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.

Engine Mounting Height
wjd	#1  Posted on 10/23/14 - 11:48 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	I AM JUST ABOUT READY TO HANG TWIN 140 HP SUZUKI OUTBOARDS ON MY PROJECT WHALER. THE BOAT IN QUESTION IS A 1989 22' OUTRAGE WITH A WHALER DRIVE. I HAVE REMOVED THE 129 GAL FUEL TANK AND GLASSED IN A BULKHEAD TO CREATE A STORAGE WELL IN THE AFT SECTION. THE NEW TANK WILL BE 75 GALLONS. THIS IS IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE THE CENTER OF GRAVITY FORWARD. MY QUESTION IS: AT WHAT HEIGHT SHOULD I MOUNT THE OUTBOARDS? ALL THE WAY UP? THANKS
Silentpardner	#2  Posted on 10/23/14 - 1:22 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 593 Comments: 1 Joined: 06/12/11	I hung a pair of counter-rotating Yamaha 300's on the Whaler Drive on my 1989 Whaler 27FC last year. I mounted them all the way up, but I used a pair of Mercury Revolution 4 props with them. These props do well high in the water. I would think you would definitely want to mount any prop/motor combo at least 2 holes up on a whaler drive. The old Yamaha 200's that I removed when I replaced them had Yamaha saltwater series props, (3-blade), and they were performing fine at 2 holes up mounting. By cutting down the size of the fuel capacity on your boat, the range will be greatly reduced. Are you doing this in order to fit the tank after the stern mods? If the larger tank will still fit, I would sure use it. After installing the new 300's that are four-stroke engines on my boat, I saw an increase in fuel economy from the old 2-stroke 200's, but I still needed more than the 175 gallon capacity I had with the original tank. I have added an ATL fuel bladder and quick-connect hook-up to supplement my fuel capacity for my long-range excursions. If you don't have room for the larger tank, you may want to consider including fittings and valves for this. Good luck with the new motors! Be sure and consider the props you use with them in deciding how high to hang them.
wjd	#3  Posted on 10/23/14 - 2:43 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Thanks for the quick reply Silent. The old motors were Mercury 115 hp (twins) and I felt that the boat was stern heavy even with them. By adding more weight with the 140 four strokes I would make that stern low situation worse. My hope is that the added fuel efficiency of the four strokes will offset ( at least to some degree ) the loss in fuel capacity. If i need more range and or more weight forward, I will consider the addition of a second fuel tank that would fill part of the forward locker. Thanks again
Joe Kriz	#4  Posted on 10/23/14 - 2:55 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	I would suggest letting all of us know what shaft length these Suzuki's are. 20 inch (L) long shaft @ 397 pounds or 25 inch (XL) extra long shaft @ 407 pounds http://www.suzukimarine.com/Product%2...F140A.aspx We are looking at 10 inches difference in propellor height between the two shaft lengths. All the way down for the 25 inch shaft and then all the way up for the 20 inch shaft would be 10 inches of difference in prop height in relation to the bottom of the hull or WD in this case. or 5 inches difference if both are mounted all the way up etc..
wjd	#5  Posted on 10/23/14 - 3:18 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Hi Joe, You are correct that I should have been more specific. The motors have 25" shafts.
Joe Kriz	#6  Posted on 10/23/14 - 3:30 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Great. Now we all know for sure what you have. Not sure what Silent has as the Yamaha 300's also come in 30 inch XX Long shaft. http://yamahaoutboards.com/outboards/...ifications Always helps if everyone is talking about the same thing before it might be too late to change a purchase if buying the wrong length, etc.. http://www.whalercentral.com/faq.php?...p?cat_id=7
Finnegan	#7  Posted on 10/23/14 - 3:52 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	The 22 Outrage Whaler Drive requires twin engines to be ALL the way up, and by that I mean in the 5th set of holes from the top, if your engine has a 5 hole mounting pattern. If you only have the 4 hole pattern of OMC or Yamaha, you will be running lower than you should be. Those engines will be pushing the weight limit on the boat. You were smart to get rid of the 129 gallon tank, because with those, the remaining fuel always is in the very stern of the boat. If it is not too late, you really ought to take a look at the brand new 2.1 liter Merc 4 stroke 115's, available in counter rotation. At 359#, they are lighter than the Suzukis, cost less, have more power and bigger displacement. The general consensus is that those Suzuki's overrated at 140 HP, and are only about 125HP, and not great on acceleration. The lighter weight of the brand new Merc design is of particular benefit on a hull like the 22. And you get the 5 hole mounting pattern also.
Silentpardner	#8  Posted on 10/23/14 - 4:29 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 593 Comments: 1 Joined: 06/12/11	My Yamaha 300's are indeed the same shaft length that the OP has, 25". I assumed this would be the case, sorry to start so much controversy on this point I was worried about stern weight, just like you, before repowering, but now I am sure glad I did it anyway. It doesn't matter what motors you use, you should consider the prop along with the motor when you decide on engine height. Edited by Silentpardner on 10/23/14 - 4:42 PM
wjd	#9  Posted on 10/24/14 - 9:05 AM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	Thanks again guys. I already have the motors so Mercury power is not an option. I have several buddies running Suzukis on guide boats who couldn't be happier with them. They are getting flawless performance for thousands of hours. One Grady I know of has 4500 hours and still running strong. I purchased these motors last spring and at the time they had the best available power to weight ratio of any four strokes. I think all the way up is it...
Marko888	#10  Posted on 10/28/14 - 3:38 AM
Member Project Albums Posts: 413 Comments: 10 Joined: 05/26/08	The DF140A Suzuki I mounted on my Outrage 18 is far from weak...the boat is on plain in 3 seconds and hits the rev limiter at 42 mph with a crappy 19p Aluminum prop. It will also run 30mph on less than 5gph (US). The otherwise very knowlegable poster who is dissing the Suzuki above, is not the best advisor for anything Suzuki, so take those remarks with a grain of salt. Edited by Marko888 on 10/28/14 - 3:39 AM
Finnegan	#11  Posted on 10/29/14 - 3:15 PM
Member Posts: 1926 Comments: 16 Joined: 05/02/08	I'm sticking with what I said about Suzuki's over-rating on the 140. Consider them about 125HP, none of which means it's not a good, highly reliable engine. Just overrated in HP, which is farily widely known in the general boating community. See Millrat's post on his 18 Outrage powered by a 150 Merc, which he states does "50 MPH +". http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...d_id=20347 The 150 Merc on the same hull is providing an additional 8-9 MPH by only having 10 extra HP over the Suzuki? For those that know outboard engines, that speed differential is not proportional to a mere 10HP. There are also many reports of 18 Outrages doing 40+ with any number of 115's. So Marko's report seems to indicate about 125 HP for the Suzuki, which fits the HP picture pretty well.
wjd	#12  Posted on 10/29/14 - 3:58 PM
Member Posts: 37 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/06/14	The motors that I am replacing are 2 stroke 115s. I will be using this boat for trolling. It is not practical to troll off a single 2 stroke 115 since they smoke a fair bit, they are noisy and they don't idle particularly well for extended periods. I have never liked kickers so I wanted twin four stroke power. Even at 125 hp each, which may or may not be accurate, I will be increasing horsepower, achieving my fishing needs and only adding 80 pounds. I feel pretty good that I am on the right track.
Marko888	#13  Posted on 10/29/14 - 4:55 PM
Member Project Albums Posts: 413 Comments: 10 Joined: 05/26/08	DF140 = 140hp. What they lack is the torque of a V6 150 two-stroke. FWIW, my 18 did 45 (not 50) with a the 150 V6 at 5500 with the a stainless prop. I expect we'll see 44 once the Suzuki has the correct pitch stainless prop on it. The DF140 trolls very nicely, super quiet and burns about 1 litre per hour. I think WJD is making a sound decision with this engine choice. The Troll Mode switch and matching Tach combo is $150 well spent as well.