Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  Outrage-20 1996--Is 150-HP Enough?

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

Author Topic:   Outrage-20 1996--Is 150-HP Enough?
jimh posted 05-31-2003 02:43 PM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
This thread was moved from GENERAL to POST CLASSIC
gpjoe posted 05-31-2003 07:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for gpjoe    
[ I am considering for purchase] a 1996 [20-Outrage in nice condition] with a 150-HP [Evinrude].

I like the boat however I'm not sure if the engine is big enough. I see a lot advertised with 200-HP engines. Any [opinions]?

spotsnspecks posted 05-31-2003 10:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for spotsnspecks  Send Email to spotsnspecks     
Depends where and what you us it for. Would not push the boat to suit my needs in a rough 4-5 chop gulf day (that started out as a slick calm 0-1 wave height and 5 knot wind day). It may be enough to pull skiers on a protected lake that never gets choppy. I had a 1995 17 Outrage and I thought the 150 was perfect for her. Take it for a sea trial where you normally venture ans see how she does. Ask the owner as well.
Good luck
jimh posted 05-31-2003 12:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It is hard to assess the horsepower on the boat you specify because I do not see a model listed as a 20-Outrage being made in 1996.

In the Boston Whaler catalogue for that year there are Outrage models listed as 17, 19, and 21 foot hulls.

In the 1997 Catalogue there is a 20-Outrage model listed.

Please check the model designator and the year. I would also recommend reposting this article to the POST-CLASSIC forum. In that forum the topic is limited to Boston Whaler boats that were first introduced after 1990. You are likely to find many informed opinions about the boat, once you identify exactly what boat you are inquiring about.

If that forum does not appeal to you, you could also post to the PERFORMANCE forum, where the topic is focused on performance, and the issue of horsepower on particular hulls is discussed.

phatwhaler posted 05-31-2003 12:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
gpjoe,
I have a 1996 20' Outrage with a 150 Merc and I am almost completely happy with it. I disagree with spotsnspecks on the rough water need for horsepower. You'll never notice that you only have 150 HP in 4-5ft seas because you can't go that fast in those conditions. When it's slick calm out is where you'll say hmmm, wish I had a 225 like Swellmonster. I just went 20 miles out into the gulf with 3 people on board and 6 dive tanks in 3-4 ft seas and she ran great. I only wanted to go about 22 knots for a smooth ride.

As far as performance I get 38knots at WOT with a 2.0L 150 Merc turning a 14x17 stainless prop at 5500 rpm. That's with a half a tank of fuel and only me on board. Add a friend and some fishing tackle and fuel and you'll lose about 100-200 rpms and a knot or two. I cruise around at 4500 rpms doing about 27knots. My last boat was a Shamrock so Iím happy with 27 knot cruise.

Another benefit of a 150 is that you'll be fairly easy on fuel. If I had 225hp I'm sure I'd be using them all.

As for skiing, well I have an extended pylon on the back for wakeboarding and I use two weight bags for a bigger wake. Sometimes some fat chicks. Just kidding! Anyway, yeah a 225 would be nice for wakeboarding, but the 150 works. If all you' re gonna do is pull a kid around on a tube you'll be fine. If you want to pull around a slalom skier, get a Nautique.

The one thing you really want is a set of trim tabs. My boat porpoises pretty bad in 3-4 ft seas. If I give it more gas she goes too fast, and if I try to slow down she starts to porpoise. Gets a little irritating when you canít find a sweet spot to plow through the waves. By the way, with a bunch of dive tanks in front of the console she rides nice.

So the bottom line, if youíre just going fishing with your friend I think youíll be happy with the 150. If youíre wanting a ski boat, then youíll like a 200 or so.

phatwhaler out.

p.s. When my 150 wears out I'll probably step up to a 200.

phatwhaler posted 05-31-2003 12:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
In 1996 this boat is called the 19 Outrage. In '97 & '98 it's called the 20 Outrage. It's the same boat for '96,'97 & '98. Then after that it went away, recreationally. The same boat is still available in the commercial line as the 19 Justice.

phatwhaler out.

Sal DiMercurio posted 05-31-2003 12:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for Sal DiMercurio  Send Email to Sal DiMercurio     
I don't agree with Phatwhaler.
Having to run the engine at 4,500 RPMS to only get 27kts is going to remove anything that resembles fuel economy.
With a 200 hp that boat will do 27 kts at 3,500 rpms because it can twist a 14.25 x 19 pitch without straining it'self.
I really feel your trying to twist to much pitch because you should prop the boat for a normal load, like full tank, a buddy or 2 plus gear, not alone & 1/2 tank of fuel.
Your going to use more fuel with the 150 trying to push it at 30 mph turning 4,500 rpms compared to a 200 turning 3,500 rpms & doing 30 mph,....big difference in that 1,000 rpms as far as fuel is concerned.
I'd say the 150 is marginal, bordering on under powered.
Sal
Royce posted 05-31-2003 01:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Royce  Send Email to Royce     
I have a 1996 19 Outrage with a new Yamaha 200 HP Hpdi. I have it running with a 151/4 / 19 Yamaha stainless prop. I get 47 mph at 5100 rpm with full tank and two people. I am right on the borderline of too much prop. Yamaha specs say wot should be 5000 to 5500. I agree with everything that Sal says about prop size and the 150 HP on a 20 OR. The 20 Outrage was sold from the middle of 1995 to the middle of 1996 as a 19 Outrage. Some boats sold in 1996 were labeled 20'--same boat from 1996 to 1999 model. I also agree about the trim tabs--it handles better with them. All in all a very well thought out boat with very good storage and rode locker.
gpjoe--How much are you paying for the boat?
For reasons stated in another post on this page I will probably be selling my 20'. Email me if you are interested and I will send you photos.
Royce
Royce
jimh posted 05-31-2003 02:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
[Moved from GENERAL to POST CLASSIC; changed TOPIC, was [something similar].
jimh posted 05-31-2003 03:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I guess possession of Tom Clark's Catalogue CD Collection is a good demonstration of the old axiom, "A little learning is dangerous."

Thanks for the clarification of the OUTRAGE-19/20 naming confusion during 1996 and 1997.

On the newer hulls from Boston Whaler it is typical to see a narrow range between minimum recommended horsepower and maximum horsepower shown on the rating plate. This hull is rated 130-225 HP, which is a wider range than many.

With 150-HP you will be 15-percent above the minimum.

It does seem that larger engines run more slowly and at a lower percentage of their peak horsepower do tend to last longer. They also deliver good fuel economy.

gpjoe posted 05-31-2003 06:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for gpjoe    
I started this post and I appreciate everbodys help however I thougt it was odd that someone moved my original post. Anyway I plan on using this boat for recreational purposes on lake St Clair, I'm a fair weather boater that plans on tubbing, fishing, and swiming thats about it. This boat is in nice shape and the only thing that is holding me back is the engine size. If you look at the boat it is called Outrage 19 however it is 20 feet in length. The following yr it was renamed Outrage 20. From what I'm hearing this boat will fit my needs. Thanks Joe
jimh posted 06-01-2003 09:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
gpjoe--it actually was "odd" that I (the moderator and publisher) moved your misplaced post; usually I just delete them. I thought since you are a new author here at continuousWave I would extend a special courtesty and move it here for you. I also respected the many contributions of our knowledgeable forum readers and did not want them to go to waste.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the model designation. It restores my faith in Boston Whaler that they would not call the boat a 19-Outrage in their 1996 catalogue yet apply decals that said 20-Outrage.

As you see, when you invented a new model name for your boat and ignored Boston Whaler's designation, the slueths of the forum could still track down the boat you were referring to.

boxers posted 06-03-2003 08:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for boxers  Send Email to boxers     
I agree with the others who feel the 150HP motor is less than ideal or a 19/20-OR. We have a 1998 model that came with a 200 Yamaha 2 stroke and switched it out for a 225 Yamaha 4 stroke. Both motors will give a top speed of 46MPH and a really nice hole shot with a 19 pitch SS prop. WOT=5600rpm
boxers posted 06-03-2003 08:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for boxers  Send Email to boxers     
I agree with the others who feel the 150HP motor is less than ideal or a 19/20-OR. We have a 1998 model that came with a 200 Yamaha 2 stroke and switched it out for a 225 Yamaha 4 stroke. Both motors will give a top speed of 46MPH and a really nice hole shot with a 19 pitch SS prop. WOT=5600rpm
bsmotril posted 06-04-2003 11:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
Phatwhaler, the symptoms you mentioned not being able to maintain a steady slow speed are exactly what you get without enough horsepower. You don't have enough torque at low RPMs to keep the boat up on plane without it bogging down. Horsepower is torque X RPMs. Add more HP and you've got more torque at those lower RPMs that prevent the motor from boggin and the boat falling off plane. Going slow in big seas is where you see the most benefit, not just on top end on calm days.
BillS
Bigshot posted 06-04-2003 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Ya know in years past 35mph was plenty for a 20' boat if not great. Now a 20' boat that does 40mph is considered slow. I myself consider it on the slow side especially when my 20' Hydra-Sports runs 53. The problem is the fuel consumtion. That damn 225 burns some fuel at 3800rpms(11-12gph@ 30-32mph). The 150 at 4500 will burn less but may not last as long. Now whether that means 2000 or 1500 hours of use, nobody is sure but hgher speed does wear moving parts faster. Most people however never wear out an engine, they trade or blow it up first. Blowng up usually is caused by a lean carb that stuffs a cyl or 2. With modern EFI I believe that will be a thing of the past and people will see more hours on engines.

With that said I think with a sea trial you will make your decision. Being it's a 1996 and the engine is 7-8 seasons old, you will probably want to upgrade in the next few years anyhow so if the deal is right and it fits your needs, go for it. In a few years you can get the 225 and with modern technology burn less gas than your current 150. Buying right makes it already half sold. Just my $.02

phatwhaler posted 06-05-2003 08:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
First of all, yes I would prefer more horsepower. gpjoe's question is whether the engine is big enough. To me that means is the engine adequate for whatever his needs are. Since his needs aren't very horsepower intensive, I think a 150 is adequate. Like Bigshot said, a few years ago 35mph in a boat was fine, now everyone wants to go faster and faster, which I totally understand.

As for the torque issue, I don't agree that my lack of torque is making my boat porpoise. I think that the 19/20 Outrage hull is the main problem. The 150 has plenty of power to make the boat plane etc.. It just seems that if you try to slow down to a wave period friendly speed, many times that is just a little too slow and she falls off a plane. Here soon I will have some Lenco tabs on the back and it should help me slow down and find a comfort zone.

Also, my boat performs much better with a little weight in the bow, like some dive gear. I think that if I was truly underpowered the weight would only make matters worse. Anyway, I'm not sweatin it too much. I've got a sweet Whaler, something I've wanted for many years. It may not be perfect, but it's close. Someday maybe I'll move up to a nice old school 22 Outrage, or maybe a 25 Contender with twins. That might take a while.


phatwhaler out.

gpjoe posted 06-06-2003 08:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for gpjoe    
I think 150 will fit my needs, I have a deposit on this boat and will try it out before final purchase. The boat has less than 50 hrs on it and it looks good as new.
Bigshot posted 06-06-2003 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
There is always No2 ;)

Nitrous oxide for you Camry and Taurus owners :)

gpjoe posted 06-12-2003 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for gpjoe    
Does anyone know the beam and draft on this boat. Thanks GPJOE
jstachowiak posted 06-12-2003 05:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jstachowiak  Send Email to jstachowiak     
1996 19' Outrage:

Length: 19' 8"
Draft: 15"
Beam: 8' 4"
Weight: 2200 lbs.
Capacity: 2230 lbs.
Swamped capacity: 4800 lbs.
HP min to max: 130 to 225 hp
Engine shaft length: XL 25"
Fuel Capacity: 91 gallons

gpjoe posted 06-14-2003 07:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for gpjoe    
Thanks for the info,My owners manual was not very helpful.GPJOE
the outranger posted 06-20-2003 02:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for the outranger  Send Email to the outranger     
Hey! Do you happen to know the spec's (beam, draft etc.) on a 1992 Outrage 19'?
jstachowiak posted 06-24-2003 06:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for jstachowiak  Send Email to jstachowiak     
You guys need to buy Tom's CD. That has all the Specs.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004423.html

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.