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.

1991 - 17 Outrage repower
jhpeterson3	#1  Posted on 09/04/18 - 5:06 AM
Member Posts: 13 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/01/18	I am getting ready to repower my 1991 Outrage 17. Had an original 115 Johnson which is coming off. Thoughts on the replacement? Thanks Edited by jhpeterson3 on 09/04/18 - 5:44 AM
Phil T	#2  Posted on 09/04/18 - 7:17 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 7043 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	There have been 1/2 dozen members who have repowered an Outrage 17 I (1990-1995). All the manufacturers make a decent 90 or 115 with good warranty. It is primarily a question of: price service dealer proximity and quality Engine features intended use. If you typically run with a crew with serious gear, consider a 115 HO which is ~ 127hp. I had a F115 on my 1991 model. Great engine but a bit too heavy. It has been redesigned a year or two ago and is much lighter. I plan to repower with an ETEC. Want the self winterization feature. Estimates are: 90 hp engine is ~ 9k 115 hp ~ 12k Rigging, install, gauges, tax ~ 3k. You can do it yourself, just need to find the right dealer who will do the warrantee inspection/activation. 1992 Outrage 17 I 2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+ 2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT
jhpeterson3	#3  Posted on 09/04/18 - 2:25 PM
Member Posts: 13 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/01/18	Thank you and very helpful. I am trying to find the transom specs for this Whaler to determine which size of Yamaha 90 - 20 vs. 25.
Joe Kriz	#4  Posted on 09/04/18 - 2:54 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	Those would be in our "Whaler Models and Specs" link in the main menu bar. http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...owstart=20 I would not put a 90hp on that hull. Either a 115hp or 115hp H.O http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=6 Yamaha F90 =353 pounds (20 inch shaft) Yamaha F115 = 377 pounds (20 inch shaft) (edit: added 20 inch shaft weights for comparison of Yamaha) 25 more pounds for 25 more HP for the Yamaha comparison. Edited by Joe Kriz on 09/04/18 - 5:36 PM
jhpeterson3	#5  Posted on 09/04/18 - 3:25 PM
Member Posts: 13 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/01/18	This is helpful. What are your thoughts on shaft length - 20 vs. 25. I see the 18 Outrage is at 25.
Joe Kriz	#6  Posted on 09/04/18 - 3:44 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	That info is in the Specifications for the Outrage 17' I Please reread that info. Why would you care what shaft length other models use at this point?
jhpeterson3	#7  Posted on 09/04/18 - 5:08 PM
Member Posts: 13 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/01/18	Thank you. This is helpful and confirms that is is 20.
tedious	#8  Posted on 09/04/18 - 5:38 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1072 Comments: 2 Joined: 09/07/08	To the original question, to me the eTec 115HO would be a no-brainer. I think you'll even be able to use your existing controls.
JRP	#9  Posted on 09/05/18 - 6:12 AM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	I was surprised to read that the Outrage 17 I uses a 20" shaft outboard. And yet, according to the specs here at Whale rCentral, the hull has a draft of 13". The Outrage 18, by contrast, has a hull draft of 10" yet uses a 25" shaft outboard. The Outrage 17 must have a very low cut transom? I am going to offer a contrary opinion. I don't think a 2-stroke engine is a good choice for a boat this size. By converting to a fourstroke, you can eliminate the need for a dedicated space to mount the remote oil tank. Eliminating that tank, as well as not carrying reserve gallon(s) of 2-stroke oil aboard, frees up space for storing other items. In such a small boat as this, any space savings is very welcome. As far as the ETEC 115 HO specifically, it is quite a bit heavier than some of the 4-stroke options. And that weight difference does not even include the remote oil tank and oil. The "self-winterizing" feature of the ETEC may be attractive for some situations. But keep in mind that modern 4-strokes do not require winterization per se. They can be operated all winter long without any need for special treatment beyond tilting vertical to allow cooling water to drain out. There is no need to "winterize" (it's actually a long-term storage procedure) modern 4-stroke engines between use, unless the engine is not expected to be operated at all for extended periods (typically 60-90 days). Not too many of us live where an engine can't be fired up on the muffs every couple months, even if we don't go for a boat ride. So the self-winterization feature offered by the ETEC engines wouldn't be a selling point for me. If it is for your circumstances, weigh that against the weight, space, and cost savings offered by a modern 4-stroke. 19 Outrage II (1992)
Weatherly	#10  Posted on 09/05/18 - 7:32 AM
Member Posts: 752 Comments: 4 Joined: 12/31/06	If the informed speculation around the docks in this area is true, you may be able to buy for your Boston Whaler a brand new Johnson outboard motor, maybe as soon as before the end of 2018. The BRP-Evinrude direct injection technology is the cleanest gasoline burning outboard. It is also very fuel efficient, in most cases, more efficient than a four-stroke outboard. One very informed local factory trained outboard mechanic informed me the current four-stroke technology will soon be "too dirty" to meet emissions standards, and as a result, will require the installation of a catalytic converter. It is a different world today in 2018 where the two stroke technology is cleaner burning than the four stroke motor. Edited by Weatherly on 09/05/18 - 7:33 AM
Phil T	#11  Posted on 09/05/18 - 9:03 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 7043 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	Actually the E-TEC 90 at 320 lbs dry is a good option for this model given that it is very sensitive to stern weight. I have long recommended keeping the weight on the transom as low as possible due to a lack of transom clearance. With a 400 lb motor, backing into waves can result in significant water being shipped aboard. With the closed transom and low bilge, it can get tenuous very quickly. 1992 Outrage 17 I 2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+ 2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT
JRP	#12  Posted on 09/05/18 - 1:53 PM
Member Posts: 755 Comments: 2 Joined: 08/29/14	Re: the ETEC 90. Whaler Central member "Saumon" had this engine on his Outrage 17 (I) and was very pleased with its performance. He no longer owns the boat/engine, but he spoke very highly of the combo. As I recall, he seemed to feel the only place it fell short was in absolute top end performance. Not many of us spend a lot of time at those upper-end speeds. EDIT: Saumon's personal page: http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=25598 Regarding emissions, fourstroke engines being sold today certainly meet present emission standards. Standards may change in the future, but that is a problem for manufacturers to worry about, not consumers. Any engine being sold today will be grandfathered to the standards in effect when sold new, and will not require retrofitting of future emissions equipment. One real concern for consumers shopping 2-stroke engines today is that the improved efficiencies and emissions have come at a high cost, in the form of increased complexity, weight, and unit price. Edited by JRP on 09/05/18 - 1:56 PM 19 Outrage II (1992)
jhpeterson3	#13  Posted on 09/05/18 - 3:09 PM
Member Posts: 13 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/01/18	My plan is to replace with the four stroke Yamaha. Getting the additional space from where the oil reservoir would also be nice. That could also be an additional battery. Right now I have just the one on the other side of the engine.