Re-powering 1986 Outrage - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Re-powering 1986 Outrage

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Re-powering 1986 Outrage

onokai posted 05-26-2015 10:59 PM ET (US)
The [1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE of unknown length] has its original 1987 Yamaha 150-HP two-cycle engine that has 1,200-hour but will not last forever. I have had great luck with Yamaha engines. [What is the] weight of this old Yamaha 150?
I know a four-cycle replacement is [too] heavy for this hull. [Will] a Yamaha F115 replace the old two stroke when it dies? Or something else? I like and use all 150-HP. All the new motors seem so heavy. What is the latest thinking here? --Mark
jimh posted 05-27-2015 12:27 AM ET (US)
Are you talking about an OUTRAGE 18?
Marko888 posted 05-27-2015 10:07 AM ET (US)
Hi Mark
I repowered my Outrage 18 last year and read everything I could find before doing so. My old engine was a 1985 Evinrude 150, which weighed about 390 lbs, roughly the same as your Yamaha.
There are many varying opinions on what to repower an Outrage 18 with, how heavy is too heavy, and so on. A four stroke 150 from Yamaha or Suzuki would not be overly heavy provided a kicker is not going to be used. IMHO, a F150 AND kicker would be too heavy, but an F150 by itself would be ok.
Many move the battery to the console to move some weight forward to compensate for a heavier engine.
The "latest thinking" is to go for a 150 if max power, speed and weight carrying capacity are desired, the E-TEC being the lightest choice. For those not so concerned with maximums, anything 115 or larger provides satisfaction for most, but a 115 is not typically recommended for those replacing an old 150.
Peter posted 05-27-2015 11:42 AM ET (US)
If you like the performance you get with the six-cylinder, two-stroke Yamaha 150, then I think you will be disappointed with a four-cylinder 115 two-stroke or four-stroke.
I've had two Outrage 18s, a first that came with the 150 HP six-cylinder two-stroke and a second that came with a 140-HP four-cylinder two-stroke. I ended up repowering the second with a 150-HP two-stroke. While there was only 10-HP difference at WOT, there was a huge difference in how the boat performed in the mid range due to the fewer number of cylinders and much smaller displacement. If I had had the second Outrage with the 140 first, then I would probably not have known what I was missing performance wise.
tedious posted 05-27-2015 01:34 PM ET (US)
If [the unknown Boston Whaler boat being discussed here is] an Outrage 18, for maximum performance while not alarming your insurance company, get an [E-TEC 150 H.O.]
Contrary to what you think you know, a four-stroke is not too heavy. Remember a lot of Outrage 18s originally came with twin OMC 70s, which together weigh more than any modern 4-stroke 150.
Tim
crbenny posted 05-28-2015 07:11 AM ET (US)
I agree with Peter. [The difference in performance is due not to] the horsepower, it's the torque of the extra displacement and cylinders. I have a 2.0 135hp Black Max on my 18 Outrage and it's plenty of power. Significantly more than a V4 140hp OMC.
Chris
lowelife posted 05-28-2015 08:15 AM ET (US)
I re-powered my 1986 Outrage 18 last year. After much research, I chose the Suzuki DF140A. I am very happy with my decision. The Suzuki DF140A has plenty of power for my purposes. [Boat speed a full throttle] is [around 45-MPH]. The best part about this motor is its fuel efficiency.
jimh posted 05-28-2015 09:00 AM ET (US)
All modern outboard engines have much improved fuel efficiency compared to the traditional two-cycle outboard engines they usually replace. The variation in fuel efficiency between old engines and modern engines is enormous, and typically fuel consumption decreases to half its former volume. The variation in fuel efficiency among modern outboard engines is much less, and from best to worst among the modern engines the fuel consumption might vary only ten-percent. Any modern outboard engine chosen to re-power a 1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE of unknown length will exhibit significantly improved fuel economy compared to a 1987 Yamaha 150-HP two-cycle engine.
jimh posted 05-28-2015 10:09 AM ET (US)
Horsepower is the rate at which torque is produced. It is common in modern outboard engines using four-cycle-power-stroke design that maximum horsepower is found at maximum engine crankshaft speed, that is, the horsepower increases with engine speed and the rated horsepower is only obtained at the very highest engine speeds.
It is also common in two-stroke-power-cycle engines that maximum horsepower occurs at a lower engine speed and is maintained across a wide range of engine speeds, that is, the rated horsepower is available over a wide range of engines speeds, not just at peak engine speed, and this gives the result or impression or feel that the engine is more powerful than an engine of the same rated power which can only produce that power in a narrow range of engine speeds.
An example of this can be seen in some very high performance automobile engines which must accelerate to very high crankshaft speeds to reach their rated horsepower. These engines are usually mated with a transmission having many gears, sometimes ten forward speeds, so that at any vehicle speed the engine can be operated at that very high crankshaft speed, develop the rated power, and be effectively coupled to the load via the transmission.
On an outboard engine there is no transmission, and the load is coupled to the engine at a fixed gearing. As a result, engines that develop their rated power only in narrow bands at high engine speeds will not produce the same results as another engine, of the same rated power, which produces that power over a wide band of engine speeds.
That is my thinking on the re-powering with engines of various designs. I don't know that it is the "lastest thinking" because the principles are rather old and established principles.
jimh posted 05-28-2015 10:18 AM ET (US)
One element of "the latest thinking" regarding outboard engines is a change in acceptance of the relatively poor performance from four-cycle outboard engines. In the early days of the four-cycle engine being used in outboard engines of power ratings above 100-HP, there was a trend for customers to accept a significant decrease in the performance that was delivered by these engines when compared to existing outboard engines. The acceptance of poor performance was made reasonable because these engines offered much improvement in other areas, such as
--easy starting
--better fuel economy
--reliable running
--lower noise, vibration, harshness, and, most important,
--better compliance with mandatory restrictions of the EPA on exhaust emissions.
Now that we are well into an era when compliance with EPA has been overcome by most outboard engine makers, or engine makers have figured out ways to work around the regulations by employing fleet averaging techniques to allow them to sell non-compliant engines, the consideration of the performance of the engines has come back to greater prominence, and customers are no longer willing to trade off performance to get an EPA rating, easy starting, lower noise, and those other qualities that once distinguished the four-cycle engine from other options. I think this really is "the latest thinking." You don't have to settle for lousy performance any more to get an engine with
--easy starting
--remarkable fuel economy
--reliable running
--lower noise, vibration, and harshness, and
--EPA compliance.
You can get all of that along with great performance. That is the latest thinking.
leadsled posted 05-28-2015 05:51 PM ET (US)
I just repowered my 1989 Outrage 18 with an E-TEC 115-HP. I also have a two-cycle Tohatsu 8-HP, 62-lbs kicker. The battery is in the stern. The stern rides high with the transom drain tubes about an inch above the water. If I stand in the stern the water just barely comes in the tubes. If I had re-powered with the new Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE and no kicker [the boat] would sit in the water about the same.
I have only 10 hours on [the E-TEC 115-HP] and am happy with the performance so far. At 3,000-RPM the boat planes fairly level at 12-nautical-miles-per-hour, 3,500-RPM at 16-nautical-miles-per-hour, and 4,000-RPM rpm at 20-nautical-miles-per-hour. I was only able to go full speed briefly. The boat hit 31.5-nautical-miles-per-hour at 5,900-RPM, and I think [the E-TEC 115-HP engine] would have hit 6,000 rpm trimmed out a little more but [circumstances dictated I] had to slow down. The engine is one-hole-up and an alluminum 15-pitch proeller. Next year I will raise up the engine one more hole and try a 17-pitch propeller.
Marko888 posted 05-28-2015 09:28 PM ET (US)
And to be fair distinguished moderator, many of the four-stroke shortcomings of 15 years ago have also been overcome.
We have Outrage 18 owners on this forum who are very happy with modern E-TEC 115-150's, Honda 150's, Mercury 150 four strokes, Suzuki DF140's, Yamaha F115's and F150's and more. All are very good, and all have some pluses and minuses.
It's pretty hard to make a bad engine choice these days, but as always, it's worth doing the research to determine which engine is the best solution for the re powering owner.
jimh posted 05-28-2015 10:51 PM ET (US)
Marko888 says

quote:
...many of the four-stroke shortcomings of 15 years ago have also been overcome.
That may be part of why the "latest thinking" means no longer being complacent about giving up on performance if you want to insist on a four-cycle engine. It used to be a given. You could not get good performance from four-cycle engines. Now, in some of them, you can. It's not quite at the level of the two-cycle engines, but it is getting closer.
martyn1075 posted 05-29-2015 01:36 AM ET (US)
As light as you can get it with as much power as you can. I would look at the E-TEC myself for those reasons alone. There are others as well. I am fond of the Yamaha motor and I don't think one can go wrong with it, however I personally would rather have a small kicker on there as well. The added weight is not what you want if your main is a little heavy. With a two stroke like the E-TEC, I believe you can have your cake and eat it to as they say.
onokai posted 05-29-2015 11:36 AM ET (US)
Yes this is an 1986 18 outrage hull
jimh posted 05-29-2015 09:53 PM ET (US)
In the case of a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18, the latest thinking about engine choice for re-power is to get an E-TEC V6 60-degree 2.6-liter 150-HP engine.
FISHNFF posted 05-29-2015 10:26 PM ET (US)
I just repowered my 1988 18 outrage with a brand new Yamaha F115B to replace the Yamaha F115 that was stolen.
New Command Link guages. Yamaha 17" K black stainless prop.
Still breakng it in, but acceleration seems much quicker. Doesn't quite throw you like a Merc inline 6, but noticeably quicker.
I wish I could say that it's quieter and faster, but it seems about the same.
Again, it's not broken in yet, but my quick trip to WOT yielded 6000RPM. Thought being 15 years newer and more displacement would improve.

FISHNFF
george nagy posted 05-30-2015 08:49 AM ET (US)
I'm not sure how one can qualify what "the latest thinking" is or really what it means. It seems to elude that the latest thinking would suggest a sort of popular choice, being the majority of the people repowering an outrage 18 have chosen the 150 etec. I don't belive there has been enough evidence presented to support such a claim. I seem to recall a very many 115hp engines being reported hee when repo we ring the outrage 18 In both 2 and 4 stroke. I do agree that some sentiments mentioned here regarding those who downgradequate to lower power than 150 may be somewhat dissapointed in one aspect of performance as an owner of an outrage 18 with a 2 stroke 60degree v6 I can relate I'm sure. But if I think back to the days of the old ailing cross flow 2 stroke v6 my current engine replaced It might not be that relatable.
jimh posted 05-30-2015 10:11 AM ET (US)
George ponders:

quote:
I'm not sure how one can qualify what "the latest thinking" is or really what it means.
I interpret "the latest thinking" to be what my most recent thoughts are. On that basis, my most recent thought about a choice of engine for re-powering a 1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18 is to choose an Evinrude E-TEC 150-HP 60-degree V6 2.6-liter engine.
In the initial article in the thread ONOKAI sets forth the basis for my selection of a 150-HP engine:

quote:
I like and use all 150-HP.
Considering that the performance of a four-cycle engine is already likely to be deficient compared to a two-cycle engine of yesteryear, and considering that a decrease in power to 115-HP from 150-HP represents a reduction in power of 23-percent, and considering the above statement, I don't see how one could make a case for re-powering with a 115-HP four-cycle outboard engine.
onokai posted 05-30-2015 01:29 PM ET (US)
The thinking is I have a 150 2 stroke and when the boat is loaded it still has great performance. I have a friend with a yami 115 4 stroke and its just not the same. Great milage but a tad slower with a laod.
I also have a 1998 23 outrage with a F250 yami 4 stroke so I know 4 strokes as well.
The issue I have is e-tec service around my area is very poor. so I'm relantant to go that route.
I am trying to keep the weight down and plan on not using a kicker and I will have to move batteries forward to trim the extra rear weight out.
Its more about weight as the new motors are all very heavy.
Hondas seem to wiegh the most
Does anyone tried the in line new yamies?
Mark
george nagy posted 05-30-2015 02:26 PM ET (US)
Well,"my latest thinking" regarding the repowering of an outrage 18 with 4 stroke power us to wonder why the people who have powered down to 115 hp 4 strokes instead of powering up to a 175 or 200 hp 4 stroke. There are numerous 150-200 hp 4 strokes bases off the same blocks so therefore one could maximize the power output to counter act the added weight and alleged poor 4 stroke Performance as compared with a 2 stroke or let's just say an etec to be more transparent.
msirof2001 posted 05-30-2015 03:52 PM ET (US)
Regarding "anybody have luck with in-line 4 Yamaha", look under the Performance discussion for a thread I initiated on the F200 XB, and in The Hull Truth do a search on this username, and also look in that discussion, there is a username "Woogie" who has a similar boat. He has an almost identical boat as my Outrage 21 and went F200 XB. I look at it like this... think of American Airlines in Dallas, United in Denver or Delta in Atlanta. Those airlines "own" those cities. In Newport Beach, CA, Yamaha owns that city. Tons of Yamahas and West Coast Marine "Gonzalo" is 5-star gold and their shop is amazing. Their people are amazing. Ultimately, the purchase is one step in a long relationship. All the engines are good. I would put a lot of weight on the service provider in your area.
[Nota bene: if you did all of that searching and found the URL to the resources you wish to make reference, your recommendation would be much simpler to follow. If you believe there is useful information located elsewhere, just give the URL to that information.--jimh]
Marko888 posted 05-31-2015 02:09 AM ET (US)
The E-TEC 150 is a solid choice, but its not the only choice, nor is it any more popular than the many other engines available for an Outrage 18.
For me it came down to a tight decision between an E-TEC 135 HO and DF140A. If the E-TEC had an integral oil tank, it may have tipped the scale, but I chose the DF140A. It's a little slower as its only 2.05 litres displacement, but I know I rarely run more than 35mph anyways. It weighs only 407lbs, does 44 mph WOT and will run 30mph on 18L (4.75 USG) per hour. I don't need a kicker, love the near silent idle, and also the clear splashwell which opens up some room for storage. This choice is perfect for me, but it's unlikely to be perfect for everyone.
PS. The Suzuki replaced the original 150 V6 Evinrude, and I don't miss it.
Cheers
jimh posted 05-31-2015 09:13 AM ET (US)
It is always my advice to choose an outboard engine brand and model with consideration given to the dealer who will be expected to provide support and service. If you suspect that a dealer of a particular brand of outboard engine in your local area cannot provide support and service for that brand of outboard engine, it is very reasonable to then give less consideration to that brand or perhaps to drop that brand completely from consideration.
The presence of strong dealerships with excellent service departments, highly-trained and skilled technicians, experience, parts on hand, and all the elements necessary to render good support for an outboard engine is by no means guaranteed to be universal and available everywhere, and it is often seen that local market conditions result in certain brands being weaker in terms of dealer support compared to others.
I have only purchased one new outboard engine as a loose engine intended for re-powering a Boston Whaler boat, and perhaps the most important consideration in making that decision was the dealer from whom I would purchase the engine and who would be providing service for the engine.
As also noted already, buying a modern outboard engine in the 150-HP class is an expensive purchase, and one ought to be completely comfortable with the dealer to whom you will be handing over a lot of money. To give a retailer $15,000 for an item you need to be very comfortable with that retailer.

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.

Author	Topic: Re-powering 1986 Outrage
onokai	posted 05-26-2015 10:59 PM ET (US) The [1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE of unknown length] has its original 1987 Yamaha 150-HP two-cycle engine that has 1,200-hour but will not last forever. I have had great luck with Yamaha engines. [What is the] weight of this old Yamaha 150? I know a four-cycle replacement is [too] heavy for this hull. [Will] a Yamaha F115 replace the old two stroke when it dies? Or something else? I like and use all 150-HP. All the new motors seem so heavy. What is the latest thinking here? --Mark
jimh	posted 05-27-2015 12:27 AM ET (US) Are you talking about an OUTRAGE 18?
Marko888	posted 05-27-2015 10:07 AM ET (US) Hi Mark I repowered my Outrage 18 last year and read everything I could find before doing so. My old engine was a 1985 Evinrude 150, which weighed about 390 lbs, roughly the same as your Yamaha. There are many varying opinions on what to repower an Outrage 18 with, how heavy is too heavy, and so on. A four stroke 150 from Yamaha or Suzuki would not be overly heavy provided a kicker is not going to be used. IMHO, a F150 AND kicker would be too heavy, but an F150 by itself would be ok. Many move the battery to the console to move some weight forward to compensate for a heavier engine. The "latest thinking" is to go for a 150 if max power, speed and weight carrying capacity are desired, the E-TEC being the lightest choice. For those not so concerned with maximums, anything 115 or larger provides satisfaction for most, but a 115 is not typically recommended for those replacing an old 150.
Peter	posted 05-27-2015 11:42 AM ET (US) If you like the performance you get with the six-cylinder, two-stroke Yamaha 150, then I think you will be disappointed with a four-cylinder 115 two-stroke or four-stroke. I've had two Outrage 18s, a first that came with the 150 HP six-cylinder two-stroke and a second that came with a 140-HP four-cylinder two-stroke. I ended up repowering the second with a 150-HP two-stroke. While there was only 10-HP difference at WOT, there was a huge difference in how the boat performed in the mid range due to the fewer number of cylinders and much smaller displacement. If I had had the second Outrage with the 140 first, then I would probably not have known what I was missing performance wise.
tedious	posted 05-27-2015 01:34 PM ET (US) If [the unknown Boston Whaler boat being discussed here is] an Outrage 18, for maximum performance while not alarming your insurance company, get an [E-TEC 150 H.O.] Contrary to what you think you know, a four-stroke is not too heavy. Remember a lot of Outrage 18s originally came with twin OMC 70s, which together weigh more than any modern 4-stroke 150. Tim
crbenny	posted 05-28-2015 07:11 AM ET (US) I agree with Peter. [The difference in performance is due not to] the horsepower, it's the torque of the extra displacement and cylinders. I have a 2.0 135hp Black Max on my 18 Outrage and it's plenty of power. Significantly more than a V4 140hp OMC. Chris
lowelife	posted 05-28-2015 08:15 AM ET (US) I re-powered my 1986 Outrage 18 last year. After much research, I chose the Suzuki DF140A. I am very happy with my decision. The Suzuki DF140A has plenty of power for my purposes. [Boat speed a full throttle] is [around 45-MPH]. The best part about this motor is its fuel efficiency.
jimh	posted 05-28-2015 09:00 AM ET (US) All modern outboard engines have much improved fuel efficiency compared to the traditional two-cycle outboard engines they usually replace. The variation in fuel efficiency between old engines and modern engines is enormous, and typically fuel consumption decreases to half its former volume. The variation in fuel efficiency among modern outboard engines is much less, and from best to worst among the modern engines the fuel consumption might vary only ten-percent. Any modern outboard engine chosen to re-power a 1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE of unknown length will exhibit significantly improved fuel economy compared to a 1987 Yamaha 150-HP two-cycle engine.
jimh	posted 05-28-2015 10:09 AM ET (US) Horsepower is the rate at which torque is produced. It is common in modern outboard engines using four-cycle-power-stroke design that maximum horsepower is found at maximum engine crankshaft speed, that is, the horsepower increases with engine speed and the rated horsepower is only obtained at the very highest engine speeds. It is also common in two-stroke-power-cycle engines that maximum horsepower occurs at a lower engine speed and is maintained across a wide range of engine speeds, that is, the rated horsepower is available over a wide range of engines speeds, not just at peak engine speed, and this gives the result or impression or feel that the engine is more powerful than an engine of the same rated power which can only produce that power in a narrow range of engine speeds. An example of this can be seen in some very high performance automobile engines which must accelerate to very high crankshaft speeds to reach their rated horsepower. These engines are usually mated with a transmission having many gears, sometimes ten forward speeds, so that at any vehicle speed the engine can be operated at that very high crankshaft speed, develop the rated power, and be effectively coupled to the load via the transmission. On an outboard engine there is no transmission, and the load is coupled to the engine at a fixed gearing. As a result, engines that develop their rated power only in narrow bands at high engine speeds will not produce the same results as another engine, of the same rated power, which produces that power over a wide band of engine speeds. That is my thinking on the re-powering with engines of various designs. I don't know that it is the "lastest thinking" because the principles are rather old and established principles.
jimh	posted 05-28-2015 10:18 AM ET (US) One element of "the latest thinking" regarding outboard engines is a change in acceptance of the relatively poor performance from four-cycle outboard engines. In the early days of the four-cycle engine being used in outboard engines of power ratings above 100-HP, there was a trend for customers to accept a significant decrease in the performance that was delivered by these engines when compared to existing outboard engines. The acceptance of poor performance was made reasonable because these engines offered much improvement in other areas, such as --easy starting --better fuel economy --reliable running --lower noise, vibration, harshness, and, most important, --better compliance with mandatory restrictions of the EPA on exhaust emissions. Now that we are well into an era when compliance with EPA has been overcome by most outboard engine makers, or engine makers have figured out ways to work around the regulations by employing fleet averaging techniques to allow them to sell non-compliant engines, the consideration of the performance of the engines has come back to greater prominence, and customers are no longer willing to trade off performance to get an EPA rating, easy starting, lower noise, and those other qualities that once distinguished the four-cycle engine from other options. I think this really is "the latest thinking." You don't have to settle for lousy performance any more to get an engine with --easy starting --remarkable fuel economy --reliable running --lower noise, vibration, and harshness, and --EPA compliance. You can get all of that along with great performance. That is the latest thinking.
leadsled	posted 05-28-2015 05:51 PM ET (US) I just repowered my 1989 Outrage 18 with an E-TEC 115-HP. I also have a two-cycle Tohatsu 8-HP, 62-lbs kicker. The battery is in the stern. The stern rides high with the transom drain tubes about an inch above the water. If I stand in the stern the water just barely comes in the tubes. If I had re-powered with the new Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE and no kicker [the boat] would sit in the water about the same. I have only 10 hours on [the E-TEC 115-HP] and am happy with the performance so far. At 3,000-RPM the boat planes fairly level at 12-nautical-miles-per-hour, 3,500-RPM at 16-nautical-miles-per-hour, and 4,000-RPM rpm at 20-nautical-miles-per-hour. I was only able to go full speed briefly. The boat hit 31.5-nautical-miles-per-hour at 5,900-RPM, and I think [the E-TEC 115-HP engine] would have hit 6,000 rpm trimmed out a little more but [circumstances dictated I] had to slow down. The engine is one-hole-up and an alluminum 15-pitch proeller. Next year I will raise up the engine one more hole and try a 17-pitch propeller.
Marko888	posted 05-28-2015 09:28 PM ET (US) And to be fair distinguished moderator, many of the four-stroke shortcomings of 15 years ago have also been overcome. We have Outrage 18 owners on this forum who are very happy with modern E-TEC 115-150's, Honda 150's, Mercury 150 four strokes, Suzuki DF140's, Yamaha F115's and F150's and more. All are very good, and all have some pluses and minuses. It's pretty hard to make a bad engine choice these days, but as always, it's worth doing the research to determine which engine is the best solution for the re powering owner.
jimh	posted 05-28-2015 10:51 PM ET (US) Marko888 says quote: ...many of the four-stroke shortcomings of 15 years ago have also been overcome. That may be part of why the "latest thinking" means no longer being complacent about giving up on performance if you want to insist on a four-cycle engine. It used to be a given. You could not get good performance from four-cycle engines. Now, in some of them, you can. It's not quite at the level of the two-cycle engines, but it is getting closer.
martyn1075	posted 05-29-2015 01:36 AM ET (US) As light as you can get it with as much power as you can. I would look at the E-TEC myself for those reasons alone. There are others as well. I am fond of the Yamaha motor and I don't think one can go wrong with it, however I personally would rather have a small kicker on there as well. The added weight is not what you want if your main is a little heavy. With a two stroke like the E-TEC, I believe you can have your cake and eat it to as they say.
onokai	posted 05-29-2015 11:36 AM ET (US) Yes this is an 1986 18 outrage hull
jimh	posted 05-29-2015 09:53 PM ET (US) In the case of a Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18, the latest thinking about engine choice for re-power is to get an E-TEC V6 60-degree 2.6-liter 150-HP engine.
FISHNFF	posted 05-29-2015 10:26 PM ET (US) I just repowered my 1988 18 outrage with a brand new Yamaha F115B to replace the Yamaha F115 that was stolen. New Command Link guages. Yamaha 17" K black stainless prop. Still breakng it in, but acceleration seems much quicker. Doesn't quite throw you like a Merc inline 6, but noticeably quicker. I wish I could say that it's quieter and faster, but it seems about the same. Again, it's not broken in yet, but my quick trip to WOT yielded 6000RPM. Thought being 15 years newer and more displacement would improve. FISHNFF
george nagy	posted 05-30-2015 08:49 AM ET (US) I'm not sure how one can qualify what "the latest thinking" is or really what it means. It seems to elude that the latest thinking would suggest a sort of popular choice, being the majority of the people repowering an outrage 18 have chosen the 150 etec. I don't belive there has been enough evidence presented to support such a claim. I seem to recall a very many 115hp engines being reported hee when repo we ring the outrage 18 In both 2 and 4 stroke. I do agree that some sentiments mentioned here regarding those who downgradequate to lower power than 150 may be somewhat dissapointed in one aspect of performance as an owner of an outrage 18 with a 2 stroke 60degree v6 I can relate I'm sure. But if I think back to the days of the old ailing cross flow 2 stroke v6 my current engine replaced It might not be that relatable.
jimh	posted 05-30-2015 10:11 AM ET (US) George ponders: quote: I'm not sure how one can qualify what "the latest thinking" is or really what it means. I interpret "the latest thinking" to be what my most recent thoughts are. On that basis, my most recent thought about a choice of engine for re-powering a 1986 Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18 is to choose an Evinrude E-TEC 150-HP 60-degree V6 2.6-liter engine. In the initial article in the thread ONOKAI sets forth the basis for my selection of a 150-HP engine: quote: I like and use all 150-HP. Considering that the performance of a four-cycle engine is already likely to be deficient compared to a two-cycle engine of yesteryear, and considering that a decrease in power to 115-HP from 150-HP represents a reduction in power of 23-percent, and considering the above statement, I don't see how one could make a case for re-powering with a 115-HP four-cycle outboard engine.
onokai	posted 05-30-2015 01:29 PM ET (US) The thinking is I have a 150 2 stroke and when the boat is loaded it still has great performance. I have a friend with a yami 115 4 stroke and its just not the same. Great milage but a tad slower with a laod. I also have a 1998 23 outrage with a F250 yami 4 stroke so I know 4 strokes as well. The issue I have is e-tec service around my area is very poor. so I'm relantant to go that route. I am trying to keep the weight down and plan on not using a kicker and I will have to move batteries forward to trim the extra rear weight out. Its more about weight as the new motors are all very heavy. Hondas seem to wiegh the most Does anyone tried the in line new yamies? Mark
george nagy	posted 05-30-2015 02:26 PM ET (US) Well,"my latest thinking" regarding the repowering of an outrage 18 with 4 stroke power us to wonder why the people who have powered down to 115 hp 4 strokes instead of powering up to a 175 or 200 hp 4 stroke. There are numerous 150-200 hp 4 strokes bases off the same blocks so therefore one could maximize the power output to counter act the added weight and alleged poor 4 stroke Performance as compared with a 2 stroke or let's just say an etec to be more transparent.
msirof2001	posted 05-30-2015 03:52 PM ET (US) Regarding "anybody have luck with in-line 4 Yamaha", look under the Performance discussion for a thread I initiated on the F200 XB, and in The Hull Truth do a search on this username, and also look in that discussion, there is a username "Woogie" who has a similar boat. He has an almost identical boat as my Outrage 21 and went F200 XB. I look at it like this... think of American Airlines in Dallas, United in Denver or Delta in Atlanta. Those airlines "own" those cities. In Newport Beach, CA, Yamaha owns that city. Tons of Yamahas and West Coast Marine "Gonzalo" is 5-star gold and their shop is amazing. Their people are amazing. Ultimately, the purchase is one step in a long relationship. All the engines are good. I would put a lot of weight on the service provider in your area. [Nota bene: if you did all of that searching and found the URL to the resources you wish to make reference, your recommendation would be much simpler to follow. If you believe there is useful information located elsewhere, just give the URL to that information.--jimh]
Marko888	posted 05-31-2015 02:09 AM ET (US) The E-TEC 150 is a solid choice, but its not the only choice, nor is it any more popular than the many other engines available for an Outrage 18. For me it came down to a tight decision between an E-TEC 135 HO and DF140A. If the E-TEC had an integral oil tank, it may have tipped the scale, but I chose the DF140A. It's a little slower as its only 2.05 litres displacement, but I know I rarely run more than 35mph anyways. It weighs only 407lbs, does 44 mph WOT and will run 30mph on 18L (4.75 USG) per hour. I don't need a kicker, love the near silent idle, and also the clear splashwell which opens up some room for storage. This choice is perfect for me, but it's unlikely to be perfect for everyone. PS. The Suzuki replaced the original 150 V6 Evinrude, and I don't miss it. Cheers
jimh	posted 05-31-2015 09:13 AM ET (US) It is always my advice to choose an outboard engine brand and model with consideration given to the dealer who will be expected to provide support and service. If you suspect that a dealer of a particular brand of outboard engine in your local area cannot provide support and service for that brand of outboard engine, it is very reasonable to then give less consideration to that brand or perhaps to drop that brand completely from consideration. The presence of strong dealerships with excellent service departments, highly-trained and skilled technicians, experience, parts on hand, and all the elements necessary to render good support for an outboard engine is by no means guaranteed to be universal and available everywhere, and it is often seen that local market conditions result in certain brands being weaker in terms of dealer support compared to others. I have only purchased one new outboard engine as a loose engine intended for re-powering a Boston Whaler boat, and perhaps the most important consideration in making that decision was the dealer from whom I would purchase the engine and who would be providing service for the engine. As also noted already, buying a modern outboard engine in the 150-HP class is an expensive purchase, and one ought to be completely comfortable with the dealer to whom you will be handing over a lot of money. To give a retailer $15,000 for an item you need to be very comfortable with that retailer.