posted 08-23-2004 02:27 PM ET (US)        

After much haranguing by fellow Whaler enthusiasts last weekend about my “smokey motor,” and after seeing photos from the Georgian Bay rendezvous where smoke from my motor was ever present, I am not much more seriously considering repowering my 1986 18’ Outrage. I was planning to put this off for a year or two, but there is also nagging doubt in the back of my mind that tells me that I want a propulsion package that I can trust, and have a good idea on the maintenance history and repair background.

First, let me give you some background on how the boat is and will continue to be used-

The majority of my trips (read, most frequently) it will be used on Lake Michigan, not far from shore but venturing 40 to 60 miles each way to neighboring towns and ports, with the occasional trans-lake passage.
Less frequently, but logging the most hours will be trips like the recent Georgian Bay trip – Likely in remote Canadian waters to wilderness/camping type destinations.

I have several questions, each more complex than the last….

In your opinion:

1. What is the trade-in value that I might receive for a 150 HP Mercury Black Max motor that is fully functional (I just logged more than 700 miles in the past three weeks on this motor.)?
2. Using Ed’s Marine Superstore as a reference for pricing, what “premium” should I expect to pay for a similar motor fully rigged with full instrumentation? (I am assuming that the prices listed on Ed’s are only motor, and do not include rigging and instrumentation).

I am giving serious consideration to repowering with twin 90 HP motors on 8 to 10 inch set back brackets. I realize that this adds complexity to the operation and maintenance of the boat, but I do like it for the redundancy and safety margin (I’m unlikely to use a kicker except in an emergency…if I’m going to pay for a second engine, I want to be using it!).

What are your thoughts on:

1. The ramifications of overpowering this hull 180 HP with two motors versus 150 HP with a single motor…I’m thinking the power/weight ratio will cancel out any really dangerous differences, and may even reduce my top speed, however my motors will last longer because they won’t be working as hard…am I crazy here? For those of you who have high-powered boats (aka – overpowered), what have your experiences been with Coasties, local authorities, etc? Keep in mind that I generally mind my manners and am not too much of a hotrod.
2. The difference in motor cost is about $1,500…but how much more expensive would the rigging be? Double the cost of rigging a single, or are cost savings realized?
3. How much can I expect to pay to have the transom patched where the old motor mount was?

That’s it…simple problem, eh?! I’m not in a huge hurry to do this, but may be seriously considering it early next year or maybe late next year; depending…

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and responses.

Note: Only Mercury power will be considered – 2-stroke or 4-stroke will be determined by pricing and/or weight considerations (twin 4 strokes might be a bit much!).

Regards,

posted 08-23-2004 02:51 PM ET (US)            

Went thru the same 'mental debates' re my 1986 20' Outrage last winter, and I have been DELIGHTED with my 2004 Merc Optimax, replacing a 1987 Johnson 175.

posted 08-23-2004 03:16 PM ET (US)            

What do Larry G's engines weigh on his 18 - that will give you a comparison to the weights of the modern offerings - 303 lbs each for the classic mercs and 261 lbs for the Yamaha 2 stokes. It also makes sense for you to get some sand bags and throw them in the motor well and see how the boat sits with 600 lbs on the transom.

If you go with a single, I would think you would want to lean strongly to a 2-strok merc EFI - I have one from 1996 and it is an absolutely bulletproof engine. It would also be the easiest for you to mount - I would think you could order one from Ed's and just bolt it on.

I got stopped by the coasties last week in my overpowered Outrage 22. They said they stopped me because my boat looked cool, but they also checked my safety gear, etc. They did not look at the capacity plate on the boat. I have also yet to hear of anyone getting a question from any law-enforecment types about the HP capacities on any boat.

posted 08-23-2004 03:54 PM ET (US)            

Assuming the new 150 HP Verado will be based on the 200 HP block, I can expect roughly 650 LBS to go with a 4 stroke single.

If I want to stay with 2 stroke (likely), a 150 HP Optimax is roughly 430 lbs and twin 90's (Optimax) will be 750 LBS...I'd probably have to go with the classic 90 Carbed - at 610 lbs for two (Saltwater series V-6 Classic 90 HP).

So my real options (assuming Verado comes out this spring with a 150) are (in order of expense):
1. Verado 150 HP - 650 lbs dry and $????
2. Two Classic 90 HP (20" shaft for twin application)motors from Ed's is about $10,200.
3. 150 HP Optimax - 430 lbs Dry and $9,799.00

I'm wildly guessing to add about 1,000 for rigging, install and guages per motor (exception: Verado, which I suspect will cost more.

Also - will my current hydraulic steering system handle twins, or do I have to have a "twin" system? If so, I'll need to account for that, too.

I'm thinking that the twins option will run me about 14,000, and the single option (Optimax) will run about 12,000 all said and done. Thoughts?

posted 08-23-2004 04:34 PM ET (US)            

I've been on T/T Whale Lure (18' Outrage with twin 115's), and believe that the boat, when fully loaded with gear, has an acceptable ride, althought I do realize that it will produce a slightly "Bow-high" attitude (this, with about 630 pounds of motor on a setback bracket, and batteries in the splashwell - I believe those classic 115's (1986 edition) weigh about 315 each).

My boat has the batteries in the console, which I hope might account for the differences in weight to provide a very similar ride...

I would think that the twin 90's probably produce about the same ride characteristics with a slightly lower top-end (Somewhere north of 55 MPH for that boat)...but I hope to gain the lower RPM planing speeds, slower idle (on one motor) and increased engine life with this setup; in addition to the comfort that comes from having twin motors running back there, increasing the odds that you will exit the wilderness intact. That's my thinking on the twins...I would guess they would last at least 25 more years on the boat, while the single 150 would probably provide 18 to 20 years of service.

Hmm...I'm thinking "Boat show special" here... January?

posted 08-23-2004 07:33 PM ET (US)            

I think I'm really leaning now to the 150 Optimax with SmartCraft guages - but I still have this nagging thought about getting twin 90's despite the complexity and cost....

posted 08-23-2004 10:49 PM ET (US)            

Your 150-HP Mercury 2-liter outboard is probably worth more to you on the transom than as a trade in. It seemed to be running strong last week on our grand trip!

posted 08-24-2004 08:16 AM ET (US)            

Unless you are a frequent offshore traveler (25 to 50 miles from the sight of land) or the Outrage is a tender to a large ocean going motor yacht, I think twin engines on an Outrage 18 is overkill. Thus, I'd leave it as a single.

The Verado 150 won't weigh 650 lbs. If its built on the 1.7 liter block as has been suggested here, my guess is its dry weight will be in the 500 to 550 lb range (375 lb base + 125 to 150 lbs of Verado stuff). In all likelihood, it will still be the heaviest 150 HP outboard ever produced and won't perform any better than a clean 2-stroke 150. If you wait another couple of years before you repower, you will have more clean repower options (Verado, Optimax, E-TEC, Yamaha F and HPDI, Honda, Suzuki/Johnson) but you will have no smokey and cheaper repower options. If you plan on keeping the boat for a good while and use it more than 50 hours per season, spend the extra cash on a clean motor for the 18 Outrage. Besides no smoke, it will extend the range of your current fuel tank.

If you go twins, several possibilities pop up in the smokey category: Classic Merc 75s or 90s (same 1.4 L block) or Yamaha 90 (1.1 L displacement). Larry may find this hard to believe, but I would pick the Classic Mercs over the Yamaha even though I believe the Yamaha 90 is a fine engine. Reason: I'd rather have the extra displacement of the Mercs rather than the lighter weight of the Yamaha 90s in the twin situation. Additional displacement will come in handy if one engine fails. It is likely that the range of your fuel tank will be reduced somewhat by the smokey twins.

In the clean category, it seems that E-TEC 75 or 90 or Tohatsu 70 or 90 are the only engines that will work in this application. All the 4-strokes are too heavy. Fuel tank range with clean twins might be the same as what you have now.

posted 08-24-2004 08:58 AM ET (US)            

I'm with the "run that Black Max until it drops group". As evidenced on the Georgian Bay trip it runs very strong and parts are available virtually anywhere! IMO a single 150 is the ideal powerplant for this hull.

posted 08-24-2004 09:11 AM ET (US)            

I concur with the respected majority - and with Steve in particular in that I also believe a 150 HP single is the right power for an Outrage 18. Start another jar to throw spare shekels into as you can for the future re-power, and in the meantime chase down the various items and systems that may need attention (fuel lines and connections come to my mind pretty early on). A little smoke never hurt anyone. If the embarassment of firing up the bug bomb early in the morning in the pristine air of a northern Michigan or Canadian marina and leaving a trail as you motor out of the harbor is too much for you, let me tell you about my Yamaha T8 kicker...

posted 08-24-2004 10:22 AM ET (US)            

I agree...the motor has run like a champ this year and I have no particular complaints, really - other than the nagging concern in the back of my mind of going long distances with a 18 year old motor that until this spring was run in brackish/salt water and I do not have extensive knowledge of maintenance and repair history (since I've only owned the boat for a few months).

I agree that it is probably worth more to me back there than to anyone else; after all, it's an 18 year old motor!

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and insights. I guess I'm still in a quandry as to what to do, but fortunately (for this situation) the season is almost over and I will have about three months to think about what I want to do!

Re: rigging for twins - would my existing hydraulic steering system be able to operate twins, or would I need to re-rig with a new system there as well?

Andy - I did consider the E-Tecs, but briefly, the cost is significantly higher (about $1,700 more) than the 2-stroke, however the weight IS the same/similar.

I have to run...more thoughts later...

posted 08-24-2004 11:50 AM ET (US)            

I found a non-current (leftover) motor in March at a great price and received a two year extended warranty and a $600 rigging credit from Mercury. My dealer also sold my motor for me at close to retail value as opposed to taking it on trade at wholesale. I couldn't pass up the deal.

I told my Mercury dealer which motors I was interested in. Mercury sends their dealers a non-current motor availability list. The deals are sporadic- he never knew what was going to show up on the list. I guess it depends on Mercury inventory. They go fast so if one becomes available you have to act quick.

The dealer called me when he found the motor I wanted and I had to commit to the motor at that time. It is a waiting game- there is a chance the motor you want at the price you want may not become available. I wasn't in a position where I had to buy- the motor that was on the boat ran strong so I was in no rush. If the deal didn't appear I would have kept my exisitng motor and shopped next year.

I would think the other manufacturers have the same deals.

Good luck with your decision, there are alot of great motors out there.

Rich

posted 08-25-2004 05:04 PM ET (US)            

I was speaking from a practical standpoint. A single 150 makes more sense for most boaters; good performance, economy, and half the maintenance. Personally, if I were repowering an 18 I'd look very seriously at the Yamaha F150!

posted 08-27-2004 05:34 PM ET (US)            

I hit an honest 40 mph at 5800 rpm WOT one hole up, could probably do better with some prop tweaking, and the fuel economy is incredible. My boat gets up onto plane fairly fast and cruises forever in its sweet spot at 24-25 mph/3800-4000 rpm.

Several members of this forum who own or have owned OR 18s with 150 hp two strokes have been amazed at the performance I get out of this combination when they've actually cruised in or next to my boat. But don't take my word for it, Dave...Orbitz has some great deals on roundtrip airfare from the windy city to Oakland or S.F.; c'mon out and we'll kill some salmon in Cetaceous and you can try the combination out for yourself.

posted 08-27-2004 10:51 PM ET (US)            

If you want to see what your 18 might look with twins, check the images real close that I sent you.

posted 08-28-2004 05:06 PM ET (US)            

I have been on several Outrage 18/19 with 150hp V6 engines and, other than the increased weight and fuel consumption, can't find any appreciable differnce in terms of their performance/handling.

Yamaha's have big block V4 115's when compared to OMC, so your mileage may vary with other manufactures of this horsepower range.

posted 08-30-2004 01:21 PM ET (US)            

Anyway, a couple of facts I considered before repowering my '88 Outrage 18 with a Yamaha 115 four stroke:

1) California is swiftly phasing out traditional two stroke motors, and I decided to wait a while to see how the new technology, CARB 3-Star two strokes work out;

2) I didn't want to put a whole lot of weight on my transom, but I wanted four stroke power. The 410 lbs my motor weighs is just about the limit I want back there for my sort of year-round use in relatively challenging, lumpy seas;

3) I use my boat a lot; I've got almost 200 hours on my 'new' motor since repowering in May of this year; and I'm very conscious of rising gas prices; the Yamaha 115 4/s is incredibly economical;

4) My boat came with an over-the-hill 115 Yamaha two stroke which pushed her along surprisingly well;

5) The classic Outrage 18 is rated by Boston Whaler for motors ranging from 75 to 150 horse power, so the 115 is sorta mid-range according to Dougherty and BW;

6) Finally, hooter and you other guys who seem to always need lots of power on the transom of your boats, think over hooter's metaphor about a bull and a steer...if it makes you feel somehow more macho to blast around all day in the most powerful motorcraft you can buy, more power to ya. I'm pretty much O.K. with my gender identification at this point in my life, and frankly I've never felt that a big powerful car or boat does much one way or other for my personality.

Tony

posted 08-30-2004 02:18 PM ET (US)            

This was at a time when our daughter was still racing her laser all over the country and we never knew when it might be on an inland body of water that had baned 2 strokes.

And as we found out last month the 25 gets 3 times the mpg as the 40 and only 6 or 7 kts less speed.

posted 08-30-2004 08:45 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for your thoughts, insights and (I hope) humor.

You've given me some good information and points to ponder over the next few months.

Clark - an extra thanks for pointing out ways to perhaps make my existing powerplant a little better - I'll give some of your suggestions a try and see what happens.

In the meantime, the boat is unusable right now anyway as I'm restoring the wood and refinishing it all with varnish.

Regards,

Dave

posted 08-30-2004 09:47 PM ET (US)            

Nothing like photos to show how your boat is looking.... :-)
How about posting a few photos so we all can see?

Restoration can be fun while you are doing it and a great satisfaction when you are done. (are we ever finished?)

I enjoyed refinishing mine and always enjoy sharing the photos.
www.sisqtel.net/~jkriz/Outrage/outrage.html

I have seen a few before shots of your Outrage just before you purchased it.
I am looking forward to seeing the "after" shots when you get around to it.

posted 08-31-2004 10:19 AM ET (US)            

Lots of photos on Photobucket.com

Progressively from purchase in different albums....my digital camera is broken, so I'm back to the "old" way and so photos from now on out might be delayed a bit as the restoration process really gets under way...

Here's what's been added:
Full Mills Canvas
GPS/Sonar combo unit
Fixed VHF and antenna
Forward deck extension (for sleeping/camping aboard)

The rest of the project is moving forward this fall and winter (I had to get some use out of the boat this year!).

Go to www.photobucket.com
Main Album: Buckda
"18' Outrage" contains photos from before the purchase
"Gov't Island Trip" contains photos from the first real use of the boat (5-guys going camping)
"Georgian Bay 2004" has photos with the full canvas, etc.

You can see where the gunwales need work, etc. I'm in the middle of that process right now...she's going to be a real beauty when I'm done!

posted 08-31-2004 10:30 AM ET (US)            

Almost as impressive as your boat is how organized you keep your garage/workshop.

posted 08-31-2004 11:52 AM ET (US)            

Nice photos and your Outrage is coming along nicely.
I like the new complete Mills.
http://photobucket.com/albums/v219/Buckda/

Sal,

posted 08-31-2004 12:03 PM ET (US)            

Regards,

posted 08-31-2004 07:43 PM ET (US)            

Great post. You clearly have a valued and distinct opinion. I enjoy the rather interesting and delicate manner by which you share your thoughts. It's almost like you're writng to your journal. For example, in this thread about outboard motor choices for the Outrage 18/19 hull, you first write of pink and purple hair dye and then later of phallic hammers. Though I thought we were talking about engine choices for the Outrage 18, I maybe missed something? Lost in translation?

But I must say, you are wrong about one thing; you don't need the force of a 20lb hammer to drive a nail home when you're savvy enough to realize a nail gun does the job allot more efficiently, and effectively....But hey, maybe your Outrage 18 has a 150hp and maybe you bought that motor because the girls at the salon told you that is the only engine to have. Heck, everyone succumbs to peer pressure... Maybe your bayou crowd just likes big hammers in their back rivers.

posted 09-03-2004 09:20 AM ET (US)         

Yes, a 130 or 135 h.p. motor will push that hull around adequately, if all you aspire to is adequacy. The univoisal rule o' boat pow'r is to stay at or above 80% of the maximum pow'r rated for the hull in question.

posted 09-03-2004 09:37 AM ET (US)            

Just curious re: at or above 80% of max rated power.

Why then, don't you recommend powering beyond the max rating (besides perhaps, local regulations, etc...I'm talking in terms of handling and response).

Thanks for your thoughts everyone...I really am listening to your thoughts and opinions, and continue to give this serious thought.

My Outrage - I sent you an e-mail with info regarding the cooler specs.

Thanks again.

posted 09-03-2004 10:05 AM ET (US)         

Dave, Ah recommend stickin' to the Coast Guard's max rating for the simple reason that, at least within the range of small ocean-capable boats Ah've experience with, those up to 25 foot in length, that rating will push the boat to about 50 mph, plus or minus a couple mph, and thaz fast enough. Above the rated h.p., at the consequently achievable speeds most hulls start to get "squirrely" in that too much of the hull loses contact with the water in certain circumstances, leaving the captain in a reduced state o' control over they vessel. Yes, with practise, some people do get proficient at anticipating when their hull is going to "lose it", and they learn how to safely handle the resulting drive characteristics. But these skills are unnecessary f' the purposes such boats were designed in the foist place. Too much pow'r usually also means too much weight on the transom, leading to some strange movin' around of batt'ries and fuel cannisters to obtain at least a semblance of appropriate static trim. Insurance is another matter to boaters that like t' buy insurance, as you'll find a limited number of more-costly policy options when you over-pow'r your rig.

posted 09-03-2004 10:12 AM ET (US)            

That 200 is going to a) give better gas mileage at any given speed the 150 will push the boat b) last longer because it will be working less hard at any given speed and c) is going to have the exta power/speed there on the rare occasion when you are going to want it - when trying to run home ahead of a storm, when the boat is full of you and 7 of your beefiest friends plus a bunch of camping gear, etc...

HP ratings are creations of lawyers to protect manufacturers from litigous

posted 09-03-2004 10:29 AM ET (US)            

If you need to be protected from yourself, or if you let some 16 year old kid use the boat unsupervised - don't overpower it.

posted 09-06-2004 08:38 PM ET (US)            

Igloo 94 QT.

posted 09-06-2004 09:58 PM ET (US)            

Since I finally own a whaler again, I feel compelled to re-engage on the site.

For what it is worth, was out on my brother's 72 Outrage a few weeks ago. He repowered with the Yamaha 150 4-stroke. While I understand that, like LHG, you're a Merc guy, that motor seemed to me to be built with the Outrage 18 in mind. Since the new Merc 150 is not out, it is the way I would go.

Good luck on the decision.

posted 09-14-2004 06:30 PM ET (US)            

I’ve been working through calculations based on price, weight and price to weight ratio comparisons.

For the time being, I am assuming power up to 200 HP in a combination of single or twin motors. Once this becomes more of a discussion with a dealer rather than an abstract exercise, I may have to narrow the field based on what they are willing to do and what my insurer is willing to write policies for.

My comparisons are for 12 different motors/combinations, all within the Mercury lineup, from classic carbed two-strokes all the way to estimated costs associated with Verado.

Therefore, what I think to be the most important calculation is power to weight ratio for best performance; however when I work this out, the twin configuration almost always comes out on the bottom. When I calculate the cost/HP ratio – the twin configuration does better, but limits me to the simple carbed combination that will be phased out over the next year.

(Two motors were eliminated for weight greater than 650 lbs; the 75 and 90 HP Optimax motors (twins - 750 lbs combined weight). Verado 200 slipped into the figures at 649 lbs; what I consider an absolute maximum transom weight).

*special note here – since the above question was never answered on this particular topic, I’ve assumed a straight $3,000 fee to rig the boat with the motor(s), controls and smartcraft gauges. However, this number was not used in the price to HP comparisons or the pricing comparisons and is assumed to be a similar, straight fee for such work. This figure is also DEDUCTED from the estimated $16,000 price tag on Verado since it has been rumored to be the “installed” cost of the motor.

The remaining motors / combinations in play are listed below based on HP:
200 Classic
200 EFI
200 Optimax
200 Verado
90 Classic (twin configuration)
175 Optimax
150 Classic
150 EFI
150 Optimax
75 Classic (twin configuration)

The overall “winner” in most categories is the classic Mercury 200 from a power to weight ranking (.492) to the cost per HP rank ($44.99). The initial cost for this motor is ($8,999) at Ed’s (#2 in the overall cost rankings).From there it becomes more cloudy –

From a straight cost perspective, the order is as follows (75 and 90 HP figures are doubled for TWIN configuration):
1. 150 Classic
2. 200 Classic
3. 150 EFI
4. 75 Classic (TWIN)
5. 150 Optimax
6. 200 EFI
7. 90 Classic (TWIN)
8. 175 Optimax
9. 200 Optimax
10. 200 Verado

From a power to weight ranking:
1. 200 Classic
2. 200 EFI
3. 175 Optimax
4. 200 Optimax
5. 150 Classic
6. 150 EFI
7. 150 Optimax
8. 200 Verado
9. 90 Classic (TWIN)
10. 75 Classic (TWIN)

From a cost to horsepower ranking:
1. 200 Classic
2. 150 Classic
3. 200 EFI
4. 200 Optimax
5. 90 Classic (TWIN)
6. 150 EFI
7. 175 Optimax
8. 75 Classic (TWIN)
9. 200 Verado
10. 150 Optimax

My question is this: What calculation (besides cost) do you feel is the most important in determining a motor combination, and what would you consider the minimum power/weight ratio (these run the gamut from .497 for the 200 Optimax to .200 for the twin 75 Classics).

posted 09-14-2004 07:28 PM ET (US)            

There are other factors that are going to weigh very heavily on your satisfaction with your choice that are never going to show up in the comparisons you have listed here - for example, in comparing the classic to the EFI or optimax versions of the same HP, you are clearly going to come out more favorable on all metrics with the classic - the various fuel injection systems are going to add both cost and weight.

However, owning boats with both the classic and EFI versions of a merc V6, I can tell you that there is no way I would ever pick a classic model over an EFI offering of the same HP given the fairly small difference in price. The ease of starting, idling, etc of the EFI brings huge benefits that the ratios won't measure.

IMHO, the "extra" benefits of the opti over the EFI aren't worth it, but then I've never owned an optimax, just run a friends boat for the weekend.

If you can get it past your insurance, I would definately go for the 200 over the 150 - the weights and cost are close enough that to me it would be worth having the extra power available if/when you need it. The higher HP engine WILL last longer and provide better as you will run it at lower RPM at any given speed.

That doesn't really help you with your analysis on twins, or on the verado, but it is a start...

posted 09-14-2004 07:38 PM ET (US)            

In my view, its very simple. Repower with a 150, it provides enough reserve HP for the 18 Outrage and its within the capacity rating. All you need to do is decided on the flavor: carb, EFI, DI, 4-stroke or blown 4-stroke. If idle noise bother you, go 4-stroke. If speed, acceleration and good fuel economy at WOT is your thing, go DI. If loud, fast and smokey doesn't bother you, save yourself some money and go EFI or carb. If ease of starting is a concern, spend the extra money and chose EFI over the carb. If you want to do the pure low cost thing, go classic carb as it will take a very long time to recoup the extra bucks spent on the DI or 4-stroke in fuel savings.

posted 09-14-2004 10:14 PM ET (US)            

One other thing to consider in the EFI versus carb debate is whether EFI requires a good working battery. Battery condition should not be a factor for the carbureted version. At least it wasn't for my carbureted Johnson 150.

posted 09-15-2004 10:59 AM ET (US)            

As I continued to think about this and what my overall vision for the finished/restored boat is, I don't want anything else on the back. The decision is not about price (although the best bang for the performance, etc. will be part of the final decision).

This is not to say that I'm on an unlimited budget...I just think that when the boat is completely finished with new power (which may not actually happen until next fall), the look I'm going for has a Mercury power plant back there.

Larry - nothing is wrong per se with the motor back there, but it is 19 years old, has spent that time until this spring in salt/brackish water, has significant corrosion in the electronical connections on the powerhead, and has an unknown repair history. Plus I do know that the lower unit gears have been changed, so it has definitely "found bottom" hard at least once (also evidenced by the skegguard on the skeg).

The above combination makes me somewhat uneasy thinking about true reliability and taking the boat far offshore alone, and/or into the Wilderness areas of Canada for camping alone; which makes me think that a repower before a major breakdown is a prudent decision, although maybe not the most economical one. That said, it is entirely possible that I may wait through next summer before going this route for a variety of reasons as I continue to restore and modify the boat.

Also - you're considering repowering your 18, right? Why? Those 115's run great. I have no way of telling how many hours are on my motor, but since she was in Texas, can assume that she got more year-round use than boats do up here in the MidWest - again, adding to my uncertainty on the motor...

Peter -
I've continued to keep the 150 HP motors on my list for the exact reasons that you've stated, however, when fully loaded with the guys and gear, I will argue that the 150 HP begins to struggle...not a lot, but if that can be easily eliminated by strapping 175 or more HP on the back; then I'm all for exploring that as an option.

Still thinking....

posted 09-15-2004 02:34 PM ET (US)            

You should actually see the pages of data that I actually have on this - all hand calculated on the CTA every morning!

The power to weight ratios are as follows:
200 Classic = .492
200 EFI = .423
175 Optimax = .406
200 Optimax = .402
150 Classic = .375 <---- This is roughly the equivalent to my current motor
150 EFI = .352
150 Optimax = .348
200 Verado = .308
90 Classic = .295 (TWIN)
75 Classic = .247 (TWIN)

Given these figures, can I expect the performance curve to come out relatively the same? (i.e. poorest performance with twins??!) Or am I oversimplifying things (amazing considering all the calculating it took to get these figures).

I agree that the 200 EFI at WOT would really scream on that boat (I can hit 46 MPH, GPS with my 150).

It's not so much about speed, though I do like the thought of all that reserve power..it's more for how hard the motor has to work on a regular basis to move me along. The theory is that the harder it is working on a regular basis, the shorter the engine life...and consequently the more likely a failure when it is most unwelcome.

Moe, Chesapeake and Steve -
Unless there is a compelling reason for the Yamaha 150 HP over the Merc 150, I'd prefer to stay with the phantom black fleet....

(Not knocking anyones contrary decisions here, but I'm afraid I've bought into the buy American if you have the means argument.)

posted 09-15-2004 03:19 PM ET (US)            

The F150 is a four-stroke vs the 150 Opti. As with diesel truck owners, most 4-stroke owners say they'll never go back. And it's only 25 lbs heavier than the 150 Opti.

The F150 is cleaner, three star vs the 150 Opti two-star. These two, and the slightly heavier Honda 150 VTEC, would be my only choices at 150 HP. There's no way I'd spend that much money these days on a dirty, no-star two-stroke motor.

The F150 and 150 VTEC have a 3 year warranty vs the 150 Opti's 2+1.

posted 09-15-2004 04:20 PM ET (US)            

Larry, what's the story with the 150 Verado, have you run one yet? What do they weigh?

posted 09-15-2004 04:41 PM ET (US)            

I also believe even the 4-cylinder Verado is going to be too heavy for good trim on the classic 18 Outrage/19 Guardian. The latter is rated 470 lbs max motor weight.

posted 09-15-2004 05:50 PM ET (US)            

But those are big ifs. If the new Verado comes into the picture before I have made a decision, then a four-stroke may be in the future.

I believe LHG has about 630 lbs on 10" brackets along with the batteries in the back of his 18. I would suspect that the transom could handle about 650 lbs max...but obviously the fewer pounds back there the better.

All this has been a lovely discussion about personal preferences for other brands of motors which I have already cut from teh running; this is getting away from some of the key questions I've had throughout this thread:

1. Approximately how much should it cost to rig the boat, assuming new guages and remote throttle?
2. What is an approximate trade in value on a 1986 150 HP motor in "expected" condition for it's age?
3. What aspect of a motor do you feel is most important when selecting a replacement motor? (except Peter, who provided his thoughts very clearly in a helpful paragraph further up this thread - thanks Peter...dumped that information into the mix and am processing!)
4. When analyzing power to weight ratio, is there a minimum acceptable figure where I should "cut candidates", and does this figure change for twin applications?

You have my continued thanks for your input, which I have felt has been very helpful, but I'm also interested in getting some additional responses to the above four questions to help me.

Thanks!

posted 09-15-2004 06:34 PM ET (US)         

1. If you're payin' a machanic, $800 to $1,000. Add $800 if substituting hydraulic steering for new cable steering, somthin' Ah recommend.

2. Call it $500, tops. No, your motor dealer won't offer you a trade-in unless he's jacked up the motor price to cover it.

3. If you are focussed on performance, it's horsepower per pound of motor weight with no equivocation; nothin' else matters, unless you're confused about savin' whales or restorin' polar icecaps, stuff like that. Some may advocate a 4-banger, and they are confused.

posted 09-15-2004 07:41 PM ET (US)            

2. Around here, you'd be very lucky to fetch $500 for your trade-in. In your zipcode, maybe a little more? The dealer won't take it in trade but will facilitate a deal with a wholesaler that buys motors for their parts.

3. The most important aspects: reliability, simplicity in operation (less parts, less complication equals lower likelihood of problem, greater chance that I can diagnose it), battery independence (have had what seemed to be a perfectly good battery die while out on the water without warning), weight on the transom. Quietness and smokelessness are nice features to have, but at the end of the day they don't do anything to get you home and in fact may work against that objective.

4. I'll bet no one has previously analyzed this to the level you have.

The secret to good performance and engine longevity with a 18 Outrage based on my 10 seasons with one is to have at least 2.5L of displacement, preferably all in a single powerhead.

I firmly believe that 200HP is overkill and exposes you to liability you need not expose yourself to get a very good performing boat. Another reason to select a 150 instead of a 200 is the propeller. You may be able to reuse your propeller with a new 150. You would probably have to get a propeller with increased pitch for a 200 or repitch your current propeller assuming its a keeper. More money saved by staying with a 150.

posted 09-15-2004 08:12 PM ET (US)         

First of all, your days to make your decision are numbered, probably no later than May 1, 2005 if you want competitive pricing. The 2006 engines go into production sometime around then, and availability for carb or EFI 2-strokes will be difficult by then as people hunt around to scoop up what's left, probably having to pay more. If you don't act by then, your only choice will be Verado or Optimax 6 cylinder singles, or 60HP 4-stroke twins. Since the twin 60's won't cut it for you, your only real choice, considering cost, will be a 150 or 175 Optimax. Quite simple if you wait past May 1st. I don't think you want a huge 200 Optimax on that boat.

If you can make a decision, and spend the money before May 1st, your choices are still fairly simple:

1. If you want twins, you want 2 stroke Merc 90. The Merc 75 is the same engine, so why not get the full HP the engine can produce. Twin 75's will not be any stronger than what you currently have.

2. If you want a powerful single, go with the 200 EFI. My experience is that this one of the quietest, fastest and most reliable 200 HP outboards ever made, and probably one of the best 2-stroke outboards ever made, period. There is a lot more to a computer controlled EFI, including Smart Craft support, than the simple carburated version, way too much to indicate here. And they are faster, with less maintenance.
Since the Merc 150's are de-tuned versions of the 200's, and only slightly more powerful than what you have, again why bother. Get the performance the engine was designed to deliver. Expect her to run 60, and get better than 3 mpg on an 18. My twin's give me a decent 1.75-2.0 MPG on the 25, which is 3.5 to 4.0 MPG each.

So summarizing, you have 3 choices if you buy relatively soon, and only one (#3) if you wait!

1. twin 90s.
2. single V-6 2 stroke 200.
3. single Optimax 175.