posted 04-15-2006 07:34 PM ET (US)            

Here is a nice chart of selections for that Outrage
that Joe Kriz generously compiled about a year ago.
I notice that the Verado options aren't included,
perhaps they weren't yet available at the time.

It's a good starting point.

http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/drawings/Outrage18-QRG.html

Also find an article or two authored by Buckda
documenting his recent transformation to twin E-Tecs.

posted 04-16-2006 09:14 AM ET (US)            

A member here (JayR) is getting a 150 E-Tec on his Outrage this month and will have results soon

posted 04-16-2006 02:51 PM ET (US)            

First let us tackle your last implied question, regarding weight. Weight is always a negative factor. Weight always detracts from all performance. It reduces speed. It increases fuel consumption. It causes problems with boat trim. It affects boat behavior, stability. The perfect engine would be weightless. The more an engine weighs, the more negatives it brings to the boat. Thus, when faced with any decision regarding weight, a lighter engine is better than a heavier engine in terms of weight.

And because the weight of an engine is carried mainly outside the boat, hanging over the transom, engine weight is especially critical. If you choose an new engine which weighs more than your current engine you will have to accept that it is going to cause a reduction in speed, an increase in fuel consumption, a reduction in acceleration, and a change in boat handling because of the greater weight.

What is the best engine? This is hard to say. The battle rages over two-stroke and four-stroke.

What is the best model? Again, hard to say. The battle rages of various designs and configurations.

What is the best brand? Again, very hard to say. Be guided by your local dealers. Pick a dealer with whom you can have a trusting relationship, that will give you good service, who supports the brand, who knows the technology of your new engine.

Here is a concise summary of the low-emission 150-HP outboard motors available now:

posted 04-16-2006 04:40 PM ET (US)            

This knowledge, that an aft-hanging appendage used to propel
the vessel through the medium of water, was most likely consciously considered by the Designers in even the earliest seeds of the idea. Using that knowledge, I would guess that the hulls
were designed, constructed and tested to perform optimally
with either a fixed weight or some range of weight
right there on the transom, where the Designers expected it to be.

This hypothesis of mine would seem to render much of that second paragraph either irrelevant, or outright inaccurate, for the purposes of this discussion.

posted 04-16-2006 04:56 PM ET (US)            

--it accelerates faster
--it reaches a higher speed
--it uses less gasoline
--it has better stability
--its motion in a seaway is improved

posted 04-17-2006 09:56 AM ET (US)            

On one of the Conquest models, there is a specific parts number for a lead ballast kit that should be included if a single outboard, in lieu of twin outboards, is selected for propulsion.
The Owner is encouraged to install this lead ballast kit, aka "weight",
to improve performance.

This lone and relatively unresearched example singlehandedly proves inaccurate the following statements:

"Weight is always a negative factor."
"Weight always detracts from all performance."
"It causes problems with boat trim." (though one might argue that the LACK of weight caused the problem, I don't believe that was the author's intent).
"The more an engine weighs, the more negatives it brings to the boat."
"Thus, when faced with any decision regarding weight, a lighter engine is better than a heavier engine in terms of weight."

Though I've never seen the static trim of an Outrage - 18' sans motor,
I expect that it too would not be optimal without that weight on the transom.

Notice that I didn't take on or question the laws of physics here.
I've simply addressed the application of weight to hull design and performance.

posted 04-17-2006 07:55 PM ET (US)            

It is totally absurd to try to make the addition of weight to a boat a means of improving its performance. In the example cited, the hull form was seriously flawed if it needed the addition of lead ballast to improve it.

If adding a few pounds is good, where is the limit. Why not add thousands of pounds if more weight is a benefit. Why stop at a little lead? Fill the boat with lead. Will it:

--go faster?
--get better gas mileage?
--have greater dynamic stability?

posted 04-19-2006 10:48 AM ET (US)            

Assume the 18 Outrage was designed to carry a certain amount of engine weight (based on what was available at the time) and a heavier engine won't help the hull's performance.

posted 04-20-2006 09:45 AM ET (US)            

Furthermore, I think that we've either scared RickL away
with our pedantic discussion, or he's out right now,
repowering with a new Verado 150 HP.

posted 04-22-2006 05:42 PM ET (US)            

This is all good stuff and I am researching the Verado and Yahmaha as we speak. I am going to visit the Whaler dealer in Grasonville Maryland next week to take some of this information for discussion. Thanks to you guys I am much smarter this week than I was last week.

posted 04-22-2006 11:45 PM ET (US)            

There aren't any tactics. There is just logic. If more weight is no problem, why not add as much as you can? We could get some depleted Uranium--maybe from Iran--and go into business weighing down small outboard center console boats so they will have better performance.

posted 04-24-2006 11:12 AM ET (US)            

The 150 hp moves the boat along smartly. I have only had the boat at WOT once in the first 6 weeks of ownership and registered 46 mph on the GPS. I have no idea how accurate that is but it certainly keeps you alert at the helm when moving through log-infested waters. I regularly ran the Evinrude at WOT and there is a substantial difference in speed between the two engines.

I suspect the soon-to-come E-Tec 130 V4 will have the same power as my old 140 and if so, it would be an excellent choice alternative to the Yamaha F150.

In my opinion, the best engine is the one best represented in your area of operations. Where can you get support if needed. In my case, Yamaha won out over a technically competent Suzuki because of where I live.

Does this answer your questions

posted 04-28-2006 01:23 PM ET (US)            

I expect my Etec150 mid may for my 1982 18' outrage. I don't know where your loyalty lies, but you may want to consider this engine vs 4stroke, especially if weight is a concern.

I boiled it down to the Etec and the Suzuki 140 4stroke. I thought Honda was too heavy. I did not do too much research into Yammy, however, and I didn't want a Merc-just personal opinion, that's all.

Joe's link started me on my research and is a great tool!

Good Luck

posted 04-30-2006 01:36 AM ET (US)            

I find it ironic that Stefan chose an e-tec 150 (fine choice) because he thought a 485 lb Honda was too heavy but sosmerc's choice would be 750 lbs of twin Optimaxes. I quess everyone has an idea on of what would suit their needs.