Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
Outrage 22 w/Whaler Drive and twin 150's
|Author||Topic: Outrage 22 w/Whaler Drive and twin 150's|
posted 06-27-2001 09:49 AM ET (US)
Hi everyone, I have been looking to buy a nice Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive and twin 150 Johnsons. I heard today from a dealer that this setup has two problems. One, the fuel consumption is very high, so the cost to run is expensive and range is limited. And two, that there's too much weight on the back end with the twin 150's so the boat 'squats' at rest in the water and tends to porpoise without trim tabs. (And how would you install trim tabs on the Whaler Drive???) Sooo, what is your collective and expert opinion and advice. I have a beautiful Outrage 18 right now (Cetacea page 16)-should I be content with what I have? Thanks, eveyone.
posted 06-27-2001 10:07 AM ET (US)
If its the one in boat trader, IMO its overpriced.
posted 06-27-2001 10:09 AM ET (US)
As far as contention, that is a pesonal thing and depends on your needs. trim tabs go on the boat, not the drive, not a problem. As far as weight, take it for a test drive and check it out, but I do not think whaler would design it that poorly. As far as gas, double what you burn now. Thing should haul ass though.
posted 06-27-2001 03:46 PM ET (US)
I think the 22 Outrage WD is the boat's finest moment. They do not squat in the water with the twin 150's, at least the conventional 2 strokes. The WD gives a lot of extra stern floatation.
With WD, there is no place to install trim tabs, as the bracket takes up the whole transom width, and there is no space under it. See Cetacea for some pictures, or engine bracket reference article.
Fuel capacity has always been somewhat limited in the 22, at 77 gallons. They did have a larger tank option, but with twins the boat tended to be stern heavy. So with twin 150's, especially OMC's (not known for great fuel ecomony) range could be somewhat limited. But a Reversible Pilot Seat, with Montauk style 28 gallon reserve tank underneath, would solve problem nicely. I use this detail in my 18 and 25 Outrages, when needed.
I would go one of these, but since you have such a nice 18, hold out for a rally nice one. Be patient. They were expensive to buy new, especially rigged with twins, so a huge number were not sold. A lot of Dealers kept the price down by installing singles, which the boat was never designed for.
posted 06-27-2001 04:39 PM ET (US)
Wow! 77 gals, that sucks. My single 225 makes short order of my 85 in my Hydrasport 20'. I can't imagine twin V-6's. 110 with the Pate tank is better but still no canyon runner.
posted 06-27-2001 10:08 PM ET (US)
Your Outrage 18 is among the nicest around, but I know what it's like to get the BBBs (bigger, better boat syndrome). Although I love my Montauk, after fishing from Tom Byrum's Outrage 18 (Cetacea p. 34), I've been thinking a lot about looking for one in the not too distant future. A bigger boat is always a tough call: Sacrafice fuel economy and easy towing for a more comfortable, roomy ride on the water. For Monterey Bay, I think a 22 would be ideal.
posted 06-27-2001 11:05 PM ET (US)
I agree with LHG, with the WD and twin 150s the boat does not appear stern heavy. We have a 22' CPD hull, no WD, twin 155s, and the 129 gal fuel tank-ours is stern heavy. The twin V-6s will drink quite a bit of fuel if you have a heavy hand on the throttles. As far as the boat tending to porpoise, this is a problem with someone who has little time at the helm of a 22'er. Most people tend to trim the engines too high and this will cause the hull to porpoise.
posted 06-27-2001 11:20 PM ET (US)
I own a 22' Outrage with Whaler Drive. If it looks stern heavy, look to see if the livewell is full.
Mine is rigged with a single Yamaha V-x 250. At 4000 rpm, I go about 36.5 (GPS) @ about 14 gph (flow meter).
Porpousing has never been a problem. I did, however, install a Stingray Hydrofoil. It allows for a greater range of trim, and better hole shots.
I have been doing a lot of research about putting twins on this boat. I believe it was designed to run best with them. However, I am not too sure range will be a very limiting problem considering the efficancy of todays high pressure direct ingection systems. If I were to re-power right now, I would put twin counter rotating Optimax 150's on the back.
As far as tabs go, you might be able to install them if the boat had a single. I think there might be enough room on the WD. However, that would put them close to the centerline of the boat, and I am not sure how effective they would be.
If you have any more questions, feel free to e-mail me.
posted 06-28-2001 12:21 AM ET (US)
Talk to 50 people, and you'll get 50 different answers of what a perfect boat should be. My personal favorite Whaler has to be a 22' WD with single 250. I have to believe that the performance is close to one with a pair of 150's, is lighter, uses less fuel from the small(ish) tank, is not as stern heavy, and has only one of anything to break. Even on my other new boat(a P*****) that's 25.5' x 9.5', I opted for a large single outboard on it's platform. Still cruises at 30mph @ 4000, tops at 41, is fairly economical, and gets me to the (not offshore) fish.....
as always, thanks
posted 06-28-2001 01:23 AM ET (US)
Hey Outrage Man, I have a 22 w/o WD, is the HP rating different between the 2 boats??
|Tom W Clark||
posted 06-28-2001 01:46 AM ET (US)
Just to stir the pot...
I remember in the mid to late 80's there was a 22' WD Temptation with twin Johson 140's, I believe, on my local Whaler dealer's lot (Jacobsen's Boats & Motors here in Seattle). It was not very old and I inquired about it. Terry McCartney, a sales person at the time, told me they had sold the boat new but the owner was not happy with it. The problem was purported to be porpoising. It was apparently so bad that the bottom was modified in some way, at Whaler's expense, but the problem persisted and they basically had to give the guy his money back.
posted 06-28-2001 09:02 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the feedback! The boat I'm looking at has the 120+ gallon fuel tank. It also has a T-top. The owner hasn't experienced porpoising, he says, but I suspect that the weight of the T-top somewhat lessens the effect of the extra weight of the motors and fuel. I wouldn't want to keep the T-top. As the boat is in Florida and I'm in California, there's a distance issue that makes it hard to do much testing without shelling out quite a few bucks in airfare, hotels, etc. And the owner isn't going to remove the T-top just to see how it rides without it.... Decisions, decisions.
posted 06-28-2001 09:15 AM ET (US)
Yes, the Whaler Drive gives you an hp rating of 300.
posted 06-28-2001 10:37 AM ET (US)
why on earth would you get rid of a T-top? They are the best thing since sliced bread IMHO.
posted 06-28-2001 07:04 PM ET (US)
The problem with the 129 gallon optional tank is that this extra capacity is accomplished by utilizing the cavity from the stern baitwell. This way, all of the gas goes into the back of the tank under boating and docking conditions. Then add the weight of twin engines. A friend has one with no Whaler Drive & twin engines and he says it's definitely stern heavy with a full tank, and takes water over the transom quite often.
The WD would greatly help out here. But I'd prefer to have the bait well, and use the Tempo tank as mentioned above for extra capacity. More weight forward that way.
Tom W - my guess is that the porpoising Temptation was more the fault of the OMC engines, with inadequate trim range. A very common problem on OMC equipped Whalers. A set of transom wedges would probably solve that problem.
I also think a pair of 115 HP four strokes would be nice power on a WD 22.
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.