|
Another Outrage 22 Whalerdrive Repower Thread
|
| 69Scout |
Posted on 04/20/17 - 10:34 AM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/07/11
|
I have a 1990 Outrage 22 WD with original twin 1990 Mercury 135 Black Max motors. The oil injection has been removed and the motors still run well. Under the right conditions she will still hit 50 mph but typically maxes out at 46. The issue with the motors is more corrosion related. I fear I'm losing the battle after 27 years of salt exposure. Along with the corrosion, fuel use and general age of the motors has led me to consider repowering the boat. Trying to keep in mind the weight on the transom I contacted a dealer here on the Texas coast about repowering with twin Suzuki DF140 motors. The weight is a bit more than the 135 motors but not excessive. The dealer gave me a price of $28,500 out the door. I did not expect that high of a number. Am I off base on the price? I will try another dealer as well as contacting a Mercury dealer regarding 115 Pro XS motors. The weight on these is below 400 lbs each. Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated.
|
| |
|
|
| DennisVollrath |
Posted on 04/20/17 - 11:08 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 298
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/29/10
|
I bought my Suzuki DF140A in January of 2015. The cost of the motor was $10k before local sales tax. That did not include rigging labor or components. So while I don't think that $28.5k for two (fully rigged with tax) is a great deal, it is probably not outlandish either. I might guess the Whaler Drive could add some complication and expense.
Dennis
1985 Outrage 18 with Suzuki DF140A |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/20/17 - 11:45 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
I would suggest you explore that Merc 115 ProX/S option, with the CT geargases. You will end up with more displacement on your transom, less weight, and probably something like $8-9K in your pocket.
It currently looks like you can buy a pair of them from Jacos for about $17K pre-tax.
http://jacosmarine.com/mercury-engine...e-pricing/
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 04/20/17 - 11:50 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
First off, do you really need twins? A big single will cost somewhat less, weigh a lot less, use significantly less fuel, require half the maintenance and go faster. Many manufacturers make nice 300s, and you could even go with a 250 and probably have performance equivalent to your current setup. Modern motors are reliable enough that the primary reason for powering with twins no longer exists.
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| 69Scout |
Posted on 04/22/17 - 4:28 AM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/07/11
|
Single vs twins, I like having twins, we often go 40-50 miles out and like the idea that we can get home barring a fuel related issue. As for the cost of twin motors. I expect to spend the additional money for motors, and maintenance. It goes with the territory. What I didn't expect was how much. The estimate I received has the motors at 11k each, harness, controls, gauges and install 6.5k then add tt&l and now we're at 30k. I'll continue to shop around. As I mentioned earlier, any thoughts on running twin 115 motors on a whalerdrive Outrage 22?
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/22/17 - 7:30 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
69Scout wrote:
Single vs twins, I like having twins, we often go 40-50 miles out and like the idea that we can get home barring a fuel related issue. As for the cost of twin motors. I expect to spend the additional money for motors, and maintenance. It goes with the territory. What I didn't expect was how much. The estimate I received has the motors at 11k each, harness, controls, gauges and install 6.5k then add tt&l and now we're at 30k. I'll continue to shop around. As I mentioned earlier, any thoughts on running twin 115 motors on a whalerdrive Outrage 22?
There are a lot of advantages to twins. In addition to the redundancy, you have the option of shutting down one engine while at displacement speeds. This is a big advantage for anyone who spends a lot of time fishing/trolling. With a single at the end of the season you might end up with 100 hours on the one engine, whereas with twins you might have two engines with 60 hours each. This extends the lifesapn of the propulsion and reduces maintenence intervals and costs.
Twin 115s seem like the perfect match for an Outrage 22 WD. Especially strong light 4-strokes like the Merc 115s. Isn't the max rating 240 hp?
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 04/22/17 - 10:01 AM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
Whalerdrive 22's maximum horsepower rating varied between 300 and 400, depending upon the year.
I think twin 115's would be good on a notched transom 22, but a Whalerdrive boat should have more power. I have a friend who has twin DF140's on his WD 22, and he says the power is (edit) good. His best WOT so far is 46mph, and he has a T-top.
I would also look at 135 HO E-Tecs as a good replacement for what you have now.
Edited by Marko888 on 04/22/17 - 10:20 PM |
| |
|
|
| BDBinMD |
Posted on 04/24/17 - 7:14 AM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/07/17
|
I recently took delivery of a 1989 22' Revenge WT w/ WD powered by the original 1989 twin 120 hp Johnsons. I noticed on my boat that the drains for the motor-well are constantly submerged in its current configuration. I'm curious if this is consistent with other twin powered whalerdrives and if so, is that something that should be of concern and taken into consideration when re-powering.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/24/17 - 10:49 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Marko888 wrote:
Whalerdrive 22's maximum horsepower rating varied between 300 and 400, depending upon the year.
I think twin 115's would be good on a notched transom 22, but a Whalerdrive boat should have more power. I have a friend who has twin DF140's on his WD 22, and he says the power is (edit) good. His best WOT so far is 46mph, and he has a T-top.
I would also look at 135 HO E-Tecs as a good replacement for what you have now.
I didn't realize the WD version had a higher hp limit. Man, 400 HP on a boat that size??? My Outrage 19 has a 150 HP limit, so 267% more HP on a boat that is only about 25% heavier seems nuts. The WD must induce a lot of drag.
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 04/24/17 - 12:02 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
If you're going to run twins, with the idea of being able to get home from 50 miles out, the big question is whether you'll reliably be able to plane with a single motor. If you can't, then getting a bigger single, plus a fairly large kicker, might be worth looking into. It could end up making more sense, considering performance, purchase cost, weight, and maintenance.
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 04/24/17 - 12:03 PM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
Yes, WD does add some drag. There is a notch which is part of the influence, as well as the additional 2 feet of running surface.
Published weight is misleading. My rigged and ready Outrage Cuddy 22 (non-WD) with single engine weighs about 4100#. My Outrage 18 was about #2200. Put the two side by side and it's easy to see the 22 is almost twice the mass of the 18.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/25/17 - 7:03 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Marko888 wrote:
Yes, WD does add some drag. There is a notch which is part of the influence, as well as the additional 2 feet of running surface.
Published weight is misleading. My rigged and ready Outrage Cuddy 22 (non-WD) with single engine weighs about 4100#. My Outrage 18 was about #2200. Put the two side by side and it's easy to see the 22 is almost twice the mass of the 18.
I don't doubt your weights. Whalers tend to be very heavy for their size, requiring higher HP engines than comparable-sized boats from other manufacturers. That is a downside to owning a Whaler.
My 19 Outrage II has a dry hull weight of 1950 lbs. With 500 lbs of engine and associated rigging, 500 lbs of fuel and oil, and easily 300 lbs of other gear (ground tackle, safety equipment, electronics, etc etc), it has an operating weight well north of 3K lbs.
And yet it's rated at 150 HP and performs extremely well with that engine. I can't imagine adding any more power to this boat. Which is why I am puzzled by such a high HP limit for the Outrage 22 WD.
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 04/25/17 - 7:27 AM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
JRP,
Do some searching. There is a lot of information online about the pros and cons of the early WD hulls. The other enthusiast site has many discussions
Cheers
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 6:30 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
JRP wrote:
[quote]Marko888 wrote:
it's rated at 150 HP and performs extremely well with that engine. I can't imagine adding any more power to this boat. Which is why I am puzzled by such a high HP limit for the Outrage 22 WD.
Isn't it because it's effectively a 25-footer?
|
| |
|
|
| BDBinMD |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 6:58 AM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/07/17
|
The 22' revenge/outrage non-whalerdrive is rated for 240hp. The 22' revenege/outrage whalerdrive is rated for 300 hp. And yes, it is effectively a 24' boat rated for 60 additional hp max. I think the 25' whalerdrive boats were rated for 400 hp. but I could be wrong.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 7:25 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
tedious wrote:
Isn't it because it's effectively a 25-footer?
Not really. A 25-footer would be a MUCH larger boat overall -- beamier, more draft, more hull length and volume. Probably 40-50% more displacement than a 22WD. (EDIT: I just checked the listed specs of the 25 v. 22 here on Whaler Central, which show the dry weight of the 25 is indeed more than 50% greater than that of the 22.)
The WD primarily only extends the length overall measurement. That is not a good metric for judging boat size. Displacement (or weight) is the primary indicator of size. And the WD only increases the vessel displacement a modest amount.
Just to be clear, I do not doubt the HP requirements of the 22 WD. I'm just surprised how high they are.
|
| |
|
|
| BDBinMD |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 8:08 AM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/07/17
|
Actually, according to Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations subpart 183.53, if such things as a swim platform or engine bracket contribute to the buoyancy of the boat, it shall be included in the overall length to determine max hp.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 1:36 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
BDBinMD wrote:
Actually, according to Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations subpart 183.53, if such things as a swim platform or engine bracket contribute to the buoyancy of the boat, it shall be included in the overall length to determine max hp.
That's the max allowable hp formula. It's not the formula the designer/builder uses to determine appropriate hp rating for a hull. It only sets a cap on what is permitted.
For instance, using that formula my boat would have a max HP rating of 175. But the designer calculated the appropriate max rating at 150 HP. So the designer's calculations will be different, and will be based not just on the length and beam of the boat, but other design elements as well.
Adding a WD may change the CFR calculation for max allowable HP, but it still doesn't explain why the boat would need so much more HP than a non-WD, or 267% more HP than an Outrage 19! (That's assuming Marko's figure of 400 hp on later 22's is correct.)
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/26/17 - 2:06 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11429
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
I have heard of some 22' models with a WD having a higher hp rating but have not seen the Capacity Plate on them.
Here is the standard Capacity Plate for 22' WD models which is 300hp.
http://www.whalercentral.com/photogal...photo_id=5
NOTE:
See the Model on the Capacity Plate:
22' WHALER DRIVE
Other Capacity Plates in our Article section.
http://www.whalercentral.com/download...p?cat_id=4
|
| |
|
|
| Fishdog73 |
Posted on 04/27/17 - 6:44 AM
|
Member
Posts: 1
Comments:
0
Joined: 12/19/16
|
I have an 1986 outrage with twin 90hp Johnson's on a non whaler drive boat. I have thought about repowering but the engines have very low hours on them and run great. I purchased it last year after seeing it in an old mans barn and striking up conversation about it. It had not been on the water for 10 years. I have fished out of a Whaler in Canada many times and know that they are awesome boats. Twins are a lot of fun and I get about 48mph in Nebraska with it. I could probably change props on them and get more speed, but it works fine for me. My plate says 240 max hp. Only problem is when I have large waves following then the motor sometimes dies while trolling.
Edited by Joe Kriz on 04/27/17 - 11:21 AM |
| |
|
