Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  OUTRAGE 22 Twin Engine Re-power

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

Author Topic:   OUTRAGE 22 Twin Engine Re-power
whalerdoc posted 06-17-2015 02:01 PM ET (US)   Profile for whalerdoc   Send Email to whalerdoc  
The time may have finally come to re-power my 1991 OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY with 77-gallon tank and standard transom. I live in Alaska and do wish to continue with twin engines; there is no Sea Tow here and often runs may be in excess of 80 miles each way. I have hit logs under power on more than one occasion and come home on one engine. This is a safety element I wish to maintain, so this is not a twin versus single debate.

At current, the OUTRAGE 22 CUDDY is powered with twin 1991 Yamaha 115-HP counter-rotating engines. These are the 20-inch shaft counter-rotating, no longer produced, weighing in at 357-lbs each, a total engine weight of 714-lbs. The engines are probably mounted too low--no holes up--but, for point of reference, I can get 41-nautical-miles-per-hout (knots) at 5,900-RPM when the boat is light and properly trimmed. Fuel economy averaged 1.95-NMPG under all conditions and running. The boat is not bottom painted and has no trim tabs.

My primary objective for re-power is to increase fuel economy and therefore range. At present, I always have to take extra fuel on deck for longer trips. Additional benefits certainly should include decreased noise, decreased environmental impact, and (hopefully) increased perception of reliability. To be fair, the Yamaha engines have never given me trouble, never stranded me, and I have misgivings about replacing them--but they are 24 years old.

I would like to stick with 115-HP twin engines, as the ability to plane on one engine is important for my application. With that in mind, I present below some data points for discussion as to weight and cost for re-power in my area (Alaska.). The dollar figures are for engines (all 20-inch shaft), controls, cables, and rigging (installed) Propellers are not included. I suspect some may suggest I go with whatever brand has best service available. Let me say that ALL service is distant and variable. I want to choose based upon performance and reliability of the engines.

Re-power options 2015

Engines / Lbs (pair) / Cost (pair)

Evinrude E-TEC 115 / 780 / $24,500
Mercury 115 FourStroke / 726 / $19,500
Suzuki DF115A / 802 / $22,120
Yamaha F115B / 754 / $22,750

I look forward to the input from all the knowledgeable CW members in helping me make this decision. I have enjoyed this site and JimH's stewardship tremendously over the years.

WD

Buckda posted 06-17-2015 03:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Buckda  Send Email to Buckda     
Is most of your time underway on plane or at idle? The E-TEC will win at idle for fuel economy but the four-stroke options might give slightly better numbers on plane.

That said, I'm a fan of the two stroke DFI. Is XD-100 oil available to you?

In that mode, the ETEC is remarkably oil efficient and you can operate over long periods without having to add oil.

contender posted 06-17-2015 05:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
Being in Alaska I would have to think about parts and the ease of getting them, Even though Mercury is the cheapest, this would be my last choice. Couple years ago I was in Homer, most engines in the harbor were Yamaha, Evinrudes, and Hondas. Hardly a Mercury in sight. And the biggest joke there was a Mercury dealer in town. What does that tell you...
andrey320 posted 06-17-2015 05:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for andrey320  Send Email to andrey320     
How about the Yamaha 115 SHO?
elvis posted 06-17-2015 05:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for elvis  Send Email to elvis     
Hi Whalerdoc. A few months back I repowered my Guardian 18 with a new single E-TEC 150 H.O. I know you said you're going with twins. I would agree with you given your location. I'll just speak a little to the E-TEC generally.

I have been extremely pleased with performance, fuel economy, lack of noise, and have no complaints. This E-TEC has been good to me.

You can read about my quest on this forum here: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/008138.html

Mambo Minnow posted 06-17-2015 07:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mambo Minnow  Send Email to Mambo Minnow     
Recommend you check out the new Mercury 2.1-liter, 115-HP FourStroke. It's based off the successful 150-HP FourStroke. It is also available as 75-HP and 90-HP models to complete the revamp of their mid-size models.
msirof2001 posted 06-17-2015 11:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for msirof2001  Send Email to msirof2001     
I'll tell you I love my Yamaha 200XB. Not exactly what you are looking for but Yamaha does have the size you are looking for. Just saying I had almost 20 amazing, reliable years with my Yamaha 2-stroke 200 and it has been great with the four-stroke. My mileage is insanely good.

Now JimH is going to probably chime in with equally good reasons and experiences to go E-TEC.

I would focus more on the Alaska situation and service, repair, and parts. You should really study the dealer options up there. Play out a bunch of scenarios. Think about two-stroke oil availability. Ultimately up there, I would focus on the service/parts/oil/repair (dealer support). The engines themselves are all good. From my personal experience, Yamaha has been awesome. You have more things to consider than myself.

jimh posted 06-18-2015 08:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Considering Whalerdoc's experience with the Yamaha engines he has now and the price and weight of a pair of Yamaha F115B outboard engines compared to the other options, it is hard to make an argument against choosing the Yamaha F115B. The existing mechanical remote throttle and shift controls can most likely be retained and reused.

The Mercury 115-HP FourStroke is a very new model. It is the lightest and least expensive (by $3,000 to $5,000). Those are both good attributes.

The Evinrude E-TEC 115 engines may deliver performance that is every bit the equal of the two-cycle engines being replaced, and may have perhaps more raw power than the other choices. This may be important if getting on plane with one engine is a must.

The Suzuki DF115A weighs the most. It also offers counter-rotation as an option. I don't think the other models have that available.

They all seem like reasonable choices. All the engines will meet the criteria of reduced fuel consumption and reduced environmental impact. Assessing the future outcome regarding reliability is difficult. There are no reliable data to make a projection. Reports of problems from individual owners are anecdotal. Several options are relatively new models with extremely limited shared experience from owners. Warranty coverage often varies with the timing of the purchase due to incentives.

This is a difficult decision to make, but it is nice to have so many choices.

seahorse posted 06-18-2015 10:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for seahorse    

The E-TEC 115 25" shaft is also available with a counter rotation gearcase

russellbailey posted 06-18-2015 12:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for russellbailey  Send Email to russellbailey     
As someone with an Outrage 25 with Optimax 150s, I would go with the E-TEC without question to get the off the line grunt of a two stroke. It is great to be able to run perfectly well with only a single engine with my rig, which I think you could easily do with an E-TEC 115.

I'm sure they are all great engines, but it seems like it would be hard to match the E-TEC for its ability to get on plane with one engine, which sounds important to you.

I would think long before getting 25" shaft engines to get counter-rotating unless you are willing to re-build your transom to raise it 5". I have 25" shaft twin motors on my standard transom, and they only work right with special high-rise jackplates raised all the way up. If you don't mind adding 5" to your transom, the 25" shaft would be a good choice and allow counter-rotation as seahorse notes.

whalerdoc posted 06-19-2015 11:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdoc  Send Email to whalerdoc     
I appreciate all of the advice and consideration. Let me clarify and answer a couple of questions that have be raised so far.

A good percentage of time is spent underway. Roughly 20-30% of time is spent trolling at 2-3mph, but I go to one engine and fuel burn at that speed, even with my old two strokes, is not too bad. I realize I might gain 100% efficiency with an etec at trolling speed (just throwing numbers out there) but the real burn of fuel (say 2 gal an hour down to one) makes far less impact overall than the economy at 3800-4400 rpm where most of my cruise is. As an example, I just got back from an overnight trip where the numbers were as follow...trip odometer, 167 miles. Moving average 10.3 kts. Moving time 16 hours. Fuel burn 94 gallons for an average economy of 1.78 mpg (it was ROUGH on one leg of the journey resulting in significantly decreased economy...)

I believe XD 100 is available here.

As to mercury, and the dealer support, I believe dealer support may have be wanting in the past. However, Bass Pro is in Anchorage now and I am seeing LOTS of examples of their newer four stroke 150 being run as twins by even the charter guys. Everyone I have talked to with that engine has had positive things to say. As others pointed out, it is a newer engine but reliability so far (at least on the 150) seams pretty good. One of the reasons I am strongly considering the mercury option is the ability of the command thrust lower unit to swing the larger props, which I would think would assist in getting on plane with one engine.

As to engine height and counter rotation, I believe all of the models are available in CR in the 25 inch length. However, I am only looking at the 20" shaft length as I do not wish to build up the transom. Sadly, although my old yamahas were CR, nobody builds a 20" CR in 115 hp these days. Most information I have read on the web suggests that the torque from twins under 150 hp should not be noticeable with hydraulic steering. I do hope that turns out to be correct!

martyn1075 posted 06-20-2015 02:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
I am becoming more and more a believer of the E-TEC but since you have had great success with Yamaha how about a new set of those? Is there any reason that you believe would lead to disappointment in that choice?

I think that would be my personal choice but with the E-TEC you may like the service aspect from new, the weight factor and the raw power of a modern two stroke. It will require oil but it really doesn't use much at all. It won't smoke or smell and it's good on gas especially at low rpm providing ample power at low rpm. I'm a big fan of that feature.

The four strokes require a little more specific service. It's noting to worry about its just routine. Yamaha's record is extremely good it's a well tested clean running engine that should really preform well. Very quiet at low speeds and it has a troll option which you tap to throttle down. I believe E-TEC has there own version but not sure it's with every model so check on that if it's an interest to you.

andygere posted 06-24-2015 10:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I put an E-TEC 200 on my Outrage 22 Cuddy in 2007 and the reliability has been excellent. I would go with the twin 115 E-TECs for low end power and improved ability to plane the boat on a single motor if needed. Mine is quiet, smoke free and trolls very nicely. Not needing to do routine oil changes is a big plus.
whalerdoc posted 06-24-2015 03:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdoc  Send Email to whalerdoc     
Lots of helpful comments and quite a bit of support for the etec! I really appreciate all the feedback. At this juncture, I have narrowed it to either the Merc 115 with command thrust or the Yamaha f115. This is based on some local feedback about rigging and other service based issues. My thought on the Merc 115 command thrust is that is is the most likely of the 4 strokes to be able to plane on one engine; it is also the lightest of the bunch which is a big factor.
WD
whalerdoc posted 06-24-2015 03:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdoc  Send Email to whalerdoc     
Lots of helpful comments and quite a bit of support for the etec! I really appreciate all the feedback. At this juncture, I have narrowed it to either the Merc 115 with command thrust or the Yamaha f115. This is based on some local feedback about rigging and other service based issues. My thought on the Merc 115 command thrust is that is is the most likely of the 4 strokes to be able to plane on one engine; it is also the lightest of the bunch which is a big factor.
WD
whalerdoc posted 06-26-2015 04:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdoc  Send Email to whalerdoc     
Looks like I will be going with the Merc 115 CT. I will update once the engines are mounted but appreciate any feedback from anyone who might have experience propping this engine - they are quite new so I won't hold my breath. Thanks everyone.
Tom W Clark posted 06-26-2015 04:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I recommend a pair of 13-3/4" x 20" Mercury Enertia
whalerdoc posted 07-10-2015 01:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for whalerdoc  Send Email to whalerdoc     
I picked up the boat yesterday afternoon after two weeks in the shop. Only got a chance to run the new engines for 1.5 hours. Some initial impressions and a couple of initial data points. And to recap - twin 115 mercury 4 strokes wit command thrust lower unit, 20" shaft mounted two holes up; ended up with mercury enertia 19 pitch props (thanks Tom Clark!!)

So initial impressions - WOW, these things are quiet. Had to keep checking to see that they were on as I exited the harbor! Initial acceleration maybe a little slower than my previous two strokes, but not by much. Static trim appears unchanged. Of great significance for me - I can plane on one engine. It takes a while, but two people, full tank of gas, and decent amount of gear planes with one - I'm very happy about this! The other (very preliminary) indication is that fuel economy is up by over 50% - on 1.5 hours of run time with lots of starts stops and speed variation I came in at 3.4 mpg. I think this may even improve, but regardless, it is drastically better than my old economy of 2.0 mpg

First numbers - and I'll have better numbers by Monday as I will finish the 10 hour break in this weekend...

rpm mph
3000 16.2
3500 22.1
4000 26.4
4500 32.9

Will have more Monday.

stayinstrewn posted 07-10-2015 04:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for stayinstrewn  Send Email to stayinstrewn     
nice numbers! post photos of your setup when you have a moment.

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.