Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Repowering '88 18 Outrage

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Repowering '88 18 Outrage
Pebwood posted 06-06-2002 12:02 PM ET (US)   Profile for Pebwood   Send Email to Pebwood  
My '88 18ft Outrage is going to need the '88 150 Johnson replaced very soon. I am looking at the 115HP Yamaha four stroke as a replacement. I will give up some performance but this seems to me to be an adequate engine. Any comments? Powerboat Reports tested the 115 on a boat that weighed 1750# and it seemed to run well.
george nagy posted 06-06-2002 01:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for george nagy  Send Email to george nagy     
I just finished repowering my 1987 outrage 18'. I have posted many threads (see repower update). I was on the fence as to which motor to choose from 4-2 stroke and all the brands. I ended up with two 1997 150 johnson oceanrunners. I like the setup on the 18' If you want I can answer questions as to what I went through. I also have the other 150 for sale with all the rigging for an 18'.
Don Fisher posted 06-06-2002 02:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Don Fisher  Send Email to Don Fisher     
The Yamaha 115 4 stroke is a great motor, but I think the 18 is too much boat for it. I'm afraid that if you go that route you may be yearning for more HP shortly thereafter. I would opt for a higher HP motor.
Pebwood posted 06-06-2002 07:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Pebwood  Send Email to Pebwood     
As the person that asked the original question , I am fascinated by the two answers I have received so far. One person is advocating 300HP which is twice the allowed HP on the boat( any liability insurance would be null and void in the case of an accident) and the other person says 115 isn't enough. What I would like is hard facts not opinions. Powerboat Reports tested the Yamaha 115, 4 stroke on a boat weighing 1750 lbs. The 18 Whaler weighs 1250. Somehow there sems to be data saying 115 would be OK. I'm looking for hard data not opinion.
David Ratusnik posted 06-06-2002 07:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Ratusnik  Send Email to David Ratusnik     
Peb- So how many hours per month do you put on the boat?? Does the 4 stroke (Yam) save you $$'s in gas over a much less expensive Johnson Bomb replacement? Rec-go with a Johnson 150 2 stroke- built tough, price is better and (I am told) will put out a few more ponies then the 150 advertised. .03. David
Dave Adams posted 06-06-2002 08:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dave Adams    

If you read nagy's post, u will see that he only put one of the 150s on his boat, and has the other one for sale--just bought both at the same time

ECUSeaPA posted 06-06-2002 10:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for ECUSeaPA  Send Email to ECUSeaPA     
I'm going thru the same ordeal, repowering a 85 18' OR. I really want the 4 stroke but I'd sure consider a deal on the Johnson 150. What have you got to have for it and give me any details. My email address is Where is the J 150??
lhg posted 06-06-2002 11:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Research back through the last couple of months on the Forum, and you will find some hard comparison data posted by Clark Roberts who has this same 115 4-stroke in the Mercury version. He likes the motor.
grandmufti posted 06-06-2002 11:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for grandmufti  Send Email to grandmufti     
I repowered with the Yamaha 115 4 stroke last September.I have a 1973 19' Outrage.It feels like I have a new boat,39 MPH at WOT with 3 people on board and 25 gallons of gas.This is the sweetest motor I have ever owned,it is so quiet and is great on gas.Starts quicker than my car and with the 19"pitch Yamaha Stainless prop I get really great bowlift.Do it!You will not regret it.
jimh posted 06-07-2002 12:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Pebwood--you misread the post re the twin 150-HPs. The fellow bought a pair of them, put one on his boat, has the other for sale. Most would agree, twin 150's is a bit much on an 18-Outrage.
Pebwood posted 06-07-2002 08:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for Pebwood  Send Email to Pebwood     
On a second reading I see that I had misread the twin 150 letter. I see that someone has actual experience with a 115 which is probably what I will do. I would not buy another Johnson 2 stroke for several reasons. 4 stroke is the future technology. Johnson VRO is an accident waiting for a place to happen and I have had too much trouble over the years with the current 150.
Ed Z posted 06-08-2002 03:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for Ed Z  Send Email to Ed Z     
I don't have an 18 footer, but I do have a 17... 4 strokes are by no means "new tech" as Dick fisher produced them over 30 years ago... I have had a 55 hp Bearcat and now have the 85 hp Bearcat (both 4 strokers)... I also would not consider a 2 stroke (even with the weight and cost penelty)... By the way the new 4 strokes have yet to meet with Dick Fishers design... The 85 hp weighs in at only 280 lbs (total) and will troll at 600 RPM all day and I get 40 minutes (trolling) from just a quart of gas... Sorry, I got long winded... Go with the 4 stroke... Friends that have the 130 hp Honda are passionately in love with them, give them a good look...
jimh posted 06-08-2002 11:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
If you are aiming for 4-stroke engines, and plan to power the 18-OUTRAGE at near its maxium rating of 150-HP, your choices are currently limited to two engines:

--SUZUKI 140 HP 4-stroke
--HONDA 130 HP 4-stroke

Another option would be twins. Since the hull needs a minimum of 75 HP to plane when lightly loaded, I would suggest twin 80 or 90 HP engines. This may be slightly over rating in horsepower. It may also be too much weight, given the current state of 4-stroke engines. It is also an expensive way to go, but an 18-OUTRAGE with twins is a very nice set up.

If you wait another season, I have a feeling that there will be many more options available in the 150-HP power range with 4-stroke designs. Currently there seems to be a gap in the line up from both Yamaha and Mercury at that power range, which I am certain they will fill in with new designs next year.

Don Fisher posted 06-08-2002 12:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Don Fisher  Send Email to Don Fisher     
You want "facts" and not "opinions", then perhaps you will need to go by your own trial and error. As for fact, the 115 Yamaha on a 16 Dauntless is fine and works well. The HP is good, but the preformance is not explosive. We experienced problems with the ECU at Lake Powell (after trolling for an hour or less, the engine would back up and, when pushed, finally send out a black slick on the water). There are some facts. Good luck.
acseatsri posted 06-09-2002 10:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for acseatsri  Send Email to acseatsri     
My 2 cents says 115 would be the perfect match for an older 18 if your boating is ocean and not lake. I have 150 HP and usually cruise comfortably at 2700-3000 rpm. When repowering I'd definitely opt for a lighter engine.
homey posted 06-10-2002 06:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for homey  Send Email to homey     
My friend repowered his 1986 18 Outrage with a 200hp Merc. I think anything smaller and the boat would be under powered. The boat cruises nicly around 45 and tops out around 54.
Wild Turkey posted 06-10-2002 11:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Wild Turkey  Send Email to Wild Turkey     
homey... now that is definitely an opinion. There is no way that an 18 Outrage with an 150hp is underpowered!!

Pebwood... thats what you get when you ask questions on this forum.. opinions. If you want facts facts do your own research. All the information you need is contained on this website.

Just my opinion,

Pebwood posted 06-11-2002 02:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Pebwood  Send Email to Pebwood     
Why does everyone want to go so fast? I use my 18 Outrage in the ocean and there are only a few times that you can open up to go 40+ mph. As people say, for fact get your own data. Thanks to all for their opinions so far
Bigshot posted 06-11-2002 04:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
I'd give the 300hp a try.....sounds like fun. To hell with gas milage:) Just my opinion though. Never owned an 18 but my bud did with a 2 stroke 115 yamaha and it was plenty. i would do the 140 Zuki, then you will never question the 115 again.
alan posted 06-11-2002 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for alan  Send Email to alan     
I repowered my '82 Outrage last year with a 150 Merc Optimax, couldn't be happier, great fuel economy and power. Excellent torque. That sucker puts me on plane in like two seconds. If you boat on the ocean you should have the power available when necessary, and it's true you seldom go at full throtle but you should have the power. Better to be properly powered rather than under powered. My Saconnet was at 100HP and my OR is at 150HP. Weight is a consideration whether 4 stroke or direct injection. Plan on having your battery and oil tank in your console. Twins sound good but you will be riding real low with water in your splash well and if you moor it means green slime.
Pebwood posted 06-11-2002 08:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Pebwood  Send Email to Pebwood     
The 140 Suzuki would be a no brainer baed on the Powerboat Reports and other info except they have no authorized service anywhere near where I live. I don't have a trailer so would be in trouble if anything went wrong
SSCH posted 06-11-2002 10:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for SSCH  Send Email to SSCH     
I owned an 18 Outrage in the late 80's. I choose a Yamaha 130 hp 2 cycle for it and never had a seconds doubt that it was the perfect match for the boat. The lighter V4 gives back some of the performance drop you get with 20 hp less than the transom rating and keeps the transom riding higher too. It also keeps your wallet heavier on purchase and uses less fuel (It has more range, which is probably more important than the cost savings from less fuel).

The V6 150 hp setup was by far the most popular here along the upper Texas coast, but my dealer sold a number of other 18's with 130's after he and I ran mine for a while.

jimh posted 06-11-2002 10:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Wow, that is an excellent point--not having a trailer really limits your choices for service! I had not thought of that, really, but that is definitely a consideration. Even with a trailer, it is a pain to drive 50 miles or more for service if you have an engine that is not well represented in your local area.

Powering the boat at maximum rating also generally gives you the ability to set the engine to whatever speed you want and have it stay there. In my experience, if your horsepower is marginal, you will find that your boat will only run at certain speeds, those being ones where at the particular RPM the engine has enough torque to keep the prop turning and the boat on plane.

I've seen boats where you could go 1800 RPM and 4000 RPM and not much in between. You will avoid that with a 150-HP on your 18-Outrage.

Bigshot posted 06-12-2002 10:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Good point Pebwood...but you won't have to take it to get serviced, it aint no Mercury:)
lhg posted 06-12-2002 08:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
If anybody believes that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell them. See the Hull for the Suzuki repair horror stories. They spare nobody over there.
acseatsri posted 06-15-2002 01:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for acseatsri  Send Email to acseatsri     
>>>I've seen boats where you could go 1800 RPM and 4000 RPM and not much in between. You will avoid that with a 150-HP on your 18-Outrage.<<<

Isn't this more of a propping rather than HP issue? If you're not a go-fast nut, I would say prop it at the high end of the range or even under-prop a notch (don't run it WOT, though!). That should let you run at the lower cruising speeds without falling off plane.

Tom W Clark posted 06-15-2002 02:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
My Outrage 18 had a Johnson 150 V-6. It could plane at speeds down to 15 mph or go at speeds in the high 40's. It could also maintain any speed in between.

In stark contrast to this was my friend's boat, a 1988 Outrage with a Johnson 140 V-4. Apart from our motors the boats were nearly identical. His was only 10 hp less, no big difference, right? Wrong. While I don't think it was necessarily just the horse power difference, that boat would plane at slow speed and then it just wanted to go fast. It was very difficult to go 20 to 30 mph which was the usual cruise speed range.

My friend, John, and I made many fishing trips out of Neah Bay, WA together. This usually involved an initial long run to get to where the fishing was. My boat would just cruise along at 25 mph and John's would shoot ahead and then fall behind. It was really annoying to him as at speeds greater that 25 mph the going got pretty rough.

The extra insult of this motor wad that it actually got worse gas mileage than my V-6!

jimh posted 06-15-2002 02:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I do not think it is a prop issue--definitely a horsepower/torque issue.

The engine just cannot produce enough horsepower at, say, 2500 RPM, to maintain the boat on plane. The boat will either slow down and the engine bogs down, or, if you give the engine gas it will rev up higher, making the boat go faster. But it is virtually impossible to get certain combinations of boat and motor to run at certain slow planing speeds--at least in my experience.

lhg posted 06-17-2002 04:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Tom - as I'm sure you are aware, and have indicated, those big bore V-4's (half of the OMC V-8) were not great engines. The Small V-4's and V-6's were definitely superior engines to either the 120 or 140's.

My 18 planes with the engines turning about 2000 rpm's, and that with 610 lbs of weight back there, plus two batteries!

Tom W Clark posted 06-17-2002 08:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     

Your 18 Outrage may be helpful here to Pebwood and his decision. Do you know how your boat performs with just one of its 115 Mercury's? What is the minimum planing speed and at what RPM does this occur? What if it is fitted with a lower pitched prop as it would if it were a single.

lhg posted 06-18-2002 02:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Tom - My 18 will run about 36 MPH on one engine, with other trimmed out of the water.
But this is not an full indication of how it would run with just a single 115, since the engine is pushing the boat from off center.

I have heard that a single 115 will give an 18 Outrage 40mph. A Whaler marketing rep that I know told me he thought a 115 was the perfect all around engine for the boat.

I know that if I ever repower my 18, it would be either with twin Merc 60 EFI 4-strokes, or 90 2-strokes.

I think grandmufti's post above also relates closely to an 18 Outrage.

EddieS posted 06-20-2002 01:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for EddieS  Send Email to EddieS     
If you fish the ocean I would error on the higher side of the HP range. While it is true that you rarely if ever run WOT you still need the HP in the troughs. I have been on too many under powered boats that you had to really be on the throttle in the trough to maintain plane. Just my .02 cents
ECUSeaPA posted 06-23-2002 10:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for ECUSeaPA  Send Email to ECUSeaPA     
Just finished the breakin period on the Yam 115 4 stroke that I just put on a 85 18' Outrage and opened her up a little. With
a full tank of gas and one person(which may last all summer - not sure why the dealer filled it up!!) I think top end will be 42-44 mph on GPS. I'm still have not trimmed it out wide open, I may never do it, but I did see 40 before I pulled the throttle back.

Now, 4 people and a full tank might be another story!!

That is one SWEET engine!! Whatever you give up in hole shot and top end the economic, smoke free quiet operation more than makes up for it.

dan firth posted 07-02-2002 10:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for dan firth  Send Email to dan firth     
I have a 1983 18 (See page 16 of Cetacea). I recently repowered with a 140 Suzuki 4 stroke. It seems like an excellent motor. 23 hours on it and so far it's been flawless. Six year warranty made it hard to pass up! By the way, Brinkman's Marine (the Suzuki Dealer) in Vallejo has been absolutely top-notch in all respects.

I looked into intsalling twin 70 hp four strokes but the weight was 'way too much for this old boat-in my opinion. The original motor was a 354 pound 120/140 Evinrude; the new 70 four strokes weigh about that much each.... Then there was the cost of the motors, plus the cost to add hydraulic steering, plus the annual maintainence, etc., etc.

george nagy posted 07-02-2002 10:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for george nagy  Send Email to george nagy     
Dan, what did you do about retrofitting the suzuki binnacle to make it fit the larger cutout of your twin omc binnacle? Nice boat by the way excellent brightwork. I considered the 140 4 stroke for some time.
dan firth posted 07-03-2002 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for dan firth  Send Email to dan firth     
Hi George,
I kept the original dual OMC binnacle because I also kept the 15 hp Evinrude kicker. (The kicker is noisier than the 140!)
GulfCoastOR18 posted 07-30-2002 11:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for GulfCoastOR18  Send Email to GulfCoastOR18     
I am in the process of rigging my 2nd Yamaha 115 2stroke on my Outrage 18. Last one lasted 12 years with a total of two repairs -one was a carb cleaning. Only current problem is corrosion on the external components. 36 mph at 5500 rpms, 30mph at 4800 loaded down. Not the fastest but I rarley get run WOT in the areas I fish, open water.
Gep posted 07-31-2002 11:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for Gep  Send Email to Gep     
Beautiful boat, I used your boat as a selling point to my wife to buy my new-to-me '81 Outrage. I actually printed out a picture of it, kind of a before and after thing.
It worked!!

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

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.