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.
1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
Member Since 2003
1993 21 Outrage
1993 21 Outrage
Re: 1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
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
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
Re: 1993 210 Outrage Re-power
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.
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.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003
Re: 1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
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.
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.
Re: 1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
Honda is now selling a 350 HP outboard engine. That could be something to consider.
Butch
Re: 1993 Outrage 21 Re-power
Update: went with the 225 6 cyl and since we were having a new tank made anyway and the original was a whopping 120 gallons that we had never come close to tapping we just reduced it to 100 gallon which more than makes up for the extra engine weight and shifted the tank forward to level off the waterline squat. Rehab is ongoing. Splash in 2-3 weeks.
Member Since 2003
1993 21 Outrage
1993 21 Outrage