1996 17 Outrage II Re-power

[MichaelW]

My 1996 17' Outrage II needs to be re-powered because its current Yamaha 130-HP two-stroke-power-cycle engine is not working. My understanding is the 1996 17 OUTRAGE II is rated for maximum of 150-HP and 433-lbs of engine weight.

Modern engines are heavier than the c.1996 Yamaha 130-HP engine, but I want sufficient power to be able to slalom water ski and wake board with the new engine.

I like Yamaha engines and am considering two choices:

• F130 at 378-lbs (172-kg), or
• F150 at 532-lbs (242-kg)

I presume the F150 uses the same block as the F175 and F200 engines

Q1: if I should get the 130-HP engine for its lighter weight, will it have enough horsepower [for slalom water skiing and wake boarding]?

Q2: if I should get the F150 engine, will its weight be too much for the boat?

[jimh]

Q3: What is the weight of the Yamaha 130-HP two-stroke-power-cycle engine currently on the transom?

[jimh]

Q1: if I should get the 130-HP engine for its lighter weight, will it have enough horsepower [for slalom water skiing and wake boarding]?

Typically when changing to a four-stroke-power-cycle engine from a two-stroke-power-cycle engine of the same rated horsepower, unless the new engine has larger displacement than the original engine, the performance will probably suffer somewhat, particularly in the amount of power the new engine can produce under heavier loads when operating at lower engine speeds.

A classic two-stroke-power-cycle engine would typically have a wider power band, that is, it can develop significant horsepower at lower engine speed ranges, where a four-stroke-power-cycle engine of the same displacement will probably only be able to develop its rated horsepower output at near the maximum engine speed.

The difference will be particularly noticeable when the boat is to be accelerated from a standing start with a heavy load, such as when trying to pull-up a slalom water skier.

To overcome the lack of low-engine-speed power output with the new engine, you can fit the engine with a propeller of lower pitch. This will tend to reduce the maximum boat speed, but less pitch will improve acceleration. And for water skiing, I don't think you would need to reach a boat speed of more than 30-MPH, so a lower top speed for that use might be okay.

[jimh]

Q2: if I should get the F150 engine, will its weight be too much for the boat?

When fitting an engine with excessive weight on a boat, the effect is permanent, and there is really no way to compensate for the added weight. The added weight on the transom will alter the boat's static trim and also its trim when accelerating onto plane.

At static trim the excessive engine weight will put the engine splash well drains below the water line, so instead of being able to drain water to the sea, those drains will now drain the sea into the splash well, the opposite of their original purpose.

At static trim, this can be overcome by adding weight in the bow to try to raise the stern, but this approach is only useful when the boat will not be underway. You would never intentionally add weight to the bow when the boat was being operated. Also the added weight will also reduce acceleration and top boat speed.

If you can determine the weight of the old 130-HP engine, you can make a test of how the increased weight of either of the two engine choices will affect the trim by just temporarily adding more weight at the transom to simulate the heavier engines. This will give you the best demonstration of how the new engine will affect the trim on the boat.

[MichaelW]

Many thanks for all your comments. All very useful.

Q3: What is the weight of the Yamaha 130-HP two-stroke-power-cycle engine currently on the transom?

The old Yamaha 130 2 stroke weighs 160kg (352 lbs), so the 130 4-stroke at 172kg is quite a similar weight. Whereas the F150, at 242kg is a different beast altogether.

I could re-float the boat and add 80-kg of sandbags to the transom, but the difference is so great that I suspect I already know the answer.

[Masbama]

I do not see a Yamaha F130 listed on their website.

[jimh]

I do not see a Yamaha F130 listed on their website.

Perhaps it is a model sold in other markets, such as in Europe. For a long time Yamaha sold an engine in the USA as a 90 and sold the same engine in Europe as a 100.

[MichaelW]

I do not see a Yamaha F130 listed on their website.

Perhaps it is a model sold in other markets, such as in Europe. For a long time Yamaha sold an engine in the USA as a 90 and sold the same engine in Europe as a 100.

There is an F130 available in the UK (where I am).

[Phil T]

Michael--the [Yamaha F150 engine] will not be a problem for the hull.

Depending on how you use your boat, the number of persons aboard, the weight of gear, the Yamaha F130 would work, too.

If you go far from the coasts, carry a large load and need the power in a pinch, stay with the 150-HP engine.

The speed difference is small, perhaps 42-MPH instead of 47-MPH at wide-open-throttle (WOT).

I would think the engine prices would be about 3,000-GBL apart in price.

Cheers

[MichaelW]

Hi Phil--Thanks for your reply. To hear that the F150 will be okay is good. My main concern is the F130 might not being quite powerful enough for the weight of the boat.

I have no need to go 47-MPH, and, in fact, 42-MPH is more than enough.

I do want to be able to pull slalom skiers and also have another three to four people in the boat. If the F130 will be fine for that, then I'll stay there.

I am mostly concerned about making a saving I'll regret, as the expense of upgrading later is much greater.

Any thoughts much appreciated. Michael

[jimh]

Two skiers, and five in the boat: better get the F150.

[Phil T]

Michael -

F150 for sure.

Make sure engine is mounted so the top bolt is in the 3rd hole counting down from the top.

As for props here are a few suggestions. All stainless, no aluminum.

Yamaha Performance 14.25" X 18
Reliance 14 1/4 x 17
Mercury Enertia 14x18

For pulling skiers you will want a 4 bladed prop in 2" less pitch.

Which yard will you select for the repower?

[MichaelW]

Phil--many thanks for this. All very helpful. I am based in Cornwall, UK. Almost certainly Robin Curnow in Penryn.

[Phil T]

Is the battery already in the console? If it is in the stern, highly recommend moving to the console. The shifting of weight forward will really help lessen stern weight. It can be a bit pricey for what it is (marine battery wire is expensive) but it is a good investment.

I liked moving my battery forward and installing the main battery switch through the shelf of the electronics box for easy access.

I hope they will allow some prop testing, at least with the OEM, Yamaha, props.

Will you be able to get the work done before the end of your season or will it be a spring thing?

[MichaelW]

Is the battery already in the console? If it is in the stern, highly recommend moving to the console. The shifting of weight forward will really help lessen stern weight.

The battery is already in the console, but weight-distribution point noted.

I hope they will allow some prop testing, at least with the OEM, Yamaha, props.

I will start with the prop recommended and get the 4-bladed, shorter pitch prop if needed. My skiers are quite light (teenage daughters).

Will you be able to get the work done before the end of your season or will it be a spring thing?

I'll get the work done over the winter and trial everything in the spring. No rush.

[vtvfr]

I owned a 1996 Outrage 17II for 12 years. During my ownership I repowered from the original Evinrude 150 two stroke that weighed approximately 375-lbs and Evinrude E-TEC 150 (legacy model) that weighed approximately 435-lbs, following the Boston Whaler recommended maximum weight.

I realize that the E-TEC is no longer an option, but I would be cautious about installing a Yamaha F150 that weighs approximately 100-lbs over the recommended weight limit.You may find that with that much weight the deck scupper drains will allow water to enter the stern deck area

In addition, propeller selection will be important to minimize porpoising. For me to get the best propeller took a lot of trials and set up time; eventually an ENERTIA 17 inch pitch propeller and engine mounting height at two-holes-up was chosen.

Even then the additional weight of the E-TEC compared to the original engine caused a tendency for the boat bow to oscillate up-and-down on plane that was not evident with the original [lighter] engine.

[MichaelW]

I owned a 1996 Outrage 17II for 12 years....

Thanks for this.

The F130 will be [result in a lower boat speed] than the F150. The F130 will also feel slower than the 1390 2-stroke; bringing this question:

Q99: will the F130 be enough for the boat?

I only pull one skier at a time, and they are teenage girls

This 1996 17 OUTRAGE II boat doesn't need to be so finely tuned that it is the fastest Boston Whaler ever. It just needs to work properly and not cause problems.

Getting a 150-HP engine would be nice.

Saving a few thousand pounds-Sterling would be nice, too.

[vtvfr]

I don't have experience with pulling waterskiiers, but I would think with the right propeller the F130 would be adequate.

The Mercury 150 FourStroke weighs approximately 460 pounds, so that could be an option if you want 150 horsepower. Unfortunately that would mean additional rigging expenses to convert from your current Yamaha rigging.

[Masbama]

Have you considered the current Suzuki DF140?

[jimh]

The biggest advantage of having the boat rigged with a 150-HP engine will probably be the ability to handle a wide range of loads without having to change the propeller to suit the load.

I am sure that with 130-HP and an suitable propeller selected for the load of pulling a slalom water-skier while having four people in the boat will result in a "workable" solution. But that propeller will probably not be optimum if you are operating the boat alone with very light gear aboard, where the engine might now be able to accelerate to so much higher engine speed that it could run too fast at full-throttle.

Maybe a compromise is to pick a propeller for pulling one water-skier with only two people in the boat, and get the 130-HP engine. The savings in weight and money will be repaid in better boat trim and significant savings.

[MisChief15]

At static trim, this can be overcome by adding weight in the bow to try to raise the stern, but this approach is only useful when the boat will not be underway. You would never intentionally add weight to the bow when the boat was being operated. Also the added weight will also reduce acceleration and top boat speed.

-

Hello Jim,
could you explain more about the ill-effect on adding weight to the bow?
If the stern is heavy with the main motor and a 9.9 kicker, can I move some other items forward to the cooler area in front of the console?

Currently, my 2 batteries are located in the console toward the aft. Last time I was out testing the main motor, I also mounted a Suzuki 2.5 hp, and then added some more weight at the same location to simulate the weight of a yamaha 9.9hp. I see the water line are still below the draining holes with only me in the boat.

[jimh]

The reason to avoid ever intentionally adding weight to the bow of a boat to be used when the boat is underway is to reduce the tendency for the bow to pitch downward while in motion in seas. Generally the goal is to keep weight out of the bow.

Moving weight out of the stern and into the center of the boat is a better method to help reduce the static trim of the boat being down by the stern.