Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Re-powering 22 Whaler with Hypothetical E-TEC Engines

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

Author Topic:   Re-powering 22 Whaler with Hypothetical E-TEC Engines
rehenderson posted 09-22-2004 11:59 AM ET (US)   Profile for rehenderson   Send Email to rehenderson  
With all the talk about the E-TEC motors, it makes we wonder if we're likely to see a 115-HP E-TEC engine and, if so, whether a pair of them would likely be under the 700 lb weight limitation on the 22-foot Boston Whaler classic hull. Any thoughts?
Hoosier posted 09-22-2004 01:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
I doubt it. If Evinrude adapts the existing 115-HP engine to E-TEC it'll come in at about 370 lbs., so two will be over your 700 pound limit. Why not go with a single 250-HP?
TexasWhaler posted 09-22-2004 03:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
jIf Evinrude decided try to squeeze some more mustard out of the current 305 lb. 75/90 3 cylinder models to have a 115 3 cylinder, that'd be one angry 3-cylinder!

rehenderson posted 09-22-2004 05:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for rehenderson  Send Email to rehenderson     
Going with the single will probably be the ticket, but wouldn't it be incredible to have E-TEC twins as a "damn the cost" alternative. And one hell of an offshore machine. What's the liklihood of an E-TEC motor between the 90 and the 150?
jimh posted 09-22-2004 08:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Generally the 150-HP engines have been V-6 blocks. The 90-HP is a I-3 block. Usually engines in the 125-HP range have been four cylinder models, either V-4 or I-4.
LHG posted 09-22-2004 08:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Some 115's are in-line 6's, making an 18 Outrage a great Offshore fishing machine also!
rehenderson posted 09-22-2004 09:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for rehenderson  Send Email to rehenderson     
Is it likely or unlikely that we'll see a 115 to 125 E-TEC motor?
LHG posted 09-22-2004 09:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
They make a 115 Ficht, so I would imagine the upgrade to E-tec would be happening, since 3-star ratings are needed.

It would probably be on OMC's 60 degree V-4 block, which the Ficht uses.

Peter posted 09-22-2004 09:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
It's very likely.
Sal DiMercurio posted 09-22-2004 10:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
It's my under standing that the big E-TEC blocks are the FICHT blocks of today, but the piston are big time different alkong with many other changes.
jimh posted 09-22-2004 11:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
(Please note: It would be greatly appreciated if everyone spelled E-TEC correctly.)
andygere posted 09-23-2004 12:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Depending on intended use, a pair of E-TEC 90s might actually be a viable set up for an Outrage 22. Tyson Beatty is running a pair of Honda 90's on his Revenge 22, and he reports good performance (28 mph cruise, 37.5 mph WOT) and great fuel economy (3.75 mpg). The E-TEC 90 smoked the Honda 90 in the Trailer Boats outboard shootout, so I would expect even better performance with a pair of them on a 22 hull. A pair of the Hondas also weigh 140 lbs. more than a pair of E-TECs, so some additional performance might also be realized. This is not a knock on the Hondas which seem to be nice engines, rather it points out that the 22 Whaler hull is easily driven and performs well without the maximum power. The question that still remains, in my mind anyway, is will the boat plane on a single 90 that is propped for twin engine configuration? If so, a pair of E-TEC 90 h.p. outboards might be a nifty setup for an Outrage/Revenge 22 repower. Who will be the first to try it?
Peter posted 09-23-2004 07:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Now that we're talking about hypothetical E-TEC engines instead of just the likelihood of a 115 HP E-TEC and its weight, here's a hypothetical twin E-TEC engine idea for the 22 hull.

Evinrude hypothetically "saws" the big 3.3 liter (200 cubic inch) 250 HP V6 E-TEC in "half" and makes a 115 and 135 HP E-TEC out of it. Thinking that an in-line 3 cylinder engine block might be a little lighter than a V4 block but that the 3 cylinder's longer crankshaft might be somewhat heavier, I don't think it would be way off the mark to suggest that one of these hypothetical large 3 cylinder E-TECs with a 20 inch shaft length could tip the scale at under 350 lbs. That would be 20 to 25 lbs lighter than any comparable green motor in that HP range. A pair of those could provide the extra displacement that I think the 22 foot hull deserves and that would missing in the pair of 90 E-TECs.

Hoosier posted 09-23-2004 08:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
The 115 E-TEC will be available next summer. What we don't know is whether it'll be an upgraded E-TEC 90 form factor or a modification of the current 115 V-4. I think it'd be neat if they added a cylinder to the current 90 E-TEC and made it into a nice compact inline four. That way they'd have a direct competitor to the inline 4-stroke fours from Johnson/Suzuki, Mercury, Yamaha. and Honda. I read someplace that theoretically the E-TEC injectors can get up to 60 hp per cylinder, so a four could cover a pretty wide power band.
rehenderson posted 09-23-2004 09:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for rehenderson  Send Email to rehenderson     
Anyone know the weight of the current E-TEC 90? Is there agreement that a pair of the "hypothetical" 115's will likely exceed the 700 lb limit? If so, can one cheat a bit on the weight limit by moving the batteries foward?
crabby posted 09-23-2004 09:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for crabby  Send Email to crabby     
Weight for a 90hp E-TEC is 320 lbs for a 20 inch shaft, 335 lbs for a 25 in ch shaft.
TexasWhaler posted 09-23-2004 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
It looks like on Evinrude's site, unless there's newer info out there, they're saying the E-TEC 90 is 305 lbs for the 20" shaft model, and 311 lbs for the 25" shaft model.

Chap posted 09-23-2004 03:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     

I too was keeping my eye on the E-TEC 115's arrival but was recently disouraged by a September Soundings article on outboards. A section entitled, "Building a better 2-stroke," was devoted to the E-TEC. Soundings spoke with Bomb's product manager about the lineup of motors etc. The lineup outlined did not include a 115hp motor and jumped from 100hp to 135hp. Soundings printed "still to come are 9.9, 15, 25, 30, 100, 135, 150 and 175hp E-TECs." I am unsure if this is correct and hope they come out with a 115hp that weighs less than 350lbs with an oil reservoir under the cowling.


crabby posted 09-23-2004 04:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for crabby  Send Email to crabby     
My weight numbers came from the spec page in my owner's manual. I've got (or I should say my dealer's got, since it blew a bearing at 10 hours and I am STILL waiting (ten days now) for a replacement powerhead) a 2004 90 E-TEC.
TexasWhaler posted 09-23-2004 04:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
Your owner's manual is probably the more accurate number.
LHG posted 09-23-2004 05:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Peter - Although your idea is a good one, Mercury beat you to it several years ago. The new 75-115 Optimax's are 1/2 of the 3.0 liter V-6 200/225/250 Optimax block, the same as you propose for BRP.

And even further back, the Mercury 2 stroke 75 & 90's were originally 1/2 of the V-6 2.5 liter loop charged block. Somewhere in the model years, they increased the stroke a little for more HP output, pushing the 90 up close to a 100HP engine.

I wonder if more than the I-6 and 1-4 blocks will come from the Verado components. I have been wondering about a 3 cylinder version for Merc's new 75-115 4-strokes?

And Mercury has done this before also, with the in-line 6, which was also made as in-line 4 (75/80 HP) and an in-line 2 (35/40 HP). The two cylinder version was a dog.

OMC did this with the V-8 block, also making the 200/225 V-6 out of it, and the 120/140 V-4. But only the V-6 version turned out to be a good engine. The V-8 and V-4 were not so hot.

Maybe one of these days BRP will catch up with Mercury! But not for now. They need 4-strokes of their own, and soon, or they're going to get buried by the other 4

TexasWhaler posted 09-23-2004 06:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
"Maybe one of these days BRP will catch up with Mercury! But not for now. They need 4-strokes of their own, and soon, or they're going to get buried by the other 4"

Who needs to catch up with who? BRP now has a 2-stroke line with 4-stroke comparable(in some cases better) emissions.
Mercury hasn't done that. The only thing Merc has done to counter this is to bolt a blower to a big 4-stroke.

I'd say it's the 4-strokers that need to be looking over there shoulders at the approaching E-TEC fury.
(Notice the theatrical closing)

Peter posted 09-23-2004 06:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Larry, you took the bait, hook, line & sinker. ;)
LHG posted 09-23-2004 06:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Texas - Regarding my 4-stroke comment, I'm only basing it on what I read everywhere, and see here - 4-strokes seem to be the wave of the future. Maybe the 4-stroke phenomenon will prove to be a dead end for outboards, but I doubt it. That would put Honda and Suzuki right out of the business, and Mercury taking a bath on Verado development costs. Seems unlikely, so I'll say it again, BRP needs 4-strokes of their own, so they can play both sides too, like Merc and Yamaha are doing, quite successfully. But I don't think they have the capital to do it now, since being sold off by "big" Bombardier.

You should also be aware that RIGHT NOW, Mercury does have 75,90,115 and 135 3-star Optimax's, plus 3-star 200,225,250 and 275 Verados. BRP does not have anything 3-star over 90 yet, until the 200/225/250's show up.

As for FURY, everyone should go for a test ride in a Verado powered boat. You'll be impressed, and the Smart Craft/DTS controls are a knock-out. They are being sold as fast as the factory can put them out. (this is to get even with Peter!)

All and all, it's going to be pretty interesting in the outboard field in the next couple of years. There will be varied choices for everyone, except the for old 2-stroke fans (like me).
Who will have the most popular, best performing clean engines? I don't think anybody knows right now. But the bets are already in

seahorse posted 09-23-2004 06:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for seahorse  Send Email to seahorse     
Evinrude is shipping the E-TEC 200-225-250 outboards on Oct. 4th. Now they will have engines from 40hp thru 250hp that meet the 3-star 2008 CARB emission levels.

Peter posted 09-23-2004 07:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Larry, selling one per month isn't exactly something to write home about. ;) Seriously, I haven't seen one Verado in my local boating waters yet. Hopefully they'll have one at the boat show this weekend, probably on a big Whaler so it doesn't look so big.

But I really can't wait to have this E-TEC discussion two years from now. At that point, we'll all be able to compare how many 225 E-TECS and 225 Verados are hanging on the transom of the classic 22 Whaler hulls. I'm going to go out on a limb here now and predict that the number of E-TECs will out number the Verados by more than 2 to 1.

Besides being driven by transom weight, why would I go out on such a limb? Well, go check out the price of a new Wellcraft, or any other boat for that matter that has published MSRP for a boat with each motor. You'll see about a $3k difference in price in favor of the Evinrude 225 E-TEC equipped boat! (Footnote: If 3-stars is not necessary for comparison purposes, you'll also see that despite the tariff bond imposition, the same boat with a Yamaha 300 HPDI is currently $2,000 cheaper than the one with the 225 Verado). That is a huge market headwind to be facing in my opinion. Something you might have overlooked when thinking BRP needs home grown 4-strokes?

If you are right with respect to BRP's need for a home grown line of 4-strokes, which I do not agree, don't forget that Merc's $100 Million R&D effort left a big, expensive 650 lb hole behind that should be easy to fill with a less expensive conventional 4-stroke of suitable, performance matching displacement. I have yet to see someone disprove the old adage "there's no replacement for displacement."

I've played with the DTS controls at boat shows and they were not worth getting excited about. What's worth getting excited about is self-winterization and battery independence!

We can agree on one thing, however. The change in the outboard world hasn't been this interesting in a long time. We can all thank competition for that.

rehenderson posted 09-24-2004 06:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for rehenderson  Send Email to rehenderson     
And I was just trying to figure out what engines might be future candidates as twins on the transom of the classic 22' hull....
LHG posted 09-24-2004 12:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
I think the answer is fairly simple, in reality. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE 129 GALLON FUEL TANK, which DOES create problems with twins (all the fuel sits in the stern) I would think the boat is substantial enought to handle any brand of 115 HP clean outboard up to 400 lb each. Mercury, Yamaha and BRP should all have engines that qualify, and most are in the range of 375#.

I say this based on my 18 year experience with a much smaller 18 Outrage, carrying 610# of Merc 115's set back 10", with no problems.

For a notched transom 22 WITH the big tank, I would think you should limit transom weight to about 600#, so twin E-tec 90's would do it, but that's about it so far

masbama posted 09-24-2004 09:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for masbama  Send Email to masbama     
How about three 70hp E-TEC's? They would fit the weight requirement and it would look cool.
alkar posted 09-26-2004 04:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for alkar  Send Email to alkar     
I would not recommend dropping below twin 115s on a 22 Outrage.

I also agree with Larry on the ability to go slightly over the 700 pound maximum. I'm sure 750 or 800 would be fine.
However, speaking from experience, I would not got over 1000 pounds :-)

andygere posted 09-26-2004 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I think pre 1989 (full splashwell) 22's would suffer from some overslop and wet feet with more than 700 lbs. This is based on comments from a number of folks with stern heavy 22s and the old splashwell design. Relocating batteries to the console would certainly help.
Chap posted 10-02-2004 09:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     

I thought some images may help the weight conscious.

Twin 1989 Johnson 120, 90 degree loopers at 365lbs. each hung behind a stern seat, two group 24 batteries in the stern corners, oil resevoir mounted under stern seat and the 77 gal tank at about 50 gals. She is as dry/least wet a sponge of this vintage as you'll find. This boat is too heavy.

It may run fine on plane but requires mucho trim to get the nose into the waves and the stern dips below the water's surface drifting if hit more than once by anything decent. Forget about backing down real hard in an emergency and staying dry, especially with a full tank and some buddies fishing or tippling a little potation.

I would like to keep maximumish twins on this hull and lose some weight.


rehenderson posted 10-03-2004 08:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for rehenderson  Send Email to rehenderson     
Thanks for some very helpful first hand information, Chap. I am very happy with the balance of my 22' Revenge Cuddy and I think you've just convinced me to stay with a single motor and avoid the issues you've described. It look to me as though even going down to 90 HP E-TEC motors would substantively change the conditions you've described- let alone the heavier 115's when and if they arrive.
Chap posted 10-05-2004 01:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Hello rehenderson,

You are quite welcome.

I love twins because they exude machismo with their brisk planing, clean tracking, close quarter maneuvering and shallow running(an under accentuated highlight of this big...little boat w/twins). However, they certainly are not the end all be all for the Classic standard transom 22 Outrage with the older splashwell.

If you have an older splashwell on a standard transom 22 anything, weight is a consideration. I think others would agree. As argued here before, guys with single engine prop planes FLY all the time. Kudos SpaceShipOne.

I still desire twins.

Quantum Meruit.

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.