|
Engines on 1985 Outrage 18
|
| ritr |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:01 PM
|
Member
Posts: 3
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/20/09
|
I'm about to re-power and would like to hear from owners of vintage Outrage 18's re-powered with either late model Evinrude ETEC 130 2-stroke or Yamaha F115 4-stroke engines. If any of you have even more weight/hp on the transom, I'm curious to know if you would recommend your setup.
Rit
1985 Outrage 18
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:04 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
We have an article called Current Engine Choices in our article section that include the weights and CARB rating.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=6
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:09 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
I just put a 2001 Johnson 200 Carb motor on my 18. It weights 450. The old 140 I took off weighed 370. I like the way mine sits but moved the console up 6 inches which offsets the added stern weight a little. Like the extra power. Not sure I would put much more weight on than that unless you add some weight to the bow.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:15 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Just for reference, the new E-Tec 150 and the 200hp weigh the same at 427 pounds.
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:22 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
Thanks Joe. I have seen a couple different weights for my 200. Is that for the long shaft? Anyway, I just posted a pic on my personal page on how mine sits at rest with the 200 for reference.
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 4:59 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
Joe,
Where did you get that number for the weight. I have seen 450, 455, 448 for the long shafts according to NADA.
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 5:00 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
I see 427 for and E-tec 175
|
| |
|
|
| Guts |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 5:01 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 612
Comments:
8
Joined: 11/21/08
|
I like four stroke. just my two cents..
added;
I going to bring up a difference to the two stroke and four stroke. You can port and polish a two stroke mill the head/s. On a four stroke it is easier to change the cam shaft and adjust the valves. done all the time with car buffs. just a difference nothing more.
Edited by Guts on 07/20/09 - 11:41 PM |
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 5:02 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
It is much quieter for sure.
|
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 6:22 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
I put a 175HP eTec on my 1987 Outrage. The dry engine weight is 427#. I would do it again in a heartbeat as I think it was the best move I made with the boat so far. The eTec is very quiet and even the higher HP engines are quiet compared to other two strokes. I have not had it next to a 4 stroke to compare so I can't comment.
Any reason your not looking to step up to the eTec 150HP? From the weight point of view it's only 22# more weight and the boat can handle it fine?
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 6:46 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
These weights come directly from the manufacturers websites.
The E-Tec 150, 175, and 200hp all weigh the same as they are built on the same block. 427 pounds...
An E-Tec is just as quiet as many four strokes and cleaner burning then some four strokes.
Take a look at the facts and make your own decision as I don't want this thread to become another 2 stroke vs. 4 stroke war.
Some people like 4 strokes and some people like 2 strokes.
To buy an engine that weighs what you are comfortable putting on the back of your Whaler, you would generally have to settle for less hp if buying a 4 stroke as compared to a 2 stroke.
I prefer 2 stokes and will put the 200 hp E-Tec up as an example of weight.
Look at this link:
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=30
1. The E-Tec 200 weighs in at 427 pounds.
No other 200hp 4 stroke even comes close to this weight.
2. You would have to drop down to a Suzuki DF 140 at 420 pounds
or a
3. Mercury 115 hp 4 stroke at 400+ pounds....
If I am going to carry extra weight, I want it to be in Horse Power, not just a bunch of extra heavy parts weighing down the transom.
It would be nice if a 200hp 4 stroke and a 200hp 2 stroke weighed the same. But that isn't the case.
Again, read up on things and make your own decision based on facts. Not what someone thinks their uncle's, friends, brother-in-law heard someone say when they had too many beers.
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 7:26 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
Go advice Joe. I have a non etec 2001 200 carb motor which it the difference in weight i believe. One other thing to keep in mind is what you are going to use boat for. I have a few friends with 4 strokes and they don't accelerate like a two stroke based on what i have ridden on. That was one reason for my choosing a 2 stroke. Etecs are real quiet compared to the old 2 strokes. I pull up a water skiier that uses a single ski with double boot. The V4 140 hp I had on mine barely got him up. The V6 200 is much better with a hell of a lot more torque out of the hole. Just some more opinions.
|
| |
|
|
| HarleyFXDL |
Posted on 07/20/09 - 9:26 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 917
Comments:
30
Joined: 07/24/07
|
I have a 1999 Johnson 150 2-stoke carb on mine. With the wife and 2 kids, the thing launches onto plane in a blistering 2 secs. I believe it weighs 396 lbs.
Kevin
1988 11' Super Sport, 1987 Johnson 15hp.
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance
"Vegetarian - old Indian word for bad fisherman." |
| |
|
|
| In2Deep |
Posted on 07/21/09 - 6:49 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 177
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/14/08
|
I just replaced twin 1987 Yamaha 70's (230 lbs each)with a Honda BF 135(485 lbs dry),the boat seems identical,minus the smoke,fuel smell,noise,etc. Better fuel economy,starts 1st time everytime,big improvement.Also more importantly better for the enviorment.
|
| |
|
|
| ritr |
Posted on 07/22/09 - 6:43 PM
|
Member
Posts: 3
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/20/09
|
Thank you all for your input.
I've only found one reference to the weight of my 1985 Evinrude 140HP. It showed a dry weight of 315 lLBS. Do any of you know if that is correct?
My plan was to add the difference in weight of the various new engines to the well and note how she settled into her seat.
The underlying question I had concerned the Outrage's ability tho handle the additional LBS of the newer engines. Add to that the age of the boat and I was hesitant to "load" the transom not knowing what the boat can take. Your responses and that 18' Outrage engine Chart suggests I have more degrees of freedom than I had originally thought.
Thanks again. You're a good bunch, but then that's to be expected. All of the people I respect most run a little salt through their veins.
Rit
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 07/22/09 - 7:24 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Rit,
The lighter the engine(s), obviously the better.
The Outrage 18' was designed to also run twins.
One of my prior Outrage 18's had twin Evinrude 70's and about 250 pounds each, plus 2 batteries and 2 oilers.
That's over 500 pounds on the transom and stern of the boat.
http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Outrag...age86.html
I hope to put a new 150hp E-Tec at 427 pounds along with a new E-Tec 9.9 (when it comes out) on the back of my transom to replace the Evinrudes I have on there now. My 150 Evinrude weighs 386 pounds and the kicker is 58 pounds.
I also have 1 battery and 2 oilers in the splashwell.
http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Outrag...trage.html
I'd also like to clarify a few things from a couple other comments above.
Yes, most 4 strokes and clean 2 strokes are much better for the environment.
Let's not confuse the older 2 strokes with some of the new clean 2 strokes.
I hear too many people saying; "4 strokes are much better for the environment than 2 strokes". This is a false statement in general and NOT true...
Any CARB 3 rated engine today is better for the environment than the OLD technology 2 stroke motors. This includes some new 2 stroke and 4 stroke motors.
Some 4 strokes are NOT even CARB 3 rated today which is the cleanest rating we have at this time. Several new 2 Strokes are CARB 3 rated and better for the environment than some 4 strokes that are only CARB 2 rated.
For those that want the quietest and cleanest engines available today, buy a CARB 3 rated 2 stroke or 4 stroke.
|
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 07/22/09 - 9:16 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1926
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
The 18 Outrage takes a 25" single engine. Does anybody know what the weight of an Evinrude E-tec 150 is in the XL shaft length? Generally, the 25" engines weigh about 15# more, which would make 442#, plus 15# for an SS prop, which would total out about 457#.
Or conversely, is the 20" model less than 427#?
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 07/22/09 - 9:22 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Yep, Evinrudes website says 427 pounds for the 25 inch shaft model, 150, 175, and 200hp.
Evinrude also list the 150hp 20 inch shaft model as weighing 418 pounds.
I like an outboard motor company to list the weights of the various shaft length models.
You are correct. Many other outboard motor websites only list the weight of the shortest shaft models they make and you have to try and figure the rest out yourself. I am not particularly fond of motor manufacturers that do this.
They try to be sneaky about it in my opinion.
I don't think any of the outboard manufacturers add the prop to any of their weights so that cannot be brought into the equation. The manufacturer doesn't know what type of prop you are going to be putting on. So, you cannot add the weight of the prop to determine which engine is lighter as all engines will need a prop except for the Jet Drive models.
No more sneaky business....
Edited by Joe Kriz on 07/22/09 - 9:34 PM |
| |
|
|
| Whaler27 |
Posted on 07/23/09 - 3:39 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
1
Joined: 10/11/06
|
ritr wrote:
Thank you all for your input.
I've only found one reference to the weight of my 1985 Evinrude 140HP. It showed a dry weight of 315 lLBS. Do any of you know if that is correct?
My plan was to add the difference in weight of the various new engines to the well and note how she settled into her seat.
The underlying question I had concerned the Outrage's ability tho handle the additional LBS of the newer engines. Add to that the age of the boat and I was hesitant to "load" the transom not knowing what the boat can take. Your responses and that 18' Outrage engine Chart suggests I have more degrees of freedom than I had originally thought.
Thanks again. You're a good bunch, but then that's to be expected. All of the people I respect most run a little salt through their veins.
Rit
A 25 inch shaft length 1985 Evinrude 140 weighs approximately 370 lbs.
|
| |
|
|
| Eri |
Posted on 07/23/09 - 6:36 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 157
Comments:
4
Joined: 10/09/08
|
My 1991 140 Johnson was 370. They did have large and small gearboxes which i believe some v4's had starting in 1989. Mine was a large v6 lower. That might be accurate with the smaller lower. Is it a 15 Spline. That is what the larger gearcases are.
|
| |
|
