Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Re-power Revenge 22 WT Whaler Drive
|Author||Topic: Re-power Revenge 22 WT Whaler Drive|
posted 12-23-2003 03:09 AM ET (US)
I'm seriously thinking about repowering in the next couple months...current power is a tired 15 yr old Mercury Laser XRi--rated at 220hp, but based on the performance prediction formula and observed speeds, only 178hp today :(
options I'm considering...
* 225 EFI (Yamaha 225 OX66 or Mercury 225 EFI)
No, I would not be looking to new motors in any of these options, more likely looking for 3 to 4 yr old motor(s), esp since 2002 was the last of the 225hp OX66 (saltwater series). I expect twins to cost up to 50% more, installed.
Thoughts/opinions/comments/input desired from the crowd here...
OK...what else should I be thinking about? Thanks in advance!
posted 12-23-2003 09:47 AM ET (US)
You don't say what year, your boat is, but I would probably limit twins to a boat with the newer splash-well design that goes all the way across (89 and newer, I believe). The boat is rated for 700lbs of motor.
On the older style, you are liable to have a fair amount of slop over the transom that gets by the splashwell with the weight of twins.
posted 12-23-2003 11:25 AM ET (US)
Model year '89 (though built in '88) but ...
full transom--whaler drive intended for twins.
posted 12-23-2003 08:40 PM ET (US)
If I recall correctly from your earlier posts, your 1989 Revenge Walkthough Whaler Drive is only rated for 240hp. That being the case, then a single 225 or twin 115s is the max hp you use without being "overpowered".
If that isn't an issue for you then I would recommend a 250 instead of the 225 in a single configuration. Lots of power and a lot less weight than twins (200+ lbs less). Although a kicker will obviously negate some of that.
While I love twins, I feel the added weight can cause problems. The full transom and the added buoyancy of the Whaler Drive definately help and so does the Revenge cabin. A pair of Evinrude 150 DFIs or better yet the 175s (they weigh the same at 419lbs.) would be nice and would weigh a little less than the Mercury OptiMax 150/175s (431-452lbs).
I've read great reviews of the Suzuki/Johnson 140 4-strokes (410lbs.) However I expect it would be tough to find a used pair of these around.
posted 12-24-2003 03:44 AM ET (US)
You have a good memory!
I gleaned the following from the Whaler CD Catalog Price & Specification sections, coming up with the following:
However, confusing this is page 54-specifications from the 1988 main catalog...for the 22' WD hulls, where an asterisk for WD hulls is noted in the footnotes as "Whaler Drive models' maximum horsepower ratings may exceed outboard. See your local Boston Whaler dealer for details..."
So what did the '89 WD hulls rate? My hull was shipped from the factory in July '88 as an '89 model...with a cap plate noting only 240hp...while 22' WD models from other years have cap plates showing either 300hp or 400hp. Unfortunately, Chuck Bennet's response to my inquiry was that Whaler could not change the plate after delivery. (I do note the plate is held in place by just a few pop-rivets...now to find a replacement plate? ;)
As I said, 300hp is arguably overpowered...motorsports (autos) experience puts me in the Sal camp of maxing out HP as much as possible--better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
posted 12-24-2003 11:56 AM ET (US)
Just for reference..
I have a 1988 25 Walk-thru, with a 1999 Yamaha OX66 250hp, no bracket, just standard notched transom. Carries 140 gallons of fuel. Stainless 19' pitch. And trim tabs.
With 2-4 people, all gear (tons of stuff), 3/4 tank here are the stats:
20 kts/23mph @ 3800 rpm, 26knots/30 mph @ 4000rpm, tops out at 36knots/42mph @ 5200-5300 rpm that's plenty for me.
I estimate 12 gal of fuel/hr at typical cruise.(3700-4100 rpm)
Engine has been bulletproof.
Drawbacks: OX66 250 runs on 4 or 5 cylinders at low rpm (they are designed to do so), there is a little roughness until 1300 rpm when all 6 are playing.
IMHO, if you arenít too concerned with fuel, an OX66 250 is an awesome powerhouse.
posted 12-24-2003 12:29 PM ET (US)
I saw an interesting footnote on the back page of my '89 catalog. It said that Whalerdrive models require twin engines. I don't recall seeing that before, but it begs the following question. What is the maximum motor weight suggested by Whaler for a 22' hull with Whalerdrive?
posted 12-24-2003 12:58 PM ET (US)
I agree with Barry on the single 250. I think your most cost effective solution is to find a Mercury 250 EFI. Plenty of power for the 22 Revenge WT WD and you should be able to use your existing rigging.
The next best choice would be a Yamaha 250 EFI but you would have to redo the controls and gauges.
In my estimation, switching over to twins would cost more than twice as much as going with a Mercury 250 EFI. Even with twin Mercurys, you would need a new binacle dual control, another set of gauges, a reconfiguration of the hydraulic steering at the motor end and some minor hull work on the Whaler Drive. At the same speeds produced by a single engine, the equivalent twins will burn up 1.5 times more fuel. Your cruising range will be reduced considerably.
posted 12-24-2003 01:09 PM ET (US)
As I read CFR Title 33 Part 183.21 you don't even need a plate on a 22 foot boat. My 28 did not have a plate when it arrived from Boston Whaler. I don't know if they are installed on any boat over 20 feet. If the hull is performing OK with 300 or 350 HP motors and that is what I wanted I would remove the plate a plug the holes. Long URL Jim may delete... http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/julqtr/33cfr183.21.htm
posted 12-24-2003 02:15 PM ET (US)
I know my 1989 27 has a plate stating the maximum number of people but I can't recall whether it states maximum power.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 12-24-2003 02:22 PM ET (US)
Lots of topics mixed in here but I want to address a few:
If you want to go to twins, I'd suggest you consider a pair of 150s as we know the boat will handle it regardless of what the capacity plate on your boat says. A pair of Johnson 150's are not that much more money than some of the high-tech 250s. Your biggest limitation there is the fuel tank capacity at 77 gallons, but even then it's not going to be bad.
The Johnson 150 is a bullet proof engine that has been made for years. It's not particularly heavy and is a rocket compared to the heavier four strokes. Fuel mileage will be much better than the older 90 degree OMC designs too.
Regarding the horsepower rating on a 22 Whaler Drive, I have never before heard of such a boat having the 240 hp rating of the notched transom model. I HAVE seen a few 22's with the 400 hp rating and equipped with a pair of Johnson 200s. This does seem a bit much but twin 150s should be fine especially when you compare the overall length and weight of a 22 Whaler Drive model with a 25 notched transom model which we know handles 300 hp easily.
Your interpretation of CFR Title 33 Part 183.21 is partially correct. A manufacturer does not HAVE to assign a maximum horsepower rating to a boat over 20 feet, but if it does, then there it is. Any dealer or insurance company will probably take note of it.
In reality, I doubt anybody is actually going to inspect this boat to see what the plate says. If it were to disappear it would not raise any eyebrows at all. There seems to be a bit of an obsession with capacity plates around here. I think Linus should just figure out what he really wants and then proceed.
What 1989 catalog do you have? Where is such a footnote? That does not sound correct. You can always put a single on a Whaler Drive equipped 25 or smaller, but the strut needs to be removed and a 25" shaft motor needs to be used instead of the 20" shaft that the twins need to be.
Now having said all that, I will weigh in here with my own opinion that if it were me, I would probably put a single 225 or 250 on it. If the performance of that old Mercury even close to satisfactory, you will be very pleased with a new 225 or 250. Your fuel and money will go further and you will have greater weight capacity and lower noise levels. You will also have room back there for your kicker and perhaps an Igloo cooler on the Whaler Drive for fish if that's how you handle salmon once you land them.
I would not hesitate to fish in the ocean out of Neah Bay with a single equipped Whaler (in fact I have, on many, many occasions) especially if you have a nice kicker.
posted 12-24-2003 02:25 PM ET (US)
I have the 1990 Revenge 22 WT (no WD, but workboat specs)) on Cetacea pg 44 (also have a 9.9 Yamaha 4-stroke kicker). I repowered this past spring with a 2003 Merc 225 Optimax. I did a lot of research and pricing - new, used, in country, out of country, Yamaha, Merc, Suzuki, Evinrude, EFI, DFI, 4S, dealers, service departments, price. Came up with a good dealer, service, price, mpg, performance, etc with the Merc. Draw back - expensive DFI oil, but if you buy in bulk, its $12/gal. It was the best for my circumstances. Your needs/desires may differ.
2004 Merc 225 Optimax, 5-yr warranty, installed, new instruments (SmartCraft all-in-one gauge), controls, two props (19" aluminum Black Max 3-blade and 17" stainless Revolution-4 4-blade[$460]), 5% tax included - $13,800
For comparisons, my old 1989 225 Johnson, carb'd:
Merc 225 EFI - I wanted better mgp and newer technology. Got the word that the EFI was also very thirsty. For some of the distances that I run, better mpg was a concern. About $2,000 cheaper ($2,000 buys a lot of gas).
The word I got on the Suzuki 225 EFI was that it was thirsty, poor mpg. But best price $11,300 installed & propped. Good dealer. 6-year warranty.
Yamaha 4-stroke, $15,800 with aluminum prop. Not the dealer you'd want to deal with. 1-yr warranty (commercial use gave best price, but worst warranty)
Yamaha 225 EFI and 4-stroke from Canada - good prices, but shipping of boat for installation, etc, took it out of the picture. Shipping the engine to me and finding somebody to install - I didn't want the hassle. 1-yr warranty (commercial use gave best price, but worst warranty)
Evinrude - they never got back to me.
Used engine - 123 miles away via ferry. Didn't want a used engine as the choice was very limited. Other used engines availabe in Lower 48, but didn't want to take the chance. A buddy down the hall just bought a 2003 Yamaha 225 4-stroke with a blown powerhead (repaired good as new by the dealer I looked at). $10,700, not installed.
Twins are nice, but outboards are fairly reliable now.
Good luck with your decision. Please keep us advised as to what you do.
posted 12-24-2003 02:35 PM ET (US)
My mistake in the post above. Mine is a 2003 Optimax, not 2004.
posted 12-24-2003 05:25 PM ET (US)
A quick check of my CD tells me that my paper catalog is the 1990, not 1989 as I thought. I was referring to footnote (7) on the back cover specifications which reads:
25" engine shaft for single installations and 20" engine shaft for dual installations (all Whaler Drive models require dual engines).
The footnote is applied to all the Revenge models, and all the Outrages except for the 27s. As I said, I'd never noticed this before, and was quite surprised to read it. Any ideas? Perhaps it was only meant to apply the the 25' and larger hulls.
posted 12-25-2003 10:04 AM ET (US)
The recommendations for shaft length cited above seem to be standard for the notched transom on all Boston Whaler boat models with the classic constant-deadrise vee-hull form. The transom height is such that a single engine mounted on keel centerline will need a 25-inch shaft length, while twin engines, mounted at the usual spacing (29.75-inches) astride the centerline, will need only a 20-inch shaft.
In some cases, it might be prudent to use a 25-inch shaft engine on a Whaler Drive (or other set back bracket) in order to increase the height of the power head above the water. In some sea states the power head of an outboard engine mounted on a long set back bracket can come rather close to the water, particularly when the boat is throwing a large stern wave and is coming off plane. I believe that LHG has used 25-inch engines on his fine OUTRAGE 25 (with an Armstrong set back bracket) precisely for this reason.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 12-25-2003 01:48 PM ET (US)
You're right, that's exactly what it says yet we know that's not the case. Many Whaler Drive Whalers in the 20 to 25 foot range have been equipped with single engines. I think this is a case of a catalog not being entirely accurate; this has happened several times before. As always, it is best to consult the factory and see exactly what they have to say about this if there is any question.
Yes, it is very desirable to keep those expensive powerheads out of the drink and 25' shaft outboards will help with that, but only if the transom or bracket they are bolted to is set up for them.
In the case of the Whaler Drive on the 20 to 25 foot models, twins outboard motors were to be 20" shaft models. Larry's boat is equipped with an Armstrong bracket which was installed after-market and was (presumably) bolted on at a height that would allow twin 25" shaft motors.
The (original) Whaler Drives were more than just outboard brackets. They also provided additional hull surface to the hull effectively extending the hull length. As such they cannot be adjusted vertically to accommodate different shaft length motors.
In several cases I have seen Whaler Drive equipped versions of the 22 or 25 foot models that were repowered with a pair of 25" shaft motors. Even with the motors mounted at the highest bolt hole position, they are still too low by today's standards. I believe Jack Martin (Whalerdude) has an Outrage 22 Whaler Drive with a pair of Yamaha's rigged in exactly such a scenario.
posted 12-25-2003 02:32 PM ET (US)
Tom--Great observation, to which I would add this: Probably because of the additional buoyancy and the extension of the hull line caused by the immersed portion of the Whaler Drive, the use of 25-inch shaft engines is probably not necessary to put the power heads at sufficient height. The Whaler Drive will probably tend to keep the 20-inch engines dry.
On LHG's boat, the bracket does not provide any buoyancy and is not immersed in the water. The hull pitches fore and aft at some point on the original hull length (not augmented by the bracket) and probably tends to stick the engines down into the water farther than would occur with a Whaler Drive model.
posted 12-25-2003 08:37 PM ET (US)
I've got twin 25" Johnson 150s on my 1988 22 Outrage Whaler Drive. The engines are mounted all the way up but are still a little low. members.aol.com/bburtensha/outrage/engine3.jpg
Eagleman has twin 25" Mercury 200s on his 25 Revenge WD. His are also mounted all the way up and sit higher than mine. It appears that the Mercury engines have another bolt hole that permits higher mounting.
posted 12-26-2003 05:33 AM ET (US)
Now you have me confused...and a bit concerned, on your comment about the 25" single/20" twin heights.
I have understood that (25 single/20 twin) to be true for the notched transoms. For the WD, my understanding was that the WD enabled Whaler to specify twins with 25" heights, allowing more HP than was typically available with 20" outboards (that is, high HP outboards were more predominantly available in 25" heights) though the 25" twins would have to be mounted higher by 2-3"
I reviewed the wording of whaler's brochures/spec sheets from '87>'91...my reading of the wording does not draw a conclusion to the required OB heights for twins on WDs. In most of the earlier brochures/spec sheets, the footnote on 25 single/20 twin applied only to the OB model--nothing was specified on the WD model apart from a 25" height requirement. Since they footnoted the OB models but not the WD models, can we conclude the footnote does not apply to WD models? Perhaps, but that doesn't help us understand the WD models.
Then we get to 1991. On the back cover-specifications for the 1991 Main Catalog, footnote 8 for 22 and 25 WD models says "Requires 25" shaft length for single or dual engine installations."
Perhaps there were different WD molds used over the years? I want to doubt it, but...something else I've been a bit confused about...the configuration of the WD "transom" from one example to another. From photos, it appears there have been two configurations...one where the WD "transom" top (where the stainless plate runs across) is at a single level from port to starboard (Barry's, Alkar's, and one I looked at in Canada), and another where the WD transom dips in the center a couple inches (mine--there are actually two stainless top-plates on mine, with the dipped center section uncovered by any top-plate).
OK. 'nuf for tonite.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 12-26-2003 08:42 AM ET (US)
Quattro: I'll dig up some pics of my 22' Whaler with Whaler Drive and a single 250hp Yamaha EFI OB.
I find this package to be nearly "perfect". The weight of a single OB on the Whaler Drive makes the OB sit very high. The powerhead never comes close to the waters surface.
I've seen a bunch of 22'/Whaler Drive boats that sit way too low for my liking with twin OB's. Other than the advantage of "get home power", I don't see why twins offer any real significant advantage. Save your money, get as new a single large V6 as you can afford, and enjoy.
BTW, my single 250hp OB gives nearly 48 mph WOT(light load) with Tee Top.
posted 12-26-2003 02:37 PM ET (US)
My 1989 22' Outrage Whaler-drive came with a 300 hp rating on the capacities plate, so I assume that's what came on the revenge of the same length.
I have twins at 505 lbs each. They run fine, but they do privide an aft-heavy static trim. I think it makes sense to stay near or below the 700 pound max weight specified by whaler.
My twin 115s produce about 40 MPH WOT (GPS)with a moderate load (360 lbs fuel + 800 pounds people and gear).
posted 12-26-2003 04:55 PM ET (US)
Alkar, twin 115s at 505 lbs each ???????
What in the world kind of engines are you running?
My 200 DFI weighs 504 lbs.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 12-26-2003 05:08 PM ET (US)
Well now maybe I'm the one who's confused. It sounds as if your Whaler Drive was notched to accommodate the single outboard motor. I've always seen the top edge of the Whaler Drive's transom as straight.
What does your Whaler Drive look like? Is it notched for your single 250?
The Whaler Drive follows the shape of the hull it is bolted to, so it has the same Vee shape and thus will be deeper in its center than at a spot 14.875" off center. If the Whaler Drive is designed for 25" twins (and that IS how I read footnote #8 from the 1991 catalog) then how could a 25" single be used?
Also, if the Whaler Drive is designed for twin 25" shaft motors, then why does Barry report that his 25" motors are too low even when mounted at their highest possible mounting position?
Also remember there were two different "Whaler Drives", the first being what we are talking about here and the other an outboard bracket designed and built by Salt Shaker Marine, bought and installed by Whaler and sold as a "Whaler Drive". But if I remember correctly, these were only installed on the 25 "Wide Body", the Whaler 27s and the Walkaround 21 and 23.
Really, a phone call or email to Boston Whaler Customer Service would probably answer these questions. My suspicion is that we are in a bit of a gray area here. There is not necessarily one perfect mounting height for all motors and these boats were designed many years ago when the idea of having the cavitation plate above the water's surface was just not the conventional wisdom.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 12-26-2003 05:14 PM ET (US)
Alex has a pair of Honda four stroke 115's on his Outrage 22 Whaler Drive. You can see a photo of them here:
posted 12-26-2003 08:46 PM ET (US)
After I figure out why I can't access my FTP account, I'll post pix of an 1989 25' Frontier (with WhalerDrive) with a pair of 2003 115 Yamaha 4 Strokes... (looking forward to breaking these in...) My spec sheet at the office says the 25' with WD uses 20" twins, or 25" single engine, and that you need to move the center strut support for a single engine install. (there's an amazing load of information in the owners manual, anyone else have one?)
|John from Madison CT||
posted 12-27-2003 07:46 AM ET (US)
Tom: My Whaler Drive is not notched, and the single Yamaha is a 25" shaft, mounted one hole from all the way down.
posted 12-27-2003 02:46 PM ET (US)
I agree with others that a big V6 single makes for great performance on the 22 hull. My Outrage 22 Cuddy/200 Mercury (carb) has a top speed of 43 mph, but also has great holeshot and likes to cruise at 30-32 mph. The 15 hp kicker moves it along at hull speed (around 6 mph) in all conditions, and trolls all day on a few gallons of gas. With the kicker rigged with electric start, and remote controls at the helm, it is easy to drive the boat on the kicker while trolling, and it provides get-you-home security if needed. The best part of this configuration is its light weight. I leave the stern plugs out (it has a notched transom and wide splashwell), and I've never had any water on the deck in any conditions. With a full transom Whaler Drive, this is much less of a consideration, but the light weight set-up still helps to keep the powerhead high and dry.
All that said, I can't help but admit I love the look of twins, and the idea of being able to plane the boat on one if need be. A pair of Johnson 115s (carb'ed) weigh 670 lbs., which should be just fine on the Whaler Drive. Tom's suggestion of a pair of Johnson 150s (766 lbs) sounds even better, and the weight is probably still fine with the added floatation provided by the Whaler Drive.
Does anyone know if a Revenge/Outrage 22/WD will plane on a single 115? What about a single 150? I know the catalog says 90 is all you need, but the qualifier is that it plane when propped for twin configuration. Otherwise, the major advantage of twins is lost. Barry, Alkar, others, can you plane on one?
posted 12-28-2003 02:43 AM ET (US)
wow...didn't know I'd get this much response here!
FWIW, I'm leaning toward a single...still have to decide 225 or 250 and on EFI or DFI...I'm impressed by the 50% increase in fuel economy going from carbs to Opti--anyone have experience going from EFI to DFI?
In the mean time, I went out and took a few pictures of the WD on my boat today. Here's a quick & dirty webpage I put together for it tonite...comments welcome.
That is true where the WD bolts to the actual hull, but at the trailing edge of the WD, there is no longer an actual V shaped "keel" but rather a flattened out "keel pad" that rises up from the keel line. This was more traditionally found on high-performance boats. I've got a photo on my website above.
posted 12-28-2003 08:54 AM ET (US)
Interesting, the 27 Whaler Drive is exactly how Tom described. There is no pad. The vee carries all the way to the transom and, but for the step where it bolts on, follows the shape of the vee of the hull.
posted 12-28-2003 11:05 AM ET (US)
I've got a copy of "Dealer Service/Technical Bulletin No.: 4-87". The subject is Rigging Whaler Drives. The second page is for "Whaler Drives shipped after Feb. 28, 1987, new single Whaler Drives and new 27 Whaler Drives". The 3rd paragraph states
I've never seen a notched transom Whaler Drive. Although I have seen other Whaler models where the transoms have been notched to accept a single engine with a 20" shaft.
posted 12-28-2003 05:18 PM ET (US)
Sal, the extreme aft-heavy static trim shown in the photo posted by Tom has now been partially corrected, as I have taken 120 pounds of batteries out of the transom storage area and moved it forward of the console(per your suggestion). I figure that moving the batteries had a net effect of taking about 150-170 pounds out of the transom area. It helped, but the extra 300 pounds of motor hanging on the extreme aft edge of the boat has a lot of leverage. It is very to counter-balance.
It's a difficult trade-off for me. I want the boat to sit level, but I'm getting great fuel economy and good handling and performance. The aft-heavy trim is lost underway.
My Hondas were on the boat when I bought it. If I keep the boat, I'd like to repower with twin 130-150 hp motors and keep the gross weight of the power under 800 lbs.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 12-29-2003 02:39 PM ET (US)
Now this is all very interesting. I did not know that the Whaler Drive design changed in 1987 to accommodate a single motor installation.
The flat spot on Linus's Whaler Drive effectively shortens the transom height of the Whaler Drive to make it more effective for a single 25" shaft motor. But this begs the question: Why is it then notched? I would think a notch might have been a work around for a pre 2-28-87 built Whaler Drive but this is not the case with Linus's boat.
Could it be that the dealer who rigged this boat had previously been doing this modification to the Vee shaped Whaler Drives and was not aware of the bulletin Barry makes reference to?
Given that 22 WD owners like John report perfectly satisfactory performance without the notch, why would it be there?
Linus, what is the ownership history of your boat? What dealer sold it originally? Is the motor you have now the original power?
posted 12-29-2003 06:16 PM ET (US)
My boat was shipped from the factory to Hawley's Boats & Motors in July 1988. The motor on the boat is a 1988 Mercury Laser 220 XRi with a ca. 1992 or 93 replacement powerhead, so I believe the motor to be original with the boat.
I am, I believe, the 4th owner of the boat, and have met the two previous owners, the last of whom owned the boat for about < 1 yr.
documentation: I did not receive an owners manual for my boat...I did get a photocopy of a manual for what looks like the earlier 80s hulls, as there is reference to the non-WT Revenge. Can anyone with an '89 hull (or '86-90 22' Revenge WT) tell me what kind of documentation they have for their boat? Thanks!
posted 12-29-2003 06:49 PM ET (US)
I've got the Owner's Manual for my 1990 Revenge 22 W/T. Do you want a copy?
posted 12-29-2003 09:18 PM ET (US)
Linus- I believe I have two identical manuals for the 22' hull. They are for the 87 model year. I wouldn't be opposed to giving you one if you felt you could use it. Pete
posted 12-29-2003 09:34 PM ET (US)
I am new to this board, but I have an 89 model 22 Cuddy WD with twin Yamaha 130's. The boat is a rocket, but only gets 1.9mpg. If I were to repower, I would go with a single 4 stroke. Probably a 200hp. As rigged now, the boat likes to run an 30 to 35mph cruising. The motors are most effecient at this speed, but in rough water the boat really beats me up. I installed two of the Stingray stabilizers & it helped with the pounding, but I lost a little mpg & top speed. I really love my Whaler, but I warn friends about the pounding before I take them out. In short interval swells, it's really bad. As for single installations, I saw a decal that says to remove the tube for single engines, so I guess it is possible to have a single. I would like to be able to drive slower to cut down on the pounding & get better mpg.
posted 01-02-2004 08:51 AM ET (US)
This discussion of engine shaft length recommendations for use with Whaler Drive models should also consider this:
In the 1988 Boston Whaler catalogue, the specifications for most outboard hulls carry this notation for engine shaft length:
25" with this footnote: (25" engine shaft for single installation and 20" engine shaft for dual installations).
In that same listing, the specifications for all Whaler Drive models of those same hulls carry this notation for engine shaft length:
25" (without any footnote annotation)
My reading of that is one uses 25" shaft length engines on a Whaler Drive.
I think this is at odds with some of the advice given above. Again, this is from the 1988 Catalogue.
|John from Madison CT||
posted 01-02-2004 07:04 PM ET (US)
Just as an FYI, I found a photo of my 22' Outrage with Whaler Drive and a single Yamaha 250hp Outboard.
Notice how high the stern sits with a single OB. Some with twins sit much lower, and this may or may not matter to you.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-02-2004 07:24 PM ET (US)
You almost had it. It's not html, but ubb code. You need only replace IMG with URL (or url). Really couldn't be much simpler. See: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/ubbcode.html
|John from Madison CT||
posted 01-02-2004 07:34 PM ET (US)
Tom: Muchas Gracias, I thought [IMG] was for images? But I suppose only if they post on the thread itself?
OK, I'll just use the URL instead.
posted 01-02-2004 07:39 PM ET (US)
Re how to link to an image: The forum software is configured to prevent inclusion of in-line images. Hyperlinks to them are appreciated, instead. It helps to keep the text easier to read.
Back to Whaler Drives--I am surprised no one commented on that recommendation from the Whaler Catalogue that all Whaler Drive models use 25-inch engines, apparently for both single or dual installations. Is not that in direct contradiction to advice given above?
posted 01-02-2004 08:02 PM ET (US)
I agree with you.. It appears that this WD was designed for twin outboards with a 20" shaft or a single outboard with a 20" shaft..
posted 01-02-2004 08:14 PM ET (US)
I just thought of something else..
Is it possible that this was a Prototype?? Or possibly a first production run before they realized that making the top of the drive straight across (instead of the notch) and keeping the V at the bottom (instead of making it flater) was cheaper to manufacture??
Just a thought.....
posted 01-03-2004 01:48 PM ET (US)
On further research through Tom Clark's CD collection, there is no mention, that I can find, of the Whaler Driver (WD) in any of the catalogs until 8/1/87..
Obviously they were made earlier. Can anyone elaborate more on this??
posted 01-03-2004 07:09 PM ET (US)
Update: Yesterday, I put down a deposit on a 225 Optimax.
We now return you to the thread drift I started ;)
20" twins or single on the WD? Based on my measurement of the transom height, possibly for the single, with the pad here. Height from the notch to the pad on my WD is 23.5" In theory, putting a 20" motor on that would leave the AV plate about 1.5" above bottom of pad. Hmmm... but for typical saltwater/roughwater use, I don't think I'd want a 20" motor back there.
However, mounting 20" twins on here would leave the AV plate easily 3+ inches above bottom of the WD hull--probably too high for proper operation.
Prototype? Based on a few other pictures out there, I've seen the straight-top and flat/pad bottom on a few other boats, with singles or twins.
roller trailer: no, i'm not thrilled with this. I have been looking into 1) a new aluminum, bunk trailer, 2) a new galvanized, bunk trailer, and 3) converting the existing roller trailer to bunks. 3 is likely to win out because it is 1/4, maybe 1/3 the cost of 1 or 2 (surprisingly, around here, 1 & 2 are within $200 of each other). FWIW, for years during the 70s and 80s, the local (Puget Sound, WA) whaler dealers delivered boats on roller trailers. I believe roller trailers are popular around here due to the combination of wide tidal ranges and crappy launches.
see my 12/26 response post to Tom Clark...where I was confused on the issue of 20" twins on a WD. The problem is while the catalog and price list spec pages specifically note the 20/25 single/twin split on OB models, there is no specific mention of singles vs. twins on WDs until 1991, when they finally mention 25" for both singles and twins.
posted 01-04-2004 12:23 PM ET (US)
I have a 22 OR WD with twin 130 Yamahas. It will plane on a single.
posted 01-04-2004 05:16 PM ET (US)
The 1988 catalogue contains explicit instructions to use 25-inch shaft engines on Whaler Drive models, without reference to single or twin. It is right in the footnote to the back cover specifications.
posted 01-04-2004 05:29 PM ET (US)
In '92 my Dad replaced his single 200 with twin 100's. The boat was a 1988 20' Outrage with the Whaler Drive. Acting on info he got directly from Whaler at the time, he bought new ('91)100 hp Johnsons with 20" shafts.
The bottom line is that the 20" shafts were too short for the application. Lots of cavitation. He had to have the extension kits to make them into 25" shaft motors installed, and at a huge cost. Literally negating the savings realized from buying previous year overstock motors.
So, where we have many times seen the 20" requirement for twins on a Whaler Drive, it isn't true. At least not for all applications.
posted 01-04-2004 06:50 PM ET (US)
Now this is getting really interesting..
Some people are using 20" twins and some say they are using 25" twins...
On the other hand, if the notch was to be used with a 25" shaft, then it seems logical to use 25" shafts for twins on the raised section...
This reminds me of the old saying "Who's on First"???
It seems that there are definite variations here according to the various owners of different Whaler Drives..
Footnote or No Footnotes, there seem to be variations. According to mtbadfish, Boston Whaler even told his Dad to use 20" twins but they did not work... Ouch...
I hope we can determine what is going on here and what variation of the Whaler Drive everyone is using and what shaft engines they are using..
Maybe someone would like to start a list???
posted 01-04-2004 07:52 PM ET (US)
OK, Ok, you guys talked me into it...
Here is the start of what we have on Whaler Drive owners.
John from Madison CT
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-05-2004 12:41 AM ET (US)
On January 4, you said:
The 1988 catalogue contains explicit instructions to use 25-inch shaft engines on Whaler Drive models, without reference to single or twin. It is right in the footnote to the back cover specifications.
This is not true. What the 1988 catalog says in footnote (8) is:
25" engine shaft for single installation and 20" engine shaft for dual installation.
And in footnote (9):
All 27' models require dual engines with 25" shaft length.
Presumably footnote (9) applies to both notched and Whaler Drive versions of the 27' models.
No mention is made about specific recommendations for Whaler Drive equipped 20' to 25' models except that V-8 engines cannot be fit to them [footnote (6)].
It is the 1991 catalog which applies a footnote (8) to Whaler Drive 22 and 25 foot models that says:
Requires 25" shaft length for both single or dual engine installation.
It is this footnote that I concur with Linus about in posts made right after Christmas in this thread. There seems to be little ambiguity that Whaler is advising the use of 25" shaft length outboard motors for use in dual engine installations on Whaler Drive equipped models.
But there does seem to be quite a bit of ambiguity as to what really is effective for the 20, 22 and 25 foot Whaler Drive equipped models. Joe lists several variations of both how different people have rigged their boats but also in how Whaler has advised them to rig their boats.
My suspicion is that Linus does not have any sort of prototype, but that the original Whaler drive was designed with dual engines in mind that when it became apparent that a single engine would work well and that people wanted their boats rigged that way, Whaler modified the design of the Whaler Drive to accommodate a single 25" outboard motor (the longest shaft length available at the time).
As to what Whaler recommends for shaft length, I also suspect that there has been some learning along the way. Perhaps they did think a pair of 20" shaft length motors would work and that has proven to be unsatisfactory for all situations thus the recommendation to use 25" shaft length motors by 1991.
But even this may not be entirely satisfactory as witnessed by Barry's comments above.
I am still baffled by the notch in Linus's Whaler Drive transom. that does seem unusual.
By the way Linus, congratulations on making a decision. Often that is the hardest part. I am sure yo will be very pleased with the performance of your Revenge. Pleas keep us posted on your progress with this project.
A few bits of info for your list:
Linus's boat is a Revenge WD, not an Outrage WD.
John from Madison CT's boat is a 1988 model.
Alex Gardner's (alkar) boat is a 1989 Outrage 22 WD, not a 20'.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-05-2004 12:59 AM ET (US)
One more thing, Alex's 115 Hondas are 25" shaft length.
posted 01-05-2004 01:55 AM ET (US)
I remember you saying many moons ago, and I somewhat quote here:
I will keep track of this list and post a link as not to keep posting this information over and over here to clutter up the thread... So here is another revision before I post a link on another page unless someone else would like to take it over.... If anyone has any other information, please let us know...
John from Madison CT
I don't think the WD makes too much difference if it is on an Outrage, an Outrage Cuddy, or a Revenge...
I am certainly interested in this as I have been looking for an Outrage 22' Cuddy WD... Maybe this will help me and others know exactly what we are looking at and what to look for... In the long run, it should help everyone be able to differentiate between the different variations of the Whaler Drive and the shaft length of the engines..
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-05-2004 12:52 PM ET (US)
I finally see what you are talking about! You are not referring to any footnotes, but rather the column listing the "Transom Height" for each model and in the case of the Outrage 20 WD, Revenge 20 Walk-Through WD, Temptation 2000, Outrage 22 WD, Outrage 22 Cuddy WD, Revenge Walk-Through WD, Temptation 2200 WD, Outrage 25 WD, Outrage 25 Cuddy WD, Revenge 25 Walk-Through WD, Revenge 25 Walk-Around WD and Temptation WD the number listed is simply 25".
Well I'd say that is consistent with what the 1991 catalog says, though far less clear, but it is still at odds with what Mike's Father was told about his Outrage 20 WD and it does not mesh well with Barry's experience with his twin 150s.
There is also the divergent installations of single motors on John's Outrage 22 and Linus's Revenge 22 both of which have 25" shaft length motors but one of which has a big notch cut into the top edge of the Whaler Drive.
I have sent an email message to Chuck Bennett at Whaler asking some very specific questions about the Whaler Drive. I will report here what Chuck has to say on the subject.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-09-2004 01:22 AM ET (US)
I heard back from Chuck today. He confirmed most of what we have figured out in this thread so far.
I've always been told the Whaler drives require a 25" engine shaft length for best performance.
He went on to say the first Whaler Drive was produced for the 1987 model year in late 1986 and that those first Whaler Drives were only designed for twin motors.
The flat spot was added to the Whaler Drive in early 1987 to allow the use of a single outboard motor.
Chuck said he has seen a photo of a Whaler Drive with a notch in it, but that that was not a Whaler option.
The last recreational Whaler Drive was made for the 1993 model year but that Commercial and Government Products (CGP) still offers the Whaler Drive as an option for the 22', 25' and 27' hulls. However, it is only available with a boat that is being built. One cannot buy a Whaler Drive and retrofit it.
posted 01-09-2004 01:41 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the update Tom.
So does that mean it was not something you could specify or order from Whaler, and it was just chance that it might come that way, or does it mean my WD was modified after it left the factory? While I'd like to believe the former, based on the many more WDs with a straight top, I have a hunch its the latter :( I'll look for any evidence this was a post-shipment mod in the next week or so.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-09-2004 10:51 AM ET (US)
My interpretation of what Chuck told me is that Whaler did not cut that notch in your Whaler Drive, but who knows? I suspect Hawley's made that modification for some (perhaps ill-informed) reason.
posted 01-09-2004 06:19 PM ET (US)
For what it's worth, when I decided in Jan of 1989 to buy a larger Whaler, I did A LOT of research (including talking to people at the factory) on 22' & 25' Whalers with WD drive. I had originally put down a deposit for an order on a 22 Outrage WD, but then changed the order to the 25 that I still have.
THE WHALER DRIVE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR TWIN 25" SHAFT ENGINES. Anything else you have heard or read is false. But as mentioned, at some later time market demand from Dealers, based on the high cost of rigging twins, a change was made to accomodate a 25" single as a compromise. In the late eighties, the cost new of a BW 20-25' Outrage/Revenge with Whaler Drive and twin V-6's was steep - the most expensive boat on the market for it's size, period. A notched transom model with a single was a lot less.
The history is that by 1985-86, after-market brackets like Gil (pipe style) and Armstrong, etc, were getting popular on many full transom boats (especially the go-fasts), and until 1987 Whaler had no entry in the marketplace. They did, however, have the full transom models of the 20-27 boats, with either a stern drive or Sea Drive option, all expensive and only mediocre performers. They had nothing that could accomodate the lower priced conventional outboards, and worse, ALL of their 20-25' notched transom models were designed for 20" twins. At this same time, further necessitating a WD option, the engine manufacturers were now introducing the Counter Rotating V-6's ONLY in 25" shaft length (as is still the case). So without WD, Boston Whaler had nothing that could run the highly desireable counter rotating twin engines. So WD solved both marketing problems, popular full transoms and counter rotation accomodation, while at the same time increasing HP ratings so the 20 & 22's could run twin CR V-6's.
On the WD, the twin 25" engines are to be up several bolt holes. Careful examination of photos in the 1988 catalog show the engines mounted this way. Barry's problem with twin 150's seems to be OMC specific, with a less functional engine bracket bolt hole pattern than Yamaha or Mercury. Mercury's 5 hole patterns allow up to 3" of lift, a recognition of their considerable experience with performance boating.
A friend had a 1987 20' Temptation, with a single Yamaha 225 on it. This WD was ONLY for twins, so the dealer cut a notch in the WD and removed the support bar to accomodate the 25" single. As mentioned, a later revision to the WD negated the need for the notch.
As a final note, the WD also allowed the introduction of the Temptations, BW's announced entry into the full transom, bracketed, twin CR engined, go-fast market. They never caught on, because the WD models ran considerably slower than the after market bracket solutions, which had no additional drag. I believe if they had sold them with Armstrong brackets instead, they might have captured more of the go-fast buyers. Lack of a super deep vee hull could also have been a factor, as well as relative absence of Mercury EFI power, which this crowd clearly prefers. In the late eighties, Whaler Dealers were mostly tied to OMC and Yamaha.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-09-2004 11:03 PM ET (US)
Thank you for confirming what Chuck Bennett has already told us about the Whaler Drive.
Your comments about Barry's set up are not entirely accurate. OMC motors of that era had four sets of mounting holes, as did Yamaha outboards. Mercury had five mounting holes which allows, as you mention, a 3" total range of mounting height.
In Barry's case his engines are mounted all the way up using holes number 4. If he had Mercury outboards he would only be able to gain another 3/4". Would this make all the difference in the world? It should be noted that ALL outboard manufacturers use mounting bolt hole spacing of 3/4" o.c.
This begs the question: Did Whaler intend for the Whaler Drive to be set up with the motor's mounted ALL the way up? I think not. But you are correct about the motors illustrated in the 1988 catalog. They ARE mounted high; at least on holes number 3 or 4.
My suspicion is that when the Whaler Drive bracket was introduced (remember this was 1986) the state-of-the-art in achieving maximum top speed as well as propellor design was less than it is now. I believe Whaler intended for the lower units to be deeper in the water than we would think they should be now. This leaves little room for performance minded Whaler Drive owners now. There are still only five mounting bolt holes on ANY motor built today, and only so much room for lift.
Linus's boat is designed for a single and thus need not be notched at all. I think Hawley's may have had experience with notching an original Whaler Drive for a single and did this to this particular boat after failing to note the service bulletin noted by Barry above. Hawley's has a long and dubious reputation for poor rigging. I have seen my share, including motors completely out of square to the transom.
posted 01-09-2004 11:59 PM ET (US)
One way to gain additional engine height is to use CMC's "static lift plates". These are 1/2" aluminum plates that are first bolted on, and the top holes on the engine bolt through the plates. They are even designed to mount a 25" engine on a 20" transom.
Tom I think your comments on earlier engine mounting heights and older prop designs could have been a factor. Even more so, even today engine mounting heights on twin engine boats are not recommended to be as high as with a single. Mercury still furnishes engines with these mounting height parameters. With a single, the prop blades are running in a "vee" or even flat water flow, but on a twin, the blades are running in an unbalanced, sloping flow, with blades surfacing more on the inside than outside. Hence less height is appropriate to avoid ventilation.
Finally, Tom, even 3/4" of additional lift can make a significant difference, so the Mercury bolt pattern is of some help. There is one other variable, and that is where the installer drilled the engine hole pattern in the hull/WD. I have seen many drilled too low.
posted 01-10-2004 01:40 AM ET (US)
Just great Tom. It's 10:30 at night and I've got to go out in the driveway with my square to see if my motors are mounted right... My Outrage was rigged and sold by Hawley's back in 1989.
posted 01-10-2004 03:33 AM ET (US)
Andy - I guess that explains why you have an unconventional extended 20" engine on your boat instead of the normal one-piece 25" shaft. They must have had a 20" lying around (mostly for bass boats) and decided to extend it for your boat.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 01-10-2004 12:42 PM ET (US)
I know your boat was a Hawley's boat and I think Larry may be correct about your Mercury. I seem to remember having this conversation when we were trying to determine what year your motor was.
It could well be that your Mercury was a converted 20" to 25" motor. Forum member Pete Elke has a 1989 Outrage 25 WD that was originally rigged and sold by Hawley's. I drove up to Anacortes to supervise the loading of this boat onto the boat hauler's truck two years ago when Pete had it shipped to California.
I recall it had a single Mercury 200 hp with the five inch shaft extension. I also recall standing behind the boat and being able to very plainly see that the motor was mounted at an angle. In other words it was not perpendicular to the WD's transom. I might have some digital photos of that boat somewhere.
Pete has since replaced the Mercury with a pair of 200 hp Johnson's. It is a really nice boat, but that's another story...
I wonder if Hawley's originally tried to put a 20" shaft motor on Linus's boat?
Does your current Mercury Laser XRi have a shaft extension kit on it?
posted 01-11-2004 02:00 AM ET (US)
I happened to meet the original owner of my Outrage last year, and he told me he purchased the extended Mercury from Hawley's that way. He also told me he traveled from California to Washington to buy the boat because he was able to get much better pricing there. I suspect Hawley's may have gotten a deal on some short shaft 200's, and sold them at a discount with the extension kit. In any event, mine is mounted square and has been a great performing motor in the time that I have owned it.
posted 01-12-2004 01:04 PM ET (US)
Took a closer look at the transom of the WD this weekend...indeed it looks like it was cut following shipment from the factory...the stainless top-plate on the left side is about 1/2" shorter than the one on the right...I can't imagine the Whaler factory delivering something like that as a production item. Fortunately, the finish work looks good, so hopefully no ill effects to the transom there.
The outboard on my boat is a true 25" motor, not a 20" with an extension.
Perhaps confirming Tom's comments on Hawley's, with the notch, the outboard is now on the 3rd of the 5 holes in the bracket, but the top of the clamp is about 3/4" below the top of the original WD transom--the AV plate is even with the bottom of the flad pad. I plan to run my existing Mirage prop (17p) and start with the new motor mounted on the 4th hole. Had the transom not been notched, there would have been more flexibility for raising the motor :( I wonder what it would take to reverse this mod? maybe someday later.
posted 01-14-2004 04:34 PM ET (US)
This morning I measured the shafts of my Yamaha 130's. They are 25". I don't see how 20" could clear the transom properly.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.