Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
This thread will document my replacement of the original fuel tank on my 1995 24 Outrage. The project is not a big one, I thought, but pulling the tank was not easy. It was a pain getting out the old tank. I did it all alone and on my drive way.
I had a very hard time getting the deck up. I used 3M4200 to put it down last time I had it up. Wow it was glued down like you would not believe. I used Debond around the deck with pressure on it with a 4x4 across the gunwale. And was able to get it off. It took a full day of waiting for Debond to work. That stuff is $30 a can but worth every penny.
What I didn't know is that the tank extended beyond the deck so I had to remove transom splashwell deck also. Which was much easier than the main deck.
Once both decks where off I used a pressure washer to cut the foam on the sides. Once it had the foam cut away I still had a solid stuck tank in the deck. With some research I was given the idea of while pressure was on the tank lifting the tank, using a prybar and 2x4 to pry the sides until it cracked loose.
To get the tank out I lifted it up and cut into4 sections and tossed each out. This took 1 full day. And I bought a new Dewalt Saws-all and a bunch of blade. I love Dewalt tools.
Now that it is all out I used the pressure washer to remove the rest of the foam and pressure wash the tank cavity. To cut the foam I used a 0 degree bit on the pressure washer.
As always, I am just in awe of the quality of Boston Whaler construction. Under the splash deck and inside the tank cavity the gelcoat is all clean. I love working on Boston Whaler boats because time spent working is rewarded by seeing the builder's craftsmanship. The boat is designed to be worked on. They put lot of thought into this design to make it easier to do repairs.
Archie
I had a very hard time getting the deck up. I used 3M4200 to put it down last time I had it up. Wow it was glued down like you would not believe. I used Debond around the deck with pressure on it with a 4x4 across the gunwale. And was able to get it off. It took a full day of waiting for Debond to work. That stuff is $30 a can but worth every penny.
What I didn't know is that the tank extended beyond the deck so I had to remove transom splashwell deck also. Which was much easier than the main deck.
Once both decks where off I used a pressure washer to cut the foam on the sides. Once it had the foam cut away I still had a solid stuck tank in the deck. With some research I was given the idea of while pressure was on the tank lifting the tank, using a prybar and 2x4 to pry the sides until it cracked loose.
To get the tank out I lifted it up and cut into4 sections and tossed each out. This took 1 full day. And I bought a new Dewalt Saws-all and a bunch of blade. I love Dewalt tools.
Now that it is all out I used the pressure washer to remove the rest of the foam and pressure wash the tank cavity. To cut the foam I used a 0 degree bit on the pressure washer.
As always, I am just in awe of the quality of Boston Whaler construction. Under the splash deck and inside the tank cavity the gelcoat is all clean. I love working on Boston Whaler boats because time spent working is rewarded by seeing the builder's craftsmanship. The boat is designed to be worked on. They put lot of thought into this design to make it easier to do repairs.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
How did you cut up the tank without blowing yourself up?
Not a joke, I am curious as it is a dangerous thing to do.
Not a joke, I am curious as it is a dangerous thing to do.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall(for sale cheap).
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
[To remove fuel from the old tank] I used a brass tube connected to fuel hoses and connected to a automotive fuel pump. The pump emptied the fuel tank. I did this a good while ago. I was hoping [the old fuel tank] would just have water in it. But it was bone dry when I cut into it.
It was extremely windy on the day when I started on the project, so I didn't need a fan [to disperse gasoline fumes]. I drilled a big hole in the back of the old fuel tank. I didn't smell [gasoline] fumes. I used a sheet metal bit and went slow on the drill. No gasoline fuel smell. I cut across the back, still no smell. So I drilled more holes and cutout a square panel.
The tank was completely dry on the inside. Again it was very windy and if [I had] smelled gasoline fumes I would have stopped.
Plan B was to use an air grinder to cut, suck out any remaining fuel, and then let the fuel tank air dry.
One reason [the fuel tank] was empty was the corrosion in the very [aft] of the tank. I cleaned out the [the boat by] filling the bilge full of soapy water and draining. I did this several times. Soapy water probably leaked back into the tank and then drained out again.
I did a lot of research on thehulltruth.com before doing this.
Archie
It was extremely windy on the day when I started on the project, so I didn't need a fan [to disperse gasoline fumes]. I drilled a big hole in the back of the old fuel tank. I didn't smell [gasoline] fumes. I used a sheet metal bit and went slow on the drill. No gasoline fuel smell. I cut across the back, still no smell. So I drilled more holes and cutout a square panel.
The tank was completely dry on the inside. Again it was very windy and if [I had] smelled gasoline fumes I would have stopped.
Plan B was to use an air grinder to cut, suck out any remaining fuel, and then let the fuel tank air dry.
One reason [the fuel tank] was empty was the corrosion in the very [aft] of the tank. I cleaned out the [the boat by] filling the bilge full of soapy water and draining. I did this several times. Soapy water probably leaked back into the tank and then drained out again.
I did a lot of research on thehulltruth.com before doing this.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Archie--be careful with the power washer. You can blow the gelcoat right off the fiberglass as well as force water into any nook or cranny.
There really isn't a use for any adhesive on a Boston Whaler unless you are adhering something.
The deck seam should be sealed with a marine sealant.
Are you blocking the new tank or just foaming in the corners?
There really isn't a use for any adhesive on a Boston Whaler unless you are adhering something.
The deck seam should be sealed with a marine sealant.
Are you blocking the new tank or just foaming in the corners?
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
[The new tank] is a 111-gallon Moeller. The side angles matches the tank that came out. This also matches the cavity bottom angle., and the new tank filler lines up with the deck plates. Thank god for all that matching up.
Original plan of building a shelf is not needed. The bottom of the tank locker is actually flat. So I am going to build up with cut [rubber] mats. The whole tank will sit on rubber mats.
The installation plan is to let the tank sit against the rear bulkhead against rubber mats. Four aluminum flat strip hold downs will go on top of the tank. They also will have rubber under them.
Poly tanks will swell when they have fuel in them. The last bracket that screws into the front of the tank that will be installed after I put fuel in the tank. Then the deck will go back on.
I think the hard part is over. I have installed tanks before in Boston Whaler boats, so I hope things will get better. Cutting that tank up sucked. I wish I had taken a picture of the lift set up. It consisted of eight 4x4's, wood blocks, two concrete blocks on end, and a cable crank lift.
Archie
Original plan of building a shelf is not needed. The bottom of the tank locker is actually flat. So I am going to build up with cut [rubber] mats. The whole tank will sit on rubber mats.
The installation plan is to let the tank sit against the rear bulkhead against rubber mats. Four aluminum flat strip hold downs will go on top of the tank. They also will have rubber under them.
Poly tanks will swell when they have fuel in them. The last bracket that screws into the front of the tank that will be installed after I put fuel in the tank. Then the deck will go back on.
I think the hard part is over. I have installed tanks before in Boston Whaler boats, so I hope things will get better. Cutting that tank up sucked. I wish I had taken a picture of the lift set up. It consisted of eight 4x4's, wood blocks, two concrete blocks on end, and a cable crank lift.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
I put 10-gallons of no-ethanol fuel [into the fuel tank] to help the fuel tank expand before I secure it. The boat will never get ethanol-gasoline blended fuel again.
I flushed out the old gasoline. I primed the fuel lines and reconnected. Then I ran the engine off the new tank to test everything. That Yamaha really liked the no-ethanol gasoline fuel.
Regarding pulling the new fuel filler hose through the boat to replace the old hose: I bought 1-1/2-inch straight male male nipple and pushed the old and new hose together on it and then duck taped them together. Then sprayed it with Teflon lubricant.
I tried pulling the old hose through the boat from the filler cap side and it would not budge. It was locking up up somewhere, but I was able to push in the new hose and push out the old hose. This is the first time to ever to install the new hose by pushing in instead of pulling out. It was a little tricky.
Next task: strap in the new fuel tank.
Archie
I flushed out the old gasoline. I primed the fuel lines and reconnected. Then I ran the engine off the new tank to test everything. That Yamaha really liked the no-ethanol gasoline fuel.
Regarding pulling the new fuel filler hose through the boat to replace the old hose: I bought 1-1/2-inch straight male male nipple and pushed the old and new hose together on it and then duck taped them together. Then sprayed it with Teflon lubricant.
I tried pulling the old hose through the boat from the filler cap side and it would not budge. It was locking up up somewhere, but I was able to push in the new hose and push out the old hose. This is the first time to ever to install the new hose by pushing in instead of pulling out. It was a little tricky.
Next task: strap in the new fuel tank.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
I have edited this thread to give identifiers and captions to all the illustrations, and also rotated all the images to their correct orientation.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
I had a very hard time getting the deck up. I used 3M4200 to put it down last time I had it up.
The 3M4200 is a very strong adhesive-sealant. To seal a removable deck section, you should just use a marine-grade sealant, not a powerful adhesive--as you discovered.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Yeah the 4200 was a big mistake. It didn't realize how strong it was, but it is right up there with 5200. Going back with Boatlife Lifeseal to seal the deck and will only use it on the edge and screws.
Archie
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Did you have to cut the original fuel tank into pieces in order to remove it?
It looks like you cut off the entire top of the original fuel tank. Was that done while the tank was still in place in the fuel tank cavity in the boat?
It looks like you cut off the entire top of the original fuel tank. Was that done while the tank was still in place in the fuel tank cavity in the boat?
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Yes I cut the tank up in the boat to be able to remove it. The tank weight was 200-lbs. I use a 4x4 across the gunwale with a cable winch and lifted the tank up; then I cut it up while up in the air. The tank was completely dry with no fuel or fumes in it .
I cut the top off of the tank to help me lift it up to drop it over the side of the boat and it removed weight because each piece was like 30 to 40-lbs. The tank was cut up into four sections.
Archie
I cut the top off of the tank to help me lift it up to drop it over the side of the boat and it removed weight because each piece was like 30 to 40-lbs. The tank was cut up into four sections.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
ARCH--your explanation makes perfect sense. I did not think about the difficulty in wrestling a 200-lbs fuel tank out of the cavity unassisted. And once the old fuel tank is out of the boat, I presume its worth is then only as scrap aluminum, so the cutting would not affect the residual value.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Not shown are rubber mats on the sides, below, and behind the fuel tank, and on the starboard wall that the tank will rest against. The new fuel tank touches only rubber mats on all sides.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
I got the 1995 OUTRAGE 24 buttoned up with deck back on. Putting it all back together is sort of anticlimactic.
I hooked up an 8-AWG grounding or bonding wire to the tank and to the fuel fill, and connected it to the negative pole of the battery, which is directly connected to the outboard. This is the engine battery, not house the house battery, but both batteries are connected together with a large battery cable.
I got all the batteries back in the console and all battery cables are hooked back up.
The rear deck and the main deck are all sealed down with 5200--haha just joking after all the trouble I had 4200. Big mistake 4200 is an extremely strong adhesive. That deck was hard to get up. I used Boatlife LifeSeal for all screws and seam seal going around for the reinstall. I love BoatLife. It is great stuff. It is very easy to use, holds it position, and doesn't sag like 4200.
Now I need to test run the engine in the tank again and give the boat a thorough cleaning.
Since I have a gasoline station five minutes from my house with Ethanol-free 92 octane, the new fuel tank will never get Ethanol in it.
Archie
I hooked up an 8-AWG grounding or bonding wire to the tank and to the fuel fill, and connected it to the negative pole of the battery, which is directly connected to the outboard. This is the engine battery, not house the house battery, but both batteries are connected together with a large battery cable.
I got all the batteries back in the console and all battery cables are hooked back up.
The rear deck and the main deck are all sealed down with 5200--haha just joking after all the trouble I had 4200. Big mistake 4200 is an extremely strong adhesive. That deck was hard to get up. I used Boatlife LifeSeal for all screws and seam seal going around for the reinstall. I love BoatLife. It is great stuff. It is very easy to use, holds it position, and doesn't sag like 4200.
Now I need to test run the engine in the tank again and give the boat a thorough cleaning.
Since I have a gasoline station five minutes from my house with Ethanol-free 92 octane, the new fuel tank will never get Ethanol in it.
Archie
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
How did you bond an electrical conductor to the plastic tank? I assume the plastic tank is not conductive.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
The tank had four nuts embedded into the tank on the front. These were originally installed for a mounting bracket, which I did not need to use. I use a 10-24 machine screw to attach the wire. Even though the tank is not conductive static electricity can build up on it.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
If you have a good Ohmmeter, you might try measuring the resistance from one embedded nut to another one nearby. I would expect the resistance would be very high.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
[If a fuel tank is non-conductive] then why are we supposed to fill portable poly fuel tanks on the ground instead of filling in the back of the truck?
What about static when you rub a rubber balloon on your head. Static can build up on plastic.
Moeller said to do this on their install instructions--it can't hurt.
What about static when you rub a rubber balloon on your head. Static can build up on plastic.
Moeller said to do this on their install instructions--it can't hurt.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Arch--you will have to ask your questions to the person that told you to move the tank to the ground. I don't think your large new fuel tank can be easily moved off the boat for fueling.
I realize that now the tank cavity deck cover is back in place and sealed, it may be impossible for your to easily perform the resistance measurement between the embedded metal nuts on the fuel tank I suggested. Please disregard that suggestion.
For help understanding static electricity see
Triboelectric effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect
If further discussion about bonding of the fuel system is desired, let us start a new thread on that topic.
I realize that now the tank cavity deck cover is back in place and sealed, it may be impossible for your to easily perform the resistance measurement between the embedded metal nuts on the fuel tank I suggested. Please disregard that suggestion.
For help understanding static electricity see
Triboelectric effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect
If further discussion about bonding of the fuel system is desired, let us start a new thread on that topic.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Good to see you were successful in replacing your tank and nice job.
Why did you opt to go with a smaller 110-gallon fuel tank compared to the 195-gallon original fuel tank?
I also have a 24 Outrage, and I often wonder about fuel tank replacement.
When and how do you realize the 24 OUTRAGE fuel tank needed replacement?
Thanks--John
Why did you opt to go with a smaller 110-gallon fuel tank compared to the 195-gallon original fuel tank?
I also have a 24 Outrage, and I often wonder about fuel tank replacement.
When and how do you realize the 24 OUTRAGE fuel tank needed replacement?
Thanks--John
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
John--fuel in the bilge was the big sign the OUTRAGE 24 had a hole in the fuel tank.
For my use this 110-gallon fuel tank helps to keep the fuel fresh and turned over.
In 1995 outboard engines had terrible fuel mileage compared to modern outboards.
The modern Boston Whaler model closest to the 1995 OUTRAGE 24 in size and engine power is probably the 2020 230 Outrage; it has a 110-gallon tank.
For my use this 110-gallon fuel tank helps to keep the fuel fresh and turned over.
In 1995 outboard engines had terrible fuel mileage compared to modern outboards.
The modern Boston Whaler model closest to the 1995 OUTRAGE 24 in size and engine power is probably the 2020 230 Outrage; it has a 110-gallon tank.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Archie--I agree [with your decision to reduce the fuel tank volume to 110-gallons on your 24 OUTRAGE when you replaced the fuel tank]. I rarely have occasion to use all the range provided by the full-tank volume of fuel on my 24 OUTRAGE boat.
I am glad to see you’ve gotten everything buttoned-up, and your boat looks great. Your post gives me confidence in tackling the same job when it arises for me.
Also to your point: when you really dig into the Boston Whaler boats the craftsmanship and attention to detail they took when building these boats is nice to see. These Boston Whaler boats will truly last a lifetime with routine maintenance.
I truly enjoy my Outrage 24 as it is a perfect size for our needs.
I am glad to see you’ve gotten everything buttoned-up, and your boat looks great. Your post gives me confidence in tackling the same job when it arises for me.
Also to your point: when you really dig into the Boston Whaler boats the craftsmanship and attention to detail they took when building these boats is nice to see. These Boston Whaler boats will truly last a lifetime with routine maintenance.
I truly enjoy my Outrage 24 as it is a perfect size for our needs.
Re: Replacing fuel tank in 1995 24 Outrage
Mentioned briefly in the above discussion is the size of the fuel tank on a 1995 24 OUTRAGE. The OEM fuel tank had a capacity of 195-gallons. By reducing the fuel tank to 110-gallons, there was a reduction of 85-gallons or 85/195 = 0.43 or 43-percent.
In assessing the reduced fuel capacity, there are two influences that support the decision. First, the boat is only rigged with 250-HP, not the maximum 400-HP permitted. We can compare the fuel tank full capacity to engine power:
The tank volume change in terms of gallons-per-horsepower was 0.0475-gallon-per-1-HP. This is a 9.7-percent reduction on the basis of gallon-per-1-HP, and not the 43-percent reduction if only tank volume is considered.
A significant additional consideration is the improved fuel economy of a modern engine compared to a c. 1995 outboard with carburetors or simple throttle-body fuel injection. A general figure for fuel use per horsepower is called the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption rate, which is usually express in terms of lbs/HP-hour. At full throttle an older engine would often consume 0.6-lbs/HP-hour of gasoline fuel. A modern engine at full throttle will consume more like 0.5-lbs/HP-hour. This 0.1-lbs/HP-hour reduction is a 17-percent decrease in fuel consumption rate.
Now we can estimate the reduction in fuel used by a modern 250-HP compared to two older 400-HP engines.
We see that the combination of modern 250-HP engine and 110-gallon tank improves operating time by a factor of 5.5/5.1= 1.08
To find range, we need to assess the influence on boat speed of the reduction to 250-HP from 400-HP. Boat speed is in proportion to power to weight ratio to the 0.5 exponent. If power is reduced by a ratio of 250/400, the speed is reduced by a factor of 0.79 (if weight change is ignored). If we factor in a five-percent weight reduction the speed reduction with 250-HP becomes only 0.81 Therefore we must factor the range for the 250-HP engine rigging with a factor of 0.81.
Now we combined the two factors, time and speed, to find range. If x were the original range with 400-HP and 195-gallons, then the range with 250-HP and 110-gallons will be 1.08 × 0.81 = 0.87 reduction
Considering the reduced horsepower used on the boat under discussion and the improvement if fuel economy of the modern engine, it appears that changing to a 110-gallon capacity tank from the original 195-gallon capacity tank and using a modern 250-HP will not change the boat's range very much compared to the range of the original 400-HP and 195-gallon rigging. The decrease in range should be only on the order of 0.87 or about 13-percent.
Finally, an additional consideration will be improvement in performance in both speed and fuel economy that occurs by removing the weight of 85-gallons of gasoline fuel at 6.25-lbs/gallon, for about 530-lbs of fuel. This very significant weight reduction will probably produce better performance and fuel economy and make up for the minor loss in range computed above.
In assessing the reduced fuel capacity, there are two influences that support the decision. First, the boat is only rigged with 250-HP, not the maximum 400-HP permitted. We can compare the fuel tank full capacity to engine power:
OEM: 195-gallons, 400-HP for 0.4875-gallons-per-1-HP
MODIFIED: 110-gallons, 250-HP for 0.44-gallons-per-1-HP
The tank volume change in terms of gallons-per-horsepower was 0.0475-gallon-per-1-HP. This is a 9.7-percent reduction on the basis of gallon-per-1-HP, and not the 43-percent reduction if only tank volume is considered.
A significant additional consideration is the improved fuel economy of a modern engine compared to a c. 1995 outboard with carburetors or simple throttle-body fuel injection. A general figure for fuel use per horsepower is called the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption rate, which is usually express in terms of lbs/HP-hour. At full throttle an older engine would often consume 0.6-lbs/HP-hour of gasoline fuel. A modern engine at full throttle will consume more like 0.5-lbs/HP-hour. This 0.1-lbs/HP-hour reduction is a 17-percent decrease in fuel consumption rate.
Now we can estimate the reduction in fuel used by a modern 250-HP compared to two older 400-HP engines.
400-HP engines:
Fuel burn =400-HP × 0.6-lbs/HP-hour
GPH= 240-lbs/hour × 1-gallon/6.25-lbs
GPH= 38.4-gallon/hour
150-HP engine:
Fuel burn = 250-HP × 0.5-lbs/HP-hour
GPH = 125-lbs/hour × 1-gallon/6.25-lbs
GPH = 20-gallon/hour
We can compute the operating time available with 195 and 110-gallons:
400-HP engine: 195-gallons × 1-hour/38.4-gallons = 5.1-hours
250-HP engine: 110-gallons × 1-hour/20-gallons = 5.5-hours
We see that the combination of modern 250-HP engine and 110-gallon tank improves operating time by a factor of 5.5/5.1= 1.08
To find range, we need to assess the influence on boat speed of the reduction to 250-HP from 400-HP. Boat speed is in proportion to power to weight ratio to the 0.5 exponent. If power is reduced by a ratio of 250/400, the speed is reduced by a factor of 0.79 (if weight change is ignored). If we factor in a five-percent weight reduction the speed reduction with 250-HP becomes only 0.81 Therefore we must factor the range for the 250-HP engine rigging with a factor of 0.81.
Now we combined the two factors, time and speed, to find range. If x were the original range with 400-HP and 195-gallons, then the range with 250-HP and 110-gallons will be 1.08 × 0.81 = 0.87 reduction
Considering the reduced horsepower used on the boat under discussion and the improvement if fuel economy of the modern engine, it appears that changing to a 110-gallon capacity tank from the original 195-gallon capacity tank and using a modern 250-HP will not change the boat's range very much compared to the range of the original 400-HP and 195-gallon rigging. The decrease in range should be only on the order of 0.87 or about 13-percent.
Finally, an additional consideration will be improvement in performance in both speed and fuel economy that occurs by removing the weight of 85-gallons of gasoline fuel at 6.25-lbs/gallon, for about 530-lbs of fuel. This very significant weight reduction will probably produce better performance and fuel economy and make up for the minor loss in range computed above.