ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
1989 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive Re-power
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
1989 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive Re-power
|
| Author | Topic: 1989 Outrage 22 Whaler Drive Re-power |
| townes1018 |
posted 05-14-2012 09:03 PM ET (US)  
I have a 1989 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 with Whaler Drive that has twin 1989 Evinrude 120-HP outboard engines that weight 365-lbs each. [The author continues his article by telling us that he is] considering stepping up to [twin] Suzuki 150-HP four-cycle outboard engines [that have a weight of] 450-[lbs] per motor. [The author also informs us that he has in the past also] considered 115-HP and 140-HP [outboard engines, perhaps also from Suzuki] but [the] weight difference is not that much [perhaps compared to the 150-HP engine]. [He seeks comments from] anyone [that has] installed [twin] four-cycle outboard engines of similar weight [that is, twin outboard engines of 450-lbs each on a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive boat]. |
| Peter |
posted 05-14-2012 09:36 PM ET (US)
The 22-foot and 25-foot Whaler Drive was designed to have a pair of carburetor V6 two-cycle engines. A pair of those weighed about 850-lbs. A pair of Suzuki 150s (475 to 485 lbs dry depending on shaft length) will put over 950-lbs on the transom. |
| townes1018 |
posted 05-14-2012 10:31 PM ET (US)
Thanks Peter--I appreciate your reply. I want to re-power with four-cycle outboard engines and am having a tough time. More feedback on this subject would be appreciated. |
| jimh |
posted 05-14-2012 10:51 PM ET (US)
I have seen some Boston Whaler Whaler Drive boats with twin V6 engines on the transom that were a bit heavy. The static trim puts the Whaler Drive down in the water so there is not much freeboard left. I don't have any data to share about performance. If you were going to keep the boat on a trailer and tow it around on the highway, I would be concerned about all that weight on the Whaler Drive. It seems like a lot of weight on a long lever arm from the transom. When the boat is in the water much of that weight is supported by buoyant force from the water that is displaced. By the way, do you have the center support tube on your Whaler Drive that goes between the engines? |
| L H G |
posted 05-15-2012 12:28 AM ET (US)
I think twin 4-stroke 150's are way too heavy for any 22' Boston Whaler, even those with Whaler Drive. The lightest four-cycle 150 is the new Mercury 150 EFI at 455-lbs, which would save 40-lbs total over the Suzuki engines. But still too much wieght for the 22 Whaler Drive. If you must have four-cycle engines, you are pretty much stuck with twin 115's. The twin 140 Suzuki engines are really only [pulls horsepower number out of his hat]. If you want more power, I would look at twin Mercury 125-HP OptiMax, or twin 130 Evinrude, both at 375-lbs, and similar performers, although the Opti's will give better fuel economy. I even think twin 150 2-strokes, Opti or E-TEC are pushing the weight limits on a 22. |
| John A Larson |
posted 05-15-2012 12:45 AM ET (US)
I have a 22 Revenge W/T Whaler Drive and was considering heading the twin Suzuki 140 engines, but do they really only put out [the amount of horsepower that L H G just invented for them]? |
| Peter |
posted 05-15-2012 07:07 AM ET (US)
The 25 inch shaft length Mercury 150 FourStrokes weigh more than 455-lbs. The advertised 455-lbs is for the 20-inch version. The 25-inch version weighs about 465-lbs dry. Regarding Optimax 125 versus Evinrude E-TEC 130, the E-TEC 130 is the hands down winner -- 4 cylinders versus 3 cylinders, 1.7L versus 1.5L, same weight, no air compressor. The Suzuki 140 has a reputation of being a bit optimistic on the 140-HP output. It's unfortunate that the outboard makers do not provide power curves for their outboard motors like the marine diesel makers do. It would make selecting an outboard appropriate for a boat and its intended use a much better process. The cowling HP decal fails to tell the whole story regarding the outboard motor's capabilities. |
| jimh |
posted 05-15-2012 07:09 AM ET (US)
John--I am sure the SUZUKI engines put out their rated power. You can likely find an EPA emission test certificate that shows they do. They are SUZUKI's most popular engine in terms of sales volume, or so I have heard. Don't fall into the lazy thinking that only a Mercury engine delivers real horsepower. When you dig into facts you will probably find the SUZUKI is able to deliver the power its cowling decal says it will. However, that extra horsepower--as it does on almost all four-cycle engines--tends to come only at the very peak of engine speeds, and you would probably have to wind those engines to the very top of their rated engine speed to see the horsepower bonus. If we must have a lengthy discussion about how much horsepower L H G thinks a SUZUKI engine produces, don't start up in this thread. Begin a new discussion. I will delete further comments about the horsepower of a SUZUKI 140 from this thread. Those who feel compelled to continue, start a new thread. Leave this one to the problem of re-powering a Whaler Drive 22-footer. |
| jimh |
posted 05-15-2012 07:30 AM ET (US)
Since I own a 22-foot Boston Whaler boat with Whaler Drive, I have given some thought--mainly idle thought--to re-powering with twin engines. In terms of the required horsepower, I think a pair of E-TEC V4 130-HP engines would be perfectly adequate for my boating. I do not need to go over 50-MPH, and I don't have any special need to be able to get on plane with only one engine without changing the propeller pitch. I would not recommend the OptiMax unless you happen to be already hearing impaired or deaf. The OptiMax engines make too much noise for my liking. They were designed and engineered in an era when the noise signature was not a big concern. It is very hard to add noise suppression to an existing design, and even though Mercury tried to address this with their OptiMax The Next Generation (OTNG) series--also called the OptiMax globe engines (from the new cowling decal) or the OptiMax Gen-2 engine by some, but in Mercury's literature still just called the OptiMax--the OptiMax is still a noisy engine when compared to its modern competitors. Even if the OptiMax paid some dividend in terms of an improvement in fuel economy, I think you might prefer a quieter engine that used marginally more fuel than to listen to a pair of OptiMax engines on your Whaler Drive for the next twenty years. I also find another problem with the V4 or I3 or I4 engines when used as twins: they typically do not offer electronic throttle and shift. Having moved to a single engine boat from a twin engine boat, I can tell you that one of the great joys of a single engine boat is not fussing all day with the two throttles trying to keep the engine speed of a pair of outboards in synchronization. With modern electronic throttle controls available now, twin engine installations should have electronic throttle to synchronize the engine speeds. In the current offerings, electronic throttle seems to be available only on the V6 models of most modern engines, with the in-line four-cylinder VERADO being the exception. |
| L H G |
posted 05-15-2012 02:44 PM ET (US)
My information on the HP of Suzuki 140's came from Nick, who knows more about these mid-range 4 cylinder Suzuki's than Jim does. I know nothing about Suzukis and have no interest in foreign made engines. Perhaps Mr Larson will purchase a pair and tell us how hot they perform on his Revenge. But they will not even come close to the way a pair of 150 4-strokes would perform, especially the new relatively lightweight Merc. And contributor SOSMerc here knows more about the 3 cylinder Mercury Optimax engines than Jim does. He says they are very quiet running, and from the ones I have heard, would agree. Now we can continue with your comments on repowering this Revenge with 4-strokes engines. It seems that anybody's 4-stroke 115's, or the powerful Suzuki 140's would work fine for him. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-15-2012 09:02 PM ET (US)
The Suzuki DF140 puts out 102.97 Kw, which is 138.1 HP. Nice try Larry. A pair of DF140s at 421 pounds each would be OK on this boat, I would hesitate to put a pair of DF150s, at 485 pounds each, on this boat. I remember Alkar had a pair of Honda BF115s, at 500 pounds each on his Outrage 22 Whaler Drive and that boat had a serious stern-low condition that affected its performance adversely and always caused Alex some anxiety. He sold the boat after a brief ownership. |
| jimh |
posted 05-15-2012 10:13 PM ET (US)
Tom--Thanks for the information on the Suzuki engines. Since the Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive we are discussing is already rigged with twin engines, I know there is going to be a strong preference to keep the boat set up with twin engines. While four-cycle outboard engines have been slowly losing weight, they are still generally heavier than the older-style two-cycle carburetor motors on the boat now. Even the lightest two-cycle direct-injection engines will be heavier than the current engines. This power level, about 300-HP total, was, at one time, the territory of twin 150-HP engines. Now there are modern engines with 250-HP to 300-HP in single engine configurations. The topic of twin engine power, particularly twin 150-HP engines, has been discussed before. See Twin 150-HP: A Thing of the Past The answer will come when we learn the type of use this boat will be put to. If the boat is to operate alone and in offshore water, then certainly twin engines will be a big comfort, and the extra weight they bring will be borne as part of the price of redundancy. If the boat just cruises within sight of land, perhaps twins are not really needed. |
| Peter |
posted 05-16-2012 07:30 AM ET (US)
If I were the owner of this Whaler that already has a pair of Evinrude 120s, I would bolt on a pair of E-TEC 115 or 130s. This would require the least amount of effort because I would not have to have any transom work done to fill old holes and drill new holes going from twins to a single. I could reuse the controls and the oil tanks that are already there assuming they are still in good shape (should be considering they are out of the sun in a Whaler Drive version). The only rigging work I would need is some new wiring harnesses and some new gauges. The E-TEC 130s will use about half the amount of oil that the current Evinrude 120s use. Depending on usage one could expect to use 30 to 50 percent less fuel (same would be true with a pair of Suzuki 140s). |
| prj |
posted 05-16-2012 10:12 AM ET (US)
Those ETEC 130 HP engines have many of the same specs as the venerable 2 stroke Yamaha 130 HP: 4 cylinders and 1.7L displacement. The Yamaha has proven itself a fairly strong performer, both on my Outrage-18 in a single configuration and on forum member Plotman's Outrage-22 as a pair. I also recall that Plotman was able to get his Outrage on plane with a single engine propped for pairs, though your Whaler Drive configuration may affect this adversely. Search the forum for a report on that, perhaps some information will be helpful. |
| Perry |
posted 05-16-2012 12:58 PM ET (US)
The OP clearly stated he wants to repower with 4 stroke motors. I was wondering how long it would take before others would recommend Optimax and ETEC. |
| townes1018 |
posted 05-16-2012 01:19 PM ET (US)
Many Thanks for all the imput...three questions were asked...this boat will be used offshore.... there is a support tube that runs between current motors..I do not trailer this boat long distances...I believe I am down to either 130 etecs or suzuki 150's...I would consider the 115 suzukis but they are not counter rotating..I intend to move the batteries to the console and install a 50 gal gas tank in front of the console |
| Peter |
posted 05-16-2012 01:34 PM ET (US)
I think a Outrage 22 Whaler Drive would have poor performance with a pair of 4-stroke 115s. Except for better fuel economy, it would be a step down from the 2.0L 2-stroke 120s on their now. The time it takes to mention 2-stroke alternatives to a 4-stroke interest is exactly the same amount of time it takes to mention 4-stroke alternatives to a 2-stroke interest. The reason 2-strokes get mentioned for classic Whaler repower projects is that the 4-strokes still present a power to weight problem for older hulls designed long before 4-stroke outboards of moderate to high HP came into existence. I'll bet no boat designer at that time, including Bob Dougherty, thought that any of the outboard makers would ever offer up a 525 lb 135 HP outboard. If they did, they might have distributed the weight in their boats differently and designed their boats with optional transom ballast kits. |
| jimh |
posted 05-16-2012 01:44 PM ET (US)
townes... writes: "Many Thanks for all the [input]...three questions were asked...this boat will be used offshore....there is a support tube that runs between current motors...I do not trailer this boat long distances." Thank you for answering my three questions. I just recall that I have some experience in a 22-foot Boston Whaler boat with twin four-cycle engines. It was a REVENGE 22, but not a Whaler Drive. The engines were twin HONDA 90-HP. The boat reached plane with the twin engines without difficulty. I don't recall that it was a speed demon, nor did it give one the sense of massive power in reserve. The four-cycle engines were quiet. When they were running at speed they had a pleasant hum, much like an big electric motor were under the cowling instead of an internal combustion engine. Even without the benefit of a Whaler Drive, I do not recall that the static trim was particularly awful, although I am sure it floated lower in the stern than one might normally expect. |
| Peter |
posted 05-16-2012 03:06 PM ET (US)
The old Honda 90 was about 385 lbs with a 25-inch shaft. The 25-inch Evinrude 120s are about 370 lbs. |
| Jefecinco |
posted 05-16-2012 07:43 PM ET (US)
Is there an E-TEC 130HD [perhaps means E-TEC 130 H.O.]? Or, perhaps it was a 115HD [perhaps means E-TEC 115 H.O.] that made 130-HP. |
| Peter |
posted 05-16-2012 08:29 PM ET (US)
The 115 H.O. is the same as the 130 from what I can tell. |
| Buckda |
posted 05-16-2012 08:41 PM ET (US)
Here is a Revenge 22 with Twin 90 HP Honda outboards. This is the boat that JimH mentioned above. It is a standard transom. Photos are from 2004, and the boat belongs to a member here. The boat handled the weight pretty well - I would think you could easily put the heavier 130's on there and be in good shape. Here's the boat on plane: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Buckda/DSCN0934.jpg Side view of static/idle trim: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Buckda/DSC00109.jpg Bow view: Stern view: |
| townes1018 |
posted 05-16-2012 09:57 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the pictures. Would it be reaonable to assume that the same boat with a Whaler Drive could handle an additional 200 lbs? Thank you all for the input |
| Peter |
posted 05-16-2012 10:24 PM ET (US)
See Tom Clark's post above regarding member Alkar's Outrage 22 WD with a pair of 500-pound Honda 115. I remember distinctly the stern low static profile described by Tom indicating to me that the boat was not intended to have that kind of weight on the transom. To reiterate, the Outrage 22 Whaler Drive was designed for a pair of 150s and the heaviest 150s at the time weighed 425 lbs. A pair of 500-pound Honda 130s on a notched transom Revenge would be a bad idea. |
| L H G |
posted 05-16-2012 11:27 PM ET (US)
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the only second generation Whaler Outrage than can carry twin 150-HP 3-star engines are the 25-foot and 27-foot hulls, and even with the 25-foot some four-cycle engines can be a push. The old 22 simply does not have enough beam to carry more than twin 25-inch Three-Star two-cycle 115 or 125 or 130's. And that's assuming the manufacturer's weight representations are not lowballed in the first place, which has sometimes been determined to be the case in the past. For faster performance, a big single Three-Star is probably the best option. |
| Buckda |
posted 05-17-2012 07:22 AM ET (US)
I was speaking of twin E-Tec 130's in my post above. Of course, assuming the current motors are still operational, the Whaler Drive offers a perfect platform on which to add known quantities of weight to get an idea of static trim. Persons or even sandbags or buckets of water copuld be loaded on the drive so the total weight of current motors and ballast approximated the weight of your desired four stroke combinations. That may give you the best idea of what you'd be comfortable with. Somewhere, I have a photo of JimH's WD loaded with several passengers at the dock. I will try to locate that photo and post a link. Dave |
| L H G |
posted 05-17-2012 03:47 PM ET (US)
Further to my mention of lowballed weight disclosures by 3-star engine manufacturers, I found this statement in Bass and Walleye Boats Magazine, where they actually weighed the 20" 2-stroke 225HP DFI engines being tested. It turns out Evinrude is the biggest offender here, but ALL 3-star engines could be heavier than advertized, which also effects their application to a classic Whaler: "What about weight? As most readers well know, weight is a big concern, especially when lightweight hulls like Bullets are employed. Mercury wins this portion of the contest too; not only were they the lightest at 520 pounds, they were closest to their claimed weight of 505 pounds. Yamaha was next; they claim their VMax 225 HPDI weighs 539 pounds, and we weighed it at 584 — a difference of 45 pounds. Evinrude claims their engine weighs 509 pounds, and it tipped our scales at 564 — a difference of 55 pounds" (For reference, here is the source of the quote) http://www.bwbmag.com/output.cfm?id=1059733§ionid=309 So even a big single 2-stroke, like a 225 E-tec, in 25" shaft and SS prop, is going to weigh very close to 600#. Which brings up the issue of the Whaler Drive center support/tension bar. This can't be used with a big heavy 3-star single, even though maybe it should be considering the weight, but is definitely needed with 600 to 800# of twins. Trailering becomes an issue for the WD also with heavy engines. especially with no tension bar. I have often wondered how much the big Japanese 4-strokes are being lowballed in weight. Note that the Yamaha 225 is 64# heavier than the Optimax 225. So how heavy are Yamaha/Suzuki/Honda 4-strokes actually? People are continually having their rigs weighed on commercial scales, and finding them to be heaver than advertized or calculated. The engines are definitely part of this equation! As I first said earlier, a pair of mid-range Optimax or E-tec engines is probably the best twin 3-star engine solution for a 22' hull. And they will still put 800# on the transom/WD. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 05-17-2012 04:13 PM ET (US)
As the owner of a 22' Outrage (not a WD) that has almost 700-lbs in the stern of the boat at all times (460-lbs main, 120-lbs kicker, over 100-lbs in batteries, oil, etc), I feel this is close to the practical limit for this hull in this configuration. Waves over the stern when trolling in following seas of over 2' starts to become an issue, though this should not be a problem with a WD Model. Has anyone ever seen a 22WD with a pair of 150 two-cycle engines on the back? I doubt very many were ever ordered from the factory that way. It would probably be a 50-MPH boat in that configuration. Is the Whaler Drive of a 22-foot hull the same as the Whaler Drive of a 25-foot hull? Or, is the 25-foot version wider? If the WD's are the same, then the WD on the 22 should be able to handle the engine weight |
| townes1018 |
posted 05-17-2012 04:28 PM ET (US)
Thanks again for the help. Dave--I would be interested in seeing that picture of loaded boat. In the meanwhile I am going to take Teak Oil's advice and load additional 200-lbs and check it out. To the best of my knowledge the Whaler Drive on 25-foot and 22-foot are one and the same |
| Peter |
posted 05-17-2012 07:04 PM ET (US)
"Has anyone ever seen a 22WD with a pair of 150 2 strokes on the back?" Yes. And you can tell by how low the water line is on a single motor on a Whaler Drive that they expected the Whaler Drive to have up to about 800- to 850-lbs of outboard. They learned later with the 23 Conquest to provide a stern ballast kit for single outboard installations. |
| L H G |
posted 05-17-2012 07:29 PM ET (US)
Here is a 22 WD with twin OMC 150's. http://whalercentral.com/userphotogallery.php?photo_id=8 I would assume a pair of 115 4-strokes would be about the same weight. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-17-2012 09:00 PM ET (US)
Some more images of Outrage 22 WD's.
Another with a pair of Evinrude 150 V-6s: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/images/outrage22WD_Twins710x422.jpg http://continuouswave.com/whaler/images/outrage22WD_TwinsCU736x648.jpg |
| Buckda |
posted 05-17-2012 09:01 PM ET (US)
We have a forum member here that has a 22 Outrage WD with twin OMC 150's on the back. He also has the optional 129 gallon tank, the extra capacity is carried in the stern, behind where the standard 77 gallon tank is located, which does give his boat a low-in-the-stern trim. In the meantime, I'm still digging through some old CD-Backup discs for the photo I referenced.... |
| Peter |
posted 05-17-2012 09:44 PM ET (US)
Judging by the grill of the air intake on the cowl and the shape of the lower pans of the Evinrudes, they are not crossflow 150s. They are probably the bigger looper 200s. One other thing to consider besides weight is the height of the powerhead of the in-line 4-cylinder, 4-strokes. More particularly, the in-line 4-cylinder 4-strokes will be taller than the V4 120s. Will the motors be able to tilt high enough without interference between the front of the cowl and the transom? I think the 115s would probably be OK but will the bigger 150 4-strokes fit without interference? |
| andygere |
posted 05-18-2012 05:31 PM ET (US)
At 390 lbs., the E-TEC 130's seem like a good choice. A pair of those will provide the most power for the weight, and the effect on static trim is probably very minimal compared to the existing outboards. As others have said, rigging will be simplified, and significant rigging costs avoided. The Optis would also be a good choice, but I'd be worried that the taller cowls will prevent the motors from tilting clear of the water. Looking at the older OMC installations, I'm not sure the E-TECs will tilt clear either. A 2" setback on the Whaler Drive could remedy that, but I'm not sure how it would effect handling. Static trim would be negatively impacted, with the weight cantilevered out an additional 2 inches. |
| jimh |
posted 05-18-2012 09:29 PM ET (US)
It is hard to judge the static trim from this picture: http://whalercentral.com/showuserphoto.php?photo_id=8 The boat is an OUTRAGE CUDDY, so the cabin holds down the bow rise. This image shows an OUTRAGE with twins on a Whaler Drive: You can see the prominent bow rise. This is the same problem that Larry's WHALE LURE suffers from; the static trim has the bow a foot or more higher than the normal lines of the boat. I have a V6 E-TEC on my Whaler Drive. It is no problem to tilt the motor up and get the gear case clear of the water. On the Evinrude engines there is a tilt limit switch adjustment which has been set on my boat so the motor does not hit the transom. There is probably a bit more tilt range left to go if the limit switch had not been set to stop. With my boat's static trim, the gear case clears the water very easily. It is several inches out of the water.
|
| jimh |
posted 05-19-2012 09:30 AM ET (US)
The photograph below shows my E-TEC V6 tilted up on the Whaler Drive. The bullet of the gear case is still in the water, but there is also more room to tilt up. As I recall, the gear case will clear the water by several inches. Of course, if there were two motors on the Whaler Drive, the boat would be sitting lower in the water. That would reduce the clearance. Also, the engine mounting height will affect the outcome, too. If the engines are mounted higher, the gear case comes out of the water sooner. And if the boat's trim begins to change from the original nearly level trim to the exaggerated bow-up trim, that change in angle subtracts from the tilt angle range, and the clearance is also reduced. I suspect that on a 22-foot Whaler with Whaler Drive the clearance available for tilting up a V6 E-TEC may limit the range to the point where, on a boat with twin E-TEC engines, the bullet of the gear case may be right at or even below the waterline. Or, darn close. I never gave much thought to this when rigging my boat with a single E-TEC. If I had chosen a much taller engine, say a Mercury VERADO FOURSTROKE in-line six, the cowling would be much taller, and interference with the tilt would occur much earlier in the tilt range on a Whaler Drive. The rigging manual for the E-TEC includes detailed drawings showing the range of tilt and the clearances needed.
ASIDE: note propeller shaft well protected with grease. |
| andygere |
posted 05-19-2012 11:32 AM ET (US)
jimh, those photos showing your gearcase tilted clear are great. My thought was that the top of the cowl contact the transom or some part of the WhalerDrive and would prevent the motors from tilting high enough, but at least with a single, that's not the case. The height of the motor was something I looked at very closely before repowering my notched transom Outrage 22 Cuddy several years ago, because it has a custom railing at the aft end of the deck that many taller outboards would have contacted before tilting the gearcase free. The 2.7 L E-TEC 200 tilts clear easily before any contact with the rail. The programmable stop on the tilt mechanism is a great feature, and it allows me to tilt my outboard to the need height without ever worrying about dinging the top of the cowl. From your photos, I think that twin V4 E-TECs would be able to tilt the gearcase clear of the water, since the profile of the cowl is lower than your V6. |
| makoman310 |
posted 05-19-2012 12:02 PM ET (US)
[The author changes the focus from twin-engine installations and suggests that the solution to re-powering the 22-foot Boston Whaler boat is to] just put on a [particular 300-HP single-engine installation, and he goes on to describe in very generalized terms his experience with such an installation, but he tells us nothing about the weight, the clearance of the gear case when tilted up, the static trim of the boat, the remaining freeboard of the Whaler Drive, the fuel economy at cruise or other speeds, and the top speed]. |
| crabby |
posted 05-20-2012 12:15 PM ET (US)
I have a 1990 22 Outrage Cuddy with Whalerdrive and a single 250hp E-Tec mounted three holes up (one more left to move it up). Tilted fully the engine cowl will just touch the metal piece that holds the rub rail on the transom; the lower end clears the water with lots of room to spare. The weight of the cuddy likely helps with the clearance of the lower unit and helps keep all but about 0.25 to 0.5 inches of the motor bracket out of the water. |
| townes1018 |
posted 06-01-2012 05:30 PM ET (US)
Once again thanks to all of you for your input...I have taken Dave's advice and added 200 lbs on my whaler drive with current motors and I must admit the result was surprising to me..the change in the way that the boat sat in the water was not very noticeable..I guess that whaler drive really adds alot of support and flotation..the unknown is the trailering strain on the WD..it has the support rod and the way it is attached to the boat and the fact that I do very little trailering makes me think I may be OK..I am going to repower with twin Suzuki 150's..Anyone interested in my evinrudes very well maintained and relatively low hours(750) |
| Teak Oil |
posted 06-01-2012 05:40 PM ET (US)
I don't see how the weight will be a problem with trailering, since the same Whaler Drive is rated to handle twin 200hp engines on the 25' hull. Be sure to post some pics after your installation, and some performance numbers |
| Peter |
posted 06-01-2012 05:46 PM ET (US)
You've got a handle on the weight, but what about cowl/transom interference when tilting? |
| townes1018 |
posted 06-01-2012 05:47 PM ET (US)
Thanks I hope you are right...after reading a post on CW regarding the way they are attached I really believe I wiil be OK...I will send pictures and data |
| townes1018 |
posted 06-01-2012 06:01 PM ET (US)
The dealer selling me the motors claims he has installed several pair on WD's and they worked out fine...he is having the customers getting in touch with me to confirm..let you know |
| L H G |
posted 06-02-2012 03:07 PM ET (US)
You should test with 300-lbs on the transom, not 200-lbs. If Suzuki lists the engines at 485-lbs dry, you can bet any anmount of money that's a low ball. I'd bet you those 25" engines weigh over 500-lbs each. Than add props, gear case oil, and crankcase oil. It [is LHG allegation that] that Mercury, Evinrude and Yamaha all low ball their engine weights to varying degrees, so you can bet Suzuki does also. Take one of those monsters out of the crate and have the dealer hang it on a scale. I would put these on a 25 WD, but not a 22 Outrage with no cabin shell. When he tells you he's done several, were they 25's? Anything to make a sale these days. |
| jimh |
posted 06-03-2012 10:11 AM ET (US)
Re engine weight specifications as given by the manufacturers, I do not find any reason to doubt them. The weights are generally specified in such a way to produce the lowest possible weight, and often do not include the weight of a propeller or the weight of lubricants necessary. In the case of a four-cycle engine, if you have to add 8-quarts of lubricant, that implies adding about 2-gallons of lubricant at a weight of about 7.5-lbs-per-gallon. The crankcase oil will add 15-lbs to the "dry" weight. A steel propeller can easily weigh 10-lbs. I would not worry too much about the weight of the lubricant in the gear case. That is probably only 2-lbs at most. Weights are also usually given for the shortest shaft length. Longer shaft length models can weigh 15-lbs more. Adding a steering actuator to the outboard engine also adds weight, perhaps another 10-lbs. Accumulating all of these additional items, it is reasonable that the weight of an engine on the transom could be 55-lbs more than the weight given in the specifications. Whether or not this represents "low-balling" by the manufacturers is subject to discussion. The method used to specify engine weights is generally consistent among all the manufacturers and motivated by a desire show the lowest weight possible. |
| L H G |
posted 06-04-2012 03:55 AM ET (US)
My comments are based upon a "dry weighing" performed by Bass and Walleye Boats magazine, of Mercury, Yamaha and Evinrude 225 DFI 2-strokes. All were heavier than advertized, with Mercury the least lowballed, and Evinrude the most. I have previously posted a link to the test. Unlike Jim, I find every reason to believe outboard engine weights are lowballed. Besides this magazine test, when outboard rigs are weighed at truck scales, they ALWAYS are heavier than calculated using MFG weights of boat, engine, equipment, fuel and trailer, and the engine(s) are part of that equation. This is one of those specifications that is easy to mis-represent, since absolutley nobody ever weighs an engine to check them out. And it's not that an engine manufacturer ever mis-represents HP either! I don't care whether anybody believes the magazine on that test or not, but remebering what a 22 Outrage WD looked like with a pair of 115 Honda 4-strokes on it, I'll be anxious to see how it carries the 500# + weight of the 175 Suzukis when propped and oiled. |
| jimh |
posted 06-04-2012 07:59 AM ET (US)
I have an Evinrude engine. Evinrude says it weighs 524-lbs. I would like L H G to explain the method I should use to discover the true weight of my engine. If I am told the method is to find an out-of-print article in an out-of-business magazine, and to rely on this single measurement in preference to the manufacturer's specified weight, I will remain skeptical of the new method. The weight of these engines has been published for many years. If there were some glaring discrepancy in the weight, tbe boating community would be aware of it. As far as I can tell there is only one person who thinks Evinrude engine published weights are misrepresented and that such misrepresentation is by a greater margin than all other manufacturers. |
| L H G |
posted 06-04-2012 03:59 PM ET (US)
First of all, the boating community is clearly aware of it. Consider asking Seahorse about Evinrude E-tec weights. He knows them better than any, and with prior affiliation to the B&WB magazine. This article was written by a pro-Evinrude writer, incidentally, John Tiger Jr. For the last itme, here is the link for everyone to enjoy. http://www.bwbmag.com/output.cfm?id=1059733§ionid=309 The magazine is out of publication, but still on the web. Quoting: "What about weight? As most readers well know, weight is a big concern, especially when lightweight hulls like Bullets are employed. Mercury wins this portion of the contest too; not only were they the lightest at 520 pounds, they were closest to their claimed weight of 505 pounds. Yamaha was next; they claim their VMax 225 HPDI weighs 539 pounds, and we weighed it at 584 — a difference of 45 pounds. Evinrude claims their engine weighs 509 pounds, and it tipped our scales at 564 — a difference of 55 pounds. Remember, we weigh with everything: cowl, propeller, steering cylinder, rigging hoses/wires/cables, and any oil and fuel presently in the engine’s systems. When you include the extras, Mercury is right on the money with its claimed 505 pounds. If anything, they’re a bit heavy. Adding the extras, our figures should be approximately 25 to perhaps 30 pounds over the factory specs." So Jim's 225 E-tec, when installed on the boat really weighs an additional 55#, or #580#, which includes a 10# prop and some gearcase oil. DTS activators may add a few more pounds? So a big block Evinrude E-tec is really pushing close to 600#. A battery weight's difference from a Verado 225! |
| dgoodhue |
posted 06-04-2012 05:15 PM ET (US)
There is an assumption being made that the 2-strokes of classic era weights were 100% accurate. |
| Peter |
posted 06-04-2012 07:26 PM ET (US)
"So a big block Evinrude E-tec is really pushing close to 600#. " If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. LOL. |
| L H G |
posted 06-05-2012 12:58 AM ET (US)
Peter - Sell your bridge to John Tiger Jr, whose crew actually weighed these engines and came with a big block Evinrude E-tec weighing 55# more than advertized, which is a 10% error. Maybe they have a 10% rule on engine weights also! I keep coming up with 580# for Jim's engine. |
| Russ 13 |
posted 06-05-2012 10:49 AM ET (US)
For the best Power to weight ratio, my vote would be the E-Tec 130 or the Yamaha 130. They both probably cost less than the four stroke Suzuki's. And I would bet the overall fuel consumption would be close. The more weight you have to push through & over the water, the more fuel you have to carry & use. ... If the outboard manufacturers list their engine's weight without fluids or prop or steering, the numbers are not accurate, as all those items are required to opperate the engine. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 06-05-2012 11:26 AM ET (US)
Isn't that article that Larry keeps dragging out the one where the magazine had to later make a retraction, admitting they made errors in weighing those motors? I think the loss or credibility was part of why the magazine went bankrupt and closed their doors. |
| L H G |
posted 06-05-2012 04:00 PM ET (US)
When magazines like B&WB publish damaging false information about an engine, I would think the manufacturer would issue some kind of a statement to that effect. Evinrude's silence has been deafening. Perhaps Evinrude expert SEAHORSE could straighten this out for you guys. If he would say the weight of the engine being 55# over spec was incorrect, and that the magazine was incompetent, that would add a lot of credibility to what the Evinrude fans here are complaining about in the Article. B & WB actually weighed the engine, Tom, Jim and Peter have not. So you guys believe who you want to. I could care less. I was just trying to help the original poster make a costly mistake on weight. |
| jimh |
posted 06-05-2012 06:23 PM ET (US)
It is clear to me that the method of weighing was compromised by the inclusion of all the rigging cables. BWB says:
quote: I see their method as flawed. They probably unbolted the engine from the transom and lifted it away with a scale attached. Since the rigging cables are fixed, the more you pull up against the rigging cables, the more weight registered on the scale. With this technique BWB could make the weight read any number they wanted. If you want to challenge the published dry weight, then get a new engine right off the delivery truck from Evinrude, remove it from the pallet, and put it on a scale. Send me a picture of the scale reading. |
| L H G |
posted 06-05-2012 07:01 PM ET (US)
Not likely a test like this was rigged against Evinrude when the author is an admitted Evinrude fan. As I indicated, SEAHORSE would know how this was done, but I don't know of any large outboard that can be weighed with the cowl on. So it was done some other way. Since they furnished identical boats, maybe they simply weighed the boat/rig before the engine went on, and then after it went on, or vice versa. That would be easy with a nearby truck scale, or those mobile scales like the cops use. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 06-05-2012 09:00 PM ET (US)
I think Evinrude's silence can be attributed to their lack of concern for a trivial point written in a discredited and defunct magazine. It seems the only person on Earth who does care about that article is you Larry. You keep dragging it out again and again and again. I gotta hand it to you though; you have turned the discussion from the topic of repowering an Outrage 22 WD with Suzukis to Evinrude bashing, perhaps your greatest talent. But the irony you bring to this discussion is not quite over:
quote: Yes, you are also very talented at making mistakes. |
| L H G |
posted 06-05-2012 09:36 PM ET (US)
You guys would have made excellent ancient Greeks. I had nothing to do with the weighing of those DFI's. Good sources of comparison testing of competing outboard brands has now gotten almost impossible to find. There is little consumer testing information these days. This article was one of the last ones done. And the losing manufacturers hated them nad refused to advertize in those magazines. I eagerly await the photos of Townes Outrage with the twin 175 Suzukis, since I'm sure you guys have now convinced him that he can trust Suzuki's published weight and that Bass and Walleye Boat Magazine was the work of incompetents. |
| Peter |
posted 06-06-2012 07:04 AM ET (US)
"I eagerly await the photos of Townes Outrage with the twin 175 Suzukis..." You may be waiting a very long time because Townes informed us that he's repowering with Suzuki 150s. |
| L H G |
posted 06-06-2012 04:48 PM ET (US)
OK Peter Nice nitpicking. They are the identical engine, and because of that, most go with the 175 HP version. A friend has a pair of 175's a bracketed 30' Contender, and even on that boat they look HUGE. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 06-06-2012 09:42 PM ET (US)
Mobile scales and truck scales are only calibrated to the nearest 20 lbs, so it would not provide the accuracy you guys are after. JD Power or Consumer reports are about the only places that I can think of that MAY give objective weights. |
| kwik_wurk |
posted 06-09-2012 02:16 AM ET (US)
Whew I would buy number9's verado and be done with it. For $11.5k can't really go wrong. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 06-12-2012 10:13 PM ET (US)
Funny enough there is one for sale right now in our local area. It looks real nice as well from what I can see. It has the old twin two strokes how about that. The boat looks proportioned to my eyes. Thoughts? Martyn |
| martyn1075 |
posted 06-12-2012 10:40 PM ET (US)
Also I have seen with my own two eyes a 22 Revenge WD with twin 150 Verados average lets say 515 each maybe 35lbs each more than the twin 150 suzuki models in discussion and it was extremely over weighted. I have nothing against the engine but this drive was nearly submerged at idol with two guest on board and a driver. I personally love the twin settup but on a 22WD narrow beam I think I would prefer one big engine and a kicker for fishing and emergencies. The new V6 Yamaha has the 225-250-300 all weighing in at 585! add a kicker and you are is in business. This is a only an opinion and if the twins are the answer for townes1018 thats great as well. I would be a bit weary of weight as some have mentioned. Martyn |
| |
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.
