OUTRAGE 19: New 200-HP E-TEC - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  OUTRAGE 19: New 200-HP E-TEC

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 19: New 200-HP E-TEC

macdougall70 posted 07-30-2006 09:44 AM ET (US)
I thought my 1992 Outrage 19 would scream with 200-HP E-TEC on the back, butt I only gained about 6-MPH. E-TEC engine runs great, 5,200-RPM and very quiet, but not much faster than my 1992 Johnson 150 carburetor motor.
macdougall70 posted 07-30-2006 09:52 AM ET (US)
Could it be the prop? My old Johnson 150 had an alluminum 15x17 prop. the 200 etec has an 14x3/4 x 17 viper. seems there should be more difference between props. Maybe this boat design just not meant for speed? Any reccomendations on other props I may want to try? Best small offshore boat I've ever had though.
Sal DiMercurio posted 07-30-2006 11:21 AM ET (US)
My bet is.
#1...the engine is mounted all the way down on the lowest set of holes.
#2.....I believe the lower units have the same gear ratio so turn the same amount of rpms as the 150 was with the same size prop isn't going to make much difference.
#3...In my opion the OMC Viper prop only has a scary name & is far from being the best prop for your application.
#4...That 200 hp should twist that 17p prop on a 19' boat over it's rev limits, so it's not set up right.
You need either a 19p Stiletto or a 19p Turbo on that engine & raise the engine up to the 3rd set of holes from the top set & learn to trim that engine out to just before she vents, & thats where you mark your RPMs & speed.
My opinion is, you had the engine tucked all the way in & it's mounted on the top set of holes & trow that prop away.
That engine should reach 5800 rpms in a heartbeat.
Sal
macdougall70 posted 07-30-2006 11:34 AM ET (US)
Sal, etec is mounted on the 3rd mounting hole so maybe the prop is where the issue is. dealer set up the motor for me and installed the prop. They also told me the boat was running 5800 rpms. I guess My next trip out today I will try to trimm her out more. Not really looking for max speed, just fastest cruise speed.
outboardwizard2 posted 10-24-2006 11:21 AM ET (US)
On the etec engine I would recommend trying the new "Rebel" propeller that has a larger diameter and alot of cupping -also will allow you to raise engine height for maximum speed.
Ralph
more info here:
http://www.theoutboardwizard.com/Outboard_Propellers_OMC_BRP_Props.html
Tom W Clark posted 10-24-2006 11:30 AM ET (US)
*Only* a 6 MPH gain? Are you kidding? A 6 MPH increase in top speed is HUGE! My god, how fast does that thing go?
If cruise speed is what you are after, try a large diameter prop like a Mirage Plus or a four blade prop like a Vensura/Offshore, Revolution 4 or Stiletto Bay Pro.
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 12:02 PM ET (US)
Outboard, The dealer told me that they dont make a rebel in the size and pitch i need. I have a viper on there now and if I trim the h*ll out of it the most RPM I can squeeze is about 5500 with a half tank and two guys. Maybe its because of the xtra weight of my boat (19 Outrage II).
Tom, with my old 150 johnson WOT was about 39 mph @ 5300 rpm with the gps, now 47 mph not knots is max @ 5500 rpm.
So, that is 8mph gain which is plenty fast for me.
I hear some members talking about 50+ with a 150 and I cant see it. But, over all, I am very happy as this motor really sips fuel compared to the old Johnson. I live in Miami, Fl. and make frequent 100 mile round trips offshore so the fuel savings are huge and new range on the boat is over 250 miles.
jimh posted 10-24-2006 01:49 PM ET (US)
I took the data presented (150-HP, 39-MPH) and entered it into Crouch's Calculator, using a HULL FACTOR of 180 which is reasonable for a classic Whaler OUTRAGE type hull. This gave a weight of 3,195-lbs. Then using those parameters, I changed the horsepower to 200-HP, and asked for a prediction of speed. The calculator replied with 45-MPH.
The results of the actual installation of a 200-HP motor as a replacement of a 150-HP motor on this boat are in close agreement with the predicted results. On that basis, I do not find any reason to be alarmed. Indeed, the new motor actually produced more speed, an 8-MPH increase.
As you may know, CONTINUOUSWAVE offers the only on-line implementation of Crouch's formula for performance, and it offers it in a very versatile manner that allows any of the four parameters to be calculated from the other three. You cannot find anything like it anywhere else on the internet!
http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl
LHG posted 10-24-2006 03:03 PM ET (US)
Jim - JimG's 1992 19 Outrage "Memory" does 42 MPH with a 1992 carbed Yamaha 150 (not known as a particularly hot 150), same gearing as the Evinrude 200, raised 2 bolt holes (1-1/2") and with a 17" Mercury Vensura 4 bladed prop turning 5300 RPM. I would think a strong 200, like one of my EFI's or a 3 liter Optimax 200, would push Jim's boat 50 MPH.
If this rig is only capable of 45 MPH with the Evinrude small bore 200, a 17" Vensura would still be the perfect prop also, and he would gain more RPM than JimG is getting, but stay within the 5800 redline, and give the boat much needed lift and a better planing attitude.
Seeing various results from this 200 small bore, I think I know why Mercury never did a 2.5 liter 200 Optimax (except racing applications). They just couldn't get the real 200 HP out it, and instead opted for the 3.0 liter 200, an easy under-rated 200. DFI technology can't quite produce the same HP in the smaller displacement engines as it did with conventional 2-strokes. BRP is playing the "clean technology weight card" with their 90 and small bore 200 offerings, but I'm betting the HP is suffering under the 10% rule. I agree with others, Macdougall's boat could be faster.
andygere posted 10-24-2006 03:36 PM ET (US)
Larry, I have to disagree with you there. My E-TEC 200 (2.6 liter) gives me the same top speed as my carbed Mercury 200 (2.4 liter), and I don't even have the new motor propped to get to the top of the rpm band. There's no question that the low end is better, and it was always good with the Mercury. This is an actual result, with 2 different motors, a carburated 2-stroke and a DFI 2-stroke, mounted on the same boat. I just don't buy the notion that you get less power from a DFI. While I suspect the Optimax 200 and the E-TEC 200 H.O., both built on larger displacement blocks, may put out something more than 200 h.p., I'm certain the small block E-TEC 200 is not putting out less than 200. This is based on actual data collected on the same boat.
LHG posted 10-24-2006 04:10 PM ET (US)
Andy - I'm actually glad to hear that a tired and well worn 18 year old carb technology engine, designed in 1975, with no sensors or EMM, put out the same top end performance and HP as a brand new, larger displacement, direct fuel injected 2007, higher fuel efficiency, new technology engine.
Just hope that the new engine goes the same 17 years before it's powerhead needs replacement, like the old Merc did!!
It does seem like you should be getting more than 41 MPH out her on that cold Pacific water and air, since JimP up in Alaska gets 49-50 MPH out his similar weight Revenge 22 with only 25 more HP. That's a lot of speed increase for only 25 HP
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 04:38 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the feedback, I need to try some different props out just to feel the difference. The dealer sent me a new prop to try but it is a 15x15 and that cant be right. Help me out here, if I am turning a 14.75 x 17 viper and hitting 5400-5500 WOT then 15 x 15 is way to small right?
Tom W Clark posted 10-24-2006 04:44 PM ET (US)
Rob,
I did not catch that your boat is the Outrage 19 II, a much heavier boat than the classic Outrage 18/19.
If you are getting 47 MPH out of her I think that is mighty impressive. Why would you want to go any faster than that?
The old 60 degree block Johnson/Evinrude 150s were known as pretty hot motors. To improve upon that by 8 MPH is remarkable. The E-Tecs don't seem to be giving anything away.
By all means try some different props; it could by itself make a significant difference, not necessarily in top speed but in how the boat performs at cruise speed. You should try to find a prop that gives optimal fuel mileage, smooth operation and offers good grip and excellent acceleration. Top speed is really only for bragging rights.
With a motor as powerful as the E-Tec 200, you should really try a 17" Mirage Plus or Offshore/Vensura. You won't know until you try.
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 04:44 PM ET (US)
By the way Jimh the Crouch's Calculator is to cool. I see how your getting your numbers.
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 04:50 PM ET (US)
For what it is worth is you use Crouch's Calculator and shave 600 lbs off the weight of my boat (outrage II), now were doing over 50 for any outrage prior to my year (1992). Ok, I feel better... Thanks
Tom W Clark posted 10-24-2006 04:51 PM ET (US)
Rob,
Yes a 15" x 15" would be worth testing if only for the data points. The reduced pitch may be partially offset by the larger diameter. Sounds like this prop may be a BRP SST, part number 174926. I'm not sure this is the optimal pop, but try it and see.
andygere posted 10-24-2006 04:55 PM ET (US)

quote:
DFI technology can't quite produce the same HP in the smaller displacement engines as it did with conventional 2-strokes.
This seems to say that DFI motors are inferior to conventional 2-strokes in terms or generation horsepower from a given displacement.

quote:
I'm actually glad to hear that a tired and well worn 18 year old carb technology engine, designed in 1975, with no sensors or EMM, put out the same top end performance and HP as a brand new, larger displacement, direct fuel injected 2007, higher fuel efficiency, new technology engine.
This says just the opposite: How can anyone expect a conventional 2-stroke to keep up with a new, modern DFI motor? Which one is true?
I guess my old Mercury 200 probably produced more like 180 h.p.? For what it's worth, I clocked 41 mph on a 75 degree day, water temp of 64 with the boat loaded with 70 gallons of fuel, 2 adults and cruising and fishing gear. Note that my Outrage has bottom paint, a T-top and a canvas enclosure around the T-top frame. Again, I'm happy with the performance, but it's certainly better, not worse, than my carburated 200. How does this translate to my DFI 200 putting out less horsepower? I expect I'll get an extra 1-2 mph when I get her propped to the optimal rpm range, perhaps more since the Mirage would start to ventilate if I trimmed the motor out too far. I have yet to see any data that shows this motor is weak, or somehow does not meet it's nameplate power rating. For that matter, I'm running the thing, and I can tell you it moves out. Larry's arguments are based on what, his best guess?
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 05:19 PM ET (US)
Thanks Tom, I will give it a try and post the results.
Peter posted 10-24-2006 05:41 PM ET (US)
How about: "Agenda driven speculation." ;)
LHG posted 10-24-2006 06:41 PM ET (US)
Andy, yes about 180 HP on the old Merc is what I was implying, considering maybe 2000-3000 hours of use. I'm sure you weren't getting the original brand new 200 HP.
Regarding Macdougall's rig, I saw the 45 MPH from JimH's post, thinking he was repeating what Macdougall said. If the boat does 47, that's a big difference and sounds pretty good.
I think I will go back into retirement. You young guys are too sharp for me.
andygere posted 10-24-2006 07:31 PM ET (US)
C'mon Larry, it's no fun when you are lurking in the shadows. It's much more fun to debate outboards out here in the sunshine.
For what it's worth, I don't think that my old Mercury had anywhere near 3000 hours on it, probably far less than 1000, based on my mechanic's estimate after pulling the heads when I first bought the boat. This is corroborated by info relayed to me by both the original owner, and the gentleman that sold me the boat. It spent a lot of time on the trailer, and much less in the water. I never felt that the boat was underpowered with that motor, and in fact thought it was a good performer.
By the way, here's what you had to say about this motor when I first purchased it:

quote:
You've asked the right question, as I installed these same engines on my 1989 Outrage, new. See photo of boat on trailer, Cetacea page 11. Unfortunately, they still looked so good in 1997 that they were both stolen off the boat, while on vacation in Savannah, Georgia.
They were great engines, and very strong, with excellent corrosion resistance due to Mercury's EDP paint system. Although much quieter than a friend's Yamaha 200's of same vintage, they were not as quiet at speed as my current 1997 200 EFI's, nor quite as fuel efficient.
And:

quote:
The engine redlines at 5800, and I would expect a 19" prop to be correct. This will handle a load range of 2600-4000, and will give speeds up to 54 mph, assuming no bottom paint.
Not bad for a measly 180 tired old horsepower :)
macdougall70 posted 10-24-2006 07:40 PM ET (US)
Tom,
You are on the ball. The prop. is a BRP.#174926 so I will try and post the results, if I can get the original prop off. I already stripped one prop wrench. When the dealer came to my house he reprogrammed my motor a couple of weeks ago to run xd100 and he couldnt get the original prop off. When I run the new prop., I'll re-post. The boat should be doing 80Mph right?

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 19: New 200-HP E-TEC
macdougall70	posted 07-30-2006 09:44 AM ET (US) I thought my 1992 Outrage 19 would scream with 200-HP E-TEC on the back, butt I only gained about 6-MPH. E-TEC engine runs great, 5,200-RPM and very quiet, but not much faster than my 1992 Johnson 150 carburetor motor.
macdougall70	posted 07-30-2006 09:52 AM ET (US) Could it be the prop? My old Johnson 150 had an alluminum 15x17 prop. the 200 etec has an 14x3/4 x 17 viper. seems there should be more difference between props. Maybe this boat design just not meant for speed? Any reccomendations on other props I may want to try? Best small offshore boat I've ever had though.
Sal DiMercurio	posted 07-30-2006 11:21 AM ET (US) My bet is. #1...the engine is mounted all the way down on the lowest set of holes. #2.....I believe the lower units have the same gear ratio so turn the same amount of rpms as the 150 was with the same size prop isn't going to make much difference. #3...In my opion the OMC Viper prop only has a scary name & is far from being the best prop for your application. #4...That 200 hp should twist that 17p prop on a 19' boat over it's rev limits, so it's not set up right. You need either a 19p Stiletto or a 19p Turbo on that engine & raise the engine up to the 3rd set of holes from the top set & learn to trim that engine out to just before she vents, & thats where you mark your RPMs & speed. My opinion is, you had the engine tucked all the way in & it's mounted on the top set of holes & trow that prop away. That engine should reach 5800 rpms in a heartbeat. Sal
macdougall70	posted 07-30-2006 11:34 AM ET (US) Sal, etec is mounted on the 3rd mounting hole so maybe the prop is where the issue is. dealer set up the motor for me and installed the prop. They also told me the boat was running 5800 rpms. I guess My next trip out today I will try to trimm her out more. Not really looking for max speed, just fastest cruise speed.
outboardwizard2	posted 10-24-2006 11:21 AM ET (US) On the etec engine I would recommend trying the new "Rebel" propeller that has a larger diameter and alot of cupping -also will allow you to raise engine height for maximum speed. Ralph more info here: http://www.theoutboardwizard.com/Outboard_Propellers_OMC_BRP_Props.html
Tom W Clark	posted 10-24-2006 11:30 AM ET (US) Only a 6 MPH gain? Are you kidding? A 6 MPH increase in top speed is HUGE! My god, how fast does that thing go? If cruise speed is what you are after, try a large diameter prop like a Mirage Plus or a four blade prop like a Vensura/Offshore, Revolution 4 or Stiletto Bay Pro.
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 12:02 PM ET (US) Outboard, The dealer told me that they dont make a rebel in the size and pitch i need. I have a viper on there now and if I trim the h*ll out of it the most RPM I can squeeze is about 5500 with a half tank and two guys. Maybe its because of the xtra weight of my boat (19 Outrage II). Tom, with my old 150 johnson WOT was about 39 mph @ 5300 rpm with the gps, now 47 mph not knots is max @ 5500 rpm. So, that is 8mph gain which is plenty fast for me. I hear some members talking about 50+ with a 150 and I cant see it. But, over all, I am very happy as this motor really sips fuel compared to the old Johnson. I live in Miami, Fl. and make frequent 100 mile round trips offshore so the fuel savings are huge and new range on the boat is over 250 miles.
jimh	posted 10-24-2006 01:49 PM ET (US) I took the data presented (150-HP, 39-MPH) and entered it into Crouch's Calculator, using a HULL FACTOR of 180 which is reasonable for a classic Whaler OUTRAGE type hull. This gave a weight of 3,195-lbs. Then using those parameters, I changed the horsepower to 200-HP, and asked for a prediction of speed. The calculator replied with 45-MPH. The results of the actual installation of a 200-HP motor as a replacement of a 150-HP motor on this boat are in close agreement with the predicted results. On that basis, I do not find any reason to be alarmed. Indeed, the new motor actually produced more speed, an 8-MPH increase. As you may know, CONTINUOUSWAVE offers the only on-line implementation of Crouch's formula for performance, and it offers it in a very versatile manner that allows any of the four parameters to be calculated from the other three. You cannot find anything like it anywhere else on the internet! http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl
LHG	posted 10-24-2006 03:03 PM ET (US) Jim - JimG's 1992 19 Outrage "Memory" does 42 MPH with a 1992 carbed Yamaha 150 (not known as a particularly hot 150), same gearing as the Evinrude 200, raised 2 bolt holes (1-1/2") and with a 17" Mercury Vensura 4 bladed prop turning 5300 RPM. I would think a strong 200, like one of my EFI's or a 3 liter Optimax 200, would push Jim's boat 50 MPH. If this rig is only capable of 45 MPH with the Evinrude small bore 200, a 17" Vensura would still be the perfect prop also, and he would gain more RPM than JimG is getting, but stay within the 5800 redline, and give the boat much needed lift and a better planing attitude. Seeing various results from this 200 small bore, I think I know why Mercury never did a 2.5 liter 200 Optimax (except racing applications). They just couldn't get the real 200 HP out it, and instead opted for the 3.0 liter 200, an easy under-rated 200. DFI technology can't quite produce the same HP in the smaller displacement engines as it did with conventional 2-strokes. BRP is playing the "clean technology weight card" with their 90 and small bore 200 offerings, but I'm betting the HP is suffering under the 10% rule. I agree with others, Macdougall's boat could be faster.
andygere	posted 10-24-2006 03:36 PM ET (US) Larry, I have to disagree with you there. My E-TEC 200 (2.6 liter) gives me the same top speed as my carbed Mercury 200 (2.4 liter), and I don't even have the new motor propped to get to the top of the rpm band. There's no question that the low end is better, and it was always good with the Mercury. This is an actual result, with 2 different motors, a carburated 2-stroke and a DFI 2-stroke, mounted on the same boat. I just don't buy the notion that you get less power from a DFI. While I suspect the Optimax 200 and the E-TEC 200 H.O., both built on larger displacement blocks, may put out something more than 200 h.p., I'm certain the small block E-TEC 200 is not putting out less than 200. This is based on actual data collected on the same boat.
LHG	posted 10-24-2006 04:10 PM ET (US) Andy - I'm actually glad to hear that a tired and well worn 18 year old carb technology engine, designed in 1975, with no sensors or EMM, put out the same top end performance and HP as a brand new, larger displacement, direct fuel injected 2007, higher fuel efficiency, new technology engine. Just hope that the new engine goes the same 17 years before it's powerhead needs replacement, like the old Merc did!! It does seem like you should be getting more than 41 MPH out her on that cold Pacific water and air, since JimP up in Alaska gets 49-50 MPH out his similar weight Revenge 22 with only 25 more HP. That's a lot of speed increase for only 25 HP
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 04:38 PM ET (US) Thanks for the feedback, I need to try some different props out just to feel the difference. The dealer sent me a new prop to try but it is a 15x15 and that cant be right. Help me out here, if I am turning a 14.75 x 17 viper and hitting 5400-5500 WOT then 15 x 15 is way to small right?
Tom W Clark	posted 10-24-2006 04:44 PM ET (US) Rob, I did not catch that your boat is the Outrage 19 II, a much heavier boat than the classic Outrage 18/19. If you are getting 47 MPH out of her I think that is mighty impressive. Why would you want to go any faster than that? The old 60 degree block Johnson/Evinrude 150s were known as pretty hot motors. To improve upon that by 8 MPH is remarkable. The E-Tecs don't seem to be giving anything away. By all means try some different props; it could by itself make a significant difference, not necessarily in top speed but in how the boat performs at cruise speed. You should try to find a prop that gives optimal fuel mileage, smooth operation and offers good grip and excellent acceleration. Top speed is really only for bragging rights. With a motor as powerful as the E-Tec 200, you should really try a 17" Mirage Plus or Offshore/Vensura. You won't know until you try.
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 04:44 PM ET (US) By the way Jimh the Crouch's Calculator is to cool. I see how your getting your numbers.
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 04:50 PM ET (US) For what it is worth is you use Crouch's Calculator and shave 600 lbs off the weight of my boat (outrage II), now were doing over 50 for any outrage prior to my year (1992). Ok, I feel better... Thanks
Tom W Clark	posted 10-24-2006 04:51 PM ET (US) Rob, Yes a 15" x 15" would be worth testing if only for the data points. The reduced pitch may be partially offset by the larger diameter. Sounds like this prop may be a BRP SST, part number 174926. I'm not sure this is the optimal pop, but try it and see.
andygere	posted 10-24-2006 04:55 PM ET (US) quote: DFI technology can't quite produce the same HP in the smaller displacement engines as it did with conventional 2-strokes. This seems to say that DFI motors are inferior to conventional 2-strokes in terms or generation horsepower from a given displacement. quote: I'm actually glad to hear that a tired and well worn 18 year old carb technology engine, designed in 1975, with no sensors or EMM, put out the same top end performance and HP as a brand new, larger displacement, direct fuel injected 2007, higher fuel efficiency, new technology engine. This says just the opposite: How can anyone expect a conventional 2-stroke to keep up with a new, modern DFI motor? Which one is true? I guess my old Mercury 200 probably produced more like 180 h.p.? For what it's worth, I clocked 41 mph on a 75 degree day, water temp of 64 with the boat loaded with 70 gallons of fuel, 2 adults and cruising and fishing gear. Note that my Outrage has bottom paint, a T-top and a canvas enclosure around the T-top frame. Again, I'm happy with the performance, but it's certainly better, not worse, than my carburated 200. How does this translate to my DFI 200 putting out less horsepower? I expect I'll get an extra 1-2 mph when I get her propped to the optimal rpm range, perhaps more since the Mirage would start to ventilate if I trimmed the motor out too far. I have yet to see any data that shows this motor is weak, or somehow does not meet it's nameplate power rating. For that matter, I'm running the thing, and I can tell you it moves out. Larry's arguments are based on what, his best guess?
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 05:19 PM ET (US) Thanks Tom, I will give it a try and post the results.
Peter	posted 10-24-2006 05:41 PM ET (US) How about: "Agenda driven speculation." ;)
LHG	posted 10-24-2006 06:41 PM ET (US) Andy, yes about 180 HP on the old Merc is what I was implying, considering maybe 2000-3000 hours of use. I'm sure you weren't getting the original brand new 200 HP. Regarding Macdougall's rig, I saw the 45 MPH from JimH's post, thinking he was repeating what Macdougall said. If the boat does 47, that's a big difference and sounds pretty good. I think I will go back into retirement. You young guys are too sharp for me.
andygere	posted 10-24-2006 07:31 PM ET (US) C'mon Larry, it's no fun when you are lurking in the shadows. It's much more fun to debate outboards out here in the sunshine. For what it's worth, I don't think that my old Mercury had anywhere near 3000 hours on it, probably far less than 1000, based on my mechanic's estimate after pulling the heads when I first bought the boat. This is corroborated by info relayed to me by both the original owner, and the gentleman that sold me the boat. It spent a lot of time on the trailer, and much less in the water. I never felt that the boat was underpowered with that motor, and in fact thought it was a good performer. By the way, here's what you had to say about this motor when I first purchased it: quote: You've asked the right question, as I installed these same engines on my 1989 Outrage, new. See photo of boat on trailer, Cetacea page 11. Unfortunately, they still looked so good in 1997 that they were both stolen off the boat, while on vacation in Savannah, Georgia. They were great engines, and very strong, with excellent corrosion resistance due to Mercury's EDP paint system. Although much quieter than a friend's Yamaha 200's of same vintage, they were not as quiet at speed as my current 1997 200 EFI's, nor quite as fuel efficient. And: quote: The engine redlines at 5800, and I would expect a 19" prop to be correct. This will handle a load range of 2600-4000, and will give speeds up to 54 mph, assuming no bottom paint. Not bad for a measly 180 tired old horsepower :)
macdougall70	posted 10-24-2006 07:40 PM ET (US) Tom, You are on the ball. The prop. is a BRP.#174926 so I will try and post the results, if I can get the original prop off. I already stripped one prop wrench. When the dealer came to my house he reprogrammed my motor a couple of weeks ago to run xd100 and he couldnt get the original prop off. When I run the new prop., I'll re-post. The boat should be doing 80Mph right?