posted 11-27-2005 11:52 PM ET (US)        

I'm particularly interested in how the Outrage hull would sit in the water at mooring with that much weight ( 720 lbs) on the transom. Are the skegs above the water line when the engines are fully retracted?

Additionally I'd like to know their experience with acceleration from at rest to on plane.

posted 11-28-2005 10:20 AM ET (US)            

Good luck...

posted 11-28-2005 01:05 PM ET (US)            

The 75HP E-TEC weighs 326 lbs. At 650 LBS in the stern, I think you're maxed out. LHG has about 680 lbs in the stern by my figuring (twin 315 lb engines and a 50 lb battery) and the boat requires plugs in the stern splashwell to keep it dry, though not by much. Of course, he's putting 230 HP to that rig, and the boat knows how to H-U-S-T-L-E like a guided missile.

With twin engines, you want to be at or above the max rated HP - the 120 HP from twin 60's is not enough, in my opinion.

Do a search for Joe Kriz - he briefly used an 18' Outrage with twin 70 HP Evinrudes and seemed very pleased with it, though they were the lightweight two-stroke variety of engines.

posted 11-28-2005 01:07 PM ET (US)            

Since you're putting on the weight, you might as well max out the HP - go for twin 90 HP E-TEC engines at the same weight as the twin 75's.

posted 11-28-2005 01:27 PM ET (US)            

My plan was to put twin 60 HP E-TECs on the Outrage to keep the weight below the BW guidelines. Then I started to worry about the HP. So I looked at the 75/90 option and realized the weight would be a problem.

A friend suggested I mount the DF 60 that I already own on the Outrage along with a new DF 60. Then I'd put an E-TEC 60 or E-TEC 75 on the 15 Sport and use it for water skiing.

Two boats for two quite different uses. The Outrage for salmon and the Sport for (freshwater) skiing.

The idea of selling the 15 Sport for 10 Grand and buying a new E-TEC 150 is probably the best solution, but how can you sell an old friend?

posted 11-28-2005 02:43 PM ET (US)            

Don't get me wrong, especially for trolling about and the redundancy factor, twin 60's will probably be fine, though you're not going to win any horseraces with that rig - the twin 60's should put you in the low-to-mid and perhaps creep into the upper 30's at Wide Open Throttle, and your holeshot will be rather slow - especially if fully loaded.

The big concerns come in heavy seas - if you don't have enough power to pop the boat onto plane in normal seas, in heavy seas, it will be difficult to get and keep the boat on plane (something that can already be difficult with 150 HP single engine on the back). Loaded with two fishing buddies and your gear and your catch, you could face a situation where you're not happy with the rig.

I do like the idea of saving yourself 16K in the repower scenario though.

Adding 10-12 inch brackets might help with your performance and make the twin 60's adequate.

From over a year of discussions I've had here about repowering an 18' Outrage with twin engines, it seems like this hull may be the single most difficult Classic Whaler to repower (with twins) given the current engine choices.

The only other solution (not great for trolling) is twin 2-stroke motors in the 90 - 100 HP range. I hear that Johnson (rumor only) may continue selling 2-strokes in limited supply due to the ultra-low emissions of the E-TEC engines "Where it counts" with regulators. That may be the best bet all-around in terms of weight/HP and cost, however, it isn't a great solution for someone who wants to troll for salmon all day long.

I'm still advocating the E-TEC 90 for a twin situation on this hull. I hope that I can put my money where my mouth is soon. I need to have a conversation with my boss, re: getting more money to put where my mouth is....
:)

Good luck.

posted 11-28-2005 04:44 PM ET (US)            

I also don't think that there are any guidelines for the earlier hulls, save HP limits, which were conservative by USCG standards (USCG formula allows for 180 HP).

With 720 lbs on the stern, you might be into the territory of having to make a major modification to the boat in order to compensate - either additional weight up front (in the form of your gear or passengers) or perhaps the addition of trim tabs on the transom.

As I said - LHG has about 680 (estimate) pounds on the back of his 18, and reports no ill effects on boat handling. There was one individual who has ridden in that boat that commented negatively about the ride quality, however he owns a much different boat with different ride characteristics. I've ridden in T/T Whale Lure once, and didn't notice any problems with the ride in about 6' lake chop on Lake Michigan near Charlevoix two years ago. I also noticed how fast/responsive the hull was with 4 persons aboard and full canvas up running at speed over about 15 inch chop - the boat screams, and was not nearly as squirrelly as mine with single 150 HP is at WOT in those conditions. I think that's a benefit of twins - more stable ride characteristics.

There are folks here who have 115 HP singles on their 18' Outrages and report very satisfactory performance under most often-used conditions (Pacific swell and chop, 1 or 2 persons aboard with fishing gear), however they've also reported a noticable performance loss when loaded heavily.

Tony seems to be out on the water an awful lot. Perhaps we should ask him to do an experiment for us to help you out. He could put sandbags in the stern of Ceteceous to approximate the weight of twins. Putting out 115 HP with only one skeg in the water, he should be able to give us a rough estimate of performance that your proposed rig might deliver (of course, twins would use more aggressive propellers, etc which would change the characteristics slightly). He'd be able to report on level of water in the splashwell at rest; the ability to clear the skeg out of the water on a mooring (the addition of a setback bracket/jackplate may assist your setup in this endeavor), and performance "out of the hole" and running in a variety of sea-states (near the ramp, out in the bay, and out on the Pacific Ocean).

posted 11-28-2005 04:57 PM ET (US)            

i have a 1988 outrage 18' with twin 70 hp johnsons. the hull is so pristine i entertained the thought of repowering. i did not check 4 strokes. i looked to the e-tecs and the yamaha 70 hp 2 stroke. the yamahas weigh 228 lbs. each. the 4 str. are 369 lbs each. i am happy with the 1988 70's. if i have a problem, i will have them remanufactured.

posted 11-28-2005 06:16 PM ET (US)            

Can you post some performance figures? Perhaps you would be a better "guinea pig" for the experiment outlined above to determine the effect of the additional weight in the stern, since you have twin engines in the water and could provide a more realistic report on performance with that weight?

Thanks for posting.

posted 11-28-2005 07:11 PM ET (US)            

Are the twin Johnson's that you currently use 3 cylinder or 2 cylinder outboards?

Do you get good acceleration from the Johnson twins?

Do they cruise well at, say, 3500RPMs as opposed to full throttle?

You looked at the E-TEC option which I presume would be twin 60s - what didn't you like about that solution?

posted 11-28-2005 07:19 PM ET (US)            

Sorry, I just re-read your response. You said that you are satisfied with the acceleration of the twin 70s. My thought is that the E-TEC 60 HP probably has close to the same horsepower as your 70 HP because of the age of your outboards.

posted 11-28-2005 07:23 PM ET (US)            

Tony has posted before that his 115 Yamaha set up works for him because he usually travels light.

posted 11-29-2005 05:19 PM ET (US)            

Roarque - Yes, that is the thread I was referring to where Tony actually commented(admitted?) that 115 HP would struggle a little under heavy loads. As I commented above, you should consider your use. For Tony, I think he's still very pleased overall with the setup and will tolerate the occasional performance lapse experienced the few times he has a very full boat (don't want to talk too much for Tony - but it seems to be his sentiment). Your results/needs may vary somewhat.

Just as there are guys with 115 HP on their Montauks and others who are perfectly happy with 50-60 HP on the transom.

I guess the biggest concern with the 60 HP is that BW recommends 75 HP Minimum on this hull. If the 60 can't help you to plane with one engine, then you'd be better served by going with a single 150 HP and a 15 HP kicker for trolling, since effectively the 60 HP and 15 HP will be serving the same purpose and speed in the event of an engine failure - plodding along at sub-planing speed.

It is for that reason that I had pretty much written off the 60 HP powerplant in my search for options for twin engines on the 18' Outrage.

posted 11-30-2005 10:06 AM ET (US)            

On the other hand, I've fished/cruised in a couple of other classic 18s powered by 150 two strokes, and there's certainly a dramatic increase in mid-range acceleration with that set-up; and no drop-off in performance with three or four folks aboard like I experience with the 115.
And certainly more power, from whatever source, would be better if the boat is going to be used for water skiing, wakeboarding, tubing, or long range cruising on flat waters. Good luck with the repowering.

posted 11-30-2005 12:11 PM ET (US)            

For instance, if I can run a 19" pitch on my single 150 HP powered 18' Outrage, I should be able to swing 23" or at least a 21" pitch props with twins. I'd then sell the 19" prop and buy a 17" or 15" as a spare (for non Counter-Rotating (CR) engines) in case I needed to get home on one engine.

Since none of the engines that would fit in a twin configuration on the 18' Outrage come in CR versions, this is not too much of a concern and saves you money in the calculation.

If you do run the twin engine setup with the DF60's, I'd consult with Suzuki on recommended propeller choice for best performance with this setup. If you're buying from the same dealer who sold you the first engine, then he may have some spares to loan you for an afternoon while you dial in the rig.

posted 12-01-2005 01:01 AM ET (US)         

Underpowering with any 4-stroke is not a great idea, because of the noisy high RPM cruising (Verados excepted) you will end up with. With a 4-stroke, go for the max HP rating, or even over the max to keep prop pitch up and RPM's down.

Clean twin engine power on an 18 Outrage is a real problem, expecially if you're not an Evinrude fan. I think the hull can handle, barely, the twin Evinrude 75 or 90's.

posted 12-01-2005 02:00 AM ET (US)            

I would prefer the twin 60s but they're not available as saltwater engines. And they may not plane the hull adequately.

The twin 90 E-TECs would weigh in at about what your twin towers ( 2X 115HP ) weigh. How does that set-up affect your at rest hull attitude? Do you moor the 18 Outrage and if so do the skegs on the Mercs sit in the water?

posted 12-01-2005 08:11 AM ET (US)            

Are people that worried about failure of today's outboards? I wonder, if you could see the statistics of all twin engine at-sea engine problems, what percentage would be those where they made it home on the surviving engine. There are some people who feel that that failures that take out both engines (running out of gas being the most obvious one) are more likely.

posted 12-01-2005 10:24 AM ET (US)            

I'm not sure how high the 90 E-TECs tilt but the Evinrude Fichts that I have tilt very high out of the water. I think the 90 E-TEC uses the same "Fastrak" bracket with the high tilt. So even with a stern heavy static trim, the 90 E-TECs gearcase may be able to clear the water. But the painted waterline of the 18 Outrage will be very high and not parallel, or close thereto, to the gunnel as it typically is with a single. The tilt and trim hydraulic mechanisms would probably be immersed in water most of the time at rest rather than sitting just above the water line.

Larry gives good advice regarding not underpowering. While the Verados might be quieter in an underpowered operating environment (no objective evidence of that provided, however), they still have a unique problem that other motors do not have -- poor fuel efficiency at higher RPM. As Larry notes, motors in an underpowered environment are going to run at higher RPM, producing more noise, so reduced fuel economy at high cruise speeds is a distinct possibility if using an underpowered Verado. Anyway you cut it, underpowering is not ideal no matter what motor one chooses, including those with low power to weight ratios.

Unless one is going out 30 miles offshore (from the sight of land) in an 18 Outrage or is using the 18 Outrage as a tender for a trans-Atlantic cruising ship, I think twins on an 18 Outrage is overkill. Most folks boat within a few miles from shore and there are numerous towing services available these days to provide assistance in the event of a disabling engine problem that weren't available 20 years ago.

In my view, the best motors currently available for twins on the 18 Outrage are either of the lightweight, bulletproof 70 HP or 90 HP 3-cylinder, 2-stroke Yamahas. My guess is that these will be available for several years to come because, unlike Mercury, Yamaha and the other outboard manufacturers didn't agree with a California environmental activist group to stop selling conventional 2-strokes. I'm not sure whether the environmental regulations where you are allow for the new purchase of these, however.

posted 12-01-2005 11:17 AM ET (US)            

http://photobucket.com/albums/v219/Buckda/Memorial%20Day%202005/ ?action=view¤t=DSCF0059.jpg

The place where you can tell is in the bow area. Your engines would need to clear 4 inches of water at "normal" to be clear of the water at mooing with this weight.

Of course, we don't know if Larry's boat in that photo is rigged for cruising - he's probably fully loaded with gear and fuel (in my photo, the boat is only rigged with one cooler full of soda for a day cruise, and there is some sleeping gear/luggage in the bow.) Also - Larry, you may wish to chime in here, but T/T Whale Lure also has an option to carry an additional 24-27 gallons "Montauk Style" under the RPS. If this photo has his boat rigged that full, it is no wonder it appears down by the stern.

I must state, however, that my bow sits lower, when side by side, to that of GEP's 1981 18' Outrage with 130 HP Yamaha (2-stroke).

With batteries in the console, twin E-Tecs will have about the same weight as Larry's twin 115 HP Mercury's.
(E-TEC 326*2=652 vs. Merc 305*2+Bat. 50=660)

Larry's is rumored to be a 60+ MPH boat with the 230 HP. We'll have to wait for Larry to comment on the ride in rough seas.

With 180 HP, I think you're still looking at the low to mid 50's or more with twin 90 HP E-TEC engines.

Again, how you use the boat, you may not need that kind of speed. This is entirely up to you.

Putting your fish kill coolers up in the bow area, while you fish out of the stern, may offset any negative ride characteristics of having the extra weight in the stern.

posted 12-01-2005 12:51 PM ET (US)            

I have become convinced that there is no way to put twins on the Outrage 18. If my real goal is to reduce my fuel consumption at trolling speed and to boat with a more environmentally clean power source, putting on older technology 70 or 90 HP 2-strokes is not a solution.

My current Evinrude V4 circa 1988 is a fuel guzzler at low revs. I could put a 9.9 or 15 hp Yamaha 4-stroke kicker on the transom to handle the trolling and just live with the poor fuel consumption getting in and out of the harbour.
Or I could strap on any newer 125-150 4-stroke or DFI 2-stroke and still add on the little Yamaha.

The bottom line is there doesn't appear to be an obvious solution to the re-powering of one of NorAmerica's most popular fishing boats - the legendary Outrage 18.

Out here on Vancouver Island, Yamaha is king and the marina wits declare my sole choice is the Yamaha 150 4-stroke with a Yamaha 9.9 high thrust kicker. That is an easy, if somewhat expensive solution. Yamaha doesn't need to discount prices in a market where they are king. $16500.

I do have a local Suzuki dealer who wants to sell me a rebuilt DF 140 with a 9.9 Suzuki kicker. Package price $12500 fully rigged. And he's good at rigging for fishers.

Meanwhile the Evinrude guy is begging me to wait for the E-TEC 150 due out in Nov, no Dec, no Jan, well soon anyway. He also has a new Ficht 135 from 2003 that has dust all over it from sitting on his showroom floor. The Ficht and a 9.9 Evinrude 4-stroke kicker ( didn't know such an animal existed did you? ) can be rigged up for $12500. Same as the Suzuki.

posted 12-01-2005 02:41 PM ET (US)            

Of course, that is if you really, really want twin engines on your 18.

The other solutions you’ve mentioned are also appropriate and adequate for your use, but as you can see, the initial cost is about the same.

Repowering the 18 with twins is a difficult decision as it is – adding the requirement that the power plants need to be “green” makes the decision easier only in that you have one real option (at two HP levels).

A main and kicker is a lower weight option. If you already have a motor that would be appropriate for a kicker, you save yourself about 2 thousand dollars off buying new. As mentioned above, this is a good solution for many people, including fishermen. A lower-cost option is to run a 2-stroke main and a 4-stroke kicker (get those 2-stroke main engines while they last). The primary drawback to the main/kicker solution is speed at which you can get home under auxiliary power, and the ability of that kicker motor to help you make headway or hold your position should the weather turn on you and the seas get lumpy.

As Peter mentioned (and I agree) – for the vast majority of boaters, twin engines are more than is normally necessary. This is evidenced also by many modern boat builder’s designs, which can only accommodate a single main engine and a kicker. It has become evident that most guys who want to go out farther are doing it in larger boats that can accommodate the twin engine configuration.

However, in some areas, such as the Northern Great Lakes, tow services such as those that Peter mentions are not in abundance, if available at all. The weather is fickle, and the water is cold. Some areas have miles and miles and miles of uninhabited shoreline. Boaters crossing over into Canadian waters may not be covered under tow policies purchased in the United States, and vice versa.

I think if you boat regulary offshore, or are going to be in remote areas where help is either not available, or will be a long-time coming when you need it immediately, the relatively small premium to buy twin motors (about $3,000 in initial costs) is worth the peace of mind. Consider that a single Coast Guard rescue could cost you that much for a single event, and they’ll leave your boat adrift for a recovery/salvage team.

posted 12-01-2005 02:46 PM ET (US)            

A Tohatsu or Nissan 90 TLDI weigh in at 315lbs and are DFI with CARB approval. They are fantastic on fuel, and are extremely durable.

posted 12-01-2005 02:51 PM ET (US)            

You may not want my opinion, but here it is: Forget about twins on your Outrage 18. If you goal is fuel efficient trolling, buy a kicker.

For the Outrage 18 I would recommend the Yamaha T8 not the 9.9 though that would work well too.

The Outrage 18 is just a great boat with a single 150. The Yamaha 150 seems to be an extraordinary 150 hp four stroke equaling the performance of the conventional two stroke V-6s. I have heard nothing but good things about.

Another good option if price is a factor, the Yamaha F115 like Tony Wilde has on his Outrage 18. He has nothing but good things to say about it as do others who have run with him. It would probably equal or surpass the performance of the twins mentioned above.

posted 12-02-2005 01:28 PM ET (US)            

Are you back in Chicago?! I can tell that today's high of 22 degrees is grating on you - you'd rather be back in Florida operating your twin-engined 25!

:)

posted 12-02-2005 05:03 PM ET (US)            

I agree with many opinions above about not having twins on most Whalers.
I have had both single engine and twin engine Outrage 18's. Both have their place and pros and cons.

1. It is my opinion that Whalers below 25' in length have a Single Main engine and a Kicker.

2. It is my opinion that Whalers above 25' in length have Twin Engines

3. The 25' models could go either way depending on how you intend to use it.

Now, having said the above, any boat of any size that goes offshore should have Twin engines
The reason I feel this necessary is that with the proper twin setup, you can get up on plane with one of these engines and make it home safely and at a reasonable speed.

My Outrage 18 with twins would do 30 mph via GPS on just the one, single 70hp Evinrude with the other raised out of the water. Not a bad speed for an Outrage 18 using just the one engine. You certainly could not go that fast using any kicker.

posted 12-02-2005 05:37 PM ET (US)         

I would like to see a total performance and economy comparison of Tom Clark's 1989 25' Revenge, powered by twin 2.0 liter 150 Mercs, and JimH's 22 Revenge WD, powered by a same generation single 3.0 liter 225 Evinrude.