Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Power for OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY

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

Author Topic:   Power for OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY
curt noetzold posted 06-27-2004 10:14 AM ET (US)   Profile for curt noetzold   Send Email to curt noetzold  
I am about to purchase an 1989 Outrage 22 Cuddy with a older motor on it. What type, two-stroke or four-stroke, what brand, and what horsepower new motor should get for it? Maximum speed is not really a concern; fuel economy is a concern. I am new to all this, so any advice would be great.
Plotman posted 06-27-2004 12:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
Here is something to think about.

From Ed's, a 4 stroke 225 merc is $14K (ad shipping, rigging, prop and controls to all prices, but they will essentially be the same for all motors). A 2 Stroke 225 EFI is 10K. Dropping down to a 150 EFI will save you $1K, (200 is same price as 225). I wouldn't bother with the smaller engine for such a small savings, because it is going to have to work harder at any given speed, and as such won't last as long. Also, it will be louder at any given speed - with the 150 30 knots would be close to upper end, where the engine would be screaming, but the 225 would be purring at the same speed. Plus, that extra power can be nice to have if you have a big load, need to beat a storm in, etc.

As for 2s vs. 4s, you will certainly get the best fuel economy with a 4-Stroke. But think how may miles you are going to have to travel cruise to make up $4k in gas. I don't count trolling, because would likely use a small kicker for that in either case.

Back of the envelope, if you get 2.5mph at cruise with the 2s and 4.0mpg with the 4 stroke (optomistic) and gas is $2 per gallon, you are going to have to travel 13,000 miles before you use up an extra $4k worth of gas in that EFI to make up for the higher purchase price. That is 260 trips out 25 miles and back. If you do it every other weekend, that is still 10 years to payback.

andygere posted 06-28-2004 12:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I own the same boat, and the carb'd 2-stroke Mercury 200 on it is a good performer. I get great holeshot with a 19p High Five prop, and top end on flat water is 41-43 mph with new bottom paint and a small T-top. I wouldn't want anything less than a 175 on that boat. Think carefully about the weight. With an older 2-stroke 200 and a 2-stroke 15 kicker, she floats high and I leave the plugs out and get no water on the deck. You won't be able to do that if you stick one of those 600+ lb. 4-strokers on the back. The EFI 225 2-stroke Merc would be ideal as long as your state is not getting close to banning sales of conventional 2-strokes as California has. Saving money with better fuel economy by going 4-stroke is false economy as Plotman illustrates. The price premium for the 4-stroke only pays after a lot of miles are under the hull, and you have the added maintenance hassle of crankcase oil changes.

What's wrong with the existing motor and why do you want to replace it?

Bigshot posted 06-28-2004 02:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
4 stroke Suzuki 225 or 250hp or a 225 or 250 Evinrude Ficht. Both about $12,500+/-.
jimh posted 06-30-2004 08:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Changed TOPIC; was "what power for 89 22'outrage cutty(sic)?"]

There is really nothing about the particular model of Boston Whaler boat that tends to favor two-stroke or four-stroke power. This is a decision you have to make based on your personal preferences. There are many discussions regarding the merits of two-strokes and four-strokes, and I suggest you look for some of these in the archives. A more general distinction between engines at the moment is to categorize them as high-emission and low-emission (low-E). The low-E engines will be the only choice after 2005 model year.

The two-stroke engine that is also low-E is a recent development, and there have been well-known problems in all brands of these engines. This has led some to be wary of the two-stroke low-E engine. The four-stroke engine is more easily adapted to low-emission, and there have been fewer reported problems with these engines. However, four-stroke engines will require more routine maintenance, like oil-changing, as well as the potential for more long-term maintenance, like valve clearance adjustment. So far, however, owners of four-stroke engines have been very enthusiastic in their approval of them.

Brand preference in engines is also a personal choice. It often depends on the local marketplace. If a particular brand is represented by a strong dealer, they may have greater popularity in your area. In some regions, certain brands are more popular. Because you are new to boating, I recommend finding a local dealer. Find a store and service facility that you can develop a relationship with, and give them a chance to sell you a motor, install it on your boat, and provide after-sale support and service. You may pay a few percent more than the rock-bottom internet lowest price, but you will get value from your local dealer in the form of good advice and support.

The OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY is rated for a maximum horsepower of 240 horsepower. I would recommend you power the boat with a 225-HP engine as a minimum. You should also give consideration to twin engine power if you plan to use the boat in situations where twin engines would be a comfort to have.

andygere posted 06-30-2004 05:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
There is really nothing about the particular model of Boston Whaler boat that tends to favor two-stroke or four-stroke power.

I have to respectfully disagree with Jimh on this one. The classic 22 foot notched transom Whaler hull (Outrage, Outrage Cuddy and Revenge) is somewhat sensitive to outboard motor weight, and to date, 4-stroke outboards in the 200-250 h.p. range are considerably heavier than non-DFI 2-strokes in the same power range. Heavier motors will result in more water over the transom, and if the plugs are left out (as intended by Whaler), more water on the deck. The particular boat in question here is a 1989 which has the major advantage of the full width splashwell dam, however the total weight on the transom is still an issue. This hull design dates back to the late 1970's, before the advent of the heavy "low E" outboards that are on the market today. If Curt is considering a single 200 h.p. 4-stroke and a 15 hp kicker, he is right at the maximum transom motor weight recommended by Whaler. Unfortunately, the DFI 2 strokes are also heavy, but a 200 h.p. Optimax and a 15 h.p. 4-stroke kicker are still 100 lbs. lighter in total. If the boat has the rear seat option and will carry passengers there, the sensitivity to outboard weight is even more critical.

My extensive first-hand experience in this boat (with a 200 h.p. 2-stroke), along with conversations with the owner of the same boat with a 175 h.p. 2-stroke, are why I continue to advise Curt that the minimum power I would put on it is 175 h.p. With a 200, the boat has great low end and top end performance, and Curt has indicated that top end is not a concern for him. Performance of this boat is still quite robust with a 175 h.p. outboard. A single 225 on this boat will make it a real screamer.

Regarding twin engines, the options are really limited, again due to motor weight. See the following thread for a detailed discussion on this aspect.

Plotman posted 06-30-2004 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
I have a 22 Outrage with a twin Yamaha 130s as well as the stern seat.

The motors are ~350 lbs dry, plus 20lbs of prop. 20 lbs of oil and at least 60 of battery each.

While I certainly take an occasional wave over the transom, I've never had anything come over the splah well dam.

Yes, the boat is a bit stern heavy at rest, but I don't find this to be a problem at all. I do keep the plugs in the two little wells in the corners, but since the starboard one came from the factory with a bilge pump on a float switch, it would seem to me that on this boat they intended the plugs to be in.

Given that, I wouldn't be concerned with the wight of a large 4-stroke single plus a kicker. The 1989 has the newer style splash well.


rtk posted 07-01-2004 06:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
I would take a close look at the Suzuki 225 or 250 horsepower four strokes. Very innovative, efficient and light motors for the horsepower.

I was very close to choosing the Suzuki 250 for my 1997 21 foot Outrage. I think wide open throttle fuel consumption is about 22 gallons per hour. Displacement is around 3.6/3.7 liters, my 250 horsepower Mercury EFI is around 3.3 liters and consumes close to 28 gallons per hour at wide open throttle. The 2004 Suzuki big block four stroke motors also have a gear ratio of around 2.3 or so and is designed to turn a 16 inch diameter prop. There is actually a reduction gear between the powerhead and the lower unit drive shaft. I believe this motor runs more efficient compared to those in the same class.

Very slick motor in my opinion. Suzuki really put out a motor that will fit most needs. I believe it weighs around 600 pounds. Only 100 over the Optimax and EFI big block Mercury.

I chose the Mercury 250 EFI because I found a great deal on it. The dealer sold my old motor for me at a price close to retail and I purchased the new motor as a leftover.

The worry I had with the Suzuki was the proximity and number of dealers around me. The closest is 14 miles and the next is about 30 miles. Few and far between. I can walk to the Mercury dealer and alot more within 10 miles.

It is important to me to have good local service.

If you can wait until the winter there are alot of extended warranty incentives and rebates out there. Plus you may be able to pick up a non-current or leftover motor.

The dependability of the new technology motors seems to be improving alot. I really don't think there are many bad motors out there at this point.

The Suzuki, Yamaha and Evinrude websites all have performance reports of their motors on their sites. I don't believe Mercury does.

Good luck with it, it's fun to shop for a motor.


tchowes posted 07-02-2004 09:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for tchowes  Send Email to tchowes     
I have an 86' Outrage Cuddy. When I bought it, it came with a 150 Merc circa 1988. If I had 4 people on board or more than a 1/2 a tank of fuel, it was a dog. Had to really push the motor to stay on a plane. Loud.

Switched over to a 1995 Merc 225 3.0 carb. Cruises comfortably at 25mph at 3,000 rpm. Top end is 42 mph.

I've considered replacing this motor with a Yamaha 200 HPDI. 475lbs. However, the Merc runs way too well to want to ditch it.

Based on my experience, 200-225hp is probably ideal.

JohnM posted 07-03-2004 01:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for JohnM  Send Email to JohnM     
I will agree with Andygere on the water over the transom bit. I guess it all depends on what your doing with the boat. For the pleasure boater the scuppers and bilge pump will do their job. For the fisherman who trolls it is a different story. When trolling you do not have enough speed to siphon the water out. When having passengers on board who don't understand 2" of water in the rear of the boat being nothing to worry about it can create a situation as I experienced 2 weeks ago. I had one guy a little green and was standing on the cooler trying to crank lines in. We went in unfortunately and we missed out on part of a great salmon bite on Lake Michigan which was over by the time I got back out. My bilge pump wouldn't run and I didn't really feel like getting into a troubleshooting contest. (it was pretty bumpy) Turned out to be a bum fuseholder!! It lasted 20 years anyway. Has anyone tried to buy a glass fuseholder recently? I found one but the guy didn't have fuses to fit it. The old fuse was good and we were back in business.

I have posted my problems with the water over transom in the past. I made a snap in cover which matches my top which does actually help. Snaps down to the transom and velcros around the seat support. Some have extended the splashwell area with starboard which helps. Costs more but effective. Weight is definitely a factor.


mustang7nh posted 07-07-2004 08:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for mustang7nh  Send Email to mustang7nh     
I'll chime in with my two cents. I've a 1991 Outrage 22 with 1995 250 carb Yam. Weighs 500# I believe. I get 2 mpg to 2.5 mpg. Economy in my opinion is tough to make equal comparisons because running ocean swells or constantly adjusting the throttle due to varying chop, boat wakes, etc will be much different then just cruising on a flat body of water. Much of the posted data from Regulator and others all show boats rigged with v6 outboards in the 2.3-3mpg range at cruise. Granted Regs weigh quite a bit. And this I would imagine is in ideal conditions. Hence, I'm not sure that an Outrage 22 is going to notice huge differences in economy regardless of whether its an EFI, DI, 4s, or even carb. I could be wrong, but most people that are getting consistently over 3 mpg seem to have smaller engines or the v22 hulls.

I believe that the laws of physics dictate how much horsepower is required to make said boat go said speed. And while there are some differences in fuel consumption between the various technologies, I think that when called upon to deliver X horsepower that they are not as far apart as one would imagine. This is my own conjecture so the scientists in the forum can feel free to correct me.

I love analyzing all the antecdotal and mfg data, but in the end I think the practical wisdom is to find a brand/dealer that you want to work with and buy a 200 or 225 engine. I think regardless of the induction method you will be happy. I would avoid 4s personally until I actually was able to ride in a 22 rigged with one. I'd rather live with the others and make a 4s my next engine then regret having too much heft on the transom. Just my thoughts.

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.