posted 07-15-2011 08:45 AM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineRPM.html

The boat speed information from your old motor will helpful in selecting the pitch of the REBEL propeller you plan to use with the E-TEC. We can pick a starting pitch based on the notion of the boat speed.

If you went 42-nautical-miles-per-hour with the 200-HP motor, we can expect a boat speed with a 175-HP motor of

(175/200)^0.5 x 42 = 39-nautical miles hour

Let me convert this to statute miles per hour, as this is a more familiar unit for most people to work with for small boats not involved in long ocean voyages.

39-nautical-miles/1-hour x 1.1515= 44.9-MPH

The gear ratio of the E-TEC 175 should be 1.85:1. Now we use the propeller calculator at

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/propcalc.pl

to find the pitch. We enter the data as follows

RPM = 5,600
RATIO = 1.85
PITCH = (leave blank so it will be calculated)
SLIP = 10 (a reasonable estimate)
SPEED = 44.9 (from our calculation above)

posted 07-17-2011 09:02 PM ET (US)            

You should also try the 17" pitch Viper as well.

Regardless of whether the E-TEC 175 is as powerful as the old Mercury 200 and even regardless of whether it is as fast at WOT, it most certainly will feel much more powerful than the old motor, especially during acceleration, whether from a standing start or from one cruise speed to a higher cruise speed.

posted 08-14-2011 01:20 AM ET (US)            

As I am sure many people here also spend hours researching all things boating when their boat is broken down or weather is no good, I have been looking at the possibility of adding a manual jackplate. Does anybody have any experience with the late 1990's Outrage 20 with a jackplate and five to six-inch setback?

Would the performance gains be worth the trouble?

Would it be bad to put a 433-lb engine six-inches further back on a hull that is so sensitive to transom weight?

posted 09-06-2011 09:21 PM ET (US)            

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y243/JCush/P8310512.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y243/JCush/P9060514.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y243/JCush/P9060515.jpg

posted 09-14-2011 09:42 PM ET (US)            

Viper 19
1997 Outrage 20
2012 Etec 175
Fuel: 85 gallons
Passengers: 2 adults
Mounting: 3 holes up
Ambient Temp: 80 deg
Seas: 0-.3ft
Approx weight: 3900lbs

RPM MPH MPG Slip%
500 2.9 14.4 0.41
1000 6.3 7.5 0.35
2900 20.7 3.6 0.27 Min plane
3250 24.4 3.9 0.23
3600 29.9 4.1 0.15
4000 33.0 3.6 0.15
4500 39.7 2.7 0.09
4900 42.0 2.6 0.12 WOT

I am planning on trying a Viper 16 tomorrow, hopefully that will get my RPMs up. I'm hoping for 5500ish

But i am really enjoying the motor's starting ease, quietness, and fuel economy. I have analog gauges with the NMEA 2000 data displayed on my lowrance gps.

looking at the AV plate at 4000RPMs there is quite a bit of water on top of it. I am also able to trim way out and still hold on.

posted 09-17-2011 02:09 PM ET (US)            

I recommend the motor be raised to the last set of holes or "three holes up"

posted 09-18-2011 09:40 AM ET (US)            

Data Summary:

Viper 19
RPM MPH MPG Slip%
500 2.9 14.4 0.41
1000 6.3 7.5 0.35
2900 20.7 3.6 0.27 Min plane
3250 24.4 3.9 0.23
3600 29.9 4.1 0.15
4000 33.0 3.6 0.15
4500 39.7 2.7 0.09
4900 42.0 2.6 0.12 WOT

Viper 16
RPM MPH MPG Slip%
500 2.7 12.0 0.34
1000 6.0 5.5 0.27
3300 18.3 3.3 0.32 Min Plane
3500 21.5 3.6 0.25
4000 28.3 3.6 0.14
4500 31.5 3.3 0.15
5000 37.1 3.2 0.09
5550 41.0 2.6 0.09 WOT

Ride in normal 1-2'chop:

RPM MPH MPG
3900 30 3.7 Unknown OMC SS 17 3 blade w/slight cupping
3600 29 3.8 Viper 19 TBX
4100 26 3.1 Viper 16 TBX

So far, I do not really care for the viper 16, it has good acceleration, but I feel like I am constantly adjusting the throttle much more than the other props while cruising. and the gas mileage is quite a bit worse. I did not get a chance to try out the older OMC prop.

posted 09-21-2011 02:05 AM ET (US)         

Since both the E-tec and Merc use the same gear ratio, for the Evinrude to equal the Merc's performance, both would turn a 19" prop to 5900 RPM, as the Merc does. But it appears the Evinrude is 1000 RPM weaker. That's a lot, but it's what I would expect considering the HP ratings of both!
If you have to use a 17" pitch prop, by definition, the Evinrude will still be slower.

posted 09-21-2011 08:56 AM ET (US)            

In the case of the VIPER 19 your engine speed is a bit low, only 4,900-RPM. In the case of the VIPER 16, your engine speed is on target, in the optimum range of 5,500-RPM to 5,600-RPM which I recommended to you in the first reply in this thread, but the propeller pitch is a bit low. With a 16-pitch propeller the boat speed will be limited by the pitch.

Your reporting of SLIP is in error. Your SLIP values are not expressed as percentages. For example, your SLIP is not 0.09-percent but actually 9-percent. Your figures are off by a factor of one-hundred.

Finding the perfect propeller can take some time. I experimented with over a dozen propellers on my boat before settling on one particular propeller as the best choice.

posted 09-21-2011 10:50 AM ET (US)         

"People keep telling me that this E-TEC 175-HP will be more powerful than the older 200 Mercury."

He also later wrote:

"I have wondered if the 175 ETEC will be satisfying for my outrage 20 or if I will be disappointed coming from the 200 mercury."

posted 09-22-2011 10:20 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Who would expect a 175 HP outboard to be more powerful than a 200 HP outboard?

---

posted 09-24-2011 08:55 AM ET (US)            

as far as being disappointed with the etec, I am not. The cruise speed remains at exactly the same speed and at about the same RPM as with the old merc. Noise, fumes, low speed fuel consumption and operational ease have improved greatly with the new motor. acceleration between the two engines up to cruising speed is pretty similar. It only lacks in top end, when cruising then hammering the throttle there isnt that huge instantaneous burst of speed like the merc had. but it is possibly that thrill that lead the merc to an early death!

phatwhaler, yes these readings are trimmed out.

jimh, i also noticed my error in reporting my slip, i did not mean to add the % sign, but i could not edit my post, so i just left it alone. also, your prop testing reference articles have been very helpful and informative.

LHG, your observation about the ETEC being 1000 RPM weaker is not entirely evident, using the old vengeance prop on the merc most times i was near 20% slip at WOT whereas these Viper props have been closer to 9-12% if the vengeance had the grip that the viper has, i probably would not have been seeing those rpm numbers on the merc. on the other hand, if the merc had a better prop, the performance gap between the two engines would be even more significant.

I am still trying to find a Rebel prop to try, I may also just get a hub kit and try a Mirage plus because I read that they are somewhat close in design and performance. I am going to raise the engine to the last set of holes this week hopefully. I think i will probably need the 15 Rebel and that is what I will order unless i find something better. my favorite prop so far has been the old OMC that I believe to be a SST, it is identicle to the old one in jimh's prop article that has the distinct ring on the hub to help diffuse exhaust gases.

posted 09-29-2011 12:29 PM ET (US)            

No GPS data yesterday so I dont know what it did to fuel mileage or speed. the boat seemed to get on plane a bit faster (not what i would expect) and handling was a bit more stable. overall a good change. I only lost grip once while driving in 1-2ft following chop while trimmed out at 4200 and turning. trimming back in fixed the problem. I have ordered a Rebel 15 that should be here in a few weeks.

posted 01-22-2012 10:19 PM ET (US)            

Vengeance 19, 55 gallons of gas, 4 adults, cooler, freedive/spearfish gear (medium-heavy load)
RPM MPH MPG Slip %
4000 26 2.9 21%
a fals WOT of 4600 RPMs and 35mph with 7% slip was obtained but i found out a few minutes later that there was a few hundred pounds of water in the bilge which was slowing me down and not allowing me to trim out properly. no further testing was done because this prop felt bad in every way, no acceleration, tons of ventilation in turns, cavitation during holeshot, terndling and terrible handling and fuel ecomony

I am still waiting for the Rebel 15, it is in the shop but over here in the bahamas you have to actually be there at the dock when the shipping vessel arrives to claim your goods, which conveniently always comes to my island when i am to busy to leave work! but i still think it might be very good, i read that it is similar to the mirage plus which i liked very much other than the low RPMs

posted 05-06-2012 09:04 AM ET (US)            

Rebel 15 50 gallons 4 adults
full 100qt cooler 80 deg weight ~4400lbs
RPM MPH MPG Slip Range
3400 25.0 3.8 0.04 298
4000 30.0 3.5 0.02 274
5250 40.0 0.01

Still a bit low... im not sure where to go from here. i am in the process of removing my bottom paint that is old and peeling so i hope to gain some from that. but i doubt i will get the 300 rpms i need. i like the feel of the rebel i wish i could get my rpms up. the motor is mounted in the highest position.

posted 05-07-2012 07:17 PM ET (US)            

get the mirage modified and have an unknown outcome and a prop i couldnt sell.

posted 05-09-2012 08:21 PM ET (US)            

RMCCAIN, i have been looking closely at the enertia, but they dont come up used too often like the mirage i got for $150 on ebay. how do you like it compared to the rebel? do you still have low speed control for docking? does it tend to lift the bow or stern?

posted 05-16-2012 10:33 PM ET (US)            

Sorry for not getting back sooner. The Enertia is just overall better than the Rebel, even though the Rebel did very well and performed great in all areas, slow speed holding the boat on plane at around 21-22 mph depending on conditions, cruise speed was good and economy was good, it came on plane very quick with minimal bow rise and will hold in most trim conditions, yet would not get as high of rpm as I would have liked for this motor, around 5100 rpms at 39 mph full load. The Enertia now will improve on all of the above, planes almost instantly even if the trim is at more than 19 %, so I do not have to run the trim down just to come on plane, the prop feels stronger! The Enertia will also stay on plane at the same low speed 21-22 mph. Cruise speed will get between 3.6 and 4.0 mpg at about 29-30 mph. Also the Enertia will hold the boat with out porpoising at a much greater trim angle, enough to give a rooster tail, even though this doesn't help economy at all. As far as slow speed as in docking and tight spots, the Enertia is not a problem.

posted 01-18-2013 09:48 PM ET (US)            

Mercury Enertia 15p mounted all the way up with no bottom paint. Vessel weight was about 3900lbs
RPM.....MPH.....MPG.....Slip
500.....2.4....12.7.....0.39
1000....4.6.....7.7.....0.41
1500....6.4.....5.0.....0.44
3000....17.4....3.3.....0.25
3500....23.8....3.8.....0.12
4000....29.9....3.7.....0.03
4500....33.9....3.1.....0.02
5000....37.3....3.2.....0.03
5675....42.7....2.6.....0.02

The first thing I noticed on the water with the Enertia was the holeshot was hugely improved over any prop I had tried. I found myself pulling back on the throttle much sooner to settle into cruise speed. RPM stayed constant while running through the chop much like the Mirage/Rebel. Midrange acceleration was also the best that I had experienced on this boat. Low speed control and docking was also just slightly below the Mirage/Rebel. I plan to keep the Enertia with the Mirage Plus as a backup.

In another thread, Phatwhaler asked: "Could you shed some light on the difference in performance of the 200 Merc and the 175 E-tec.

To answer his question with my most up to date experience, I would say that the E-TEC out performs my carbureted 2.5L mercury 200 in every way other than WOT speed. Now 43mph and was 48 with the Merc (but i dont remember the conditions the 48mph was under, i would guess it was with the wind and current, and with a very light boat.) Acceleration is better and cruise performance is a similar speed but more stable and I don't need as many throttle adjustments with the new E-TEC. The E-TEC uses about half the fuel over a diving or fishing trip, doesnt smoke me out when the motor is up wind of me, and is extremely quiet. The E-TEC also doesn't stall while idling for a long period. The E-TEC weighs about 30lbs more than the 2.5L mercury (398lbs) and this doesnt make any noticeable difference in the boat's static trim or seakeeping abilities. I am completely happy and wouldn't ever go back to the merc unless I was racing and needed the extra speed. As a side note, if I had put as much time into engine height and propeller selection I believe I could have seen 50mph with the mercury.

-James