Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  OUTRAGE 22 WD with Evinrude 225

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

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 22 WD with Evinrude 225
NewportMe posted 09-10-2004 10:10 AM ET (US)   Profile for NewportMe   Send Email to NewportMe  
I have looked at an OUTRAGE 22 WD with a 225-HP Evinrude. I believe the year to be 1986 with same vintage motor. [What is] the time to plane, top speed, etc.? Also, are there any glaring faults with this model engine?

Thanks in advance
Bruce

jimh posted 09-10-2004 12:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/performancePrediction.html
jimh posted 09-11-2004 09:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
If you have the motor in good tune and with a proper propeller, I expect that an OUTRAGE 22 WD with an Evinrude 225-HP motor should be able to hit 42–44 MPH. A boat with a Whaler Drive is going to be slower than one without. The loss in speed is repaid with a much different ride characteristic.

The Whaler Drive appendage was really designed for twin engines, and when used with a single there is, in my mind, a bit of a compromise. The transom height of the Whaler Drive is set for 25-inch shaft twin engines. Initially the Whaler Drive was not recommended for use with single engine installations. Later, and I am not sure precisely when this began, the Whaler Drive was modified to have a flat bottom in the center. In this way, a single engine with 25-inch shaft could be mounted.

Because of the additional hull form buoyancy the Whaler Drive provides, with only the weight of a single engine (and a relatively light one like a classic two-stroke) on the transom, you will find that the engine does not sit very deeply in the water.

Recently we had an OUTRAGE 22 and a REVENGE 22 WT WD moored side by side. Both boats had identical Evinrude 225-HP engines. The engine on the Outrage was mounted one-hole up (normal position), and the engine on the Revenge was mounted all the way down. When comparing the waterline on the two engines at static trim, the engine on the Whaler Drive was about 3 - 3.5 inches farther out of the water. This is due to the buoyancy of the Whaler Drive.

Also, on the Whaler Drive the relationship of the cavitation plate to the hull bottom is quite different. The cavitation plate (or anti-ventilation plate) is about 3-inches above the bottom of the hull and about even with or perhaps just above the flat spot on the Whaler Drive. This rather elevated mounting puts some special requirements on the propeller, which will have to be able to get a good bite in rather aerated water from running so close to the surface.

I am in the midst of a long series of propeller tests (awaiting propeller number nine) and I will be reporting the results in a comprehensive article, but so far I can say that propeller choice is important with a single engine Whaler Drive installation.

I would inspect the Whaler Drive on this 1986 boat to see if it has the flat spot molded into its bottom. If it does not, I would appreciate seeing a digital image of this, as I don't think I have observed one of these drives myself.

If the Whaler Drive does not have the flat spot for single engine use, I would recommend strongly you take the boat for a long sea trial and see how it handles. There is at least one report of a situation where an owner cut down the transom of the Whaler Drive (about three inches) in order to improve the performance of the boat with a single engine installation.

I am quite happy with the way my 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive performs, but it will be much improved when I finally find the perfect propeller.

jimh posted 09-11-2004 09:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re the Evinrude 225-HP engine: you'll have to wait for an Evinrude expert, but in general this is a big displacement, low compression, carburetor, two-stroke what will probably run forever as long as it gets proper oiling.

It will consume quite a bit of gasoline in the process, probably about 20-gallons an hour or more at near wide open throttle.

I don't know if a 1986 is a cross-flow induction or a loop-charge induction. The loopers get better fuel economy.

John from Madison CT posted 09-12-2004 08:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     
Gents: FWIW, the Whaler Drive DOES have a Flat spot on the center bottom of it.

I find the buoyancy of my Whaler Drive fantastic, especially since it keeps the engine so high off the water. Basically, high and dry.

As for the Whaler Drive being designed for twins, perhaps that's true, but I find absolutely NO ill effects from having a single V6 engine on there. Personally, I find the lesser weight on the Stern to be an advantage. The boat's center of gravity appears better with single engined Whaler Drive 22' boats. Most dual engine Whaler Drive boats I see seem to sit too low in the water at the stern, especially when sporting 4 stroke engines.

With full Tee Top Front and side Curtains, and my 250hp Yamaha, I can get ~ 46mph. I fully expect to pick up at least 2-3mph without the curtains.

Peter posted 09-12-2004 08:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The 1986 Evinrude 225 is a loop charged model. I believe it displaces 2.7 liters. I don't think there are any glaring faults with the engine but being 18 years old, I would discount its value pretty heavily in your valuation.

Top speed should be above 40 MPH and it will probably burn close to 24 GPH at WOT.

jimh posted 09-12-2004 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
When I wrote:

"The Whaler Drive appendage was really designed for twin engines...."

it was based on the Boston Whaler factory catalogue specifications from 1990 which state:

"All Whaler Drive models require dual engines."

jimh posted 09-12-2004 04:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Speed increases with the square root of the horsepower. Dave has a 250-HP engine. The boat in question has a 225-HP engine. Thus:

250/225 = 1.11111

Squareroot of 1.11111 = 1.054

If Dave gets 46-MPH with 250-HP, a similar boat should get

46/1.054 = 43.6 MPH with a 225-HP engine.

This compares quite favorably with my estimate above of 42-44 MPH.

NewportMe posted 09-13-2004 06:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for NewportMe  Send Email to NewportMe     
Thank you all for the replies. I have been whalering for four years now and this is a considerable jump in size. I am still considering purchasing this boat, all of the replies have been helpful.

Thanks again
Bruce

linust posted 09-14-2004 04:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for linust  Send Email to linust     
If the boat you're looking at is a 1986 MY, it likely has the original full V-shaped whaler drive. See Barry's post date 12/28/03 in this thread here >> http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002233.html It appears the production change date was sometime in 1987.

For confirmation of Jimh's speed estimate, see my followup post here >> http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002306.html

My boat is the one Jimh was referring to when he mentioned the cut-down WD transom. The original prop was a basic aluminum Mercury (elephant ear) that was clearly unhappy. I now run a Mirage Plus, 15.5 x 17p. Currently, the engine is mounted in the 3rd (of 5) holes but its motor clamp sits about 3/4" below the plane of the original uncut transom. I'll probably move it up one or even two holes this winter.

In the FWIW category, the Opti 225 is about 125 pounds heavier than the Laser 220 it replaced...being at the extreme end of the boat, there is a definite leverage effect and the boat now sits about 1.5" lower than before at the transom.

NewportMe posted 09-15-2004 06:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for NewportMe  Send Email to NewportMe     
Jimh the whaler drive does have a flat area (2"+/- removed from where the true v on the keel would be) The boat looks to be set up properly, I'm just waiting for some specifics on the motor/engine (hrs. compression etc.) This is a VRO is this among the modles that had problems?
NewportMe posted 09-15-2004 06:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for NewportMe  Send Email to NewportMe     
I forgot the boat and outboard (motor/engine) are model year 1988.
Thanks for the input,
Bruce
jimh posted 09-20-2004 07:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re the VRO pump: I believe at some point Evinrude re-engineered the VRO, calling the newer design the VRO2. I don't know to what epoch a 1986 engine belongs.

Among some mechanics it is fashionable to disengage the VRO oiling and use pre-mixed fuel. Yet others think this is unnecessary and prefer to use the VRO feature.

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.