1993 Outrage 21 Re-power

[Madfish22]

Q1: by re-powering my 1993 OUTRAGE 21 with a new engine, will an increase in the engine weight of 100-lbs be a signifiant concern?

BACKSTORY

I plan to re-power my 1993 OUTRAGE 21with a new four-stroke-power-cycle engine, probably a SUZUKI because of their better prices. The current engine is a Mercury OptiMax 225-HP, which results in the boat [static trim being slightly down by the stern].

A SUZUKI four-cylinder 200-HP engine will add about 30-lbs more engine weight. A SUZUKI six-cylinder 225 or 250-HP engine will add 100-lbs.

I don't need the re-powered boat to have extremely high boat top speed, but if I re-power with the four-cylinder 200-HP engine I am worried the boat will be under-powered.

[jimh]

The best way to judge how an increase in the engine weight by 100-lbs will affect the boat is to conduct a sea trial of your boat now and add 100-lbs of dead weight as close to the transom as possible. Perhaps you could hang some weights off the transom using the towing eyes on the transom, as that will position the extra 100-lbs more appropriately.

One possible source for weight might be two 50-lbs steel-shot filled workout bags. Maybe you could borrow them from a gym and hang them off the transom with the boat at rest to see the change in trim that results. See

https://www.sandbagstore.com/workout-sa ... black.html

Your apprehension about re-powering with a four-cylinder engine is probably justified.

The general problem with a naturally aspirated four-stroke-power-cycle engines that replace a direct-injection two-stroke-power-cycle engine with a compressor producing a boosted intake air pressure like an OptiMax will be a smaller power band. Many of the four-stroke-power-cycle engines do not produce their rated horsepower until they can accelerate to the very upper end of their engine speed operating range. This results is difficulty getting the boat onto plane, as the new engine might not have enough lower-engine speed power to push the boat up its own bow wave and transition to plane.

Read more about two v four-stroke-power-cycle engines at

https://continuouswave.com/forum/viewto ... 870#p45509

[Phil T]

There was no 210 Outrage in 1993. The 1993 Outrage 21 has a minimum power rating of 150-HP and a maximum power rating of 300-HP.

At the time it was introduced the method of attaining 300-HP was from twin 150-HP engines. Therefore, I doubt 100-lbs will make a measurable impact.

[jimh]

PHIL T--I like your thinking. Certainly twin 150-HP engines would have been a total weight greater than a single 2023 250-HP Suzuki engine.

Re the "21" v. "210" nomenclature: I found several used 1992 OUTRAGE "210" boats listed for sale, and I did not have immediate access to my printed catalogues to check on the nomenclature.

I think the c.1993 OUTRAGE 21 hull was also used for the 21 WALKAROUND. Steve F had a 21 WALKAROUND that was powered by a 200-HP engine, and he always said he wished he had gotten the 250-HP engine.

I also saw some c.1993 OUTRAGE 21 boats re-powered with 300-HP single engines.

With all that in mind, then a four-cylinder 200-HP is most probably NOT the best choice. But, heck, it is easy to spend someone else's money, but even if it were my money, I would hope I'd go the extra expense of the larger displacement. More displacement is the way a four-stroke-power-cycle outboard engine compensates for not being a two-stroke.

Regarding SUZUKI outboard engines, they were the first marine outboard manufacturer to switch to an entirely four-stroke-power-cycle outboard engine line, the first manufacturer to offered extended warranty coverage, up to six years when other makers were barely offering two or three years. and that really upset the other guys, and among the first (with Evinrude) to provide NMEA-2000 instrumentation. The SUZUKI outboard engine prices have always been better than Yamaha (especially) and also caused complaints from Mercury (who was also selling on low price) that Suzuki was trying to gain or "buy" market share with lower prices--as if there was something unethical or immoral about doing just that. I have been in some areas, notably the Carolinas, where there were very strong Suzuki outboard engine dealers in the region, and I saw that a very significant segment of local older boats had been re-powered with Suzuki engines. Suzuki has continued to innovate and refine their engine products. I think they are a good product, and if the price is lower, that is even better.

[Jefecinco]

Honda is now selling a 350 HP outboard engine. That could be something to consider.

[Madfish22]

Update [eight months later]:

I purchased a 225-HP six-cylinder four-stroke-power-cycle engine. [The engine manufacturer is not explicitly stated, but might have been a SUZUKI or a MERCURY as both were mentioned in the initial article in this thread.--Moderator]

[No matter what engine I chose for the re-power] I was going to replace the original [and what had always been too much capacity] 120-gallon fuel tank with a 100-gallon fuel tank. I felt that the weight saving [by eliminating 20-gallons of fuel in the tank when full would be about 130-lbs and a proportionate reduction at all tines from reduced fuel tank weight] and that [weight reduction] would [compensate] for the extra weight [of the new engine]. [Moderator's note: in the initial article the new engine was estimated to add about 100-lbs to the engine weight compared to the existing engine.]

Also, the new, smaller fuel tank was shifted forward in order to level-off the hull waterline {at static trim].

The rest of the rehabilitation is on-going. The 1993 OUTRAGE 21 boat will be ready for the water in two to three weeks.