Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  outrage 22 or 21 (94- 97) what do you prefer?

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

Author Topic:   outrage 22 or 21 (94- 97) what do you prefer?
fitn217 posted 10-05-2004 11:29 PM ET (US)   Profile for fitn217   Send Email to fitn217  
I currently own a 170 Montauk and will be moving up within a year or two. I will skip the 2 foot itis and go straight to 4 or 5. I fish in Raritan Bay and take frequent trips into the Atlantic Ocean. The Montauk is a great boat but is not meant for long trips in the ocean, due to fuel capacity, those spine tinglers when you come flying off of any wave over 2 feet and its inability to get rid of excess water in the cockpit quickly. I want something bigger to keep those 2- 3 foot wave crests under my hull, with a deeper V, room for a raw water live well, t-top with enclosure etc...everything needed to tuna and shark fish as well as fish and travel in shallow water. water depths such as 2 feet as my marina gets very low, where the hull sits on mud at moon tides.
I am currently leaning towards the 21 due to its increased beam and what looks to be like a deeper V. But I can be easily persuaded. I haven't test driven any of them either so I'm just beginning my research. I'm guessing that comparing the 21 to the 22 might be a lot like comparing the 17 Montauk to the 170 Montauk. I'm guessing now...since the 21's hull looks very similar to the hull on the 170 Montauk that it might perform as well against the 22 as the 170 performs against the 17.

I look forward to hearing your insights and opinions.
Barry posted 10-06-2004 01:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
I went through the same process when I moved up from my 1974 Montauk. I considered both the 1994-1997 21 and the older 22 Outrages.

I initially concentrated more on the 22's mainly because of lower cost. However most of the 22's also had older power which could offset the cost difference if I had to have much engine work done or repower.

Here are some of the pros and cons for each that I came up with:
22 Outrage
1. A 22 will generally be less expensive (older boats made through '92) although you could still by a new 22 Guardian.
2. The 22 is bigger and has more room. 22'3" and 7'5" vs. 20'9" and 8'6".
3. The 22 is lighter so it's easier to tow, requires less power (min. power 90 vs 150), and is more fuel efficient.
4. The 22 has slightly less draft.
5. The 22 has lower gunnels so less wind resistance and easier to fish from.
6. I've heard the 22 tracks and maneuvers better than the 21.
7. I've also heard that the 22 is more stable. (Although the wider beam of the 21 should help stabilize that deeper-V.)
8. The 22 is available with a closed transom in the form of the rarer Whaler Drive model.

94-97 21 Outrage
1. The 21 has a deeper V hull (Accutrack) which should ride much smoother than the 22 in a head sea.
2. The 21 has more storage both in the bigger console and in deck. (Although you can find some 22's with the larger Super Console.)
3. The 21 console is taller, providing better shelter. (Some claim it is harder to see over.)
4. The 21 is heavier. This can be a plus in the form of a better ride.
5. The 21 has a 119 gal fuel tank. (The standard on the 22 is 77, although a 130 gal was an option.)
6. The 21 has more amenities like bolsters, toe-rails, t-top, etc.
7. The 21 will generally be a newer boat with newer power so potentially better condition. (It will also cost more as a result.)

Check out the picture for a side-by-side comparison of the two hulls http://members.aol.com/bburtensha/outrage/22vs21.jpg
I saved the images from the Commercial site and then tried to scale them appropriately.

I would recommend that you sea-trial each before you make a decision.


David Ratusnik posted 10-06-2004 10:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
Classic 22' power is max 240hp w/o WDrive. 150hp maybe abit on the light side. I've run old 225hp and new 200hp (Yamaha). The 22' boogies with fresh 200 hp. Correct, the classic is much lighter. .02 David
Backlash posted 10-07-2004 09:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for Backlash  Send Email to Backlash     
Barry's observations are pretty much right on comparing the 21' and 22' Outrages. I believe the 21 was only offered with one center console which is HUGE. Standard fuel capacity is 122 gals. A super leaning post was also offered with a bait well. Big in-floor fish boxes were standard. For offshore Atlantic tuna/shark fishing I think I would lean towards the 21. In person, this is a very large 21' boat equipped with heavy duty components and obviously designed for serious fishing.

As mentioned, both boats should be sea-trialed.

fitn217 posted 10-07-2004 08:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for fitn217  Send Email to fitn217     
Thanks for your imput guys
Backlash...you pointed out eveything that I like about the 21, large console, fish boxes and that baitwell/leaning post looks like it would really do a great job.
Barry...thanks for the great comparisons. What boat did you end up with?
I have also noticed that the 22's are pretty inexpensive and it seems that you could pick one up with a 4 year old motor at a reasonable price. The 21's that I've viewed for sale all have the original engines on them so realistically I'd need to add the price of a new engine to them. They all seem pricey and there aren't as many of them around with the leaning post livewell combo. Which narrows down my options more and I might have to pay top dollar or close to it.
I'd think a new E-TEC would be great to repower these boats with. Maybe a 200 or 225 for the 22 and a 250 for the 21. My father put a 75 E-TEC on his 71 Nauset and loves it. But that would add $18,000 to the price.
I definately need to sea trial these boats.
If anyone would be so kind to take me for a ride or go fishing for a day in their 22 or 21 outrages in the mid to Northern New Jersey area I'd gladly return the favor in my 2003 170 Montauk.
Backlash posted 10-07-2004 09:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Backlash  Send Email to Backlash     
Just did a quick search on Boat Trader and here's a nice looking 21 in Virginia Beach, VA with a 2000, 225 Optimax:

http://adcache.boattraderonline.com/6/5/4/75884754.htm

I also see Nauset Marine (Mass) has two 1994 21's - one has the leaning post/live well.

rtk posted 10-07-2004 09:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
I purchase my 1997 21 Outrage last October, had the original 1997 Mercury 225 carbed motor on it. Ran real well with the 225, it is more than adequate for the boat. I repowered this spring with a new 2003 Mercury 250EFI and I have not noticed much difference in top end speed running the same prop. I even think a 200 horsepower would be adequate for the 21 Outrage of that vintage.

If you ever get down to the Toms River area (Ocean County) I would be happy to demo the boat, drop me an email. I am very happy with mine so far.

I have never been out in the 22 Outrage so I cannot offer any comparison.

Rich

Barry posted 10-07-2004 09:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Most of the 21's that were available at that time were in Florida and most had t-tops but only a couple had the leaning post.

I saw 22's from $10-25k. A fair amount had newer (late 90's) power. The 21's ran from $24-35k and most of those had original power. In terms of power, I'd recommend a 225 for the 22 and a 250 for the 21.

Most of the 21's advertised had trim tabs, and based on a couple of reports I had from owners, the boat needs them.

Even though the dimensions are close, the 21 seemed to have much less interior room than the 22. I'm sure that this is due to the wider gunwales, larger console, raised forward deck, and locker on the bow.

With the seats, pads, bolsters, and larger console, the 21's seemed much more "plush" that the 22's.

I ended up with a 1988 22' Outrage Whaler Drive with twin 1988 150 Johnsons (with fairly low hours). I liked the idea of the full transom and twin engines. And I was able to pick up that boat with a new trailer for several thousand less than any of the 21's I'd seen.

Barry posted 10-07-2004 09:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
Something else that bothered me was that most of the 21's had the transom notched for a single 25" engine. Versions with no notch and a single 30" were harder to find. I also only saw a couple with twins (with 25" shafts).
rtk posted 10-07-2004 10:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
Barry, I have been scratching my head wondering how my boat would accomodate twins, my boat is the 25" notched transom. I just looked at the photo of the 1995 advertised and noticed it does not have the notch, it is flush across the whole transom.

Is that the 30" transom with an XXL shaft Optimax?

You bring up a great point about the 21 Outrage. I have not experienced a problem with the notched transom, but it sure would be nice to have that motor another 5 inches higher on the transom and have the option to put twins on without altering the transom.

Rich

Barry posted 10-08-2004 11:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Barry  Send Email to Barry     
The boat in the ad has the standard (not notched) transom with a 30" shaft single on it. I noticed that the engine is on a jackplate. It has trim tabs but they are mounted inward.

While the 21 Justice is rated for and requires more horsepower than the 22 Guardian, the maximum rated engine weight is actually less (700 vs 720 lbs.).

I wouldn't recommend twins on either the 22 or the 21 because I think the weight could cause a problem with the trim.

David Ratusnik posted 10-08-2004 03:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
rtk- a couple quick thoughts.

1) While I run a new 200hp Yamaha on an '86 Outrage with 25" setback bracket, I would be careful about trying to run it on the 21' late model. While the '86 Outrage is 2,050 curb weight, I believe the '21 is significantly heavier (like 800#'s-memory). Trim tabs might assist the 200 in overcoming the slight power disadvantage with a 225hp.-at least in coming out of the hole.

2) Forget twins on the '21. As they say, "keep it simple". Twins get you more to break, more to maintain, and as I read the thread more transom to R/R. Wait until you move up to the 25 foot offshore boat before you go with twins. With twins, gas consumption might be an issue as well.

David

fitn217 posted 10-08-2004 06:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for fitn217  Send Email to fitn217     
I have not seen a 21 footer with the notched transom until after 1997. The 20 foot outrage however has the notched transom with large well and two seats on either side of the well. This design seem to lose a lot of precious cockpit space.
Backlash posted 10-08-2004 07:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Backlash  Send Email to Backlash     
Very strange inboard mounting of the trim tabs on the 21 in Virginia. I can't imagine a dealer would do this. This is basically the same hull/transom as my 21 Walkaround and there's plenty of room to mount the trim tabs outboard where they should be.

I don't see a problem with twin 150's on the 21. Most of the Whaler advertising during the mid-nineties showed the 21 with twin 150's. Don't think it would negatively affect the trim.

rtk posted 10-08-2004 10:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for rtk  Send Email to rtk     
I did not notice the trim tab location until you mentioned it. Mine are mounted outboard also.

Trim tabs are recommended, especially if there is a t-top. I adjust them quite often while running the boat to keep it level. They do make a difference in the ride also, gets the bow down for a more comfortable ride.

The input on the twins is great, the 300 hp rating and a weight limit of 700lbs on the transom is a contradiction to me. To my knowledge the only 300hp production outboards is/was the Johnson V8 around 1989 and the current Yamaha HPDI.

The only other way to put 300hp on this boat would be twins. Twin 150 Optimax would be close to 900lbs.

A 275 Verado with a decent size kicker motor will come in just shy of 800lbs.

Rich

phatwhaler posted 10-09-2004 10:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for phatwhaler  Send Email to phatwhaler     
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/SubCatImage.asp?lid=5&lc=otb&cid=11&scid=14&year=2005&cat=HPDI%2BSeries&scat=HPDI&iid=6487&top=0


A 21 with one of those would be a sweet ride.

phatwhaler out.

tvon posted 10-19-2004 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for tvon  Send Email to tvon     
I have a 94 21 Outrage with the super leaning post and a 200 Evinrude. The transom is notched. With a single engine, you must have a 30" shaft, with twins it requires 25" shafts. It doesn't need trim tabs, the tilt/trim is fine.

I've got a 19 pitch prop on it and I cruise at 4000 rpms at about 34 MPH and avaergae right at 2 MPG for a complete trip including trolling. WOT is 5400 RPM and top speed is 48 MPH. The boat is solid as a rock. I frequently run 60 miles each way out of Jacksonville to the Gulf Stream fishing. I have fished on many 21' boats and many larger boats, and this is one extremely dry and smooth riding boat.

I like the look of the newer Whalers, but you lose a couple of feet of interior space with the Euro transom. My next boat will be the new 27 Outrage.

.....Todd

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.