Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1991 22' Outrage Whaler Drive 250 ETEC- Mirage Plus 19p Results

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

Author Topic:   1991 22' Outrage Whaler Drive 250 ETEC- Mirage Plus 19p Results
menahaunt11 posted 05-15-2013 12:42 PM ET (US)   Profile for menahaunt11   Send Email to menahaunt11  
Recently switched out my Mirage Plus 17p to a Mirage Plus 19p.
I don't have data on the 17p performance as I just had a Garmin GFS 10 fuel sensor linked with my Garmin 740s Chartplotter and 07' 250hp Evinrude ETEC. Top end on the 17p was just under 34 kts at 5200 rpms, it put out a very thick wake, didn't look clean. Here are some results I jotted down from my sea-trial with the new 19p:

Test Subject: 1991 22' Outrage Whaler Drive- 250hp ETEC 415hrs

Conditions: WSW 5-10kts, gusts to 15kts, 1-2ft short chop. 77 gals of gas (Full tank), one person and no gear, ice, etc aboard..Water temp was 58 degrees, Air temp was 60 degrees

38.8-39.1kts
5500rpms
22.1-23 gal/hour

27.8kts
4000rpms
13.3 gal/hour

26.2kts
3900rpms
11.3 gal/hour

24kts
3500rpms
10.6 gal/hour

20kts
3000rpms
8.2 gal/hour

*I did notice an immediate difference between the performance of the two props and the hole shot and ride of the boat. It seems with the 17p I got on plane faster and hole shot was better initially, however with the 19p, once I was on plane, achieved greater cruising speed than I saw with the 17p.

The wake was noticeably thinner and cleaner, and the boat seemed to ride better and maintain greater stability in light chop conditions

Now, granted I haven't driven the boat in 5 months, but these were my observations from first trial with 19p Mercury Mirage Plus

Teak Oil posted 05-15-2013 06:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
That's about what I would expect in terms of top end, but your motor is probably mounted too low causing the "thick wake." With some tuning you can probably get 48-49 mph and gain some efficiency.

Your motor should be mounted almost all the way up on the mounting holes, at least within the top three sets.

crabby posted 05-15-2013 07:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for crabby  Send Email to crabby     
I'm amazed you can hold a plane at those low speeds.

My 1990 22 Outrage WhalerDrive with 250hp E-Tec spinning a 17 inch pitch BRP Rebel prop tops out around 45-46 MPH (not knots) at just under 5700 rpms; my best cruise is about 4200 rpms / 32-34 MPH / 11.8 gph (numbers approximate from memory as reported on the BRP system). I have an awkward time holding plane under 3800 rpms depending on the conditions and get no benefit in MPG going that slow.

menahaunt11 posted 05-15-2013 07:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for menahaunt11  Send Email to menahaunt11     
Good observation Teak Oil, I forgot to mention that the engine is in fact mounted all the way up.

Teak Oil posted 05-15-2013 09:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
You must have made some other changes besides just the prop. It goes against physics to take the same style prop, ADD 2 inches of pitch, and GAIN 300 rpms. The motor height, trim angle, boat load, or sea conditions must have also been a factor, or the 17P prop was damaged or the engine was not running well.

Either way you seem to be running pretty well right now, glad you are happy with things.

L H G posted 05-16-2013 11:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
You guys should be checking out the other thread now running on a 22 Outrage standard transom with Mercury 150 EFI 4-stroke. Tom Clark is telling him the engine should not be all the way down (as it currently is) and that a Mercury Vengeance prop is less than optimal. But he's already getting getting 45 MPH, and I'll bet he'll get 48 out of it when rigged correctly with an Enertia prop. We are beginning to get evidence that this 3.0 liter engine is a powerhouse for it's 150 rating.

From two accounts here, it appears the Evinrude E-tec 250 is running about the same 45-46 MPH as the Mercury 150 on a 22 Outrage, and Jim has previously shown that the Whaler Drive does not kill speed. Remember, Evinrude has advertized (tug of war!) that the 150 E-tec performs better than this Merc. So how could the 250 be such a dog? Maybe the E-tec 150 is just as fast as the 250 E-tec?

jimh posted 05-16-2013 12:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Larry--Do you mean to say that by your references to these various articles you have just proven that a Mercury outboard engine rated 150-HP is more powerful than an E-TEC outboard engine rated at 250-HP? I am not sure if that is the inference I am supposed to make. Please let me know. Are you recommending that this boater remove his E-TEC and replace it with a Mercury engine of 100-HP less rated power?
crow posted 05-16-2013 12:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for crow  Send Email to crow     
You just can't help yourself can you Larry?

I'm sure menahaunt11 really appreciates your comment that his boat performs like a dog.

Also, no Outrage 22 powered with any 150hp engine will run 48 mph. Period.

Your whole schtick is so tired.

jimh posted 05-16-2013 12:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
On my Boston Whaler 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive, a REVENGE model that may be heavier than an OUTRAGE model, and with a 225-HP E-TEC, and using a 17-pitch MIRAGEplus propeller, I usually see a top speed of around 40 to perhaps 42-MPH at the absolute best.

The speed reported here for a similar hull is 39.1-nautical-miles-per-hour. I convert that to statute miles per hour as 45-MPH. Now we can compare speed data.

The increase in speed observed for the 250-HP engine compared to the 225-HP engine is about 3-MPH from 42-MPH (using my absolutely best speed ever). This is a speed increase ratio of 45/42 = 1.07.

Our usual understanding of how a planing hull will respond to increase in power is the speed will increase at the 0.5-exponent. The power increase was 250/225 = 1.11. That increase to the 0.5-exponent becomes 1.054.

We see that in the comparison of this boat to my boat, the speeds are reasonably in proportion to the horsepower used, with the 250-HP boat being slightly faster than expected. To account for that difference I would suggest the weight may be lower on the faster boat.

Overall, I think the performance data provided is completely consistent with expectations, using comparison to a similar boat.

I see that LHG has taken this data and tried to make comparisons to completely different boats, and has from that process, and in the amazing deductive power of his mind, come up with some startling conclusions. But, as I have said many times, it is not reasonable to make comparisons between completely different types of boats, and with measurement data gathered by completely different methods, by different people, at different times, under different environments. Although I have done just that, I found that there was a reasonable congruence in the data, and I cannot make any remarkable conclusions from it.

Also, LHG asserts certain statements by me that I have no recollection of making. In regard to the influence of a Whaler Drive on boat speed, I have observed that there is little value in making a comparison of a boat with a Whaler Drive that is more than two-feet longer than a boat without a Whaler Drive, and trying to isolate the effect of the Whaler Drive on performance. The Whaler Drive boat is longer and also heavier, and it is not surprising that a shorter and lighter boat can obtain a higher speed with the same horsepower.

I observe that there are two constant and apparently ineluctable themes that are favored by LHG, which, not surprisingly have been introduced here. These themes are, generally;

--the Whaler Drive is a terrible device

--the E-TEC is a terrible engine

There are corollaries to these themes. That the Whaler Drive is a terrible device suggest that is why Larry did not get one on his boat, but instead installed another outboard bracket with a much smaller buoyancy box that lifts clear of the water when on plane. That the E-TEC is a terrible engine suggests that is why Larry continues to operate his conventional two-cycle engines from the 1980's and to recommend only more modern engines made by Mercury as alternatives.

Further corollaries are: any report of boat performance with a Whaler Drive must mention the harmful influence of the Whaler Drive on performance; any report of boat performance with an E-TEC engine must mention the disappointing results compared with hypothetical results that would certainly occur if a Mercury engine were used.

Thank you, Larry, for your consistency of contributions.

jimh posted 05-16-2013 01:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Ignoring L H G and his distractions, I'd like to get back on the topic:

menahaunt11 writes:

quote:
I forgot to mention that the engine is in fact mounted all the way up.

Thanks for that interesting report on the engine mounting height. My E-TEC on my Whaler Drive is presently mounted in the one-hole-up position. My dealer has been encouraging me to try it mounted higher. If I understand your report, your E-TEC is mounted on the Whaler Drive in the three-holes-up orientation. That is much higher than I would have expected.

menahaunt11 also writes about the performance of the boat with the 19-pitch MIRAGEplus propeller:

quote:
The wake was noticeably thinner and cleaner, and the boat seemed to ride better and maintain greater stability in light chop conditions.

I find observations of the wake to be very interesting. I have noticed that the wake generated by the boat tends to vary with different propellers. Was the engine mounting position the same for both propellers?

L H G posted 05-16-2013 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Instead of attacking the messenger pointing out the peerfromance of two 22 Outrages, readers here can simply make their own conclusions of the relative merits/disadvantages of all three components: Whaler Drive on a 22 Outrage, a Mercury 150, an an Evinrude 250.

For this comparison, nobody cares how a heavier 22 Revenge runs. The two claims of 45 MPH top end come from 22 Outrage models, and with two different engines. None of this is personal. The facts should be of interest to all, and I had nothing to do with the facts.

This fellow says his Outrage 22 gets 45 MPH, and Tom is telling him he can do better. That is probably correct. And the boat is loaded down with a kicker and tee top. He shows photos of the boat.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007886.html

The poster here says his 22 Outrage gets the same 45 MPH with a 250 HP E-Tec. That caught my attention after reading the previous thread. That is all there is to it.

So we can assume one, two or all three of the following:

1. The new Mercury 150 puts out more than 150HP at the prop.

2. The E-tec 250 puts out less than 250HP at the prop

3. The Whaler Drive, for all of it's benefits, kills speed. But I don't think a Whaler Drive kills 100HP, so the engines must be a part of this. Logical?

My best guess - All three.

Tom W Clark posted 05-16-2013 02:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
5

The number of replies this thread took for Larry to introduce Mercury outboard motors into a discussion of a completely different outboard motor.

Buckda posted 05-17-2013 05:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
I will just also point out the "fact" that the results for the boat in question with the Mercury are reported by the same person who ran the boat previously with twin "OptiMax" motors. Which were, in fact, not OptiMax motors. I do not bring this up to impugn the other contributor, but to point out that one must be very careful and mindful of the quality and veracity of data before making conclusions and calling those conclusions "facts".

Does anybody besides me and [b]crow[\b] have serious doubts that any 22' Whaler can achieve 48 mph with a standard production 150 up engine, except with the stipulation that the boat be going over Niagara Falls?

Peter posted 05-17-2013 06:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
There is no question that an Outrage 22 with a T top, a kicker, a 120 gallon fuel tank and a new 150 HP motor hanging on the transom can go 48 MPH -- on a trailer behind a tow vehicle.
L H G posted 05-17-2013 02:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Well, I think we are making progress. Instead of attacking the messenger/interpreter of the facts, which I appreciate, now challenge the "Eagle" who initially gave us the facts. We have three sets of data being represented here, 2 with 250 E-tecs and one with a Merc, all on Outrage 22's.

If the figures given by the Mercury guy pan out, than the only thing left in support of Evinrude and Whaler Drive is to challenge the E-tec guys (with almost identical performance data) by saying they both don't know how to rig/operate a boat because it is so slow.

Let's see what happens.

menahaunt11 posted 05-17-2013 06:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for menahaunt11  Send Email to menahaunt11     
I too share skepticism in achieving 45mph+ with 150hp engine on a 22' Outrage. Not buying it, but certainly open to any form of evidence to back these claims. Even if it were to be true, and as mentioned by LHG that my 250hp ETEC is in fact a dog and thus I should be thoroughly embarrassed about my ability to properly rig/operate my own boat, I will still be satisfied with the extra 100hp. I will use every bit of that extra 100hp in rough conditions or a steep following sea. Lets not forget that boating conditions are rarely what we want them to be, and for those like myself that fish far offshore, more HP is a choice I made not solely based on WOT performance.

LHG- Don't shift the attention off yourself. You relinquish any title as "messenger" or "interpreter" when you deliberately & successfully hijack a thread introducing not only an entirely different topic all together, but a different boat, different engine, and a whole new argument from which to steer the thread in a direction completely irrespective of my original intent - providing data and personal experience to help a future whaler owner make an informed decision on prop selection if he/she happens to acquire the same engine make/model boat.

jimh- Yes the engine was mounted all the way up for both props under question.

TeakOil- "You must have made some other changes besides just the prop. It goes against physics to take the same style prop, ADD 2 inches of pitch, and GAIN 300 rpms. The motor height, trim angle, boat load, or sea conditions must have also been a factor, or the 17P prop was damaged or the engine was not running well."

-I only recently got into performance figures when a friend had shared some advice and concern that my 22' may not be running with the right pitch given top speed was lower than expected. I did have a cold-starting issue with the engine last fall before I winterized it, so there could have been something within the engine diminishing total output. I am fairly confident it was 5200rpms max with the 17p since the initial concern that prompted my interest was that the rpms were barely over 5000 with hammer down and trimmed up. Now that I have the ability to calculate real-time figures with GFS 10 unit, I plan to switch back temporarily to the 17p to share insight on gains or potential losses when compared to the 19p.

Teak Oil posted 05-17-2013 09:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
The 17 will be good to have on hand for trips with heavy loads, in rough waters, water sports, etc.

When I know I will have a lot of gear or passengers I will throw my 18 on so I know I can still hit max rpm and not lug my outboard down.

jimh posted 05-18-2013 12:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
My 22-footer with Whaler Drive and a 225-HP E-TEC will routinely run about 5,500-RPM with the MIRAGEplus 17-pitch. If you were only getting to 5,200-RPM from the 250-HP with that propeller there was something awry.

When I finish up some other projects, I may try raising the engine on my boat, based on the results you have reported.

I also look forward to re-testing results for the 17-pitch MIRAGEplus. I am particularly interested in comments about the wake.

ASIDE: When I mention my boat it is the same hull with the same Whaler Drive as the boat under discussion, although it has different layout and is not an OUTRAGE, I think it is much more similar than a boat that does not have a Whaler Drive and is 2-feet 6-inches shorter. This is why I have mentioned my boat in this discussion. I think it is a close comparison. Also, I have the same engne, just rated 225-HP instead of 250-HP. Finally, I have the same propeller, the MIRAGEplus. So I find it rather bizarre that it has been suggested that I stop participating and instead we talk about a different boat, no Whaler Drive, different engine, different propeller. That makes no sense to me. Further, the results I have observed are very closely correlated to the results reported here, with only a variance of a few percent from predicted performance. I find that data more believable that some radically different results that correlate with nothing ever seen before.

EaglesPDX posted 05-18-2013 08:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh - I think it is a close comparison. Also, I have the same engne, just rated 225-HP instead of 250-HP. Finally, I have the same propeller, the MIRAGEplus. So I find it rather bizarre that it has been suggested that I stop participating and instead we talk about a different boat, no Whaler Drive, different engine, different propeller. That makes no sense to me.

More information is always better than less information. I found the information on same motor on different Whaler useful in another discussion. Same here and in this case, I believe it is the same hull. Same as andygere's Outrage 22' cuddy and my Outrage 22' open.

jimh posted 05-18-2013 09:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
An Outrage 22 and and Outrage 22 Whaler Drive are not comparable boats. The Whaler Drive model is two-feet six-inches longer, and weighs more. To compare performance would be like comparing a 16.5-footer to a 19-footer.

LHG likes to enter these discussions to give his unique view of the Whaler Drive. LHG has perhaps the only full-transom Boston Whaler boat ever made that was not set up with a Whaler Drive. So he likes to tell the thousands of Boston Whaler boat owners with a Whaler Drive how great his boat runs compared to a Whaler Drive, and how the Whaler Drive must be the worst choice ever made by a boater. I get a bit weary of hearing this over and over whenever anyone with a Whaler Drive boat posts information about their performance.

The real story about Larry's boat is he is trapped by its configuration. Because he did not get the Whaler Drive, his engine bracket has only a very small buoyancy box. He cannot put any modern outboard engines on that boat due to their weight. He is stuck running 1980-era lightweight two-stroke-cycle engines. There is really no option for him to repower with modern engines. Without the buoyancy box, if he put a pair of modern engines on that boat the static trim would be very bad. The static trim is already compromised, as his boat sits with the bow up about five degrees even with the lightweight old two-stroke-cycle engines. The boat runs with the bow very light due to all the weight in the stern on the bracket without a buoyancy box.

It would be nice if we could have a discussion about a boat with a Whaler Drive without having to get a lecture from Larry about how bad they are, how he was able to figure this out, and as a result has the only Boston Whaler of its kind that has a bracket without a buoyancy box.

It would also be nice if we could have a discussion about a boat with an E-TEC without having to get a lecture from Larry about how bad they are, how he has figured out that a Mercury engine would be so much better, and usually explains this by proposing a string of data reports where one has to connect from dot to dot to dot in order to reach the same conclusion.

I don't really expect Larry to change. He has been jumping into threads like this to give us his personal opinion of the Whaler Drive and the E-TEC. For Larry, this thread is the perfect thread. He gets a two-for-one deal. He can crow about the Whaler Drive and about the E-TEC at the same time.


jimh posted 05-18-2013 10:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
There have been many reports of how boat speed varies with horsepower, and in everyone that I have investigated I found that the results were in very close agreement with the prediction of boat speed as function of horsepower to weight as suggested by Crouch and which has been incorporated in the calculator I have called Crouch's Speed Calculator and made into a web calculator. See:

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl

The calculator uses a relationship of speed to horsepower at the 0.5-exponent. So if a particular boat has a 250-HP engine and reaches a speed of 45-MPH, we can predict the speed with other horsepower for that boat, assuming there was no change in weight and assuming the propeller works at the same efficiency. If we predict for 150-HP we find the speed should be about 35-MPH.

In my experience these predictions are typically quite accurate, and it would be my expectation that if a boat that went 45-MPH with a 250-HP were re-powered with a 150-HP engine the top speed would decrease to 35-MPH. There is not much else that can happen, according to the laws of Physics and the nature of a planing hull boat.

It may be a source of amusement for some to suggest that certain engines have properties and can accomplish feats that are not possible according to the laws of Physics. There is a general name for this sort of ability: magic. When I read about magic feats I get a chuckle. Most adults no longer believe in magic. But, apparently some still do. If you want to get a magic engine to use on your boat to make it go magically faster than the laws of Physics suggest, you probably are going to get an engine with a black cowling, because that sort of result requires black magic

L H G posted 05-18-2013 12:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I think we are continuing top make progess on OPINIONS for the apparent discrepancy in performance between the Merc 150 and the Evinrude 250 on a 22 Outrage.

Jim sez:

"An Outrage 22 and and Outrage 22 Whaler Drive are not comparable boats. The Whaler Drive model is two-feet six-inches longer, and weighs more. To compare performance would be like comparing a 16.5-footer to a 19-footer."

A 22 Outrage is a 22 Outrage, the Whaler Drive appendage is to carry the outboard engine, just like a cut transom does, or an Armstrong bracket does.

I guess Jim is taking up my point #3, that the 250# Whaler Drive is eating up 100HP, 40% of the E-tec's available HP. He may be correct, I disagree based on my own experiences, but he is entitled to that opinion. One can't have this one both ways, so the WD appendage has to take the blame in this case to protect the HP output of the E-tec 250. Unless "Eagles" new Merc 150 is an under-rated powerhouse.

EaglesPDX posted 05-18-2013 07:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh - An Outrage 22 and and Outrage 22 Whaler Drive are not comparable boats.

They are the same hull so very comparable.

One has an extended engine drive attached to the identical hull so lots of commonality and crossover.

The person with the 18' Outrage with same engine provides excellent information about the performance of the same engine on an Outrage 22' so even non-identical hulls provide good information about a common major component.

quote:
jimh - The real story about Larry's boat..

Frankly my dear I don't give a hoot. You guys are like an old married couple complaining about annoying quirks after being together 50 years. Stop responding to his posts if they bother you otherwise you are half the problem.

More info is always better to have. How the various Outrage 22' classic hull configurations perform is of interest to me and is useful information.

jimh posted 05-19-2013 08:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The 22-footer and 22-footer with Whaler Drive are not the same hull. One of them is two-feet longer. The 22-footer with Whaler Drive is more like a 25-footer, it is only a few inches shorter, although the beam is different.

Larry and I have never been married to each other.

Eagle's position that I must not give important information about Larry's boat is inconsistent with his statement that more information is always better to have. I just gave more information, but Eagle' complains that he doesn't give a hoot. Which is it?

jimh posted 05-19-2013 08:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Larry--What speed do you predict for a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 with Whaler Drive when powered by a Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO?

You seem to keep making allusions to that combination, so just tell us what speed you predict for it. If you would please give us your speed prediction, then we can truly understand what point you are trying to make.

Also, please tell us what speed you predict for an OUTRAGE 22 without a Whaler Drive with an E-TEC 250-HP.

I will give you my predictions for both of the above:

--an OUTRAGE 22 with Whaler Drive that goes 45-MPH with a 250-HP engine will go about 35-MPH with a 150-HP engine--no black magic in effect.

--an OUTRAGE 22 with an E-TEC 250-HP will go 52.7-MPH if it is similar to OUTRE. OUTRE was reported to hit 50-MPH with a 225-HP engine. If you increase the horsepower to 250-HP, the proportional speed increase will be to 52.7-MPH. If the OUTRAGE 22 is similar to the one reported to hit 44-MPH with a 150-HP engine, when that OUTRAGE 22 has 250-HP the proportional speed increase will allow it to hit 56.8-MPH.

jimh posted 05-19-2013 08:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Without changing the engine power, if a boat is made longer and heavier, how should the speed of the boat change?

My understanding of boat design is that boats that are heavier and longer do not go as fast as boats that are shorter and lighter. For example, if I put a 50-HP engine on a 15-foot boat I expect it to go faster than the same 50-HP on a 17-foot boat that was heavier. When this happens, I do not start complaining that increased weight and increased hull length are "speed killers." People who make that sort of argument are either

--irrational,

--don't understand boat design, or

--just advancing a particular agenda that ignores the principles of boat design and rational thought

jimh posted 05-19-2013 09:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
As I have mentioned before when Larry has introduced his favorite dogma about the Whaler Drive, there is one very good way to test for the influence of the Whaler Drive. I will repeat my description of the method of testing the influence of the Whaler Drive on boat speed:

To test the Whaler Drive influence on boat speed, we will need two boats of similar length and hull design. We will use a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 20 with Whaler Drive and a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22. The hulls of these boats are remarkably similar in design, and their overall length and weight will be very close. The OUTRAGE 20 Whaler Drive will be 22-feet 2-inches long; the OUTRAGE 22 will be the same. The beam will also be the same. The major difference in the boats will be the last two-feet of the hull. The OUTRAGE 22 will have a continuation of the hull while the OUTRAGE 20 Whaler Drive will have the Whaler Drive, which is something of a stepped hull form.

To make the test as rigorous as possible, we ought to use the same engine on each boat, along with the same propeller. Of course, it will be awkward to move one engine between two boat transoms. Alternatively, we might use two new engines of the same model. It would be reasonable that two new engines of the same model, right out of the box, ought to have very similar horsepower.

Using the same propeller on each boat would be best, but we could use two propellers of the same model.

As much as possible we adjust the total boat weights so they are the same. Now we have a test that isolates the influence of the Whaler Drive. We run the two boats at full throttle and measure their speed.

To isolate the influence of the propellers, we can swap the propeller between the boats and repeat the test.

To isolate the influence of the engines, we can swap the engines between the boats and repeat the tests.

We will have six sets of test data. We will have boat's A and B, engines A and B, and propellers A and B. We will analyze the test data to see which variable had the most influence on the boat speed. We can deduce the influence of the engine and propeller on the boat speed from those comparison tests, and then we can subtract that influence from the boat speed tests. Then we will know the influence of the Whaler Drive on boat speed.

EaglesPDX posted 05-19-2013 05:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
[quote] jimh - To test the Whaler Drive influence on boat speed, we will need two boats of similar length and hull design. We will use a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 20 with Whaler Drive and a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22"

To test effect of Whalerdrive you'd pick two boats of the SAME hull and SAME length, one with the Whaler Drive and one without.

A 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive and a 22 Outrage without Whaler Drive.


KISS principle applies.

EaglesPDX posted 05-19-2013 08:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh - Without changing the engine power, if a boat is made longer and heavier, how should the speed of the boat change?

Whaler and others (Grady White does it on a couple boats) argument on adding the engine brackets is that the added weight is offset by the leverage and efficiency gains of the engines further back off the hull.

It was popular once but seems to have faded as the added weight and inconvenience of the engines way back there was apparently not accompanied by a corresponding gain in efficiency or speed. It may have cost efficiency and speed.

We do seem some aluminum boats with engine brackets they don't extend them all the way across the transom though, just enough to mount the engines. Again, I'm guessing they found no advantage in performance in the full width and depth motor brackets.

The manufacturers all consider them engine brackets not hull extensions as the hulls are still Outrage 22 or Grady White 225 or North River 22.

jimh posted 05-20-2013 04:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
A proposed test is said by Eagle' to be

"A 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive and a 22 Outrage without Whaler Drive."

No, this test does not test the influence of the Whaler Drive. Please my comments earlier. The only situation with Boston Whaler boats that will give us a comparison is the 20-foot with Whaler Drive versus the 22-foot without. They are both 22-feet long, the same width, and probably close in weight. Your tests will see if a shorter and lighter hull goes faster than a longer and heavier hull of similar design.

Also, I a don't find model designators to be binding. My boat is designated as a "22" but with the bow platform and Whaler Drive it is about 27-feet long. I am comparing the length of the hull that is in the water.

I do agree that this practice of hanging engines on non-buoyancy box set-back brackets has gone out of favor. I think the weight of the new engines has killed it. To hang a pair of 700-lbs outboard engines on a cantilever off the transom and not get any support from buoyancy creates too much stern weight. The non-buoyancy box brackets became popular with outboards that only weighed about 350-lbs each.

L H G posted 05-20-2013 05:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
So after all of this, and no other posters to the argue that a 22 outrage WD is not a 22 Outrage, we are back to the original ideas:

1. The new Mercury 150 puts out more than 150HP at the prop.

2. The E-tec 250 puts out less than 250HP at the prop

3. The Whaler Drive, for all of it's benefits, kills speed. But I don't think (an evidently nobody else does either) a Whaler Drive kills 100HP, so the engines are clearly a part of this.

But regarding the Evinrude 250, I do remember a few magazine articles:

One was a comparison of four center console offshore boats powered with tripe 250 HP engines. They were all different boats, but the Evinrude 250's were on the samllest, and lightest boat (I believe a Wellcraft), and it was the slowest. The Triple 250 Optimax boat was fastest, followed by the triple Verado boat, and then the triple Yamaha 250 4-stroke boat. In the following discussion with E-tec people lookng for reasons to defend the poor E-tec perfromance, were a trashing of the magazing ("Boating" I think), and different boats being used, even those the other three engines were pushing heavier boats. The Opti's were on a Fountain.

Then I remember when Bass and Walley Boats magazine wanted to do a 250 HP Shootout. Mercury, Yamaha and Suzuki all showed up with engines to be mounted on the same boat, but Evinrude refused to show with their 250. I wonder what they they were hiding (probably another last place showing).

So it is at least possible that the 250 E-tec is not a real strong 250, and Evinrude actually knows it.

EaglesPDX posted 05-20-2013 11:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh- "A 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive and a 22 Outrage without Whaler Drive." No, this test does not test the influence of the Whaler Drive.

It is the ONLY test that would tell you the effects of the Whaler Drive on the performance of an Outrage 22 hull.

Peter posted 05-21-2013 07:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
An Outrage 22 and and Outrage 22 WD are not the same. The Outrage 22 WD has a running surface which is 2 feet longer. It's a 24' 3" boat versus a 22' 3" boat. Saying that they are the same would be no different than saying a 20 foot Grady White 209 center console is the same as the 22 foot Grady White 222 center console.

Saying that the Outrage 22 and Outrage 22 WD are the same is equivalent to saying the Outrage 22 and Outrage 25 are the same boat but for the performance robbing extra 2' 4" and 6 or so inches of beam of the Outrage 25 hull.

EaglesPDX posted 05-21-2013 07:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
Peter - An Outrage 22 and and Outrage 22 WD are not the same.

Correct. And that is why if one wants to measure the effect, positive or negative, of the Whaler Drive attachment on the SAME HULL one would test the two side by side, same engine, same conditions.

It is the ONLY way to determine if the effects of the bolted on Whaler Drive motor bracket have a positive or negative on the Outrage 22 hull.

What works best? The Whaler Drive? Armstrong Brackets? Nothing?

Whaler considered it an option on the Outrage 22 and listed it as Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive. Not an Outrage 24.

jimh posted 05-21-2013 09:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It never occurred to me that a test published by a magazine that has since gone out of business in which the magazine did not test an particular engine could be cited as being proof positive that the engine it did not test had some characteristics that were not tested. That is quite an amazing way to string together a lot of suppositions into a proof.

You have to excuse me for not accepting that argument. You see, I have actually had an E-TEC 250 H.O. on my boat, and I have measured its performance, and I was completely impressed by its performance. So I am not swayed by the inference that something that was not tested or measured would be stronger evidence than my own first-hand experience.

It is too bad that LHG was not the head of design at Boston Whaler when they developed the Whaler Drive. The Whaler Drive was developed by Bob Dougherty, and it appears that Bob went completely wrong. If only LHG had been there to teach Bob Dougherty how to design a boat properly. Here is Bob, having successfully started and run two more boat companies (Edgewater and Everglades), and he is still designing boats with sterns that look a lot like a Whaler Drive. If only Bob could have talked to LHG, he might have seen the light.

Peter posted 05-21-2013 10:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
And that is why if one wants to measure the effect, positive or negative, of the Whaler Drive attachment on the SAME HULL one would test the two side by side, same engine, same conditions.
.

The Whaler Drive is not a motor bracket, but rather it is bolt-on hull extension providing more wetted hull surface area. Unlike a motor bracket which has no running surface in the water when the boat is on plane, the Whaler Drive does. A Whaler model with a Whaler Drive does not ride the same as a Whaler model without. Rather, it rides like a boat that is 2 feet longer (or 3 feet in the case of the Whaler 27 Whaler Drive).

A boat that is heavier and has more wetted hull surface area with same hull configuration will require more power. The laws of physics apply equally to Whaler as they do to any other boat manufacturer.

Again, by analogy, compare the Grady 209 to Grady 222 hull. Both have an 8' beam. The 222 is essentially an extended 209. An F225 can push a 209 to 49 MPH. The same motor can only manage 43 MPH when bolted to the 222 transom. If this was a Whaler, we should conclude that the 222 has a performance robbing hull extension?

jimh posted 05-21-2013 11:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Peter--You are correct in your description of the differences between a Whaler Drive and an engine bracket without a buoyancy box, but I am not anticipating you will have much success in trying to convert EaglesPDX; his view of how a Whaler Driver is supposed to work seems dogmatic.

He (and LHG) have invented a test criteria which cannot be overcome, that is, they propose a test in which the Laws of Physics must be mutated in order for the Whaler Drive to create no drag. It is my experience that the Laws of Physics are not likely to mutate, so in the test they propose the outcome will be in accordance with the Laws of Physics.

If I run my boat into a foul current of 3-MPH, I expect that my speed over ground will decrease by 3-MPH, because that is how the Laws of Physics work. So if I make my boat two-feet longer and several hundred pounds heavier, I expect that it will go slower, because that is how the Laws of Physics work.

At this point, we are up against the Laws of Physics. The only realm left for the discussion is the Metaphysical. Maybe we can begin a discussion of Metaphysics. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

As for the engine horsepower and the personal interpretations of it, this is really a discussion of Ego. For more on that topic see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(spirituality)

Maybe we can get back to helping menahaunt11 find a propeller.

Peter posted 05-21-2013 12:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I've always thought that a Whaler 27 WD was about twice as much boat as a Revenge 22, at least from the water surface perspective because it usually required twice as much bottom paint for the Whaler 27 WD than the Revenge 22. I've had both. Accordingly, the Revenge 22 and the Whaler 27 WD will go about the same top speed with a 225 HP outboard motor or 2X that in the case of the Whaler 27 WD. Based on my own testing, now many years ago, the 17 inch pitch Mirage Plus propeller was the right pitch in that model for the Whaler 27 WD and would likely be the better of the two pitches considered (17 and 19) for that model propeller for an Outrage 22 WD with a 250 HP Evinrude.

In my experience, the Mirage Plus propeller is not very good at holding low speed plane when connected to the propeller shaft of an Evinrude Magnum gearcase. My experience with both an Outrage 18 with 150 Johnson and the Whaler 27 WD with the twin 225s is that the propeller ventillated too easily.

Menahaunt should consider trying a Mercury Revolution 4, 17 inch pitch. Fuel economy will drop a little from the Mirage Plus but low speed grip will be greatly improved and that could improve ride quality.

andygere posted 05-21-2013 12:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
quote:
Whaler and others (Grady White does it on a couple boats) argument on adding the engine brackets is that the added weight is offset by the leverage and efficiency gains of the engines further back off the hull.

It was popular once but seems to have faded as the added weight and inconvenience of the engines way back there was apparently not accompanied by a corresponding gain in efficiency or speed. It may have cost efficiency and speed.


I'd say exactly the opposite is true. The concept of moving the outboards aft on a cantilever structure was so popular, it has become integrated into the hull form. Take a look at the profile and deck plan of the current 220 Outrage. You will see the outboard mounted several feet aft of the cockpit, perhaps even farther back than a circa 1989 Whaler Drive. Some of this is perhaps to accommodate the massive engine cowls of the currently available motors, but I believe most of it is to take advantage of the performance and ride characteristics.
http://www.bostonwhaler.com/Page.aspx/pageId/29593/pmid/308679/ 220-Outrage.aspx

L H G posted 05-21-2013 01:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I would say Andy has it correct and JIm has it wrong. Mnay of the newer hulls are simply making the "cantilevered transom bracket" an integral part of the fiberglass hull.

As for the 22 Outrage vs 22 Outrage with Whaler Drive bolted on, I'd say Jim and Peter are simply talking to themselves, as often happens. I'd say "Eagle" is keeping those two from sleeping at night. All of the "Whaler Drive" talk is simply cover/justification for the questionable performance of the Evinrude 250, as evidenced by two separate installations on Whaler Drive boats as reported here. Whether the thesis that a Whaler Drive transforms the Outrage 22 into two completly different boats has any validity at all, the fact is the difference between the two is not 100 HP less efficient. I'm sticking with my 3 point argument. Why is it so threatening to Jim and Peter that the new Merc may be a strong 150? This has been Mercury's tradition for 60 years now. What's the big deal? Yamaha doesn't seem to be concerned about it at all. Why only JIm and Peter?

It is widely accepted, and proven, that with the same HP Whaler Drive fitted hulls are simply not as fast, or efficient, as the cut transom models, and need more HP to do the same thing. When I bought my Outrage 25 new in 1989, the PEOPLE AT THE WHALER FACTORY TOLD ME THAT!

None of which means that the full transom Whaler Drive models are not highly desireable.

jimh posted 05-21-2013 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Andy is making my point: the Whaler Drive has been so popular that it is now just made as part of the hull, not a bolt on. You can see that Bob Dougherty still likes the design: it is used on his Everglade and Edgewater boats.

Whaler probably had to do some work to incorporate the molded-on Whaler Drive into the Unibond Hull because their construction technique. And, of course, to make new molds. In the 1980's Whaler did not seem to like making molds. They used the same hull mold for every model--cabin boat, open cockpit boat, closed transom boat, open transom boat. That the Whaler Drive bolts on to the stock hull is not surprising. In the 1980's Whaler would not make a new hull mold to make the Whaler Drive part of the hull.

What has completely gone out of fashion is the use of engine set-back brackets without any buoyancy box. There are two reasons:

--today's engines are much too heavy for use with them; the static trim would be terrible and the engines at risk for being washed out when the boat settles when coming off plane.

--the boat ride is improved by having some of the engine bracket in the water; the ride with big set-back brackets without some running surface is a bit too squirrelly for everyday use

Of course, the boats with a Whaler Drive type design are now identified as being two-feet or three-feet longer models. If this nonsense about boat length put out by LHG and EaglesPDX applied, then these new models would be marketed as being three-feet shorter and having an engine bracket. Needless to say, they are not.

More support for the concept of the Whaler Drive as part of the hull, and now even LHG seems onboard with that! Amazing.

L H G posted 05-21-2013 06:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
My transom bracketed 25 Outrage has nothing to do with this discussion other than it is the messenger's boat. If Jim wants to self-declare all Whalers with transom brackets, mine and others such as the 1991-1993 23 Walkarounds or 1991-1995 27 Walkarounds, "out of fashion", who cares? It's fine by me. I am not offended. And for those readers who don't know what boat Jim is talking about, here it is:

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lgoltz/media/Outrage%2025/ 7269006-R2-006-1A.jpg.html?sort=6&o=9#/user/lgoltz/media/Outrage%2025/ Scan0050.jpg.html?sort=6&o=8&_suid=1369172624752045178246905200153

But after all of this distraction, we still have two Outrage 22 WD's with E-Tec 250's that go 45 MPH, and one regular Outrage 22 with a 150 Merc that goes 45 MPH. Evidently it takes 67% more HP, and a lot more fuel, to move the WD models the same speed. That's what we are being TOLD to believe because they are completely different boats.

Because of apparent editorial policy on CW, the poor Whaler Drive unit evidentally has to take the responsibility for 100% of this 100 HP discrepancy.

andygere posted 05-21-2013 06:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
quote:
one regular Outrage 22 with a 150 Merc that goes 45 MPH

44 is not equal to 45. I haven't seen anywhere that EaglesPDX claims his boat goes 45 mph. Can anyone find this reference? Are we discussing a different Outrage 22 with a 150 Merc?

littleblue posted 05-21-2013 07:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for littleblue  Send Email to littleblue     
For what it's worth, I hit 47.5 on my 22' Outrage (non Whalerdrive) with a 1998 200hp Mercury EFI Offshore.

Some of you may have seen this before but here is more data.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/Triton_38/1993%20Outrage%2022/ Outrage22PerformanceSheet2-11-13_zpsf7408bea.jpg

L H G posted 05-21-2013 08:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Andy - here it is:
(in the initial post)

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007886.html

I think on the 250's, one reported 46 MPH. I'm not sure a mile an hour difference or two makes a big difference when we are talking 100 HP rated differences. After all, the 250 should be faster - period. But when Eagles gets set up right with a better prop and engine height, he could be doing even better. We'll just have to wait and see.

Little Blue's post brings in a fourth point of comparison. I know the Merc 200 EFI's are a solid 200HP, and he is getting 47.5 MPH. Once again, 200 HP on a cut transom boat is outperforming 250 HP on a Whaler Drive version. This all goes to indicate this new 3.0 liter 150 Mercury is pretty powerful, and probably intentionally under-rated. After all, many think they will be bringing out higher HP versions, maybe even 200.

Duf has been reporting on his Outrage 25 that they are almost as fast as his previous 200 Yamaha HPDI's.

Regarding propellers, (the original subject of this thread)it is looking like the Mercury Mirage Plus performs better on the Whaler Drive boats, and the Enertia and Vensura perform better on the cut transom boats.

Peter posted 05-21-2013 10:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The pre 4-stroke era Grady White 248 Voyager and Sailfish 272 models had an integrated Euro-transom bracket design. Some call it a stepped keel boat. On those models, the full keel ended about two or three feet in front of the transom. Even with the step, those boats have a much larger buoyancy box than Larry's Armstrong bracketed Outrage 25 does and while not really made for a 4-stroke weight, those Grady's would be better able to handle the 4-stroke weight than Larry's boat. When the heavier stroke outboards came out, Grady filled in the step on the replacement models for the 248 and 272 so that the full keel goes ALL THE WAY to the transom like a regular boat. All one needs to understand this is to compare the bottom of the hull for the last 2 feet of the 248 Voyager model to the 257 Journey.

Grady still makes a couple of models in the 22 foot range (Freedom 225 and Seafarer 228) that have an Armstrong set back bracket with small bouyancy box. The difference between those Grady models and a 1980s Outrage 25 with an Armstrong bracket is the Grady models were designed by and sold by the factory with the set back bracket completely in mind and the near one-of-a-kind SeaDrive Blank Outrage 25 to which an Armstrong bracket was later added was not designed with the Armstrong bracket in mind nor sold by Whaler that way and thus in the case of the Grady the weight was redistributed to accomodate the cantilever and in the case of the Whaler, it was not.

I have seen an Outrage 25 I/O model converted to an Armstrong bracket outboard boat. That boat looked like it had reasonable static trim because it only had one outboard motor hanging on the bracket (about 600 lbs) not two outboards weighing 800 lbs or more.

The Outrage 220 does not have an integrated set back bracket. It has a Euro-transom.

EaglesPDX posted 05-22-2013 12:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
andygere - I'd say exactly the opposite is true. The concept of moving the outboards aft on a cantilever structure was so popular, it has become integrated into the hull form. Take a look at the profile and deck plan of the current 220 Outrage. You will see the outboard mounted several feet aft of the cockpit, perhaps even farther back than a circa 1989 Whaler Drive.

All current Whalers have the engines mounted on the transom of the hull. Whaler does waste a lot of cockpit space by having the splash wall so far into the cockpit but that is not a structural piece,not part of the hull just hollow inner liner.

Whaler no longer offers a Whaler Drive bolt on engine bracket on any of its models. I think it is fair to say that Whaler found it inefficient.

In regard to the Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive, suffice to say Whaler always considered a Whaler 22 not a Whaler 24.

If one wants to know the performance effect on the Whaler Drive, then test a pair of Outrage 22's, one with Whaler Drive, one without. identical engines, identical conditions.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 01:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The Whaler Drive approach has taken over the market. The non-buoyancy-box bracket approach has been completely dropped, for the reasons I gave earlier. the entire boat industry that has more or less gone with the Whaler Drive approach, and they just molded it into the hull. Let me show you what I mean. Look at this:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/edgewater260-502x311. jpeg

It's an Edgewater with a hull form that is more or less the same as a Whlaer Drive, but the hull has been molded with the Whaler Drive as part of the hull mold.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 02:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Boston Whaler was offering the Whaler Drive option in its commercial product line. I don't follow those offerings closely, and it may have dropped that option in the recent past.

The present-day Boston Whaler boat engineering has made a huge change in design and manufacturing. Just about every boat now made has its own unique hull and liner mold. This is a huge contrast to the c.1980 era when Whaler make molds for a few hulls of different length, and then used those same hulls for a variety of models. The added cabins, full transoms, and Whaler Drives, and made all sorts of different models using one basic hull mold in the 1980's.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 02:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Here is a new Boston Whaler boat with Whaler Drive being exhibited at the Miami International Boat Show in 2005:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/80/fireBoat750x563.jpg

Cropped out in that image are the twin 225-HP four-stroke-cycle engines. Those heavy engines could not possibly be used without an engine bracket with a buoyancy box.

Peter posted 05-22-2013 07:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
Whaler no longer offers a Whaler Drive bolt on engine bracket on any of its models. I think it is fair to say that Whaler found it inefficient.

You are certainly free to speculate why there is no Whaler Drive. I will challenge that and offer my own speculation -- the mold made 25 or more years ago wore out.

Whaler Drive models of the Outrage 22 and Outrage 25 were offered until the Outrage 22 and Outrage 25 went out of recreational production in the early 1990s.

The history of the 24 foot Grady White walk around cabin models provides a good example of the evolution from the bolt on aluminum bracket to an integrated drive to a full keel to the transom. In 1989, a factory option on the 24 foot Offshore model was the "Grady Drive", which was an aluminum bolt on bracket bolted to a full transom. That aluminum Grady Drive was also offered on the later Explorer model. In the mid 90s, Grady evolved the product line from 24 feet and up to their 30 foot Marlin model to an integrated Eurotransom with a stepped Whaler Drive like stern hull form. The example of that is found in the Voyager 248. That form had far more static bouyancy than an Armstrong bracket could provide thereby reducing the risk that the motors out a cantilever would be submerged in a following sea. When Yamaha came out with heavy 4-stroke outboards, Grady filled in the step to provide more bouyancy so that the boat could handle the weight of the 4-strokes -- giving birth to the Journey 257 model.

EaglesPDX posted 05-22-2013 11:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh - You can see that Bob Dougherty still likes the design: it is used on his Everglade and Edgewater boats.

No Everglades has a 'Whaler Drive' engine bracket never have, never will. The engines are bolted to the transom. You are confusing the positioning of the inner liner shell splashwell which is not structural.

No Whaler has or in future will have a Whaler Drive.

Only two older Grady White designs, the Freedom 225 and the Gulfstream 232, have engine brackets and Grady White measures and sells the boats by the HULL length, not the couple feet added by the engine brackets.

No new Grady White has the engine brackets.

quote:
jimh - The Whaler Drive approach has taken over the market.

See above. Whaler dropped it. No one else uses it. Not sure how you translate that to "taking over" the market. Market, manufacturers and physics have pretty much made a judgement on the engine bracket extensions, Whaler Drive or others.

quote:
andygere - I haven't seen anywhere that EaglesPDX claims his boat goes 45 mph. Can anyone find this reference? Are we discussing a different Outrage 22 with a 150 Merc?

Another thread topic. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007886.html Two of us on that thread are getting 45 mph with the 150 Merc Four Stroke on the classic Outrage 22. We are getting nearly identical mpg at cruise and top end results. Both of us have new engine installs that, according to advice here, need to have mounting and prop optimization that will increase performance by 10%.

In regard to this thread topic, I would say andygere's (or anyone else's) performance with a 200-250 ETEC on an Outrage 22 compared to those with 200-250 ETEC's on the Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive would be the comparison that makes sense in this thread. That would tell whether the Whaler Drive is a plus or minus to boat performance on the Outrage 22 hull.

It would be interesting to see if andygere's 200 ETEC on non-Whaler Drive Outrage 22 is close to that of the 250 ETEC on an Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive. How much extra HP does the Whaler Drive require.


Peter posted 05-22-2013 12:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
In regard to this thread topic, I would say andygere's (or anyone else's) performance with a 200-250 ETEC on an Outrage 22 compared to those with 200-250 ETEC's on the Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive would be the comparison that makes sense in this thread. That would tell whether the Whaler Drive is a plus or minus to boat performance on the Outrage 22 hull.

How would a Whaler Drive be judged as a plus or minus to boat performance on the Outrage 22 hull? Again, taking this to the Grady White analogy is the extra 2-feet of the stern length that the 226 hull has over a 208 hull a plus or a minus? Please answer that simple question.

quote:
Only two older Grady White designs, the Freedom 225 and the Gulfstream 232, have engine brackets and Grady White measures and sells the boats by the HULL length, not the couple feet added by the engine brackets.

Not quite. The 22 foot Seafarer model is offered in a notched transom (Seafarer 226) and bracket version (Seafarer 228G). The hull surface of these two models is exactly the same, unlike an Outrage 22 and an Outrage 22 Whaler Drive. The 228G model is about 2 MPH faster than the 226 model as expected because it allows for the motor to be mounted in a higher position with no additional running surface. But the aluminum Grady Drive will not support much weight at rest, unlike the Whaler Drive and the later incarnations of Grady's hybrid Eurotransom, stepped transom.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 01:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The Whaler Drive is now embodied in the hull design, See the image I linked-to that clearly show this on the Edgewater boat. The stern of that boat is arranged just like the stern of my Boston Whaler with Whaler Drive, with the only difference being the Edgewater has widened the engine bracket to the full hull width.

I am afraid we are at a point where a constant denial of the obvious is going to limit any further discussion. If you can't see that the Edgewater boat is the same as the Boston Whaler with Whaler Drive, we will just have to stop the argument about whether or not boat design continues to use the approach of the Whaler Drive.

I have also clearly demonstrated that as recently as 2005 Boston Whaler was making boats with Whaler Drives in their commercial division, which was using the classic hulls. It is clear that the Whaler Drive was not abandoned. I really don't know if the commercial division is still making them. It is not necessary to my argument for Boston Whaler to continue to make a Whaler Drive. This is just a silly sidebar argument introduced by others.

Their argument is along these lines: if the Whaler Drive was so great, why don't they still make it (and use the words "Whaler Drive")?

My reply is: they do still make it, or at least did up to 2005, calling it a Whaler Drive, and they or other boat builders still incorporate the design into their boat hulls, now as part of the hull.

I also offer this: where are modern 24-foot and longer boats with the straight open notched transom design of the classic Boston Whaler boats? It is that sort of design which is now extinct. You can't find a boat like that on the market any more.

A good example of why boat builders do not offer boats with full-width, open, notched transoms like the classic Outrage 22 or Outrage 25 is the problem of much heavier modern engines and water coming over the transom.

For example: Jeff's father's 22-footer with twin Mercury 150-HP engines--old fashioned Mercury very light two-stroke engines--on an open notched transom. I believe that lee boards had to be installed on the transom to prevent water from shipping aboard when trolling in rough seas. Modern boat design does not employ the full width, open, notched transom design because people do not want the stern of their boat full of water. This problem occurs on the classic 22-footer with twin engines even with extremely lightweight two-stroke-cycle engines. Imagine what the result would be if someone put a pair of VERADO engines on an Outrage 22 with a full-width, open, notched transom. There would be so little freeboard left at the transom that water shipping aboard would be a constant problem.

Bob Dougherty knew this back in the 1980's and designed the solution. The approach to the transom design as seen in the Whaler Drive is now much more common in boats than the open, full-width, notched transom. This design is often called the Euro-transom now. There have been a lot of jingoistic comments about the Euro-transom, too. I anticipate that there will be more.

There is no way to make an argument against the Laws of Physics. If a boat is longer, has more wetted surface, and is heavier, it will need more horsepower to push the boat onto plane and maintain it on plane. If we want to increase speed for a given horsepower, we would make the boat progressively lighter, shorter, and have less running surface. Then, with the same horsepower on a lighter shorter boat going much faster, we can start proclaiming that the longer and heavier boats "rob performance" and need more horsepower to reach the same speed. It is a fool's argument, of course. The advantage of having a longer boat, with more wetted surface, and with corresponding more weight are obvious--it is a bigger boat, it rides much different, and it handles differently.

As for the horsepower produced by modern engines, all of this mumbo-jumbo trying to find some tenuous string of performance reports that lead to a conclusion that a certain favored brand has more horsepower than a less-favored just comes down to the My Dad can beat up your Dad argument from primary school playgrounds. If it makes you feel better to insist that your 150-HP engine makes more power than a competitor's 250-HP engine, you are welcome to hold that opinion, but just don't expect other rational people to agree with you very much.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 01:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
ASIDE: The Whaler Drive was designed by Bob Dougherty. Bob told me that while it was being developed, it was known as the "Dougherty Drive." It was so successful that Boston Whaler adopted it and offered it on their 20, 22, 25, and 27-foot models, but decided they had to change the name to "Whaler Drive."

It is obvious that Bob Dougherty still likes the "Doughterty Drive method for mounting outboard engines on his boats, as he used it in his Edgewater boats. I see elements of the method still in use on his Everglades boats. If you look at any of his center console designs you see the engines mounted outside of the cockpit, with a full transom in front of them. The one significant change Bob has made is to bring the bracket out to the full hull width. The engine bracket is now made part of the hull. This approach to engine mounting on larger outboard boats is just about universal today. It has completely replace the straight, open, full-width, notched transom of the classic c.1980 Boston Whalers.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 02:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I also offer this advice. Spend some time in a Boston Whaler boat with Whaler Drive in a variety of sea conditions, compared to a two-foot shorter boat with a straight, full-width, open, notched transom. I am confident that after making this comparison there will be no concerns about the Whaler Drive causing a loss of performance.

I suspect that both of the main critics of the Whaler Drive have very little time underway aboard Boston Whaler boats with Whaler Drive. I know that LHG has at least one an hour--we took a ride on my boat together. After experiencing the Whaler Drive he suggested that my boat be renamed The Brougham. an allusion to the extremely easy, gentle ride it produced.

I also want to recall another incident involving a Boston Whaler boat with a full-width, open, notched transom operating at low speeds while trolling in rough conditions. In this incident a large wave overtook the boat and completely swamped the cockpit. According to the captain, the only thing that prevent the boat from sinking was the outstanding reserve buoyancy of the Boston Whaler double bottom hull, as the wave came aboard the open transom unimpeded. This is a great example of why boat design on larger outboard boats has shifted away from the open transom to the closed transom with engine bracket and buoyancy box, pioneered by Bob Dougherty and Boston Whaler. The captain of the boat in this incident was LHG.

L H G posted 05-22-2013 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
The boat was my Outrage 18, and a 4 downrigger hangup (yes I had 4 downriggers out!) on a crab trap rope stopped us dead in the water trolling downwind in 4' seas off Ft Lauderdale. Back any boat into 4-seas and you will get water over the transom. Other than that, my 18 has never taken any water over the transom. Since I own a full transom Outrage and can compare, I actually believe the cut transom is a safer boat and can shed the water faster.
In really bad conditions, a full transom Outrage can be less safe.

Getting back to brackets, I give you this:

http://www.regulatormarine.com/34cc.html

EaglesPDX posted 05-22-2013 05:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
jimh - The Whaler Drive is now embodied in the hull design

In other words, eliminated and engines are now mounted on the transom as before. The Whaler Drive was an attachment bolted to the transom of the hull.

Clearly even you view the Whaler Drive as a negative or you would be not be going through such obvious pretzel logic gyrations that all boat transoms are now "WHALER DRIVES" by definition, an obviously silly statement. If all boats now have "Whaler Drives" then my current 22 has a "Whaler Drive" "incorporated into the hull".

If the Whaler Drive were an advantage, certainly after all these years numbers would exist showing better performance between Whaler's with Whaler Drive and Whaler's without.

That we don't such numbers posted seems odd. Even though we have folks with the same Outrage 22 hull, similar engines, some with Whaler Drive attachment, some without. Better to find and post those numbers vs. tilting at windmills claiming all boats, past and present and now "Whaler Drives".

So what are performance numbers for Outrage 22 with a 250 ETEC and andygere's Outrage 22 with a 200 ETEC? Are your numbers similar to menahaunt11's?

The MPG on menahaunt's boat of 2.6 mpg at cruising speeds seems low since the Whaler Drive is only adding 300#.

jimh posted 05-22-2013 08:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
A folly in the argument about the Whaler Drive depends on the attachment of it to the hull with mechanical fasteners, as if this somehow influenced how it worked. Let's take a look at this from the point of view of the water.

Water is sitting around waiting for the boats to pass through it so the water can exert some drag on each boat as it passes. Two boats pass by the water. From the point of view of the water, their underwater profile is nearly the same; one is the Boston Whaler with Whaler Drive and the other is the Edgewater boat I have shown with a hull form that is nearly identical.

Now, according to the critics, the water is somehow supposed to look up and see that one of these boats has the stern portion attached by the mechanical fasteners and the other has the stern portion attached by the chemical bonds of the hull laminate. In the critics' theory, the water is supposed to figure out that it should exert more drag on the Whaler Drive boat because that last two feet of the running surface are attached mechanically and to exert less drag on the Edgewater boat because the last two feet of the running surface are attached by the chemical bonds of the laminate. This is another one of the preposterous claims made against the Whaler Drive--that water discriminates against it because it is bolted on not laminated on.

Now I will show the folly of these horsepower arguments. We have an argument that if we look at speed A obtained by boat B with engine C and compare with a completely different boat D with engine E that goes speed F, we can somehow prove that C is greater than E. This comparison relies on a lot of assumptions and inferences, and the tests are made thousands of miles apart by different people at different times in different conditions.

In contrast we have a photographed and recorded test where everything is the same except the engines, and two identical boats compete directly against each other, at the same time, same place, same environment, and repeated over and over with the same outcome, with the outcome completely the opposite of the one we are supposed to infer from the other argument.

Then, the people making the argument where you have to connect the dots between all these different circumstances and draw some inference based on a complicated series of assumptions say that the recorded test where the two engines compete head-to-head at the same time are meaningless, demonstrate nothing, and there is no conclusion that can be made.

I am a reasonable person and what I see in this is:

--the water can't tell how the last two feet of the hull's running surface are bonded to the front 22-feet of the boat, either with mechanical fasteners or with chemical bonds, so the argument that the fastening mechanism makes a difference is just another silly distraction. I toss that on the same rubbish pile with the claim that if the hull arrangement is not called a "Whaler Drive" then you cannot refer to it, even though it looks and works like a Whaler Drive. You see, the water can't tell what name was used to describe the hull, it exerts drag on it the same way.

--a demonstration in which a head-to-head comparison of two engines is made in very controlled conditions with as many variable eliminated as possible is more likely to produce an outcome in which the engine really is influencing the outcome, not all the other variables.

Since we have already seen that an E-TEC 150 is able to beat a Mercury 150, it seems completely unlikely that a Mercury 150 could outperform an E-TEC 250.

Finally, my earlier question has gone unanswered:

--how fast should menahaunt11's boat go if it were powered by a Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE not VERADO?

jimh posted 05-22-2013 09:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I do not see the Whaler Drive as a negative.

My motivation for "going through all this" is to protect the reputation of the website. People come here and expect reasonable information, not hogwash served up out of deep personal biases.

EaglesPDX posted 05-22-2013 09:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
A folly in the argument about the Whaler Drive depends on the attachment of it to the hull with mechanical fasteners, as if this somehow influenced how it worked.

Certainly any engine mounting attachment bolted to a boat's transom will influence how the boat operates. No one has used a Whaler Drive attachment since Whaler's short experiment with it so clearly no one was buying into it, not the public, not Whaler. If products produce advantages, they continue. If they do not, they are discontinued. Whaler Drive was discontinued.

The actual numbers would be interesting, performance numbers from Whaler 22 with a 200/250 ETEC and performance numbers from a Whaler 22 with a 200/250 ETEC mounted on a Whaler Drive attachment.

Only those actual numbers provide useful information. We have the numbers for a 250 ETEC Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive at the top of the thread. Hopefully someone with Whaler 22 with a 200/250 ETEC will post some comparable numbers.

Would one expect higher speed and greater fuel efficiency from the Outrage 22 or the Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive attachment?

jimh posted 05-22-2013 09:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Are you trying to say that the water can tell when a Whaler Drive is coming and knows to exert more drag?
EaglesPDX posted 05-22-2013 10:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
"How would a Whaler Drive be judged as a plus or minus to boat performance on the Outrage 22 hull?"

By the numbers. Did the Whaler Drive require more power and fuel from an Outrage 22 than an Outrage 22 without a Whaler Drive.

Did it have some other purpose than enhancing the performance of the Outrage 22 or other hulls it was attached to?

In regard to this thread, a comparison of the performance numbers for a 200/350 ETEC on each version of the Outrage 22 would answer that question.

Peter posted 05-23-2013 08:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I am now have a strong belief that EaglePDX has never seen a 1980s era Whaler Drive.
jimh posted 05-23-2013 08:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The Laws of Physics answer these questions. A boat that is 24-feet long and heavier will require more horsepower to reach a certain speed than a boat that is 22-feet long and lighter. Engines consume more fuel when they produce more power. You cannot expect the Laws of Physics to mutate.

The method of creating a hull with the arrangement of the Whaler Drive was expensive, particularly with the method Boston Whaler was using. Whaler had to do a considerable amount of rework by hand with craftsmen-grade assemblers to fabricate the full-transom classic hulls out of the notched transom hulls that came out of the molds. I think the Whaler Drive option was priced about $6,000. The high price probably reduced its sales.

Dougherty overcame that with his Edgewater boats by incorporating the design directly into the hull mold. Also, Edgewater did not use the same method as Boston Whaler to instill the foam into the hull cavity, and that avoided the problem of designing the engine mounting shelf at the stern in a manner that would allow for the Whaler Unibond construction method. All Boston Whaler hull molds have to provide for the foam core to be able to expand and fill all the space in the double bottom. There is probably considerable technique involved in fabricating the molds to allow this to occur reliably. Whether or not the Whaler Drive as it stood in its initial design could be easily made a part of the hull and still allow for the double bottom to be filled with foam is a good question.

jimh posted 05-23-2013 09:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
This is really an important argument to consider. EaglesPDX says:

quote:
... clearly no one was buying into [the Whaler Drive], not the public, not Whaler.

As far as I can tell, just about every full-transom model of classic Boston Whaler boat was sold either with a Whaler Drive or with a Sea Drive. I only know of one customer who did not "buy into" a Whaler Drive. It is hard to base an argument on data where there are thousands of customers who bought a Whaler Drive and about one customer who did not buy one. If I can give a little advice, you should not use this sort of argument in the future if you want to try to make a point about how many people bought Whaler Drives versus alternative arrangements.

There are a few classic Boston Whaler boats from the c.1980 out there that originally had full-transoms and Sea Drives. Some of those have been converted to use a non-buoyancy box engine bracket after the Sea Drive engine failed. They represent a small segment of full-transom classic Boston Whaler boats.

Peter posted 05-23-2013 10:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
There are a few classic Boston Whaler boats from the c.1980 out there that originally had full-transoms and Sea Drives. Some of those have been converted to use a non-buoyancy box engine bracket after the Sea Drive engine failed. They represent a small segment of full-transom classic Boston Whaler boats.

Many, if not most of those, were the Whaler 27 models from 1985 and earlier.

andygere posted 05-23-2013 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Eagle seems to be making the assumption that the only performance attributes worth having are top speed and fuel economy. The Whaler Drive provides many benefits, including the ability to carry the weight of twin outboards with less loss of transom freeboard, a closed transom (to limit splash over, add cockpit security for passengers, add built-in storage,etc.), to provide a versatile swim platform, and to provide the rough water ride benefits of a longer boat without the expense of building a completely new mold. As Jim points out, Whaler's unique manufacturing process was a big driver in the model configuration strategy in place when the Classic hulls were being manufactured. They produced a great many models out of relatively few hull molds, which was necessary to be able to price their boats competitively with other companies that did not have a Unibond hull construction and could therefore be produced at less cost. Hull molds are very expensive, and the more boats you can produce from a single mold, the lower your infrastructure investment cost is per unit produced.
acseatsri posted 05-28-2013 06:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for acseatsri  Send Email to acseatsri     
If no one has noticed, the results posted for a 22 Outrage with a 150 HP engine are nearly identical stats as what an 18 Outrage with a 150 HP engine would achieve and would be believable.
EaglesPDX posted 05-28-2013 08:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for EaglesPDX    
quote:
andygere - Eagle seems to be making the assumption that the only performance attributes worth having are top speed and fuel economy.

That would be making an assumption <grin>.

The discussion was about fuel efficiency and performance not about advantages of closed transoms vs. opens. Seems correct to focus on the key aspects of engine performance, fuel efficiency and top speed in that context. It seems clear from the comparisons posted that the Whaler Drive lowered fuel efficiency and top speed. We also know Whaler discontinued the Whaler Drive and no one else ever implemented it, likely for those reasons.

The lighter engine brackets we see on current boats do increase efficiency on some models, Grady White Seafarer 226 (without) and 228 (with) for example, but these are not at all like the Whaler Drive attachment, more versions of Armstrong brackets. Even then, few offer it.

I would guess LHG's Whaler with the brackets would outperform a similar Whaler with the Whaler Drive and identical engines while maintaining advantages of closed transom. Though, as LHG points out, there may be safety advantages with unsinkable floats level boat like the Whaler to have an open transom.

With the increased leverage and weight of the Whaler Drive, if the boat does get pooped, the water can't get out and the added leverage could put the engines under water, disabling the boat vs. the open boat keeping the power heads up.

But we digress, this thread was on engine performance, fuel efficiency and speed.

jimh posted 05-29-2013 10:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
quote:
It seems clear from the comparisons posted that the Whaler Drive lowered fuel efficiency and top speed. We also know Whaler discontinued the Whaler Drive and no one else ever implemented it, likely for those reasons.

Yes, you keep repeating these themes, but no one seems to agree with them except LHG. May you and Larry meet sometime and repeat these themes to each other over and over. (I am sure he will welcome you with open arms.)

There has been no case made that the Whaler Drive is particularly a terrible influence on speed and fuel efficiency because there are no controlled comparisons between Whaler Drive models and similar models of the same length, width, and weight.

It is rather clear that the approach to mounting engines on all modern boats has moved to a method like the Whaler Drive, where there is an full transom at the aft of the cockpit, the engines are on a shelf that extends aft from the transom, and the shelf has a bottom surface that extends into the water to provide buoyancy. This is not called a "Whaler Drive" but the method of engine mounting is the same as the Whaler Drive.

If you want to keep repeating your two themes, I will be glad to keep responding and refuting them.

ericflys posted 05-29-2013 11:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for ericflys  Send Email to ericflys     
"acseatsri posted 05-28-2013 06:55 PM ET (US)
If no one has noticed, the results posted for a 22 Outrage with a 150 HP engine are nearly identical stats as what an 18 Outrage with a 150 HP engine would achieve and would be believable."

This doesn't surprise me. Last weekend I had my 18 Outrage way over loaded with over 2500lbs stuff in it. The handling wasn't as good, but the engine didn't miss a beat and was still turning out good performance that wasn't significantly less than my normal performance. So the weight difference between an 18 and 22 Outrange would be much less than that, and proped right, should turn out similar numbers.

Peter posted 05-29-2013 11:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I noticed the remarkable similarity in performance between my two Outrage 18s both powered by 150 HP outboards as well as other Outrage 18s powered by 150 HP outboards and the Outrage 22 powered by the Mercury 150 FourStroke. The conclusion I've reached is that there is much more friction in the water that I boat in or my boats are always going upstream and into the wind no matter what direction I'm headed.
ericflys posted 05-29-2013 03:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for ericflys  Send Email to ericflys     
Peter, According to numbers members have posted on other threads, the motors you are running are at least 20% less efficient than a more modern design like Mercury 150 Fourstroke.
Peter posted 05-29-2013 06:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The motors I was running on my Outrage 18 were carb'd 150 2-strokes. 20 percent less efficient than a modern fuel efficient would be good. At idle, those motors were an order of magnitude less efficient. But that has nothing to do with very similar top speed.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.