Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Outrage 22 Hydraulic Jack Plate

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

Author Topic:   Outrage 22 Hydraulic Jack Plate
SIM posted 04-23-2004 11:18 AM ET (US)   Profile for SIM   Send Email to SIM  
[Our firm] will be installing a 2004 Yamaha F225 on a c.195 OUTRAGE 22 Cuddy. We have a weight concern because we also have to install a Yamaha T-8 for getting in and out of a very shallow dock area in front of the owner's house. The boat, with its current setup (Mercury two-stroke 175-HP and 25-HP), has way too much weight on the transom (wet feet), and we are concerned that we will be making it worse with the two four-strokes that he wants installed. I proposed to him to scrap the kicker motor idea and go with a hydraulic jack plate for the F225. Raise it up to get into shallow areas and still maintain control of the boat in lieu of tilting it. Plus more top end speed. We probably won't loose weight this way but we won't be gaining much either.

What do you think? Will a hydraulic jack plate hinder or help the re-sale on a OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY? Anyone done this? The boat is in great shape and has been a fresh-water-only boat. Anyone with jack plate experience on this size boat? High quality jack plate brands to look at?

Thanks, Andy

andygere posted 04-23-2004 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
The maximum recommended transom weight on the classic notched transom 22 hull is 720 pounds. Without checking, I'd bet you will be pretty close to that with the 2 4-strokes on the back. I'm surprised he is getting wet feet with the current set up, which is well under 720 lbs (approximately 500 lbs). I'm running the same boat ('89 Outrage 22 Cuddy) with a 2-stroke Mercury 200 and a 2-stroke Mercury 15 and have no problems at all with water in the cockpit. I leave the plugs out and use the boat in the Pacific, often in big swells and chop. Does he have a big bait tank, or the oversized fuel tank that deletes the stern fishwell? Is the hull waterlogged? It seems like this boat is stern heavy, but it's not the outboards alone causing it.

There are a few options here. First, keep the plugs in, and install a 750 gpm pump and float switch in each of the aft corner sumps. Next, if the kicker is just for getting in and out of a shallow slip, why not stick with an 8-10 hp 2 stroke kicker to save weight. Third, if there are dual batteries in the stern, relocate them to the console. Most folks that do this cut out the console floor around the batteries so they actually sit on the deck. This opens up space in the console and prevents the heavy batteries from breaking the console floor.

While the hydraulic jack plate is a slick idea, I don't think it really saves much weight, and cantelevering that big 4-stroke off the transom is going to make the wet foot situation worse. You also lose the saftey/reliability aspect of having a second motor to get you home.

There is some good discussion on max weights and motor configurations for classic Whaler hulls in the following thread:

Please give us an update on what you decide to do, and how the boat performs.


SIM posted 04-23-2004 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
Hi Andy,

Thanks for the reply.

The owner has three batteries mounted underneath a leaning post thats near the transom on the deck. The batteries will be moved forward.

You are in saltwater; a boat is more bouyant in saltwater than in fresh water. On a 26-foot boat we sell (Glacier Bay) this equates to a waterline that is 1-1\2-inches deeper in freshwater. On the Whaler, two guys onboard in a 1-2-foot chop and it will come over the back a little. There is a bilge pump already mounted.

How would a jack plate have more effect on the engine/transom weight. I think it would only push the engine aft maybe 6-10 inches. Think that would matter?

He would only need the kicker to get into his dock. He does not fish and mainly uses it for boat rides and skiing or wakeboarding. I agree with your comment on the redunancy of the second engine but in this application, it is not a major issue.

Do you think the jack plate would be a plus or minus on the resale end?

Thanks again,


andygere posted 04-23-2004 01:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
The jack plate acts like a lever, effectively increasing the downward force on the transom from the weight of the motor. The least amount of downward force exerted by the motor's weight is exactly at the centerline of the transom. As that weight moves aft, the downward force increases. If you think of the transom as a fulcrum or pivot point, all the weight forward of that tends to sink the bow and raise the transom. Weight aft of the transom tends to do the opposite. This is a simplified model, and I know it's flawed because the transom is not really a pivot point, but as the boat rolls up and down on the chop it will act like one and the downward force of the motor will be exagerated. 6 to 10 inches is not much, but since the boat is already taking water with a lighter set up, every bit is probably critical.

Since it's a freshwater boat not used offshore, the 3 batteries are probably overkill. I like redundancy, but I'd move two of them to the console, and eliminate the third. Have you considered a transom mounted electric for getting in and out of the slip? I've also seen electric units that mount to the anticav plate of the outboard for convenience, but these certainly add some drag. I agree with you about less bouyancy in the fresh, but something still seems wrong here. The current set up is pretty light, and I'm assuming the sea state in this lake is probably moderate, even with a lot of boat wakes, etc. It might be wise to move the batteries first, then see how the static trim is. You can always simulate the weight of the proposed set up using barbell weights in the splashwell to see how she'll sit before taking the plunge and bolting the new motor(s) on.

SIM posted 04-23-2004 02:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     

I am only concerned with the static position water line with this setup. Where it sits in the water at the dock. I think if the old weight of the two engines vs the new weight of the one outboard and what ever the jack plate weights, if they are the same then it theory the new waterline should be the same. Maybe slightly lower with the engine extended back a few inches. Cant be much lower?

I dont eigth grade education is not helping me much here :^]


rsess1 posted 04-23-2004 09:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for rsess1  Send Email to rsess1     
Perhaps you can add concrete blocks or sand bags to test your theory.
jimh posted 04-23-2004 10:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The c.1985 OUTRAGE 22 had a notched transom and small splash well that are rather prone to taking some water over the stern. Because the splash well was narrow, the water has a good chance of getting into the cockpit.

If the auxiliary engine is only intended to be used for docking in shallow water, I would just eliminate it and use the main engine after tilting it up to reduce draft.

If the boat is an OUTRAGE CUDDY, usually the extra weight in the bow from the cuddy structure will tend to even out the static trim, so the boat should not rest stern-down.

Where is the motor mounted now? Typically the engine should be mounted at least one hole up (i.e., second hole), but with better holding propellers you might be able to go up another hole. This would also reduce draft.

A hydraulically operated jack plate is an interesting idea. Using a set back bracket/jack plate is becoming more common with the classic Boston Whaler hulls. I have twin engines on my 20-foot classic Whaler hull and use 10-inch set back brackets. This had a very positive effect on the hull's ride and performance. Thus I would not be adverse to recommending the jack plate, although one that is adjustable with hydraulic actuators can be rather expensive.

I have written two articles about this subject, and you may find them interesting or refer your client to them:

Engine Brackets

Standard Transoms and Brackets

Mr Blue Wine posted 04-24-2004 02:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mr Blue Wine  Send Email to Mr Blue Wine     
I also have a 22' Outrage (1980) w/ 200hp Merc. I don't get wet feet. The boat sits real nice. I am going to add a kicker and do not expect it to chage the attitude of the boat...just info for you.
SIM posted 04-27-2004 12:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
Thanks to all of you for your replies and JimH for your links to those threads.

The owner was just here and we are going to go with the F225 with a Bobs Jack Plate on the transom and eliminate the kicker. Also move both batteries forward. One thing I forgot to mention was the 12 gallon kicker fuel tank(25hp 2-stroke premix) that he had near the transom. He is looking forward to finally having some transom\cockpit room.

We also discussed the redundancy of two engines and with our location and what he will use the boat for. We are 15 minutes away in an emergency situation from him so the idea for the kicker was to just get into the dock.

I will let you guys know how it performs.

Thanks again,


andygere posted 04-28-2004 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
That 12 gallon portable tank helps explain the wet feet; that's another 80 pounds sitting back there! On my boat, I use an autoblend device, which acts like an oil injection system for the kicker. It consits of a small tank that holds a few quarts of oil and a mixing device. This allows me to use the kicker off of the main fuel tank with an oil injected main motor. A portable tank banging around back there would add weight, take up space and be a general pain.

Jim made a good point about the splashwell design. My Outrage has the full width splashwell, and I think that is a big improvement on the 22 hull. It would take a lot of water coming over the transom to overtop the newer style splashwell that I have. I was thinking that the wet feet were caused by water coming up from the stern sumps, assuming the plugs were left out. I leave mine out, and I never see water on the deck.

I think by reducing the weight from the the batteries, kicker and fuel tank, you will see improvement in the static trim and hopefully get rid of the wet feet. If you can, post a link to some photos of the finished job, I'm sure many of us would be interested in seeing it.


Bigshot posted 04-28-2004 02:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Good choice with the Bob's plate. I would also recommend a low water pickup if he intends to use it jacked up real high while driving. After reading your posts I doubt he will but at LEAST install a water pressure gauge so he knows he is getting adequate cooling.

I doubt the plate will effect any static trim, especially once you remove all the BS including a 12 gallon tank. That 25 would run all season on that 12 gallon tank.

SIM posted 06-04-2004 06:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
Hi Guys,
Been a while since I looked at this thread. We and the owner decided on the Yamaha 05 F225 Single setup with a Bobs jackplate. The only real reason for the plate is shallow water capabilty.

I'll post a link when we are finished. Should be sweeeet!

Thanks again for the advice,


SIM posted 11-10-2004 05:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
Hi everyone,
It has been a while and I thought I would share some pictures of the finished job. The owner ended up going with a F150, because of the cost difference, and I thought it would perform as well as the old Merc 200. In the end, it out performed the Merc by quite a bit. Top speed is 39-42-MPH depending on load. The Bob's Jack Plate is awesome and made the whole deal. He can get right up to his shallow water dock with the engine down and still have great control.

Not trying to promote myself, just thought I would pass along some good Boston Whaler re-power info. The Yamaha F150 is plenty of power for this boat.

Images:Transom, Helm

Phil Tyson posted 11-10-2004 05:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Phil Tyson  Send Email to Phil Tyson     
Great thread and fabulous outcome.

Good job Andy on the install, looks very clean.

LHG posted 11-10-2004 05:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
That's a real nice, super clean, rigging job on what looks like a beautiful Whaler too. Congrats on a job well done.
jimh posted 11-10-2004 08:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Fixed hyperlinks; gently edited article. Thanks for follow up posting.]

Nice looking installation!

andygere posted 11-12-2004 05:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Very clean looking set up. Nice job and thanks for the follow up.
SIM posted 11-16-2004 12:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
Thanks Jim for fixing those web links....I am not that good with the UBB stuff.

Thanks everyone else for the compliments. I know I said this before but the performance with the F150 Yamaha on this 22 was very good. I was suprised. So quiet at idle too.


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.