple years if you use the boat at all. So there you have it.
Bigshot	posted 09-19-2003 01:55 PM ET (US) Hooter in most cases I agree with you and yes 115 would be the minimum I would run but i don't think she would be a dog with a 115 being it only weighs 1250lbs. My Montauk I run 70% and am quite happy with it's performance but that is an easy to plane hull. point being 80% rule is not always true. On my 20' Hydra-sports she is rated for 225hp which is what I run and she does 50+mph. I was talking to a guy with a 175 and he only ran about 41. With 5 guys and full fuel that 225 has trouble getting on step so I would NEVER want less than 200hp on it. My point is I would instill a 90% rule on that boat. Trim tabs would help though. I think the 140 or 150 4 strokes are a great engine for it, especially when a 140 can be had for about $7500 which is only about $600 more than the 115's.
hooter	posted 09-19-2003 02:36 PM ET (US) Big, Ah do agree with your recommendation of the Suzuki 140 4-stroke as much more appropriate for that hull than the 115. Mah own proclivities, however, would lead me to spend that same $7,500 on a brand new Johnson saltwater 150 2-stroke. Lighter engine than the smaller 4-stroke and still more horsepower for the money. Yes for same-same comparison, the fuel efficiency might be a bit better with a four x 150, but Ah remain partial to the older technology and lighter weight on the transome of these older hulls.
doobee	posted 09-19-2003 11:57 PM ET (US) According to the formula, an 18 Outrage is rated for up to 175HP. Whaler felt the engine was too much for the boat and voluntarily lowered the rating to 150HP. I have fished the boat with a 130 on Buzzard's Bay with 3 people in moderate chop with good performance. Underpowering will affect resale. You also have to consider the extra weight of a 4 stroke. If you're going to repower at the lower end of the scale, a lighter engine would be preferable.
Bigshot	posted 09-20-2003 11:44 PM ET (US) 150 is about 390 lbs, 140 4 stroke is like 410.....aint no big thing.
Mumbo Jumbo	posted 10-07-2003 05:46 PM ET (US) I have a 1989 Outrage. It came with a 130 hp Yamaha V4 2 cycle engine and I consider it the perfect engine for this Whaler. The 130, propped correctly, is more than adequate for riding in rough offshore conditions. Mine lasted 11 years, never had a mechanical problem until the bearings failed, and was used two or three times a week offshore from May until mid October. I re-powered with a Yamaha Saltwater Series 150 two stroke (due to a very good deal on an unused three year old engine still in the box) but think the 130 was a better match since it was lower in height, lighter, and got slightly better milage. I have no regrets about the 150 but, all things being equal and standard pricing, I would choose the 130. I guess it is still made.
alkar	posted 10-07-2003 06:41 PM ET (US) Larry has twin 115s on his 18' Outrage...and that boat reportedly goes lke a scalded ape. :)