New Guy-first outboard?

[20mercman]

As for small motors, you now have several good suggestions. I have several of the motors mentioned, so I have some experience with them. I would also have to make a call for the 11 cubic inch Mercury motors. These are the 9.8 and 6hp versions. Later updated to 7.5 hp. These run like a dream, idle and troll well, and sip gas. The 9.8 may in fact to too powerful if you are alone and in a very light boat. Our 1963 9.8 with just my son Kevin in his 14′ car top Lund will do about 25 mph. My 1966 6hp is on of my go to fishing motors as it is just so nice to run and quiet. These motors are actually pretty simple to work on. You will need to make a tool to remove the bearing carrier if you need to reseal the lower unit, but not a deal breaker by any stretch. Aligning the shift shaft when reinstalling the lower unit is the biggest issue, and once you know what you are looking at, it usually goes on fairly easily. Most of these, 63 and later have the modern Phelon ignition system that usually only needs clean points to work. They also usually have a 3 gallon tank, so you don’t need a larger pressure tank in the boat. (The 4 gallon OMC pressure tank is a good trade off in you decide on a 5.5 hp. from the 50’s) It all comes down to what is in your budget and what is available at the time. Most of these motor choices can be picked up for reasonable prices, and with a good thorough going over, will deliver dependable service for a good long time.

Steve

[auldscott]

Lots of good ideas here, and based on knowledge. I’m going to respond directly to 1) your prior history of preferring human power; 2) your under 10 hp limit; 3) your being able to store the motor on the boat; 4) your interest in electric starting. I am a (small time) collector and a lifelong lover of the old motors, but unless cost were a primary factor, I would buy a later model electric start 9.9 4-stroke. (I have a 25 hp 4-stroke on my "everyday" boat.)

Four-strokes are heavy for their output but they do not smoke and are almost uncannily quiet and smooth at low speeds.

Electric starting: all you need is a motorcycle size battery, but you already have a larger battery for the electric motor.

Your 12 foot boat could handle the additional weight, but if you later upgrade to a beamy, deep 14 footer (e.g. a Starcraft Seafarer or a modern equivalent) you will gain a great deal of room and stability with little additional weight. You will probably also find that the 14 is just as fast, or faster, with the same load because of the additional planing surface. That has been my experience with the boats I run my old motors on.

[safj]

quote fleetwin:

quote FrankR:

In my not so humble opinion, the 1974-76 9.9/15hp motors are to be avoided. We had a terrible time trying to make them run when new.The factory couldn’t make them run either. They came out with several "fixes", none of which worked. OK, let the protests begin. I realize there are some out there running just fine. Just sayin…

BTW, they finally fixed the problem 1977-up, with electronic ignition.

Frank’s humble opinion is testimony to thousands of disappointed owners of these engines for sure. 74-76 9.9/15s should be avoided….

That period was crazy when it came to manufacturing anything it seems. Alright I’ll avoid those.

[safj]

quote auldscott:

Lots of good ideas here, and based on knowledge. I’m going to respond directly to 1) your prior history of preferring human power; 2) your under 10 hp limit; 3) your being able to store the motor on the boat; 4) your interest in electric starting. I am a (small time) collector and a lifelong lover of the old motors, but unless cost were a primary factor, I would buy a later model electric start 9.9 4-stroke. (I have a 25 hp 4-stroke on my “everyday” boat.)

Four-strokes are heavy for their output but they do not smoke and are almost uncannily quiet and smooth at low speeds.

Electric starting: all you need is a motorcycle size battery, but you already have a larger battery for the electric motor.

Your 12 foot boat could handle the additional weight, but if you later upgrade to a beamy, deep 14 footer (e.g. a Starcraft Seafarer or a modern equivalent) you will gain a great deal of room and stability with little additional weight. You will probably also find that the 14 is just as fast, or faster, with the same load because of the additional planing surface. That has been my experience with the boats I run my old motors on.

The smoke and the noise would be a factor for me/us when the wife is with me. So that would be hard to determine in a used 2 stoke boat motor I assume?

Cost is a limiting factor, that’s one of the reasons why I’m here at AOMCI learning about old motors. Can’t afford the new and like things from the 1950’s or earlier. Although my vehicles are rather new being 1999’s.

[crosbyman]

cheap oil does stink and smoke a more than quality oils

In my earlier .. dark days I stuck to Mercury brand oil on my 4cyl. 50 and classic 50

If you only go out on occasion you can splurge on synthetic oils like ETEC xd100 bio degradable which smokes next to nothing… on my 75hp anyway

it is costly but not smelly…

it does not generate much carbon in fact it is suppose to clean the innards on a regular ETEC. I presume it would do the same on a 2 cyl
AMSOIL also make a syntec oil as well as othet manuf.

it is always best to keep the wife upwind anyway . 😉

Joining AOMCI has priviledges 🙂

[20mercman]

Another reason to look for a 50:1 motor like a Mercury or the later 50:1 rated OMC motors. I can run my small Mercury’s in my test drum, and still be able to see the bottom of the drum. When I run my Fleetwin in the same drum, it is full of oil in no time at all. (Don’t get me wrong, I love my 58 Fleetwin, but at the 16:1 range, it smokes significantly more than the Mercury.)
Steve

[outbdnut2]

On motors that old, Johnsons and Evinrudes were much quieter than Mercurys due to the muffler on the carb intake throat. On a 2-stroke engine, much of the noise comes out through the carb intake. Johnson/Evinrude used these mufflers on all models from about 1953 to 1958. In 1959, the one-piece fiberglass cover eliminated the need for the mufflers and these were quieter yet.
Dave

[20mercman]

quote outbdnut2:

On motors that old, Johnsons and Evinrudes were much quieter than Mercurys due to the muffler on the carb intake throat. On a 2-stroke engine, much of the noise comes out through the carb intake. Johnson/Evinrude used these mufflers on all models from about 1953 to 1958. In 1959, the one-piece fiberglass cover eliminated the need for the mufflers and these were quieter yet.
Dave

I was referring to the 1960’s Mercury 9.8 and 6hp motors. These are very quiet vs. the older Mark models. The full cowl hood traps significant amounts of sound and these are very user friendly motors. They are just as quiet as my 58 Fleetwin, which is also very quiet. As for larger motors, my FD-10 is significantly quieter than a Mk-25, so I agree with what you are saying from that vintage. The FD-10 is a 24:1 motor, and they also have more smoke than the Mercury. Different motors have different characteristics, both great motors.

Steve

[outbdnut2]

quote 20mercman:

I was referring to the 1960’s Mercury 9.8 and 6hp motors. These are very quiet vs. the older Mark models. The full cowl hood traps significant amounts of sound and these are very user friendly motors. They are just as quiet as my 58 Fleetwin, which is also very quiet. As for larger motors, my FD-10 is significantly quieter than a Mk-25, so I agree with what you are saying from that vintage. The FD-10 is a 24:1 motor, and they also have more smoke than the Mercury. Different motors have different characteristics, both great motors.

Steve

I agree the 1960s Mercs got quieter…..as long as the sound absorbing pad wasn’t tossed if the glue came loose – and these are easily re-glued.
Dave

[cheetahgod]

Clarke trollers are pretty small.

[Author]

Posts