1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

Repower- 1989 Outrage 22 WD
wjd	#1  Posted on 03/22/14 - 8:39 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Hi, I'm in the process of restoring a 1989 22' outrage with Whaler Drive. I am thinking of twin 140 hp Suzuki 4 strokes. They weigh in at close to 400 lbs each. What do you guys think of this? I think the weight is ok although at the upper end but I am bothered by the hp rating. My boat is rated for 240 hp. The info on this site indicates that they should be rated at 300 hp. Other years were even higher I believe. Were there substantial differences in how different years boats were built? Any comments will be appreciated. [moderator edited subject line for specificity) Edited by Phil T on 03/24/14 - 10:59 AM
gchuba	#2  Posted on 03/23/14 - 8:11 AM
Member Posts: 1675 Comments: 0 Joined: 03/31/13	Others know the physics of the boats ability to answer your repower question. However, I did ask about "Repowering a boat above the stamped HP rating" on 2/08/13. A lot of responses. I had passed on a used 250hp E-tec because of the same stamped hp rating on my boat (1979 22ft Revenge). I took the conservative approach and ended up with a 200hp HO E-tec. For repowering above the rating you may want to start with input from your insurance carrier and local shops. gchuba
Tom W Clark	#3  Posted on 03/23/14 - 8:23 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	If you are restoring an Outrage 22 with a Whaler Drive the maximum horsepower rating is 300, not 240. Twin Suzuki DF140s is well within that rating and the weight of a DF140 is about what a V-6 150 was back in 1989, so weight should not be too much of a concern, though if you have the extra capacity fuel tank, that may be a problem.
gchuba	#4  Posted on 03/23/14 - 8:30 AM
Member Posts: 1675 Comments: 0 Joined: 03/31/13	Tom, is the increased hp rating strictly with a Whalerdrive, or could an Armstrong bracket or Jack Plate installation work into the formula? gchuba
Tom W Clark	#5  Posted on 03/23/14 - 9:16 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	No, it only applied to the Whaler Drive so if wjd does not have a Whaler Drive, then the rating is 240 HP. I've seen Outrage 22 Whaler Drives rated up to 400 HP and the Temptation 22 rated to 450 HP. By 1989 the rating for the Whaler Drive equipped 22 was down to 300 HP.
wjd	#6  Posted on 03/23/14 - 10:50 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Thank you for your replies. Gubcha, I am very conscious of the insurance issue and that will be a factor but I want to use some common sense too. I don't understand why Whaler was seemingly all over the map with their ratings. I have heard of ratings up to 400 hp and Tom, whose opinion I greatly respect indicates that similar hulls were rated as high as 450 hp! Tom, I am grateful for your input. The boat in question is in fact a 1989 hull, the load and capacity plate says: MODEL : 22' WHALER DRIVE Manufacturer: boston Whaler Inc. Edgewater Florida 11 persons or ########_ can't read that part 2655 lbs. persons, motor, g###_ presumably gear 240.0 h.p. motor Again I wonder why was Whaler so inconsistent? Were they figuring it out as they went? Were there differences in construction that led them tho apply different ratings? Assuming all things equal, 300 hp seems fine and many boats had twin 150s so I should be fine... But I hate to assume all other factors are in fact equal. Thanks again Warren
Joe Kriz	#7  Posted on 03/23/14 - 10:53 AM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Here is a 22' Capacity Plate for Whaler Drive that shows 300hp http://www.whalercentral.com/photogal...photo_id=5 Edited by Joe Kriz on 03/14/15 - 11:59 AM
Tom W Clark	#8  Posted on 03/23/14 - 10:55 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Warren -- That doesn't sound right at all. I'd like to see a photograph of your capacity plate.
wjd	#9  Posted on 03/23/14 - 11:21 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Thanks Joe. I did see that in the reference area. Tom, I do have a photo on my office computer. I'll post it for you. Warren PS the boat does have the larger fuel tank - ie. no rear well
Tom W Clark	#10  Posted on 03/23/14 - 11:31 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	The Extra Capacity Fuel Tank (129 gallons vs. standard 77 gallons) was offered as an option precisely because the boats with twin V-6 two-stroke motors burned so much fuel back then that the range of the boat was limited without it. However, this ironically meant that the boats with most weight on the transom also had the center of gravity of the (now much heavier) fuel tank shifted sternward by the length of what would have been the stern well. This leads to a very stern low condition and can make these boat difficult to get and keep on plane as well as causing porpoising. If you do re-power with twin DF140s, I'd try to get as much weight moved forward as you can or replace the tank with a shortened version to move the CG forward. I've seen single bracket mounted motors on the 22 footers that had to have lead ballast in the bow lockers to get them to ride properly.
Tom W Clark	#11  Posted on 03/23/14 - 11:57 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	This is really interesting and something I had never noticed before...I've been going through the catalogs and price lists that show the Outrage 22 Whaler Drive model. The Outrage 22 Whaler Drive was originally rated for 400 HP per the price lists. The 1988 catalogs and some brochures demure on the issue of maximum horsepower, instead including an asterisk indicating one should "see your dealer for more information." But the Price Lists, which were primarily for dealer use, always including maximum horsepower ratings and they all show 400 HP for the Outrage 22 Whaler Drive...except for the last one I have from the 1990s. That price list, dated August 1st, 1988, which would have been the beginning of the 1989 model year, shows the maximum rated horsepower for the Outrage 22 Whaler Drive as 240 HP, same as a regular Outrage 22. The 1990 Boston Whaler catalog does include the maximum horsepower rating for all the Whaler Drive models and the Outrage 22 Whaler Drive is shown rated for 300 HP. There was no 1989 Boston Whaler catalog.
wjd	#12  Posted on 03/24/14 - 9:02 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Here is the photo of the capacity plate. http://s96.photobucket.com/user/wdunl...a.jpg.html I guess the most important thing is to understand if all 22' Whaler Drive Outrages of this era were built to the same standards. I think we might agree that if all boats were built with similar structure, then twin 140 hp is not unreasonable. However if for some reason in 1989 there was a change in structure, then sticking to 240 hp might be more important. Edited by Tom W Clark on 03/24/14 - 9:12 AM
Tom W Clark	#13  Posted on 03/24/14 - 9:44 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	All Outrage 22 Whaler Drives are the same. I would not hesitate to put 280 HP on a boat that had been rated for as much as 400 HP. As I said earlier, weight, or more precisely, the rear weight bias, should be your biggest concern. If you are concerned about it, and since your is faded anyway, have a new placard made showing 300.0 H.P. MOTOR
wjd	#14  Posted on 03/24/14 - 2:46 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Thanks again for your reply Tom. I must admit, the idea of printing a new plate had crossed my mind... I agree that the static trim is a concern - I plan on launching the boat with a full fuel tank and some bags of sand on top of the 1989 Mercury 115 hp 2 strokes to have a look at how it will sit. I think that most of you would suggest a big single, so given that I want twins, What set up would you all suggest? Thanks again, Warren
Joe Kriz	#15  Posted on 03/24/14 - 3:00 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	A pair of 1985 Evinrude 150 2 strokes weight in @ 386 pounds each for a total of 772 pounds. That would have been the going weight for most motors during those days. Now a pair of Suzuki 140A 4 strokes @ 407 pounds each is a total of 814 pounds. That's not much difference in total weight on the WD. I don't think you can get much lighter with any of the newer motors today in the 140/150hp size. http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=6 What motors have been on this boat or are there now?
wjd	#16  Posted on 03/24/14 - 3:32 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Hi Joe, Currently, there is a pair of 1989 Mercury 115 hp motors hanging on the back. I have never seen the boat in the water nor experienced the performance of this set up. My feeling is that the boat is under powered as is. Once i complete some repairs to the bottom, I will put it in the water and look at the trim. Then add weight to the top of the current motors - 370 lbs each - to simulate the weight of the new motors - 410 lbs. ie. 40 pound sand bags on each. Thank you to all for your input. Warren
Tom W Clark	#17  Posted on 03/24/14 - 5:17 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	740 to 814 pounds is not that much, less than my dog weighs. Not sure how you could save significant weight with any twin motor set-up that would offer satisfactory performance.
wjd	#18  Posted on 04/27/14 - 10:16 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Well, I launched the boat, placed ten gallons of water on the whaler drive and 125 gallons of water on the floor in pails to simulate a full fuel tank and the results are clear. I will need to move weight forward. So, batteries to the console will help. Maybe move the console forward 6"? - Does anybody know the measurement from front of super console to step in floor? As Tom suggested the fuel tank needs to be shortened and pushed as far forward as possible. I believe that the original tank was made by Florida Marine Tanks in N Carolina. The cost of shipping will probably be brutal. Tom, or any other wet coast guys, do you know a good tank manufacturer? Also are the specs for the original 77 gal tank available? Thanks Warren