posted 05-04-2008 03:34 PM ET (US)            

I am sure Tom, Glen and others will help on mounting and prop options.

posted 05-05-2008 12:47 AM ET (US)            

I have not put a V150 on an Outrage 18 and I have no personal experience with any Verado, but nonetheless my suspicion is you will be looking for a prop with about 17 inches of pitch. All the usual suspects should be tested:

15-1/2" x 17" Mercury MIRAGEplus

14-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage II

14-5/8" x 18" Mercury Enertia

14" x 19" Mercury VenSura (aka Offshore)

15-5/8" x 17" Mercury Revolution 4

Let me know if I can help with any of these.

posted 05-05-2008 08:32 AM ET (US)            

Of course you should try a number of propellers to confirm what works best, however, with the additional 130 lbs of weight of the Verado on the 18 Outrage transom, I'd lean toward a propeller that can provide some stern lift, like the Rev 4.

posted 05-05-2008 11:29 AM ET (US)            

It'll handle it for sure. My bro has a classic 19 w/a 150 Yamaha four stroke and a 9.9 kicker back there as well, it looks as if he's pulling a wheelie though.

That boat does not ride as well as my friends 18 Outrage with the Yamaha 115 fourstroke.

Verado 150 510 Lbs.
Yamaha 150 V-Max HPDI 468 lb
Yamaha 150 4-stroke 466
Optimax 150 431 Lbs.
Etec 150 419 Lbs.
Yamaha 150 V-Max(carb) 418 Lbs.
Yamaha 115 4-stroke 402 Lbs.
Merc. 115 4-stroke 399 Lbs.
Etec 115 369 lbs.

posted 05-05-2008 03:33 PM ET (US)            

The reason you experience ventilation with the MIRAGEplus is that the motor is mounted too high on the transom. Two holes up is good for the Rev 4, Laser II and Stiletto Advantage II but not the MIRAGEplus or VenSura (Offshore) propellers.

posted 05-06-2008 09:43 AM ET (US)            

I would expect the Enertia to tolerate high mounting positions.

Alfred,

posted 05-13-2008 10:25 AM ET (US)            

Congratulations on doing something many of us had wondered about.

I think your boat is really nice looking with the Verado on it. (That engine looks big!)

I hope to not be in the market for a new motor for a while, but I'll be very interested to hear how you like it, and how it performs.

posted 05-13-2008 02:32 PM ET (US)            

One other observation: from the photo above it is hard to tell, but is your aft-facing stern light visible from boats approaching from your aft port? Or will you need to elevate the lamp a little to clear the powerhead?

Tom - I've always looked forward for an opportunity to meet you on the water, I hope I have a chance to see this rig in person.

Congrats on both boats.

posted 05-14-2008 11:05 PM ET (US)         

I don't find the 150hp to appear very much larger than any other modern outboard. Please provide more pictures. I agree, I would love to see the inside rigging shots as well as the motor in the down position both in and out of the water.

Just out of curiosity, what number repower is this for your Outrage 18?

Good luck and great times!

posted 05-16-2008 10:11 PM ET (US)            

Although I suspected the engine needed to be raised and Bernie only had an aluminum prop, we launched the boat at Brandt Lake. There was only the slightest breeze so the lake was close to dead calm.

First off, it is quiet - no surprise here, as many have commented on that, but it is really quiet! In fact after running at speed for a while and throttling back to idle, I thought the engine had stalled.

Secondly, the throttle is unbelievabally sensitive and when combined with the supercharger - HANG ON! If you ease the throttle very slowly, I found the boat a little slower to come up on plane than the old 150, but punch it just a little and it literally jumps onto plane in a second. Passengers cannot react fast enough and will have to be told to hang on - twice Bernie was thrown back in his seat .... and he knew I was going to accelerate.

Once up on plane, it felt a bit like my old turbocharged Saab, but without any lag on the boost. At virtually any RPM short of about 5500, the acceleration is remarkable - it pushes you back into your seat.

We topped out around 6150 rpm, just shy of the recommended max of 6250. I did not have the GPS with me, but we both guessed we around 50 mph.

The engine is smooth, almost vibration free, and oh so powerful. And this was with alum prop.

Went back to his shop and he raised the engine up two holes while Karen and I got lunch - same prop. Karen and I took the boat back out and found low speed performance identical, but maxed out very close to 6250.

I have a 17" SS prop here at the camp; I'm hoping it is compatible with the Verado and if it does not rain and is fairly calm, will give that a try tomorrow or Sunday.

More details to report on and photos to take on rigging, but this is one awesome engine - say what you want about the weight and size, the boat can easily handle it. It is plain and simply a great motor for the 18.

posted 05-17-2008 09:13 PM ET (US)            

The performance was not quite what I expected. At 4000 rpm the GPS read 28.9 mph; 36.5 mph at 5000 rpm; 39 mph at 5500 rpm; and 42 mph at 6040 rpm. At that point the prop started to slip and I saw no more speed although engine would rev another 150 rpm.

I was surprised the prop was did not hold as well the alum seemed to hold the day before. The engine set 2 holes up which is putting the ventilation plate just a bit above the keel projection.

A couple other observations. First, the boat seems less sensitive to trimming the engine than it was with the old 150. At speed, trimming the motor out does not seem to increase RPM they way it used to nor does it seems to raise the bow as much. Second, the boat seems to be inclined to porpoise more than it used to.

The motor was initially mounted all the way down on the transom, which left the anti ventilation plate about an inch below the keel.

suggestions appreciated; I'm no prop expert

posted 05-18-2008 11:13 AM ET (US)            

The old Quicksilver stainless steel propeller you have is an obsolete design that does not have as much cupping as modern props, not even as much as the aluminum BlackMax prop your dealer gave you.

Without a fair amount of cupping, the propeller will grip less and not be able to either raise the bow or combat the tendency of the boat to porpoise (which is caused, as Dave points out, by the extra weight on the transom shifting the center of gravity of the boat further aft.)

posted 05-20-2008 05:51 PM ET (US)            

I would have sent you an e-mail separately, but you don't have one in your profile. I hope this does not de-rail Tom's thread.

posted 06-09-2008 05:36 PM ET (US)            

The performance thru the rpm range is pretty comparable to the old Quicksilver prop performance noted earlier in this thread except that I'm getting about 3 additional mph at the same rpm (6040). The Quicksilver would not hold over 6040 although the engine had a few more rpms left; the Verado would not turn any more rpms with the Enertia.

Any comments or thoughts appreciated, as usual.

More time consuming transom repairs required than I thought; photos to come soon.

posted 06-10-2008 01:50 AM ET (US)            

Your performance numbers of 4000rpm-28.9mph, 5000rpm-36.5mph, 5500rpm-39mph and 6040rpm-45mph is almost exactly the same performance numbers from a 2008 190 Outrage/150 Verado with 17 inch Mirage prop.

[urlhttp://www.whaler.com/rec/pdfs/performance/9.pdf[/url]

I would have thought your classic Outrage which weights less than the 190 Outrage would record higher speeds.

Warren

posted 06-10-2008 09:09 AM ET (US)            

The reason it does not is because there is significant difference in Crouch Hull Factor between the two hulls. A classic 18 Outrage has a hull factor in the 180 to 185 range. A modern 190 Outrage has a hull factor in the 210 to 215 range.

The reason that the modern 190 Outrage has a much higher hull factor is that hull form near the transom is relatively flat with several lifting strakes carrying all the way to the transom. In contrast, and as evident by the picture in this thread, the classic 18 Outrage carries a distinct V all the way to the transom. The lifting strakes in the bow of the classic 18 Outrage are not carried to the transom. The result is that the classic 18 Outrage does not "skim" over the water surface as well as the 190 Outrage.

Think of it this way, take two rocks that weigh the same, one rounded, the other flat. Which one will "skim" on the water surface farther when you throw it. The flat one of course. The flat rock represents a higher hull factor and is analogous to the 190 Outrage and the rounded rock represents a lower hull factor and is analogous to the classic 18 Outrage.

Regarding performance of this Outrage, it seems about right when I compare it to mine powered by a Johnson 150. At each of the RPM steps, mine is running about 5 MPH faster with the 17 inch Mirage Plus (3000 RPM/24-25 MPH, 3500 RPM/29-30 MPH, 4000 RPM/34-35 MPH, 4500 RPM/39-40 MPH...) and that is simply because the Johnson turns the propeller through a 1.85:1 gear ratio instead of the Verado's 2.083:1.

posted 06-10-2008 11:07 AM ET (US)            

Assuming yours came with the Smartcraft gages, could you do some two way runs and report back on fuel consumption per Smartcraft in GPH and MPG and MPH by GPS at different rpm's?

I did that a couple of weeks ago in a previous thread in this section for my 2007 200 Dauntless/175 Verado. I think a report on you repower of a Classic Outrage 18 would be of more interest to people here.

posted 06-10-2008 01:52 PM ET (US)            

So I guess the fuel consumption figures for the 18 Outrage are not going to be quite as good as the 190 Outrage because of the increased drag of the classic Whaler? I suppose it depends on the amount of increased drag vs. the difference in weight.

I'd be interested in seeing the fuel consumption figures too.

posted 06-10-2008 10:16 PM ET (US)            

I owned an Outrage 18 for over ten years and with the Johnson 150 on it it could easily hit 47 MPH with an old 19" OMC SST prop (with the motor surely set too low on the transom by today's standards).

posted 06-11-2008 07:48 AM ET (US)            

The Merc website prop calculator says I should not be able to get the results I am seeing????

I'm also still disappointed in the tendency to porpoise so much and don't think it can be so easily chalked up to the increased weight of the engine. I am using one less battery now that was in the stern and that offsets some of the weight difference.

posted 06-11-2008 02:38 PM ET (US)            

Just for grins, can you tilt the engine down all the way,put a straight edge on the anti-cavitation plate and measure the distance down to the bottom of the keel?

This will tell us where exactly you are mounted. Bolt holes can be drilled higher or lower so saying 2 holes up does not always tell us where the engine is.

posted 06-11-2008 02:53 PM ET (US)            

The bolt holes are (and have been for decades) drilled according to the BIA/NMMA agreed upon bolt hole pattern. There is no drilling them higher or lower apart from a plus or minus 1/8" or so.

On a classic Outrage 18, "two holes up" means the motor is 1-1/2" to 1-3/4" above the transom and that is pretty specific.

posted 06-11-2008 04:47 PM ET (US)         

Mine is strange in this situation, as between 25 and 35 it will not tolerate much trim. Then, as power is added, I can begin to trim out much more, and it still won't porpoise. In brief, higher speeds tolerate more trim, slower speeds practically no trim at all.

posted 06-11-2008 05:03 PM ET (US)            

My reasoning for asking for a true measurement is his results and the members comments.

While I am most likely wrong, there is a chance, albeit a very very small one, someone in the past did not follow the BIA pattern mounting the original 1984 engine.

posted 06-11-2008 05:37 PM ET (US)            

If the bolt holes are drilled too low, the motor would never have fit in 1984 or today. If the holes are drilled in the correct position, there will be about 1-3/4" of solid transom above the tops of the top bolt holes. If the holes are drilled too high there will be little solid transom left to support the motor.

We can speculate all day but all you have to do is look at the the photo posted above to see the where the bolt holes are.

posted 06-16-2008 08:53 PM ET (US)            

I double checked the relationship of the AV plate to the hull (with the engine trimmed so the plate was parallel with hull projection. The AV plate is almost exactly 1" above the hull projection.

Here are some more performance readings, this time including GPH (sorry the readings are not complete and don't run up to max rpm, but dog was not cooperating!). However the rpm and mph readings were almost exactly as reported before. Prop is the same 14.5 x 17 Enertia.

84 Outrage 18 190 Outrage

RPM MPH GPH MPH GPH
2000 7.4 1.5 7.5 1.9
3500 23.3 4 25.3 5.1
4000 29 5.3 28.7 6.6
4500 32.7 6.7 32.8 8.5
5000 36.7 8.8 36.5 11.6

Will try to fill in the gaps next weekend. Interestingly the whaler published data for a 190 Outrage (shown above)with the same engine indicate comparable speeds and considerably higher fuel consumption. The 190 was running a 15.5 x 17 Mirage. Enjoy.

posted 06-16-2008 09:28 PM ET (US)            

		84 Outrage 18			190 Outrage	
RPM		MPH	GPH		MPH	GPH
2000		7.4	1.5		7.5	1.9
3500		23.3	4		25.3	5.1
4000		29	5.3		28.7	6.6
4500		32.7	6.7		32.8	8.5
5000		36.7	8.8		36.5	11.6

posted 06-17-2008 09:53 AM ET (US)            

What is more interesting is the fuel mileage Tom's boat is getting:

RPM -- MPH - GPH -- MPG
2000 ---- 7.4 - 1.5 -- 4.9
3500 -- 23.3 - 4.0 -- 5.8
4000 -- 29.0 - 5.3 -- 5.5
4500 -- 32.7 - 6.7 -- 4.9
5000 -- 36.7 - 8.8 -- 4.2

posted 06-17-2008 01:10 PM ET (US)            

If my thinking is correct, he could probably try a higher pitch prop and see greater speeds.

posted 06-17-2008 06:13 PM ET (US)            

MPH = [ ( HP / LBS )^0.5 ] x C

posted 06-17-2008 07:37 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The reason it does not is because there is significant difference in Crouch Hull Factor between the two hulls. A classic 18 Outrage has a hull factor in the 180 to 185 range. A modern 190 Outrage has a hull factor in the 210 to 215 range.

---

But how are you determining this to be a fact.

posted 06-17-2008 10:46 PM ET (US)            

But in any case, the fuel economy results seen already are very impressive. I believe that Tom has blazed a trail which many will be likely to follow:

--re-power with Verado Gen II
--re-fit with Enertia propeller
--obtain spectacular fuel economy!

posted 06-18-2008 08:41 AM ET (US)            

I'm not sure I agree with that. You can compare two different boats of different weights using different propellers, one boat being pushed by a GEN I Verado and the other by a GEN II Verado, for example, and come to a reasonably certain conclusion that a GEN II motor is more fuel efficient (takes less fuel to generate the same HP) than the GEN I. All that is really required is that the two motors be equipped with a propeller that enables them to achieve the same WOT RPM. Once you do that, you can develop comparative fuel consumption curves for each motor because the loading will be substantially the same (except for the on-plane transition point). You would see from such curves that, despite being on different boats, the fuel consumption curve of the GEN II is more favorable than the GEN I. You could also use that information to predict fairly accurately the fuel economy of each of such boats if each had the other motor.

posted 06-18-2008 11:37 AM ET (US)            

To go back to what I was trying to say, we have two different hulls with similar motors and similar pitch propellers turning similar RPM's resulting in similar speeds, but we still don't know how much HP is actually required to keep that hull at that speed (i.e. load).

The data presented shows MPH & GPH for a given RPM, the major difference in the results is fuel used, which is directly related to the amount of HP delivered.

Now to actually "back calculate" the hull factor at each speed level (because it is going to change a different speeds, the faster you go the less hull that is in the water) you would need to know the actual HP being delivered at those speeds, which you don't.

I still think it would be interesting to retest with a 19"p

posted 06-23-2008 07:09 AM ET (US)            

So why is that spread there in the data? I don't know, but I'd like to see the data all the way up to FT before I commit to an explanation.

The next observation from the data is, as I have claimed, that "trick" propellers offer at most a few percent gain, and sometimes nothing. I am amazed at the excitement all these new propellers generate, yet I have never seen any documentation that they do any better than stock SS wheels. Again, one must filter all claims through the sieve of skepticism for marketing hype. I am aware of the intensity with which these things are marketed, but again, no manufacturer has yet found a way around basic physical laws.

The final observation is that the big pitch prop does better, as confirmed by the last contributor, whose rig runs well under maximum RPM for that engine (an Optimax), yet delivers superior speed. Heresy and blasphemy.

posted 06-29-2008 10:00 AM ET (US)            

Getting closer to the water