c.1970 Outrage 21 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  c.1970 Outrage 21

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   c.1970 Outrage 21

TommyWhaler posted 04-21-2010 12:04 PM ET (US)
I am probably going to have to re-power a [c.1970] Outrage 21. I know a 150-HP motor would probably be the best, but I was wondering if any of you guys run a 115-HP. How is the performance [of a c.1970 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 21 with a 115-HP motor?] The cost difference [between a 115-HP motor and a 150-HP motor] seems to be significant. Thanks,
Tommy
Tohsgib posted 04-21-2010 01:06 PM ET (US)
Your 21 weighs the same as my 19 Revenge so I assume performance would be close. I have a 115 Suzuki 4 stroke and I get 38-40 WOT and with 6 people and coolers it still does like 36. She cruises nicely at 25mph at around 4k. Fuel burn is about 5-6mpg at cruise and I average about 2-3gph per tank. I could not justify 50% more money for 30% more hp either and I am glad I went with the 115. It really is plenty for that boat and I had a 175 on it before. With a 40gal tank it gives a great range as well.
L H G posted 04-21-2010 03:09 PM ET (US)
For the $1600 cost difference, I would go with a 150. I ran one on mine, it would do around 47 MPH with a small 2.0 liter 150.
John W posted 04-21-2010 08:30 PM ET (US)
A 115 is plenty if you're not a speed demon. The boat was frequently originally powered with a single 90 or 115, and was occasionally powered with a single Bearcat 85. A modern, powerhead rated 115 is more powerful than what most of these boats had on them when new.
I have a Suzuki DF150 on my 1971 Outrage 21, and it is more power than I need most of the time. I think a Suzuki 140 would be ideal, and a 115 would be fine. I have a 4 blade prop that is not getting the max speed potential out of the rig, and it still tops out at around 46 mph at 6600 rpm, and I can cruise at 30 mph at 4000 rpm. I would think Tohsgib's (Bigshot"s) number sound about right with a 115.
These hulls pop right up on plane at low speeds without much bow rise, and the lighter weight of a 115 will probably enhance this characteristic.
John
John W posted 04-21-2010 08:39 PM ET (US)
Er, just read my last post...that would be 46 mph @ 5600 rpm, not 6600.
Tohsgib posted 04-22-2010 10:36 AM ET (US)
If it was $1600 I would go with the 150. When I was shopping it was over $3000 more for a 150. The 140 was about $1500 more but most people here are getting about the same numbers from it than the 115. I have said this before, either the 140 is a not up to snuff or the 115 is strong. I think the 115 is strong. As John said the 115 is equiv to an older OMC 135 which in 1973 was all you could get or an inline 150 Merc. The only way these boats say 200hp was with twins and that was not very common, nor necessary to most.
TommyWhaler posted 04-23-2010 05:28 PM ET (US)
Thanks to all who have replied.

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: c.1970 Outrage 21
TommyWhaler	posted 04-21-2010 12:04 PM ET (US) I am probably going to have to re-power a [c.1970] Outrage 21. I know a 150-HP motor would probably be the best, but I was wondering if any of you guys run a 115-HP. How is the performance [of a c.1970 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 21 with a 115-HP motor?] The cost difference [between a 115-HP motor and a 150-HP motor] seems to be significant. Thanks, Tommy
Tohsgib	posted 04-21-2010 01:06 PM ET (US) Your 21 weighs the same as my 19 Revenge so I assume performance would be close. I have a 115 Suzuki 4 stroke and I get 38-40 WOT and with 6 people and coolers it still does like 36. She cruises nicely at 25mph at around 4k. Fuel burn is about 5-6mpg at cruise and I average about 2-3gph per tank. I could not justify 50% more money for 30% more hp either and I am glad I went with the 115. It really is plenty for that boat and I had a 175 on it before. With a 40gal tank it gives a great range as well.
L H G	posted 04-21-2010 03:09 PM ET (US) For the $1600 cost difference, I would go with a 150. I ran one on mine, it would do around 47 MPH with a small 2.0 liter 150.
John W	posted 04-21-2010 08:30 PM ET (US) A 115 is plenty if you're not a speed demon. The boat was frequently originally powered with a single 90 or 115, and was occasionally powered with a single Bearcat 85. A modern, powerhead rated 115 is more powerful than what most of these boats had on them when new. I have a Suzuki DF150 on my 1971 Outrage 21, and it is more power than I need most of the time. I think a Suzuki 140 would be ideal, and a 115 would be fine. I have a 4 blade prop that is not getting the max speed potential out of the rig, and it still tops out at around 46 mph at 6600 rpm, and I can cruise at 30 mph at 4000 rpm. I would think Tohsgib's (Bigshot"s) number sound about right with a 115. These hulls pop right up on plane at low speeds without much bow rise, and the lighter weight of a 115 will probably enhance this characteristic. John
John W	posted 04-21-2010 08:39 PM ET (US) Er, just read my last post...that would be 46 mph @ 5600 rpm, not 6600.
Tohsgib	posted 04-22-2010 10:36 AM ET (US) If it was $1600 I would go with the 150. When I was shopping it was over $3000 more for a 150. The 140 was about $1500 more but most people here are getting about the same numbers from it than the 115. I have said this before, either the 140 is a not up to snuff or the 115 is strong. I think the 115 is strong. As John said the 115 is equiv to an older OMC 135 which in 1973 was all you could get or an inline 150 Merc. The only way these boats say 200hp was with twins and that was not very common, nor necessary to most.
TommyWhaler	posted 04-23-2010 05:28 PM ET (US) Thanks to all who have replied.