ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
OUTRAGE 18, Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
OUTRAGE 18, Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE
|
| Author | Topic: OUTRAGE 18, Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE |
| ericflys |
posted 04-07-2012 09:08 PM ET (US)  
I just re-powered my 1983 Outrage 18 with the new Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE [i.e., the new model just coming into the market, not the VERADO FOURSTROKE]. So far I have been very impressed with the motor. I asked the dealer to mount it two holes up but he ended up mounting one hole up. I'm pretty certain I need to go up one more hole. The dealer has a 17 Enertia that I can try so my plan is to try that prop next. Boat weight: Light load for me, but unknown(I'm sure it has some water intrusion), 35 gallons of gas(half tank) three adults of average weight, very little gear (just anchor, chain, and a cooler full of beverages), kicker, and two group 30 AGM batteries(in console). Conditions: fairly calm with light wind Height: 1 Hole Up Propeller: 17P MiragePlus RPM-Speed-GPH Any thoughts on these numbers and recommendations on where to go from here, are appreciated.
|
| Mambo Minnow |
posted 04-07-2012 10:08 PM ET (US)
Great boat and motor combo, congrats on the reposer! Thanks for posting performance specs here to share. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 04-08-2012 09:37 AM ET (US)
Thise are decent numbers but not very meaningful since you are going to be raising the motor. Once you get the motor up (I would go two holes higher for a total of three) resubmit your numbers, I bet you gain about 2mph and some rpms. You want to be near the very top of your motor's rpm range with a light load, so that when you have a heavy load of passengers, gear, and fuel you are not overloading the engine. Get back to us with your revised numbers, I would expect 46-47mph is easily attainable |
| Teak Oil |
posted 04-08-2012 09:42 AM ET (US)
Actually re-reading your post I see you had three adults on board, so you are doing pretty good speed wise. Personally I would go three holes up and step up in pitch to 18" (a 17" Stilletto would behave like an 18" pitch). The fact that you have a very heavy four stroke, a kicker, and usually a heavy passenger load all screams at you to go up two holes |
| Keeper |
posted 04-08-2012 12:33 PM ET (US)
You wouldn't be located in So Cal by chance would you? |
| ericflys |
posted 04-08-2012 06:03 PM ET (US)
Southeast Alaska |
| Mambo Minnow |
posted 04-08-2012 06:25 PM ET (US)
Southeast Alaska is an excellent test environment. Previously, we have heard from some posters here that Mercury service is not easily found up there. I imagine the self-maintenance features of this motor appealed to you living in a more remote environment. Ownership should be a good long term reliability test! |
| ericflys |
posted 04-08-2012 06:40 PM ET (US)
Luckily there is a local dealer in my town that is very reputable, but I will probably still do most of my own maintenance. The motor is covered by a seven year, non-declining warranty, that covers all the controls, gages, and steering as well. Mercury must really be confident in this motor's reliability, as they are giving commercial operators the full warranty. Most motors only have a one year warranty for commercial use. |
| Peter |
posted 04-08-2012 09:36 PM ET (US)
Where does Mercury advertise a 7 year warranty? The current promotion advertised on the Mercury website is the "5 & Drive" which adds 2 years of protection to the three year warranty. Commercial use is excluded from the promotion. See below. Exclusions: All Pacemaker, Mercury Racing, Government, previously registered engines, donations, as well as engines sold for commercial, camp or resort applications, waterski engines and sales/registrations outside the United States and Canada. Also excludes any non-U.S. or non-Canada resident, or address outside of the U.S. or Canada. TwoStroke and Sport Jet engines are excluded from this promotion as well. Any units with a manufacture date prior to 2007 are not eligible. See also www.mercurymarine.com/media/mercury/documents/899883452_12-0412_WarrChts.pdf which states that commercial applications only get a 1 year and no corrosion coverage. I would recheck the warranty terms offered by the dealer carefully if I were you. |
| jimh |
posted 04-08-2012 09:59 PM ET (US)
I don't think the MIRAGEplus is the ideal propeller for an OUTRAGE 18. The MIRAGEplus seems to work well on a higher-horsepower and larger-boat set-up. The general comment about the ENERTIA is that engines can turn it faster than most other propellers. If that is true, then the ENERTIA 17 ought to put your engine speed up several hundred RPM, closer to the recommended range. With a new motor the last thing you want to do is lug the motor with too much propeller. And with four-cycle engines the horsepower peak usually comes in the very upper end of the engine speed range. You probably should try that ENERTIA. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-08-2012 10:07 PM ET (US)
The Mercury 5 & Drive sales event, gives you your standard warranty (three years of Platinum coverage), followed by two years of gold coverage. I paid an extra $600 or so, to get seven years of Platinum coverage. Platinum is non-declining and covers everything, including gages, controls, and steering, IF installed at the same time as the outboard. I am not a commercial operator, which is a bummer, because in Alaska they have a special program for this motor where they give you a 25% discount, send you about $1000 in apparel, and give you the full warranty. |
| Peter |
posted 04-09-2012 07:52 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the clarification on the warranty. The new 150 is oversized on the powerhead and in the gearcase so I would expect that they should have lower warranty claims. Should be a workhorse. Interesting on the Alaska incentive because the 150 FourStroke owner's manual warranty statement clearly limits the commercial warranty period to just 1 year. On the other hand, I would not expect commercial users to be early adopters of a new product so the incentive makes sense. I think the Enertia is worth trying. I haven't had good experience with the Mirage Plus propeller on either of my current Whalers - Outrage 18 (small) and Whaler 27 WD (large). The outboard motors on both boats have no problem turning the propeller so lugging is not the problem. Speed and fuel economy with the Mirage Plus are good. The problem I have with the propeller is that it did not recover lost grip in choppy seas very well on either boat, providing for a harsh or rough ride on each boat. I have since abandoned use of the Mirage Plus in favor of what is sometimes characterized as an "old fashioned" OMC SST II on the Outrage 18 and a pair of Mercury Revolution 4s on the Whaler 27. Ride comfort on both boats improved significantly. |
| Phil T |
posted 04-09-2012 02:41 PM ET (US)
Since it appears you are the first CW member to report repowering with the new Mercury 150hp FourStroke, posting photos would be beneficial for members who may be considering this motor. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-09-2012 11:22 PM ET (US)
I'd be happy to post some pics, what's the best way to do it? |
| Jeff |
posted 04-09-2012 11:58 PM ET (US)
Upload them to an offsite photo hosting resource like photobucket or picasa and post a link to them here. |
| jimh |
posted 04-10-2012 09:08 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the performance data. Looking at the numbers, I see some interesting values. At full-throttle we can assume the engine is producing its rated power, 150-HP, and it consumes 14.6-GPH. This implies the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of the engine is about 14.6-gallons/150-HP-hour x 6.25-lbs/gallon = 0.60-lbs/HP-hour which does not seem particularly good. A classic two-cycle outboard would have a BSFC of about the same, or perhaps even lower. On the other hand, looking at the data taken at a boat speed of 28-MPH, we see fuel consumption is a modest 5.1-GPH. This suggests the fuel economy is 5.5-MPG, which seems rather decent. If we use the same BSFC value, 0.6-lbs/HP-hour, we can deduce the engine power to be 5.1-gallon/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1-HP-hour/0.6-lbs - 53-HP The Boston Whaler literature suggests that the minimum power to plane an OUTRAGE 18 is 75-HP. This leaves us with a conflict, as we have data suggesting the boat is on-plane with only 53-HP. Let's try to resolve this conflict. One approach is to assume the boat is on plane with more than 53-HP. Let's say it is on plane with 75-HP. What is the BSFC if we burn 5.1-GPH? That works out to be a BSFC of 5.1-gallons/75-HP-hour x 6.25-lbs/gallon = 0.425-lbs/HP-hour A BSFC of 0.425-lbs-HP/hour is very typical of a four-cycle fuel-injected engine. This calculation fits well with the general notion of modern engine fuel efficiency. On this basis I would then conclude that the new Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE--that is, not the VERADO FOURSTROKE but the new engine just introduced to the market and known only as the FOURSTROKE--seems to have good fuel efficiency at its cruising power band, but it really drinks fuel at maximum throttle. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 04-10-2012 11:41 AM ET (US)
It takes a minimum of 75 hp to get an 18 Outrage up onto plane, but once it is on top of the water 53hp would be enough to keep it there, I see no problem with that data. |
| Perry |
posted 04-10-2012 12:18 PM ET (US)
I think with 1/2 tank of gas, 3 adults, a kicker and 2 batteries 44+ MPH isn't bad for 150 HP. If you raise the motor up, put on the 17P Enertia and go out by yourself, 47-48 MPH shouldn't be a problem at all. |
| Peter |
posted 04-10-2012 01:43 PM ET (US)
At 44 MPH, I bet the Johnson 150 on my Outrage 18 is burning more than 14.6 GPH. Whaler's minimum HP specifications are with a "light load" which typically does not mean 1/2 tank of fuel, three adults, a cooler full of beverages, a kicker and two group 30 batteries. I doubt that 50 HP would be enough to maintain the boat on plane with that load. There are informal, unsubstantiated, thinking claims that the motor makes 165 HP at WOT. If that were so, then the WOT BFSC would be 0.55. 5.4 MPG at 28 MPH is pretty darn good for an antique Outrage 18. With the old 2-stroke motor, probably wasn't getting much better than 3.5 MPG at the same speed. |
| L H G |
posted 04-10-2012 04:18 PM ET (US)
The Mirage plus has too much blade area for an 18 Outrage, and is probably hurting performance and economy. A 210 Montauk with this new Merc 150, a much larger hull which weighs TWICE what an 18 Outrage does, is shown at 42.1 MPH and 13.8 GPH with a 15" Enertia. That is excellent full throttle mileage. A 190 Montauk, also a lot more and heavier boat, does 47.5 with Verado 150 and uses 14.8 GPH. And at full throttle, a Verado supercharger uses more fuel than a NA engine. So properly set up, I would guess this engine should give 48-50 MPH and 13 gph. Mercury & Boston Whaler seem to be recommending an Enertia prop for this engine, but on the 18 Outrage a Laser II might perform well also. I think this engine, like the Yamaha 150 already has, is really going to hurt 2-stroke 150 DFI sales. I recently saw a Grady repowered with a pair of these CR twins. The engines looked small on the boat. |
| jimh |
posted 04-10-2012 05:59 PM ET (US)
I agree with LHG that the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE--not the VERADO FOURSTROKE but the new model just introduced--does look smaller on the transom than other Mercury four-cycle outboard engines. For example, I think the new 150-HP FOURSTROKE has a smaller cowling and profile than the 90-HP FOURSTROKE (otherwise known as the VERADITO.) On the basis of the cowling size, when you see the 150-HP FOURSTROKE--the VERADOSAURUS engine--you would anticipate it should be about a 60-HP engine based on how large its cowling is compared to the other Mercury four-cycle outboard engines. I think it is wonderful that Mercury has managed to return the proportions and size of their outboard motors back to the normal size of outboard motors that we knew and loved for decades. |
| Peter |
posted 04-10-2012 07:10 PM ET (US)
"I think this engine, like the Yamaha 150 already has, is really going to hurt 2-stroke 150 DFI sales." LOL. You're 1/2 right. The Yamaha F150 was out before the Evinrude E-TEC 150 was so if anything, the Evinrude E-TEC 150 has hurt the Yamaha F150 sales. But this new motor will basically kill off whatever miniscule sales that are left of the Optimax 150 but on the bright side, Mercury won't have to pay royalties to Orbital on 150 HP outboard motor sales. With less weight, less complexity, better fuel economy, smaller physical size, it's also going to kill off Verado 150 sales. I think its pure fantasy to speculate that this new motor will push a 1983 Outrage 18 with two group 30 batteries and a kicker to 50 MPH with a burn rate of 13 GPH. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-10-2012 08:17 PM ET (US)
I'm still within my break-in period, so I'm not sure how that will affect the numbers. If I follow my MercMonitor EcoScreen's recommendations(which changes depending on a bunch of factors) for efficiency, with the load described, I was getting 5.7gpm at 26-27mph. Also, now with a few more hours on it, I seem to be burning less than the 14.6gph at full throttle than I previously reported(14.2-14.3, but could just be slightly different test conditions). I'm currently at the 8 hour point and at 10 hours, I'm going to bring it back to the shop, have the motor raised up and try some different props. I am probably understating the weight of my anchor set up that was on board during the tests as well, as I have a lead cannon ball associated with it, and the chain is much heavier than what I've seen anyone else use... I'm not sure exactly how this motor will affect the sales of other engines, but for my repower, I was deciding between between the Mercury 150 Fourstroke and the E-TEC 150, and I went with the Mercury. Not trying to bash the E-TEC here, it was one of my top two choices. I did not consider the Yami. The service in my area for them is not ideal, and my buddy has one on his Outrage 18 and the rear sits lower in the water than mine, with no kicker, and the footprint of the engine is 1/3 bigger, which was also not appealing to me. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-10-2012 08:20 PM ET (US)
Also of note, my boat sits at the same spot in the water as before the re-power. My previous engine was a 1983 Mercury Black Max 150. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 04-10-2012 09:18 PM ET (US)
What made you choose this motor over the E-tec? I assume you wanted to stay with Mercury since the old engine lasted so long and you already had the controls, etc. I agree with Jim, this motor is MUCH more appealing as a repower candidate than the "Veradito" four stroke models. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-10-2012 10:00 PM ET (US)
I bought all new everything with motor, gages, controls, steering, etc, so that was not a factor in which brand I chose. Many, many factors, and months of researching went into my decision. Some of the factors were: local dealer support, cost of the engine, operating costs, features available(EcoScreen and maintenance screen), availability of a seven year non-declining warranty that covers everything installed with the motor, the smoothness and quietness of a four-stroke, and conversations I had with factory certified E-TEC technicians. I felt this motors' larger displacement would benefit me in the conditions and speed range I operate in. Talking to techs, that have worked on both Merc and BRP motors, led me to believe the corrosion protection on the Merc might be superior, and doing any of the maintenance myself would be easier on the Merc engine. Also I felt buying the newest clean sheet design 150, rather than an old one(I know the E-TEC is proven, and this being a first model year was a risk), in theory should be the best in almost, if not all categories vs competing products(yes, I know the two-strokes are slightly lighter) of any manufacture. Mercury giving commercial operators in my area, which is an unforgiving environment, with no towing service available, the full warranty on this motor, also factored in on my decision. The fact that I already had a Mercury on the boat, played no part in my decision, as no manufacture is using the same manufacturing processes they were 25-30 years ago, and all have had lemons throughout the years. When looking at the engines available, I did come to the conclusion, that all of the big manufactures are building a good reliable 150hp product at this time. |
| Perry |
posted 04-11-2012 01:44 AM ET (US)
"What made you choose this motor over the E-TEC?" Who said anything about the owner considering an E-TEC? Is it automatic on this forum for peoplr to consider an E-TEC along with other brands of outboards? |
| ericflys |
posted 04-11-2012 01:48 AM ET (US)
I do appreciate everyone's input, and will report back performance numbers once I change my motor height and try another prop. Until I set up a photo sharing site, I'm happy to send pics directly to any member that requests them. |
| jimh |
posted 04-11-2012 08:34 AM ET (US)
Perry asks:
quote: Perry--If you look closely at the thread it was Larry (LHG) who introduced the topic of the E-TEC, although he cloaked it with a generic description. This is a classic move by Larry. He literally always introduces the E-TEC into discussions when he sees an opportunity to be able to cast the E-TEC in a bad light. So, yes, you can say that, thanks to Larry, it is automatic that the E-TEC is going to be made part of any discussion about re-powering, as Larry will want to take a shot at the two-cycle direct-fuel-injection outboard--OptiMax excluded--whenever that bird flies across his gun sight. |
| jimh |
posted 04-11-2012 08:46 AM ET (US)
Teak Oll says:
quote: That is good, but I did not say that. I simply said that the size of this 150-HP FOURSTROKE engine cowling was more in proportion to its horsepower than some of the other Mercury FOURSTROKE engines. I have not expressed an opinion about my preference between the 150-HP FOURSTROKE (the VERADO model) and the 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not the VERADO model but the new model just introduced which I once suggested we might call the VERADOSAURUS). I do think this new 150-HP FOURSTROKE (that is, not the VERADO model) will be popular in a re-power situation like we are discussing, more so than the VERADO model will be. The VERADO model requires that the dealer installing the motor be specially trained, specially certified, and have specialized equipment to successfully install a VERADO on a customer's boat. The new 150-HP FOURSTROKE (that is, not the VERADO model) will not require all those special qualifications, and more dealers will be able to offer it as a re-power option. Because of that, I expect to see more boats re-powered with a 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not the VERADO) than would be re-powered with a 150-HP FOURSTROKE VERADO. I believe the 150-HP FOURSTROKE VERADO has been available for quite some time, and I recall only one boat being re-powered with that engine. The new 150-HP FOURSTROKE is just coming into the market--and I expect that demand is high and probably constrained by supply, particularly for loose engines--and we already have a report of a re-power. I think we will see more of this. |
| L H G |
posted 04-11-2012 01:37 PM ET (US)
It appears to me that "PETER", Evinrude fan extrordinaire, first brought up the E-TEC 150, not me, and then Eric confirmed what I had speculated about 2-stroke DFI's in general (which mean OPTIs, HPDIs and E-Tecs), that this new engine will hurt 2-stroke 150 sales. I have been seeing that large Mercury affiliated places like Bass Pro Shops, where some of the boats now have the factory installed new 4-stroke instead of an Optimax. In Boston Whaler's special case, the engine will defintitely reduce sales of the 150 Verado, unless a customer wants DTS. The above business opinions are based on what I am reading, and observing about the general outboard marketplace. Believe it or not, they are not what I think personally. I would still prefer to purchase a 150 Optimax over a 4-stroke 150. I just like 2-strokes, the older the better, although I realize I am in a shrinking minority. |
| jimh |
posted 04-11-2012 04:40 PM ET (US)
I agree with LHG: there is likely to be a reduction in sales of the OptiMax 150-HP engine in favor of the 150-HP FOURSTROKE (the new engine not the VERADO). And I see this both in new boat rigging and in re-power. At the only boat show I attended this Spring, the Mercury OptiMax engines were very scarce, and Mercury FOURSTROKE engines were in great number--that is speaking of the transoms controlled by Brunswick with their boat building subsidiary companies. I have also heard some industry talk that the OptiMax may be approaching the end of its product life cycle due to problems meeting the more strict emission standards of the future. Mercury may be able to continue to sell the OptiMax even when its emission is no longer compliant because of the trading of emission credits among their product lines. It was even suggested that the emission credits are bankrolled, and these credits will be spent in the future to continue production of OptiMax beyond its emission compliance epoch. But, please be aware, this is just industry insider talk, the sort of thing you hear when a dealer sends a technician to Mercury school, and they go out for drinks with the Mercury guys, and they come back with a few war stories. |
| Mike Kub |
posted 04-11-2012 09:17 PM ET (US)
I priced the new [Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE--the new engine not the VERADO--] today and it was only $400 more than the Optimax 150-HP--somewhat surprising. |
| jimh |
posted 04-11-2012 10:19 PM ET (US)
What's the spread between the VERADOSAURUS 150-HP and the VERADO 150-HP? That's the most interesting price tier. |
| L H G |
posted 04-12-2012 12:05 AM ET (US)
Pricing from the same Mercury dealership: 150 Optimax - $9,565 |
| jimh |
posted 04-12-2012 08:43 AM ET (US)
The spread in price among those three Mercury 150-HP outboard engines is rather close. The top-of-the-line, world-class, best-in-category VERADO is only an extra $670, or 0.6-percent. Considering you get electronic throttle and shift, really strong performance, and the VERADO basic engine block engineering that is good for 375-HP, the added cost is not very much compared to the added value. I am continually surprised to see Mercury's price on their premium VERADO; it's not much of a price premium at all. |
| Peter |
posted 04-12-2012 09:24 AM ET (US)
When you look at these offerings as "propulsion systems" as Mercury sometimes suggests that we do, I believe that the price differential between the Optimax 150 and the FourStroke 150 is even less than $400 because the price does not include the required remote oil tank which is about $250. On the other side of the Mercury 150 HP sandwich, the price differential between the Verado 150 and the FourStroke 150 is greater because it does not include the difference in cost for the Verado's required DTS system and the mechanical shift and thottle control. I think there is about a 700 to $1,000 premium for the DTS control components that connect to the outboard motor component of the "propulsion system". Brunswick has a lot of boats out there with Optimax 150s or conventional 2-stroke power that use mechanical controls and are getting to the age where they are repower candidates. Forcing them to go to the Verado 150 (for example in California the Optimax 150 is not offered for sale) requires rerigging the boat. As I said years ago, the rerigging requirement, the excessive weight and the expense of the Verado makes the Verado a weak repower candidate, opening the door wide for the competition to come in and take the previously occupied transom from Mercury. Mercury's 150 FourStroke attemps to fix that problem by reducing weight, complexity, and cost. Larry -- I take it that your "general speculation" and conclusion based on a single datapoint failed to account for the fact that the nearest Evinrude dealer to Sitka, Alaska is approximately 90 miles away whereas the nearest Mercury dealer is approximately 12 miles away. While the E-TEC was said to be considered, I doubt that it was given all that much consideration in light of the distance to the dealer. That distance differential would certainly influence my decision making about what outboard to repower with given that all outboards require dealer service at some point. Furthermore, if you are buying a new outboard motor relying on a 5 or 7 year warranty as part of the bargain, I don't think you want to be located 90 miles away from the dealership that you expect will (but hope will never) provide you with the warranty service. You might also like to know that Yamaha hasn't offered the regular HPDI 150 since 2006. So this new motor couldn't possibly hurt sales of that motor, which by the way not only had an emissions problem with only a 2-Star rating (like the Optimax 150 has) but also a weight problem at 475 lbs. This new motor looks like it has good performance characteristics, as it should given the displacement. I think it provides a good alternative to the Yamaha F150 for those who just have to have a 4-stroke. It certainly provides a competitive alternative to the E-TEC, Honda and Suzuki 150s. Competition is good for us consumers no matter what brand you happen to like. And due to that competition, Mercury enthusiasts for this motor should thank Evinrude for not relaxing on the power to weight ratio gold standard for 3-Star motors. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-12-2012 10:37 AM ET (US)
There was a dealer that carried E-TEC's in Sitka until not to long ago. There are still factory certified folks in town that can do an necessary maintance. |
| Peter |
posted 04-12-2012 03:19 PM ET (US)
According to the Evinrude website, there is no factory authorized service center within 60 miles of Sitka. But enough with these facts, we want to see some pictures of the rig to get a sense of how it looks on an Outrage 18. |
| jimh |
posted 04-12-2012 08:35 PM ET (US)
Photographs would be great to see. We could compare with the look of the Mercury 150-HP VERADO FOURSTROKE on an OUTRAGE 18 as seen here: |
| ericflys |
posted 04-17-2012 03:25 AM ET (US)
If anyone would like pics, I'd be happy to e-mail them to you. It may be a bit before set up a photo sharing site to post them to. |
| Phil T |
posted 04-17-2012 12:55 PM ET (US)
Send them to me (email in profile)and I can post them on photobucket and give the gang a link |
| Phil T |
posted 04-18-2012 02:09 PM ET (US)
Here is a link to the photos: [Dead link has been deleted.] |
| Mambo Minnow |
posted 04-18-2012 06:40 PM ET (US)
Looks great, thanks for posting the pictures for all to see. |
| Peter |
posted 04-18-2012 08:30 PM ET (US)
Looks like it is about the same size as the Verado 150. |
| Peter |
posted 04-18-2012 10:07 PM ET (US)
Looks like it is about the same size as the Verado 150. |
| ericflys |
posted 04-18-2012 10:30 PM ET (US)
I had the boat in the shop today, and had them raise the motor up. While I there, I looked at a Verado 150 and a 150 Fourstroke, sitting next to each other on the stands, and the 150 Fourstroke was noticeably smaller. There is an Outrage 18 just down the street from me with a 200 E-TEC on it, and size wise, they look about the same. Hopefully, I'll get the boat out this weekend and get some more numbers to post. I have several props to try, the 17 MiragePlus that's on it, a 17 Stiletto Advantage II, and a 17 Enertia. |
| jimh |
posted 04-18-2012 11:57 PM ET (US)
The Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (the new model not the VERADO FOURSTROKE) looks much larger than I thought it would on the Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18, but it could be the way the images were photographed. The outboard engine is in the foreground and the camera lens looks like a wide-angle lens. Those two factors make the engine appear gigantic. Let us have a view in profile, taken from a bit of distance so the camera lens is not set to wide-angle, and we can make a better comparison. |
| L H G |
posted 04-19-2012 01:14 AM ET (US)
Now that we know Eric's boat has bottom paint and an enclosed Tee Top, his preliminary speed indications are pretty good. Those items alone can easily take 3 MPH off top end. My guess is that one of these engines could push a clean bottom, no tee top, properly set up 18 Outrage 50 MPH. |
| ericflys |
posted 05-10-2012 05:53 AM ET (US)
I wasn't able to get as complete of numbers as my earlier test due to weather moving in. For the below numbers, it wasn't quite as calm as before and more wind. I did attempt to report averages. I am now running two holes up, and with the same MiragePlus 17P, here are the numbers: RPM-Speed-GPH Boat weight was similar to the previous test. I replaced the thrid person with a dog and 10 more gal of gas. I don't think I was blowing out in hard corners as the RPM's remained relatively constant, however an audible change could be heard. At cruise, trimmed up, the cav plate is definetely still in the water. When I tried using the prop calc on this site, I came up with slip of 6.03 before and now that I'm up one more set of holes it comes out to 7.91. Is this of any significance? I will be trying either a 17 Enertia or 17 Stiletto next. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-11-2012 11:14 AM ET (US)
With either the Mercury Enertia or the Stiletto Advantage, the motor should go up one more set of bolt holes. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-11-2012 11:18 AM ET (US)
One more thing: You will need the 18" pitch Enertia, not the 17". |
| ericflys |
posted 05-13-2012 04:36 AM ET (US)
Thanks, Tom. Your advice is always very much appreciated. I thought I might try the 17 Enertia next, unfortunately I don't have an 18 to try. Do you think it's ok to go up another set of holes if I plan to occasionally have up to 800lbs of equiptment in the front of my boat? If anywone has experiece with running a heavy load like this in the front of boat, I'd be curious to hear your thougths on engine height... |
| Teak Oil |
posted 05-13-2012 10:43 AM ET (US)
800 pounds on an 18' boat is a LOT of weight for the bow. I don't think I would run the motor all the way up if I had that kind of weight up front, especially considering you are getting good performance now |
| ericflys |
posted 05-15-2012 04:50 AM ET (US)
I tried the 17 Enertia today. It wasn't smooth out, but I did attempt to get averages. The boat was about the same weight that it's been for all the other tests, which is a bit on the heavy side. I am still two holes up (middle set). Here are the numbers: RPM-Speed-GPH Highest RPM and speed according to Smartcraft- 5770 & 46.5 EcoScreen said I was getting 5.7 MPG at 3240 RPM going 24 MPH I still have a 17 Stilleto Advantage I haven't tried yet.
|
| jimh |
posted 05-15-2012 06:58 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the test data. The test data is very interesting. From the test data it certainly looks like that Mercury ENERTIA propeller is more efficient at moving the boat. The top speed increased to 46-MPH with the ENERTIA from 44.4-MPH with the MIRAGEplus. An increase of 1.6-MPH is a nice bonus from the ENERTIA propeller and seems to fulfill the promise that the ENERTIA propeller will give you more top speed. I also see that at a boat speed of 32-MPH the ENERTIA improved the fuel economy. The engine consumed only 6.4-GPH with the ENERTIA instead of the 6.7-GPH it did with the MIRAGEplus. A change of 0.3-GPH is about five-percent. When fuel is $6-per-gallon, a difference in fuel consumption of five-percent is like a discount of $0.30-per-gallon. After 500-gallons of fuel has been used, the ENERTIA will have paid for the $150 premium in its price. I would summarize the results with the ENERTIA as a nice improvement over the MIRAGEplus, but I would temper that endorsement by noting that a propeller like the MIRAGEplus was probably not the optimum choice for a boat like an OUTRAGE 18 and 150-HP. Usually we see the MIRAGEplus used on larger boats with higher horsepower where a propeller with a lot of blade area is needed. |
| Peter |
posted 05-15-2012 10:10 AM ET (US)
How about ride quality in a chop? Did you notice any differences in the way the boat moved through the waves between the Enertia and the Mirage Plus? |
| ericflys |
posted 05-16-2012 05:46 AM ET (US)
I tried the 17 Stiletto Advantage today. I knew prior to this test, that without going up another hole, this prop wouldn't be quite as good as the Enertia previously tested. It was chopppy out, and I did NOT get averages, so there is going to be some error in the numbers. The boat was about the same weight that it's been for all the other tests, which is a bit on the heavy side. I am still two holes up (middle set). Here are the numbers: RPM-Speed-GPH Highest RPM and speed according to Smartcraft- 5230 & 47.1 EcoScreen said I was getting 5.7 MPG at 3320 RPM going 26.5 MPH |
| ericflys |
posted 05-16-2012 06:07 AM ET (US)
Peter- I have spent very limited time with either and tried them days apart in different conditions, so I can't really say for sure. There was chop on both days, and I just don't recall there being a significant difference. Of note, the only propeller I tried hard turns with, trimmed up at speed without trimming down, is the Enertia. Trimmed out and rolling into a hard turn above 4000 RPM, it would ventilate a bit and then after returning to going straight for a little bit it would regain it's grip somewhat abruptly, decreasing my engine RPMs a bit. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-16-2012 10:20 AM ET (US)
The 17" Stiletto is getting your motor to 5500 RPM, well within the recommended 5000-5800 RPM range and according to you the boat was "...a bit on the heavy side". With a lighter load, and the motor raise another set of holes I do not think you should drop anymore pitch if you want to keep the WOT RPM under the redline with a light load. Remember, we prop to near the redline with a light load so that we can still reach the recommended range when we carry a heavy load. I note the Stiletto Advantage has already provided the highest top speed. |
| ericflys |
posted 05-17-2012 09:41 AM ET (US)
If I tried a 15 Stiletto Advantage II, how many RPM's will it increase over the 17 I just tried? I would like it to put me in the 5700-5800 RPM range. The 17 Enertia performed great, but it would be nice to find something close to it's performance and less expensive... |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-17-2012 10:11 AM ET (US)
Going to a 15" Stiletto Advantage 4.25 will gain you 300-450 RPM and put you at 5800-5950 RPM when the boat is "...a bit on the heavy side". With a light load you would exceed the redline at WOT by quite a bit. |
| |
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.