ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Outrage 22 Whaler Drive, Honda BF250
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Outrage 22 Whaler Drive, Honda BF250
|
| Author | Topic: Outrage 22 Whaler Drive, Honda BF250 |
| Aubie72 |
posted 08-19-2012 08:20 AM ET (US)  
Tom Clark hope you or others can give me some advice. I'm re-powering a 1991 Outrage 22Whaler Drive with a Honda BF250. The boat has a T-Top and no bottom paint. Previous engine was a Johnson 225 Oceanpro. I ran a Mercury OFFSHORE propeller (17P) on the 225 Johnson which performed reasonably well. As I recall WOT was 40 mph at 5500 to 5600 RPM. I didn't run the boat much at WOT so those numbers are from memory and are close but may not exact. The dealer I'm purchasing the Honda from doesn't stock many propellers, they sell mostly prerigged boats and lower horsepower motors for re-power. They will order a propeller for me at cost but it's mine if it doesn't perform. I plan to order a new hub kit and try the OFFSHORE 17P propeller but I'm not optimistic that it will perform properly on the Honda. I've read some posts here or on The Hull Truth that the BF250 has a large gear case and performs best with larger diameter props. I should have stated earlier that I run mostly in the bays and some offshore in the Gulf of Mexico with moderate loads. If the Mercury OFFSHORE doesn't perform well what are your recommendations on a propeller? |
| tmann45 |
posted 08-19-2012 09:15 AM ET (US)
I would suggest that you get the hub kit and run your OFFSHORE 17 to get some kind of numbers for the propeller king Tom Clark to base his recommendation on. I would not buy one from the dealer until you know exactly what you want. That Honda should be a great engine, let us know how it performs. |
| Perry |
posted 08-19-2012 11:57 AM ET (US)
I figure the BF250 can push an Outrage 22 close to 50 MPH. It has a 2:1 gear ratio and a max RPM of 6300 so the propeller calculator suggests an 18" pitch prop. Since most props perform differently, it's hard to say exactly which propeller is best for your application but a 17" pitch propeller may be a good place to start since you already own one.. You may end up with a 19" pitch prop. Make sure you have the dealer install the motor at least 2 holes up and try a couple good stainless props before you make your purchase. Good luck, I think the BF250 will perform nicely on your Outrage 22. |
| Perry |
posted 08-19-2012 12:01 PM ET (US)
Oops, didn't see that your boat has a Whaler Drive so top speed probably will not be as high as I predicted but a 17" pitch propeller would still be a good place to start. I'm sure Tom Clark will chime in with some good advice. |
| Peter |
posted 08-19-2012 08:40 PM ET (US)
If the top speed was 40 mph, the Honda 250 will probably achieve no faster than 43-44 mph. 17 inch pitch is the place to start. A Mercury Revolution 4 might be worth trying. I would not be surprised if it ended up with a 15 inch pitch given the high redline. |
| jimh |
posted 08-20-2012 08:26 AM ET (US)
On my Revenge 22 W-T Whaler Drive, an E-TEC 250 H.O. pushed the boat to 46.5-MPH with a 17-pitch REBEL three-blade. The E-TEC was a high-output model, so perhaps it has a bit more than just 250-HP. http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html An Outrage 22 Whaler Drive should be a few hundred pounds lighter. With 250-HP the speed potential should be similar. I'd start with 17-pitch. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 08-20-2012 12:52 PM ET (US)
The 14" x 17" Mercury OFFSHORE wil work on the BF250 and yield the desired RPM but the motor will not be able to be mounted as high as it can with other propellers; the OFFSHORE (VenSura) needs to remain fully submerged or will loose all grip. If you are fine with moving the motor up a set of bolt holes later, go ahead and try the OFFSHORE. I think the Mercury MIRAGEplus, Enertia or BRP Rebel might be a better fit though. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 08-20-2012 02:05 PM ET (US)
Everyone, Thanks for your input. I've ordered a hub kit for the Mercury OFFSHORE propeller and will give it a try. I'll have the installer mount the engine in the second set of holes per Tom's recommendation to keep the Mercury OFFSHORE propeller submerged. I'll repart back on perofrmance when I get the motor installed and some breakin time, probably a few weeks as the motor isn't due in until late next week. |
| jimh |
posted 08-20-2012 09:48 PM ET (US)
I am not sure what you mean by the mounting height as measured by "the second set of holes" and I don't see where that was recommended by Tom or anyone else. Engine mounting height is measured from the lowest position in units of holes or 0.75-inch up from there. Do you mean you are going to mount the engine one-hole up? |
| Aubie72 |
posted 08-20-2012 10:15 PM ET (US)
Jim, You're correct, one hole up which is where my 225 Johnson was mounted. The should put the cavitation plate slightly above the bottom of the Whaler Drive. |
| jimh |
posted 08-20-2012 10:22 PM ET (US)
One-hole up on a Whaler Drive will probably not get the anti-ventilation plate out of the water flow on plane, but I think it is a good starting point. As Tom mentions, different propellers react differently to mounting height. Some will tolerate higher mounting than others. I am running my engine at one-hole-up on the Whaler Drive. I looks like I could go higher, but when I am in rough seas I have to wonder if the propeller would be as well behaved if it were mounted higher. We were just running in some big seas with a lot of foam and white water, and I was very glad the propeller was staying hooked-up. We never had a blow out. Maybe another 0.75-inch higher and I could get another 1-MPH top speed, but at what cost in rough weather? I made some measurements of the position of the A-V Plate relative to the hull bottom and illustrated them in http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/propellerWDSingle.html The illustration shows the mounting at the lowest position. There the A-V Plate is 2.5-inch above the keel. At one-hole-up it will be 3.25-inch above the keel, and at two-holes-up it will be 4-inches above the keel. |
| tmann45 |
posted 08-21-2012 09:47 AM ET (US)
Jim, is your Whaler Drive skimming the surface or completely out of the water when at normal cruising speed? |
| jimh |
posted 08-21-2012 12:42 PM ET (US)
I don't really know the relationship of the bottom of the Whaler Drive to the water surface when we are running on plane. I would like to fasten a GoPro camera back there and record it. From what I can see it looks like the bottom of the Whaler Drive is in contact with the surface, but I don't know how much water it is displacing. I guess a method to discover this would be to mark the water line of the Whaler Drive at rest, then mark it (in some manner) while on plane. If the waterline drops when on plane, then the Whaler Drive is running out of the water, at least some part of it. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-08-2012 10:57 AM ET (US)
This is a followup on repower of my 22 Outrage Whaler Drive with a new Honda BF 250. I finally got the engine mounted and everything hooked up this week. The motor now has 3 hours and finally enough time to get some performance numbers. As a reminder, the boat has a T-top and no bottom paint. At Tom's advice I mounted the Honda one hole up. I'm running a Mercury OFFSHORE 4 blade 17P prop. This is the same propeller that I ran on the Johnson 225 that I replaced. Testing was done with one person and 40 gallons of fuel, salt water with a slight chop. Air temperature was 83 degrees. First impressions of the BF250 are that it's very smooth at all RPMs, a little louder than I expected at just off idle (1000 to 1200 RPMs). I think I'm hearing the alternator whine. Best cruise, where the motor seems to be the happiest, is around 4000 RPM. Very strong hole shot. I can't tell any difference between the BF250 and my old Johnson 225 2 stroke regarding getting on plane. Boat seems to cruise with the bow a little higher than with the old Johnson 225. Speed was measured with a Garmin GPS. Fuel flow with the Honda digital gauge. Here's the numbers: RPM MPH GPH Tom, what do you think about the performance of the Mercury OFFSHORE propeller? [Although Aubie asks only Tom to comment about the performance, I think it ought to be fine if any reader comments. This is a public discussion so it seems a bit awkward to only invite one person to comment--jimh] I'd like to have a little higher cruise speed at 3,600 to 3,800-RPM and I know I need to raise the motor up one hole. If I raise the motor my engine speed at WOT will probably increase to over 6,400-RPM. What changes do you think I would get by going to a 17P MIRAGEplus? Thanks in advance to everyone for your help and advice. Regards, |
| jimh |
posted 09-08-2012 12:56 PM ET (US)
When the HONDA BF250 is running at full-throttle the fuel flow is 21.2-GPH. If the horsepower is assumed to be 250-HP, we can compute the brake specific fuel consumption of the Honda BF250 to be 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 21.2-gallon/1-hour x 1/250-HP = 0.53-lbs/HP-hour That value for BSFC is higher than I thought it would be for a four-cycle engine known for its really good fuel economy. I guess when the throttle is wide open the Honda really needs a lot of fuel to make the horsepower, just as most engines will need, too. The data from a boat speed of around 27-MPH is of interest. I have found that a boat speed of 27-MPH on my Boston Whaler 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive--a REVENGE model--tends to produce the best fuel economy. From the data given we have 26.9-MPH and this calculates to a fuel economy of 3.7-MPH, which is really terrific in my opinion for this hull. A figure of 3.7-MPG is significantly better fuel economy than I can get on my boat, motor, and propeller combination, and I have tested many propellers trying to optimize the performance. |
| Perry |
posted 09-08-2012 01:19 PM ET (US)
You might want to consider raising your motor another bolt hole and trying a 17 or 18" pitch Enertia prop to keep your max RPM under 6300. Although your Whaler is not the same as mine, I have tried many different props including the MIRAGEplus and found the Enertia to provide the best combination of performance and fuel economy. I agree with Jim, 3.7 MPG at cruise is very good fuel economy for your set-up. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-08-2012 02:00 PM ET (US)
5 gallons per hour at 22.6 MPH is 4.5 MPG. That is what I find most remarkable. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-08-2012 02:04 PM ET (US)
You motor is already exceeding its redline with the 17" Offshore. A 17" MIRAGEplus will bring the WOT engine speed down where it ought to be, improve fuel economy and top speed as well as provide better handling. It may well bring the bow down as well. I agree the 18" Enertia would be good to try as well as a 17" Revolution 4. We can speculate about what prop might be *best* but I suspect you are the first person to ever repower an Outrage 22 WD with a Honda BF250, so the debate will be academic. Try what propellers you can borrow and tell us how they do. |
| Perry |
posted 09-08-2012 03:19 PM ET (US)
An interesting figure to examine is the propeller slip of almost 16%. I have litte knowledge of the OFFSHORE prop but I'm sure the slip shouldn't be that high. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-08-2012 04:11 PM ET (US)
The Offshore?VenSura, though a four blade prop, has a small diameter and very small blades. 16 percent slip on a boat as large as this powered by a single 250 HP outboard is pretty much exactly what I would expect of it. All models of propeller have different behaviors and characteristics and higher slip is typical of the Offshore/VenSura. I should hasten to add that high slip does not mean it is not performing well. Low slip is not a goal in, and of, itself. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-08-2012 04:11 PM ET (US)
Everyone, I agree that I need more prop and I suspected that my slip might be high. The BF250 has a large gear case and I believe a large diameter propeller such as the Mirage Plus might work better. I've read that the Mirage props tend to be understated relative to pitch so a 17P probably performs more like an 18 or 19 pitch prop. I'd like to drop the WOT RPM by about 200 to 300 and also improve cruise speed some. Judging by what Tom and others have said, the Mirage Plus 17P is probably my best bet. That said, does anyone have a 17P Mirage Plus that they would either sell or loan? Thanks again for all the input. What a great site and membership. Aubie72 |
| Perry |
posted 09-08-2012 04:35 PM ET (US)
quote: That explains the high slip figure.
quote: There is nothing wrong with propping your motor to be at or near the Max RPM (in your case 6300). It is often recommended to do so, depending on what kind of outboard you have. What do you mean by "improving your cruise speed?" Is your goal to lower your RPM at cruise speed to improve fuel economy? |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-08-2012 04:52 PM ET (US)
Perry, I'd like to be running closer to 30 mph at 4000 RPMs. Currently I'm running 27 mph at 4000. I know that I need to raise my motor one hole which will further increase RPMs at wide open throttle. If I pick up 100 RPMs by raising the motor one hole my wide open throttle RPMs will be above 6400 which is a little high even when lightly loaded. Aubie72 |
| Perry |
posted 09-08-2012 05:07 PM ET (US)
Aubie72, your motor may seem to be "happiest" at 4000 RPM but a good way to judge cruise speed is the speed in which your boat rides the best in the conditions you boat in most. Another factor is fuel economy. Many people like to cruise at a speed which offers the best fuel economy. With these factors in mind, Tom made a good point saying "All models of propellers have different behaviors and characteristics" which means if you raise your motor one hole your current 17" pitch OFFSHORE prop will gain RPM but that will not necessarily be true for another model 17" pitch prop. So you will need to try different props to find the one which suits your needs the best. |
| jimh |
posted 09-08-2012 05:14 PM ET (US)
Perhaps the reason the OFFSHORE propeller has such high slip is it's using a lot of its thrust to create stern lift instead of creating forward thrust to move the boat. Anytime a Mercury OFFSHORE is mentioned we usually get a recitation about its stern lift. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-10-2012 10:41 AM ET (US)
I presume Jim is being facetious. For those who may not already know, the Offshore (aka VenSura) model of propeller is know for BOW lift, not Stern lift and again, it won't do much of either if it is not fully submerged. |
| jimh |
posted 09-11-2012 09:55 AM ET (US)
Tom--no, I was not being facetious. I could have sworn that there have been repeated comments about the great stern lift of the OFFSHORE or VENSURA model. Maybe I am confused. Thanks for the correction. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 09-13-2012 11:18 AM ET (US)
"jimh: and this calculates to a fuel economy of 3.7-MPH, which is really terrific in my opinion for this hull. A figure of 3.7-MPG is significantly better fuel economy than I can get on my boat, motor, and propeller combination, and I have tested many propellers trying to optimize the performance." The 22 Outrage Whaler drive must be significantly more weight than the 22 Outrage? On the standard transom Outrage 22, the Mercury 150 455# vs. Honda 250 613# adds 150#. 100 HP for another 150# seems a good trade off but the boat speed is not significantly different, 40 mph vs. 42 mph at top end and but the cruise efficiency seems significantly less, 30 mph/4.4mpg/4000 RPM for standard Outrage vs. the 30 mph/3.7mpg/4500 RPM. You would think that 250 would produce higher speeds at the higher RPM's or greater efficiency and speed at equal RPM's. Is the Whaler Drive adding 500#? |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-13-2012 12:01 PM ET (US)
The performance numbers posted for the Honda BF250 on my 22 outrage WD were with a Mercury Offshore 17P prop and the motor mounted one hole up. This prop is not the optimum for my boat and motor combination as it allows the motor to exceed th maxumum RPMs and exibits significant slip. At Tom Clark's suggestion, I have a Mercury Mirage 17P prop on the way and plan to test it in the next week or so. I expect the new prop to improve top speed, bring the WOT RPMs down slightly and also to improve cruise efficiency. If the new prop performs well,my next step will be to raise the motor to two holes up(it's currently set at one hole up). I'll post new performance numbers when I get them |
| Perry |
posted 09-13-2012 01:13 PM ET (US)
To take full advantage of the MIRAGEplus I'd raise the motor before installing the new prop. |
| jimh |
posted 09-13-2012 01:55 PM ET (US)
I knew I had read reports of the OFFSHORE or VENSURA propeller delivering stern lift. Here are a few recitations along that line: L H G writes in http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007721.html
quote: but then in another article at http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006546.html says
quote:
quote: and also in http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006126.html
quote: |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-13-2012 03:18 PM ET (US)
Perry,I agree with you that I will need to raise the motor to take advantage of the Mirage Plus but I want to take it a step at the time and not change more than one variable. I'm curious as to what I will gain from the Mirage Plus compared to the Offshore without changing motor height. Once I get that data I plan to raise the motor. |
| Peter |
posted 09-13-2012 05:00 PM ET (US)
I think that is a good idea not to raise the motor before comparing the propellers. When testing and comparing the propellers, you should observe how the boat rides with both propellers in a considerable chop. One thing I observed with the MIRAGEplus on my boats (Whaler 27 WD and Outrage 18) is that it provided good fuel in economy in calm conditions but the ride in a chop was uncomfortable. Regarding getting the goal of 30-MPH at 4,000-RPM, I think that may be difficult to achieve with a 2:1 gear ratio unless you put a 19-inch-pitch propeller on the shaft. |
| Perry |
posted 09-14-2012 03:17 AM ET (US)
I didn't realize you were comparing the OFFSORE to the MIRAGEplus. I thought you were experimenting with the OFFSHORE because you already owned it. Wasn't your goal to determine the correct pitch then buy a more approprite prop like a MIRAGEplus or INERTIA? The MIRAGEplus was designed to run closer to the surface, why not put it there? Good luck with your prop testing, I look forward to your next report. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-14-2012 11:22 AM ET (US)
I also think it is a good idea to try the new propeller without changing the motor height. Whenever you are experimenting, it is important to only make one change at a time that way you know the cause of the improvement. I also agree that the propeller should be tested in various conditions to get a full sense of how it will perform. I think that you will find the MIRAGE[i[]plus[/i] performs very well in choppy conditions. I was using my own MIRAGEplus equipped Whaler yesterday morning in very sloppy and choppy conditions here on Puget Sound (fresh North wind against and an outgoing tide) and the propellers performed wonderfully holding their grip at all speeds and trim angles and offering a smooth ride. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-15-2012 01:23 PM ET (US)
I predict that Aubie72 will report he hits a new top speed of 44.5 MPH and 6050 RPM at WOT with his new 17" MIRAGEplus, if he test it under the same condition as the Offshore. After raising the motor one more bolt hole, I predict he will hit 6200 RPM and 45.5 MPH. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-15-2012 02:16 PM ET (US)
Everyone, I installed the 17P Mirage Plus this morning and ran the boat. Conditions were almost identical to last week's conditions; 80 degrees, approximately 40 gallons of fuel and one person. Motor height was still one hole up. Here's some subjective observations on performance prior to posting the numbers. Boat seemed to ride higher in the water and the bow was definitely lower than with the offshore prop. Hole shot was about the same. It was windy (approx 15 mph)with a slight chop on the bay so numbers are an average of two runs with and against the wind. Here's the numbers; Tom, you were right on your predictions. The boat performed better in all conditions. I could trim about as much as I wanted with little to no cavitation. I'm particularly pleased with the cruise speed at 4000 RPM. The motor definitely needs to go up one more hole. I'll be out of town the next 2 weekends so I"ll post more numbers when I raise the motor. Aubie72 |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-16-2012 12:14 PM ET (US)
Your boat is faster that I thought. I am sorry my prediction was not more accurate. I was off by 70 RPM and .6 MPH. I amend my prediction of your boat's performance after raising the motor one more hole to 6250 RPM and 46 MPH at WOT, pretty damn good. While I would discourage you form running out and buy them, if you do get a chance to borrow and test an 18" Enertia or a 17" Revolution 4, you should do so. You never know. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-16-2012 12:36 PM ET (US)
quote: Like I said, the Offshore (VenSura) is know as a bow-lifting propeller, not a stern-lifting propeller. The large diameter (and hence large blade area) and relatively low rake of the MIRAGEplus's blades help it provide good stern-lift. The Mercury Revolution 4, even though it has a relatively small diameter at only 14-5/8" and also has high rake blades, will make the boat ride higher as well. That is because, unlike the four blade Offshore (VenSura), it has a tremendous amount of blade area packed into a small package. Your experience is identical to my impressions when I first tried the Mercury MIRAGE propellers on my own 25 foot Whaler; the whole boat just seemed to run higher out the water and the ride was much improved. There is a very good reason the Mercury MIRAGEplus continues to be the best selling large outboard propeller in the world and has been for a very long time. It simply performs very well and does so on an amazingly broad variety of boats, being manufactured in pitches from 13" to 29", a range far larger than any other outboard propeller model ever made. |
| Perry |
posted 09-17-2012 12:24 AM ET (US)
Fuel economy improved to 4.6 MPG at 25 MPH, very nice. I am impressed with a top speed over 45 MPH with the Honda and if Tom's predictions are correct after raising the motor, 46 MPH on an Outrage 22 WD with a BF250 4 stroke will be excellent. |
| littleblue |
posted 09-17-2012 02:45 AM ET (US)
4.6 MPG. That is VERY impressive. Congratulations on the new motor. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-17-2012 09:58 PM ET (US)
4.6 MPH is literally twice the very best fuel mileage I can get on my Revenge 25. I would love to repower with a single 250 HP outboard. The Honda BF250 has definitely got my attention now. |
| jimh |
posted 09-17-2012 11:09 PM ET (US)
The MPG figure of 4.6-MPG is too good. Something has to be amiss. I need some independent confirmation of this calculation. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 09-18-2012 12:31 AM ET (US)
Same with mine and I thought I was doing alright! My best is 2.6-2.8mpg 3500rpm at 23-24 I can go faster at 28-30 4000 rpm but now Im at 2.1-2.4 mpg average and burn slightly more oil as well. The same boat at our marina is powered with two of these new 200 Hondas I should see if I can find out what they burn together. The impression I get is that it doesn't really matter to him but Im sure he is dong just fine, btw he really enjoys them. Like a sowing machine at idle and apparently ample power. Martyn |
| jimh |
posted 09-18-2012 08:25 AM ET (US)
Kevin's 23-foot PURSUIT with a Yamaha 250-HP four-cycle engine is somewhat of a comparable boat. It's not the exact equivalent of a 22-foot Boston Whaler with Whaler Drive, but it is in the ball park. The 250-HP Yamaha can only deliver an absolute best MPG of roughly 3-MPG at 25-MPH on that boat. In contrast, the HONDA is providing 1.5-times better fuel economy--can this be possible? I don't think the HONDA four-cycle engine can be operating 1.5-times more efficiently than the Yamaha four-cycle engine. We have some experience with Whaler Drive hulls that indicates they tend to be slower and harder to push than hulls without a Whaler Drive, so assigning the improvement in fuel efficiency to the hull is hard to justify. I looked at two performance reports on the Honda Marine website for the BF250, and I was, again, very surprised to see that on two boats the BF250 was delivering extraordinarily good fuel economy around 25-MPH boat speed. http://marine.honda.com/pdf/props/ BF250%20Hurricane%20231%20Solas%203%20Blade.pdf What is even more unusual about the BF250 performance (as shown in the above tests) is the fuel economy on plane is better than the fuel economy at displacement speeds. In one instance the engine delivers 4.5-MPG at 6.6-MPH displacement speed, and an amazing 5.3-MPG at a slow plane of 20.5-MPH. I do not recall seeing results like this for any boat-engine combination with a four-cycle engine. Here is a performance report for a Yamaha F250XCA on a 23-foot boat with an engine bracket. The Yamaha F250XCA can only deliver a best fuel economy on plane of 2.7-MPG. How does the Honda 250-HP four-cycle engine run so much more efficiently than the Yamaha 250-HP engine? |
| Aubie72 |
posted 09-18-2012 08:59 AM ET (US)
The numbers that I posted for fuel burn and speed were from a Garmin 2206 GPS and the Honda digital speedometer which I understand reads fuel burn directly from the engine computer. I can't vouch for accuracy but I would think that the GPS is right on. I guess that fuel burn from the engine could be inaccurate but I wouldn't think that it would be off significantly. Regardless, I'm really not concerned whether the engine gets 4.6 or 4.0 at 22 mph because I almost never operate it at that RPM. Overall, I'm very please with the perofrmance of the Honda 250 and with Tom Clark and other's help I have it set up almost perfectly for my use. I just need to raise the engine one more hole. I would be interested in comparitive data from other setups with newer Honda V6 engines. Regards, |
| jimh |
posted 09-18-2012 09:20 AM ET (US)
Aubie--Thanks for the details on the data you report. Your data is congruent with the data on the Honda performance bulletins for the BF250. All that is left to understand is how Honda is accomplishing this amazing fuel economy improvement. They have left four-cycle engine maker Yamaha in their wake, along with two-cycle engine maker Evinrude, and perhaps many others. If I could get 4.5-MPH from my 22-foot Boston Whaler hull with Whaler Drive I would be elated. |
| Peter |
posted 09-18-2012 09:56 AM ET (US)
4.6 MPG seems almost too good to be true. Almost 1.5x better than what I would expect. But it appears to be in line with other data. Compare this Honda report marine.honda.com/pdf/props/ BF250%20Sea%20Chaser%20250%20LX%20Solas%203%20Blade.pdf with this Yamaha report for the same model boat Yamaha reports 3.24 MPG at 23 MPH. Honda's reports MPG in the 20 to 25 MPH range of 4.9 to 5.3 MPG (about 1.5X better). The Yamaha F225 is not known to be a fuel hog. At 29 MPH, the Honda gets 4 MPG while the Yamaha only manages 3 MPG (1.3X better). These kinds of increases are of the same order of magnitude as one would expect a 4-stroke to have over a carb'd 2-stroke. Honda may very well have a miracle motor here. |
| Perry |
posted 09-18-2012 01:21 PM ET (US)
Hondas have been known for their quiet operation, reliability and good fuel economy. On the other hand, they have also been known to lack the performance of their competition. This new BF250 though seems to have closed the gap in the performance department. The top speed of Aubie72's Outrage 22 WD with the BF250 is proof of that. |
| Peter |
posted 09-18-2012 01:38 PM ET (US)
I don't think Hondas are generally known to lack performance of their competition. Top speed is just one component of performance. Load carrying in the mid-range is yet another. While the 3.6L Honda 250 might produce the same top speed as a 4.2L Yamaha 250, I doubt that it would win a "drag race" against the Yamaha. It just doesn't have the displacement. Certain models may be lacking certain performance simply because they don't have the displacment (or equivalent displacement) that their competition has. But you can probably find examples of that with all the makes. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 09-19-2012 02:39 AM ET (US)
I haven't heard of any negative press on the big models other than they are quite large and to my knowledge they haven't really addressed the weight (yet) in comparison to lets say the new Yamaha V6 225-300 engines. I have always had a bit of a crush on the silver aliens. Ever since we owned a 50hp four stroke they have been on the top of my dream list for re-power. The 50 was amazing on fuel and real easy motor to maintain. I don't see why the larger ones would be too much different other that the cost and weight. Martyn |
| martyn1075 |
posted 09-19-2012 03:05 AM ET (US)
This video doesn't go into huge depth but does show off some of its key features on what sets it apart from the other BF models such as the 200 and 225. Perhaps there is something here that gives this new model an distinct edge on fuel economy. Someone did a nice job on the video production. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u1E87-FLcY Martyn |
| jimh |
posted 09-19-2012 08:51 AM ET (US)
Peter--Thank you for the link to the head-to-head comparison performance reports of the Honda BF250 and the Yamaha F250XCA on the same boat which show the Honda BF250 to achieve significantly better fuel economy in the cruising speed range. Martyn--Thank you for the link to the video presentation on the Honda BF250. The presentation showcased the engine features. I believe I initiated discussion of the new Honda BF250 about a year ago when I wrote this article: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/020853.html I found it interesting to re-read the article and the many follow-on comments about the engine. At the time, I do not think anyone was anticipating that the Honda BF250 would be able to produce such a substantial improvement in fuel efficiency compared to competitors' outboard engines. I suppose it is typical of the Japanese culture to be so modest and reserved in their promotion of their product. We have seen some American outboard engine manufacturers make the most extravagant claims about the most modest of improvements in their products, yet here is Honda, producing an engine which appears to offer astonishingly better fuel economy, and they hardly even draw attention to it in their literature. As far as I can tell at the present, the BF250 engine has a closed-loop engine control system with an exhaust gas sensor. The exhaust gas sensor is used to provide feedback to the fuel-air control system so that the fuel-air mixture can be adjusted, with the goal of keeping the fuel-air mixture as lean as possible in order to optimize engine fuel efficiency. In outboard engines we have seen that use of an exhaust gas sensor has been difficult to engineer because of the water cooled exhaust system that is almost universal in outboard engines. I believe that Honda has overcome these problems and has a closed-loop fuel control system. This is likely to be an underlying component of the improved fuel economy seen in the BF250. |
| tmann45 |
posted 09-19-2012 09:23 AM ET (US)
Uh, Houston, we have a problem. The Yamaha motor linked above is the old F225TXR, not the new F250XCA. |
| jimh |
posted 09-19-2012 09:30 AM ET (US)
Good catch, but, in any case, we have the new Honda beating the pants off a competitor's four-cycle engine in fuel economy. An improved MPG by 1.5-times is a very substantial improvement. The fuel economy of these silver aliens is truly out of this world. |
| Peter |
posted 09-19-2012 09:55 AM ET (US)
Using Honda's performance reports, I did a quick comparison of fuel burn rate throughout the operating range between the Honda BF225 and the BF250. In the mid-range (approximately 2500 to 4500), the BF250 burns substantially less fuel than the BF225. That is not an exact 1 to 1 comparison because the operating range for the BF250 is wider and so it will likely spin a little faster in the mid-range than the BF225 to go the same speed on the same boat, everything else being equal. |
| jimh |
posted 09-19-2012 08:42 PM ET (US)
The Honda BF250 does seem to show a peak in fuel efficiency in a rather narrow band at mid-range engine speeds associated with low cruising speeds. The most reasonable inference is the fuel-air mixture at that operating mode is being pushed to the limit of lean. If that's not it, then whatever Honda has found to improve fuel economy is still very impressive. Once the word gets out on the amazing fuel economy from the Honda BF250 I expect the engine will become very popular. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 09-20-2012 10:05 AM ET (US)
The Honda BF250 producing its bets fuel economy at slower speeds is very attractive to me. My 25 foot boat gets a not-terrible fuel mileage of 2.3 MPG with its old two stroke outboards but I have to drive the boat at around 35 MPH (4200 RPM) to achieve the economy. That is fine in smooth water but when it gets choppy the ride is rough and I tend to maintain speed for the sake of fuel economy into choppier conditions that I would otherwise like to. On those occasions when I just have to slow down, I am struck by how smooth riding and comfortable my Revenge 25 is at 22-25 MPH. Being able to offer this smooth ride AND achieve very good fuel economy would be very, very nice. It may well be that the Honda BF250 is especially well suited to 25 foot Whalers. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 09-20-2012 07:18 PM ET (US)
In the video, it demonstrates an advantage to twin setup with the new BF250. Kind of missed the point what advantage do they offer at 26 inches apart? Martyn |
| jimh |
posted 09-22-2012 09:04 AM ET (US)
The standard two-cycle twin engine mounting distance is 26-inches apart. See http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/twinEngineMounting.html By making a four-cycle engine that can be mounted as twin engines on a 26-inch separation, Honda has made the BF250 a bolt-on replacement engine for many existing two-cycle twin engine boats. |
| Peter |
posted 09-22-2012 10:33 AM ET (US)
There is a theory that the closer the twin engines are spaced together, the more efficient the boat runs. |
| acseatsri |
posted 10-10-2012 07:49 PM ET (US)
I'm just curious if you've raised the motor yet to post more numbers. The sensational fuel mileage has piqued my interest, as this would easily get me canyon range. Anyone wanna buy a 2006 225 ETEC with 950 flawless hours? |
| Aubie72 |
posted 10-11-2012 10:48 AM ET (US)
I haven't raised it yet. Been out of town the past two weekends. I may wait until I get 20 hours on the motor (I have 12 hours now) and let the dealer raise it when he does the 20 hour check. I'll post numbers as soon as I raise it. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 10-15-2012 03:29 PM ET (US)
I finally got a chance to take a photo of my Outrage with the new Honda BF250. [Made the linked image an in-line image at reduced size; click image for a larger image--jimh] |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2012 09:10 PM ET (US)
That is a fine boat. A classic 25-foot Boston Whaler hull with a Whaler Drive must ride like a dream. And with your quiet, efficient, reliable HONDA four-cycle engine, the boat must be a wonderfully nice combination of classic hull and modern outboard engine. |
| DeeVee |
posted 10-15-2012 09:23 PM ET (US)
Aubie, Your boat looks great. I would like to see more pictures of it if you have any posted anywhere. The Super Console looks nice with the t-top on your 22. Doug Vazquez |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 10-15-2012 09:29 PM ET (US)
Jim -- Aubie72 has a 22 foot Outrage Whaler Drive, not a 25 foot Outrage Whaler Drive. I know this because I not only read the title of the thread as well as reading the thread of comments itself, but also because the photograph demonstrates it. |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2012 09:37 PM ET (US)
Aubie--22-foot or 25-foot, great looking boat. I had actually completely forgotten your boat was a Whaler Drive model. The fuel economy numbers from the HONDA are so good that I neglected to associate them with a Whaler Drive boat. Some have written that boats with Whaler Drive are not efficient, that the Whaler Drive has too much drag, and that the Whaler Drive robs the hull of speed. If, for the moment, we assume those claims to be true, then the achievement of your Honda and its fuel economy is even more impressive. ASIDE to Tom: please explain what visual cues in the picture identify the hull as a 22-foot not a 25-foot. Thank you. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 10-15-2012 09:48 PM ET (US)
Jim - Good question. The overall length in proportion to the height of the console as well as the placement of the console along that length are strong clues but the giveaway is the lack the stern quarter storage areas used to house the batteries and other accessories. The full width teak "beam" demonstrates that those are lacking. I also speculate that this boat has the 129 gallon Extra Fuel Capacity Tank offered as an option on the classic 22 footers based on how she floats. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 10-16-2012 08:51 AM ET (US)
Everyone, My boat is a 1991 22 Outrage with Whalerdrive. It has the standard 77 gallon fuel tank. The leaning post has been changed to a custom model. Other than the leaning post the boat is pretty much original. It had bottom paint but I had it removed and we repainted the bottom with black epoxy. It does have the rear storage compartment on each side and a fiberglass tub for storage in the middle that I've converted to a live well. Aubie |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2012 12:29 PM ET (US)
I don't think the teak beam is unique to the 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive. Here is an image of an OUTRAGE 25 with full transom; it has a similar teak beam: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/ rearLazCallOuts550x360.jpeg |
| L H G |
posted 10-16-2012 04:32 PM ET (US)
How fast would a standard cut transom 22 Outrage run with a 3-star 250? |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 10-16-2012 07:46 PM ET (US)
John Flook said his notched transom Outrage 22 Outréran over 50 MPH with its Evinrude 225. It would be even faster with 250 HP. |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2012 11:33 PM ET (US)
I know John said that about OUTRE , but no one ever saw that repeated, not even John. My REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive ran over 46-MPH with a 250-HP engine. It has since run over 44-MPH with a 225-HP engine. My boat is longer and heavier than OUTRE. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 10-18-2012 12:30 AM ET (US)
It appears the new 250 Honda is a tad taller which removes that bulkiness the older models were carrying around in appearance. It looks very nice I think. It has an aggressive look like it doesn't mess around or you don't mess with it! Martyn |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 10-19-2012 10:18 PM ET (US)
On my standard 1989 Outrage 22 with the Mercury 150 [FOURSTROKE not VERADO] I get lower top end, 41-MPH, but slightly higher 5.4-MPG at 3,000-RPM and 18.5-MPH, and 4.3-MPG at 4,000-RPM, and 30-MPH. I have Mercury Eco-Meter for getting MPG. It uses the paddle wheel or it's own dedicated GPS for mpg calcs. It's nice because I can find the sweet spot based conditions and load. I have not played with the propeller at all. I'll do that in the Spring. I think they gave me a Mirage three blade to start. The low speed, high mpg is nice for when we get the nasty white caps. Boat eases right into them and is just sipping the fuel Love the teak seat back peaking out. I have the same thing. I put the teak back Whaler pilot seat on replacing the BW leaning post. Adding T-Top and more teak, adding starboard teak access door to my standard console to give better access for wiring. I have three batteries in the console to power down riggers. |
| jimh |
posted 10-20-2012 10:08 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the data about the performance of a different boat, one without a Whaler Drive, and with a different outboard engine, not a Honda BF250. |
| jimh |
posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM ET (US)
I am a bit surprised at the static trim seen in Aubie's OUTRAGE 22 Whaler Drive with the Honda BF250 (in the image above). It looks like the boat is trimmed down by the stern. I would have expected the buoyancy of the Whaler Drive to compensate for the engine weight, and I was anticipating a more level trim at rest for the hull. |
| Buckda |
posted 10-20-2012 10:34 AM ET (US)
At just over 600 LBS for the motor, and no extra capacity 129 gallon fuel tank, there must be something other than the motor that is causing that stern squat - especially with the presence of a Whaler Drive. Perhaps the livewell is also full, or the gear is oriented in the stern section of the boat in this photo? Phenomenal numbers, by the way - it really, really makes me wish I had some cash to swap out my carb'ed two-strokes for new technology motors on my 25. |
| crow |
posted 10-20-2012 12:52 PM ET (US)
It appears to me that the boat is grounded on the sand/bottom. I think that's what's affecting the static trim. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 10-20-2012 04:24 PM ET (US)
77 gallon fuel tank. Boat is in contact with the bottom. |
| jimh |
posted 10-20-2012 04:48 PM ET (US)
Okay--I think you must be saying the bow is aground and is pushed upwards from the grounding. Perhaps you could show us another view in which the boat is afloat, and in that way we could see the actual static trim. |
| Aubie72 |
posted 10-22-2012 03:19 PM ET (US)
Jim, I don't have a photo of the my whaler with the new Honda 250 floating without touching the bottom. In the photo attached the boat was just touching the bottom with the foot of the motor holding the stern in place. Static trim has not changed significantly since repowering with the Honda (previous motor was a 225 Johnson). My estimate is that it's down at the stern about one inch. As previously mentioned the boat did have bottom paint which was removed and the bottom painted with black epoxy. The painted area provides a very good indication of the static waterline which supports my assessment that static trim has not changed significantly from the previous 225 Johnson to new 250 Honda motor. Aubie |
| dave_maggio |
posted 10-23-2012 04:42 PM ET (US)
Wow Aubie, looks like you have put together about the perfect power package for your boat. I wish you the best of luck with the motor. I also have "silver aliens" on my boat. They are 2002 225's with about 730 hours on them. I bought the boat about a year ago and have been super impressed with the motors. If I ever have to repower, the 250's would be a great option. Honestly though, I am hoping a repower is wayyyy down the line and everyone that I have talked to has said follow the maintenance schedule and you should see at least 2,000 hours (or more) from these motors with few if any issues. Congrats and best of luck! |
| pete r |
posted 02-06-2013 05:28 PM ET (US)
Aubie, I assume by now you have had some time to give the 250 a workout. I too are thinking of repowering my 21' Conquest. My ultimate choice may come down to what my transom can carry. Can you tell me what you think about the noise level and fuel economy of the motor. Cheers, Pete |
| Aubie72 |
posted 03-07-2013 07:12 PM ET (US)
Pete, Sorry that I haven't answered your post. It's a little on the chilly side here in northwest Florida and I have not run the Whaler in a few months. Regarding noise and fuel economy, The BF250 has a little more noise than I expected at off idle (1200 to 1500 rpm). I think that what I'm hearing is the alternator whine. It has an louvered vent in the top of the cowling that lets some noise out. Once on plane its quiet. I had a Johnson 225 two stroke on the boat before the Honda and it's much quieter than the Johnson.Fuel economy is where the BF250 shines. On my Outrage 22WD, the BF250 gets around 3.7 mpg at 4000. I posted fuel economy numbers in a previous post. Overall I couldn't be happier with the Honda. It's a strong motor. My top speed went from 39mph with the Johnson to 47 mph with the Honda. I don't think that you;ll be disappointed with the Honda. Regards, |
| Peter |
posted 03-08-2013 08:52 AM ET (US)
The boat in the slip next to mine has a pair of Evinrude E-TEC 225s. There is also a boat on the same dock that has a pair of Honda 225s and one that has a pair of Yamaha F250s. If you stand next to each on these motors while on the dock while they are running, the Yamaha F250s are by far the quietest. The Hondas and the E-TECs, at least to my ears, have about the same noise level although very different sounds. Neither is conventional 2-stroke loud. The Honda V6s have a very noticible alternator whine at idle and slow engine speeds. The E-TEC has a very muted pulsing sound. |
| jimh |
posted 03-08-2013 09:41 AM ET (US)
Noise reduction is a never-ending challenge. As soon as you get one noise source quieted down, you hear other noise sources that were being masked. When I first ran my E-TEC the reduction in noise was so great compared to the conventional engine it replaced that I was able to hear a number of odd rattles in the boat that were never apparent before. These were tracked down and eliminated. The Honda may be stuck with the audible noise from the alternator because they have engineered the air intakes for improved flow. It is hard to allow air to flow easily into the cowling and not let some sound escape by the same path. Regarding the air intakes on this new model, Honda has said:
quote: The noise reported as "alternator whine" may be the top-mounted cooling fan mentioned above. If you asked me to choose between getting 3.7-MPG or getting a few dB less noise at idle, I'd take the 3.7-MPG. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 03-11-2013 01:33 PM ET (US)
I would take the 3.7mpg as well. Heck you you might as well paint the engine "green!" |
| whalersailor1 |
posted 09-09-2013 02:08 PM ET (US)
I'm looking to repower my 22 Outrage Whaler Drive with this same Honda 250. Couple of questions: Do I want the 25" shaft? Its sounds like the Mirage Plus 17P is the prop to go with. Is that all I need to tell the marina to order? Are there additional dimensions (i.e. are there more than one Mirage Plus 17 prop?)? It seems like the suggested mounting is in the third hole down from the top of the engine. Is that correct? Finally, I was wondering how Augie72 has been enjoying the engine since his last post and presumably some months of use? That's one great looking Outrage! |
| jimh |
posted 09-09-2013 09:28 PM ET (US)
Engine mounting height is measured from the lowest position in units of 0.75-inch upwards. Think of it like an airplane. We measure the height of an airplane in units of feet and measure upward from sea level. We say an airplane is 5,000-feet above sea level. We say an outboard engine is a certain number of units above the lowest position. In an outboard engine the 0.75-inch unit is called a "hole" because that is the spacing of the mounting holes. The typical mounting height for a 25-inch shaft outboard engine on a 22-foot Boston Whaler hull with Whaler Drive with single engine will be one-hole up. However, do not be afraid to experiment with two-holes up mounting. My modern outboard engine is presently mounted one-hole up on my 22-foot Boston Whaler boat with Whaler Drive. When the boat is on plane and the engine trimmed for best performance, the anti-ventilation plate is not clear of the water. Some water is running on the top of the anti-ventilation plate. It is often cited that to produce the best speed, the anti-ventilation plate should be running just clear of the water. In my case, I have not experimented with a two-hole-up mounting because I am not obsessed with getting the most speed. With my present one-hole-mounting I find that there is just about no situation in which my propeller will lose grip or "blow-out." That attribute is very desirable for me because I often run the boat is large open bodies of water with significant seas. I am concerned that a higher mounting might result in less grip in rough sea conditions. I am also using a Mercury MIRAGEplus 17-pitch propeller, which I have found to work well with my Boston Whaler 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive and a 225-HP engine. I have tested quite a few propellers. I found the Evinrude REBEL 17 actually worked better; it produced better fuel economy with the same speed potential as the MIRAGEplus. I have kept the MIRAGEplus because it is bought and paid for, and the REBEL would have been about a $600 outlay. Exactly how a particular propeller will work with a particular engine and boat combination is hard to predict. However, I think a MIRAGEplus 17 would be a good choice to start. I'd mount it one-hole-up, and see how your boat performs. |
| |
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.
