OUTRAGE 22 WD: Unsuccessful Sea Trial - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  OUTRAGE 22 WD: Unsuccessful Sea Trial

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 22 WD: Unsuccessful Sea Trial

mikejana posted 05-24-2006 02:24 AM ET (US)
I went on a sea trial today, the boat was really very nice.
I declined to buy the boat based on performance, I'm hoping I did not make a mistake.
1988 22 Outrage with Whalerdrive, painted bottom.
Twin CR 1989 Johnson 140s (big block loopers), mounted 3 holes up, compressions all 135-145, good spark, rebulit lower units, SS props.
less than 1/4 tank fuel, about 450 lbs of people/stuff
The boat would not stay on plane below 3500 rpm
30 mph cruise was 4200 rpm
WOT was 41 statue MPH at 5600 rpm
Boat seemed to ride very bow high except above 5000 rpm
Was this adequate performance, did I make a mistake?
Thanks, Mike
jimh posted 05-24-2006 09:42 AM ET (US)
The performance you mention seems reasonable, but what is out of place is your comment
"Boat seemed to ride very bow high except above 5000 rpm."
This is unusual, particularly in a boat with a Whaler Drive. The Whaler Drive acts like a huge trim tab and tends to inhibit the boat from getting too much bow rise. Perhaps the combination of the twin engine weight and the open bow make the OUTRAGE WD handle differently than I expected.
See:
Running Angle On Plane
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004096.html
In the article many photographs are presented of Boston Whaler boats on plane. The angle of the boat's gunwale is measured against the horizon and given for many of the pictures. The article does contain an interesting comment re the 22-foot hull having a bit of a tendency to ride a little higher in the bow than others.
Tom W Clark posted 05-24-2006 09:50 AM ET (US)
I interpret Mike's data differently. With 280 HP on the back, I think that boat ought to go much faster than 41 MPH.
I would suspect water in the hull increasing the hull weight and suppressing the performance. This may also account (partially) for the bow high condition reported.
The boat not staying on plane below 3500 I do believe is normal. Those 140s were notorious for not liking to operate at intermediate speeds.
Chap posted 05-24-2006 10:21 AM ET (US)
Mike,
If the boat had the larger fuel tank, it may have been 600lbs. lighter than a full tank, give or take. This may have effected the trim.
Futhermore, knowledgeable boaters will subconsciously "help" the boat as it speeds up repositioning themselves accordingly, forward etc., flatting her out as she increases speed. It is always readily apparent to the captain when landlubbers are aboard, starting with the shoes right on through wot.
I also think the boat should have moved along a little swifter at wide open with the low tank, but cruise seems ok. Wouldn't a 1/4 tank help performance of a "dry" Whaler?
Chap
Whalerific posted 05-24-2006 10:25 AM ET (US)
I think the 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive is a relatively rare boat and very desirable because the Whaler Drive makes it much more suitable for twins, including all the new generation motors.
mikejana posted 05-24-2006 11:00 AM ET (US)
I hopped in the truck at 5:30 pm and drove directly all night to look at this boat. 11 and 1/2 hours later I arrived for the sea trial, only 30 minutes early.
Jimh-
I have read and reread everything I could from this website, including most of your wonderful articles. I expected this marvelous looking specimen to handle differently. I was concerned that it would not have been able to plane with full gas, family and even at WOT.
Running Angle On Plane
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004096.html
was exactly my concern. Thank you.
Tom,
The boat looked marvelous and was virtually all that I was looking for. The thru hulls were old but tight, tapping the hull sounded good, all caulk and screws were tight. This boat passed muster on all that I had found for advice. I could have easily been convinced to pay without a sea trial.
I though I had a discovery of "Spruce Creek Navy” proportion.
During the sea trial(s) we burned 1/4 of a tank with two 25-30 minutes runs, About 25% of that at idle or no wake, maybe 10% at WOT. I did not think the hull was the problem, but I was speculating. I felt that the motors were not pushing her well and did not have the expertise to know why.
I did not get the warm and fuzzy feeling so I passed. We hopped in the truck and drove directly home. 29 hour ordeal with about 23 hours of driving. No new whaler.
I wish I had an expert's phone number with me; I have 25 years of playing with Whalers, but almost no experience with Whalers bigger than 19 feet.
I guess I'm looking for validation on my decision, but I more importantly need to be prepared as soon as the next one comes along.
I guess you can expect another post in the Marketplace entitled Desperately Seeking.......
Thanks, Mike
PS. She sold immediately to the backup offer. Repowering was not an option for me at the non-negotiable price.
mikejana posted 05-24-2006 11:04 AM ET (US)
Chap,
It has the small tank, we were up front.
Whalerific,
I could not agree more. A closed transom is exactly what I'm looking for.
Thanks,Mike
Tom W Clark posted 05-24-2006 12:00 PM ET (US)
Mike,
I can think of any numbers of reasons why the performance of this boat was not optimized, but the bottom line is that you did exactly what you should have done, which is to travel to see the boat yourself, try it out and then listen to that little voice in your head that said "this is not the boat."
You did well to listen to your instincts. You do not need us telling you that you made the right decision.
andygere posted 05-24-2006 01:15 PM ET (US)
Mike,
I know the feeling, and I'm sure that you are really disappointed. I do not think that you made a mistake, because you are no worse off than you were before you made the trip (less travel costs and sleep), and there is another one out there for you.
Something is not right with the performance of that boat. My notched transom Outrage 22 ran 41 mph with a single small block (2.4 liter) 200. With an additional 80 h.p., I would have expected better top end, even with the slight speed penalty from the Whalerdrive. It sounds like those 140's are pretty thirsty motors. You may be well ahead of the game to find something with more recent power that gets better fuel economy. Barry Bertensha (posts as Barry) owns a Whalerdrive Outrage 22, running similar vintage Johnson 150's. If you haven't already, you may want to contact him for some performance information.
Peter posted 05-24-2006 02:02 PM ET (US)
I think those 140s were never better than about 130 HP at the prop shaft. In the last few years of the large block V4 looper, it was sold as a 130. With 260 HP on the transom and a guestimated total weight of 4500 lbs (about 300lbs less than JimH's weight estimations for his 22 Revenge WD) predicted top speed is only 43 MPH (using hull factor of 180). If the weight is around the 4800 lbs that JimH estimates for his Revenge 22 WD (two engines versus one, no cabin versus cabin), predicted speed is only 41.9 MPH with 260 HP.
jimh posted 05-24-2006 08:53 PM ET (US)
Comparing this OUTRAGE 22 WD to my REVENGE 22 WT WD, I think the extra weight of the cabin on the Revenge would just about be cancelled by the extra weight of the twin engines on the Outrage. On that basis it comes down to 225-HP single versus 140-HP twins. My feeling is the Outrage ought to be a little faster, but not a huge amount. Also, my boat has a clean bottom (no paint), and it really only hits 41-MPH under optimum conditions. When the canvas is up and the boat has a full load of fuel, gear, and crew, the top speeds are more like 39-MPH. And come to think of it, I have not seen that in a while--you have to let that V6 really wind up to get there.
So, again, I don't think the 41-MPH reported is way off the mark for the OUTRAGE 22 WD with twin 140-HP motors.
The Whaler Drive changes the ride characteristics of the 22-foot hull, and it gives the boat a very pleasant sea keeping quality. This characteristic might not be apparent on a test ride unless the seas were a bit nasty and you also had another boat to compare.
elaelap posted 05-25-2006 10:16 AM ET (US)
Mike,
I'm anything but a spiritual, religious type of guy, but when it comes to boating and the sea I've learned to trust my gut, my intuition, even when I can't really put my finger on a crisp, factual basis for my decision-making. I've on occasion dragged my weary, coffee-raddled carcass down to the launch ramp at 5:30 in the morning towing my boat 30 miles on winding country one lane roads, only to get a bad feeling about things--a feeling that I can't really define to myself in factual terms--and even though other boats were launching, returned home. I've trusted my intuition (or whatever it is) enough to abruptly pull my lines and head back to the harbor when something--maybe a subtle change in the send of the sea or a small wind shift--set off a gut level alarm. I don't really have any great tales to prove the efficacy of my decisions, though on occasion the weather has kicked up enough to make them prudent, and I've probably missed some good safe boating and fishing times because of these 'irrational' responses, but I continue to trust such feelings and usually respond to them.
All this to say that you did right by passing on that boat if it didn't feel right, whether or not you could define with certainty the reasons for your misgivings. There are lots of other sweet Whalers out there, and while this one could have been just fine, it wasn't right for you, and you would have always had those initial misgivings to deal with. Your decision was sound...your perfect boat is just waiting for you, and you'll know it the minute you feel her move beneath you in a seaway. Good luck and enjoy your search.
Tuco
Sal DiMercurio posted 05-25-2006 10:53 AM ET (US)
Something isn't adding up here.
To burn 1/4 of a tank of fuel in 20 - 25 minutes & 1/4 of that time was at idle, so were looking at approx 15 - 17 minutes.
Are we looking at a boat that if it was run at wot for 1 hour it would be out of fuel after starting with a full tank [ 62 gallons ].
Thats more than 1 gallon per minute.
Under normal conditions twins can get better fuel economy than the same hp in a single application.
Example, a 225 hp single at wot burns 22 gallons per hour.
At most even if they [ twins ] were run at wot, the burn shouldn't be more than 28 gallons in 1 hour, not 50 gallons.
Sal
Tom W Clark posted 05-25-2006 01:32 PM ET (US)
Sal,
So what you're saying is that you think the boat burned twice what it should have? I think you're math is good but what you missed was they did two 25-30 minute runs, not just one 20-25 minute run.
I do think the OMC big block 140s are thirsty, in fact I know they burn more fuel than the OMC 150 V-6s.
My own experience is that the 140s are not overrated. If anything I think they are underrated as they also run almost as fast as the 150s. For some years I had a friend with an Outrage 18 that was nearly identical to my own but for the Johnson V-4 140 on his as opposed to the Johnson V-6 150 on mine.
When we fished side by side on trips, my friend's boat always burned more fuel but it was nearly as fast. His 140 would not, however, hold lower mid-range speeds at all. It would not run at 3000 and as a result he was always shooting ahead and then falling back whereas my 150 powered boat would smoothly cruise along at 20-25 MPH.
I suspect Mike may have experienced some of this behavior with the sea trial of this 22.
Peter posted 05-25-2006 02:29 PM ET (US)
I'm not the only one to think that the 2.0L V4 140 was on the overrated side. The looper power curve was peaky compared to the cross-flow power curve. My experience with the carbureted loop V4 or V6s was that to rev up above 2500 to be happy and make reasonable power where the cross-flows would be happy at just about any engine speed.
By the way, DFI changes all of that. The DFI looper V6 runs much more like the cross-flow V6 motor in my experience.
Barry posted 05-25-2006 09:48 PM ET (US)
I've always thought that the 22' Whaler Drive hull was fairly sensitive to weight distribution.
To illustrate look at these pictures:
with twin Honda's members.aol.com/bburtensha/alkar/profileaft.jpg
with twin Johnson 150's (mine) members.aol.com/bburtensha/outrage/nc2003_2.jpg
with single Yamaha 250 ctfisherman.com/data/55STERN.JPG
My boat has the larger 129 gallon fuel tank which doesn't help the trim. I keep the drains plugged. With the plugs out the deck stays dry but the sump is full of water. I also keep the rear scuppers plugged otherwise they take on water if we stand behind the console. The boat planes about 2500rpm at around 18mph. However that is with Permatrims installed. It doesn't seem to really level out until around 30mph (3500rpm). The 25" engines are mounted all the way up and I feel they are still a little low. My boat definately rides better when my passengers are in front of the console and not behind it.
I love the closed transom and the ride of the Whaler Drive version but it is definately not as fast as the open transom model. The top speed of my rig is mid 40's.
Tom W Clark posted 05-25-2006 10:25 PM ET (US)
Barry,
Your boat is one of the nicest 22s I have ever seen. When you say "mid 40s" what exactly does that mean? Have you ever made a concerted effort to get an accurate top speed? Have you ever played around with propellers?
I do suspect the object of this thread could see an improvement in the performance that Mike has reported. I would suggest raising the motors one more set of bolt holes and seeing if it is propped correctly. My experience is that propellers can have a very strong influence on how a boat performs.
Barry posted 05-25-2006 10:46 PM ET (US)
I haven't played around as much as I'd like. The boat came with OMC SST 15x19's and would run about 44mph at 5000rpm. I picked up some SST 15x17's and while the rpms increased some the speed stayed about the same. Currently I'm running 15x17 Vipers. And though they LOOK faster I'm still seeing around the same speed.
The old Johnsons seem to run fine. Somewhat hard to start when they're cold and very thirsty but once they're running they don't stop. I haven't checked compression in a while but when I got it the readings were fairly close. I've decarbed a couple of times and replaced and gapped plugs on a regular basis. If I recall correctly the maximum recommended rpm's are 5500 but the engines reach maximum horsepower at 5000. The engines are towed in about 1/2".
I've had good luck with Stilleto propellers in the past and have been tempted to try to find a pair.
Tom W Clark posted 05-25-2006 10:52 PM ET (US)
Barry,
44 MPH is not bad. I believe the only difference between the 15 x 17 SST and the 15 x 17 Vipers is that one is painted and one polished.
I think a pair of Stilettos *might* produce a faster top speed, but I doubt they would improve cruise performance which is what you really want.
I would encourage you to try a pair of 17" pitch Mercury Mirage Pluses. These are great all around props and ones which (so far) produce the best handling and fuel economy for my Revenge 25 with twin 150s.
mikejana posted 05-25-2006 11:26 PM ET (US)
Thanks everyone,
I'm indebted for the replies. 44 mph is almost a 10% difference and closer to my expectations.
We had no access to a surveyor, hydrometer, or expert big whaler guy.
Sal DiMercurio posted 05-25-2006 11:43 PM ET (US)
I absolutly hate the OMC Viper props.
They are just about the worst prop I've ever tested on all the engines.
They only have a wicked name but no bite, & consistant lousy performance is a given.
I would certainly look into the new Rebel props by Bombardier & would try the Stilettos.
Sal
Peter posted 05-26-2006 07:24 AM ET (US)
I think the Vipers to which Tom refers are the first generation version shaped like the SST II, not the swept back blade version. It had the same 15 x 17 dimensions rather than the 14 3/4 x 17 dimensions of the swept back blade version currently made.
mikejana posted 05-27-2006 10:12 PM ET (US)
I talked to the broker today. The back up buyer did get a surveyor to check for water in the hull. Apparently there was a lot of water in the WD and Hull, the transom he says was saturated.
If any one sees a 22 or 25 whaler drive, super console Outrage, please keep me in mind.
Thanks again,
Mike
Tom W Clark posted 05-27-2006 10:45 PM ET (US)
Mike,
You went and looked at the boat. You went for a ride in it. You decided not to buy it. You made the right decision.
The lesson here is: Trust your instincts.
PTKPROD posted 05-28-2006 12:19 AM ET (US)
Hi All,
I decided to buy the boat. The surveyor backed up what I thought, the hull is sound and solid, but most likely wet in the transom and WD. Not rotting and not soaked, but wet, about as wet as my current Outrage 18, which runs like a dream. The boat does not sit heavy in the stern and planed as I would expect, my thoughts are this hull is ready for a repower, I believe the port motor might be the source of any performance issues, but they ran well at WOT and topped out at 41 MPH as Mike mentioned, also very nice cruise at 4000 RPM pushing 30 MPH. Thanks to everyone for their experiences. My 1986 Outrage 18 is for sale, twin 1992 75 Mercs. Thanks Again, Peter
PeteB88 posted 05-28-2006 12:35 AM ET (US)
There will be another one - or as we learned last summer - the right boat finds you.
Barry posted 05-29-2006 04:32 PM ET (US)
mikejana, good luck with your search.
PTKPROd, congratulations on your purchase. If I was going to repower mine, as much as I love twins, I'd seriously consider a 250 to 300hp single. All of the new twin engines in the 140 to 200hp range are heavier than our engines. The only engines close are the Suzuki 140 at around 420lbs and the Evinrude E-Tec 150 at about 427lbs. Since those are still weigh more than my Johnson 150 (~390lbs) I'd probably consider moving my Optima batteries to the console if I went that route.
Stevens posted 05-30-2006 02:47 AM ET (US)
For those of you who place such value on trusting your intuition, here's an interesting book to back you up:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316172324/
(In case the link doesn't come through, it's called Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell).

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 WD: Unsuccessful Sea Trial
mikejana	posted 05-24-2006 02:24 AM ET (US) I went on a sea trial today, the boat was really very nice. I declined to buy the boat based on performance, I'm hoping I did not make a mistake. 1988 22 Outrage with Whalerdrive, painted bottom. Twin CR 1989 Johnson 140s (big block loopers), mounted 3 holes up, compressions all 135-145, good spark, rebulit lower units, SS props. less than 1/4 tank fuel, about 450 lbs of people/stuff The boat would not stay on plane below 3500 rpm 30 mph cruise was 4200 rpm WOT was 41 statue MPH at 5600 rpm Boat seemed to ride very bow high except above 5000 rpm Was this adequate performance, did I make a mistake? Thanks, Mike
jimh	posted 05-24-2006 09:42 AM ET (US) The performance you mention seems reasonable, but what is out of place is your comment "Boat seemed to ride very bow high except above 5000 rpm." This is unusual, particularly in a boat with a Whaler Drive. The Whaler Drive acts like a huge trim tab and tends to inhibit the boat from getting too much bow rise. Perhaps the combination of the twin engine weight and the open bow make the OUTRAGE WD handle differently than I expected. See: Running Angle On Plane http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004096.html In the article many photographs are presented of Boston Whaler boats on plane. The angle of the boat's gunwale is measured against the horizon and given for many of the pictures. The article does contain an interesting comment re the 22-foot hull having a bit of a tendency to ride a little higher in the bow than others.
Tom W Clark	posted 05-24-2006 09:50 AM ET (US) I interpret Mike's data differently. With 280 HP on the back, I think that boat ought to go much faster than 41 MPH. I would suspect water in the hull increasing the hull weight and suppressing the performance. This may also account (partially) for the bow high condition reported. The boat not staying on plane below 3500 I do believe is normal. Those 140s were notorious for not liking to operate at intermediate speeds.
Chap	posted 05-24-2006 10:21 AM ET (US) Mike, If the boat had the larger fuel tank, it may have been 600lbs. lighter than a full tank, give or take. This may have effected the trim. Futhermore, knowledgeable boaters will subconsciously "help" the boat as it speeds up repositioning themselves accordingly, forward etc., flatting her out as she increases speed. It is always readily apparent to the captain when landlubbers are aboard, starting with the shoes right on through wot. I also think the boat should have moved along a little swifter at wide open with the low tank, but cruise seems ok. Wouldn't a 1/4 tank help performance of a "dry" Whaler? Chap
Whalerific	posted 05-24-2006 10:25 AM ET (US) I think the 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive is a relatively rare boat and very desirable because the Whaler Drive makes it much more suitable for twins, including all the new generation motors.
mikejana	posted 05-24-2006 11:00 AM ET (US) I hopped in the truck at 5:30 pm and drove directly all night to look at this boat. 11 and 1/2 hours later I arrived for the sea trial, only 30 minutes early. Jimh- I have read and reread everything I could from this website, including most of your wonderful articles. I expected this marvelous looking specimen to handle differently. I was concerned that it would not have been able to plane with full gas, family and even at WOT. Running Angle On Plane http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004096.html was exactly my concern. Thank you. Tom, The boat looked marvelous and was virtually all that I was looking for. The thru hulls were old but tight, tapping the hull sounded good, all caulk and screws were tight. This boat passed muster on all that I had found for advice. I could have easily been convinced to pay without a sea trial. I though I had a discovery of "Spruce Creek Navy” proportion. During the sea trial(s) we burned 1/4 of a tank with two 25-30 minutes runs, About 25% of that at idle or no wake, maybe 10% at WOT. I did not think the hull was the problem, but I was speculating. I felt that the motors were not pushing her well and did not have the expertise to know why. I did not get the warm and fuzzy feeling so I passed. We hopped in the truck and drove directly home. 29 hour ordeal with about 23 hours of driving. No new whaler. I wish I had an expert's phone number with me; I have 25 years of playing with Whalers, but almost no experience with Whalers bigger than 19 feet. I guess I'm looking for validation on my decision, but I more importantly need to be prepared as soon as the next one comes along. I guess you can expect another post in the Marketplace entitled Desperately Seeking....... Thanks, Mike PS. She sold immediately to the backup offer. Repowering was not an option for me at the non-negotiable price.
mikejana	posted 05-24-2006 11:04 AM ET (US) Chap, It has the small tank, we were up front. Whalerific, I could not agree more. A closed transom is exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks,Mike
Tom W Clark	posted 05-24-2006 12:00 PM ET (US) Mike, I can think of any numbers of reasons why the performance of this boat was not optimized, but the bottom line is that you did exactly what you should have done, which is to travel to see the boat yourself, try it out and then listen to that little voice in your head that said "this is not the boat." You did well to listen to your instincts. You do not need us telling you that you made the right decision.
andygere	posted 05-24-2006 01:15 PM ET (US) Mike, I know the feeling, and I'm sure that you are really disappointed. I do not think that you made a mistake, because you are no worse off than you were before you made the trip (less travel costs and sleep), and there is another one out there for you. Something is not right with the performance of that boat. My notched transom Outrage 22 ran 41 mph with a single small block (2.4 liter) 200. With an additional 80 h.p., I would have expected better top end, even with the slight speed penalty from the Whalerdrive. It sounds like those 140's are pretty thirsty motors. You may be well ahead of the game to find something with more recent power that gets better fuel economy. Barry Bertensha (posts as Barry) owns a Whalerdrive Outrage 22, running similar vintage Johnson 150's. If you haven't already, you may want to contact him for some performance information.
Peter	posted 05-24-2006 02:02 PM ET (US) I think those 140s were never better than about 130 HP at the prop shaft. In the last few years of the large block V4 looper, it was sold as a 130. With 260 HP on the transom and a guestimated total weight of 4500 lbs (about 300lbs less than JimH's weight estimations for his 22 Revenge WD) predicted top speed is only 43 MPH (using hull factor of 180). If the weight is around the 4800 lbs that JimH estimates for his Revenge 22 WD (two engines versus one, no cabin versus cabin), predicted speed is only 41.9 MPH with 260 HP.
jimh	posted 05-24-2006 08:53 PM ET (US) Comparing this OUTRAGE 22 WD to my REVENGE 22 WT WD, I think the extra weight of the cabin on the Revenge would just about be cancelled by the extra weight of the twin engines on the Outrage. On that basis it comes down to 225-HP single versus 140-HP twins. My feeling is the Outrage ought to be a little faster, but not a huge amount. Also, my boat has a clean bottom (no paint), and it really only hits 41-MPH under optimum conditions. When the canvas is up and the boat has a full load of fuel, gear, and crew, the top speeds are more like 39-MPH. And come to think of it, I have not seen that in a while--you have to let that V6 really wind up to get there. So, again, I don't think the 41-MPH reported is way off the mark for the OUTRAGE 22 WD with twin 140-HP motors. The Whaler Drive changes the ride characteristics of the 22-foot hull, and it gives the boat a very pleasant sea keeping quality. This characteristic might not be apparent on a test ride unless the seas were a bit nasty and you also had another boat to compare.
elaelap	posted 05-25-2006 10:16 AM ET (US) Mike, I'm anything but a spiritual, religious type of guy, but when it comes to boating and the sea I've learned to trust my gut, my intuition, even when I can't really put my finger on a crisp, factual basis for my decision-making. I've on occasion dragged my weary, coffee-raddled carcass down to the launch ramp at 5:30 in the morning towing my boat 30 miles on winding country one lane roads, only to get a bad feeling about things--a feeling that I can't really define to myself in factual terms--and even though other boats were launching, returned home. I've trusted my intuition (or whatever it is) enough to abruptly pull my lines and head back to the harbor when something--maybe a subtle change in the send of the sea or a small wind shift--set off a gut level alarm. I don't really have any great tales to prove the efficacy of my decisions, though on occasion the weather has kicked up enough to make them prudent, and I've probably missed some good safe boating and fishing times because of these 'irrational' responses, but I continue to trust such feelings and usually respond to them. All this to say that you did right by passing on that boat if it didn't feel right, whether or not you could define with certainty the reasons for your misgivings. There are lots of other sweet Whalers out there, and while this one could have been just fine, it wasn't right for you, and you would have always had those initial misgivings to deal with. Your decision was sound...your perfect boat is just waiting for you, and you'll know it the minute you feel her move beneath you in a seaway. Good luck and enjoy your search. Tuco
Sal DiMercurio	posted 05-25-2006 10:53 AM ET (US) Something isn't adding up here. To burn 1/4 of a tank of fuel in 20 - 25 minutes & 1/4 of that time was at idle, so were looking at approx 15 - 17 minutes. Are we looking at a boat that if it was run at wot for 1 hour it would be out of fuel after starting with a full tank [ 62 gallons ]. Thats more than 1 gallon per minute. Under normal conditions twins can get better fuel economy than the same hp in a single application. Example, a 225 hp single at wot burns 22 gallons per hour. At most even if they [ twins ] were run at wot, the burn shouldn't be more than 28 gallons in 1 hour, not 50 gallons. Sal
Tom W Clark	posted 05-25-2006 01:32 PM ET (US) Sal, So what you're saying is that you think the boat burned twice what it should have? I think you're math is good but what you missed was they did two 25-30 minute runs, not just one 20-25 minute run. I do think the OMC big block 140s are thirsty, in fact I know they burn more fuel than the OMC 150 V-6s. My own experience is that the 140s are not overrated. If anything I think they are underrated as they also run almost as fast as the 150s. For some years I had a friend with an Outrage 18 that was nearly identical to my own but for the Johnson V-4 140 on his as opposed to the Johnson V-6 150 on mine. When we fished side by side on trips, my friend's boat always burned more fuel but it was nearly as fast. His 140 would not, however, hold lower mid-range speeds at all. It would not run at 3000 and as a result he was always shooting ahead and then falling back whereas my 150 powered boat would smoothly cruise along at 20-25 MPH. I suspect Mike may have experienced some of this behavior with the sea trial of this 22.
Peter	posted 05-25-2006 02:29 PM ET (US) I'm not the only one to think that the 2.0L V4 140 was on the overrated side. The looper power curve was peaky compared to the cross-flow power curve. My experience with the carbureted loop V4 or V6s was that to rev up above 2500 to be happy and make reasonable power where the cross-flows would be happy at just about any engine speed. By the way, DFI changes all of that. The DFI looper V6 runs much more like the cross-flow V6 motor in my experience.
Barry	posted 05-25-2006 09:48 PM ET (US) I've always thought that the 22' Whaler Drive hull was fairly sensitive to weight distribution. To illustrate look at these pictures: with twin Honda's members.aol.com/bburtensha/alkar/profileaft.jpg with twin Johnson 150's (mine) members.aol.com/bburtensha/outrage/nc2003_2.jpg with single Yamaha 250 ctfisherman.com/data/55STERN.JPG My boat has the larger 129 gallon fuel tank which doesn't help the trim. I keep the drains plugged. With the plugs out the deck stays dry but the sump is full of water. I also keep the rear scuppers plugged otherwise they take on water if we stand behind the console. The boat planes about 2500rpm at around 18mph. However that is with Permatrims installed. It doesn't seem to really level out until around 30mph (3500rpm). The 25" engines are mounted all the way up and I feel they are still a little low. My boat definately rides better when my passengers are in front of the console and not behind it. I love the closed transom and the ride of the Whaler Drive version but it is definately not as fast as the open transom model. The top speed of my rig is mid 40's.
Tom W Clark	posted 05-25-2006 10:25 PM ET (US) Barry, Your boat is one of the nicest 22s I have ever seen. When you say "mid 40s" what exactly does that mean? Have you ever made a concerted effort to get an accurate top speed? Have you ever played around with propellers? I do suspect the object of this thread could see an improvement in the performance that Mike has reported. I would suggest raising the motors one more set of bolt holes and seeing if it is propped correctly. My experience is that propellers can have a very strong influence on how a boat performs.
Barry	posted 05-25-2006 10:46 PM ET (US) I haven't played around as much as I'd like. The boat came with OMC SST 15x19's and would run about 44mph at 5000rpm. I picked up some SST 15x17's and while the rpms increased some the speed stayed about the same. Currently I'm running 15x17 Vipers. And though they LOOK faster I'm still seeing around the same speed. The old Johnsons seem to run fine. Somewhat hard to start when they're cold and very thirsty but once they're running they don't stop. I haven't checked compression in a while but when I got it the readings were fairly close. I've decarbed a couple of times and replaced and gapped plugs on a regular basis. If I recall correctly the maximum recommended rpm's are 5500 but the engines reach maximum horsepower at 5000. The engines are towed in about 1/2". I've had good luck with Stilleto propellers in the past and have been tempted to try to find a pair.
Tom W Clark	posted 05-25-2006 10:52 PM ET (US) Barry, 44 MPH is not bad. I believe the only difference between the 15 x 17 SST and the 15 x 17 Vipers is that one is painted and one polished. I think a pair of Stilettos might produce a faster top speed, but I doubt they would improve cruise performance which is what you really want. I would encourage you to try a pair of 17" pitch Mercury Mirage Pluses. These are great all around props and ones which (so far) produce the best handling and fuel economy for my Revenge 25 with twin 150s.
mikejana	posted 05-25-2006 11:26 PM ET (US) Thanks everyone, I'm indebted for the replies. 44 mph is almost a 10% difference and closer to my expectations. We had no access to a surveyor, hydrometer, or expert big whaler guy.
Sal DiMercurio	posted 05-25-2006 11:43 PM ET (US) I absolutly hate the OMC Viper props. They are just about the worst prop I've ever tested on all the engines. They only have a wicked name but no bite, & consistant lousy performance is a given. I would certainly look into the new Rebel props by Bombardier & would try the Stilettos. Sal
Peter	posted 05-26-2006 07:24 AM ET (US) I think the Vipers to which Tom refers are the first generation version shaped like the SST II, not the swept back blade version. It had the same 15 x 17 dimensions rather than the 14 3/4 x 17 dimensions of the swept back blade version currently made.
mikejana	posted 05-27-2006 10:12 PM ET (US) I talked to the broker today. The back up buyer did get a surveyor to check for water in the hull. Apparently there was a lot of water in the WD and Hull, the transom he says was saturated. If any one sees a 22 or 25 whaler drive, super console Outrage, please keep me in mind. Thanks again, Mike
Tom W Clark	posted 05-27-2006 10:45 PM ET (US) Mike, You went and looked at the boat. You went for a ride in it. You decided not to buy it. You made the right decision. The lesson here is: Trust your instincts.
PTKPROD	posted 05-28-2006 12:19 AM ET (US) Hi All, I decided to buy the boat. The surveyor backed up what I thought, the hull is sound and solid, but most likely wet in the transom and WD. Not rotting and not soaked, but wet, about as wet as my current Outrage 18, which runs like a dream. The boat does not sit heavy in the stern and planed as I would expect, my thoughts are this hull is ready for a repower, I believe the port motor might be the source of any performance issues, but they ran well at WOT and topped out at 41 MPH as Mike mentioned, also very nice cruise at 4000 RPM pushing 30 MPH. Thanks to everyone for their experiences. My 1986 Outrage 18 is for sale, twin 1992 75 Mercs. Thanks Again, Peter
PeteB88	posted 05-28-2006 12:35 AM ET (US) There will be another one - or as we learned last summer - the right boat finds you.
Barry	posted 05-29-2006 04:32 PM ET (US) mikejana, good luck with your search. PTKPROd, congratulations on your purchase. If I was going to repower mine, as much as I love twins, I'd seriously consider a 250 to 300hp single. All of the new twin engines in the 140 to 200hp range are heavier than our engines. The only engines close are the Suzuki 140 at around 420lbs and the Evinrude E-Tec 150 at about 427lbs. Since those are still weigh more than my Johnson 150 (~390lbs) I'd probably consider moving my Optima batteries to the console if I went that route.
Stevens	posted 05-30-2006 02:47 AM ET (US) For those of you who place such value on trusting your intuition, here's an interesting book to back you up: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316172324/ (In case the link doesn't come through, it's called Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell).