CONTINUOUSWAVE

i just purchased a 1989 Outrage 22. In researching the boat, [I] noticed a majority of 22-footers have the aft bait well behind the in-deck fuel tank. On my 1989 OUTRAGE 22, it doesn't have the live well, and, in fact, it's all fuel tank from the console to the aft well.

Is the fuel tank [on this OUTRAGE 22] a 77-gallon tank?

Or, [is it] larger capacity?

And, if so, any idea why this one would be different?



[Deleted image attached as a PDF file, and reposted as JPEG. Please, NEVER submit images as PDF files.--jimh]

Yes, you have the optional larger fuel tank.

From a archived post, Plotman writes:

An OUTRAGE 22 had a standard tank of 77 gallons. There was also an option - pretty rare, but out there - that increased fuel capacity to 129 gallons at the expense of the stern well.

cf: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014625.html

I suspect that the option for having the much larger fuel tank capacity on the OUTRAGE 22 boat was probably chosen by customers who were planning on running twin engines and wanted to have very long fuel endurance times.

What engine or engines are powering this boat?

From the small image you provided it looks like twin engines.

If the boat were originally powered with c.1989 twin two-stroke-power-cycle engines of 120-HP, the total rate of fuel consumption for those engines would probably have been about 24-GPH at full power. Having a 129-gallon tank would have provided about five hours of fuel endurance. The boat would be making about 40-MPH at full throttle power, so you'd have a range of 200-miles.

The way older two-stroke-power-cycle engines consume fuel tends to produce the best MPG at fast cruising speeds, and the worst MPG at fast idle speeds. If the original owner was going to use the boat for fast ocean trolling, he'd probably want a big fuel tank.

Thanks for the information. The boat has a Yamaha 200 HPDI two-cycle engine.

Does the capacity jump to 129-gallons from 77-gallons? Hell, I can hit the Flemish Cap with that much fuel[!]

Sorry about the PDF--still learning.

The Yamaha 200 HDPI will likely be more fuel efficient than any original engine on the boat.

Are there any signs the transom was originally set-up for twin engines?

[T]he transom does not show any signs of twins, but [I] would love to have a couple on the back--if [I] can ever afford them.

I have a friend who may [have] an Armstrong bracket, but for only a single; that would be great on the back, but will also require money to close off the transom.

Lots of dreams--just short on cash