190 Outrage Water-Fuel Separator - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  190 Outrage Water-Fuel Separator

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   190 Outrage Water-Fuel Separator

rplow posted 12-23-2009 08:19 AM ET (US)
I have gotten two different opinions from two different mechanics on whether or not the [Boston Whaler 190 OUTRAGE] needs a water-fuel separator filter. I've had a one-time occurrence of bad gas recently, which I think is due to a leak in the fuel line. This has subsequently been repaired. Is there a consensus among the group [on whether or not a Boston Whaler 190 OUTRAGE should have a water-fuel separating filter]?
Perry posted 12-23-2009 12:05 PM ET (US)
Mine came dealer equipped with one and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Bella con23 posted 12-23-2009 01:27 PM ET (US)
A fuel-water separator is the first item I installed on my boat when I bought it in 2006.
Water can be a problem from multiple points of entry. Seems like a simple solution as opposed trying to restart an outboard that drank a slug of water.
Joe
Phil T posted 12-23-2009 03:05 PM ET (US)
Robert -
There has been a long discussion on the [advantages and disadvantages] of installing a water separating filter in a fuel line to a outboard engine.
Some manufacturer's are now selling motors that include a 10-micron filter under the cowling.
I presume you have either a Mercury Optimax or Verado engine on your 190 Outrage.
To get "the" answer, I suggest you contact Mercury Marine Customer Service and get the answer.
Feejer posted 12-23-2009 04:55 PM ET (US)
I can tell you what Mercury customer service will say. "[There] is one already on the engine", you don't need another. Has anyone here ever try and change a fuel filter, on the water, under the cowling? I don't know about your engine by my Verado 150 is a bear to get off and on while I'm standing on solid ground. I had some water in my fuel over the summer on my Dauntless. It was bad enough trying to change the filter at the dock, let alone being on open water. I talked to me local Boston Whaler dealer and they agreed. This October they installed a 60-GPH fuel-water separator in my bilge. I might not ever need it, but it is much simpler to change that one than the one under the cowling.
jimh posted 12-24-2009 12:16 AM ET (US)
The general concern for adding a fuel-water separating filter to the fuel line in a boat is for adding too much restriction in the fuel flow. Too much restriction in the fuel line could result in improper operation of the engine, such as reducing the fuel-air mixture to a lean mixture.
If you install a filter whose flow volume rated capacity is large compared to the fuel flow needed by the engine, the restriction created by the filter should be small. The fuel line restriction is usually measured by the suction or vacuum across the filter. A good quality filter, such as a RACOR filter, will add only a small amount of added suction to a fuel line.
Feejer posted 12-24-2009 08:48 AM ET (US)
I've been told by at least two dealers, Mercury and Yamaha, as long as your filter is [twice] your WOT burn rate you are fine. Example: my Verado 150 at WOT burns 15.2-GPH. Most fuel-water seperating filters are 30 or 60-GPH flow rate. I have a 60-GPH filter installed.
Feejer posted 12-29-2009 02:39 PM ET (US)
Thought I'd give this a bump. Anyone else hear the same or different regarding the 2:1 rule?
glen e posted 12-29-2009 09:28 PM ET (US)
Corporate service at Merc recommends a 60 gph Racor, 3/8inch hose and as few elbows as possible. The Verado shop manual has a spec for how much vacuum the system should draw and as long as that spec is met, adding a Racor is OK. The new 350 uses a racor standard in the boat, notunder the cowl. Every one of them, it's not determined by the boat mfr. Further Page 37 of the Generation I owner's manual recommends a external filter should you run e-10.

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: 190 Outrage Water-Fuel Separator
rplow	posted 12-23-2009 08:19 AM ET (US) I have gotten two different opinions from two different mechanics on whether or not the [Boston Whaler 190 OUTRAGE] needs a water-fuel separator filter. I've had a one-time occurrence of bad gas recently, which I think is due to a leak in the fuel line. This has subsequently been repaired. Is there a consensus among the group [on whether or not a Boston Whaler 190 OUTRAGE should have a water-fuel separating filter]?
Perry	posted 12-23-2009 12:05 PM ET (US) Mine came dealer equipped with one and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Bella con23	posted 12-23-2009 01:27 PM ET (US) A fuel-water separator is the first item I installed on my boat when I bought it in 2006. Water can be a problem from multiple points of entry. Seems like a simple solution as opposed trying to restart an outboard that drank a slug of water. Joe
Phil T	posted 12-23-2009 03:05 PM ET (US) Robert - There has been a long discussion on the [advantages and disadvantages] of installing a water separating filter in a fuel line to a outboard engine. Some manufacturer's are now selling motors that include a 10-micron filter under the cowling. I presume you have either a Mercury Optimax or Verado engine on your 190 Outrage. To get "the" answer, I suggest you contact Mercury Marine Customer Service and get the answer.
Feejer	posted 12-23-2009 04:55 PM ET (US) I can tell you what Mercury customer service will say. "[There] is one already on the engine", you don't need another. Has anyone here ever try and change a fuel filter, on the water, under the cowling? I don't know about your engine by my Verado 150 is a bear to get off and on while I'm standing on solid ground. I had some water in my fuel over the summer on my Dauntless. It was bad enough trying to change the filter at the dock, let alone being on open water. I talked to me local Boston Whaler dealer and they agreed. This October they installed a 60-GPH fuel-water separator in my bilge. I might not ever need it, but it is much simpler to change that one than the one under the cowling.
jimh	posted 12-24-2009 12:16 AM ET (US) The general concern for adding a fuel-water separating filter to the fuel line in a boat is for adding too much restriction in the fuel flow. Too much restriction in the fuel line could result in improper operation of the engine, such as reducing the fuel-air mixture to a lean mixture. If you install a filter whose flow volume rated capacity is large compared to the fuel flow needed by the engine, the restriction created by the filter should be small. The fuel line restriction is usually measured by the suction or vacuum across the filter. A good quality filter, such as a RACOR filter, will add only a small amount of added suction to a fuel line.
Feejer	posted 12-24-2009 08:48 AM ET (US) I've been told by at least two dealers, Mercury and Yamaha, as long as your filter is [twice] your WOT burn rate you are fine. Example: my Verado 150 at WOT burns 15.2-GPH. Most fuel-water seperating filters are 30 or 60-GPH flow rate. I have a 60-GPH filter installed.
Feejer	posted 12-29-2009 02:39 PM ET (US) Thought I'd give this a bump. Anyone else hear the same or different regarding the 2:1 rule?
glen e	posted 12-29-2009 09:28 PM ET (US) Corporate service at Merc recommends a 60 gph Racor, 3/8inch hose and as few elbows as possible. The Verado shop manual has a spec for how much vacuum the system should draw and as long as that spec is met, adding a Racor is OK. The new 350 uses a racor standard in the boat, notunder the cowl. Every one of them, it's not determined by the boat mfr. Further Page 37 of the Generation I owner's manual recommends a external filter should you run e-10.