Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
1988 Outrage 22: Twin or Single Engine
|Author||Topic: 1988 Outrage 22: Twin or Single Engine|
posted 07-06-2004 03:11 PM ET (US)
My brother-in-law and I have had this boat completely re-gelcoated, replaced original 77gal fuel tank with brand new 131gal fuel tank. (We fish about 65 miles offshore out of Georgetown, SC.) We have had boat unassembled for years and are bound to put back together now. Had twin 115hp mariners, have been convinced to repower with one engine, as opposed to two. Wanted two engines for safety, but have been told boat does not handle and perform well with twin engines. We are looking at either a Honda BF225 four stroke or a Yahaha 225hp four stroke. Any advice would be appreciated on how this boat performs offshore, what engine or engines to repower with. Wish we had bought a new boat in hindsight, for we have not used the boat since we bought it. Hope this boat is worth putting this kind of money into repowering.
posted 07-06-2004 03:40 PM ET (US)
See this thread over in the performance forum (where this belongs). http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001837.html I have 2 different 22s, one with twins, one with a single - see my post from 7-1 in the above thread.
posted 07-06-2004 10:15 PM ET (US)
[Changed TOPIC; was 22" Outrage 1988 Twin or Single Engine (sic). A boat only twenty-two inches long is not suitable for outboard engine powering.)
posted 07-06-2004 10:31 PM ET (US)
In 1988 the design of a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 OB (with a notched transom) featured a particularly small engine splash well. Many users have noted that with this boat there is the potential for taking some water over the transom which will not be contained in the splash well but which will spill onto the deck, creating a wet stern deck.
If the boat was ordered with the optional larger fuel tank, the weigh of the fuel on board is carried more toward the stern, and this also tends to aggravate the situation with water coming into the cockpit.
You mention that in your re-fitting of your boat you have increased the fuel tank capacity, so I assume you have taken the rear cockpit well space, originally intended as a fish well or wet locker, and used it for fuel tankage.
You also mention powering with four-stroke engines, which will be heavier than the two-stroke engines for which the boat was originally designed.
Because of all of these concerns, I would expect that if you re-powered your 1988 OUTRAGE 22 with twin four-stroke engines, you might find that the combined weight of the twin engines would lead to a situation where your static trim was noticeably down-by-the-stern, and you could aggravate the tendency to ship water over the transom and into the cockpit.
It may be more prudent to consider re-powering with a single engine. I would try to minimize the weight of the engine. If you want an auxiliary engine for slow-speed fishing/trolling or for get-home power, look for one with light weight.
Also, I would consider shifting weight forward, such as moving the batteries from the transom to amidships, perhaps in the console.
After c.1990 the design of the OUTRAGE 22 was changed slightly to enlarge the splash well (making it similar to the splash well used in the OUTRAGE 18/20/25 models). On these boats the tendency to ship water over the transom is the same but the water is contained in the much larger, full-width, splash well.
An OUTRAGE 22 powered with a 225-HP engine with a good propeller can be expected to reach speeds close to 50-MPH, so there is no lack of performance potential with a single engine.
An optimum set-up for an auxiliary engine is to have one which has electric start, remote controls, power tilt, and steering linked to the main engine. A popular model for this is the Yamaha 8-HP four-stroke High-Thrust engine, turning a propeller with a pitch of only about 5-inches. I just saw such an installation in the process on an OUTRAGE 22 transom, and also have seen several of these in use on other OUTRAGE 22 models.
I agree with your unstated comment that re-fitting and perfecting a boat can be a long and expensive process, but the end results can be very worthwhile. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the purchase of a new boat would have resulted in a "perfect" boat right from the start, and the investment required to buy a boat of the OUTRAGE 22 calibre as a new, 2004-model-year boat would have been substantially more.
posted 07-06-2004 11:09 PM ET (US)
Thank you very much for the reply. This boat does have a tendency to to take water over the transom. The previous owner was very straight forward. He stated that the boat was a wonderful offshore boat but be prepared to stand in water several inches deep at the console when landing fish. Hopefully the low transom would also allow large volumes of water to be expelled over the transom in rough seas. A new four stroke 225 would weigh about 150 lbs. less than the twin 115 two strokes he had on the boat. His only complaint was having to carry a back up 30gal fuel tank on the deck for full range, thus the change to the 131gal. tank. Perhaps after a half a day of fuel usage the partially full tank would add to the buoyancy on the trim. The fuel tank was modified to take up the rear deck bait well which the previous owner said was always filled with water from transom anyway.
One other question? I have someone who has offered to mount a V-bracket on boat transom, putting the engine further back by several feet than if mounted on the transom. Do you think this would be of benefit or aggravate the problem.
posted 07-07-2004 01:28 AM ET (US)
[Comments posted in duplicate thread are now appended here. Duplicate thread has been removed.]
posted 07-06-2004 06:43 PM ET (US)
I've a 1991 Outrage 22 with 250 carb Yam. Twins vs Single debate lives on. Not an issue of right or wrong. Four strokes are kind of heavy as are twins. Some people have four strokes on them, but you might want to consider a lighter 250 or 225. I've even heard someone with a 200 HPDI that liked the performance.
The weight on the transom issue will also spawn a variety of opinions. If I were to repower, I would seriously consider 225 or 250 direct injection engine.
Just an aside, the larger fuel cell supposedly creates some more aft weight. I've never been on one with the extra capacity but you might want to do a search as I remember someone talking about it about a year ago on this site.
posted 07-06-2004 07:13 PM ET (US)
Well..you must have trusted whomever told you that the boat does not handle or perform well with twins...because everyone I've talked to who has twins, including those with 22' Outrages, has really liked them for superior handling and performance.
If they mean only speed by the word "performance", then perhaps the setup was not sufficiently powered, and this is possible (i.e. twin 100's will probably not run as fast as a single 200), however the purchase of twins is more than just about speed.
Assuming we already know about some of the drawbacks to twins (i.e. increased fuel consumption, weight, etc), let's look at the pros of twin engines, especially for your stated use (offshore).
1. Greater stability and better "tracking" - stability generated by two points of thrust allowing the boat to track true, especially at idle or trolling speeds.
Arguments for and against them have been debated at length on this site, but when it comes down to it, if you're operating offshore on a regular basis, you should strongly consider a twin-engine application.
If you only venture offshore occasionally, and for the vast majority of boaters out there, including many on this site, a single motor rig is sufficient and more efficient, but if you want to run with the big dogs, you're going to have to get off the porch. Not many of those sportfisher yachts have single screws.
posted 07-06-2004 07:51 PM ET (US)
If the boat has the standard transom and not the Whaler Drive I would recommend a single 225 or 250hp. Since the standard transom model is rated for 240hp you will have to decide if overpowering with a 250 is worth the hassle.
The problem with using modern twin engines will be the weight. The additional fuel will compound that problem.
Check out this topic for a previous discussion on the best power for the 22 Outrage. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001095.html .
posted 07-06-2004 08:21 PM ET (US)
To Buckda's comments - One half of a pair of 115s will plane a 22 just fine without having to reprop. Mine does 38mph at 5400 on just one Yamaha 130 (with the other tilted clear of the water) without changing props (only difference between the 130 and the 115 I can find in the manual is the size of the carb jets and the published max RPM).
With the 1988 you have the older splashwell design, so you may occasionally get a little slop past the corners of the splash well, but a couple of guards like the walleye fisherman use on their transoms would pretty much eliminate that.
posted 07-06-2004 11:18 PM ET (US)
I ran the boat one day with the twin engines before dismantling. It seemed to torgue to one side severely, however the twin 115's were not counter rotating. I thought this might be the main performance issue. It is starting to sound like the extra weight of efficient four stroke twins will be to much of an issue from what I am hearing.
posted 07-07-2004 01:35 AM ET (US)
[Thread closed briefly for editing.]
posted 07-07-2004 01:49 AM ET (US)
The irony here is that if you go to a single low-emission (low-E) engine, the fuel economy will be much better than with twin engine older-style two-strokes. So now the extra fuel capacity may not be such a necessity. You may be able to get fuel economy in the range of 4-MPG, where before you were probably getting about 2-MPG. So your range has just about been doubled with the better fuel economy. With the extra tankage, you will have tripled or quadrupled your range.
Getting 38-MPH with a single 130-HP engine sounds a little on the optimistic side of the equation, but perhaps in the right conditions and light load it is a real speed number. I would not count on it all the time.
The ability of the rear well to collect water is quite amazing, as I am learning myself (in the cockpit of my recently acquired REVENGE 22 WT WD which also has this wet locker/ live well in its deck).
On the newer c.1992 OUTRAGE 22 the rear well was re-designed, and the following changes are noted:
--no through hull drain in cockpit sump
You probably want to consider trying to seal up the hatch cover of that deck opening, and definitely want to install a sump pump to evacuate water from there if you are not using it as a live well filled with sea water. The problem will be locating the sump pump exhaust hose to drain into the cockpit sump or perhaps directly overboard. Perhaps others who have solved this will comment.
posted 07-07-2004 05:17 AM ET (US)
The wet well is now completly filled with new tank. Took out divider and refiberglassed. I guess I had ought to rerplace old teak cover with a fiberglass cover and completely seal. The reason we bought this boat was to avoid packing fuel and the peace of mind twin engines give. The twin engines seem not to be an option due to weight now. I can tell you I had no luck in getting the boat on plane with one 115 when attempted, so the extra engine would have only gotten us back in at displacement speed. Perhaps now I need to be looking at the best way to mount a kicker. What bracket, how fast can I expect it to get me back in in due to an engine failure. Do I really need to have another fuel source(back to packing fuel. Should the kicker be tied to the main engine steering(have no desire to fast troll (10-12 mph) with the kicker. Should kicker be mounted on stationary bracket with long shaft or an extendable bracket.
posted 07-07-2004 08:37 AM ET (US)
Just a thought, but why not look at a carb two stroke. Mine runs like a champ. Cheaper to buy and I would imagine the reliability and simplicity would add to the peace of mind that it will not leave you stranded. That large fuel cell would still give you plenty of range. A final thought if you are committed to twins maybe to rig it with smaller twins that aren't so heavy.
I've never had a kicker so I'll defer to those that have, but I would think in all but the calmest conditions 'kickin' home from 65 miles would be a epic struggle in ocean swell and chop. The 22s are awesome boats but I'm not sure going out without other boats 65 miles into the ocean is the ideal setting, but perhaps I'm just too conservative.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.