OUTRAGE 22 with Twin Engines - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  OUTRAGE 22 with Twin Engines

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 22 with Twin Engines

srax6 posted 10-28-2005 10:25 AM ET (US)
[Specifically to]Plotman,--I had a few questions for you regarding your twin setup [on the OUTRAGE 22]. How much do the twin Yamaha motors weigh? Did you move the batteries to the console? What type of console do you have? What type of transom do you have? And finally, how does she sit in the water?
I have an OUTRAGE 22 with a standard console and notched transom with an OLD 225 Johnson, 15 kicker, and 2 batteries. I am contemplating a twin setup with carburtor 115 Johnson motors. I have heard they are relatively efficient for two-stroke motors and will probably run until they rust off my hull like the 225 has. Near as I can tell the only twin setup for my Outrage would be a two-stroke due to weight.
The reason for the twins is security; having lost power this fall 20 miles from port it not only took me hours to get in but simply would not have been safe if the seas kicked up anymore than they were. You really have very little control over the boat with a 15-HP in any type of sea. I do a fair bit of bluefin tuna fishing (wishing), so am occasionally the only boat around. Thanks in advance for the info.

Steve
Plotman posted 10-28-2005 10:26 PM ET (US)
I have a pair of 1991 Yamaha 130-HP motors on a standard notched transom with the newer full splashwell. They are turning 19-inch black stainless steel OEM Yamaha props. I am severely limited in prop selection, because only Yamaha sells left hand props for the smalller V4 gear case.
Yamaha advertises that the 20-inch shaft version of this motor weighs 350 lbs. To that, add whatever the weight of the extra 5-inches of mid-section as well as the static jack plates (20 lbs. each) that allow me to mount 25-inch twins on the boat (the only way to get CR engines).
Both batteries (50 lbs. ea) are in the splash well, and both oil tanks (20 lbs. each) are just ahead of the dam, under the stern seat (40 lbs.). So, no I haven't done anything to move the weight forwards.
I did put 150 lbs. of lead shot in the line lockers ahead of the console--this comes out if I am loaded for camping, but otherwise lives up there. I figure it is less than half the weight of a REVENGE cabin.
The boat definately sits more stern-down than my first 22 that had a single merc 200 and sat with the chines at the transom just barely below the water with all the plugs in - but not too badly.
I have plans to put a small bilge pump in the splash well and keep it plugges - I figure that will take 80 lbs or so out of the very back of the boat.
You can see a picture that shows static trim of the boat here: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/utedude2000/detail?.dir=6c72&.dnm=57c2.jpg&.src=ph
I can plane on a single engine and get into the upper 30's with three large adults and a bunch of gear. Some of the places at some of the times I like to go, coming home on a kicker wouldn't cut it.
David
Plotman posted 10-29-2005 11:12 AM ET (US)
One thing I should have mentioned earlier - I think a heavy engine setup works much better on a 22 with the newer splashwell design, mid-1989 and newer. On boats with the original design, there is an area in each of the corners where waves can slop onto the deck when drifting stern-to a chop, backing down. etc.
srax6 posted 10-31-2005 08:29 AM ET (US)
David,
Thanks for the detail and pictures, they are very helpful.
I have a 1987 hull and my transom used to always take on water with small waves from the wrong direction while stationary. I put in a beam length pressure treated plywood board just before the splash well, that I lightly glassed white to increase the aesthetics and durability. Water will still reach the board under the wrong conditions, but with a little silicone around the edges it holds it back very well. I have a automatic bilge pump in the back well and keep it plugged at all times, using a second battery at the dock to deal with rain etc. This setup has worked well so far and never drained the battery or flooded the boat.
I had not thought of the counter rotation issue, but I bet Johnson will only have 25-inch CR as well. That increases my projected weight, but still seems to be in the ballpark.
I like the idea of putting a little weight up front and will give that a try if/when I make this change.
One final question, how does the twin setup seem relative to your previous single for fuel consumption. I'm assuming new 115 Johnson would be more efficient than my 1987 225 Johnson, but not sure if the double drag negates the benefit. Any thoughts? Thanks again David.
Steve
Plotman posted 10-31-2005 10:41 AM ET (US)
I never measured fuel economy on my old boat, but Jim H has published the mileage he gets in his 22 Revenge WD with a big single, and they are pretty similar to what I see - a touch lower, but not that much, and I don't know if that is the engine or the extra drag from the whaler drive. Anyway, I can get 2.7-MPG (via a calibrated Navman fuel flow meter and GPS) when everything is trimmed right, but average about 2.25 mpg over the course of a cruise. I personally do not think there is a MPG penalty for having twins, in fact the data Whaler publishes on the newer boats show that you might do a bit better on a given boat with twins - certainly no worse.
Also, I'm not sure it is all that important to have CR engines, given that you have to add the weight of the longer engines and jack plates to do it. Especially considering how hard left hand props are to find in this size. And if you aren't CR, you could carry a single spare prop of a lower pitch that you could swap out if you had to come home a long way on a single engine. If you are propped right for twins, you end up being over propped running on just one engine. I don't lug too badly - I top out at 5400 RPM on one engine, but it takes a long time to plane.
I would look carefully at the weight of the 115/130 eTecs when they become available. They are listed as only being 10 lbs heavier than the straight 2 stroke yamahas that I have now, but remember that you save some weight on the eTecs in that there is no remote oil tank and they are full at about a gallon of oil as compared to 2.5 - which is probably a savings of 20 lbs all-in vs a remote tank. This is most likely going to be how I repower when the time comes.
The 115 Optimax may also be an option - they are only 5 lbs more than the E-Tec.
Teak Oil posted 10-31-2005 08:42 PM ET (US)
The 115/130 E-TEC is about 365-lbs., the 115 Johnson is 335-lbs.
I think the OptiMax is 370 or 375-lbs.
The Johnson motors are also several thousand less, it would take a long time to make up for the difference in fuel savings.
Plotman posted 11-01-2005 08:43 AM ET (US)
There isn't a price I have seen yet on the E-TEC, but the pricing I did find for the Mercury and the Johnson had the Johnson at $6,599 and the Merc OptiMax at $7,299. If you assume controls and rigging are comparable, you are $700 per engine difference or a total of $1,400, or the cost of 560 gallons of gas at $2.50 per gallon.
I don't know what kind of mileage improvement you would get out of the DFI engines (optimax/E-TEC) over a straight carburetor engine, but I know that my optimum fuel economy in a 22 Outrage with twin carburetor Yamaha motors is about 2.7-MPG. Whaler lists the 210 OUTRAGE (a boat that is 35% heavier than a classic 22) as getting 3.6-MPG with an OptiMax, so I don't think assuming 3.7 for a 22 with a pair of 115 DFI is a bad assumption. (All the data comparing twins to single engines on the same boat show twin economy at least as good as the single). At 30 MPH, that is a difference of 3 GPH. So you would pay for the higher engine cost in under 200 hours of operation, maybe two seasons the way I operate up here in the far north. I think it is fair to assume that the Optimax and E-TEC will get similar mileage.
And as far as the weight goes, I'll point out again that the difference in installed weight full of fluids is probably more like 15 lbs between the Johnson and the E-TEC because of the remote oil tank required by the Johnson.
David
LHG posted 11-01-2005 12:27 PM ET (US)
David - This Almars Outboard shop in Delaware that we have been referred to by Andy Gere is selling brand new 2004 Opti 115's for $6395.
andygere posted 11-02-2005 11:44 AM ET (US)
Be advised that the Almar's salesman told me he can only ship to an authorized Mercury dealer, not a private party, per Mercury Dealership rules. Not really a deal killer unless you were planning to do the install yourself, but you'd have to find a dealer willing to do the work without making the sale on the motor.
jimh posted 11-03-2005 08:38 AM ET (US)
Re the fuel economy of a 225-HP carburetor two-stroke on my REVENGE 22 WT WD: my NAVMAN fuel gauge shows the seasonal totals for this year, and they work out to about 1.85-MPG average.
Here are the numbers:
Total hours = 67.3
Total gallons = 508.7
Total miles = 941.3
This give the following averages:
Average MPH = 13.98
Average MPG = 1.85
Average GPH = 7.56
These were computed without re-calibration of the NAVMAN fuel flow transducer. Based on how much fuel it thinks is remaining in the tank versus how much there really is, I can see that the fuel consumption was probably slightly over-stated by these numbers. My guess is that the actual fuel consumption was about 20-gallons less, giving an average closer to 1.9-MPG.
I think an OUTRAGE-22 should get better fuel economy than my boat because it weighs significantly less, and my boat has two feet more running surface in the water at all times.
On that basis I think you should consider the fuel economy of your OUTRAGE-22 with a single 225-HP to be around 2.0 to 2.2 MPG.
My shot-in-the-dark guess for fuel economy on a 22-OUTRAGE with modern twin engines around 3.0-MPG optimum. That is a 36-percent improvement from my 2.2-MPG estimate. The engine makers cite 40-percent as their anticipated result. Twins might lower that just a hair. Thus I think the 3.0-MPG number is a reasonable estimate. I'd use that as a basis for estimating fuel economy improvement with modern low-emission engines like an E-TEC, an OptiMax, or a four-stroke.
srax6 posted 11-03-2005 09:54 AM ET (US)
Does anyone know of a same hull fuel comparison between E-Tec/Opti/Etc and a new 2 stroke at lower hp ratings (90hp)? The evinrude site has 90 E-tec results posted and the Johnson site has 115 results posted. The boats are NOT similar but the data SEEMS to indicate that the 115 Johnson is ROUGHLY 80% as efficient as the 90 E-Tec. Does this sound right: E-tec 25% better than a NEW larger hp 2 stroke?
I want twins and can't really be talked out of it but, I am wondering just how much efficiency there is between NEW 2 stroke 115's and E-tec/Opti/Etc.
I have talked to a few dealers, and a boat rental place down in Marco Island Florida that had both NEW 115 Johnson's and a few 90 E-tecs. They said the fuel improvement is not that large, it's there but they said the NEW 115 2 stoke was pretty efficient itself. What do you guys think, am I just wrong or could there be something to this at lower HP ratings?

Plotman posted 11-03-2005 11:44 AM ET (US)
I'd agree with Jim's estimates - My 2.7mpg is an optimum for me. I average about 2.25 mpg over the long haul.
I disagree that there is a fuel economy penalty for running twins - the performance data on the whaler show just the opposite, though those are DFI and 4 stroke comparisons.
While it might be questionable whether it makes sense to get rid of a perfectly good engine and replace with new technology strictly on fuel economy, I'm an quite confident that it makese sense to spend the extra $700-1000 per engine to go with a DFI if you are buying new anyway.
Spend some time looking at the performance data on whaler's website, and compare that to the data we're giving you on our boats - just remember to compare optimum to optimum and average to average.
jimh posted 11-03-2005 01:37 PM ET (US)
The one aspect of the E-TEC which seems to less than fantastic is its fuel consumption. The E-TEC certainly has better fuel consumption than a conventional two-stroke, but it seems to be just a bit more fuel-thirsty than a mildly-tuned four-stroke.
This hyperlink will take you to a very large collection of performance reports on the E-TEC, including the new smaller V6 engines at 150- to 200-HP:
http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/id3.html
jimh posted 11-03-2005 01:46 PM ET (US)
Here is a report of twin 90-HP E-TEC engines on a 27-foot boat with a hull similar to a Boston Whaler classic. They turn in an optimum cruise of 3.4 MPG, which is quite respectable.
http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/e-tec90twins-carosk2790.pdf
bsmotril posted 11-03-2005 05:55 PM ET (US)
I got 3 MPG with twin Optis on a newer Conquest 23. I think the lighter outrage will do even better. I'd expect 3.4-3.6 with 20-21 inch props on a pair of 135hp Optis.
BillS
SJ Striper posted 11-03-2005 06:24 PM ET (US)
I have a 1988 Outrage with a super console, T-top, WD with a Yami EFI 250. Perfect setup for this boat. 33 knots at 3800 rpm, 44 knots at 4800 with full console enclosure on. Could probably hit 50 if I removed enclosure. Consider a single big fuel injected outboard.
SJ
andygere posted 11-03-2005 07:26 PM ET (US)
I would not say that the Carolina Skiff has a hull configuration similar to a classic Boston Whaler. I recently purchased a 16 foot model for my company, and it is easily driven to planing speeds with a 20 hp 4-stroke. The boats are very light, and have a completely flat bottom. The hull configuration is similar to a jon boat, but in fiberglass. I'm not knocking Carolina Skiffs, in fact I think they are a great value for what they are. What they are not, and not even close to, is a Boston Whaler hull. Note that the 27 foot skiff weighs just 2500 pounds dry. If I thought I could get those performance numbers on my Outrage 22 Cuddy with a pair of 90 hp E-TECs, I'd buy them today. For a 22, a pair of 115/130 E-TECs would be ideal, were it not for the transom weight. As much as I like the idea of twins, I think there really isn't a viable option of DI or 4-stroke twins that would provide decent power for an Outrage/Revenge 22. If 2-stroke 115s are available for srax6, I'd say that's the way to go if twins are what he wants. Otherwise, a 200 or 225 E-TEC and a kicker make a nice combination on that boat. I am still waiting for some performance data on the 2.6 liter 200 to decide what I'm putting on my Outrage.
jimh posted 11-03-2005 08:53 PM ET (US)
Andy--you are killing my dream boat. I would really like a pair of twins on my REVENGE 22 WT WD, and I'd like them to get over 3.0 MPG fuel economy, not weigh too much, and not cost too much.
I was looking at Plotman's pictures taken up on Lake Superior and thinking how much more comfort there'd be if I could look back at the transom of my boat and see twin engines. With the Whaler Drive the weight is not a problem; what is holding me back is the $25,000 and the prospect of spending almost as much as I do now for fuel!
andygere posted 11-03-2005 09:13 PM ET (US)
Jimh,
Since you are lucky enough to have a full transom Revenge model with WhalerDrive, I agree that you have a lot more options than I do with my notched transom Outrage. A pair of E-TEC 115/130's weigh 738 lbs, which I think your boat can carry and still maintain good static trim. I think you could get a pair of them for a lot less than $25k. Even if fuel economy is a push, that's not a bad trade off for the reliability and cool factor of having twins. I really do like those E-TEC 90's, but I just don't think they have enough displacement to make up for the extra drag of the second gearcase. A pair of those would probably be pretty nice on your former Revenge, and downright smokin' on an Outrage 18 or first generation Outrage 21. On the other hand, I did take a ride on a Revenge 22 set up with a new E-TEC 225, and performance was, to say the least, brisk. The down side of all that horsepower is that it comes in a really big package, with a pretty hefty weight. Your dealership seems to be something of an E-TEC specialist, so let us know when the small block V6 and new V4 models start arriving.
jimh posted 11-03-2005 11:35 PM ET (US)
Andy--will do. Dave has two 150-HP E-TEC's on order. One is for a customer's boat and one for the showroom floor. I check in weekly to see what is new. Delivery on the new 150-HP E-TEC motors is tough at the moment, but they should be showing up at dealers soon.
LHG posted 11-03-2005 11:53 PM ET (US)
I read recently that 2.6 liter E-tecs won't be in Dealerships until Feb, as they want to be sure they get the bugs out first. As with the other brands, I would assume first production, when it gets started, will go to some boat builders.
13Supersport posted 11-04-2005 07:30 PM ET (US)
I have a 88 22ft Revenge WD WT. The boat has twin counter rotating 150 Yamaha's 1999 ( extremely low hours ). Boat
is extremely brisk and stable.
Kind regards,
Doug G.
jimh posted 11-05-2005 09:18 AM ET (US)
Doug--If you have some accurate observations of boat speed versus engine speed, along with details of your propellers, I think many readers would be interested in seeing them.
reelescape1 posted 11-07-2005 11:44 AM ET (US)
Been a while since I've posted here. 1990 22' OR transom mount 2002 Yam 225 OX66 with 590 hrs. T-Top w/curtains and Bennett bat wing tabs. 2 Optima batteries and oil tank under std. console. I repowered with this new engine spring 2002. I removed twin Evin. 88 spl's. I've been running a Yam SS 3 blade 19" with rpm to 4900-5000 and 46 mph and fuel burn in the 2.5-3 mpg range keeping the rpm's in the 3200-3800 range. This prop does great everywhere except the ocean where I can't run as fast. I've recently tried (and am going to purchase) a Solas 4 blade 17" SS prop. Top speed dropped by 2 mph and rpm went up to 5400-5500 with full fuel, loaded to fish. This allows slower planing ( a big plus in the ocean!) and 2 1/4 mpg. The hole shot is still great with no "blow out" in turns. I really like the big single as opposed to the twins that came off. It's much more fuel efficient.

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.

Author	Topic: OUTRAGE 22 with Twin Engines
srax6	posted 10-28-2005 10:25 AM ET (US) [Specifically to]Plotman,--I had a few questions for you regarding your twin setup [on the OUTRAGE 22]. How much do the twin Yamaha motors weigh? Did you move the batteries to the console? What type of console do you have? What type of transom do you have? And finally, how does she sit in the water? I have an OUTRAGE 22 with a standard console and notched transom with an OLD 225 Johnson, 15 kicker, and 2 batteries. I am contemplating a twin setup with carburtor 115 Johnson motors. I have heard they are relatively efficient for two-stroke motors and will probably run until they rust off my hull like the 225 has. Near as I can tell the only twin setup for my Outrage would be a two-stroke due to weight. The reason for the twins is security; having lost power this fall 20 miles from port it not only took me hours to get in but simply would not have been safe if the seas kicked up anymore than they were. You really have very little control over the boat with a 15-HP in any type of sea. I do a fair bit of bluefin tuna fishing (wishing), so am occasionally the only boat around. Thanks in advance for the info. Steve
Plotman	posted 10-28-2005 10:26 PM ET (US) I have a pair of 1991 Yamaha 130-HP motors on a standard notched transom with the newer full splashwell. They are turning 19-inch black stainless steel OEM Yamaha props. I am severely limited in prop selection, because only Yamaha sells left hand props for the smalller V4 gear case. Yamaha advertises that the 20-inch shaft version of this motor weighs 350 lbs. To that, add whatever the weight of the extra 5-inches of mid-section as well as the static jack plates (20 lbs. each) that allow me to mount 25-inch twins on the boat (the only way to get CR engines). Both batteries (50 lbs. ea) are in the splash well, and both oil tanks (20 lbs. each) are just ahead of the dam, under the stern seat (40 lbs.). So, no I haven't done anything to move the weight forwards. I did put 150 lbs. of lead shot in the line lockers ahead of the console--this comes out if I am loaded for camping, but otherwise lives up there. I figure it is less than half the weight of a REVENGE cabin. The boat definately sits more stern-down than my first 22 that had a single merc 200 and sat with the chines at the transom just barely below the water with all the plugs in - but not too badly. I have plans to put a small bilge pump in the splash well and keep it plugges - I figure that will take 80 lbs or so out of the very back of the boat. You can see a picture that shows static trim of the boat here: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/utedude2000/detail?.dir=6c72&.dnm=57c2.jpg&.src=ph I can plane on a single engine and get into the upper 30's with three large adults and a bunch of gear. Some of the places at some of the times I like to go, coming home on a kicker wouldn't cut it. David
Plotman	posted 10-29-2005 11:12 AM ET (US) One thing I should have mentioned earlier - I think a heavy engine setup works much better on a 22 with the newer splashwell design, mid-1989 and newer. On boats with the original design, there is an area in each of the corners where waves can slop onto the deck when drifting stern-to a chop, backing down. etc.
srax6	posted 10-31-2005 08:29 AM ET (US) David, Thanks for the detail and pictures, they are very helpful. I have a 1987 hull and my transom used to always take on water with small waves from the wrong direction while stationary. I put in a beam length pressure treated plywood board just before the splash well, that I lightly glassed white to increase the aesthetics and durability. Water will still reach the board under the wrong conditions, but with a little silicone around the edges it holds it back very well. I have a automatic bilge pump in the back well and keep it plugged at all times, using a second battery at the dock to deal with rain etc. This setup has worked well so far and never drained the battery or flooded the boat. I had not thought of the counter rotation issue, but I bet Johnson will only have 25-inch CR as well. That increases my projected weight, but still seems to be in the ballpark. I like the idea of putting a little weight up front and will give that a try if/when I make this change. One final question, how does the twin setup seem relative to your previous single for fuel consumption. I'm assuming new 115 Johnson would be more efficient than my 1987 225 Johnson, but not sure if the double drag negates the benefit. Any thoughts? Thanks again David. Steve
Plotman	posted 10-31-2005 10:41 AM ET (US) I never measured fuel economy on my old boat, but Jim H has published the mileage he gets in his 22 Revenge WD with a big single, and they are pretty similar to what I see - a touch lower, but not that much, and I don't know if that is the engine or the extra drag from the whaler drive. Anyway, I can get 2.7-MPG (via a calibrated Navman fuel flow meter and GPS) when everything is trimmed right, but average about 2.25 mpg over the course of a cruise. I personally do not think there is a MPG penalty for having twins, in fact the data Whaler publishes on the newer boats show that you might do a bit better on a given boat with twins - certainly no worse. Also, I'm not sure it is all that important to have CR engines, given that you have to add the weight of the longer engines and jack plates to do it. Especially considering how hard left hand props are to find in this size. And if you aren't CR, you could carry a single spare prop of a lower pitch that you could swap out if you had to come home a long way on a single engine. If you are propped right for twins, you end up being over propped running on just one engine. I don't lug too badly - I top out at 5400 RPM on one engine, but it takes a long time to plane. I would look carefully at the weight of the 115/130 eTecs when they become available. They are listed as only being 10 lbs heavier than the straight 2 stroke yamahas that I have now, but remember that you save some weight on the eTecs in that there is no remote oil tank and they are full at about a gallon of oil as compared to 2.5 - which is probably a savings of 20 lbs all-in vs a remote tank. This is most likely going to be how I repower when the time comes. The 115 Optimax may also be an option - they are only 5 lbs more than the E-Tec.
Teak Oil	posted 10-31-2005 08:42 PM ET (US) The 115/130 E-TEC is about 365-lbs., the 115 Johnson is 335-lbs. I think the OptiMax is 370 or 375-lbs. The Johnson motors are also several thousand less, it would take a long time to make up for the difference in fuel savings.
Plotman	posted 11-01-2005 08:43 AM ET (US) There isn't a price I have seen yet on the E-TEC, but the pricing I did find for the Mercury and the Johnson had the Johnson at $6,599 and the Merc OptiMax at $7,299. If you assume controls and rigging are comparable, you are $700 per engine difference or a total of $1,400, or the cost of 560 gallons of gas at $2.50 per gallon. I don't know what kind of mileage improvement you would get out of the DFI engines (optimax/E-TEC) over a straight carburetor engine, but I know that my optimum fuel economy in a 22 Outrage with twin carburetor Yamaha motors is about 2.7-MPG. Whaler lists the 210 OUTRAGE (a boat that is 35% heavier than a classic 22) as getting 3.6-MPG with an OptiMax, so I don't think assuming 3.7 for a 22 with a pair of 115 DFI is a bad assumption. (All the data comparing twins to single engines on the same boat show twin economy at least as good as the single). At 30 MPH, that is a difference of 3 GPH. So you would pay for the higher engine cost in under 200 hours of operation, maybe two seasons the way I operate up here in the far north. I think it is fair to assume that the Optimax and E-TEC will get similar mileage. And as far as the weight goes, I'll point out again that the difference in installed weight full of fluids is probably more like 15 lbs between the Johnson and the E-TEC because of the remote oil tank required by the Johnson. David
LHG	posted 11-01-2005 12:27 PM ET (US) David - This Almars Outboard shop in Delaware that we have been referred to by Andy Gere is selling brand new 2004 Opti 115's for $6395.
andygere	posted 11-02-2005 11:44 AM ET (US) Be advised that the Almar's salesman told me he can only ship to an authorized Mercury dealer, not a private party, per Mercury Dealership rules. Not really a deal killer unless you were planning to do the install yourself, but you'd have to find a dealer willing to do the work without making the sale on the motor.
jimh	posted 11-03-2005 08:38 AM ET (US) Re the fuel economy of a 225-HP carburetor two-stroke on my REVENGE 22 WT WD: my NAVMAN fuel gauge shows the seasonal totals for this year, and they work out to about 1.85-MPG average. Here are the numbers: Total hours = 67.3 Total gallons = 508.7 Total miles = 941.3 This give the following averages: Average MPH = 13.98 Average MPG = 1.85 Average GPH = 7.56 These were computed without re-calibration of the NAVMAN fuel flow transducer. Based on how much fuel it thinks is remaining in the tank versus how much there really is, I can see that the fuel consumption was probably slightly over-stated by these numbers. My guess is that the actual fuel consumption was about 20-gallons less, giving an average closer to 1.9-MPG. I think an OUTRAGE-22 should get better fuel economy than my boat because it weighs significantly less, and my boat has two feet more running surface in the water at all times. On that basis I think you should consider the fuel economy of your OUTRAGE-22 with a single 225-HP to be around 2.0 to 2.2 MPG. My shot-in-the-dark guess for fuel economy on a 22-OUTRAGE with modern twin engines around 3.0-MPG optimum. That is a 36-percent improvement from my 2.2-MPG estimate. The engine makers cite 40-percent as their anticipated result. Twins might lower that just a hair. Thus I think the 3.0-MPG number is a reasonable estimate. I'd use that as a basis for estimating fuel economy improvement with modern low-emission engines like an E-TEC, an OptiMax, or a four-stroke.
srax6	posted 11-03-2005 09:54 AM ET (US) Does anyone know of a same hull fuel comparison between E-Tec/Opti/Etc and a new 2 stroke at lower hp ratings (90hp)? The evinrude site has 90 E-tec results posted and the Johnson site has 115 results posted. The boats are NOT similar but the data SEEMS to indicate that the 115 Johnson is ROUGHLY 80% as efficient as the 90 E-Tec. Does this sound right: E-tec 25% better than a NEW larger hp 2 stroke? I want twins and can't really be talked out of it but, I am wondering just how much efficiency there is between NEW 2 stroke 115's and E-tec/Opti/Etc. I have talked to a few dealers, and a boat rental place down in Marco Island Florida that had both NEW 115 Johnson's and a few 90 E-tecs. They said the fuel improvement is not that large, it's there but they said the NEW 115 2 stoke was pretty efficient itself. What do you guys think, am I just wrong or could there be something to this at lower HP ratings?
Plotman	posted 11-03-2005 11:44 AM ET (US) I'd agree with Jim's estimates - My 2.7mpg is an optimum for me. I average about 2.25 mpg over the long haul. I disagree that there is a fuel economy penalty for running twins - the performance data on the whaler show just the opposite, though those are DFI and 4 stroke comparisons. While it might be questionable whether it makes sense to get rid of a perfectly good engine and replace with new technology strictly on fuel economy, I'm an quite confident that it makese sense to spend the extra $700-1000 per engine to go with a DFI if you are buying new anyway. Spend some time looking at the performance data on whaler's website, and compare that to the data we're giving you on our boats - just remember to compare optimum to optimum and average to average.
jimh	posted 11-03-2005 01:37 PM ET (US) The one aspect of the E-TEC which seems to less than fantastic is its fuel consumption. The E-TEC certainly has better fuel consumption than a conventional two-stroke, but it seems to be just a bit more fuel-thirsty than a mildly-tuned four-stroke. This hyperlink will take you to a very large collection of performance reports on the E-TEC, including the new smaller V6 engines at 150- to 200-HP: http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/id3.html
jimh	posted 11-03-2005 01:46 PM ET (US) Here is a report of twin 90-HP E-TEC engines on a 27-foot boat with a hull similar to a Boston Whaler classic. They turn in an optimum cruise of 3.4 MPG, which is quite respectable. http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/e-tec90twins-carosk2790.pdf
bsmotril	posted 11-03-2005 05:55 PM ET (US) I got 3 MPG with twin Optis on a newer Conquest 23. I think the lighter outrage will do even better. I'd expect 3.4-3.6 with 20-21 inch props on a pair of 135hp Optis. BillS
SJ Striper	posted 11-03-2005 06:24 PM ET (US) I have a 1988 Outrage with a super console, T-top, WD with a Yami EFI 250. Perfect setup for this boat. 33 knots at 3800 rpm, 44 knots at 4800 with full console enclosure on. Could probably hit 50 if I removed enclosure. Consider a single big fuel injected outboard. SJ
andygere	posted 11-03-2005 07:26 PM ET (US) I would not say that the Carolina Skiff has a hull configuration similar to a classic Boston Whaler. I recently purchased a 16 foot model for my company, and it is easily driven to planing speeds with a 20 hp 4-stroke. The boats are very light, and have a completely flat bottom. The hull configuration is similar to a jon boat, but in fiberglass. I'm not knocking Carolina Skiffs, in fact I think they are a great value for what they are. What they are not, and not even close to, is a Boston Whaler hull. Note that the 27 foot skiff weighs just 2500 pounds dry. If I thought I could get those performance numbers on my Outrage 22 Cuddy with a pair of 90 hp E-TECs, I'd buy them today. For a 22, a pair of 115/130 E-TECs would be ideal, were it not for the transom weight. As much as I like the idea of twins, I think there really isn't a viable option of DI or 4-stroke twins that would provide decent power for an Outrage/Revenge 22. If 2-stroke 115s are available for srax6, I'd say that's the way to go if twins are what he wants. Otherwise, a 200 or 225 E-TEC and a kicker make a nice combination on that boat. I am still waiting for some performance data on the 2.6 liter 200 to decide what I'm putting on my Outrage.
jimh	posted 11-03-2005 08:53 PM ET (US) Andy--you are killing my dream boat. I would really like a pair of twins on my REVENGE 22 WT WD, and I'd like them to get over 3.0 MPG fuel economy, not weigh too much, and not cost too much. I was looking at Plotman's pictures taken up on Lake Superior and thinking how much more comfort there'd be if I could look back at the transom of my boat and see twin engines. With the Whaler Drive the weight is not a problem; what is holding me back is the $25,000 and the prospect of spending almost as much as I do now for fuel!
andygere	posted 11-03-2005 09:13 PM ET (US) Jimh, Since you are lucky enough to have a full transom Revenge model with WhalerDrive, I agree that you have a lot more options than I do with my notched transom Outrage. A pair of E-TEC 115/130's weigh 738 lbs, which I think your boat can carry and still maintain good static trim. I think you could get a pair of them for a lot less than $25k. Even if fuel economy is a push, that's not a bad trade off for the reliability and cool factor of having twins. I really do like those E-TEC 90's, but I just don't think they have enough displacement to make up for the extra drag of the second gearcase. A pair of those would probably be pretty nice on your former Revenge, and downright smokin' on an Outrage 18 or first generation Outrage 21. On the other hand, I did take a ride on a Revenge 22 set up with a new E-TEC 225, and performance was, to say the least, brisk. The down side of all that horsepower is that it comes in a really big package, with a pretty hefty weight. Your dealership seems to be something of an E-TEC specialist, so let us know when the small block V6 and new V4 models start arriving.
jimh	posted 11-03-2005 11:35 PM ET (US) Andy--will do. Dave has two 150-HP E-TEC's on order. One is for a customer's boat and one for the showroom floor. I check in weekly to see what is new. Delivery on the new 150-HP E-TEC motors is tough at the moment, but they should be showing up at dealers soon.
LHG	posted 11-03-2005 11:53 PM ET (US) I read recently that 2.6 liter E-tecs won't be in Dealerships until Feb, as they want to be sure they get the bugs out first. As with the other brands, I would assume first production, when it gets started, will go to some boat builders.
13Supersport	posted 11-04-2005 07:30 PM ET (US) I have a 88 22ft Revenge WD WT. The boat has twin counter rotating 150 Yamaha's 1999 ( extremely low hours ). Boat is extremely brisk and stable. Kind regards, Doug G.
jimh	posted 11-05-2005 09:18 AM ET (US) Doug--If you have some accurate observations of boat speed versus engine speed, along with details of your propellers, I think many readers would be interested in seeing them.
reelescape1	posted 11-07-2005 11:44 AM ET (US) Been a while since I've posted here. 1990 22' OR transom mount 2002 Yam 225 OX66 with 590 hrs. T-Top w/curtains and Bennett bat wing tabs. 2 Optima batteries and oil tank under std. console. I repowered with this new engine spring 2002. I removed twin Evin. 88 spl's. I've been running a Yam SS 3 blade 19" with rpm to 4900-5000 and 46 mph and fuel burn in the 2.5-3 mpg range keeping the rpm's in the 3200-3800 range. This prop does great everywhere except the ocean where I can't run as fast. I've recently tried (and am going to purchase) a Solas 4 blade 17" SS prop. Top speed dropped by 2 mph and rpm went up to 5400-5500 with full fuel, loaded to fish. This allows slower planing ( a big plus in the ocean!) and 2 1/4 mpg. The hole shot is still great with no "blow out" in turns. I really like the big single as opposed to the twins that came off. It's much more fuel efficient.