1976 Outrage 19: Re-Power With Twin Engines - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1976 Outrage 19: Re-Power With Twin Engines

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1976 Outrage 19: Re-Power With Twin Engines

tahodgson posted 10-26-2006 10:14 AM ET (US)
The Mercury 150 that came with the 1976 Outrage 19 is so corroded that it's parts fodder. I would really like to put twins on the 1976 Outrage 19, because I use the 1976 Outrage 19 for sailboat race committee work, and need the manuverability around swamped sailboats. I'm not concerned about efficiency (know that a single is better for most applications, but my situation is different).
On the race course, I spend most of my time idling around, and don't really need to ever get anywhere fast.
The reference section here list minimum horsepower as 65. Would that mean that twin 40s would be adequate? Twin 50s sounds better to me, but I'm speaking from precious little experience.
My budget is a factor, too, so I'm probably looking at smaller, older motors.
Given all that, what advice do you have for me?
Eagleman posted 10-26-2006 12:57 PM ET (US)
I know the handling character of this boat very well, I've previously owned one for 15 years. This hull design operates exceptionally well with one engine, great for moving around in close spots. I personally wouldn't go to the expense of rigging to get two engine to address just handling issues. If I was you I'd look for a used Merc. 150 that uses all the same linkage etc. simply bolt it on and enjoy the boat.
jimh posted 10-27-2006 12:51 AM ET (US)
These days using twin engines which total less than 300-HP is rare because there are such excellent higher horsepower motors available.
If you do install small twin engines, you might give some consideration to increasing the separation between them. Greater separation will enhance the differential thrust and possibly make the boat more maneuverable. For advice on rigging twin engines, see my article in the REFERENCE section:
Twin Outboard Engine Installation on Moderate V-hull Boats
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/twinEngineMounting.html
The Judge posted 10-27-2006 12:12 PM ET (US)
I own a 76 Revenge and I strongly considered twins being I had a 70 Suzuki 4 stroke on my Newtauk and found a match locally in great cond. BUT....then I realized I would be dropping over 700lbs on a 30yr old transom, not advisable in my opinion. This boat actually handles pretty well with a single but wind can get me when docking (revenge). I think a pair of 50 or 60hp 4 strokes would be awesome and under 500lbs. I also think a single 115 Suzuki 4 stroke is awesome which is what I run on mine and am tickled pink with(40mph). I actually also considered triple 50hp 2 stokes but just for a small time. Triple 50's would burn about 6-7gph at cruise and look and sound awesome with 150hp but again is over 600lbs. My 115 burns less than 5gph at cruise and sounds...ugh like a 4 stroke. It weighs about 420lbs which still allows her to sit stern high(again revenge model).
The Judge posted 10-27-2006 12:14 PM ET (US)
PS the 75 brochure shows a 19 reenge with twin 40 Mercs and says it will do 32mph...I highly doubt that under normal conditions. Twin 50's would be MINIMUM in my opinion.
tahodgson posted 10-27-2006 12:59 PM ET (US)
My budget limits what I can do, too. I'd love to put a couple of Suzuki or Honda 4-stroke 50s, but can't imagine that I could get two for the sale price of my Nauset that I hope to sell in the spring.
The fellow at the boat place where I was looking for engines thought two 40s would push the boat along great, but my instincts tell me that it would be underpowered, especially with the anchors and equipment I haul for race committee work.
The nice thing about a couple of 50s, especially two-stroke, is that I could separate them nicely on the transom, as suggested by Jim.
Maybe I'll win the lottery between now and spring.
I appreciate all the input, so far, and that yet to come.
jgkmmoore posted 10-28-2006 12:54 AM ET (US)
Twins can be a [trouble] if either is less than dependable.Budget becomes a big deal.
bsmotril posted 10-28-2006 10:31 PM ET (US)
The ideal motors for your application would be a pair of Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke motors. They're light at under 300lbs each, and no four-stroke motors come close to that weight. Another more economical choice would be a pair of Nissan/Tohatsu 40- or 50-HP motors. They're both 205-lbs each, and they license the [Oribital Combustion System] direct injection technology making them even stingier on fuel than a lot of four-strokes. They run about $5,600 each with props, and the Yamaha 90 can be bought for right around the same price with a little hunting. BillS
contender posted 10-28-2006 11:58 PM ET (US)
one engine, boat this size does not require two. How many boats like yours have two engines.. seen any lately??
bsmotril posted 10-29-2006 09:54 AM ET (US)
There is an added benefit to close quarters maneuverability with two. Tha that is what the original poster based the start of this thread on; the need for tight maneuvering, possibly around people in the water, most certainly around sail boats on a race course. What you need or can get by with, and what you want, are ofter two totally different things. BillS
BOB KEMMLER JR posted 10-29-2006 11:09 AM ET (US)
Contender-A 19 foot Whaler is like a 30+ foot anything else,so twins are a ok option ;o)
tahodgson posted 10-29-2006 12:57 PM ET (US)
Building off of what BillS is saying...
What I really want is twins. Sounds like twin 50s would do the job nicely, especially given my desire for pinpoint manuverabilty, the ability to idle around the race course, and no great need for high speed or power.
Would love to hear suggestions for fairly late-model 50-60 hp engines that would fit the bill. Agree with jgskmmoore's assessment that two old, unreliable engines are simply twice the trouble.
In realistic terms...my budget could tolerate a stretch to maybe $6500 for both motors. Not much to work with, I know.
Tom W Clark posted 10-29-2006 04:44 PM ET (US)
Tom,
I understand you would like to put twins on this boat but your needs are very specific and twins do not make sense given the parameters.
If you need to operate at slow speeds in close proximity to other boaters then you are definitely ion the market for a four stroke outboard.
Running at cruising speed an higher, the benefits of a four stroke are not that great compared to a conventional two stroke, but at displacement speeds the whisper quiet sound and lack of smoke are truly impressive.
But given your budget of $6500, a single four stroke is doable but twin four strokes is not. It is just that simple.
Additional benefits of a single are just one motor to rig and maintain, one propeller to foul lines from sailing dinghies, less weight on the transom and more room for other gear.
A 19 footer will be perfectly maneuverable with a single. You'll see.
The Judge posted 10-29-2006 07:54 PM ET (US)
I agree but was just putting in my $.02 with twins. I bought my DF115 Suzuki 4 stroke new with 6 yr warranty for $6k plus prop, harness, controls and tach. Which came to about $6500 plus my rigging time and misc BS that goes with a repower. It manuevers but not as tight as my montauk did. Great thing is at 1000rpms she is burn8ing about 1/3 a quart an hour, no noise, smoke, fouled plugs, nothing. Plus I burn less than 5gph at decent cruise.
Teak Oil posted 10-30-2006 07:41 PM ET (US)
I bet you could get a pair of older Yamaha 60's or 70's for $6500, but they better be in nice shape.
A pair of 80's four cylinder Mercs would be perfect but finding a pair in good shape would be tough.
Didnt jimh have a Revenge with twin 70's? It was slow but how did it handle?
Outrage 18's do pretty good on twin 70 OMC's...
tahodgson posted 01-03-2007 04:23 PM ET (US)
I think, given all factors (but mostly budget), that the 4-stroke 115 might be the best choice.
What recommendations do you all have for 2-4 year-old motors, in terms of value, reliability, etc.
Thanks!
Buckda posted 01-03-2007 04:48 PM ET (US)
I think Yamaha F115 might be a great option for you and your intended use.
Twin 90 HP E-TECs would be nice too, but you simply don't have the budget...
Dave
SpongeBob posted 01-03-2007 11:13 PM ET (US)
I do quite a bit committee work on Opti and Laser courses. Our boat is a 1982 22' Outrage with twin 120 hp Evinrudes. While I will admit that I love my twins, in the regatta scenario (especially with the unpredictability of kids) there is to much going on to be able to effectively use the twins. I have yet to aquire 360 degree vison so that I can watch every sailor near me while I work two throttles in opposite directions and steer at te same time. Therefore I rarely optimmize the twins capabilities on the race course. It's just not worth the risk to me. If you want twins then go for it. But for the use you describe a single would do fine.
Jeff
Ed Z posted 01-03-2007 11:28 PM ET (US)

I just have to throw a shot at bsmotril's staement of
"The ideal motors for your application would be a pair of Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke motors. They're light at under 300lbs each, and no four-stroke motors come close to that weight."
My 4 cylinder 4 stroke Bearcat 85 weighs in at 280 lbs...
I find little excuse why current 4 strokes can't measure up to the 30 years ones...
The Judge posted 01-04-2007 12:23 PM ET (US)
Ed...there are about 100 reasons why they can't/don't make them as light as your Bearcats. There are 3 reasons that are the most important.
1)Bearcats used a 1960's Crosley block that was refitted with TIN parts to make it light. These TIN parts last about 3 years in salt water...hence why they are scarce these days. 1960's technology also uses lighter carbs instead of EFI, no PTnT which would add another 20lbs, a small gearcase with shear pins compared to todays standards. Just FYI...a 1972 125hp Rude weighed the same as your engine WITH PTnT...so?
2)Modern engine makers could drop 100lbs on those motors by using titanium, carbon fibre, aerospace alloys, etc but I doubt many would like to spend $20k on a 90hp.
3)Modern engine and boat designers have found that weight does not effect transom strength nor handling like most people think or thought. They also think that reliability and cost are more important than weight.
The easiest way to drop weight and size would be to use a rotary engine. Problem is they have little low end torque and would probably burn more than a 2 stroke. My 1985 RX-7 got 18mpg on a good day with just over 100hp. My 1987 GTI got 32 with about 10 less ponies.
Perry posted 01-04-2007 04:37 PM ET (US)
Ed, you can have that antique Bearcat and if you can't see the advantages of owning a modern 4 stroke outboard, you are blind.
Bulldog posted 01-04-2007 06:36 PM ET (US)
I don't know, I've run with Ed in the Chesapeake Bay, that Bearcat ran great , is in Saltwater and antique is the wrong word to use, "old reliable" fits!. Ed did give all the other newer Whalers a run in rough water, with a Whaler as old as that Bearcat!........................Jack
tahodgson posted 04-02-2007 08:48 PM ET (US)
An update.
Bought a 2003 Johnson 115 4-stroke...snuck in under my budget. Will update after I get the boat back from the rigger.
tahodgson posted 05-11-2007 12:15 AM ET (US)
Took the boat with the 2003 Johnson 115 4-stroke out on the Mississippi River yesterday for its "sea trial."
At some low rpm, the rattles on the boat make more noise than the engine.
Acceleration was surprising. The boat jumped from idle (in gear) to on plane in about three seconds.
Top speed was 37-37.5 mph at 5500 rpm WOT (an average of two runs with and against the current). Ran for about 4 hours in break-in mode, because no one at the dealership could give me the history of the motor, and it looked so new that I didn't want to risk not breaking it in properly).
Am obviously very happy. Would recommend this combination to any owner of an older Outrage 19 (mine is number 00048)

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: 1976 Outrage 19: Re-Power With Twin Engines
tahodgson	posted 10-26-2006 10:14 AM ET (US) The Mercury 150 that came with the 1976 Outrage 19 is so corroded that it's parts fodder. I would really like to put twins on the 1976 Outrage 19, because I use the 1976 Outrage 19 for sailboat race committee work, and need the manuverability around swamped sailboats. I'm not concerned about efficiency (know that a single is better for most applications, but my situation is different). On the race course, I spend most of my time idling around, and don't really need to ever get anywhere fast. The reference section here list minimum horsepower as 65. Would that mean that twin 40s would be adequate? Twin 50s sounds better to me, but I'm speaking from precious little experience. My budget is a factor, too, so I'm probably looking at smaller, older motors. Given all that, what advice do you have for me?
Eagleman	posted 10-26-2006 12:57 PM ET (US) I know the handling character of this boat very well, I've previously owned one for 15 years. This hull design operates exceptionally well with one engine, great for moving around in close spots. I personally wouldn't go to the expense of rigging to get two engine to address just handling issues. If I was you I'd look for a used Merc. 150 that uses all the same linkage etc. simply bolt it on and enjoy the boat.
jimh	posted 10-27-2006 12:51 AM ET (US) These days using twin engines which total less than 300-HP is rare because there are such excellent higher horsepower motors available. If you do install small twin engines, you might give some consideration to increasing the separation between them. Greater separation will enhance the differential thrust and possibly make the boat more maneuverable. For advice on rigging twin engines, see my article in the REFERENCE section: Twin Outboard Engine Installation on Moderate V-hull Boats http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/twinEngineMounting.html
The Judge	posted 10-27-2006 12:12 PM ET (US) I own a 76 Revenge and I strongly considered twins being I had a 70 Suzuki 4 stroke on my Newtauk and found a match locally in great cond. BUT....then I realized I would be dropping over 700lbs on a 30yr old transom, not advisable in my opinion. This boat actually handles pretty well with a single but wind can get me when docking (revenge). I think a pair of 50 or 60hp 4 strokes would be awesome and under 500lbs. I also think a single 115 Suzuki 4 stroke is awesome which is what I run on mine and am tickled pink with(40mph). I actually also considered triple 50hp 2 stokes but just for a small time. Triple 50's would burn about 6-7gph at cruise and look and sound awesome with 150hp but again is over 600lbs. My 115 burns less than 5gph at cruise and sounds...ugh like a 4 stroke. It weighs about 420lbs which still allows her to sit stern high(again revenge model).
The Judge	posted 10-27-2006 12:14 PM ET (US) PS the 75 brochure shows a 19 reenge with twin 40 Mercs and says it will do 32mph...I highly doubt that under normal conditions. Twin 50's would be MINIMUM in my opinion.
tahodgson	posted 10-27-2006 12:59 PM ET (US) My budget limits what I can do, too. I'd love to put a couple of Suzuki or Honda 4-stroke 50s, but can't imagine that I could get two for the sale price of my Nauset that I hope to sell in the spring. The fellow at the boat place where I was looking for engines thought two 40s would push the boat along great, but my instincts tell me that it would be underpowered, especially with the anchors and equipment I haul for race committee work. The nice thing about a couple of 50s, especially two-stroke, is that I could separate them nicely on the transom, as suggested by Jim. Maybe I'll win the lottery between now and spring. I appreciate all the input, so far, and that yet to come.
jgkmmoore	posted 10-28-2006 12:54 AM ET (US) Twins can be a [trouble] if either is less than dependable.Budget becomes a big deal.
bsmotril	posted 10-28-2006 10:31 PM ET (US) The ideal motors for your application would be a pair of Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke motors. They're light at under 300lbs each, and no four-stroke motors come close to that weight. Another more economical choice would be a pair of Nissan/Tohatsu 40- or 50-HP motors. They're both 205-lbs each, and they license the [Oribital Combustion System] direct injection technology making them even stingier on fuel than a lot of four-strokes. They run about $5,600 each with props, and the Yamaha 90 can be bought for right around the same price with a little hunting. BillS
contender	posted 10-28-2006 11:58 PM ET (US) one engine, boat this size does not require two. How many boats like yours have two engines.. seen any lately??
bsmotril	posted 10-29-2006 09:54 AM ET (US) There is an added benefit to close quarters maneuverability with two. Tha that is what the original poster based the start of this thread on; the need for tight maneuvering, possibly around people in the water, most certainly around sail boats on a race course. What you need or can get by with, and what you want, are ofter two totally different things. BillS
BOB KEMMLER JR	posted 10-29-2006 11:09 AM ET (US) Contender-A 19 foot Whaler is like a 30+ foot anything else,so twins are a ok option ;o)
tahodgson	posted 10-29-2006 12:57 PM ET (US) Building off of what BillS is saying... What I really want is twins. Sounds like twin 50s would do the job nicely, especially given my desire for pinpoint manuverabilty, the ability to idle around the race course, and no great need for high speed or power. Would love to hear suggestions for fairly late-model 50-60 hp engines that would fit the bill. Agree with jgskmmoore's assessment that two old, unreliable engines are simply twice the trouble. In realistic terms...my budget could tolerate a stretch to maybe $6500 for both motors. Not much to work with, I know.
Tom W Clark	posted 10-29-2006 04:44 PM ET (US) Tom, I understand you would like to put twins on this boat but your needs are very specific and twins do not make sense given the parameters. If you need to operate at slow speeds in close proximity to other boaters then you are definitely ion the market for a four stroke outboard. Running at cruising speed an higher, the benefits of a four stroke are not that great compared to a conventional two stroke, but at displacement speeds the whisper quiet sound and lack of smoke are truly impressive. But given your budget of $6500, a single four stroke is doable but twin four strokes is not. It is just that simple. Additional benefits of a single are just one motor to rig and maintain, one propeller to foul lines from sailing dinghies, less weight on the transom and more room for other gear. A 19 footer will be perfectly maneuverable with a single. You'll see.
The Judge	posted 10-29-2006 07:54 PM ET (US) I agree but was just putting in my $.02 with twins. I bought my DF115 Suzuki 4 stroke new with 6 yr warranty for $6k plus prop, harness, controls and tach. Which came to about $6500 plus my rigging time and misc BS that goes with a repower. It manuevers but not as tight as my montauk did. Great thing is at 1000rpms she is burn8ing about 1/3 a quart an hour, no noise, smoke, fouled plugs, nothing. Plus I burn less than 5gph at decent cruise.
Teak Oil	posted 10-30-2006 07:41 PM ET (US) I bet you could get a pair of older Yamaha 60's or 70's for $6500, but they better be in nice shape. A pair of 80's four cylinder Mercs would be perfect but finding a pair in good shape would be tough. Didnt jimh have a Revenge with twin 70's? It was slow but how did it handle? Outrage 18's do pretty good on twin 70 OMC's...
tahodgson	posted 01-03-2007 04:23 PM ET (US) I think, given all factors (but mostly budget), that the 4-stroke 115 might be the best choice. What recommendations do you all have for 2-4 year-old motors, in terms of value, reliability, etc. Thanks!
Buckda	posted 01-03-2007 04:48 PM ET (US) I think Yamaha F115 might be a great option for you and your intended use. Twin 90 HP E-TECs would be nice too, but you simply don't have the budget... Dave
SpongeBob	posted 01-03-2007 11:13 PM ET (US) I do quite a bit committee work on Opti and Laser courses. Our boat is a 1982 22' Outrage with twin 120 hp Evinrudes. While I will admit that I love my twins, in the regatta scenario (especially with the unpredictability of kids) there is to much going on to be able to effectively use the twins. I have yet to aquire 360 degree vison so that I can watch every sailor near me while I work two throttles in opposite directions and steer at te same time. Therefore I rarely optimmize the twins capabilities on the race course. It's just not worth the risk to me. If you want twins then go for it. But for the use you describe a single would do fine. Jeff
Ed Z	posted 01-03-2007 11:28 PM ET (US) I just have to throw a shot at bsmotril's staement of "The ideal motors for your application would be a pair of Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke motors. They're light at under 300lbs each, and no four-stroke motors come close to that weight." My 4 cylinder 4 stroke Bearcat 85 weighs in at 280 lbs... I find little excuse why current 4 strokes can't measure up to the 30 years ones...
The Judge	posted 01-04-2007 12:23 PM ET (US) Ed...there are about 100 reasons why they can't/don't make them as light as your Bearcats. There are 3 reasons that are the most important. 1)Bearcats used a 1960's Crosley block that was refitted with TIN parts to make it light. These TIN parts last about 3 years in salt water...hence why they are scarce these days. 1960's technology also uses lighter carbs instead of EFI, no PTnT which would add another 20lbs, a small gearcase with shear pins compared to todays standards. Just FYI...a 1972 125hp Rude weighed the same as your engine WITH PTnT...so? 2)Modern engine makers could drop 100lbs on those motors by using titanium, carbon fibre, aerospace alloys, etc but I doubt many would like to spend $20k on a 90hp. 3)Modern engine and boat designers have found that weight does not effect transom strength nor handling like most people think or thought. They also think that reliability and cost are more important than weight. The easiest way to drop weight and size would be to use a rotary engine. Problem is they have little low end torque and would probably burn more than a 2 stroke. My 1985 RX-7 got 18mpg on a good day with just over 100hp. My 1987 GTI got 32 with about 10 less ponies.
Perry	posted 01-04-2007 04:37 PM ET (US) Ed, you can have that antique Bearcat and if you can't see the advantages of owning a modern 4 stroke outboard, you are blind.
Bulldog	posted 01-04-2007 06:36 PM ET (US) I don't know, I've run with Ed in the Chesapeake Bay, that Bearcat ran great , is in Saltwater and antique is the wrong word to use, "old reliable" fits!. Ed did give all the other newer Whalers a run in rough water, with a Whaler as old as that Bearcat!........................Jack
tahodgson	posted 04-02-2007 08:48 PM ET (US) An update. Bought a 2003 Johnson 115 4-stroke...snuck in under my budget. Will update after I get the boat back from the rigger.
tahodgson	posted 05-11-2007 12:15 AM ET (US) Took the boat with the 2003 Johnson 115 4-stroke out on the Mississippi River yesterday for its "sea trial." At some low rpm, the rattles on the boat make more noise than the engine. Acceleration was surprising. The boat jumped from idle (in gear) to on plane in about three seconds. Top speed was 37-37.5 mph at 5500 rpm WOT (an average of two runs with and against the current). Ran for about 4 hours in break-in mode, because no one at the dealership could give me the history of the motor, and it looked so new that I didn't want to risk not breaking it in properly). Am obviously very happy. Would recommend this combination to any owner of an older Outrage 19 (mine is number 00048)