Performance Comparison - Standard 25 vs. 22 WD

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Performance Comparison - Standard 25 vs. 22 WD

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Performance Comparison - Standard 25 vs. 22 WD

Plotman posted 01-19-2004 09:43 AM ET (US)
I'm trying to figure out if my next step is an outrage 22 with a whaler drive or a standard-transom outrage 25 - which version of 3-foot-itis I have. I'm looking for thoughths on things like performance and sea-keeping ability.
Looking at the specs, the two boats are within 6 inches of each other in terms of both LOA and Beam. That said, the 25 weighs a full 1000lbs more than the 22WD (3300 vs 2300), so I assume that the 22 will be somewhat faster, but that the 25 will handle a bigger sea better.
I would have twins on either boat, so the ability to use a single on the 22 doesn't factor in for me. FWIW, most of the time the boat will be used on Lake Superior, fishing out of Duluth, and trips to the Apostle Islands and Isle Royale.
Any insight from anyone who has gone through the same exercise or otherwise has thoughs on the matter would be appreciated.

lhg posted 01-19-2004 01:58 PM ET (US)
For the frigid and sometimes wild waters of Superior, don't even think about the 22 in a comparison to the 25. The 25 is LOT more boat, if you can find a good one. With an Outrage, up there, full Mills canvas is a necessity with either hull.
If you're planning on installing twins, be sure to install transom jacks with 10" or 12" setback so you can accomodate twin counter rotating 25" V-6's. I'd go for 200's, since they are almost always the same size as the 150's, and don't use much more fuel either.

John from Madison CT posted 01-19-2004 05:40 PM ET (US)
Hmm, good question you raise.
The benefits of a closed transom boat are many and I am not a fan of open transom boats, especially when you fish the way I do.(drifting).
For pure ride, I would thing the 25' would be better off.
I am in the mood to upgrade from my 22' W/D Outrage, but will not consider a 25' open transom Outrage to replace it. It will have to be one with a W/D.
John
lhg posted 01-19-2004 07:00 PM ET (US)
A 26" setback Armstrong bracket is not a bad powering solution for a notched transom 25 Outrage. This can easily accomodate the 25" twins, and looks surprisingly good, the top of the bracket being flush with the top of the transom.
It is also very functional for fishing, swimming, etc.
Because of the teak hatched stern quarter battery and oil tank compartments, the 25 transom is not as open as on the 18-22's. And with the splashwell now devoid of engine cables, etc, a nice cooler seat can fill in there. It's certainly worth considering. Cost to purchase bracket and prepare the transom would be about $3000.
Plotman posted 01-19-2004 09:02 PM ET (US)
Larry & John - thanks for your advice. I had toyed with the idea of an armstrong bracket, but wasn't sure how it would look with a notched transom.
Larry - a couple of follow ups, if I may. How far above the plane of the hull do you have your engines mounted on your bracket (at the cav plate). You also mention transom prep as part of the cost of adding a bracket - other than filling in the holes fom the old motors, what else is there before you drill the new ones and mount the bracket?
Thanks
jimh posted 01-20-2004 09:10 AM ET (US)
You don't mention what boat you are using now. That might influence the recommendation.
The models with full-transom with Whaler Drive are especially attractive, and I think they make the 22-foot hull into something close to the 25-foot with standard transom.
As a current owner of a 20-foot Whaler, I have tentatively set my sights on either a 22-WD or a 25 as the next step up. Jumping from a 20 to a 22 with standard transom does not seem like enough of an increase to compensate for the costs involved.
In the end, your decision will depend on what boat you find first. If a very nice 22-WD model comes your way, I would not let it pass without a close look and serious consideration. If a beautiful 25-foot boat shows up first, your decision is similarly easy.
Good luck!
lhg posted 01-20-2004 01:52 PM ET (US)
Plotman - In answer to your question, my engines are mounted so that the anti-ventilation plate is running about 1" above the flow of water past them. But because of the 26" setback, and with the water flow welling up behind the hull, they are actually about 4" above the hull bottom if sighting along the bottom. This is one of the reasons bracketed boats run so well, greatly reducing lower unit drag, running the props in higher, turbulent free water. One could reasonably assume that a bracketed notched transom 25 would perform (go faster) better than a WD 25 with same power.
To install a bracket on a notched transom Whaler, the raised portion of the transom needs to be cleaned up a bit, as the bracket will pretty much cover the whole area. Besides filling in the old bolt holes, the lifting eyes may need to be replaced, relocated or even eliminated, and brass splashwell drains removed, in favor of a 500 gph bilge pump to remove water that will accumulate in the depressed portion of the splashwell. The 3" scupper drains, with covering exhaust flappers that are used on the full transom boats would not be required, as serious onboard water can still exit via the notched transom, right over the top of the bracket. The full transom models do not have this capability, hence the 3" drain additions.
The bracket will require more than the 8 mounting bolts that twin engines would give, so there would be a considerable number of bolts on the inside of the transom, all of which would be exposed. Engines are mounted on 27" centers, instead of BW's recommended 29-3/4".
Outrage22Cuddy posted 01-20-2004 11:18 PM ET (US)
I have never been on a 25, but i've talked to someone at the last boat show that had a 25cuddy/wd with twin 150 Yamahas. He said the boat would go in any sea condition he has encountered. He claimed 1.25mpg. My 22 cuddy/wd gets 1.9 with thin 130 Yamahas. I really like the wd option. Get a 25 if you need more fishing room, but I've had my 22 80 miles offshore in 12ft seas & lots of wind & I wasn't sweating it. You might want to get a 25 cuddy if extra fishing room isn't an issue. If you really want more seaworthiness, consider a 27ft model. They are brutes. Forget about good mpg with carbureted 2-strokes.
homey posted 01-22-2004 10:37 PM ET (US)
Plotman,
I have been in a 22 and 25 Outrage standard transom and they rode well. I have a 1991 25 Outrage/cuddy/whalerdrive and it rides great....
That 6" of beam may not sound like alot but, once your in the boat you'll notice the difference. Also the overall deck space is larger on the 25.
I would recommend the 25 over the 22 regardless of transom setup...Good luck in your decision and keep us posted. Homey.

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: Performance Comparison - Standard 25 vs. 22 WD
Plotman	posted 01-19-2004 09:43 AM ET (US) I'm trying to figure out if my next step is an outrage 22 with a whaler drive or a standard-transom outrage 25 - which version of 3-foot-itis I have. I'm looking for thoughths on things like performance and sea-keeping ability. Looking at the specs, the two boats are within 6 inches of each other in terms of both LOA and Beam. That said, the 25 weighs a full 1000lbs more than the 22WD (3300 vs 2300), so I assume that the 22 will be somewhat faster, but that the 25 will handle a bigger sea better. I would have twins on either boat, so the ability to use a single on the 22 doesn't factor in for me. FWIW, most of the time the boat will be used on Lake Superior, fishing out of Duluth, and trips to the Apostle Islands and Isle Royale. Any insight from anyone who has gone through the same exercise or otherwise has thoughs on the matter would be appreciated.
lhg	posted 01-19-2004 01:58 PM ET (US) For the frigid and sometimes wild waters of Superior, don't even think about the 22 in a comparison to the 25. The 25 is LOT more boat, if you can find a good one. With an Outrage, up there, full Mills canvas is a necessity with either hull. If you're planning on installing twins, be sure to install transom jacks with 10" or 12" setback so you can accomodate twin counter rotating 25" V-6's. I'd go for 200's, since they are almost always the same size as the 150's, and don't use much more fuel either.
John from Madison CT	posted 01-19-2004 05:40 PM ET (US) Hmm, good question you raise. The benefits of a closed transom boat are many and I am not a fan of open transom boats, especially when you fish the way I do.(drifting). For pure ride, I would thing the 25' would be better off. I am in the mood to upgrade from my 22' W/D Outrage, but will not consider a 25' open transom Outrage to replace it. It will have to be one with a W/D. John
lhg	posted 01-19-2004 07:00 PM ET (US) A 26" setback Armstrong bracket is not a bad powering solution for a notched transom 25 Outrage. This can easily accomodate the 25" twins, and looks surprisingly good, the top of the bracket being flush with the top of the transom. It is also very functional for fishing, swimming, etc. Because of the teak hatched stern quarter battery and oil tank compartments, the 25 transom is not as open as on the 18-22's. And with the splashwell now devoid of engine cables, etc, a nice cooler seat can fill in there. It's certainly worth considering. Cost to purchase bracket and prepare the transom would be about $3000.
Plotman	posted 01-19-2004 09:02 PM ET (US) Larry & John - thanks for your advice. I had toyed with the idea of an armstrong bracket, but wasn't sure how it would look with a notched transom. Larry - a couple of follow ups, if I may. How far above the plane of the hull do you have your engines mounted on your bracket (at the cav plate). You also mention transom prep as part of the cost of adding a bracket - other than filling in the holes fom the old motors, what else is there before you drill the new ones and mount the bracket? Thanks
jimh	posted 01-20-2004 09:10 AM ET (US) You don't mention what boat you are using now. That might influence the recommendation. The models with full-transom with Whaler Drive are especially attractive, and I think they make the 22-foot hull into something close to the 25-foot with standard transom. As a current owner of a 20-foot Whaler, I have tentatively set my sights on either a 22-WD or a 25 as the next step up. Jumping from a 20 to a 22 with standard transom does not seem like enough of an increase to compensate for the costs involved. In the end, your decision will depend on what boat you find first. If a very nice 22-WD model comes your way, I would not let it pass without a close look and serious consideration. If a beautiful 25-foot boat shows up first, your decision is similarly easy. Good luck!
lhg	posted 01-20-2004 01:52 PM ET (US) Plotman - In answer to your question, my engines are mounted so that the anti-ventilation plate is running about 1" above the flow of water past them. But because of the 26" setback, and with the water flow welling up behind the hull, they are actually about 4" above the hull bottom if sighting along the bottom. This is one of the reasons bracketed boats run so well, greatly reducing lower unit drag, running the props in higher, turbulent free water. One could reasonably assume that a bracketed notched transom 25 would perform (go faster) better than a WD 25 with same power. To install a bracket on a notched transom Whaler, the raised portion of the transom needs to be cleaned up a bit, as the bracket will pretty much cover the whole area. Besides filling in the old bolt holes, the lifting eyes may need to be replaced, relocated or even eliminated, and brass splashwell drains removed, in favor of a 500 gph bilge pump to remove water that will accumulate in the depressed portion of the splashwell. The 3" scupper drains, with covering exhaust flappers that are used on the full transom boats would not be required, as serious onboard water can still exit via the notched transom, right over the top of the bracket. The full transom models do not have this capability, hence the 3" drain additions. The bracket will require more than the 8 mounting bolts that twin engines would give, so there would be a considerable number of bolts on the inside of the transom, all of which would be exposed. Engines are mounted on 27" centers, instead of BW's recommended 29-3/4".
Outrage22Cuddy	posted 01-20-2004 11:18 PM ET (US) I have never been on a 25, but i've talked to someone at the last boat show that had a 25cuddy/wd with twin 150 Yamahas. He said the boat would go in any sea condition he has encountered. He claimed 1.25mpg. My 22 cuddy/wd gets 1.9 with thin 130 Yamahas. I really like the wd option. Get a 25 if you need more fishing room, but I've had my 22 80 miles offshore in 12ft seas & lots of wind & I wasn't sweating it. You might want to get a 25 cuddy if extra fishing room isn't an issue. If you really want more seaworthiness, consider a 27ft model. They are brutes. Forget about good mpg with carbureted 2-strokes.
homey	posted 01-22-2004 10:37 PM ET (US) Plotman, I have been in a 22 and 25 Outrage standard transom and they rode well. I have a 1991 25 Outrage/cuddy/whalerdrive and it rides great.... That 6" of beam may not sound like alot but, once your in the boat you'll notice the difference. Also the overall deck space is larger on the 25. I would recommend the 25 over the 22 regardless of transom setup...Good luck in your decision and keep us posted. Homey.