Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Outrage 25 Whaler Drive Re-power with Evinrude E-TEC and G2

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

Author Topic:   Outrage 25 Whaler Drive Re-power with Evinrude E-TEC and G2
peteinsf posted 05-12-2015 01:42 PM ET (US)   Profile for peteinsf  
The [Evinrude E-TEC second generation 74-degree V6 engines or] G2 engines have opened up more re-power options, and [an Evinrude E-TEC G2 engine] seems like the ideal platform for the larger classic [hulls of Boston Whaler]. My current setup [on a larger classic Boston Whaler boat, an OUTRAGE 25 with Whaler Drive] uses twin, counter-rotation, c.1988, Johnson, 3-liter, 200-HP engines with 21-pitch stainless steel propellers ([obtained] from Fishcop). The port engine threw a rod. Not an unhappy result. There were lots of hours on the engines.

The [OUTRAGE 25 with Whaler Drive] is primarily used for cruising and camping. MY [OUTRAGE 25 with Whaler Drive] is light for a Whaler Drive; it has the Montauk-sized console and no other goodies. Generally I like to tour just above a plane (to take in the view) and the 21-pitch propellers worked well at low-RPM to mid-RPM, until the spark plugs would foul.

After some research, my first pass for the ideal setup would be a single [Evinrude E-TEC] G2 300-HP with loads of torque, low fuel usage, quiet, and light weight.

For best performance--without buying a pair of G2 engines--would be a pair of E-TEC 200 H.O. or 225-HP engine. Crazy power, torque, and a similar feel to what I have now. Negatives would be heavy, higher fuel usage, higher noise.

A trade-off might be twin E-TEC 2.6L 150-HP to 200-HP engines. From the E-TEC owners site I was warned that the 200 will perform exactly like the 150 below 4,500-RPM, so for discussion's sake let us assume a pair of 150-HP E-TEC engines. Their up-side is they are light, quiet, have lower fuel than [E-TEC 3.3-liter engines], have a lower purchase price, and are reported as very reliable. For the downside, [these 2.6-liter E-TEC engines have] much lower torque--I do love torque--higher engine speed for boat cruise speed.

From other owners of classic Boston Whaler OUTRAGE boats, the E-TEC 2.6-liter seems to perform better than I would have expected with their lower torque [compared with the E-TEC engines of 3.3-liter or 3.4-liter displacement] blocks.


Andy reports good holding in chop even after being warned about the lack of torque on 2.6-liter E-TEC engines.

Right now I am trying to make lemonade out of my inadvertent 2.6L motor purchase.

It's good to be back home and whaler boating. When is the next rendezvous?

Teak Oil posted 05-12-2015 03:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I wouldn't assume twin 2.6-liter E-TEC engines would be a total dog, E-TEC engines have more torque than the carburetor-equivalent, so 2.6 E-TEC engines would only be a tad less than the 3.0-liter [non-E-TEC engine].

[The Evinrude E-TEC] 2.6-liter engines] would be lighter and much cheaper as well. I would imagine there are some good deals on 3.3-liter 200 H.O. engines right now, that would probably be the best performance for a reasonable cost.

A single 300 G2 would be a drop in performance, though for most it would be perfectly adequate. [The OUTRAGE 25 with Whaler Drive] would still do an easy 45-MPH, and that is decent for most. I bet the twin 2.6-liter E-TEC [150-HP] engines would be almost the same cost as a 300-HP G2.

peteinsf posted 05-12-2015 05:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    
From the Evinrude performance reports I really don't see any downside to a G2 300-HP single engine [on a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 25 WD]. In a similar sized-craft [Evinrude] report 3.5-MPG at 28-MPH and 2-MPG at 49-MPH with an 18-pitch propeller--like a marine Prius.

I do like the 2.6-liter E-TEC MPG report much better then the 3.3-liter [report] and what must be three times what my c.1980 3-liter. I must get 1-MPG now.

Whatever I do, I will using a lot less fuel.

jimh posted 05-12-2015 05:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Since your larger classic Boston Whaler hull, an OUTRAGE 25 Whaler Drive, now has twin engines, I suspect you will probably be more comfortable if you re-power with twin engines. The present engines total 400-HP. If you re-power with twin 150-HP modern engines you will probably have similar response and handling, and any difference would likely be only at full throttle, where the boat might run a few MPH slower.
peteinsf posted 05-16-2015 04:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    

I agree that keeping her a twin will keep the boat behaving as she does now (with better throttle control).

As for similar performance, a 2.6 pair being close or equal as a single G2''s perfomane I am not so sure,

From published reports two 2.6 units create 400+ ft lbs combined. Reports on the G2-300 have a single unit at 600+ around 4000rpm.

Less weight, 1/3 more torque, much less fuel burn. What to do?

John from Madison CT posted 05-23-2015 08:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     
My Boston Whaler Outrage25 Cuddy Whaler Drive is a candidate for re-power. The current engines run great, but so many like newer power.

Unless I were venturing far offshore, I would repower her with a single 300-HP four-cycle engine. The weight reduction and single lower unit in the water would probably add performance.

peteinsf posted 05-27-2015 05:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for peteinsf    
It will be cool when the first G2 owner/member posts a performance report. We will see!
Teak Oil posted 05-28-2015 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
A single 300 will almost always be faster and use less fuel than twin 150's. Of course there is more to the equation than speed and fuel
Peter posted 05-29-2015 07:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I am going to respectfully disagree with the idea that a single 300 will almost always be faster than twin 150s. A quick look at any of the Grady White performance reports for their 25 foot models will show that the twin 150 powered boats are faster than the single 300 powered boats.

The performance reports for the 220 Outrage show top speed within 1/2 MPH between the single 300 and the twin 150 boat. The twin 150 powered Outrage 220 gets better fuel economy too. In the case of the 270 Dauntless, the twin 150 powered boat is faster than the single 300 powered boat and it too gets better fuel economy.

At some point, it seems that concentrating the available thrust of 300 HP in a single propeller is not as efficient as spreading it out over two propellers.

jimh posted 05-30-2015 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
How will the cost of twin 150-HP engines compare to the cost of a single 300-HP engine? In addition to the cost of the engines, one must also consider the costs of the rigging, remote controls, gauges, propellers, and future routine maintenance and service. My first impression is twin engine will cost more.
Tom W Clark posted 05-30-2015 11:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
A pair of Yamaha F150s is about 320-330 HP

A single F300 is about 275 HP

It should not come as a surprise that the pair of F150s will be faster on the same boat

John from Madison CT posted 06-01-2015 08:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     

Please show me the source of the HP ratings you list above.

Exactly where were and when these engines Dyno'd?

Tom W Clark posted 06-01-2015 09:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark

I need to correct what I stated above:

275 HP is for the Yamaha 300 HPDI. The F300 is 288 HP

The F150 is shown as 160 HP.

Nonetheless, my point stands. 320 > 288

John from Madison CT posted 06-02-2015 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     
32 hp difference vs. the drag of another lower unit. Not sure if it's a wash.

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.