|
Installing an additional 9.9 engine on a Montauk 190 2011
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/10/18 - 5:19 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Hello everybody.
After refitting a new 150 Fourstroke engine on my 2011 Montauk 190 I’m considering to install as 2nd engine a Mercury 9.9 mainly for fishing purposes.
Since the dealers, at least the one I know, do not like to spend too much time in finding solutions other than selling new engines, I am tring to find an elegant solution on how to install the new engine.
On the left part of the boat there is the standard platform with ladder, so the the new engine will be placed at the right side.
But...how? The engine should tilt easily when not in use (the “leg” has to be long rather than “short”) and not intrusive when cruising with the main engine.
Has anyone faced this (little) problem?
Thanks a lot.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/10/18 - 6:42 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Jackmuffin, I think you are going to need an outboard bracket. Such as those offered by Garelick (but there are other vendors as well). Here's just one of many examples sold by Defender:
https://www.defender.com/product3.jsp...;id=524194
https://search.defender.com/?expressi...et&s=1
Also, you might be wise to consult with Boston Whaler and see if they have any recommendations for how to approach this.
Edited by JRP on 01/10/18 - 6:43 PM
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/11/18 - 2:03 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Thank you very much.
This object seems to be neat. I'm getting in touch with Garelick in order to see if they have distributors in Italy.
Question now is: long or short leg engine?
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/11/18 - 4:26 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
JackMuffin wrote:...
Question now is: long or short leg engine?
That would be a good question to ask Boston Whaler.
If the shaft is too long, it might end up dragging in the water even when fully raised.
With the Garelick outboard brackets, there are model options which offer different amonts of vertical travel. The model I linked to above, has about 9" of vertical lift. This model (link below) has about 15" of vertical lift. It might be a better solution for a short-leg engine:
https://www.defender.com/product3.jsp...;id=524175
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/11/18 - 5:32 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
My mechanic mantains that I need the long leg, but I am not completely sure of this.
Let’s make this scenario: the 150hp engine, when “tilted” keeps the propeller well over the water.
If I install such a Bracket which has an ‘up” position, the 9.9 propeller, once tilted, should be well over the water, higher than the 150 when tilted.
I am not sure that a short leg engine goes well under the water line, which is worst...
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/12/18 - 5:47 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
JackMuffin wrote:
My mechanic mantains that I need the long leg, but I am not completely sure of this.
Let’s make this scenario: the 150hp engine, when “tilted” keeps the propeller well over the water.
If I install such a Bracket which has an ‘up” position, the 9.9 propeller, once tilted, should be well over the water, higher than the 150 when tilted.
I am not sure that a short leg engine goes well under the water line, which is worst...
Garelick has some good instructions for mounting the bracket, on their website. These may help you to choose between the long leg or standard leg engine. Usually long leg is for sailboats, though.
http://www.garelick.com/files/12.295.pdf12.295.pdf
Additional specs on the Garelick bracket options:
http://www.garelick.com/Aluminum-Auxi...oke-Motors
Also, I don't know if you can order from West Marine, but they are running a discount sale this weekend on the brackets:
https://www.westmarine.com/outlet/buy...ecordNum=8
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 01/12/18 - 6:02 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Why do you feel you need a second motor for fishing? As with all modern fuel-injected motors, your new 150 Fourstroke will use very little fuel at low speeds - from Whaler's site, it uses 0.5 GPH at 600 RPM at 2.4 knots. That sounds about perfect for fishing, and I am not sure the carburated 9.9 will use much less than that. Save your money and effort!
|
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/12/18 - 10:52 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Good point. Let's examine three things, one strictly personal and the other two more objective.
I feel sick to run a great 3.000 cc engine at a very low speed. I know that modern engines are designed to run either way, but my feeling remains. This is a very personal concern I am aware of.
The other two points concern duration of the engine and consumption.
During the season I run more than 100 hours at less than 1.000/1.200 revs. That means that my precious engine will show in a few years a lot of hours and it will loose value, without considering an increased maintenance.
Last point is about consumption (my calculation is in liters, 1 gallon is about 3,78 liters): let's say that between 600 and 1.000/1.200 revs the engine takes in average about 6 liters per hour, or 600 liters per season.
Since petrol here in Italy is expensive (>1,7 Euro per liter) I am going to spend 1,7 Euro x 100 hours x 6 liters/hour = more or less 1.000 Euros = 1.200 USA Dollars.
The little 9.9 shows a ridicoulus consumptiom, so taking into account point 2 and 3 I think I will (partially) offset the cost of the new engine in a very few years. And...about point 1, I'll be happy (and this has a great value!)
Finally you could ask why I bought a big engine when I spend most of my time trolling tuna or other fishes. The answer is that my boat came with a Mercury 115 already installed and came at a very good price from the dealer.
Problem is that the 115 blew after 29 hours. Mercury did not accept to replace the whole engine, as I expected, so they replaced the block. But once repaired the engine was not the same as before, so I switched to 150 seeking better torque (btw Mercury replaced the 115 line in short).
So....you can agree or not agree, but discussion is often helpful.
Edited by JackMuffin on 01/12/18 - 3:28 PM |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 5:38 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Jackmuffin,
I can understand your reasoning. To a certain extent, it is a matter of personal peference and circumstances of use/operation. We've had some members add a small "kicker" engine for the same reasons as yours, and others who operate near hazardous waters (such as rapids or dams) or in remote areas who want a back-up/emergency engine "just in case."
In my case, I have an old 150 HP 2-stroke engine that is not very efficient and smokes a lot at idle/trolling speeds. I am considering adding a "kicker" for more efficient trolling, and as a back-up engine. (My boat is a 1992 19 Outrage II.)
The sale that West Marine is having this weekend on those Garelick brackets is a very good deal. They will ship to you overseas. They have 3-models for 4-stroke engines, 9-inch, 11-inch, and 15-inch lift. The 9-inch lift is only $125 on sale through January 15.
I am pretty sure the 9-inch or 11-inch lift is more than adequate for your Montauk 190. (The 15-inch lift is probably more appropriate for a sailboat using a long leg kicker engine.)
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 7:58 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Jackmuffun,
I happened to be at my local West Marine this morning and glanced at those Garelick outboard brackets. I'm afraid I have to withdraw my recommendation.
They are very nicely made brackets, but I believe they are much too large for a boat our size. After studying them, and some other options there, my feeling is a compact, fixed bracket would be more appropriate for the amount of area you have available on your transom, and the size of kicker engine you plan to use.
Hopefully either Boston Whaler or someone else here can make a suggestion in that respect. Good luck and please let us know what solution you choose.
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 9:37 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Thank you JRP. As I have downloaded the drawing I will check the size of the bracket against the room I have on the boat.
Since my boat is now at near 200 miles or so from my house, I will check against the drawing of the transom http://www.bostonwhaler.com/boat-ownership/resources/
Than I'll post my considerations.
It is funny that I am the only guy on this big forum who wants to install a 9.9 Mercury on a common boat like mine!
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 2:58 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Jack, it's certainly up to you, but your math is off - from Whaler's performance data, a 150 Four Stroke used 0.5 gallons per hour at 600 RPM and 0.8 gallons per hour at 1000 RPM - that is 1.89 and 3.02 litres per hour, not the 6 litres you used in your calculations. I would not be at all surprised to find that the fuel consumption of the 9.9 is about the same.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 3:17 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11430
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
JackMuffin wrote:
It is funny that I am the only guy on this big forum who wants to install a 9.9 Mercury on a common boat like mine!
I had a kicker on almost all my Whalers as I agree with you about not putting the hours on a powerful expensive main motor.
See this article:
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=48
and my current and prior Whalers:
http://users.sisqtel.net/~jkriz/whale...alers.html
I used to troll all day long for Salmon several weeks a year. Hardly ever used the main 150hp motor.
Also boated in very remote large lakes and would never consider not having a kicker or backup motor back then.
No GPS or Cell phones or even Cell phone coverage was even scarce in many remote areas.
Here is a stationary Garelick mounting bracket that works for the newer Whalers. Might work for yours.
http://www.garelick.com/Eez-In-Statio...or-Bracket
Here is the Garelick mounted on a newer 170 Montauk.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=11649
|
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 3:51 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Carom: the 6 liters per hour is not my guess, but what is reported on the Mercury gauge.
In knots, I troll at about +/- 4.5 knots per hour. Everything obviously is more or less, much depending on sea conditions, wind, currents and so on, but, again I read 6 liters per hour.
On the other way, I like to keep my tank full, so I refuel very often and, while I never take note of the liters, I well remember the Euros I spend!
|
| |
|
|
| JackMuffin |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 3:53 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 31
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/21/13
|
Joe: thanks a lot for your info.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 3:58 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11430
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Here is another article I also wanted to include.
It is on a newer Outrage 17 II with a Tanner bracket.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...cle_id=111
Might give you more ideas.
Here is a shot of my prior Outrage 22' Cuddy with 25hp kicker.
http://users.sisqtel.net/~jkriz/Outra...rage22.jpg
Edited by Joe Kriz on 01/13/18 - 4:02 PM |
| |
|
|
| butchdavis |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 4:14 PM
|
Member
Posts: 825
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/22/11
|
There may a good reason to use a "long leg" Mercury engine even if you could get along without one. On the six cylinder Mercury Verados in particular if an operator inadvertently shifts from forward to reverse while moving forward at even a moderate speed the engine can ingest sea water resulting in catastrophic engine failure. The long leg engines seem less inclined to have it happen. I have not read about the same problem plaguing the Four Stroke Mercury 150.
With electronic shift and throttle it is very easy to shift to reverse when intending to shift to neutral, especially when trying to slow quickly to avoid a large wake or other hazard.
Butch |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 4:15 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Joe,
Do you happen to know the recommended length for the kicker motor for a boat such as my 1992 19 Outrage II and/or Jackmuffin's Montauk 190? Is it 20" or 25"? (Assuming use of the fixed Garelick bracket or similar.) In my case (and I believe Jackmuffin's as well), the kicker would be mounted farther outboard than it would have been on the earlier Outrage 18's transom. Thanks.
Edited by JRP on 01/13/18 - 4:17 PM
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 4:25 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
I just came across this photo of a Montauk 170 with a fixed kicker bracket:
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=35629
Also, Joe, I noticed that your 1997 17 Outrage II (http://users.sisqtel.net/~jkriz/Outra...age17.html) looks like it had the Garelick bracket (or similar) with vertical lift, rather than a fixed bracket. What are your thoughts on this arrangment?
Edited by JRP on 01/13/18 - 4:25 PM
19 Outrage II (1992) |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 01/13/18 - 5:21 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11430
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
JRP.
That bracket was on the boat when I bought it.
I hate those knuckle busting adjustable brackets.
Either right on the transom if you can or the stationary bracket.
The adjustable brackets bounce too much when either trailering or on the water. I would avoid those if at all possible.
|
| |
|
