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.

New outboards won't fit my 1966 Nauset
Bachus12345	#1  Posted on 04/19/08 - 5:01 AM
Member Posts: 7 Comments: 0 Joined: 03/23/08	I have a 1966 Nauset all restored and I am finding that most new engines have a mounting bolt hole pattern that will not fit on my transom? The highest top hole will fit but the bottom hole needs to come up high enough to get inside the transom well. If I slide the engine up very high and use the 3rd hole in the top mounting set and get the bottom hole to come up into the well area then the motor is too high out of the water and the cavitation plate location is wrong. What engines bolt on to a 1966 hull with out any of this non-sense? I had a 1967 Chrysler on it but after the restoration we filled in all the old holes so it's time to drill for a new engine. What do people do? Edited by Tom W Clark on 04/19/08 - 8:47 AM
Davidk	#2  Posted on 04/19/08 - 5:42 AM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	Search my posts on this. It seemed there were alot of oppinion but very few with experience (I also refer to the other Whaler web site). I just went through this on my 1963 Nauset. The old engine was an original Johnson 75. The bottom holes are just above the edge of the slash well. They are also a different distance apart than what is standard now. Mercs and Hondas will not fit without major modification. I don't know about E-Tecs since I don't have any dealers close by. Suzuki apparently works (there is another owner on this site that did one....but I don't want to speak for him on how well it worked). I went with a 2001 Yamaha 4 stroke 100HP. Yamaha bolted up without ANY modification. The original (non-standard---- to todays standards) transom holes matched up with the engine mount. Yamaha has an extra set of holes in the mount that others don't. On SOME new Yamahas the bolt hole was eliminated in blace of a "blind hole" meaning that you can't through bolt it, you have to run a bolt from the inside of the boat and screw it into the engine mount (if that makes sense). The Yamaha lines up nicely on the hull. It must be sitting in the right place because I'm getting 46 MPH on GPS. Contact me direct if you want pics or greater information.
cyclops	#3  Posted on 04/19/08 - 7:07 AM
Member Posts: 26 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/11/06	I used a setback bracket on my 1967 Eastport as a solution. You can see pictures of it on my personal page.
Tom W Clark	#4  Posted on 04/19/08 - 8:51 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	This is a frequently asked question. There are at least four different ways to deal with this, the simplest is to mount the motor using the second or third hole on the upper motor bracket and the highest holes on the lower portion of the bracket. This will NOT necessarily leave the motor mounted too high if you use a suitable propeller. You will also have the added benefit of improved boat performance. Blind hole mounting (with OMC and Yamaha brands,) jack plates, set back brackets, lag bolts, imbedded studs are all perfectly acceptable methods of dealing with this situation as well. Edited by Tom W Clark on 04/19/08 - 8:52 AM
Davidk	#5  Posted on 04/19/08 - 2:36 PM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	Tom...not to be argumentative, but I know that on the Mercs, if you try to use those other holes, you will likely find they don't match the existing holes in the hull. While this can be rectified with additional fiberglass and drilling, you end up with and engine that is sitting above the transom and you still have to re-drill. I'm certain this is acceptable for some. It wasn't the solution I was looking for. No matter what, the engines I metioned as "won't fit" are engines where the existing mount holes do not line up with the existing transom holes. I agree that a jack plate is an alternative....here's the down sides: 1) Engine set back "may" have an effect one doesn't want on the boat handling. 2) Most jack plates do not have enough spare metal to drill new holes in the plate to match up with the existing transom holes. 3) A buyer will get no support from a jack plate manufacturer once you tell them you re-drilled their plate. Again, Yamaha is a direct bolt up and Suzuki appears to be as well.
Joe Kriz	#6  Posted on 04/19/08 - 2:56 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11434 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	It was fairly common practice back then to use the blind mounting holes on many of the installations of outboard motors on Whalers. The engine was mounted all the way down and no way to adjust the height of the engine due to using the blind holes. It wasn't that these engines didn't have the standard mounting holes like all the rest of the engines, it was because of the splashwell on certain Whalers. The engine in my opinion and experience should be raised a couple of holes. On my prior Montauk, my engine was mounted too low and there was no way to raise it up without drilling 2 new holes and plugging the original 2 lower holes that were used in the engine bracket blind holes. A friend of mine has a 1996 Outrage 17' II.... For some odd reason, the engine was mounted using the blind holes. Whoever mounted this engine should have done a little research as you do not need to use the blind holes on this model Whaler. Now my friend cannot raise his engine and this desperately needs to be done as you cannot sit in the rear of the boat without getting soaked due to the spray from the cavitation plate. We are going to remedy this problem by filling the blind holes and drilling the correct lower holes so the engine can be raised or lowered properly. This should have been done this way originally. See this article on how to fill transom holes. http://www.whalercentral.com/readarti...icle_id=62 Filling two 1/2" holes is not that hard to do and the repaired holes might not even be seen depending on how high the engine is raised. I always wanted to do this to my Montauk but never got around to it.
Davidk	#7  Posted on 04/19/08 - 3:59 PM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	....and to be fair. Joe has a valid point in my installation. My engine can not be raised or lowered. I consider this the price one has to pay to not drill new holes in the transom. For me, it wasn't much of a price since I get 46 MPH (on GPS) and no adverse spray.
cyclops	#8  Posted on 04/19/08 - 5:30 PM
Member Posts: 26 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/11/06	Davidk Not really heard of the your downsides to a setback bracket before. My first hand observations are 1. Really like the etec 6" off the transom. I am in the process of installing the rear mahogany seat and have more room with the engine on the setback bracket. 2. Haven't noticed any adverse handling caused by the etec being on the bracket. Was told by my mechanic the outboard will be faster because it is in less turbulent water being set off the transom. Had a 70hp Johnson looper on the transom before the etec so really nothing to compare it to. 3. Don't know about other brackets but my CMC bracket seems way over built for the 90 hp. Redrilled it no problem with plenty of "metal" to spare. 4. Bought the CMC bracket from a friend of mine who used it for 5 years. So manufacturer support for whatever reason is not an issue for me. It was an easy decision for me since I didn't have to put more holes in my 40 year old transom.
Tom W Clark	#9  Posted on 04/19/08 - 10:32 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Davidk, I am not following you. All outboard manufacturers use a standard bolt hole pattern for their outboards. This has been standardized for over twenty years. Mercury uses the same bolt pattern as BRP, Yamaha, Suzuki and Honda. The bolt pattern used for the last twenty years was first used by OMC in the 1960. If an older boat had an outboard other than a Johnson or Evinrude that was from the 1960s or 1970s it is possible the bolt holes will not match up, but in that case, just fill the holes and drill new ones; they are not going to work with ANY outboard made today.
Bachus12345	#10  Posted on 04/20/08 - 6:20 AM
Member Posts: 7 Comments: 0 Joined: 03/23/08	I see a lot of jack plates here in South West Florida because of all of the shallow water....mostly flats boats have them for fishing the flats......they run at 50mph in 18" of water!!!! I don't want a jack-plate because I am doing a restoration of a 1966 vintage boat. I also don't want to spend another $300 for the unit and another $100 in wires and switches to make it function from the helm. I have seen a yahama with the taped and threaded socket on the mounting plate and I now know what you mean.......That is certainly an option...but I think this option has been done away with since I don't see it any more on any of the very new show room yamaha models. Two different mechanics told me to give up and buy a 1960's Merc...... Some others told me that I would have to drill the lower transom holes and screw in a stainless stud (lag thread on the transom end and machine thread on the motor end) and set this in 5200 adhesive!!!!!! That last option did not sound good......to me that would be wrecking the boat..... But I noticed in reading the chain of e-mails that some of you guys like that idea. Will the studs stay in place?
Davidk	#11  Posted on 04/20/08 - 7:24 AM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	First to Tom, then Bachus... Yes. All maunfactureres use a standard bolt pattern now. The difference being Yamaha (and apprently Suzuki) have an additional set of bolt holes that other manufacturers don't. I can say this for a fact. My unmodified 2001 Yamaha bolts onto my transom with no additional or new holes in either the transom or the engine mount. I have viewed new Yamahas and can say they are the same as my 2001. I have also studied the Mercs and Hondas. They do NOT have this additional mounting hole in the mounting bracket. Again, all the manufacturers have the required holes to meet the required mounting standard, but Yamaha (and apparently Suzuki) have an extra set of holes. To be specific, my 1963 Johnson 75HP had holes (as did the transom) for the lower mounting bolts that were 10-3/4" apart (+/- 1/16". The lower mounting holes were 6" below the upper holes. I have the original Johnson manual for my engine. It states that Johnson did this mounting configuration just for some unusual boats. As this post will already be long, I won't try to post all the specs on the "new" standard bolt patterns, but I am certain you can see that they are different from what I had. Bachus....I know there are more oppinions out there than you know what, but this should be an easy decision. I recommend you confirm what I have learned. Take the measurement of your transom, and go to your local dealers. Measure the mounts of the engines. You will find what I did. As much as I wanted to go with a Merc, since I have a great Merc dealer nearby, I couldn't pass the option of NOT modifying the transom. Yamaha and Suzuki. ...and for Cylcops. I think the next best solution would have been the jack plate, but when you look at the measurements I have to deal with, Most of the jack plates have too close a clearance to drill new holes. CMC indicated they would have nothing to do with a jack plate I re-drilled.
Tom W Clark	#12  Posted on 04/20/08 - 7:40 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Davidk, The extra set of holes you describe on your Yamaha are called "blind holes". They were first introduced by OMC exactly as you have described. Yamaha copied OMC's bolt pattern. Only if Bachus is buying a motor with these same blind holes, can he be able to make use of them. The problem with the blind holes is that once used, there is no vertical adjustment to the motor and in the old days the outboards put on Whalers were typically set as low as they would go. This is NOT where a modern motor wants to be mounted. It should to be mounted higher. The solution here is very simple: Fill the old holes and drill new ones. I do not see any good reason to be afraid of doing this. It is very easy to do and will cost very little. A little epoxy glue, a little gel coat patch paste and elbow grease and the transom will be restored to its new, undrilled condition. Then you can start fresh and mount the motor as it should be, 3/4" to 1-1/2" above the top of the transom. Edited by Tom W Clark on 04/20/08 - 7:42 AM
kamie	#13  Posted on 04/20/08 - 9:45 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Bachus12345, If you have filled the holes you can mount any engine you want. Take the engine mounting template and drill new holes? Don't use the same blind holes as your engine won't be adjustable. Adjustable engines allow you to run with the prop at the right height for best balance between speed and fuel economy. If you find that you need to use the bottom mounting holes on the top and the top of the bottom set you need a jackplate so you only do that once. You next engine may not have the additional adjustment. Not sure I understand the comment: I don't want a jack-plate because I am doing a restoration of a 1966 vintage boat. I also don't want to spend another $300 for the unit and another $100 in wires and switches to make it function from the helm. If you want to keep it an exact historical restoration then why put a new engine on the boat, put a 1966 outboard and use the blind holes. If your putting a new engine on the boat it is no longer historically accurate. There is also no need to spend any money to make the jackplate work from the helm unless your trying to be a bass boat and raise it high to run in really skinny water on the fly. A manual jackplate is almost set and forget once you get it dialed in for your boat and your motor. Once I get finish testing props on my 18, I will never touch the adjustment bolt on my jackplate as long as it's on the boat. T-H Marine Jackplate - $193 Rite-Hite - $295 Great folks to work with. I have an older model and they hunted around the warehouse for parts. They haven't made the model I have since the 90's
Davidk	#14  Posted on 04/20/08 - 10:03 AM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	Tom, I understand the "blind hole" issue as I stated in my earlier posts. Techincally, mine isn't a blind hole. it is just an additional hole. The new Yamahas now use a blind hole in place of an additional "standard" hole. Now I understand people want to dial in their boat to fit their preferences...but for what its worth...here's what I have going.... 1963 Nauset with a full wood casting platform and aft wood seating (extra weight). I'm carrying 18 gallons of fuel. One person on board. 2001 Yamaha 100 HP 4 stroke. (mounted all the way down, resting on the transom) No...the engine can not be raised or lowered.... I'm running WOT at 46 MPH on GPS AVERAGING: 1.5 gallons per hour (includes no wake time..but alot was at cruise and above) With numbers like that, I can't see ever wanting to raise or lower the engine. I don't want everybody to missunderstand me....I know there is more than one way to skin a cat. The original post was looking for solutions that did not require alot of "nonsense". In my oppinion, my solution requires the least amount of "nonsense". Its a strait bolt on. No fiberglassing, no jack plates, no re-drilling. Edited by Davidk on 04/20/08 - 6:11 PM
Tom W Clark	#15  Posted on 04/20/08 - 6:04 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Davidk, The performance of your boat sounds great. I certainly don't need to go any faster either. But given a clean slate, which is exactly where Bachus12345 is now with his transom ready to be drilled for new holes, why wouldn't you want a motor set at the best height and maybe get a little more speed and better fuel mileage out of it as well? In your case you're stuck where you are and that's fine. But this is Bachus12345's thread and my advice stands: use the NMMA standard layout with the lower holes raised 3/4" to 1-1/2" to clear the splashwell. By doing this, any motor in the future can be bolted up with no additional fooling around. If he uses a blind hole system, the motor will be too low and the next motor that goes on this boat will most likely require yet another fill/patch and re-drill to mount it. Edited by Tom W Clark on 04/20/08 - 6:05 PM
Davidk	#16  Posted on 04/20/08 - 6:19 PM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	First...Joe...Thanks. I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to edit one of my posts....and yet I never saw that "edit" tab. Second....Tom...'With respect'....No disagreement that it would be preferrable to have the adjustment available in the future. Mine set seems to be working just great, and I got the benefit of not having to re-drill the boat. Not a bad deal. The implication from Bachus' first post was that he preferred a sloution that did not require drilling. I was with that feeling myself. If my situation changes in the future, drilling is still an option. I guess what my posts come down to is.....Hey everybody---You don't HAVE to re-drill your boat. there is an alternative.
Tom W Clark	#17  Posted on 04/20/08 - 10:41 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Davidk, Bachus12345 states in his first post that during the restoration of his boat. the old holes were filled. I do not think there is any way he can now avoid drilling new holes. I am merely suggesting he drill to his greatest advantage. As to your second point, SOME may not have to drill new holes, but others WILL have to drill new holes. There is NOT always an alternative. If you do need to drill new holes, drill thoughtfully and you will not have to do it over later.
danedg	#18  Posted on 04/21/08 - 12:46 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 349 Comments: 6 Joined: 01/24/06	I got a closeup of the mounting pattern for a 2000 Suzuki DF 60. It looks like the 2 top holes lined up with the original 1963 Merc 65 holes...the bottom 2 did not....close...but no cigar.... danedg attached the following image: [50.91Kb]
Davidk	#19  Posted on 04/21/08 - 5:40 PM
Member Posts: 196 Comments: 1 Joined: 12/05/07	Tom...you are very right. ...I will snap a couple pics of mine when I get back to the boat and post them as well.
Tom W Clark	#20  Posted on 04/21/08 - 6:12 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	I was looking at my Montauk this afternoon. It has a modern 1993 Mercury 90 HP mounted on it just as danedg's motor is mounted on his Nauset. My boat originally had a Johnson on it mounted using the blind holes. When the boat was repowered in 1993 the installer used the SECOND set of upper bolt holes and then used the top set of lower bolt holes. This results in the motor mounted 3/4" - 7/8" above the transom, which is as low as I would ever mount it. To clear the splashwell the installer angled the lower mounting bolts upward at an angle. This works fine but looks less than perfect. The lower washers are well above the bottom of the splashwell. Three different things could have been done differently: - The lower bolt holes could have been drilled with less of an angle and still made it into the splashwell. - The lower bolt holes could have been drilled perfectly perpendicular to the transom and the lower washers could have had some of them cut or ground off to produce a flat edge that would nest in the bottom of the splashwell. - The lower bolt holes could have been drilled perpendicular to the transom but 3/4" higher. Full washers could then have been used but the third set of upper holes would have to have been used resulting in the motor 1-1/2" above the transom. Either of those three scenarios would also be satisfactory to me. A good prop like the Stiletto Advantage I would have no trouble at all at the higher "two holes up" mounting position.