|
E-Tec Mounting on Outrage 22
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/13/12 - 3:25 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
I raised my transom 5" on my 1988 Outrage 22 to accommodate the 30" leg on a used 225 HP Evinrude E-Tec that I purchased. The mechanic mounted it utilizing the top holes which position the leg the deepest. I know there are several posts regarding this issue, but wanted to upload some pics to get your all opinion and advise on whether or not I should raise the engine, and if so, how much. At about 5,500 RPM, the engine kicks up a ton of water, in all directions. I will post a pic of that too.
Thanks for your help!
http://s1299.photobucket.com/albums/a...topsphoto/
(removed multiple photo links to show only one link for your entire album on this subject)
Edited by Tom W Clark on 10/13/12 - 5:45 PM |
| |
|
|
| Buckda |
Posted on 10/13/12 - 3:33 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 325
Comments:
2
Joined: 01/15/07
|
Go up 2 holes.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 10/13/12 - 3:47 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
All the photos in those individual links were upside down for me. I removed those links. (see below)
It is also better to put just one link to your entire album on photobucket like this:
http://s1299.photobucket.com/albums/a...topsphoto/
Edited by Joe Kriz on 10/13/12 - 3:54 PM |
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 10/13/12 - 5:50 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
An Evinrude E-TEC 225 on a classic 22 foot Whaler should be mounted three holes up (as high as it can go).
If you are using an XXL (30") shaft length motor which is five inches higher than the recommended XL (25") shaft length motor but also have increased the height of the transom by five inches, then the same mounting should be utilized.
If you made the transom five inches *longer*, the top of the transom may not, in fact, be five inches higher because transom slopes backwards. In this case, having the motor mounted as high as it can go may still leave the motor lower than it's optimal position.
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 2:10 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
Joe Kriz wrote:
All the photos in those individual links were upside down for me. I removed those links. (see below)
It is also better to put just one link to your entire album on photobucket like this:
http://s1299.photobucket.com/albums/a...topsphoto/
Thanks Joe
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 2:25 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
Tom W Clark wrote:
An Evinrude E-TEC 225 on a classic 22 foot Whaler should be mounted three holes up (as high as it can go).
If you are using an XXL (30"  shaft length motor which is five inches higher than the recommended XL (25" shaft length motor but also have increased the height of the transom by five inches, then the same mounting should be utilized.
If you made the transom five inches *longer*, the top of the transom may not, in fact, be five inches higher because transom slopes backwards. In this case, having the motor mounted as high as it can go may still leave the motor lower than it's optimal position.
Thanks Tom.
In most of the posts that I've seen that you've commented on regarding"mounting" Etecs, it seems as though that you are the greatest advocate for mounting them high. With that being said, I will be taking your advise, and moving my motor up "all the way".
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 2:31 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
I added another photo to the bucket showing the mounting holes. So with Tom's advise, I plan on moving the engine all the way up, 3 positions.
|
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 6:44 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
The photos are still upside down. I suggest you delete them and reload them to Photobucket in the proper orientation.
|
| |
|
|
| Buckda |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 6:47 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 325
Comments:
2
Joined: 01/15/07
|
Interesting, the photos have NOT been upside down since I first viewed his album yesterday.
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 7:57 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
Like Dave, I see everything right side up. I did yesterday too. Browser differences?
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 8:00 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
For whatever reason, it seems like the V-6 E-TECs have the A/V plate a greater distance form the motor mount brackets than other brands. It needs to be set higher to compensate for this.
Moving the motor up three holes is only going to gain you 2-1/4" and you can see in your fifth photo that the motor height will still be pretty modest even at that.
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 9:27 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
Phil T wrote:
The photos are still upside down. I suggest you delete them and reload them to Photobucket in the proper orientation.
Phil, when I load the photos they are right side up. Are you suggesting that the "proper" orientation may be to upload them upside down?
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 9:39 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
Thanks for the info Tom!
I'll work on raising the engine to the bottom holes and go from there. If you were in my shoes, would you install a jackplate to raise the engine higher than 2-1/4"?
I'm on a Mac using Safari as a browser.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 10:48 AM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
I am on a Mac using Safari.
Yesterday, the individual links were all upside down.
When I went to your album, all the album photos were correct.
|
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 1:12 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
raise the engine first and see where that puts you both from a height and performance. If the cavitation plate is not out of the water on plane, trimmed out running at speed you may need to go to the jackplate option. The setback on any jackplate will change how the boat handles, how it sits at rest and how she runs when on plane.
|
| |
|
|
| Doug V |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 2:57 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 340
Comments:
3
Joined: 09/21/05
|
When I view the album, all the images are oriented correctly. When I select an image, it loads upside down.
Here is an image of the anti-cavitation plate of my 3.3 liter 200 HP Etec while on plane:
http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d97...r=noflash/
Note the difference in the water level on the lower unit on your image compared to my image.
This is a 2005 model engine on a 1989 Outrage 22. It is mounted on a manual jack plate:
http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d97...er=noflash
A 30" shaft would be nice. I think I would like the transom being 5" higher.
Edited by Doug V on 10/14/12 - 3:01 PM |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 3:55 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Photobucket seems to be doing some weird things.
Doug, what browser are you using.
Windows Explorer?
Windows FireFox?
Apple Safari?
Other?
|
| |
|
|
| Derwd24 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 7:03 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1607
Comments:
9
Joined: 05/09/07
|
Doug V wrote: A 30" shaft would be nice. I think I would like the transom being 5" higher.
I've been thinking about it for a while too as the low transom swamps the boat when at anchor or on the mooring and the swells start to roll.
If the E-tec gets mounted all the way up, it would seem the transom could be built at least 7-1/4" higher? I'll take all the transom I can get.
Dave - 1983 Outrage 22 |
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 7:06 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1926
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
The only concern I would have is how much you trust your transom raising work. A 22 Outrage has always needed a 30" transom, and BW started doing that on most of the 22 Commercial models they made in the 90's. So it is a nicer detail than using a jackplate, but I don't know the structural mechanism they use to accomplish that height, done after the boat comes out of the mold. I assume some sort of wood or SS dowleing is used in the transom plywood.
Raising a heavy engine like yours, about 560# actual weight (according to a magazine that actually weighed one of these and found them 40# heavier than listed) where most of the transom bracket stress is on your new work, may be of concern. Only you would know the answer, but at least be aware the additional stress a high mounted engine can be. You wouldn't want the top bolts (which carry most of the stress) to rip your work right off.
|
| |
|
|
| Etops73 |
Posted on 10/14/12 - 10:55 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 68
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/13/07
|
Doug V wrote:
When I view the album, all the images are oriented correctly. When I select an image, it loads upside down.
Here is an image of the anti-cavitation plate of my 3.3 liter 200 HP Etec while on plane:
http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d97...r=noflash/
Note the difference in the water level on the lower unit on your image compared to my image.
This is a 2005 model engine on a 1989 Outrage 22. It is mounted on a manual jack plate:
http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d97...er=noflash
A 30" shaft would be nice. I think I would like the transom being 5" higher.
Good photos Doug.
As compared to my engine, it seems as though the distance between the plate just above the anti-cavitation plate to the section with 4 screws and 2 ports facing forward (sorry I don't know the terms for these engine parts) is about 4" shorter than mine. In the photo that you posted of your boat at plane, your ACP is about an inch below the waterline. From the water line to the tip of the skeg is roughly 16". With that being said, I'll need to raise my engine approximately 9" to get my ACP to the same level as you.
|
| |
|
