Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  LHG Ribbed Outrage Power

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

Author Topic:   LHG Ribbed Outrage Power
JayR posted 12-19-2005 05:16 PM ET (US)   Profile for JayR   Send Email to JayR  
Larry, if you were to re-power your lovely Ribbed Outrage, which outboard/s (Mercury ;-) would you put on it?

Since you have had a chance to enjoy this hull, what HP would you feel fits the boat best?

LHG posted 12-19-2005 06:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Jay - I think it depends on what performance characteristics you want out of an engine. But on a hull like this, with a very wide range of power options all giving really good performance, I would begin at 135HP.

Generally, the higher in HP you go, the quieter running speed you will have, due to lower RPM's of the engine. And with this hull, I don't think higher HP means less fuel economy, the boat being so easy to plane and push.

A Mercury 150 or 200 EFI, if you can find one in 20", would be your best low cost option if you don't mind the start-up smoke. Powerful, compact, light weight, smooth, quiet, EFI benefits, and surprisingly good on gas. Speed range 48-58mph.

Mine has the older Merc 150, a 2.0 liter engine. From everything I can interpolate from the Mercury propeller charts, this engine runs about the same power as the 135 Optimax, probably about a true 145 HP. I get a solid 46 MPH out of it, and 3.0 or better MPG. The 135 Optimax, of course, would bring this up to 5.0 MPG. But the 2.5 liter Optimax tends to have higher operating sound. The 150 or 175 Optimax would also be fine, except perhaps for the sound, which not everybody minds. In the Optimax line, I am beginning to think the 200 is the way to go. It seems to be one of the best 200's out there in DFI, and has the same running sound as the reportedly quiet E-tec 200, with the high gear 1.76 ratio. More power than needed, but could be a quiet performer with great fuel economy.

The Verado would be the ultimate power for it, from 135 to 175 you couldn't go wrong, with super quiet running and DTS throttle/shift, etc. The 150 would make the most sense, and probably give you pretty close to 48-50 MPH.

I've got to say, I think any of the 4 stroke Japanese 150's would be excellent on the boat also, although I am hearing the Yamaha 150 is a bit noisy at speed. Take your pick.

From what I understand, a 115 will give it 40 MPH, but for me the high RPM needed for 30 MPH crusing would be undesireable, and performance falls off fast with increasing loads in the boat. I vote against going that low on a 21' boat.

So, if you want: (and assuming no conventional 2-stroke)

Lowest initial cost, solid performance, great economy, and don't mind running sound above 4000 RPM, it's the 135 Optimax.

Hot performance and top end (60 MPH), great economy and reasonably quiet running, it's the 200 Optimax. With DTS option, it's even better.

All around solid performance, super quiet running, best investment, fuel economy, DTS controls, Smartcraft, it's an L4 Verado. Nothing else like it out there, period. Cost installed not as high as the Optimax 200, but hydraulic steering is a must.

John W posted 12-19-2005 08:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for John W  Send Email to John W     
I don't disagree with LHG's reccommendations, other than the suggestion of 200HP...I feel that's more than necessary on this hull, and many outboards (particularly older carb models) do not like to run below 2800 rpm or so. And a 200hp anything would be moving out at 3000 rpm on this boat. I don't know how a 200 Optimax or Verado would behave running at 2500 rpm on plane...but in any case I feel a 135 to 150 is plenty of power on this hull.

I have a 2.6L Johnson 150 on my 21, with a crummy 15 x 17 pitch aluminum prop and a rough coat of old bottom paint, and I generally choose to cruise at 3000-3500 rpm's. I never run more than 4500 rpm's unless I'm showing off. And I usually have 3-6 people on board and a big bimini top up. I haven't done any thorough speed tests that consider wind & current, and given the lousy prop I'm using I don't know that they would tell anyone much anyway...other than to say this is an extremely efficient hull design. If I were to repower I would look at a 135 Optimax, 150 Evinrude E-tec, or a Suzuki 140. I would be tempted by 115 hp motors if price differences were large.

People see the 21'4" length and assume it needs 150 to 200 hp, but when you consider its 7'4" beam, a 9" draft, and a 1600 lb dry weight, this hull has very little in common with most modern 21 foot boats. It planes at low speeds with little or no bow rise at all. The longer waterline length may make this boat MORE efficient than the 1970's Outrage 19's (a comparison I'd love to see). But compared to a 21' deep vee Mako, Grady, etc, with a 8'6" beam, this is a completely different boat in terms of power requirements.

My 2 cents.

LHG posted 12-19-2005 08:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
I'll second John's excellent comments on the boat. A 3.0 liter 200 would only be for those who want to go VERY fast, or just loaf along at lower RPM's and not really use the top end, and get longer engine life. A current 175 would be about the same prop horsepower as the boat was originally rated for at 200 powerhead HP.
fourdfish posted 12-19-2005 11:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for fourdfish  Send Email to fourdfish     
I'm sorry to interject here but I don't think Larry is qualified to give an observation on the sound of a 200hp E-TEC since he has never been out and tested one.
He also knows that the B&W Mag DFI test stated that the E-TEC was 7db quieter than the Optimax at idle and had a better sound signiture at higher speeds. Personnly I had the chance to hear both and it is no contest. That Opti was a great deal louder to my ears. Larry--The man said Mercury motors, he didn't say anything about E-TECs.
tombro posted 12-20-2005 07:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for tombro  Send Email to tombro     
There was a 21 Outrage slipped near my Mako, in the mid-80's, that had a 200 Johnson OB. Man, did that boat fly! Was named "Killer Whale"...Richie, you out there still?
JayR posted 12-20-2005 10:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for JayR  Send Email to JayR     
Larry, thank you so much for such a well thought out reply. I appreciate it very much.
Sometimes I wish there were fewer options. There are so many variables to consider.

I get a headache just thinking about it....

JayR posted 12-20-2005 10:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for JayR  Send Email to JayR     
BTW... the smoke is on the short list of things I want to avoid. One of my 3 sons and my wife are both very susceptable to it and their getting sick has spoiled way too many outings.

Why do I not see the lower HP models of the Verado listed on the Ed's web site? Are they available?

anthonylisske posted 12-20-2005 10:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for anthonylisske  Send Email to anthonylisske     
I see that there is about "8 cents" worth here, as far as opinion, so I will make it an even 10 cents!

I have a smooth side outrage (1973) and I repowered with a 225 Vmax Yamaha. I top out about 61MPH with a light load and no bimini etc...

I bought the larger engine because it was the only leftover I could find that was 20 inch shaft. (And was a Yamaha, I love yamaha.)

One thing that I have learned here on the forum is that "piston travel" is considered a good indicator of engine wear. Another thing is that the lower the RPM the less noise (except maybe at idle) And as far as navigating rough waters, the extra horspower is helpful.

For these reasons I justified dropping on the bigger engine.


I think the idea that "too much" power as a negative for power selection is purely subjective. The only downside would be the weight of the larger HP engine on the transom, but in my case the 175 weighed just as much. As far as gas milage, with the new engines, this is neglegible.


In short, I love the extra HP and if I had to do it over again, I might do twin 115s to have redundancy. But apart from the "twins or single" question, I would keep the HP.

hope this is recieved well,

Anthony

anthonylisske posted 12-20-2005 10:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for anthonylisske  Send Email to anthonylisske     
I just realized that I did not mention cost. In the case where a larger HP engine is not affordable or percieved as too much cost for performance, then god bless ya. I think that if there are financial considerations, then any engine that pushes the boat will be great. It is better to be out on the water then ruminating about which engine is best. In short, only indecision is the wrong decision.

Best of luck

LHG posted 12-20-2005 02:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Oh, come on Fourdie, you old Evinrude lobbyist sourpus!

But B&WB mag said that although the Evinrude was quieter at idle, once on plane the Opti and E-tec showed the same decible readings all the way up to WOT. So I am quite happy to learn the 3.0 liter Optimax is such a quiet running engine, except for the Verados, of course.

rtk posted 12-20-2005 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
JayR, the lower horsepower Verados are listed at this Mercury dealer.

Prices are rigged on the boat, "turn key".

They must be available.

Rich

fourdfish posted 12-20-2005 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for fourdfish  Send Email to fourdfish     
I guess you didn't read Jims post on the test! I guess you have not noticed but I have not been lobbying for anything lateley except the truth. You, however have been none stop commercials lately! I guess you must be getting something out of it! I don't really care which outboard company is the best.
Anytime I see you say something which is basicly false, I'm going to call you on it!
rtk posted 12-20-2005 03:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
www.saltydogsearch.com/saltydogadv/Display.cfm?id=158

oops, forgot link

Rich

fourdfish posted 12-20-2005 03:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for fourdfish  Send Email to fourdfish     
rtk-- I think those are the regular EFI 4 strokes It didn't say Verado on them.
rtk posted 12-20-2005 04:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
I did notice they don't say Verado, that is my assumption. Mercury has never offered a four stroke in the 135-275 range before the Verado. (except for the 225 EFI "Mercaha")

I don't know what else they could be except for the Verado. Wonder why they don't mention they are the Verado?

Rich

SIM posted 12-20-2005 06:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for SIM  Send Email to SIM     
RTk.......the 225 4-stroke Merc. Actually its a Yamaha painted black.

Andy

2manyboats posted 12-21-2005 08:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for 2manyboats  Send Email to 2manyboats     
Our 1973 Revenge has a 2.5 liter 150 Mercury and I would think that in most all cases 150 hp would be enough.

We get about 45mph top speed and crusing at 3100 rpms over 3 mpg. Also from what I can tell engine weight would not be much of a factor on these older hulls.

If we were to repower today It would be something in a blue or white 150 to 200 hp.

dgoodhue posted 12-21-2005 11:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for dgoodhue  Send Email to dgoodhue     
"RTk.......the 225 4-stroke Merc. Actually its a Yamaha painted black."

Hence the "Mercaha"

BOB KEMMLER JR posted 12-25-2005 06:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
JohnW-was wondering where you came up with the 9" of draft?I haven't been able to find any depth of draft on this hull.i have a 1978 21 revenge and was curious
Tom W Clark posted 12-26-2005 02:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Bob,

The 21 has a 9" draft according to the 1972 Boston Whaler catalog. The 1978 catalog lists the draft at 10".

BOB KEMMLER JR posted 12-27-2005 05:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
Thanks Tom,i must have missed that on my cd's.Now should i tell my flats boats friends that and have them call me a liar? lol
John W posted 12-30-2005 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for John W  Send Email to John W     
I couldn't believe the advertised draft of 9" either...but I measured mine, and the waterline is roughly 9 1/2" with gear & fuel (but no one aboard).

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.