Will an old Outrage handle a Yamaha 200hp? - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Will an old Outrage handle a Yamaha 200hp?

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Will an old Outrage handle a Yamaha 200hp?

filthypit posted 06-13-2007 10:17 AM ET (US)
[Seeks] experience with a Yamaha 200hp Vmax on their 1970's Outrage 21.
I was thinking it's a BIG and powerful motor to put on a 35-year-old transom - even though the transom is rock solid. I talked to a Ph.D. who designs sailboats (worked with fiberglass since the 1960's) and she said fiberglass loses strength with age due to exposure to the sun.
We have two Outrages that need motors this summer and I'm real close to buying the 200-HP Yamaha for one - but am having cold feet - maybe, a 150 is better(?)
Any feedback is appreciated!
Tom W Clark posted 06-13-2007 10:21 AM ET (US)
The transom will handle the 200 just fine. Whether it is necessary to put 200 HP on that boat is another question., but the transom will not be the limitation.
Sal DiMercurio posted 06-13-2007 10:26 AM ET (US)
I run a 200 hp on a 1979 "V"20 outrage [ maximum hp rating is 180 hp ] .
Just like your car, no need to run wide open.
My engine computer says it has less than 6 minutes at wide open throttle, with "well" over 1,000 hours on the engine.
Just know she's gonna haul a$$ if & when you punch it.
Sal
brisboats posted 06-13-2007 05:12 PM ET (US)
Not sure what year Yamaha you are considering but the 150-200hp two strokes were usually based on the same 2.6 liter block. The weight was the same. The difference in power is generally made in the upper rpms.
Brian
JayR posted 06-13-2007 08:15 PM ET (US)
It would be fine... but 150 HP is plenty on that hull.
PeteB88 posted 06-13-2007 09:18 PM ET (US)
Maniac fishinpal runs 200 FICHT on 72 21 Outrage. Oh, it goes fast.
jamesmylesmcp posted 06-14-2007 06:37 AM ET (US)
My 150 pushes me at 53 Mph ! I couldn"t and wouldn"t want anymore speed on that hull.
JayR posted 06-14-2007 10:54 AM ET (US)
I thought I was getting just 43 mph but just realized the GPS was set on nautical miles rather than statute miles. That would be 50 MPH and I'm still in the break in period. Got another 300 RPM's to go....
Tohsgib posted 06-14-2007 11:16 AM ET (US)
I thought E-tecs hd NO break-in period.
Binkie posted 06-14-2007 11:30 AM ET (US)
Does the PH.D, have hard figures that shows how much fiberglass ages, and how much strength it loses every year? It is probably just an assumption, based on the fact that the plastic parts on the interior of her car become brittle with exposure to the sun, or some other none technical observation. Actually the older hulls have thicker hulls than the modern ones, because no one knew how long the life would be, so overkill was the rule.

Richard
JayR posted 06-14-2007 11:59 AM ET (US)
[quote]I thought E-TEC's had NO break-in period.[/quote}
They don't... at least not for the user to be concerned with.
There is internal software that regulates a break in period. Oil mixing is heavier and RPM's are reduced a few hundred... I don't know what else is involved, I can't tell a difference and don't care either....
As far as the operator is concerned, balls to the walls from moment one if that's what ya like. No concerns whatsoever. Just use it....
filthypit posted 06-14-2007 04:18 PM ET (US)
Hey Binkie-
Yes, she did have all kinds of graphs & charts to support what she was talking about, but it got too involved for me. I don't even remember her name, but her specialty was composite fabrication (planes for the government, then racing sailboats privately).
I was asking her about old Whalers & only listened to the part about the adverse affect of long-term exposure to the sun. The main thing was, fiberglass becomes more brittle.
But, you're right - boats that are 20yrs+ old are definately much heavier and, usually made of hand-laid glass (rather than blown, as they are now).

I was just worried about a 200hp motor taking off with our transom & leaving us (& the rest of) our unsinkable legend behind.
dfmcintyre posted 06-16-2007 07:37 AM ET (US)
We put a 200 Vmax on our 21 seven years ago. It hasn't fallen off yet. Nor have I heard of a bunch of transoms falling off of old boats due to FRP degradation.
There's Ph.D world then there is reality. Is the degradation over age also factoring in gelcoat thickness or is her analysis done on "naked" FRP panels? If with gelcoat, how thick? What angle to the sun? Last I looked, transoms are pretty vertical to the sun. Has the boat been stored outside all it's life?
Yes, ultraviolet radiation promotes photochemical degradation processes in all plastics. Research I've seen published and available on the web involves discussions of FRP panels used in greenhouses and how the glass fibers can become damaged due to sun, moisture, etc. That seems to indicate to me that there is no gelcoat covering the panels.
Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the wood integrity within the transom then the fiberglass.
One issue you'll need to resolve is that a long shaft will require a jackplate to raise it up (you'll want the anti-cav plate about 1" above bottom of the hull for best performance). I think a short shaft may require cutting a notch into the transom (I may be wrong on this....don't remember).
Performance with standard aluminum prop is mid-upper 50's.
Having a good grip on the wheel, go straight in nothing heavier then a light chop and you'll avoid having your name in an USGC report.
Regards - Don
JayR posted 06-16-2007 08:51 AM ET (US)
Long shaft is the 20" (isn't it?)
Extra long is the 25"
The short shaft is 15"
At least that is my understanding of it all.
The ribbed Outrage takes a long shaft 20" so no need for a jackplate. It makes for a better, easier installation though....
dfmcintyre posted 06-16-2007 07:49 PM ET (US)
Jay -
If the Yamaha long shaft is 20", the transom will take a 20". Not very efficiently mind you, but it will take it.
From what I recall, the anti-cavation plate was about 3" below the bottom of the transom prior to installing a manual jackplate.
Don
John W posted 06-18-2007 08:48 PM ET (US)
Don, yours must be a 25" motor. My 20" shaft Suzuki 150 is mounted directly to the transom, and the cavitation plate is definitely above the bottom of the boat. If anything, mine could be mounted a bolt hole lower than it is....3 blade props were ventilating on my rig. A 20" motor will work fine directly on the transom. The only problem is that getting the lower bolts mounted inside the boat can be a pain...this in itself may make a manual jackplate worthwhile. Mine is here:
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/repower/

I agree with others here that a 200 will work fine on the Outrage, although it's more than necessary. I've never wanted more than the 150 I have on mine. I'm getting around 45 mph with a big 4 blade prop...a 150 will give 50mph if propped for speeed with a stainless 3 blade, which is plenty fast on this old hull.
John
JayR posted 06-18-2007 09:33 PM ET (US)
I too have a 150 HP 20" shaft on my boat.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/BigJayR/boating/05192006050.jpg
I opted for the manual jackplate for the reason John mentioned above. The bolting on of the motor was much easier....
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/BigJayR/boating/05192006046.jpg
dfmcintyre posted 06-19-2007 09:03 PM ET (US)
John -
Here's two images of my setup:
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=MVC-042S.jpg
and
[url]http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/?action=view¤t=MVC-004S.jpg[/rul]
Regards - Don
dfmcintyre posted 06-19-2007 09:04 PM ET (US)
Ummmmm, second one:
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=MVC-004S.jpg
filthypit posted 06-20-2007 10:31 AM ET (US)
2 Q's:
1.) What's the difference between bolting a motor on the transom and bolting a jackplate on? (why would it be easier to bolt the jackplate to the transom?)
2.) Do ya'll find that the added jackplate distance between the transom & the motor makes the boat ride anymore stern-heavy?

We're looking at a 20" shaft motor mounted directly to the transom.
Never having put a motor on either of our 1972 21ft Outrages, I find everyone's input are VERY informative! I really hate to see boats riding around w/ the bow all up in the air from a poorly set motor.
John W posted 06-20-2007 08:47 PM ET (US)
Don,
Your outrage looks great. I'm pretty sure that your Yamaha is a 25" shaft from the looks of it in second pic you posted. If so, it would be about 3" below the bottom of the boat if mounted directly to the transom...making the jackplate a necessity for you, versus just a convenience with a 20" shaft motor. There is no disadvantage to a 25" shaft with the jackplate, it just means your powerhead is higher above the transom. You might be able to see the difference in motor length between your second pic, and these of my boat:
With the old 20" shaft Johnson:
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/?action=view& current=1c33e9ec.jpg
And with the new 20" shaft Suzuki:
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/repower/?action=view& current=DSC00094.jpg

filthypit,
The 1970-72 Outrages have an odd raised fiberglass area next to the transom inside the "wet well" at the stern interior of the boat, under the splashwell...it looks almost like a step, which it obviously isn't given its location under the splashwell. (This raised area makes a very long lower drain tube necessary to drain the boat). The bolt pattern on modern engines results in the lower mounting bolts hitting right around the top of this raised area...my bolts are right against the top of this flat area, but I've seen some where part or all of this fiberglass "step" area has had to be drilled away or cut out to allow for the bolts to fit. (Maybe Jay or someone has a pic of the area inside the boat I'm talking about.)

Using a manual jackplate allows you to mount the lower bolts where you can easily get to them (slightly higher up, above this step area). The motor can then mount to the jackplate & be adjusted on the jackplate up or down to allow proper engine alignment.
As to the ride, these boats almost never ride stern heavy...they tend to be somewhat bow heavy, and keeping the bow light improves the ride. Extra weight in the stern never seems to be a problem in terms of the ride (it will affect static trim a bit, though...mine now sits a couple inches lower in the stern at rest since I repowered with the heavier 4 stroke). Having the motor a few inches back will have almost no effect on the ride, although it might give you a little more top speed. My only caution would be not to use a big setback, as that will cause more of a lever action torque on a 35 year old transom.
JayR posted 06-20-2007 08:50 PM ET (US)
The space available for the lower bolts does not leave you with very much of an area for adjustment.
With the jackplate, you can mount it without worry as to where the motor will end up. You'll have several inches of adjustment.
Have you looked to see where the lower bolt holes are located?
It's a no-brainer....
dfmcintyre posted 06-20-2007 10:42 PM ET (US)
John -
Thanks.
Filthy....ditto what John said. The Yamaha 200 weighs 460lbs. I'm 205lbs and when standing on the anti-cav plate the stern lowers maybe one inch. So there's a lot of leeway.
Here's a photo of her at rest in the water:
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=inwater.jpg
Don
jgkmmoore posted 06-21-2007 04:25 PM ET (US)
Filthy- I ran a 25" 1990 Johnson 225 on my 1978 Outrage. It would run 63mph on gps...but that was an unreasonable speed, and had all the teak flapping in the wind or flying off. The neat thing was, with all that grunt I could tow other boats on a plane instead of trolling them home.It replaced a strong 1978 200 Johnson that would run 60mph gps. Those motors were bulletproof! The 225 had over 1200 hours of charter fishing in Alaska,and one scored cyl that was down 8 lbs from the others for the entire time I owned it (2 years). 60+ in those boats is approaching blowover speed tho. Pretty squirrelly.
jgkmmoore posted 06-21-2007 04:27 PM ET (US)
The 225 required a jackplate (5"setback).The 200 was a 20".

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: Will an old Outrage handle a Yamaha 200hp?
filthypit	posted 06-13-2007 10:17 AM ET (US) [Seeks] experience with a Yamaha 200hp Vmax on their 1970's Outrage 21. I was thinking it's a BIG and powerful motor to put on a 35-year-old transom - even though the transom is rock solid. I talked to a Ph.D. who designs sailboats (worked with fiberglass since the 1960's) and she said fiberglass loses strength with age due to exposure to the sun. We have two Outrages that need motors this summer and I'm real close to buying the 200-HP Yamaha for one - but am having cold feet - maybe, a 150 is better(?) Any feedback is appreciated!
Tom W Clark	posted 06-13-2007 10:21 AM ET (US) The transom will handle the 200 just fine. Whether it is necessary to put 200 HP on that boat is another question., but the transom will not be the limitation.
Sal DiMercurio	posted 06-13-2007 10:26 AM ET (US) I run a 200 hp on a 1979 "V"20 outrage [ maximum hp rating is 180 hp ] . Just like your car, no need to run wide open. My engine computer says it has less than 6 minutes at wide open throttle, with "well" over 1,000 hours on the engine. Just know she's gonna haul a$$ if & when you punch it. Sal
brisboats	posted 06-13-2007 05:12 PM ET (US) Not sure what year Yamaha you are considering but the 150-200hp two strokes were usually based on the same 2.6 liter block. The weight was the same. The difference in power is generally made in the upper rpms. Brian
JayR	posted 06-13-2007 08:15 PM ET (US) It would be fine... but 150 HP is plenty on that hull.
PeteB88	posted 06-13-2007 09:18 PM ET (US) Maniac fishinpal runs 200 FICHT on 72 21 Outrage. Oh, it goes fast.
jamesmylesmcp	posted 06-14-2007 06:37 AM ET (US) My 150 pushes me at 53 Mph ! I couldn"t and wouldn"t want anymore speed on that hull.
JayR	posted 06-14-2007 10:54 AM ET (US) I thought I was getting just 43 mph but just realized the GPS was set on nautical miles rather than statute miles. That would be 50 MPH and I'm still in the break in period. Got another 300 RPM's to go....
Tohsgib	posted 06-14-2007 11:16 AM ET (US) I thought E-tecs hd NO break-in period.
Binkie	posted 06-14-2007 11:30 AM ET (US) Does the PH.D, have hard figures that shows how much fiberglass ages, and how much strength it loses every year? It is probably just an assumption, based on the fact that the plastic parts on the interior of her car become brittle with exposure to the sun, or some other none technical observation. Actually the older hulls have thicker hulls than the modern ones, because no one knew how long the life would be, so overkill was the rule. Richard
JayR	posted 06-14-2007 11:59 AM ET (US) [quote]I thought E-TEC's had NO break-in period.[/quote} They don't... at least not for the user to be concerned with. There is internal software that regulates a break in period. Oil mixing is heavier and RPM's are reduced a few hundred... I don't know what else is involved, I can't tell a difference and don't care either.... As far as the operator is concerned, balls to the walls from moment one if that's what ya like. No concerns whatsoever. Just use it....
filthypit	posted 06-14-2007 04:18 PM ET (US) Hey Binkie- Yes, she did have all kinds of graphs & charts to support what she was talking about, but it got too involved for me. I don't even remember her name, but her specialty was composite fabrication (planes for the government, then racing sailboats privately). I was asking her about old Whalers & only listened to the part about the adverse affect of long-term exposure to the sun. The main thing was, fiberglass becomes more brittle. But, you're right - boats that are 20yrs+ old are definately much heavier and, usually made of hand-laid glass (rather than blown, as they are now). I was just worried about a 200hp motor taking off with our transom & leaving us (& the rest of) our unsinkable legend behind.
dfmcintyre	posted 06-16-2007 07:37 AM ET (US) We put a 200 Vmax on our 21 seven years ago. It hasn't fallen off yet. Nor have I heard of a bunch of transoms falling off of old boats due to FRP degradation. There's Ph.D world then there is reality. Is the degradation over age also factoring in gelcoat thickness or is her analysis done on "naked" FRP panels? If with gelcoat, how thick? What angle to the sun? Last I looked, transoms are pretty vertical to the sun. Has the boat been stored outside all it's life? Yes, ultraviolet radiation promotes photochemical degradation processes in all plastics. Research I've seen published and available on the web involves discussions of FRP panels used in greenhouses and how the glass fibers can become damaged due to sun, moisture, etc. That seems to indicate to me that there is no gelcoat covering the panels. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the wood integrity within the transom then the fiberglass. One issue you'll need to resolve is that a long shaft will require a jackplate to raise it up (you'll want the anti-cav plate about 1" above bottom of the hull for best performance). I think a short shaft may require cutting a notch into the transom (I may be wrong on this....don't remember). Performance with standard aluminum prop is mid-upper 50's. Having a good grip on the wheel, go straight in nothing heavier then a light chop and you'll avoid having your name in an USGC report. Regards - Don
JayR	posted 06-16-2007 08:51 AM ET (US) Long shaft is the 20" (isn't it?) Extra long is the 25" The short shaft is 15" At least that is my understanding of it all. The ribbed Outrage takes a long shaft 20" so no need for a jackplate. It makes for a better, easier installation though....
dfmcintyre	posted 06-16-2007 07:49 PM ET (US) Jay - If the Yamaha long shaft is 20", the transom will take a 20". Not very efficiently mind you, but it will take it. From what I recall, the anti-cavation plate was about 3" below the bottom of the transom prior to installing a manual jackplate. Don
John W	posted 06-18-2007 08:48 PM ET (US) Don, yours must be a 25" motor. My 20" shaft Suzuki 150 is mounted directly to the transom, and the cavitation plate is definitely above the bottom of the boat. If anything, mine could be mounted a bolt hole lower than it is....3 blade props were ventilating on my rig. A 20" motor will work fine directly on the transom. The only problem is that getting the lower bolts mounted inside the boat can be a pain...this in itself may make a manual jackplate worthwhile. Mine is here: http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/repower/ I agree with others here that a 200 will work fine on the Outrage, although it's more than necessary. I've never wanted more than the 150 I have on mine. I'm getting around 45 mph with a big 4 blade prop...a 150 will give 50mph if propped for speeed with a stainless 3 blade, which is plenty fast on this old hull. John
JayR	posted 06-18-2007 09:33 PM ET (US) I too have a 150 HP 20" shaft on my boat. http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/BigJayR/boating/05192006050.jpg I opted for the manual jackplate for the reason John mentioned above. The bolting on of the motor was much easier.... http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/BigJayR/boating/05192006046.jpg
dfmcintyre	posted 06-19-2007 09:03 PM ET (US) John - Here's two images of my setup: http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=MVC-042S.jpg and [url]http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/?action=view¤t=MVC-004S.jpg[/rul] Regards - Don
dfmcintyre	posted 06-19-2007 09:04 PM ET (US) Ummmmm, second one: http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=MVC-004S.jpg
filthypit	posted 06-20-2007 10:31 AM ET (US) 2 Q's: 1.) What's the difference between bolting a motor on the transom and bolting a jackplate on? (why would it be easier to bolt the jackplate to the transom?) 2.) Do ya'll find that the added jackplate distance between the transom & the motor makes the boat ride anymore stern-heavy? We're looking at a 20" shaft motor mounted directly to the transom. Never having put a motor on either of our 1972 21ft Outrages, I find everyone's input are VERY informative! I really hate to see boats riding around w/ the bow all up in the air from a poorly set motor.
John W	posted 06-20-2007 08:47 PM ET (US) Don, Your outrage looks great. I'm pretty sure that your Yamaha is a 25" shaft from the looks of it in second pic you posted. If so, it would be about 3" below the bottom of the boat if mounted directly to the transom...making the jackplate a necessity for you, versus just a convenience with a 20" shaft motor. There is no disadvantage to a 25" shaft with the jackplate, it just means your powerhead is higher above the transom. You might be able to see the difference in motor length between your second pic, and these of my boat: With the old 20" shaft Johnson: http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/?action=view& current=1c33e9ec.jpg And with the new 20" shaft Suzuki: http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c210/JohnPW/repower/?action=view& current=DSC00094.jpg filthypit, The 1970-72 Outrages have an odd raised fiberglass area next to the transom inside the "wet well" at the stern interior of the boat, under the splashwell...it looks almost like a step, which it obviously isn't given its location under the splashwell. (This raised area makes a very long lower drain tube necessary to drain the boat). The bolt pattern on modern engines results in the lower mounting bolts hitting right around the top of this raised area...my bolts are right against the top of this flat area, but I've seen some where part or all of this fiberglass "step" area has had to be drilled away or cut out to allow for the bolts to fit. (Maybe Jay or someone has a pic of the area inside the boat I'm talking about.) Using a manual jackplate allows you to mount the lower bolts where you can easily get to them (slightly higher up, above this step area). The motor can then mount to the jackplate & be adjusted on the jackplate up or down to allow proper engine alignment. As to the ride, these boats almost never ride stern heavy...they tend to be somewhat bow heavy, and keeping the bow light improves the ride. Extra weight in the stern never seems to be a problem in terms of the ride (it will affect static trim a bit, though...mine now sits a couple inches lower in the stern at rest since I repowered with the heavier 4 stroke). Having the motor a few inches back will have almost no effect on the ride, although it might give you a little more top speed. My only caution would be not to use a big setback, as that will cause more of a lever action torque on a 35 year old transom.
JayR	posted 06-20-2007 08:50 PM ET (US) The space available for the lower bolts does not leave you with very much of an area for adjustment. With the jackplate, you can mount it without worry as to where the motor will end up. You'll have several inches of adjustment. Have you looked to see where the lower bolt holes are located? It's a no-brainer....
dfmcintyre	posted 06-20-2007 10:42 PM ET (US) John - Thanks. Filthy....ditto what John said. The Yamaha 200 weighs 460lbs. I'm 205lbs and when standing on the anti-cav plate the stern lowers maybe one inch. So there's a lot of leeway. Here's a photo of her at rest in the water: http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/dfmcintyre/boats/white%20water/ ?action=view¤t=inwater.jpg Don
jgkmmoore	posted 06-21-2007 04:25 PM ET (US) Filthy- I ran a 25" 1990 Johnson 225 on my 1978 Outrage. It would run 63mph on gps...but that was an unreasonable speed, and had all the teak flapping in the wind or flying off. The neat thing was, with all that grunt I could tow other boats on a plane instead of trolling them home.It replaced a strong 1978 200 Johnson that would run 60mph gps. Those motors were bulletproof! The 225 had over 1200 hours of charter fishing in Alaska,and one scored cyl that was down 8 lbs from the others for the entire time I owned it (2 years). 60+ in those boats is approaching blowover speed tho. Pretty squirrelly.
jgkmmoore	posted 06-21-2007 04:27 PM ET (US) The 225 required a jackplate (5"setback).The 200 was a 20".