ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
1989 Outrage 22, 150-HP Mercury FOURSTROKE (not VERADO)
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
1989 Outrage 22, 150-HP Mercury FOURSTROKE (not VERADO)
|
| Author | Topic: 1989 Outrage 22, 150-HP Mercury FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-14-2013 06:06 PM ET (US) 
The propeller that came with [the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO used on a c. 1989 Boston Whaler OURAGE 22] is [Mercury part number] 48 16314, a 17-pitch Vengeance model. I'm seeing 5-MPG at 25-MPH at 3,650-RPM. Top end of 45-MPH. The engine is mounted with the bolt going through the top of four holes. [In seeking a new propeller choice the] priorities are: --MPG at cruise, --getting on plane with 60-gallons of fuel and four adults, --planing at lowest possible speed for rough water. About top end ther is really no concern. Whatever that turns out to be with maximum MPG. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-14-2013 06:12 PM ET (US)
I thought the Mercury 150 FourStroke had five mounting holes. That motor should never have been mounted all the way down. Even in the 1980s with aluminum propellers the factory recommended the motor be mounted one hole up. With a modern stainless steel propeller it should be two holes up. The Mercury MIRAGEplus, Enertia or Revolution 4 would all be good choices. The REVOLUTION4 will offer the best traction at minimum planing speed. The MIRAGEplus would probably offer the best fuel economy at cruise speed, though the Enertia might too. The Enertia might be slightly faster at WOT than the other two. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-14-2013 07:06 PM ET (US)
It does have five holes. I didn't see the other hole when I first looked at. It is mounted on the top of five holes. The lower cavitation plate is about two inches above the apex of the V of the hull. Where should it be? http://www.flickr.com/photos/24867843@N07/8738849839/ I can have them move the engine up two notches and swap props and give that a try. Am I staying with 17" pitch in all cases? I'd probably try the MiragePlus if that had best mpg potential at cruise and then see if that improved mpg and had any negatives that might off set the mpg increase. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-14-2013 07:08 PM ET (US)
I wonder if I should change one thing at time so I know what changes each produces? I could have them move the engine up and could change the prop at home after recording the changes from the reposition. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-14-2013 07:46 PM ET (US)
quote: Sure doesn't look like it from the photo, though that angle makes it hard to gauge. What is your WOT RPM? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-14-2013 08:56 PM ET (US)
Where should the lower cavitation plate be in relation to the apex of the hull V? I'll have to check what WOT was. If I'm hitting max rated RPM I'm guessing I can increase prop pitch, diameter or blades to put more load on the engine. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-14-2013 09:04 PM ET (US)
I like the A/V plate about 1" to 1-1/2" above the keel. Don't confuse the two spray shields with the A/V plate. The recommended WOT engine speed range for that motor is 5000-5800 RPM. It is good to prop close to 5800. Changing from one model of propeller to another can change what pitch you need but if we knew what your WOT RPM is now we can make a better estimate of how it will perform with the other models. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-14-2013 11:46 PM ET (US)
quote: I'd guess the cavitation plate, the one directly on top of the prop, is about even with the bottom of the keel. I'll talk to the Merc dealer about when I take it in end of Shad season. If I raise it up one hole and don't change the prop, what would I expect to see? Higher mpg, higher speed? |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-15-2013 12:06 AM ET (US)
On a 22 footer with that motor I'd expect you to gain about 50-100 RPM and a corresponding gain in speed and fuel economy. You will also have slighty lighter steering effort. But again, I would not raise it just one hole, I'd raise it two, and that is being conservative. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-15-2013 07:31 AM ET (US)
I'll raise it up two holes, or whatever puts the cavitation plate 1.5" above hull botton, as you suggest and see what that does before I change the prop. Find the best mounting position first and then find the the best prop. Do the engine mfgs. suggest a lower position for the motor? The Mercury shop I go to is good and I wonder why they mounted it so low initially? |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-15-2013 09:57 AM ET (US)
In my experience, dealers almost always mount motors too low and you have to fight with some to get them to raise the motor up off the transom. It is always best to specify exactly how high a motor is to be mounted; do not rely on the dealer to figure it out because they will place it too low. I think this is a function of a lot of things, experienced dealers who have been in business for decades dong things like they did in the 70s and 80s when propeller design and technology had not evolved much, a conservative approach that figures its safer to be too low than too high, and too much reliance of manufacturer recommendations which, to this day, remain way to conservative in this regard. For years and year the standard thinking was the A/V plate should be an inch or so below the surface of the water. Even today, some manufacturers still suggest having the A/V plate even with the bottom of the keel. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-15-2013 09:53 PM ET (US)
quote: You probably described my dealer. Sounds like I'll get some push back from the dealer. Is there any kind of tech work up I can wave at them. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-16-2013 09:53 AM ET (US)
It's your boat and your motor. Remind your dealer of that fact. |
| L H G |
posted 05-16-2013 03:26 PM ET (US)
Considering your engine is all the way down, and the prop is an ordinary Vengeance, switching to a Mirage Plus should increase top end, and switching to an Enertia should improve top end even more - Mercury claims 2 MPH over a Mirage Plus. The 45 MPH you are getting is already impressive. As for a Revolution 4, I would not go there. I have Rev-4's on my Outrage 25, and I believe a Rev-4 is too much prop - too much stern lift and overall hull lift - for a lightweight hull like the 22 Outrage. The twin Rev-4's are definitely too much prop for my 25. They are for heavy boats, like a 320 Outrage, with high HP. With an Enertia propeller, you may see 48 MPH. That is excellent for a 150 HP engine. |
| Teak Oil |
posted 05-16-2013 09:09 PM ET (US)
On my 22 before I added my jackplate I had my 225 mounted all the way up on the transom and it ran great that way. The boat will feel much lighter on the water and more spirited |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-17-2013 11:50 AM ET (US)
quote: My main goal is mid range fuel efficiency and secondary,for rough water, lowest possible planning speed. Which prop do you think would fit those parameters? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-17-2013 11:52 AM ET (US)
quote: I was thinking of adding a jackplate but wanted to keep weight on the transom down. |
| L H G |
posted 05-17-2013 01:57 PM ET (US)
The Rev-4 gives fantastic low speed planing. Using 21" pitch, my Armstrong transom bracketed Outrage 25 with twin 200 EFI Mercs will hold plane (run all day) at 2200 RPM and 20 MPH. But when I put on the power over 50 MPH they lift the boat so high out of the water that there is no side spray at all and the boat gets squirrely. Mirage Plus has great mid-range planing ability, and I'm sure it would be good. But since the Enertia was designed to improve upon the Mirage, I still think that is what you want. Someone else here did extensive testing on a 22 Outrage with a Merc, and went with the Enertia, I believe. I have noticed that Boston Whaler is now using the Enertia for most of it's boat performance data. |
| littleblue |
posted 05-17-2013 04:26 PM ET (US)
I've had a very favorable experience with the Enertia prop. Speed is great, low speed planing ability is there and more importantly the ride characteristics with the 22' hull are great. Best of the 5 props I've tried so far. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-17-2013 06:24 PM ET (US)
Did some speed/rpm tests. Hit 44.1 mph at high tide on a back channel so no wind or flow issues. 60 gallons of fuel, one person, T-top. One armed paper hanger, trying to steer boat, play with trim tabs, hold throttle down (it kept moving back), play with engine trim and take picture. If I had the runway (lot of sturgeon fisherman out today) and could dial in trim tabs and engine trim and keep the throttle down, likely hit the 45mph saw when we first put the engine on and ran it without the T-top. Which is good as I thought the T-top would cut 2-3 mph. Be interesting to see effect of windshield and side curtains has on performance. http://www.flickr.com/photos/24867843@N07/8749150758/
So I'm under propped? Game plan is move engine up two notches and see what that does See what that does to RPM and fuel economy and top end before playing with the props. What would you expect on RPM and speed on moving up two notches? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-17-2013 07:33 PM ET (US)
Looking back I see that I should gain 100-200 rpm from moving up two notches. This would put me at 5500 WOT with the 17P Vengeance prop. Probably 48 mph top end with motor and trim tabs adjusted. If it had similar effect on mpg at 25 mph pushing to 5.2 mpg that would be good start. Hopefully get another 2% from the prop change, getting close to 5.5 mpg. I'm sure I'll lose something to wind resistance with the T-Top enclosure. So ending up with a solid 5 mpg/25 mph would be brilliant. |
| crbenny |
posted 05-17-2013 10:21 PM ET (US)
That's remarkable. If Alex Trebec asked the question,"What size 80s Outrage, with T-top, will top out in the high 40 mph range with a 150 hp outboard spinning a 17" SS prop?" The best answer would be, an 18'6" Outrage. At least that's my answer. If the correct answer is, "22 Outrage", which in this case it is, I would want to know,"What 150hp is that and where can I get one?!" Ericflys, are you out there? Now that you're dialed/broken in, how fast is that Outrage 18? 52? Chris |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-17-2013 11:25 PM ET (US)
Ericflys numbers for his '83 Outrage 18 with 150 Four Cycle were as follows:
quote: He got those numbers raising the engine and using the Enertia prop. I should come close to them, already getting 44 mph with the T-top at 5300 RPM. If I can get the 5.7 mpg at 24 mph/3240, I'll be in hog heaven. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-18-2013 08:24 AM ET (US)
Meant to say I'm over-propped not under propped above. I need to go smaller to get higher RPM. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 05-19-2013 07:59 AM ET (US)
Hello, I'm new to this forum and following this thread. I own the same (1984) 22' outrage and I just repowered with the same 150 four stroke merc. So far I love the engine but I too need to find the correct prop. I'm currently running a plain old 17" merc three blade and achieving 5300rpm WOT. Please let me know your findings (prop/engine mounting height). Thanks! |
| jimh |
posted 05-19-2013 09:04 AM ET (US)
With an OUTAGE 22 hull I do not expect that it will be possible to reach the same boat speed or to obtain the same fuel economy that occurred when the similar 150-HP engine was pushing a lighter and shorter boat, the OUTRAGE 18. When you make the boat hull longer and the boat becomes heavier, the boat will need more horsepower to reach the same speed as a lighter and shorter boat, and both top speed and fuel economy will decrease. When making comparisons of boat performance where the test data is gathered by different people, using different methods, in different environments, at different times there is always room for some variation. To see a variation in top speed of several MPH is quite normal. Factors which affect the measurements are many. Even with the same boat, same engine, same propeller, and same measurement method, I see variations in the top speed of my own boat over a range of 3-MPH. I attribute these variations to the influence of environmental variables, such as air temperature, humidity, water temperature, sea state, current, and wind. It is always quite interesting when someone reports extremely good speed results for a particular boat and engine combination, but it is not a guarantee that you can duplicate those results. It is particularly unrealistic to expect to get similar results with a boat that is heavier and longer than the boat that produced the target results. The OUTRAGE 22 hull has been often the subject of performance reports. One that I recall is OUTRE, a nice OUTRAGE 22 that had a 225-HP engine. The top speed reported was about 50-MPH. Using that OUTRAGE 22 as a target, I would expect an OUTRAGE 22 with 150-HP to be able to hit about 41-MPH. Giving some allowance for performance variation, I'd say any results with a 150-HP on an OUTRAGE 22 that were in the neighborhood of 41-MPH were good. You may be able to do better if the propeller were more optimized. The propeller on OUTRE was not particularly a great propeller, as it was just an OMC SST three-blade. A really good propeller might add another one or two MPH, or around 43-MPH for an OUTRAGE 22 with 150-HP You are already reporting 44-MPH, which I think is really quite good. A variation of 1-MPH is probably due to variation in measuring method and environment. Or it might be that your engine is making a bit more than 150-HP. If it makes 160-HP, that will add another 1-MPH. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-19-2013 09:08 AM ET (US)
Conchyjodyoos...what exact prop do you have and what hole is the engine mounted on? I won't be making any changes until after July 4th fireworks. Interesting that the standard Mercury stainless prop, the 17P Vengeance, loads the engine to 5300 at WOT. My first move will be to move the engine up two holes. According to folks here that should gain me about 200 RPM. If that is the case, then I'm going to try the Enertia prop at the same 17P to see what happens. |
| jimh |
posted 05-19-2013 09:13 AM ET (US)
The priorities have been given as: --MPG at cruise --getting on plane with 60 gallons of fuel and four adults --planing at lowest possible speed for rough water In general a propeller with lower pitch--that is, one that lets the engine accelerate to the very top of its full-throttle range--will be preferred for giving the best acceleration onto plane and for maintaining a slow planing speed. To produce best fuel economy at cruise, the MIRAGEplus usually gives very good results. The propeller you are using now, a VENGEANCE, is probably more of a top-speed propeller than a great propeller for best fuel economy at cruise. If you change to a MIRAGEplus of the same pitch, the engine speed will probably go down. Because you are already rather low in full-throttle engine speed, you probably should drop the pitch of the MIRAGEplus compared to the present propeller. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-19-2013 10:10 AM ET (US)
quote: Fair to say those expectations have been met and exceeded. I'm already getting 44 mph with 60 gallons of fuel and a T-top. http://www.flickr.com/photos/24867843@N07/8749150758/ And that is with engine mounted too low and with the least efficient prop (per advice here). Improvement with raising engine and changing prop is predicted to be about 10% (400-500 RPM) which would put performance at 48 mph top end and 5.5 mpg at cruise, 3400 RPM, 25 mph. My goal is highest possible mpg with 60 gallons of fuel and four adults at cruise vs. top end. The reports on the four bladed Rev-4 are interesting with low speed thrust. Once I get the engine height at the most efficient spot, I'll play with props but improvement is going to be above current performance of 44 mph and 5 mpg. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-19-2013 10:14 AM ET (US)
My props to test lineup will be: MiragePlus 16P |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 05-19-2013 10:17 AM ET (US)
Thanks for replies. The propeller on [the Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 with Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO is] no-name 17-pitch three blade Mercury I borrowed from a buddy. The cavitation plate is mounted even with bottom, and, I, too, plan on raising [the engine mounting height]. She's running 5,500-RPM if I trim it out at 38.5-nautical-miles-per-hour with full fuel, two people, full gear, and two doggies. Economy at 3,500-RPM and 23-nautical-miles-er-hour was 4.3-nautical-miles-per-gallon. I'm hoping the ENERTIA 17 will be the ticket. It sure would nice try propellers without having to purchase non-returnable ones first. |
| jimh |
posted 05-19-2013 10:29 AM ET (US)
It is confusing to compare data in two different units. A speed of 38.5-nautical-miles-per-hour is 44.3-MPH. A fuel economy of 4.3-nautical-miles-per-gallon is 4.95-MPG. A speed of 23-nautical-miles-per-hour is 26.5-MPH. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-19-2013 11:02 AM ET (US)
Conchyjodyoos...interesting we get almost identical performance with the 150. You might be a more loaded than I am though I do have a kicker engine,100#, bank of three 27D batts (another #100 over single battery) and the T-Top. Sounds like we will both see improvements with raising motor and props. Hopefully you'll get a chance to raise engine up before I do and report back. Have any pix of your boat? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-19-2013 11:05 AM ET (US)
quote: My Merc dealer said as long as I don't ding the prop, he'll keep switching props for nothing. In your case, you'll have to buy the first SS one from the dealer but after that, he should be willing to let you exchange and try out different props. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 05-20-2013 09:22 AM ET (US)
I ran the boat yesterday but my tach is on the fritz, replacing today and will hopefully get better data. Will also try to find dealer who will work with me on props. Eagles, did you go with the smartcraft set-up or analog instruments? |
| andygere |
posted 05-20-2013 01:38 PM ET (US)
I tried a Rev 4 prop on my Outrage 22 Cuddy, and I liked the low-speed planing and good hold in rough water, but I hated the loud thunk every time I put it in gear. That is a really heavy prop. Somewhat surprising to me, it did not have as good a holeshot as some of the other props I tried. I also found it had really lousy thrust in reverse. Don't overlook this characteristic when testing props. I'm running a 17P Mercury Offshore/Vensura prop and I've very pleased with it. Good hold in rough water, good holeshot, low speed planing and enough top speed to keep me happy. No thunk when shifting. Sadly, I don't run the boat often or far enough to care if it gets better or worse fuel economy than other props. Unless you do a great deal of long runs where range is a factor, I'd select a prop that gives your boat the best operating performance in the type of conditions you see most frequently. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-20-2013 10:57 PM ET (US)
quote: Smartcraft digital. I have just one gauge that does a bazillion things. Instant MPG was my main goal so I can dial in the most efficient speed. I typically go 20-30 miles round trip on my fishing days plus trolling around for hours when I get there. Important for me to cut fuel use for emissions and cost. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 05-21-2013 02:29 PM ET (US)
Andy, are you running the same merc 150 four stroke? And Eagles I'm heading to the dealer for a smartcraft set-up, I'll report more accurate numbers by the weekend. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-21-2013 11:44 PM ET (US)
The Eco-meter single gauge is pricey...I think it was $1K with correpsonding harness on engine. I'm a nut for finding the most efficient cruising speed and the Eoo-Meter gives me instantaneious mpg. Andygere has a 200 ETEC on his Outrage 22 cuddy. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 05-24-2013 08:38 AM ET (US)
Ordered my NMEA Mercmonitor yesterday, Mercury really needs to step up and educate its dealers on their Smartcraft offerings. I went to three local dealers and none had a clue what parts/ harnesses I need. I ended up ordering a kit from the Verado club with my fingers crossed I get all the right stuff. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-24-2013 09:05 AM ET (US)
You've got that right. I have, arguably, one of the top Mercury dealers in PNW and I had to talk them into selling me the Eco-Meter. Waving the brochure at them and saying "But it says it will do it". Service Manager did know about it. There was an engine harness attachment needed in addition to the monitor so make sure they include and install that. After install, the Service Manager and the Sales Manager had to make a service call to the moorage to get it to work right. The installer had crossed a wire in the harness. They don't install many of them. Do a test ride with them and make sure the MPG is working. I installed a GPS receiver just for the Eco-Meter for speed and mpg calcs. Don't depend on the Pitot speed input from the engine. It's not reliable. I also installed a paddle wheel speed sensor to tell me trolling speed relative to the water vs. speed over ground from the GPS. Which gets back to your point of educating the dealers. It's a $1K plus sale for them, you'd think they'd be all over it and be selling it to the customers vs. customers having to tease it out of them. On performance, interesting that we are getting as good performance on our Outrage 22 classics with the 150 as Whaler gets with the new 21 Montauk (closest current Whaler to our boat). We have 21 deg V vs. the Montauk's 16 and close to the same weight. Can't wait to raise the engine up to see what happens. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-24-2013 09:30 AM ET (US)
quote: There is no such thing as a 16" pitch MIRAGEplus or Revolution 4. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-24-2013 09:33 AM ET (US)
quote: There is a BIG difference between an instantaneous highest speed and the average of a few two-way test runs that corrects for wind and current. It is trivially easy for me to go run my Revenge 25 and get a shot of the GPS showing speeds in excess of 50 MPH, but that does not mean my boat will go over 50 MPH. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-24-2013 11:15 AM ET (US)
quote: Not easy for me, at least by myself. Trying to hold down throttle which kept backing off, work the trim tabs and motor trim, steer the boat in a narrow channel and work the iPhone cam. Was seeing 44.6 to 43.8 as I careened around. Had 45.5 when Merc dealer and I ran the launch tests on the 150 but that was without the T-top, new seats, 27D triple battery bank and gear. Conchyjodyoos and I are getting near identical results with identical boats so I'm confident of the numbers. Interesting that Conchyjodyoos and I both see lower than rated RPM at full throttle, 5300 and 5500 vs. rated 5800 RPM. I hope that indicates we'll both seem improved fuel economy when we move the engines up and tune in the right props. Also, for my usage, a lower RPM/planning speed MPG (20< mph/4 mpg, 3000 RPM/18 mph 4 mpg?) for foul weather operation. I never go over 30 mph so top end is dead to me other than as an indicator. Conchyjodyoos slightly better performance probably due to differences in the props since we are both mounted at the lowest position. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-24-2013 11:17 AM ET (US)
I noticed the Montauk 21 had a 15 x 15 Enertia prop and was hitting 5900 RPM. I think I'll see big improvement raising motor up and going with the Enertia 16 vs. my Vengeance 17. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-24-2013 11:40 AM ET (US)
I predict you will see in excess of 6000 RPM with a 16" Enertia. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-24-2013 11:49 AM ET (US)
Yikes. Don't want 6000 RPM. Under propped and wasting HP, especially at low end. I guess the Enertia 17. What RPM would you predict with that once I move the engine up three holes from #1 to #4? |
| jimh |
posted 05-24-2013 12:18 PM ET (US)
The sidebar discussion about instrumentation for the engine will be a good topic for SMALL BOAT ELECTRICAL. I encourage you to move that topic to that forum. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 05-24-2013 11:20 PM ET (US)
5700-5800 RPM |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 05-24-2013 11:52 PM ET (US)
quote: That would be perfect. Leaving nothing on the table. Up three holes (you thought two was too conservative). Record that difference and then try the Enertia 16. Boat will go in right after July 4th fireworks. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 06-20-2013 11:27 PM ET (US)
Update: I finally got the smartcraft up and running and with a stock 17P merc prop I could only reached 5100rpm. After talking to a few prop shops we concluded the Mirage Plus would be the best all around prop and 15P would be most likely be the correct pitch. I haven't had time to raise the motor so she's still mounted as low as possible. This afternoon's test run numbers, speed from GPS and FF from smartcraft in calm water. 3600 Rpm 22.6 kts 5.4 gph 4000. 25.0. 7.0 4470. 27.9. 8.5 5000. 30.9. 10.7 5520. 34.1. 14.4 3400rpm seemed to be the sweet spot yielding 21 kts on 5.0 gph. I know raising the engine is the next step and I'll try to complete that tomorrow, then a 100+nm fully loaded Bahama run next week. Will post those numbers too. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 06-21-2013 08:50 AM ET (US)
quote: Talk is cheap. No conclusion can be reached until some actual testing is done. Move the motor up at least two bolt holes and retest. It should never have been mounted all the way down in the first place. Last week I was asked to run some propeller tests on a 22 foot center console S.A.F.E. foot boat powered by a Verado 225. The 17 year old boat had just had a $30,000 refit and the owner was not happy with the boat's performance, terrible propeller grip and relatively low top speed of 40 MPH. Because the grip was so poor, the motor, which had gone up and down on the transom since being purchased and installed in 2008, was mounted all the way down. A Sting Ray foil had been added to help it maintain grip. I brought two propellers with me for testing, a Mercuy Enertia and a Revolution 4. Before testing I insisted the motor be raised two bolt holes. With the existing Mercury BlackMax propeller at that mounting height, it was almost impossible to keep the boat on plane without run-away ventilation. WOT engine speed was several hundred RPM below redline. Tests with both the Enertia and the Revolution 4 solved the grip problem and increased top speed by several RPM. Once we removed the foil, top speed jumped to 47 MPH and WOT engine speed exceeded the redline by 200 RPM. Moral of the story: speed and RPM go hand in hand with propeller model AND motor mounting height...and if you have a foil, get rid of it. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 06-21-2013 09:49 AM ET (US)
Good stuff on the numbers. We are both running about 600 RPM low and running with the engines all the way down. Moving htem up three holes should get us about 400 rpm and corresponding pick in efficiency and top speed. My engine will get moved up July 8th when I get my wrap around canvas and windshield for the T-top. Then I can start playing with props to get the other "missing" 200 RPM. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 06-28-2013 10:54 PM ET (US)
Mercury dealer called and said he was concerned about cavitation moving the engine up 2 notches. Told him that other Whaler owners with same boat were doing it and getting better performance. I think he wanted to just put the warning out there so I don't hit them up claiming they didn't warn me if it doesn't work out. Should be done Monday then off to the canvas shop for the "phone booth" wrap on the T-Top with the Makralon windshield. Should be back on the water July 12 with a report. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 07-01-2013 10:05 AM ET (US)
The dealer is ignorant. It is ventilation, not cavitation, that an excessively high motor mounting will cause. Having the motor two holes up is not excessively high...at all. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-01-2013 11:01 AM ET (US)
Hey...I'm just the messenger. I do think people (incorrectly) use the terms interchangeably. I went with your rec of two holes up. Can't wait to try it out after the 4th. |
| martyn1075 |
posted 07-07-2013 12:16 PM ET (US)
Eagles thats a great looking Outrage and I do like the design of the t-top. Martyn |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-07-2013 09:12 PM ET (US)
Thanks. Getting a canvas Maklaron wrap around the T-top this week and then back in the water. Took Tom W. Clark's rec and moved engine up two holes, looks odd with the space under the mount. Dying to try it out. Getting 5300 top rpm so I'm hoping it goes to 5600 with the change of up two holes. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 07-12-2013 07:37 AM ET (US)
Recently completed my first long run with new 150 FOURSTROKE (on a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22] with full fuel, three persons, and 1,200-lbs of gear. The trip was 115-nautical miles to the Bahamas. Wind was 20 knots on the nose and rough seas. The average speed was 12 to 15 nautical-miles-per-hour, for eight hours, and a burn of 38-gallons. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-12-2013 08:12 AM ET (US)
Wow! That's a load and sea voyage. 3.48 mpg sounds pretty good. 14-17 mph...good that the engine can keep the boat planning and get that kind of mpg at that low speed. |
| jimh |
posted 07-12-2013 10:30 AM ET (US)
When you say the average speed was between 12- to 15-nautical-miles-per-hour, are you saying that you were running the boat at that slow planing speed most of the time? Or were you running the boat at the normal planing speeds of over 22-MPH and then slowing down to much less, so that the average speed was 12- to 15 nautical miles per hour? The reason I ask for the clarification is that the OUTRAGE 22 hull does not like to run at those slow planing speeds, in my experience, and if you operate the hull in that transition-to-plane region the fuel economy usually is poor. It is quite astonishing to me that you could have operated an OUTRAGE 22 for eight hours running at that slow almost-on-plane speed and obtained such remarkable fuel economy. Getting 3.5-MPG while running at an inefficient almost-on-plane speed is quite remarkable. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 07-13-2013 09:54 AM ET (US)
The sea conditions were very rough, steep 4-5 footers right on the nose. The whaler crossed with a 24' hydro sport and a hatteras sport fish. The 12-15kts was pretty much the entire 8hrs. I'm running a 15"mirage prop and the new merc has a significant under trim ability allowing it to run planed and fairly efficient at that slow speed. My outrage is the best running small boat I've ever owned. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-13-2013 12:34 PM ET (US)
Great report. Thanks. That is the kind of trip we all imagine as the ultimate test of boat and engine. |
| stayinstrewn |
posted 07-14-2013 11:14 PM ET (US)
I have a V-22, 1979 and just ran about 45 miles in similar conditions from CT to Martha's Vineyard...kept the speed between 12-15 knots the whole way...haven't refueled yet so don't know what my burn was, but I certainly loosened a few screws!! It was my first trip in solid 2-4 fours, with some atlantic swells mixed in and then patches of 3-5s. As long as we didn't come down sideways we were ok...overall happy w performance, though a few more feet and deeper V would've been nice to have. Good news is once out of the slop, we caught 2 sea bass, 2 flounders and a dogfish shark! So far I'm in for 84 gallons and about 30 hours this season with mileage somewhere around the 180-200 mile mark. I have a Honda 225 w 70(73?) gallon tank, t top and 4 blade prop. GPH is good thru a wide mix of driving, but MPG is only so-so. Any recommendations on a fuel flow meter? I don't believed 2006 Honda has that capability built in. Sorry for the long winded response...seems like a decent thread to throw out my similar experiences. SS |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-15-2013 12:31 AM ET (US)
I used a FloScan but that was on my inboard V8 jet. You might look up FloScan and see if they mention a kit of Honda's, Doesn't Honda offer a fuel flow meter of some kind with a tie in to GPS for mpg? |
| stayinstrewn |
posted 07-15-2013 07:53 AM ET (US)
I've checked out floscan a little and am encouraged...from what I understand, my engine does not have the capability of telling the GPS or any other gauge for that matter, what the fuel numbers are. The floscan would be a good addition. I think one of them allows you to reset once you've filled so you know how many gallons you burn from full. Any recommendations on which one? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-15-2013 07:57 AM ET (US)
My marine electronics shop did the install. FloScan was the model they had experience with. I think the real issue was getting fuel flow from the engine. If Honda produces a fuel flow that can be read by the FloScan, the FloScan can then have a GPS input to create the MPG. If not then you can install a fuel flow meter (from FloScan) in the fuel line. Should be doable. |
| Peter |
posted 07-15-2013 10:14 AM ET (US)
I believe Lowarance makes a fuel flow gauge that is NMEA 2000 compatible. If you have an NMEA 2000 compatable chart plotter, like a Garmin 740 for example, all you need to see the fuel flow rate and corresponding MPG is an NMEA 2000 compatible fuel flow sensor spliced into the fuel line. |
| stayinstrewn |
posted 07-15-2013 02:35 PM ET (US)
I have a Garmin 198C Sounder. Not sure if it would work though I do have the GPS connected to my VHF for DSC...the floscan says its compatible w all Honda models...we'll see... keep ideas coming... |
| Peter |
posted 07-15-2013 02:42 PM ET (US)
A Flowscan is compatible with just about any outboard motor. The sensor is inserted in the fuel line and has no idea what outboard motor is consuming the fuel. What you may see with an EFI outboard is that at low engine speeds the fuel flow rate fluctuates because the EFI system periodically draws fuel into a vapor separator (sort of like flushing a toilet frequently) rather than pulling fuel on a constant basis. |
| stayinstrewn |
posted 07-15-2013 09:13 PM ET (US)
Thanks Peter. Does floscan have the ability to just connect into the engine's wiring harness to get data right off the engine, and not fuel line itself? It thought that's what they mean by compatible. |
| andygere |
posted 07-15-2013 10:50 PM ET (US)
I have been using a simple fuel flow instrument from Stadard Horizon for years. It worked equally well with my old Mercury Black Max as it does with my E-TEC. It maps very well with the integral fuel flow instrumentation on the Evinrude I-Command gauge, except at idle speeds when the burn rate is below the measuring resolution of the SH instrument. I like the large readout which lets me see my burn rate or fuel remaining at a glance. [url] http://www.standardhorizon.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID=86&ProdID=37&DivisionID=3[\url] |
| andygere |
posted 07-16-2013 12:39 AM ET (US)
http://www.standardhorizon.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts& ProdCatID=86&ProdID=37&DivisionID=3 |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 07-16-2013 10:06 AM ET (US)
Completed the ride home yesterday, 115nm cruising 20-23kts with 1' following sea, 30.2 gallons via smartcraft. I now have over 60hrs on the motor with no issues. |
| Conchyjodyoos |
posted 07-16-2013 10:35 AM ET (US)
Also I made a trip to Walker's Cay to pick up some friends who flew in. We had 5 adults and 800 lbs of supplies into a 20kt knee high chop. The boat planed quickly and ran solid. I'm surprised with the torque of this 150hp 4 cylinder engine on a 22' boat. |
| Mr C |
posted 07-16-2013 02:22 PM ET (US)
Conchyjodyoos lets see some photos of the boat, motor and scenery from your trip. Here or per rules in a separate post. Sounds like a great time. Thanks for sharing. Dave |
| Peter |
posted 07-16-2013 09:45 PM ET (US)
"Does floscan have the ability to just connect into the engine's wiring harness to get data right off the engine, and not fuel line itself?" Not as far as I know and can tell from their website. Directly connecting would be via an NMEA 2000 network coupler. I believe Hondas did not have this capability until 2010. So if your motor is older than that you would have to go the old fashioned route like the Floscan. If newer, then all you need is the coupler and an NMEA display device capable of displaying the fuel consumption data. |
| stayinstrewn |
posted 07-16-2013 11:10 PM ET (US)
Yes, my Honda is a 2006... Looking into the Standard and Floscan options...btw, I filled up today and my average GPH was 3.7 and MPG about 2.6...considering 50% of those miles were barely on plane bashing into 3-4 footers for 3.5 hours at 12-15 knots, I'm happy! Hopefully the ride back will be much better. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-16-2013 11:33 PM ET (US)
quote: 4.38 mpg for loaded boat in open ocean...those are impressive numbers. Two excellent measured runs in big water with a loaded boat. Hope to get mine back from the canvas shop this weekend so I can test out elevating the engine two holes. Then I'll work on the prop. If Tom Clark's calcs are correct, I should pick up 500 rpm top end and 10% fuel efficiency for mid-range cruising. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-20-2013 11:58 AM ET (US)
Boat back, two holes up (I'm now located at third hole on the mounting bracket. Canvas warp (more wind resistance) on the T-top (loving that). Took the boat out in very rough windy conditions. No ventilation so that's a plus. No real readings, mpg seemed good. Wheel was lighter touch. That's good. Seemed to run a bit more bow up with no trim tabs. Engine sounded different which was odd, exhaust closer to surface? I'll get some flat water testing done this weekend. 5300RPM/44.1 was top end so we'll see what that number is and how close I am to 5800 rated RMP. Hoping for around 5600 RPM, record the data and then I'll switch to Enertia 17 prop. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-20-2013 01:40 PM ET (US)
Interesting side effect to raising the engine to third hole mounting is my Humminbird transducer occasionally loses its signal now with transom riding higher out of the water. See if I can move that down a notch without redrilling, if not, maybe get the SternSaver.cpm |
| L H G |
posted 07-20-2013 01:44 PM ET (US)
Eagles - Recently Tom Clark reported that a friend of his has the same Mercury 150 EFI 4-stroke on a 20 Outrage and gets (a very impressive) 49.5 MPH out of it. Since the 20 is only about 200# lighter than a 22, you could be needing more pitch than 17". I have the new Mercury prop chart on your engine, and they show a 17 Enertia only good for 43 MPH. They show an 18" doing up to 46, and a 19" doing up to 49. Since tee tops are a speed killer, you could only get 46 out of yours,, which would mean an 18" Enertia. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-20-2013 02:16 PM ET (US)
What does the prop chart for show for the Vengeance 17P that I have installed. The boat was 45+ mph without the T-top. 44+ mph with the T-top with Vengeance 17P. I'd guess I'd lose another 1-2 mph with the canvas wrap on the T-top though we'll never know as I moved the engine up at the same time. Is the prop chart online somewhere? |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 11:57 PM ET (US)
Larry--What is a Mercury 150-HP EFI 4-stroke? We are discussing another engine, the 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO. You may know it as the VERADOSAURUS. What engine are you talking about? |
| prj |
posted 07-22-2013 01:00 PM ET (US)
quote: Is this a rhetorical question? Are we to believe your invented often derisive names for Mercury outboards are somehow more clear than Larry's descriptive name for the outboard that we all know the discussion centers around? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 01:40 PM ET (US)
quote: Doesn't even rise to that level <grin>. Jimh seems wildly jealous and obsessed with the new Mercury 3.0L 150HP Four Stroke. He's started four new topics about it. Brings it up in every engine conversation. Goes through wild and crazy calculations to show it's all smoke and mirrors. Starts internet rumors about it. Poor guy should just buy one and get over it. He'll be happy he did. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 02:47 PM ET (US)
Performance report after T-Top wrap and moving engine to 3rd hole from 1st hole. Top speed What's interesting is WOT 5300 RPM did not change. The speed drop 2mph (within the 1-3 estimate for the wind resistance from the T-top wrap). I would have thought the two hole raising would have raised the motor. No porpoising at top speed. Mid and low range were fine, 19mph was lowest planning at about 4mpg with best mpg around 5.2 3800 RPM 25 mph. Have to find a way to do snap shots of the GPS screen or have someone along to record. No big difference in moving two holes though it seems like mid range is a bit better on fuel efficiency and boat seems to be ride more level. So next move, move up another hole, put on the Enertia 17P or both? I'm leaning to changing the prop next. I took off the T-Top wrap so they could make some mods to it so I'll try the boat again without the wrap to get a equal comparison of the engine position change. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 02:53 PM ET (US)
That's "I would have thought the two hole raising would have raised the motor" read raised the WOT RPM. |
| Freddy |
posted 07-22-2013 02:56 PM ET (US)
EaglesPDX, have you ever read this thread? |
| L H G |
posted 07-22-2013 04:34 PM ET (US)
My guess is that you are up too high for the Vengeance prop, and beginning to get ventilation. A basic principle of boats using jackplates, where height is easily adjustable, is keep raising the engine until speed starts falling off for the same RPM, then drop it down 1/4" to 1/2". An Enertia prop should solve that problem, as they can be run higher than a Vengeance. Regarding the Mercury 150 EFI 4-stroke prop literature, it is on the back side of a four page brochure on the engine which I picked up at a Dealer. Remember for either a 17" or 18" Mercury SS prop, you need the Flo Torq IV hub kit to eliminate clutch rattle. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 06:13 PM ET (US)
Freddy hadn't seen that thread. Thanks. It dovetails with LHG's rec of the Enertia.
quote: It doesn't seem to be getting air even on the turns. It does not feel like it's losing its grip. Wouldn't I see jumps in RPM if it was getting air? WOT RPM has stayed the same which is a puzzle.
quote: I have to take engine back (water got into lower unit water sensor and only fix is clean it out) so I'll have the Enertia 17 put on. Since no change in RPM, should I raise it up one more hole?
quote: I'll see if I can download it or I'll pick one up when I take boat in.
quote: I'll mention that to the dealer. Since I have the Vengeance 17 SS do I already have a Flo Torq IV hub? |
| L H G |
posted 07-22-2013 07:07 PM ET (US)
Loss of speed from excess mounting height (for a given prop) doesn't show up as noticable vertilation or slippage. The boat simply doesn't go as quite fast, meaning the prop is losing a little grip. You can also experience this when trimming. I find optimium trim by comparing it to speed. Trimming out will increase speed to a point, then further trim will again decrease speed. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-23-2013 09:44 PM ET (US)
quote: My gut feel is that its not ventilatting but the T-top wrap wind resistance equalized and sligltly exceeded the boost from moving up two holes. The boat feels very solid and the mid range seems more fuel efficient. I took off the T-top wrap and I'll try it this weekend. I'll go out early and stakeout some of the waterskiers glass and try and get some numbers at WOT, 4000, 3500 and 3000 RPM. It will give me a better idea of the effect of moving up the engine. |
| |
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.