---

In spring of 2014, I repowered my 1990 19' Outrage with a new 2014 Mercury 150 HP Fourstroke engine.

I now have 2 seasons of experience with it, and 72 hours of engine operation under my belt, mostly on Lakes Superior and Michigan, including substantial time in Green Bay from both the western shore and Door County, along with few hours on larger inland lakes in the Northwoods of Wisconsin.

The following is a performance report on the engine, undertaken in the following conditions:

Date: 10.22.15
Location: Milwaukee Harbor, Lake Michigan
Air Temp: 60 degrees F
Water Temp: 57 degrees F
Wind: Light and variable, 5-8 MPH from NE and SE
Waves: < 6" in the harbor
Load: One person, light gear, no canvas, half plus fuel (30 gallons plus a few I suspect)
Prop: Stiletto Advantage P/N E600319 three blade and I believe 14 1/4" x 19 (please verify or clarify if you know)

Speeds were taken in both directions available, with minimal difference and varied results whether with or against wind in each test. Speeds were read from a Lowrance HD-7 Chart Plotter / GPS and are presented in MPH.

RPM SPEED SPEED
1000 4.5
2000 9
3000 26 25
4000 36 35
5000 45 45
5600(WOT) 51.1 51.2

Minimum planing speed was 2200 RPM and 16+ MPH

While receptive to evidence to the contrary, I posit that this is the fastest legal HP outboard ever presented on a stock 18 Outrage. Of the many reports I've read over the years on all the various 150 HP outboards installed on 18 Outrages, consistently tops speeds of 45-47 MPH have been reported. Occasionally, a 49 MPH report shows up, but those are quite rare and seldom shown in a performance report, most often simply referenced in passing.

This rig can hit 50 MPH as a matter of course, even with a fuel tank more full than ideal for maximizing speed.
I'll follow up with some subjective thoughts on the repower performance, particularly in comparison to the previous power.

Patrick
Milwaukee, WI

---

Patrick, thank you for the report. The performance of your Merc 150 FourStroke on your Outrage 18 is impressive.



I will be interested to read your additional thoughts, particularly any observations concerning how the weight of this engine compares to your previous propulsion and how it affects the trim of the boat, i.e. does it squat noticeably at the stern? Any other info concerning mounting/installation would also be welcome, e.g. mounting height, whether you use a setback bracket, did you alter any other aspect of the boat? And of course, it would be interesting to hear about comparative fuel consumption.

Thanks!

---

Thanks for your interest, JRP.

The engine is mounted directly to the transom.
Mounting height is 3 holes up, that is, in the 4th of 5 holes total. With 3" (4 x 3/4") of possible vertical travel, the engine bracket is 2 1/4" above the top of transom. I have not measured the anti-vent plate above keel difference.

I purchased this boat from Callao, VA back in 2005.

---

Patrick - thank you for the information, and I think you made a great decision to buy the new Merc 150 4-troke EFI for your Outrage 18. The performance figures are impressive. As you might imagine, I think it is the best 150 on the market today, hands down, considering the largest displacement (more than a Yamaha 200), top end speed and competitive pricing, and weighing only 1/2 battery weight more than a 2-stroke.

Your data matches what I have been hearing from others, including some on this site, that it is a strong engine, and underrated at only 150 HP. Plus it is a brand new engine platform with a long life into the future, with brand new high performance gear case design, instead of a two stroke running on a 25 year old engine block design and platform.

My Outrage 18, with 2006 twin 90 Mercs runs 50 MPH, so clearly your big single 150 is performing well against my 180 HP twin setup. And you are carrying 150 lb less weight. Evidently this engine is so good, and so relatively light in weight, that it caused Mercury to take the standard 150 Optimax off the market. No longer a need, or much market for it.

---

good info....great motor.....good choice...!

---

This new engine replaced a 1989 Yamaha 130 HP two stroke, V-4 with 1.7 liters displacement. It was long in the tooth chronologically, but had a modest 1600 hours on it. Some mild but chronic carburetor problems, a lack of competent service, modest corrosion and remote vacation dependent boating locations drove the repower decision.

That engine served me quite well, with excellent performance and 44 MPH top speeds. A performance report can be found for the combination.

Due to that satisfaction, I initially considered the now discontinued 130 HP E-TEC, an engine with identical specifications; 1.7L V-4. Having read a couple performance reports on it that weren't nearly as strong as the Yamaha it would replace, I reconsidered choosing the WEAK-TEC at same horsepower.

Limiting my choices to Wisconsin-built engines, I then looked at both the 150 HP E-TEC and the 150 HP Mercury Fourstroke. Performance reports on the E-TEC were stable and repeated by several, expect 45-47 MPH top end and magnificent performance through the range. Very similar to all the previous 18 Outrages powered by V-6 150 HP Johnsons and Evinrudes. The Mercury reports were fairly rare at that point, one Outrage that I'm aware of, and it was a well fitted out fishing boat, canvas pilothouse, etc... Performance was similar, 45-46 if I recall.

The costs rigged for both engines came to within hundreds of each other, and I had no relationships with nor preference for the local dealers. But I could buy the Mercury online from the vaunted Jaco's Marine. I had a dealer receive and hang the engine, then I rigged it and returned to the same dealer for a PDI, Predelivery Inspection to initiate the warranty. I'd guess this saved me $2-2.5K and gave me a good understanding of the boat and engine systems while replacing twin cable steering, binnacle and gauges and gauge panels.

Cost primarily drove the Mercury selection, but reduced costs were driven by an alternate purchase method that was available. Apple to apple purchasing had them priced within a couple percent, insignificant in the decision.

---

Do you do a yearly maintenance on the engine and how much is that? I have a Suzuki 150 that came on my 18 Outrage that I am very happy with. (don't have any top end numbers for comparison, sorry)

But when it came time to repower my 16 Nauset, the infrequency of maintenance required with the ETEC, won out over going with a 4-stroke.

---

You guys want to add photos of the new motor to your personal pages so prospective owners can see what it looks like?

---

Will do in time Phil, thanks for the prod.

And spuds, I performed the annual season's end maintenance myself last year, and intend to do the same this season in a matter of days. The costs for same are inconsequential, an oil filter, engine oil and lower unit oil.

I believe after 3 years or 100 hours, there is an increased service requirement that I will likely have done at a Mercury dealer / service location. I don't recall the requirements, and don't know the cost of this service interval.

Recently, I thought I read that E-TECs operated in salt water have a traditional one year service interval, rather than the highly touted 3 year interval. You boat in salt, spuds, is that service interval difference correct?

Finally, I see that my thread title and opening sentence have been edited without attribution or notation. My boat has a USCG placard calling it an Outrage 18. It has hull decals calling it an Outrage - 18'. While I'm aware that the model changed names in 1990, I call mine an 18, because that is what the factory called it, that is how its labeled and that is an indisputably more clear description of this hull.

I posted this information on Whaler Central due to the heavy handed editing on the alternate Forum. Editing that would often change intent as much as content. While the editing herein isn't nearly as egregious as I've described, it was neither necessary nor accurate with the corrections made.

---

PRJ -

I am not able to change a thread without it showing initials. Feel free to contact me offline to discuss so we don't derail this thread.

---

Slight off topic here but I wonder if anyone has powered a 92 vintage 17' Outrage with 150 HP's. I am currently using a 115 e-Tec and I am considering more power.

---

Following up with some subjective observations regarding the new engine, and specifically in comparison to the previous engine, a 1989 2-stroke Yamaha 130 HP:

At 350 lbs, the Yamaha was light, powerful and agile. The boat performed like a sports car with near instantaneous on-plane and was quick through the RPMs to a surprisingly high WOT of 44.5-45.7 on a couple runs recorded and published back in 2006. My two splash well drains were right at the water line, with waves washing in and out in any sea state. It was a great engine for this hull.

At 470 lbs, the Mercury is quite a bit heavier, dropping the stern an estimated 1" such that the splash well drains are below water always, and the well is generally awash. Static trim remains quite pleasing, not the absolute flat sitting-on-the-chines horizontal that the light Yamaha yielded, but a mildly aggressive and slightly bow up poise. Not at all unnatural or discomforting or "bow high" as some vessels appears when rigged with twins or larger 4-strokes. The single battery remains in the splash well.

As noted in the initial post, the Mercury is powerful and exceptionally quiet in comparison. Instantaneous on plane and faster than necessary through the RPM range. One of the more amazing qualities is the acceleration that remains from any position on the throttle; throw it down from 35 or 40 MPH, and it absolutely jumps to a higher speed at a rapid pace tossing one back onto the RPS. Perhaps the large displacement is the reason for this.

The boat performs somewhat differently now, I like to think thats its gone from a sporty roadster to a powerful sport sedan. It does noticeably better in a larger seaway, busting through waves with greater ease and less motion with the additional 120 lbs on the transom. No surprise that more mass equates to less action felt from the waves.

With a loaded boat, one could sense the Yamaha working harder and yielding less. This is far less apparent with the Mercury, the boat can readily run up to 47-48 with 3 men, 3/4 fuel and fishing gear, maybe even a bimini top up, but I don't recall, it comes on and off dependent upon the mission. Load affects this engine far less than the previous. And it sings a powerful deep and throaty sound at speed, while the captain can still maintain a conversation with passengers. The sound quality improvement is truly magnificent.

As previously stated, the Mercury can hold a steady plane in small seas at 2200 RPM and 16+ MPH. With waves at a foot or two, that figure bumps up to about 18 MPH. The Yamaha held steady plane at 16 MPH, maybe it could squeak down to 15 if pressed.

Cruising speed with the Mercury is comfortable in a wide range, from 3000 RPM / 25 MPH up to 4000 / 35 MPH is an excellent range. If one has a long distance to cover and can tolerate the wind, the engine loves to cruise at 40 MPH even, but if you can't tuck behind the console or helm, a 40 MPH wind on the face is never too comfortable. The Yamaha, on the other hand, had a narrower cruising band from 22-30 MPH or so, with 25 MPH as optimal. At that speed, the engine noise was less pleasing than the wind.

Regarding engine mounting height and prop selection, I'm quite comfortable with the initial selection of the 14.25 x 19 Stiletto Advantage II recommended by Tom W. Clark. It trolls fine, if not slow enough for walleye or salmon, mid-range cruising is excellent and WOT is outrageous.

Only once have I had a problem staying hooked up with the water, in 4'-6' seas with regular 8-10 footers rolling through the Strawberry Channel off Fish Creek in Door County, WI. I went out to sport around solo, knowing seas were huge, and at the speeds necessary to keep the hull somewhat in the water, I would occasionally break free, or ventilate, heading up the bigger hills and needed to back off the throttle to reconnect the prop to water. In typical boating conditions including some large seas (not 8+'), I've not seen this condition repeat itself.

One mild irritant is the single cylinder trim/tilt system. I've established that it is either unable or unwilling to operate UP at speeds over 45 MPH or so. I'm assuming that its simply not powerful enough to overcome the thrust at that pace, as I can't imagine any sort of electronic override is preventing further trim. This only affects me on WOT speed runs, wherein I need to attempt to find optimal trim at a lower speed before kicking in the last 600 RPM or so. Ideally, to find WOT and max MPH, one can work the trim UP until blow-out, then tuck it back in slightly until it catches. I'm unable to do this.

Finally, at WOT, this boat with the higher engine mounting height is up and way out of the water. It gets super light, and absolutely seems to floating around particularly in the nose, but including a slight back and forth rocking on the vee at the stern I assume. Floating, barely under control would be a fine description, its really something completely different than WOT on the previous Yamaha.

For the record, my throttle is hitting the console at my reported top speed and WOT. While I don't believe she's got anything left, I intend to poke around in the binnacle and at the engine this offseason to see if I can correct this and verify.

Any questions? Fire away.

---

That is an excellent report, Patrick - well written and very informative. It seems like the new Mercury 150 is a really great engine, competitively priced, and should seriously be considered by anyone comtemplating a re-power..

Although the Stiletto is a very good prop. I think you would do even better with a Mercury Enertia or Tempest Plus on the engine.

You can solve your control problem by pulling the control handle off, and setting it back one cog.
In this photo, you can see the Mercury control handles set back two cogs on my Ribside 21.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lgolt...5548909574

---

I am really finding it hard to believe you reached 45 MPH w/ a Yamaha 130. I probably shouldn't because you seem to know how to dial engines in for their max potential, for sure.



Speaking of the Merc 150 now, this is a problem I am more worried about than squeezing out a couple more MPH. Are you being prevented from adjusting trim or are the mechanics too weak?

---

Thanks for the tip and link on the binnacle control handle, Larry. Very helpful.

I recognize your skepticism, MG. That Yamaha performance was an important factor in deciding on a new engine, basically dictating that I wouldn't be happy with less than a 150 HP when repowering. You can read the report and discussion on it here:

(Please do not link to other forum discussions on other sites. Discussions should remain here.)

And your final question is the same as my own, I don't know the answer. But when you say you're more worried about the trim than the last couple of MPH, its the same issue. The trim only becomes an issue in the last couple MPH.

---

A less than 2 year old outboard motor that does not trim out when operated within the full throttle operating range of RPM's is defective. I suggest your contact your dealer or the manufacturer for an explanation.

An outboard motor assembled in the USA of foreign and US parts is not the same as "built in the USA."

---

One additional suggestion to Larry's (post 13). Add a spacer under the throttle.

---

I tend to agree with your first comment, Weatherly. I'm simply looking for further corroboration on the topic, though recognizing there aren't many of these outboards on Whalers at this point. As the problem only arises in speed testing, its not a pressing issue at this point.

I'm not certain of the accuracy, nor clear on the intent or relevance of your second point though, perhaps you can clarify it.

Thanks for the suggestion Phil, I expect to try rotating the control handle first, and if required, will shim up the entire binnacle.

---

Following up on the binnacle item, I was able to rotate the entire control assembly in the slotted mounting brackets towards the rear. This allowed for greater throttle travel distance, such that the throttle handle now bottoms out prior to contacting the console. I'll be interested to see if there was anything left in the engine, but as noted above am skeptical that it will run faster.

The Remote Control installation manual provided no details on pulling the throttle handle and rotating it back a notch or two for greater forward clearance. This may not be an option in the modern Mercury remote.

---

Following up on my post regarding the trim limitations at or near WOT, I have the following:

Mechanic who did the 3 year service on the motor says that the engine's design includes a computer programmed trim limiter that kicks in at 3000 RPM (if I recall correctly). He reset that trim limiter on the engine to "factory specs", suggesting it was out of spec for some reason.

I won't know if the factory spec setting allows greater upward travel than the previous setting, but will certainly follow up here after hitting the water this spring and giving it some speed runs.

To summarize, the Mercury 150 HP Fourstroke has a trim limiter designed into the engine controls.

---

PRJ,

Thanks for the follow-up on your Merc 150. It's curious to read your earlier comment and latest report back-to-back. Funny how in hindsight your earlier comment now comes across as very intuitive -- you had a theory but were doubting yourself.

So tell us how you are liking the engine overall, in the long term? Still happy with the pairing to your Outrage 18/19?

Thanks - JRP

---

Funny reading those lines adjacent to each other, suppose my imagination fell a bit short of reality on this topic. Curiously, I haven't found anything in the Owner's Manual referencing trim limiting, although there is one reference under Shallow Water Operation that states engine will auto lower if RPMs exceed 2000. I'll have to check / test some of these parameters.

And I'm definitely excited to see if I can trim up to the point of blowout at top speeds, perhaps I can squeeze another MPH or so out of this beast.

Finally, in answer to your last question JRP, I remain very pleased and fully satisfied with the now three year old purchase of the engine. My biggest benefit is higher speed cruise with markedly lower noise levels than my previous boat. Gas milage gains have been substantial, but due to the 63 gallon tank, those gains only benefit rarely on multi-day to week long trips. Trolling noise and exhaust reduction are another significant benefit.

Weight, as evidenced by a slightly lowered stern and awash splashwell is the sole negative, though not unexpected of course. This occasionally leads to porpoising, but that can quickly be eliminated by speed or trim changes.

Given what I know about the engine and its performance, I would certainly make the same decision were I repowering today.

---

PRJ: As you know I have 600# of engines on my 18, plus two batteries in the splashwell.
I plugged the splashwell 1-1/4" drains and installed a simple direct wired 500 GPH pump with separate float switch in the lower area, and it works well to get rid of any water that rarely splashes in. My splashwell is always completely dry.

---

How would this motor suit a 21 Ribside?

Also, any photos of it on the Outrage 18? I wonder if it looks proportionately large on the classic hulls like so many of the 4 stroke motors do?

---

Thanks for the additional feedback, prj. Glad to hear you're still happy with your purchase!




This listing for an Outrage 18 with a Merc 150 Fourstroke gives a good idea of the proportions (there's even a video.)

https://bigwaterboatbroker.com/boat/1...at-broker/

Keep in mind everything looks bigger when a boat is on a trailer (as opposed to in the water.) To my eye, the Merc 150 doesn't appear any more bulky than my 2-stroke V6 Yamaha 150. The weight of the Merc 150 (25" = 465 lbs) is only about 10 lbs more than the old Yamaha (when the 2-stroke oil tank w/ 3 gallons of oil is included.)

But it sure would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison.

---

I will be interested to see if the trim limiter adjustment makes a difference to your experience. I am scratching my head as to why such a feature would be implemented - doesn't everybody trim out for maximum speed, if conditions allow? My single-ram F70 allows you to trim at any speed, so it's not just some issue with the single-ram design. I wonder if there was some liability issue that influenced the design.

---

I have that motor on my 20' Outrage. Love love it. As far as the trim at full throttle, I'm 99% sure it does trim. I'll get back to you in a few months but I have the eco gauge and that requires trimming to get optimal fuel economy.

Good luck with your decision. I have zero regrets buying mine.

Stephen.

---

I'd be curious to hear what kind of performance you are getting from that Merc 150 Fourstroke on your 1989 Outrage 20?

---

Re-reading this thread and my question, this is starting to make more sense to me. I'd been thinking that over the limit RPM, the motor could not be trimmed at all - but a more sensible approach would be to limit the trim angle once RPMs are over a certain value. Maybe that's the way Mercury implemented it - in which case, adjusting the "high speed trim angle limit" should resolve the issue.

---

You are correct Tedious. The motor can be tucked back down, aka trimmed in at speed, it just could not be trimmed out. And while I was told the triggering RPM was 3000 RPM, I only came across the limiting trim height up around 4500-5000 RPM. Quite likely, this is because the sweet trim spot for speeds below that 45-5000 was also below the set trim limit.

I expect this trim limiter was introduced by Mercury to protect water cooling and ensure pickups are covered at higher speeds. One could certainly argue, and my experience mirrors this, that trimming down too low at higher speeds is much more dangerous for the boat and driver than blowing out. So, engine damage protection, not necessarily liability to operator protection.

When I am able to get out this spring, I'll run tests to determine:
A. If the re-established "factory trim limit" is higher than, and thus effective for high speed runs.
B. If I can find the RPM at which the limiter kicks in by trimming out inordinantly high at lower speeds.
C. Check if engine auto-lowers from high trim to trim limit level at some RPM.

Unrelated, but creeping into this article, I think this engine would be an excellent selection for both the original 21 foot Outrages and an 80s 20 foot Outrage.

---

Following up, I was able to get the Outrage on Milwaukee Harbor last week for a quick test run and checkup prior to the Wisconsin gamefish opener this past weekend.

Unfortunately, conditions were a bit too lumpy and the harbor had debris from recent heavy rains washing out the river system, so I was unable to run much higher than 4500 RPM and low 40s in MPH.

To recap, my goal was to determine if:
A. The new "factory setting" on the trim limiter allowed higher trim angle at high RPM than my previous trim limiter, which was apparently not at the "factory setting".
and
B. There was a fixed RPM that initiated the trim limiter, or even lowered the engine automatically were the specified RPM exceeded while trimmed out further than the limiter.

Despite my inability to get the boat up to WOT due to conditions, my impression is that the new trim limiter height is HIGHER than the previous setting. At 4500 RPM or so, the boat was kicking one hell of a rooster tail off the stern. Max RPM with my prop is about 5600-5700 RPM. My sense is the limit is higher than previous.

As to the second goal, I'm not certain I have any clarity there. I tried trimming up high at just below 3000 RPM and the stern dug deep with prop blowout and no auto trim change. I tried the same above 3000 RPM and again, stern dug deep, bow flew high and the prop blew out with no auto trim change. It was an odd exercise with very uncomfortable boat performance, I'll confess. Can't imagine the thoughts of a boating-aware observer.

So, I will follow up again with a report after a run in ideal high-speed conditions to advise on trim limiter impact, but I'm not certain I'll be able to discern whether or not there is an auto trim return at a fixed RPM.

Patrick in Milwaukee