Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Outrage 21: Re-Power
|Author||Topic: Outrage 21: Re-Power|
posted 09-17-2003 10:06 PM ET (US)
[My OUTRAGE 21] is in like new condition. What should I power her with? The maximum 200 HP seems excessive.
If you had your choice, what would you put on her?
posted 09-18-2003 09:04 AM ET (US)
140 suzuki or 150 yamaha four stroke. Even the 115's are probably adequate for my uses.
that's what I'm looking at for my 21.
posted 09-18-2003 09:12 AM ET (US)
If cost isn't a big factor, go with the max power 200hp.
You don't have to use it but if the need arises, it's there.
posted 09-18-2003 01:10 PM ET (US)
Had two of the 21 Outrages and both had 175 Mercury motors. Both would fly. Far faster than you could use most of the time. The boat is a rough rider and that is the limiting factor for speed most of the time. I bought a new Black Max the second year of Mercury v6 production for the first Outrage. I believe that was 1976? At the time the engines were rated at the crankshaft rather than the propshaft. Today's 150 HP engines shouldn't be that far apart from them on HP. Since you say you feel the 200 rating is excessive my guess is you are not an all out speed freak who never wants to be passed. I would think the new 150 Yamaha would be about perfect for you. Honda is coming out with a new 150. My 1975 BW catalog says top speed with a 150 in an Outrage 21 is 42 MPH. Remember a 150 then was rated at the crankshaft so you should have a little extra over the 42 with a new motor. You should have a nice solid cruise around 30 and you still need some fairly calm water for that speed. Good luck, John
posted 09-18-2003 01:30 PM ET (US)
Ditto on the 140 Suzuki or 150 yamaha 4 strokes. The Suzuki/Johnson will be cheaper and lighter. Janis has one with a 130 Yamaha 2 stroke and it runs an honest 40+. The 4 stroke would be SOOOOOO sweet on that hull.
posted 09-18-2003 01:38 PM ET (US)
I have been leaning toward the Suzuki 140 4 stroke for some time now. Glad to hear your approval on that one.
I have no need to do 50+ MPH. 40 would be more than adequate.
Thank you all.
posted 09-18-2003 01:57 PM ET (US)
If you are coming down to pick up that T-Top, buy an engine down here or in DE, much cheaper than the NE.
posted 09-19-2003 10:09 AM ET (US)
Why is that and what kind of savings could I see? It is only 5-6 hours from here and a nice trip at that.
By-line.... looks as though that T-top is not big enough....
posted 09-19-2003 10:53 AM ET (US)
Why? because the NE is a rip off:)
Delaware is cheap being NO sales tax. The south has MUCHO competition being a 52 week season so prices are competitive. I can get a new 140 Suzuki leftover mounted and running for $8k+tax(prop controls, tach, etc). Engine only is $7k. I think Ed's has 140 Johnsons for $7400.
posted 09-19-2003 02:56 PM ET (US)
I had the same set up on my Outrage that JWS had - 1976 Merc V6 and I would run about 48mph. I would have loved to repower with a 200 but you just don't have a chance to run that boat that fast becasue it is such a rough ride. I would go with a four stroke no more that 150 hp max. Unless you are running on a calm river you could not do WOT. Here on Lake Erie, I could hardly ever open her up with out the fear of the throwing someone overboard.
posted 09-27-2003 11:53 AM ET (US)
I have a 78 with a 1990 200 hp johnson. It' way more motor than I need.With the 9.9 kicker hanging alongside I think the weight is a little too much as well.
posted 09-29-2003 10:09 PM ET (US)
I think you guys are totally missing the point here.
Maximum hp rating isn't just for speed, it's the best hp for that boat.
You ask why,....rule of thumb, buy a small engine & run her hard just to cruise at 30 mph, buy the biggest she's rated for & run her "nice & easy" like 1,000 rpms less at cruise & get far better fuel economy & the same cruise speed at less rpms because of the engine being able to twist more prop thus the same cruise speed at much less rpms.
My boat is far to powerful to run at wot for any length of time, but my cruise speed [ 30 / 34 mph ] gives me "OVER" 5 mpg.
Were talking about a 21 ft boat here.
Remember what i'm going to say, ....try & save a buck by "under/powering" your boat & you "WILL" be very, very sorry.
I'v got over 700 hours on my engine & less then 4 minutes at wot.
Sure she runs 60 mph but thats not the beauty of it, the beauty is she cruises at 30 / 34 mph at 3,200/ 3,300 rpms & 5.5 plus mpg.
You wont get anywhere near that with a 140 running her at 4,500 rpms & using far more fuel.
Rule of thumb, if you want a happy boat, put the biggest engine she can handle on her.
No, absolutly not do you have to run her at wot, hell i'm 65 years old & very, very glad i'v got the hp i'v got, wouldn't even think for 1 second of going under 150 hp as I owned before, let alone put a 140/4 stroke on a 21 ft boat.
Your talking 40 percent hp "UNDER" max rating, damn near 1/2.
You "WILL" be sorry if you go that route.
posted 10-02-2003 06:51 AM ET (US)
I am not convinced by your logic. Larger motor and better fuel economy?
I never go any faster than what gets me up on plane. Spinal issues keep me slow and steady. I can't see a 200HP motor being the most cost effective means for me.
Anyone care to share their feelings on this one?
posted 10-02-2003 09:21 AM ET (US)
Jayr, I stand on my original comments. 150 HP of new Yamaha or Honda 4 stroke or the 140 HP Suzuki 4 stroke should be plenty for you. Like Bigshot said there are some really good deals on the Suzuki so I would be leaning that way. You will have plenty of "cruise speed" and you won't be overloading the engine either. Due to the lack of much vee at the stern, actually more of a rounded center section and two flattened sponsons on the transom the boat boat planes easily compared to most, pounds more and is faster. Anyone who has much experience, such as 5 mins. in a 3' chop, will know you don't go fast in that hull unless it is calm, very calm. With a 200 HP you will get added weight, added cost, bigger engine to fish around and less fuel economy. A 3500 rpm cruise speed with a 200HP will be more than you can take in anything but calm, slick water. I needed calm water to run my 1976, 175 Mercury at 3500 rpm. Now that was an engine rated at the propshaft not the crank like today's engines. Once again the Whaler catalog of 1975 says 42 MPH with a 150 HP. How fast do you need to go? The argument of having the biggest rated motor and running it easy doesn't really apply to this hull. Reason being the rough ride. You can go with the 150/140 and still run it plenty easy and still have great fuel economy and still have plenty of comfortable cruise speed.
posted 10-02-2003 09:25 AM ET (US)
Sal is 100% correct. Weight isn't the issue with the big blocks anyway, as they're within a few pounds of each other. A 140 (especially a 4-stroke 140) will be a pig on the 21 Outrage. You'll hate it.
posted 10-02-2003 11:04 AM ET (US)
I have to disagree with sal. And I own this hull.
Most know that this hull can hurt you, and we spend a lot of time just on plane, around 19 -22 mph. really.
I might actually repower with a 115 johnson carb motor. Our ancient 140, which probably is putting out 100hp on a good day now, is quite adequate for our needs.
posted 10-02-2003 12:04 PM ET (US)
Trask.....have you ever ridden in a 21' like this. They do well with 115's. With a 140 she will do low 40's, that aint a "pig".
Sal you are correct in the running it easy part but being a 200Ficht is about $12k and a 140 Suzuki is about $7500.....it will take a LONG time to make that up in gas savings.....which by the way will not happen being the 140 will burn less than 5gph at cruise.
posted 10-03-2003 03:45 PM ET (US)
The Suzuki 140 4 stroke has been and still is at the top of the list.
I must add however, the new E-Tec's have caught my eye but new technology scares me....
posted 10-08-2003 01:46 PM ET (US)
I think you get a better deal on the Suz 140s... maybe even down around 6,500 closer to Xmass.
Question... how big a difference between the Suz 115 v 140 on that 21 foot hull? It will easily plane and get you close to 35 - 38 knots... maybe good enough for any lake.
Hell... put on an Armstrong and install twin 115s... that would be an interesting rig.
posted 10-09-2003 07:11 AM ET (US)
Widely held "theory" that the max HP is the bet HP just do not apply to this hull. Nice theory but just like most theories there are exceptions and this is a clear cut case of one.
Jayr clearly states he is not a speed freak. The Whaler brochure of 1975 gives a top speed of 42 MPH with a 150 HP engine. In 1975 engines were rated at the crankshaft not the propshaft. That means a 150 HP engine today is going to have an edge over the 1975 engine. If Jayr is not happy with a solid cruise of 30MPH when the water is CALM then he should consider more power. From what he states he would be more than happy with that speed.
Trask, what "big blocks" are you talking about. Show me a 200HP 4 stroke that weighs less than a 150.
Lastly if you have never ridden in this hull in anything but calm water then you are giving advice on soemthing you just do not understand. I've owned two of these hulls so I do speak from years of experience with them.
posted 10-09-2003 07:46 PM ET (US)
A top speed of 38 - 40 MPH would be more than sufficient. With that said, what HP would get me there?
25 to 30 mph cruise is perfect.
I do run very big seas at times and expect that I'll be crawling through big waves quite often. 120 hp 140 hp?
What do you think?
posted 10-10-2003 07:09 AM ET (US)
Jay, I think the 140 HP, 4 stroke Suzuki would be a great fit for you. Prices I've seen look pretty good on these engines also. Good luck, John
posted 10-10-2003 11:28 AM ET (US)
The 140's are a few hundred more than the 115's so why underpower.
posted 10-12-2003 10:03 AM ET (US)
posted 10-14-2003 01:48 AM ET (US)
Hello to all, I have a 21' banana boat, O or R. I can never remember what the center council is...... that I use to fish halibut and crab here in the Bay Area. Several years ago I put a pair of Merc. 75hp. 4-strokes on the boat and have used them extensively. I now have very near 2000 hours on them. I had a minor problem that was taken care of quickly by the dealer in the first year that involved some water leaking into the oil pan. Since then they are performing very well. I would like to just give you a benchmark to work by from my experience. When I installed the motors I was aware of the extra weight involved and ultimately put a 2X4 under the engine mount to the top of the transom to prevent any extra water from going into the splash well. THis has proven to be helpfull. As far as to having enough power and speed ......I usually cruise at 18 to 23 knts at 2800 to 2900 rpm. This is read by looking at my DGPS for an extended period of time. Top speed would be read at 38 to 39 knts at 5300 rpm. I usually have a lot of weight on the boat in the form of fishing gear. During crab season I have a diesel hydraulic power pak that weighs around 200# and anywhere from 10 to 15 crabpots weighing around 85# each plus bait another 150#, a crab block and davit 150# etc. I have no problem getting on a plane even when I am fully loaded with a ton of crab. Since these boats are basically built on "plane" there is not a real need to over power them. I had a Merc. 150 2-stroke on the boat before and find that the twin 75's are actually more powerful than the 150. If you are going to go offshore a lot and often I would suggest that you invest in twin engines. The safety factor is undeniable. As far a cruising above 25 knt. I can only assume you live in a different area than Northern California. Here that speed is possible only on several occasions. This year was especially windy and for a short while exceptionally flat. Anyway good luck on whatever you purchase. I hope you get a benchmark from my point of view that might help your decision. -ED
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.