Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  22' Outrage power

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

Author Topic:   22' Outrage power
fina posted 10-06-2003 05:02 PM ET (US)   Profile for fina   Send Email to fina  
I have a 1988 22' outrage and am considering repowering with a 2002 200HP Mercury Carbed. Will this be ample power for this boat?
lhg posted 10-06-2003 07:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Mercury's prop charts show 51 mph on a 22, running a 19" prop, load range 2600-4500. A 17" pitch prop will give 46 mph, 2900-5000#. If boat is in good shape, no bottom paint, I would assume it would turn the 19" prop. You decide how much speed you're after.
fina posted 10-06-2003 09:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for fina  Send Email to fina     
thanks. So what you are saying is a 200HP 2 stroke will run nice on this boat.

I was concerned because everyone on this site talks about a 225 hp on the 22 outrage.

John Bocskay posted 10-06-2003 11:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for John Bocskay  Send Email to John Bocskay     
I had the same rig, go with the 17" prop, top end 5400rpm's, the 19" is too much prop....
Sal DiMercurio posted 10-07-2003 12:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Personally I really don't think that engine can twist a 19p prop.
I think that Merc needs 6,000 rpms & I doubt it will twist a 19 over 5,000, unless it's jacked up & running real, real light with 10 gallons of fuel.
A 200 is a good engine for that boat.
A buddy of mine is running an old 1986.. 235 hp on his & he runs 50 mph.
I would think a 2000 ....200 hp is putting out close to 220 hp.
Sal
Plotman posted 10-07-2003 11:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
I have a 22 with a T top and a 1991 2.5L Merc 200 turning a 17p prop.

Lightly loaded, I see ~43 mph on the GPS at about 5300 rpm.

Cruises comfortably at ~ 32 at 4000 rpm.

David


mustang7nh posted 10-07-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for mustang7nh  Send Email to mustang7nh     
91 22OR, 1995 Yam 250 carb, no t-top, Stilleto(not sure on pitch), mounted on third hole from top. 5100 WOT RPM.

no bottom paint saw 47.9 gps with full tank fuel and me on calm day, slight chop.

now bottom paint saw 45.6 gps with slight head wind, later that day with 15 knot wind behind me and going down current (about 2-3 mph) saw 49.5 on gps, hence about same speed of 45-46 real life.

My engine runs fine but has a murky history (see my other posts in general forum).

IMO 200 minimum (just ok)
225 good
250 best

Can't say how years 1995 to 2002 will change results so I"m basing it on my boats '95 performance. Mount it high with good prop for high setup, improves ride dramatically.

Good luck.

lhg posted 10-08-2003 02:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Plotman's boat, without a tee top, and a littel engine elevation, could probably do more like 46-47. For that speed, a 19" prop would be needed.
David Ratusnik posted 10-08-2003 02:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
fina- I've just repowered my '86 Outrage with a 03 200hp Yamaha. Currently, running a 15 x 17' aluminum Yamaha prop to sort out the boat. This past weekend with a full tank of gas, smooth water, t top, spray dodger and the wife plus 3 kids the boat at WOT turns 5400 rpms--trimmed out engine just a smidge (sorry). This is at the top of the operating range according to Yamaha. I may give a few mph over the 19'pitch I was running previously, not certain. But, out of the hole the 17' is a screamer- no need for using the trim tabs-- they made a difference with the 19' Johnson 225. I just got off the phone ordering up a SS Yamaha prop as I am
very happy with the performance of the 17' pitch. David
fina posted 10-08-2003 05:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for fina  Send Email to fina     
so you are saying the 200hp is not overworked?
Sal DiMercurio posted 10-08-2003 11:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
David, not to knock any product but, a s/s Yamaha prop is not a performance prop by a long shot & your going to pay through the nose for it.
If it were me, i'd go with either a Merc prop [ kinda pricy ] or a Stiletto s/s for 1/2 the price & far better performace then the Yamaha s/s prop. [ $249.00 for the Stiletto ], & your performace will really open your eyes to the performance difference between the props.
Just food for thought.
Sal
David Ratusnik posted 10-09-2003 06:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
fina, sal--

Fina- The 200 is perfect. Save the gas. I ran a 225 Johnson for 3 yrs- 300+ hrs/yr. The new 200 Yam EFI is light, 253 lbs, on a 2100 '86 hull. It boogies.

Sal- The best quote I've gotten on the Stilleto (sp) is $350, while I have the ability to buy the Yam Saltwater 17' at #$350. I haven't taken on the Yam yet, or paid for it, so what do I get over the Yam with the Stilleto- Curious???? Thanks for the info.

David

andygere posted 10-09-2003 07:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I'm running an '89 Mercury 200 (carbed) on my '89 Outrage 22 Cuddy. With bottom paint and a small T-top and enclosure, she will do 43 mph turning a 19 pitch Merc High Five prop with 2 adults, full gas and gear. RPMs are around 5300. The boat performs wonderfully with the 200, and the five blade prop really helps her to get on plane fast, and really holds in rough conditions. It's plenty of power for that boat, you won't be dissappointed.
Perry posted 10-09-2003 07:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
David, are you sure that Yamaha 200 EFI weighs 253 lbs? If so that is one light engine!
David Ratusnik posted 10-09-2003 07:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
P-- 453 as per Yam manual. Sorry about the 253. Thanks David
mustang7nh posted 10-09-2003 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for mustang7nh  Send Email to mustang7nh     
Dave- I think you mean 453#

Respectfully submitted.
------
My guess is, and others please correct me if I'm wrong, that hulls themselves have certain performance parameters based on their designs and the laws of hydrodynamics. Consequently, a given hull may need (hypothetically) 125 horsepower to keep it on plane at 30 mph. Outboards I believe are rated at WOT. Hence, the differences relatively similar outboards (same displacement) show their colors at full throttle and perhaps off the line if conditions are calling for a lot of grunt. Many Whalers are very light for their respective engines so I'm not sure this low end issue will be an issue for most.

Getting back to my example, a 200, 225, 250.... will all put out my imaginary 125 horse needed to push the boat 30mph. Sadly as you go faster the forces of drag increase so that, lets say 20 horsepower from 100-120hp may produce an increase of 5 mph, but that same increase of 20 hp will only increase 2mph at 200-220. Perhaps the analogy would be more accurate to focus on the necessary hp to produce similar speed increases at increasing speeds. The right term might be nonhyperparobolic in referring to the dissimilarity of forces applied to produce the same effect.

So while a 250 will be faster in the top end, it might not be much faster than the 200. And for any speeds below the 200's celing speed, the engines likely will perform similarly. Most people do not chronically run around at 95% throttle, so in real world useage you may not see alot of difference between 200 vs 225. Proping, mounting height, and rigging/load of your boat probably have as much if not more to do with performance than a straight 200 vs 225 comparison. As Dave mentioned, shaving 75-100 pounds off the back can also be dramatic and make up for 25 ponies.

With that said, some will say that the higher hp engine will work less hard and give you better mpg and longer life. In this application I'm not sure the gains are significant in those categories, just a guess though. More pragmatic, is the age ole resale. I believe that Whalers do sell better and for more money with max hp.

Last, and sorry to be so long, I'm not big on the carbs for one reason: fuel costs. I've seen a 55 cent increase from last year to this year and I am not optomistic on future prices. If you put alot of hours on it and don't own a gas station, you might be better paying up for a DI engine. Just my two cents.

Good luck!

PS no one ever regrets getting more hp!

Sal DiMercurio posted 10-10-2003 08:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Mustang, your ps says it all,....no one regrets having more hp.
Keep in mind that a 200 hp engine will twist more pitch at the same rpms as a 150 twisting less pitch, thus faster cruise at say 3,500 rpms & greater fuel economy.
When I ran a 150 hp Johnson on my V20 I needed to turn very near 4,000 rpms to cruise at 30 / 33 mph, now I'm twisting 2 & 4" more pitch, depending if i'm using the ocean prop, [ 19p ] or the river prop [21p] & getting 30/33 mph at darn near 800 rpms less then the 150 turning 4,000 rpms.
Once you start running an engine, especially a carbed 2 stroke 4,000 rpms or above your only going to get 2.0 / 2.5 mpg.
My milage increased by over 3 mpg when going from the carbed 150 to the DFI 200 hp. & still running at the same speeds.
You absolutly right, i'v "NEVER" heard anyone say they have to much power on their rig.
Sal
tchowes posted 10-14-2003 12:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for tchowes  Send Email to tchowes     
I've got an 86' Outrage Cuddy with a 1995 Mariner/Merc 225 3.0 carb. Top speed 42 mph, which is slower than most, perhaps because of bottom paint (any suggestions for any "easy" ways to strip down the paint?). However, cruises nicely at 24 mph at 3,200 rpm.

The 225 replaced a 1988 150 Merc which was slow when I had more than 4 people on the boat or with a full tank of fuel. Minimum rpm to plane was 4,000 rpm with any significant load.

I'm happy with the overall performance, but a Yamaha 200/225 sounds like it would be significantly faster than my motor.

Sal DiMercurio posted 10-14-2003 01:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
Andy, are you sure your turning 5,300 rpms or are you estimating?
If i'm not mistaken, that engine needs to turn 6,000 rpms not 5,300, if thats the case, your over proped.
An 89 carbed 200 twisting 19 inches of pitch on a 5 blade prop plus a "T" top & cuddy on a 22' boat at 5,300 rpms is awfully good if your tach is right.
For some reason it dosen't sound correct.
I'm running alot less boat [ 79 "V" 20 ] thats "MUCH" lighter [ 1,600 lbs ] & flatter on the bottom with a DFI 200 hp [ putting out 222 hp at the prop ] & only a 3 blade prop & 10 gallons of fuel & getting only 850 rpms more then you are with a 19p on 1' to 18" chop.
I think your turning 47/4800 rpms, 5,000 max on a good day.
You may be getting 43 mph but not getting 5,300 rpms, just to much prop to twist that high on a 14 year old carbed engine on that heavy of a boat.
Tchowes, what size prop are you twisting?
My guess is a 17p.
Sal
tchowes posted 10-14-2003 09:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for tchowes  Send Email to tchowes     
Sal,

Believe it or not, I think I'm running a stainless, 19" pitch, complete with a few nicks Planing is a little slow compared to the 150hp on my old Outrage 21, but that's a whole different boat. 5,100 rpm max. I should probably get the prop refinished, shouldn't I.

The bottom of my boat needs a serious sanding and removal of layers of bottom paint. In fact, I only paint the bottom every other year. I hate crawling underneath my low bunk trailer (and it doesn't get any easier as I get older). While in the water, I usually do a little snorkling and scrub the bottom of the boat a couple of times per year, especially before I pull it out (yeah, I know I could pressure wash it, but I'm strange that way).

Regardless, the 225 pushes it nicely. The Merc/Mariner is reasonably quiet, though I'd be lusting a 4 stroke, if it wasn't for the extra weight and less performance versus a Direct Injection OB.

lhg posted 10-14-2003 02:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Sal - the older Merc 2.4/2.5 liter carbureted 200HP is red-lined at 5600, while the EFI version is red-lined at 5800. The EFI's are good for a few extra MPH, under same load conditions. Carbed Merc 200's, 1999 and later, are also now red-lined at 5800.

Andy's figures are just about what the prop charts show, and with a 3 blade prop instead of 5, would get 1 or 2 MPH more top end. The Mercury High Five is an acceleration and pulling prop, not a top end prop. Without the tee top, he would pick up another 2 or 3mph. A 19" pitch prop on a Mercury 200 can push a boat up to 50 mph.

Mercurymarine.com, incidentally, has some new, very descriptive information on proper applications of their various propeller designs. It's very interesting stuff for those trying to decide which style and type of prop to purchase.

andygere posted 10-17-2003 02:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Sal,
The numbers I posted are with 2 adults in the boat, and the trim really dialed in. Conditions were also ideal, 6" delta chop, just enough to ripple the surface. I do not recall if I had wind or current on my side. The enclosure on my T-top is a real wind catcher, but I don't mind at all since it keeps me warm and dry. I usually run in much rougher conditions on Monterey Bay, and rarely can run the boat WOT. For my uses, I think the boat it propped correctly and I'm very pleased with the way it runs. If I kept the boat on protected water and did a lot of high-speed running, I'd might want a different prop. I really do like the way the boat accelerates, even with a big load. It will probably be a lot of fun for skiing and wakeboarding when I get around to it. Let me know next time you get down my way and we'll go for a run in her. I am interested in your thoughts on this boat's performance with the 19 pitch High Five vs. a conventional 3-blade wheel in the waters where I do most of my boating.
Bigshot posted 10-17-2003 02:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
The 200 is better on fuel than a 225 which is better than a 250. The Yamaha 250 will suck down about 28gph at WOT vs about 23 for the 225 and about 20 for the 200.....carbed engines, not DI or 4S. This also trickles down to cruise speed as well. Engines are not as cut and dry as you think, same reason a 200hp V6 in your car gets worse milage than a 150 at the same speed. I have a 225 carbed Johnson and that biotch wreaks havoc with my wallet, doubt a 200 would be much better but every little bit helps when your suckin down 12gph at cruise. The Merc 200 is also a smaller block than the 225. The difference between the OMC's is the 200 has 3 two throat carbs and mine has 4 six throat.
lhg posted 10-17-2003 08:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Andy - Regarding your 19" High Five, Mercury clearly states that a High Five must be run 1 1/2" elevated to accurately utilize it's stated pitch. If one is run fully submerged, 2" of additional EFFECTIVE pitch apply, so in your case that would be 21" pitch.

From what I have read, a High Five prop could be 1 to 2 mph slower top end, as a compromise to the high pulling, offshore holding and acceleration capabilities. You should be running the prop with medium sized vent hole inserts.

To maximize top end capabilities, you could switch to a either a 3 blade Mirage Plus 19" pitch, or 4 bladed Revolution, 19" pitch. Both should be run 1 1/2" high also, especially the Revolution.

Mercury's 4 bladed Offshore prop is no longer recommended for engines over 175HP.

andygere posted 10-20-2003 01:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Larry,
By 1 1/2" elevated, do you mean the anti-cav plate should be 1 1/2" above the keel, or is there another reference point? My motor is mounted with the top set of bolts in the third hole, counting down from the top. Does that sound about right? I'll be hauling it out for maintenance and an inland trip next week, so I'll take some actual measurements of the plate position with the motor down.

Overall, I like the High Five, since I can't really use the top end very often in the water where I keep my boat. It really gets that Outrage up and moving fast, with almost no bow rise at all. Unfortunately my prop is older (1989) and it predates the adjustable vent holes.

lhg posted 10-20-2003 01:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I think the middle set of holes sounds correct Andy. Not real familiar with the 22 transom, however.

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.