Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Re-power OUTRAGE 17

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Re-power OUTRAGE 17
grossjas posted 03-08-2012 06:24 PM ET (US)   Profile for grossjas   Send Email to grossjas  
I have a 99 Outrage 17 with 135 Optimax. I love the boat but was thinking about repowering with a fourstroke. I would like to repower with the new 150, but don't want to spend $10,000. I think the older 150 fourstrokes would be too heavy on the transom. As it is now I think the 135 Opti is the max weight I would put on it. That leaves me with the only other option of putting a 115 foursrtoke on it. I would like to know what others have done in my situation and if they believe a 115 is enough power for this boat. I do not need to go 50 mph, but would still like to pull a skier if I want. 90% of my boating is at slower speeds. Any and all help is appreciated.
Peter posted 03-08-2012 06:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I think you would be disappointed with the complete performance of a 1.7L 4-cylinder 115 4-stroke after having had a fuel efficient 2.5L V6 2-stroke.
grossjas posted 03-08-2012 06:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for grossjas  Send Email to grossjas     
Would the 115 4 stroke use more fuel the the 135 Opti?
martyn1075 posted 03-08-2012 07:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
I have heard the Yamaha 115 are really stingy on gas and a great performer overall. Probably quite true you would lose a bit of speed demon power on the top end. If you are into speed you might hate the 115. Otherwise it probably would be a nice choice.

Martyn

martyn1075 posted 03-08-2012 07:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
After re-reading your post yes you are not a speed demon which helps make the decision a little easier however it would be nice if someone here has done what you are thinking about with the Yamaha 115 on a 17 Outrage. Although I have heard they are stingy which may be true on certain boats its still hard to get the real numbers on the how the 17 outrage would preform unless someone has done it and can share.
kwik_wurk posted 03-08-2012 08:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for kwik_wurk  Send Email to kwik_wurk     
I am biased towards Merc engines. (I currently own four and have sold off many more.) Now that this statement is out; I will also state that want an e-tec 90 for my classic Montauk. E-tec's are great engines.

But there are trade-offs for all engines: power vs noise vs weight vs fuel burn vs price vs maintenance. Is there any reason you only are looking at Merc's, not all engines are the same.

I have a good example. I have water skied behind Montauk's with the Yami 90, e-tec 90, and my Merc 90. I can easily state (with out going into gearing/prop nuances), the Merc has the most power (even though it is/was an older engine), the E-tec was great power combined with great fuel economy, and the yami was low cost engine (but almost stalled on the course and was the slowest of the group). -- Would I recommend any of them, sure, depends on what you want to do with your boat. Personally I would love an e-tec 90 for the type of boating I do.

But your priorities need to be better identified. Do you want: a quieter engine, more power, lighter transom, or better fuel economy.

If 90% of your time is idling around, I would go for the smallest engine block in 4S (115 hp). This is still 25hp above the min size for the hull, and still a good engine for the weight. But you will have less oomph in the low range power band. The fuel economy will be better, depends on how much you use your boat.

If you're looking for less noise, I would actually go with the 150. I have seen these run and at idle it was very very quite and did not shake at all. The balance of the engine forces have been very well tuned. Better than any other 150 hp engine I have seen (could have been the new-ness factor though) and better than a lot of smaller engines I have been around. Overall impressed, calm enough to put a glass on the cowling.

For more power you'll see some with the 150 4S. I have a few people state the 150 4S is a very strong engine, and is more around ~158 hp. But I have not tested it myself. But these additional ponies also built into your 135 Opti making it a strong 135 hp too. (Remember the 2.5L block is also the 150 hp Opti.) -- I have found, and several others share the opinion: stock Mercury engines run strong (gearing, props aside). I do hp testing on commercial vessels for a living (yachts, tugs, container ships, US Navy, blah blah). And have had several entertaining conversations about what is suppose to happen on paper, and what the engines/turbines/motors, props, and hull are actually doing.

If fuel economy is important, you must use your boat a lot to recognize the payback of upgrading engines (either to 115 4S or 150 4S).

If initial costs are your concern, I would stick to the Opti 135. Unless you feel compelled to change, I would not.

The transom weight concern is interesting. I don't have direct experience with the Outrage 17' so I defer to others. But just looking at the engine weights: 135 Opti 25" is 445 lbs, I would imagine the 150 4S is ~469 lbs, the 115 4S is ~413 lbs. -- So can the transom handle the extra 25 lbs, or does it need 30 lbs less? Hard to know, put a bucket with 3 gallons in the transom, and that is about how the boat will ride with a 150 4S.

masbama posted 03-08-2012 08:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for masbama  Send Email to masbama     
How about a 130hp E-Tec?
grossjas posted 03-08-2012 09:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for grossjas  Send Email to grossjas     
I guess I am leaning on sticking with a Merc because that would make the conversion the easiest and most economical.
Peter posted 03-09-2012 07:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
You would not see any significant fuel savings going from the Mercury Optimax 135 DFI 2-stroke to a Mercury 115 4-stroke. You would see a significant decline in overall performance both acceleration, load carrying and top speed. Basically, you would be trading performance for quieter operation (just about anything is quieter than an Optimax).
grossjas posted 03-09-2012 07:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for grossjas  Send Email to grossjas     
The factors that are most important to me in considering switching out the Optimax would be, in order, quiter, performance, fuel economy, and something a bit newer with less hours. I hate to think that the overall performance with a 115 would suffer so much as compared to the 135. That would be a major reason not to switch. Any other thoughts on performance?
Phil T posted 03-09-2012 09:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Phil T  Send Email to Phil T     
Jerry Townsend runs a 115hp motor on his Outrage 17 II.

I am sure he has posted his performance information. If you do a search, you may find answers to those questions.

Marsh posted 03-09-2012 11:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for Marsh  Send Email to Marsh     
I have a fuel-injected Merc 115 4-stroke on my Montauk 170. I am satisfied with the performance; it is quiet, reasonably economical, easy to maintain, and is powerful enough to take me to a top speed of approx. 45 indicated mph, depending on load, wind, water conditions, etc.

This speed in approx 3 to 5 mph more than the top speed with the 90hp carb'd engine the boat came with. No surprise here.

Does this help answer the original question? I don't know, but perhaps some comparisons can be made between the Outrage owned by the OP [original poster], and the Montauk 170, if, as I understand, they are both 17 footers. In any event, I personally give a slight edge to fuel injection over carbs, if all else is equal.

Peter posted 03-09-2012 03:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"I hate to think that the overall performance with a 115 would suffer so much as compared to the 135."

You would be going from 2.5L, 6 cylinder, 2-stroke performance to a 4 cylinder 1.7L 4-stroke performance. The powercurves of the two motors will be quite different and it will be noticible. Generally, a 4-stroke engine with the same number of cylinders and peak HP needs about 25 percent more displacement to produce the same powercurve as a 2-stroke. In your case, you would be going to lower displacement, fewer cylinders and to a 4-stroke at the same time. That's sort of three steps backwards and all you would gain is a quieter engine at idle and low engine speeds.

pcrussell50 posted 03-09-2012 04:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
First, Peter above is exactly correct. There will be a crushing difference in seat of the pants performance if you go from a large displacement 2-stroke, to a smaller-displacement 4-stroke. Especially, since most seat of the pants performance is felt on the lower portion of the power band, where 2-strokes have it all over 4-strokes of the same displacement, much less 4-strokes with less displacement.

quote:
The factors that are most important to me in considering switching out the Optimax would be, in order, quiter, performance, fuel economy, and something a bit newer with less hours. I hate to think that the overall performance with a 115 would suffer so much as compared to the 135. That would be a major reason not to switch. Any other thoughts on performance?

A little confused about why would the reduced performance of the 4-stroke would stop you from switching? You said quietness was your most important consideration.

But let's expound on the "quietness" thing. I have a Mercury 90hp FourStroke on my 17 Alert/Montauk. While it is quieter at idle than my 2-strokes, it does not seem any quieter while under way, and seems to turn about 20% more rpms for the equivalent performance of a 2-stroke while under way--adding even more to it's noise output. Further, even at idle my 35 year old, carbureted 2-strokes are still quiet, by any reasonable measure. There seems to be a "gold standard" amongst 4-stroke-lovers that they love to brag that their idle is sooo quiet that they can hear the sound of the telltale stream hitting the water at idle. That's cool. But that doesn't mean 2-stroke idles aren't quiet too, just not _that_ quiet. How much money and performance are you willing to sacrifice for the 4-stroke "bling" of being able to hear your telltale stream at idle? Especially if it's not noticeably quieter at cruise?

All that said, if you're still sure you want that 4-stroke quiet-idle, AND performance is important to you as well, I don't see any way around just sucking it up and putting up with the crushing weight and expense of a 4-stroke that is big enough to meet your power needs.

Keep us informed on what you decide. I'm always curious to read about how advice given here on CWW is taken--especially when many different tracks are put forth.

-Peter

L H G posted 03-09-2012 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I would think a 115 Mercury Optimax would be your best answer, and hook right up to your existing controls. Very quiet running, only 375# and a real fuel miser. About $7300., or if you want to spend $300 more, the 125HP ProXS version. Also, they have been around long enough that they are now available used in the 4-5K range.

This engine would definitely be an improvement over those older YamaMerc 4-strokes, pre-2007 vintage.

grossjas posted 03-09-2012 05:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for grossjas  Send Email to grossjas     
As I stated noise is my 1st concern, but not the only one. If put into perspective having less performance below what I think is acceptable, noise I guess doesn't matter. I have owned the boat for 2 seasons and do believe the 135 is not too much power by any means, maybe going down to a 115 is the wrong desicion. I like the idea of Mercs new 150, maybe my best bet is to save some more and let them work out the kinks on the new motor. Maybe 2014 will be my year to repower.

Where do you see 125 Optimax pro xs, I do not see that model. That I would feel would power the boat just fine.

Peter posted 03-09-2012 06:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
If there is nothing wrong with the Optimax 135, there is no really good reason to repower it with a 3 cylinder 1.5L Optimax 115 or a 125. Going from 6 cylinders and 2.5L down to 3 cylinders and 1.5L would also result in a great reduction in performance, but without the lower noise of the 4-stroke.

I know this will make Larry howl but here is a video of a side by side comparison of the 3 cylinder 1.5L Optimax 115 versus the 4 cylinder, 1.7L Evinrude E-TEC 115 on the same boat. rides.webshots.com/video/3004712040101354590UinMPp . The 125 won't perform much better than the 115 Optimax in the low and middle range (there is no such thing as a Mercury Optimax 125 Pro XS).

If you are going to step down to a 115 HP outboard (I don't think that it would be desirable after having the 135 Optimax), of all the available offerings in this size, I think the best choices giving up the least amount of performance would be the 1.7L Evinrude E-TEC or the 1.9L Suzuki 4-stroke. According to Larry, the Suzuki motors are painted Mercury black so if you are brand concious everybody will still think its a Mercury, at least from a distance. ;)

martyn1075 posted 03-09-2012 06:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
The new 150 might prove to be awesome. It weights 455lbs only 20lbs more than your 135. Definitely gain all the nice things about the Four Stroke but wont have to sacrifice a great deal of power either. I think that maybe your best bet but you are right I am sure there will be some bugs that will need to be worked out. As well the price may be another factor to consider.

Martyn

L H G posted 03-09-2012 07:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Jason - see here for Optimax information. Scroll down as needed. If I were you, I'd consider buying the nice used EFI 150 they have for sale for $4900. See Used boats/engines section. These guys ship engines, with no sales tax, for about $150.

http://jacosmarine.com/

pcrussell50 posted 03-09-2012 07:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Speaking of which, how many hours on your Opti? Are you having problems with it?

-Peter

grossjas posted 03-10-2012 08:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for grossjas  Send Email to grossjas     
The 135 Opti has 454 hours on it. Its been a great engine, just thinking about a something a little newer.
elaelap posted 03-10-2012 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Peter, the Optis get 115 hp out of their 3-cylinder 1.5 liter motor, while my 4-cylinder 1.5 liter Suzuki DF70 only produces 70 hp. Of course mine is the tuned-down version of the DF70/80/90 series. I guess I followed your advice, old pal, and went for displacement this time around ;-)

Perfect fit for my classic Montauk, BTW, for those who might be interested. Easy 37+ mph at 5800 WOT (GPS), jumps instantly out of the hole, and stays comfortably on plane at just over 3000 rpm without tabs or Dolefin-type devices.

Tony

pcrussell50 posted 03-10-2012 01:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
The 135 Opti has 454 hours on it. Its been a great engine, just thinking about a something a little newer.

450 hours? Thats 35 hours a year. A newborn babe. Well, you should have little trouble selling a low time, fresh water, low-emissions motor like your Opti. That should give you a decent chunk of change to throw down on the motor you really want.

And Tony, I think my Merc 90hp FourStroke is 1.7L, FWIW and all. It's also not the leader of its pack--the as the 115 and 75 FourStroke share the same platform.

-Peter

elaelap posted 03-10-2012 03:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
I hear you, Peter/pcrussell. I was actually teasing the other Peter a little, who is a big-displacement-is-always-better guy, no matter the horse power produced. I myself understand so little about mechanical engineering (if that's even what it's called) that I really don't know why two motors with the same horse power would perform very differently -- I suppose it has something to do with torque and the (to me) mysterious 'power curve' -- and my all time favorite outboard motor so far on any of my five Whalers over the years has been the remarkably light, powerful and super fuel efficient Yamaha F60 on my classic Sport 15 center console, a motor not especially noted for its huge displacement. But my current heavy, tuned down, relatively large displacement DF70 is very nice as well, at least on a classic Montauk. Anyway...

Tony

pcrussell50 posted 03-10-2012 03:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Torque is often misunderstood Tony, and the frequent subject of
many an old wives tales as well. IMHO, the trouble lies in the general lack clarity as to the exact definition energy and power, and how they are interrelated. If you don't know what energy is (physical definition, and units), and what power is, (physical definition and units), torque will remain a mystery. IMHO, these are things that should be understood before they let you out of high school.

-Peter

Peter posted 03-10-2012 03:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Tony -- Since you are pleading ignorance, and you well know that ignorance of the law is not a defense, here's a little help on that power curve thing members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/Iame24-4strokes.pdf AGAIN. That power curve thing is the reason why you will never see a tiny displacement, high reving motor cycle engine in an automobile despite the fact the tiny displacement, high reving motor cycle engine makes as much HP as the automobile engine.

As Dawson says, "horses are not always horses" and I know you've heard it over and over here and elsewheree that "there is no replacement for displacement".
Just 'cause the cowl says 70 or 150 doesn't mean its going to run the same as any other 70 or 150 stated on the cowl of another motor. It's a shame that the outboard industry doesn't provide power curves like the marine diesel industry does because that is really the best way to match the propulsion means to the application rather than looking at the number on the cowl.

By the way, you're really running a 90 HP motor that has been restricted and is loafing in contrast to the 1.5L Optimax 115 which is knocking itself out to produce 115 HP. Being a 2-stroke, however, it will still produce a more robust power curve than your 4-stroke of equal displacement.

Kencvit posted 03-10-2012 04:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kencvit  Send Email to Kencvit     
Switch to a Yamaha 4 stroke from a 135 Opti....and you`ll get your hearing back!
Had the 135 for one season of CLACKING at idle and SCREAMING at 3-4000 rpm and that was all I could take.
The 135 Opti ratings showed it to be louder than the 150 and 200 Optimax.

Switched to a 150 Yamaha4 stroke that was 40 lbs heavier.
On a 190 Nantucket. 500 hrs now...and hasn`t skipped a beat.Idles like a car when fishing.


martyn1075 posted 03-10-2012 08:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
The 150 Yamaha is a proven engine that is in good order. I think that also may be a good choice but I am not sure if that would be too much engine for the 17 Outrage. The weight may not be a factor but the mounting as well its huge diameter in size may be on the odd side for the 17. 19 Outrage no way it looks and performs great!

The new 150 Verado is very interesting choice due to its light weight for its class and offers V6 power in a four stroke environment which is ideal for smaller boats as well used as twins on slightly larger Whalers. The big difference between the two is that like the first comment its not proven yet but if I was powering a 17 outrage or even 19 I would strongly be doing my homework on the new 150 by Mercury.

jimh posted 03-11-2012 02:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Moved to PERFORMANCE. Use PERFORMANCE to discuss how boat performance changes with different outboard engines.
jimh posted 03-11-2012 02:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The weight of four-cycle outboard engines has been trending lower, but it is only lower with respect to the monstrously heaving four-cycle outboard engine predecessors.
pcrussell50 posted 03-11-2012 11:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
As Dawson says, "horses are not always horses" and I know you've heard it over and over here and elsewheree that "there is no replacement for displacement".

Peter, first, I know and agree with what you are saying about torque. Within the rules that I must stay within, I build my race car motors to be as torquey as I can, because at my particular skill level, I have an easier time modulating a torquey motor. I do this by using as much displacement as I can get away with, before making the front of my car too heavy, (which heats up the front tires too fast, and then they loose grip).

Still, those are figures of speech, that should really only be used by and for people who understand energy and power. A 900 horsepower, 1.5 liter (not a typo), Formula One engine, in an 8000 lb 1-ton pickup, would pull a 13,500 lb load up any grade in the country, twice as fast as a 400hp, 8.0 liter diesel, with 700lbsxft of torque, when properly geared for towing. The more powerful motor will always be able to do more work, faster, than the less powerful one, no matter the torque curves. I feel that quotes like those have to potential to mislead folks (at least from the perspective of academic rigor), as to what torque and power are.

-Peter

Peter posted 03-12-2012 07:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Peter -- 900 HP is more than 400 HP. HP is the amount of torque that can be applied in a unit of time as you know. In other words, the ability to perform work. A 900 HP engine should be able to perform more than twice the amount of work as a 400 HP engine. But it still says nothing about the power curve (the available HP at a given engine speed).

Look at Figure 1 in Dawson's article. Both engines are 1.6 to 1.7L of displacement, both 4 cylinders, both are rated for 90 HP and capable of turning up to 6000 RPM. At 3000 RPM, the 2-stroke is capable of producing up to 75 HP, the 4-stroke only 50 HP. The 4-stroke of similar displacement simply has less spare capacity at virtually any given RPM. To get the spare capacity that the 2-stroke has, displacement has to be increased. That's what Figure 2 in Dawson's article shows -- the 920 cc 2-stroke and the 1200 cc(30 percent more) 4-stroke have similar power curves.

Obviously, as you increase displacement, you have the potential to increase weight. To overcome that, recent leading 4-stroke outboard makers that have come out with increased displacement so as to obtain a 2-stroke power curve (the "Gold Standard") have resorted to exotic constructs such as plasma infused sleeveless cylinders or simplified designs like SOHC and only 2-valve per cylinder.

I think one of the most misleading things on an outboard motor is the number on the cowl. The only thing it tells you is what the motor is capable of producing at WOT. It says nothing about how well it will perform at intermediate speeds and varying loads.

Jerry Townsend posted 03-12-2012 10:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jerry Townsend  Send Email to Jerry Townsend     
Grossjas - I have a '96 17 Outrage with a 115 Johnson Ocean Ready on it. It works just fine for me - fishing, watching birds, playing around - and use it on relatively high (4000-4500 ft) lakes/resovoirs - but one can make book on a good afternoon storm, which it takes very well. I have had it in salt water once and it took that in stride too. I have never pulled a skier - just kids on inner-tubes. Comes right up on plane - unless a couple of heavy-weights are parked in the two aft quarter-seats.

In my opinion, this is the best boat for myself - handles big water, gets me there relatively fast (25 - 30 mph) - but I don't pay any attention to speed - and with the engine around 4000 rpm - backed down from the WOT that some run at. --------- Jerry/Idaho

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.