posted 05-27-2009 02:07 PM ET (US)        

Regards,

posted 05-27-2009 03:00 PM ET (US)            

Go with a dealership that is local and whom you trust. Buy their brand and live happily ever after.

Everything else is just opinions.

Since I know you will get them, I'll start.

Screw the blah blah....

Get twin E-TEC 130's and don't pay the weight and performance penalties for the 4 cycle engines. You can brag to the Greenies in Cali that your motor's technology won the EPA Award for clean air excellence - no other outboard maker can claim that.

The motors will exceed CARB 3-star compliance and deliver performance and quiet, virtually smoke-free operation. They will troll all day without complaint, and instantly give you the kick needed to get home and power through the afternoon slop.

posted 05-27-2009 03:05 PM ET (US)            

Side note: Dealer network around here is very good for all brands of outboards.

posted 05-27-2009 03:39 PM ET (US)            

The vapor separator tank (VST) is mounted inboard of the intake manifold. It is a 2-3 hour job to service. Since it should be inspected/cleaned each year, it's a pain. No other Yamaha has this design.

Other than the above, it is flawless. It's weight is 402 lbs dry in case you are wondering.

posted 05-27-2009 03:42 PM ET (US)            

Too bad you aren't okay with the DFI 2-strokes because E-TEC or OptiMax would be good options in the 115 HP range.

posted 05-27-2009 06:30 PM ET (US)            

The OMC loop charged V4 ("V4 Looper"), which came out as 120 and 140 HP models and later consolidated to a 130 HP model, weigh 365 lbs. They were not introduced to market until 1985.

The OMC cross-flow charged V4s ranging from 85 to 140 HP (crankshaft HP) weigh anywhere from about 275 to about 305 lbs depending on how they are configured. Thus, at the time the Outrage 22 was designed, a pair of OMC V4 115s wouldn't put more than about 600 lbs on the transom.

posted 05-28-2009 03:43 PM ET (US)            

BTW, I once had 14 people in the boat--I know, overloaded--and it came on plane with little effort and still ran WOT about 25-MPH! With twins, I need 20-inch shaft engines. Yamaha only offers the F115's in a counter rotation on a 25-inch shaft engine. I was going to create a 20-inch shaft left hand lower unit by changing the drive shaft on a new counter rotated drive.

posted 05-28-2009 09:02 PM ET (US)            

I do not recall any particular problems with the weight of the twin four-cycle motors on the transom, although with a REVENGE model the extra weight of the cabin superstructure on the forward portion of the boat tends to help offset any extra weight on the transom.

posted 05-29-2009 12:19 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Last thought, with the F100's, I could not plane on one engine.

---

Be sure to consider this when selecting twin engines. If you can not plane on just one of the pair (with the motors propped for normal, twin engine use), you are better off with a big single and a small kicker. For this reason, I think DFI 2-strokes such as E-TEC and Optimax are a better choice for twins on an Outrage 22. I believe the low-end power of a 115-130 hp 2-stroke will get that Outrage 22 on plane with a single motor. At 390 pounds each, the E-TEC 130's are really at the limit of how much weight I would consider on a notched transom 22, and then would absolutely relocate batteries to the console, install big bilge pumps in the rear sumps and plan to run with the aft sump plugs closed all the time. My sense is that on a standard Outrage 22, transom freeboard would be on the low side. At 431 pounds, the Optimax 135 is in my opinion too heavy. The Optimax 115 at 375 pounds is a bit lighter than the E-TEC 115/130, but is only a 1.5L 3 cylinder compared to Evinrude's 1.7L V4. Either way, I think the transom can handle the weight, so long as you are willing to live with lower freeboard and plugged sumps. Note that outragesteve reports a stern-heavy condition with Yamaha F-100's, which are listed at 356 pounds per motor. It's my understanding that this motor has been reconfigured at the F-90, now listed at 369 pounds.

I repowered my Outrage 22 Cuddy (in California) a few years ago, and went through a similar analysis. My conclusion at the time was that there was no CARB 3-star outboard available that would give me the performance I wanted in twin engine configuration without a weight penalty that I felt was unacceptable. I am very happy with my choice of a 2.6L E-TEC 200 and my old 15 hp Mercury kicker. If you go with a big single, there are a lot of choices in both 2-stroke DFI and 4-stroke outboards.

posted 06-05-2009 09:14 PM ET (US)            

A friend of mine had a 22' outrage, mid 80's model. He put twin 115 Suzuki 4 strokes on her and after using her a few times pulled the engines and built up the transom 5 inches as stated in a post above.

With the standard transom the boat just sat to low in the water and would take to much water over the transom. He operated the boat in a fairly rough environment. In calm waters it might have been O.K. Also the boat was hard to get on plane unless he punched it from the beginning. He had to move a lot of gear forward to be able to plane at lower RPM'S. It would also drop off plane very quickly as RPM"S were reduced. It may have been different had it been a WD model, I'm not sure of the weight capacity of a WD model.

My 1986 22' guardian with a 1999 225hp Optimax and a 18hp 4 stroke Tohatsu kicker planes very easy, and starts to get on a plane at about 12knts. I agree with other posts above that keeping the weight down is your best option, depending on what you plan to use the boat for. Just my thoughts on this.

posted 06-10-2009 01:07 AM ET (US)            

Let's examine this on the basis of purchase cost. We will use Yamaha four-cycle engines and base their price on the advertised price from a major seller, Ed's Marine Superstore.

TWIN ENGINE RIG

2 x Yamaha F115 = 2 x $7,300
TOTAL = $14,600

MAIN and AUXILIARY RIG

Yamaha F225 = $13,500
Yamaha 8-HP High-Thrust Electric Tilt = $2,300
TOTAL = $15,800

I do not see much variation in rigging costs. In each case we have two motors. We will need two sets of rigging: controls, harnesses, gauges, alarms, batteries, and so on. I would judge the rigging costs to be equal.

The initial purchase and installation costs then appears to favor the twin engine rigging by about $1,200. This contradicts the premise that using a main and auxiliary set up will be less expensive.

In terms of trouble or repairs, in each case we have two engines. One could say that with a main and auxiliary rig the majority of the time only one engine will be running. If the boat is in operation for 100 hours, in the case of a main and auxiliary their total combined running time would not be much greater than 100-hours. We have seen that it is common for typical boat operation to be at low speed almost half the time. We could speculate that the usage ratio might be 40:60 in favor of the main engine. Thus after 100 hours we would have 40 hours of run time on the auxiliary and 60 hours on the main, a total of 100 hours of engine run time

With twin engines it will be common for both engine to run during the high speed operation of the boat. During low speed operation it will only be necessary to run one engine. Each engine will have 60-hours of high speed run and 20-hours of low speed run, or a total of 80-hours. The total engine run time in 100 hours of boat operation will then be 160-hours.

On the basis of the comparison above, it is reasonable to conclude that the main and auxiliary rig may be less troublesome as its engines will have less running time on them as compared to a twin engine rig.

With regard to maintenance, the seasonal nature of most boating and the low total run time each season tend to reduce any advantage of the main and auxiliary rig over the twin engine rig. Seasonal and annual maintenance will be the same for each. Thus no particular advantage for either.