Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  1998 21 CONQUEST Re-power

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

Author Topic:   1998 21 CONQUEST Re-power
necessary evil posted 03-05-2011 05:12 AM ET (US)   Profile for necessary evil   Send Email to necessary evil  
I currently have a 2000 Mercury 225-HP OptiMax on the back of my 21 Conquest. The current engine is loud and 11-years-old, and I am considering either an Evinrude E-TEC 200-HP or a Yamaha F200. Any 21 Conquest owners that have either of these engines or others that could provide any info would be great. Has anyone put a whaler pod on the stern of a 1998 21 Conquest? Are they available?
jimh posted 03-05-2011 09:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I do not recognize the term "whaler pod" as a term used by Boston Whaler or as a term in general use by Boston Whaler boat owners. I do not recall Boston Whaler offering an options on a 1998 CONQUEST 21 for engine brackets.

The 1998 CONQUEST 21 is listed with a hull weight of 2,400-lbs and a minimum power of 175-HP. If considering a new engine, I recommend you consider the E-TEC 200 H.O. or the E-TEC 225 in lieu of the E-TEC 200. The E-TEC 200 is built on a smaller displacement engine than the 225 or 200 H.O. model. With a heavy boat you may find the larger displacement engine will be more appropriate.

Mambo Minnow posted 03-05-2011 10:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for Mambo Minnow  Send Email to Mambo Minnow     
I recommend you review the recent posts by forum member JTC. He recently repowered his larger Conquest with twin Yamaha 4 stroke Offshore Series V-6s. A number of Ventura/conquest 21 hull owners are considering repowering from Optis to this new offering. The prime advantage is the enhanced power- to-weight ratio.
SJUAE posted 03-05-2011 08:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
Both engines are fine units I would go with the dealer you think offers you best support and price

There is a wealth of info for Jim's repowered Revenge with an ETEC and save yourself some money and do not consider wired over cabled shift/throttle control it's a nice to have really on a single engine 21ft Hull IMO.


necessary evil posted 03-08-2011 02:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for necessary evil  Send Email to necessary evil     
the extension on the back of the boat is referred to as a whaler drive, not a whaler pod, my mistake:

i was curious if anyone had seen or installed these and what they would be used for?

in regards to the evinrude etec vs yamaha: after some research and price checking i believe i am going to go with the etec 200 ho or the etec 225 ho. I am leaning toward the 200 etec ho as i have an interest in getting the most out of the tank, but having that extra 25 horses might be nice.

martyn1075 posted 03-08-2011 03:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
Having that extra horse can sometimes give you the most out of your tank as you can lay back on the throttle optimize a better cruising speed. However in this case I don't think you would notice much difference between a 200 and 225 in regards to gas savings. Perhaps I am wrong and the displacement difference might be considerable for your 21 Conquest but I am leaning towards probably not.

I personally tend to favor the larger motor in most cases. Its nice to have the extra horse when needed, as well provide the boat with ample power under harsh sea conditions or a heavy load. In other words less strain on the motor and its parts. Just because you have the big power doesn't mean you have to use it but its always there just in case.

I am sure either one of those E-TEC's would provide ample power and would be a good choice for your boat.

necessary evil take a look at this link below. It provides a great background on the Whaler Drive and other brackets designed for Boston Whalers. The Whaler Drive you posted will not fit on a post classic Whaler. The engineering of the bracket was quite advanced and was designed specifically for the performance of Classic Whales in the 22-27 range models. It quite rare to see one like this for sale on its own. I guess someone might buy it as a project for another Whaler.

necessary evil posted 03-08-2011 03:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for necessary evil  Send Email to necessary evil     
found the article on the whaler drive. has anyone installed one on a conquest 21? just curious
necessary evil posted 03-08-2011 03:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for necessary evil  Send Email to necessary evil     
thanks martyn

i found and read the article and posted before i seen your response. Thanks for the 2 bits on the engines i will use it as ammunition with the wife if i need to further justify my boat expenditures in terms of the 200 etec ho vs the 225 etec ho in terms of fuel consumption, should be no problem ;

SJUAE posted 03-08-2011 03:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
If your 21 Conquest is known for being a bit heavy/low on the stern then the extra 25/50HP over the ETEC 200HO will certainly help on prop selection if you are after a bit of stern lift as it will take a little more grunt to turn these props and not to get a big reduction on topend.

I have a 200HO on my 2006 210 Outrage with T-Top and it's more than adequate a 225HP would of maxed me out but with little gain IMO.


L H G posted 03-09-2011 12:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Purchase of an E-tec brings with it the necessary evil of poorer fuel economy than you would get with an Optimax, Verado, Suzuki, Honda or Yamaha of the same HP (200-225 range of engines).
boatdryver posted 03-09-2011 09:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for boatdryver  Send Email to boatdryver     
Interesting, LHG.

OK, what percentage drop in fuel economy would you expect an Etec to get compared to those other brands?


L H G posted 03-09-2011 02:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Here is a starter. Note the testing was done by an independent magazine, not Mercury. the Opti got 5.8 MPG vs 4.4MPG for the 200 HO E-tec. 70685.42344485507

Optimax fuel economy tends to be very close to what the 4-strokes deliver.

The newer 3.0 liter Optimax engines, 2007 and up, tend to run a lot quieter also. I see a lot of them on the water where I boat, and they sound nice. They have a different idle sound than the Evinrudes, but once on plane, the sound is similar as boats with twin Optis or twin Evinrudes go by me.

SJUAE posted 03-09-2011 04:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     

If you look at the other test done by ..." John Tiger, Jr., Bass & Walleye Boats on a lighter and faster boat with a 200 OptiMax on Mercs web page there certainly seems slight discouraging data especially at WOT

No one doubts at certain RPM's the Optimax can give excellent results and this is true of any engine.

What counts is the overall summary on your particular hull under the operations you use. As no one can give necessary evil an absolute guarantee that the Optimax will fair better for him than any other modern engine on his set up.

I don't see any point clouding the issue with what always ends up a discussion about the validity of these so called independent tests. All modern engines are good even Opti's :) and they all have minor pros and cons which suit individual tastes, priorities and preferences.


jimh posted 03-10-2011 02:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Mercury in its most aggressive advertising of the OptiMax The Next Generation only claimed that the sound improvement of the newer OptiMax engines would be "up to six decibels." A change in sound level of 6-dB is noticeable, but it is not a dramatic change. In every comparison of engines I have ever read the OptiMax has always been described as the loudest engine.

It is not surprising to me that on a Mercury website you would read information that showed the Mercury motors got better fuel economy than competitors' motors. This is just the nature of self-promotion.

The E-TEC motors get better fuel economy at idle and low speeds than most all other engines. I do not believe Evinrude has ever claimed the E-TEC gets better fuel economy across all engine speeds and loads than any other engine. If you pick your spots, you can make arguments that one engine is better than another at that spot.

The best measure of fuel economy is to compare the rate of fuel flow in gallons per hour when using a standard test cycle. This compares engines only, not engines plus propellers plus boats plus weather plus drivers plus sea conditions--which is what boat test comparisons of MPG does. An accepted measure of standard test cycle is often the ICOMIA duty cycle which puts the engine through various amounts of time at various loads and speeds, with the intention being to reflect the typical pattern of use for an outboard motor. If you want to get a fair and unbiased comparison of engine fuel flow rates, find the ICOMIA data for the engines. You can dig this data out of the EPA certified test data.

Or, you can just collect opinions on web discussion forums, in which case you will get a lot of opinions, and most of them coming with a strong slant.

SJUAE posted 03-10-2011 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     

The most obivious question is if the Opti is so good why did Merc spend millions on the Verado's for little or minimal advantage according to some results and L H G ? :)

It's as we say there are choices to be made on owner preferencies Opti's is just one of many. There are no bad modern outboards IMO.

Lets stick to helping necessary evil with his personal choice


L H G posted 03-10-2011 03:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Steve - Mercury spent the money on Verados because a top rated 4-stroke like Verado is in a class by itself, and if they didn't, the Japanese would completely own that market. No engine even comes close to being so quiet at running speeds and able to crank out the high end HP that 4-strokes are capable of. Compared to Verados and the best 4-strokes, all 2-strokes regardless of maker, are a second class option. Two-strokes have survived for only one of two reasons - weight and smaller visual size, particularly for older, smaller, narrower boats like Whalers and the low freeboard bass boats. Otherwise they would be gone. The cost differential has pretty much been eliminated, and in some instances a Japanese 4-stroke actually costs less.

In spite of all of this, and with my collection of really old Whalers, I am still a 2-stroke fan, and am hoping that as Americans increasingly try to "buy American", 2-stroke sales will re-gain some of the 80% marketshare lost to 4-strokes.

necessary evil posted 03-10-2011 10:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for necessary evil  Send Email to necessary evil     
I will be using my 21 Conquest in and around Vancouver Island BC particularly Port Alberni, Bamfield, and the Fraser River. The marine store whom i have dealt with before stocks both Yamaha and Evinrude ETEC. The Evinrude 225 is about 3000.00 cheaper and has less moving parts than the Yamaha, i also like the difference in service intervals. I have a 2000 225 mercury optimax on the back of the conquest and while it is loud, i really like the power it produces. I purchased the Conquest after taking it out with the seller and picked it because i was looking for a platform that was economical and safe. There are not many Conquests 21 's in these parts and I was hoping somebody had recently repowered there conquest 21. thanks for the feedback on the yamaha's, and ETEC's, and maercury.

SJUAE and Martyn: interesting thoughts on the 200HO vs 225HO in terms of fuel economy.

SJUAE posted 03-11-2011 12:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for SJUAE  Send Email to SJUAE     
L G H thanks :) BTW you forgot the most important thing about ETEC's .............. there available in white :)

Out of intrest I overlaid 2 sets of results by OEM's read in to as you wish but both showed a low flat curve for the Yam model torqecurves.jpg

necessary evil you never hear anyone say they have too much power :) not sure what the delta is between the 200 and 225 but if you do not get too much ear ache from the Mrs go for it :)


martyn1075 posted 03-11-2011 02:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
necessary evil how about we throw a wrench in the works. Since I live on the mainland of Vancouver and fish the west coast every summer I notice more and more fish camps using the 225 Susuki engines. Have you looked at these. Just want to make things even harder for you to pick and engine.

Seriously as SJUAE has said "There are no bad modern outboards IMO."

I tend to agree. As far as price is concerned I am not sure although I think they are a bit lower than the Yamaha. The guides I have talked to are extremely happy with the Suzuki product.

We use the newer 2007 Optis and I can agree with L H G they are much quieter at idol then the older versions I have also found the idle is very tight and together rather than being erratic which I found I could not get rid of with the older version. When you open them up with twins they sound like a jet airplane from inside the cockpit really cool actually.

necessary evil again I am sure with a new modern engine of your choice you will be thrilled with how they operate. Good Luck!


Basshole posted 03-11-2011 11:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Basshole  Send Email to Basshole     
Necessary evil, GET THE ETEC! I have one (225hp) on the back of my Conquest 21. It's the perfect match up. I had an Opti on my last boat and had nothing but problems with it. The ETEC is way better across the board in my opinion. In fact, I now for the first time ever I feel like I have the perfect boat and motor combo. BTW, LHG is too biased for his own good and quite simply just doesn't know any better.
necessary evil posted 03-21-2011 02:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for necessary evil  Send Email to necessary evil     

did you repower with the etec HO or the ETEC?

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.