Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Twins vs. single for a 22' Outrage repower
|Author||Topic: Twins vs. single for a 22' Outrage repower|
posted 08-12-2004 02:08 PM ET (US)
Just left a note in the marketplace forum on my old engine. Probably should have started here. Anyway, my 1989 22' Outrage CC Cuddy has the original 225 Johnson (1989) that still runs well (but has an idle problem). I run the boat in and around SF Bay, so do get to hit blue water every once in a while. Weighing the pros/cons of the safety of dual 115s vs. the weight savings of a single 250. I have heard from the local Whaler dealer that the E-Tecs are great (he is a 1980 22' Revenge owner who remounts a new Evinrude every year -- great to be in the biz!) and swears by a single engine for reliability, even in big water. Seeing some of the comments about being stern heavy with twins, I am leaning towards the single E-Tec. I can be convinced otherwise, and am open to ideas about different mounts to help with the moment arm problem (can you retrofit a whaler drive type of extension for an older hull?). Also, if anyone has thoughs about the resale value of a 2-stroke carb Johnson 225 with a potential low idle problem, any estimates would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Regards, Will.
posted 08-12-2004 03:38 PM ET (US)
This has been hashed over many times - set the thread "age" to a year and scroll down, and you will find some good responses.
I am probably one of the few active participants here with twins on a 22 (I have a 91 with twin Yamahas of the same vintage). With your '89, you have the newer style splash well, and don't have to worry about the wet feet issue that the '88 and older crowd do when getting up into the 700lb area on the transom. Plus, the extra weight of the cuddy up front is also going to help. That being the case, I would strongly suggest twins, particularily if you venture offshore.
I LOVE how my boat performs. It hops onto a plane (the bow comes back down in 2-3 seconds), and loafs along at 3800 rpm doing 30 mph. Speed at WOT has a 5 handle.
I can't imagine anyone who tested two boats side by side - 1 with twins and 1 with a single - wouldn't prefer the twins hands down. And contrary to what some people who haven't actually tried this set up, you can can plane on one engine - with 700lbs of people and a full tank, I can run 35+ mph on one engine at 5100 rpm.
Now I agree that there are plenty of good arguments for going with a single on a boat primarily used in inshore waters or where you know help is reasonably close at hand. But, you have to admit that twins ae way, way cooler. And don't start with arguments about practicality, percieved or otherwise, because their ain't nothing practical about owning a boat, period.
posted 08-12-2004 04:52 PM ET (US)
I commented about tomales boat a few weeks ago and stated for the record that his 1989 does NOT have the full splashwell.
This is the only 1989 that I have seen like this, but obviously, there may be more.
I believe his boat was built July of 1988 as a 1989 model and was manufactured just before the full splashwell was put into production for the rest of the 1989 models.
posted 08-12-2004 04:59 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the post. Passion is a great thing! Tell me more about how low to sit with twins -- I have an '89 which I have been told looks like an '88 1/2 (low/notched transom), so even with the current Johnson (weighing in at 425lbs) if we are drifting or coming in with a following sea, we get a good deal of water over the back (and no scuppers to drain it very well -- just the bilge under the fuel filter and the bilge in the motor well). How much worse this could be gives me pause for twins. One thought would be to mount twins on a bracket and then get someone to craft a splashwell wall to add a bit of wave protection...have not seen any successful solutions posted like that yet, but I am still looking. As the boat is going to be spending time out on the big blue, I would love to add twins, but only as long as I know I am not going to be needing flippers while at the CC. Otherwise, I may just go for a 2005 E-Tec with a kicker and trust my safety to Evinrude and Vessel Assist. Any pictures of your twins (and mounting) to share? Thanks, again.
posted 08-12-2004 08:31 PM ET (US)
well I have asked the same question here is the forum. I purchased an 85 outrage 25' CC with T-Top. It had a 225 87 yamaha on it and the 3rd time out (was hoping ot get a season) it went boom. :-o So I started the research and decided to go with a 250 2005 HPDI Yamaha. The boat does around 45 -50 mph and planes real fast, the only thing that I think I may add are trim tabs.
posted 08-12-2004 09:06 PM ET (US)
Will- I closely examined the boat you bought when it was in Shoshone,Id.
It was clear to me that it needed new hydraulic steering and re-powering--with that said, I think that you bought a hull in very good condition and it is worthy of any re-power that you chose. The Outboard Motor Shop really likes a 225 or 250 single for that boat. Because of your older motor well type I would suggest the lightest and most reliable single also. I fish out of the Gate also(I think I saw you a couple of weeks ago near Muir) and a new single would be very appropriate--a 4 stroke high-thrust kicker would give you added safety as well as a good adjustable trolling speed. Fix the idle problem on your old motor and list it on Ebay. Have fun with your new boat!
posted 08-13-2004 10:04 AM ET (US)
There are a couple of pictures that will show the static trim of my boat (note that I also have a stern seat and both batteries are in the splash well) posted on yahoo at: [urlhttp://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/utedude2000/detail?.dir=/9e03&.dnm=99c1.jpg[/url] The boat is indeed floating and not beached - the water on the north shore is clear enough that it looks shallower than it is... the old crib just over the motors in the picture has ~3 feet over it.
posted 08-13-2004 10:05 AM ET (US)
posted 08-13-2004 02:34 PM ET (US)
Plotman- great shots. Boat looks great.
I think the twins vs single debate may need to be grounded in the circumstances that you use your boat. I've never owned twins. I've a 1991 Outrage 22 with 250 Yam carb. The only boat I've driven with twins was a 2003 Outrage 240 with 150 Optis. In my very short test drive it was a bit of a pain to synch the throttles, perhaps with practice this would be a non issue, but when I'm driving my current boat hard with less than flat water, I find myself working the throttle alot. I'm just guessing, and will defer to those with twins, that having the two throttles would be a pain on a small boat. Second, I still am not sure I would want all the extra weight on the transom. Just my bias. Reliability, I would love a new 250 ETEC and I'm not sure I would bother with a kicker. Get Sea Tow. Unless you go pretty far offshore where you might find yourself alone, I don't think the 'reliability' of twins or a kicker is necessary. Just my thoughts, there is no right or wrong answer to your questions. The axiom of keeping it simple usually prevails unless you have a distinct need to bring in more complexity. Best of luck, the 22s are great boats.
posted 08-13-2004 03:18 PM ET (US)
If that's what the bottom looks like where you boat, you are a candidatem for a keelguard...(good looking 22, my friend).
posted 08-13-2004 05:21 PM ET (US)
Having boats with a single and currently with twins, I would suggest you stick with a single unless you need twins because you go well offshore frequently or you have a boat that is too big for a single. As Mustang noted, keeping the motors in sync is a constant activity.
With twins you have twice the maintenance and will burn up to 30 percent more fuel than you would with the same amount of power coming from a single.
I currently have a pair of Bombardier built Evinrude Ficht 225s and they are excellent motors. The E-TECs promise to be even better. The 1989 225 should fetch about $ 1000 as a trade-in.
The idle problem can probably be corrected fairly inexpensively. When was the last time anybody did a sync and link check on your motor or rebuilt the carburetors?
posted 08-13-2004 09:16 PM ET (US)
I beg to differ on your assertion that a single will give better fuel efficiency for a given HP output than a large single. Can you cite some source?
If you look at the performance data on whaler's website for the Outrage 240 - the only boat I've come across that has mpg data for both single and twin engine installations of the same type - you will see that you get significantly better mileage with the twins.
Whaler shows 2.14 mpg at 31mph and 1.81 mpg at 36.5 mph with a single 225 Optimax.
Twin 150 Optimaxes get you 2.86 mpg at 30.3mph and 2.40 mph at 35.0 mph.
At the speeds that I run most frequently - 30-35mph - that equates to 30% better fuel economy at a given output (speed) FROM THE TWIN ENGINE INSTALLATION.
posted 08-13-2004 10:30 PM ET (US)
David, you really need to compare single to twin at the same total HP level. Comparing a single 225 to twin 150s (300 total HP), particularly on the 240 Outrage, is to compare apples to oranges.
Also, the performance data for the 240 Outrage shows me that with a single 225, the 240 Outrage is grossly underpowered. Generally speaking, the most efficient crankcase speeds for 2-stroke V6 engines is generally in the 3000 to 4000 RPM range. Note that at 3500 RPM, the 225 can only push this HEAVY 240 Outrage 12 MPH but the two 150s at 3500 can push it to near 30 MPH. To go 30 MPH with the 225, it needs to spin nearly 4500 which means its about 500 RPM out of the sweet spot. The data shows me that it would be a mistake to buy that boat with a single 225 as it would perform horribly in a heavy sea as it is almost out of the sweet spot before it gets on plane. But I'm sure its a nicely priced "package" for the unsuspecting.
When comparing single v. twin at the same total HP amount, you should find that twins are less efficient (how much less depends from boat to boat and the way the boats are rigged. In the case of twins, the drag is generally more than, but not twice, what it is in the case of a single because the twin gearcases are not running as deep as the single gearcase. However, the engines in twin engine rigs are usually mounted in a tow in or tow out alignment to make sure that they receive adequate cooling water. This increases drag because the gearcases are not perfectly aligned with the center slipstream as would more likely be the case for a single. Also, twin engines mounted closer together will generally have less drag than twin engines mounted further apart. Twin engine powered boats also weigh more than their single equal horsepower counterparts and more weight equals lower economy and lower top speed.
Search this site for the data you are looking for because I know this topic has been discussed more than once, probably several years ago. However, without that data you should now be able to understand why twins are less efficient at the same HP level.
posted 08-13-2004 11:02 PM ET (US)
Peter, as I've said for years, there isn't a single outboard engine that puts out enough hp to do these bigger boats any justic.
I've preached & preached that the maximum hp rating will give you the best performance & fuel economy.
Unfortunatly the boats that are & were rated at 300 hp max & people only put 225 hp engines on their boats thinking they will get better milage because of using less hp, they were dead wrong because that single 225 or 250 had to twist 4,500 rpms for anything decent in performance & there goes the fuel economy compared to a pair of 150s that are just cruising along at 3500 rpms not even working up a sweat.
You made a great point by pointing out the equal hp of the single vs the same as the twins producing the same hp.
More hp works alot less thus better fuel economy & less wear & tear.
posted 08-14-2004 06:50 AM ET (US)
Sal, couldn't agree with you more. A good way to gauge acceptable minimum power, single or twin (two stroke V6 example), for a boat is to first know what its ideal cruising speed. If the motor or motors is/are running in the sweet zone at that ideal crusing speed, then the power is adequate. Usually, if you put the maximum HP on, the motor or motors will be in the sweet zone at the ideal cruise speed. At least that has been my experience over the years. My old 1987 18 Outrage with the Johnson 150 is a prime example. It's still running around with the original engine.
David, that's "toe-in" and "toe-out" not "tow-in" or "tow-out". Tow-in or tow-out is when both motors, however aligned, are not working. ;)
posted 08-16-2004 12:19 PM ET (US)
Theres a bit more to the MPG equasion that just a bigger motor not working as hard. Twin lower units in the water create more drag than a single motor. Also, twins weigh more than a single. When I repower, it will be with a single not more than a 225.
posted 08-16-2004 03:55 PM ET (US)
I agree with Sal. And the performance data on Whaler's web page for the 240 outrage back him up also. Another not mentioned benefit of twins is having the surface area of two props carrying the boat. In choppy water, you are much less likley to have a prop blow out or ventilate as you would with a single. Also, the hole shot is a lot better with twins. Think of a 300 Hp car on a dirt road. You nail it and accelerate. What is going to get down the road quicker: 300 HP going through one wheel, or 150 Hp through each of two wheels? When the boat pops up on plane and the bow quickly comes down, you have a safer boat. Lastly, twins will always let you maintain a slower planing speed than singles. In rough water, that is important to me because I don't like to beat my boat or my body when the seas are 3-5s. I can plane down to 18mph and 2800 rpm which is a big difference than 23-24 mph with a single in lumpy seas. And finally, twins give you a lot more variation in trolling speed than you can get with a single. After having owned both configurations, I don't see how anyone would want to go from twins to a single unless their motors were just mechanical maintenance nightmares or old technology gas hogs (IE V4 Loopers).
posted 08-16-2004 04:12 PM ET (US)
Good thoughts. However, I must respectfully disagree with one point, however, the one that in choppy water you are less likley to have a prop blow out or ventilate as you would with a single. Actually, I think you are more likely to have one of the two blow out or ventilate than a single blowing out or ventilating because the propellers are not aligned with with the vee and any lateral rocking about the keel tends to lift one of the engines out of the water. In the case of a single, the propeller is aligned with the keel so lateral rocking about the keel usually doesn't cause blow out. Having twins mounted closer together (closer to the keel) reduces this likelihood some but on larger boats where the motors are mounted further apart (further from the keel), the tendency for one of the motors to blow out or ventilate increases.
posted 08-17-2004 11:22 AM ET (US)
Peter, the prop ventilating is a function of the loading on the surface of the prop. This has a much bigger influence than the mounting off centerline and being closer to the surface. Think of an airplane wing and the wing loading. the wing with the higher loading will stall first. Same with the prop. The higehr loading on the lesser surface area of a single prop is running closer to the edge of the design envelope and is more likle to ventilate. With duals, at least one of the props stays in the water and keeps moving the boat forward making the prop nearer the surface less likley to stall/ventilate. I say this not based on theory, but on actual experience haveing owned and operated both configurations in the same conditions. BillS
posted 08-17-2004 12:47 PM ET (US)
Bill, I don't doubt that the extra blade surface area helps. However, my experience has been that in heavy chop conditions rolling about the keel (not going into a head sea) and the fact that the engines are not as deep tends to pry one of the motors free more easily than in the case of a single. The further the engines are apart and the deeper the vee, the worse it gets.
posted 08-19-2004 12:50 AM ET (US)
Thanks to you all for the comments. I have decided to repower with a dealer's 2004 engine (Evinrude 225DI) with 50 hours. $11K for a brand new engine seems pretty good. At the same time will replace steering and guages. Looking forward to getting this repowered beauty back into the big blue. Regards, Will.
posted 08-19-2004 07:49 AM ET (US)
I think you are going to be very pleased with your choice. It's got lot's of power and its very smooth. You certainly should get the SystemCheck gauge either in the form of the tachometer that has the indicator lights or the separate SystemCheck gauge that just has the indicator lights.
Make sure you run the Evinrude XD-50 oil (a half synthetic composition) or better. I buy it by the gallon from the dealer's bulk supply and its about 35 percent cheaper than if you buy it by the prepackaged gallon. Some people think such OEM oils don't make a difference but they do and the evidence can be seen upon examination of the spark plugs.
One other little thing to know, the sparkplugs will require regapping about every 50 hours or so. I believe the more low speed running you do, the sooner they will need to be regapped. The specified gap is 0.030 but the engine will still run with a gap greater than 0.060. (I just regapped mine at the 65 hour mark before a 250 mile trip, all 12 plugs were consistently at the 0.060 gap). You'll know its time to regap when the engine doesn't fire up in the typical short time that it usually does (5 or 6 flywheel revolutions versus something like 2 or 3). The plugs need to be indexed. A discussion of indexing can be found at http://www.boatsetup.com/PlgIndex.pdf . Your motor does not have pinned heads but the procedure is the same.
posted 08-19-2004 11:18 AM ET (US)
Thank you, Peter. As with all advice in this forum, I will heed your wisdom. Looking forward to feeling safe about an offshore run (and so are my wife and two kids!). Regards, Will.
posted 08-22-2004 05:31 AM ET (US)
twins twins twins. i have a pair of 93 oceanrunners 150s. i am selling to upgrade to 200s on my 24 ft cuddy.counter rotate, controls, cables etc, they run great! (not supposed to say that , bad luck, but this is print).interested? 850-934-0119.$4700 for the pair, found a steal on pair of 200s on ebay, need to sell, will ship. let me know. johnsons are absolutley the easiest to work on, if you need to... dave(holiberry)
posted 08-22-2004 05:32 AM ET (US)
by the way, my wife and 4 kids like twins too!!
posted 08-22-2004 05:44 AM ET (US)
on another note. if you have to work the throttles on a twin constantly, somethings wrong! less strain, much longer life out of the engines. adjust the throttle cables if you have a problem adjusting. i would guess that the person who said that does not, or never has OWNED twins! ever been 30-40 miles out? real fishing is possible, with peice of mind, outside of radio contact. rest my case....
posted 08-25-2004 10:48 PM ET (US)
In the beginning I too wanted twins...
Then people started to talk - (Me out of it).
So I got a little 15hp 4-stroke kicker.
If you don't get more than 25 miles offshore, get good towing insurance and a Yamaha single. Half the trouble, room on the stern for getting on and off, faster with less gas, less water over the stern(4-strokes are heaver than 2-strokes.
I thank those that talked me out of twins on such a small boat (1989 OR 22').
posted 08-25-2004 11:04 PM ET (US)
My $0.02 say SINGLE (Merc).
posted 05-19-2009 11:48 PM ET (US)
I had twin evin 150s on my 22 temptation with a whaler drive. I repowered with a 225 opt merc. Other than getting suggestions from these articles on how to extend a kicker on a whaler drive, I am very happy. I do go out beyond 25 miles and going to look for some good tow insurance. This boat jumps to a plane and fuel consumption is excellent. Floats in knee deep water with bow on beach.
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000