Before Posting, Please Read Our Posting Guidelines Below.
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.
All I can say is, I love the 1992 50hp Evinrude on my 13' whaler. It great better sets about the same and even when I have rigged in it's fishing transformation, it still sets fine in the water.
My old 1982 35hp felt kinda like a dog average speed of about 23-25mph WOT regardless of all the props I tried (5).
The 50hp gives me excellent throttle joy as it responds instantly, the average speeds in original configuration (no fishing decks) is 40mph WOT, in it's heaviest rigged fishing version 37mph WOT.
I have noticed the boat doesn't seem to care whether 2 people or 4 are on board, it runs the same but with one person it screams.
I'm sure the haters will bark loud at some of this, but the motor just seems to fit the boat perfect. I like having the ability throttling back and still be getting somewhere whereas before that was not an option.
Of course this extra power works because of common sense and I'm not trying to break my boat in half just because it goes faster. It does make navigating rough lake water much funner and a lot easier.
1963 13' Sport 50hp Evinrude
Maintaining a level of sanity that is socially acceptable
Ted: True, but I do agree that the later iterations of 2 stroke outboards, late 80's through demise, were really getting pretty efficient and at that point, like wla pointed out, they were all rated at the prop. A 1997 Evinrude 50 had more power at the prop than a 1961 Evinrude, supposedly. As far as the environment goes, I remember my 1958 Evinrude Sportin Ten would always leave a nice sheen on the water at idle. My newer Johnson 20 and Yamaha 40 do not do this. Something else to keep in mind regarding "disasters from yesteryear", modern engines have the help of a computer to keep them running at optimum efficiency and cleanliness. They generally stay that way for a while. Properly tuned engines from the past can run clean as well. The difference is that people are generally ignorant or just lazy and they don't keep them tuned up properly. In an older engine, I am the computer that keeps it running efficient and clean. Obviously, technology has made engines more efficient and cleaner running, but A LOT of that is due to what I said.
Turp: That combination seems to be a very good one. I was talking to a guy yesterday who had an 85 Super Sport and he had a Johnson 50 on the back. He said he propped it down so that it doesn't have the dangerous top end speed, but it will haul Santa Claus up on skis with a loaded down boat. I hadn't thought of that idea. I've been looking around and low hour, clean OMC 50's fully loaded go for about $1400 around here. Maybe not having a lot of choice regarding new engines isn't so bad after all.
One thing I wouldn't mind doing though is comparing "racing if you will" two identical 13' sports, loaded and unloaded. One would have a 40hp ETEC or maybe Merc/Yam/Zuki against one with a 1990-2000 Johnson 40. I'd be curious to see if the 4 stroke torque curve offsets the weight. I still think a Johnson SPL 48 with a PT&T panther jackplate would be a tough to beat potent combo. Total weight with the plate around 195 for around $2000.00.
I've noticed that I don't mention older mercury motors much, I like them, I used to play with little hydros back when and we all used mercury because they were faster. The only issue with the older mercurys is SALT WATER. I've seen first-hand and read plenty about issues with older Mercury and corrosion. Anyone really know why?
So far, the only real advantage that keeps coming up regarding the newer engines is fuel efficiency. You get less power per pound and they cost 4 times what a late model engine costs. Are they REALLY that much more fuel efficient? I mean really. Sometimes I wonder if people say "man, I can run around all month on a tank of gas when before I was filling up weekly" to make themselves feel better after dropping $7000 on a 50 hp outboard. I just don't see how you could triple the fuel range of an engine between 2000 and 2015. And before someone tries to sell the 4 stroke tech, ETEC Evinrude owners claim the same thing. That's another real world test I'd like to do. Two identical 13's, one with a 2000 Johnson 50 and another with a 2015 Etec 50. 6 gallons of gas. See just how much longer the ETEC really runs. Thoughts?
Well, if you want to compare "today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors" against the old noisy, smoky, stinky, glacier melting pieces of crap most of us use on a daily basis I think that would be a great episode for Mythbusters. Of course I would want to choose the engine, prop and set up for the old piece of garbage, as well as outline the test criteria.
MG56 wrote:
Well, if you want to compare "today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors" against the old noisy, smoky, stinky, glacier melting pieces of crap most of us use on a daily basis I think that would be a great episode for Mythbusters. Of course I would want to choose the engine, prop and set up for the old piece of garbage, as well as outline the test criteria.
I think you are biased and your comments inappropriate.
Was talking to a guy at the fuel dock today who had a Wahoo 15 something or other, looked like a very nice 15 Super Sport clone. Anyway, he recently bought a new 4 stroke Suzuki , I think it was a 70. He said that his new engine had much more torque at a lower RPM than his last engine, an 89 Mercury 70. He said that the 2 stroke was like a high RPM race motor, great power but you had to wind it out to get it. His words exactly were, " this Suzuki pulls like a truck from idle on up". Torque is true power and can overcome weight in my opinion. Is there any truth to his statement? Are we trading high RPM power for low end torque? Any dyno tests anywhere? The angle I've been attacking has been the power to weight ratio advantage of the older engines. Is it possible that this isn't the whole picture? A solid torque curve could possibly overcome the weight penalty of the 4 strokes; though this does not affect the ETEC. It still doesn't help with the additional weight on the transom, but at least the performance might balance out.
I love how the old motors tend to be viewed or label as garbage/ junk yet they still get around with minimal issues.
I'm not a tree hugger nor do I invite that debate, I'd like to assist the original entry to this topic.
I also agree it's very comical to see the causal boater spend a load of money just to save a few dollars on gas. If they were someone who put hundreds of hours on the motor annual I'd understand but otherwise it's laughable.
Finding the slick deal on a motor reguires great patience and some luck. I waited and lurked for about 6yrs and then the deal of the century showed up, a complete boat,motor and trailer $350.
I completely gutted the boat of every stainless fastener and other possibly useful items and dumped it in the land fill. The trailer was in excellent shape and sets awaiting my next project boat.
The motor just needed a carb kit and a paint job.
Edited by Turpin on 06/09/15 - 8:57 PM
1963 13' Sport 50hp Evinrude
Maintaining a level of sanity that is socially acceptable
2 strokes generally produce more torque than 4 strokes. There has been some movement I the industry to make higher displacement 4 strokes motors (with relatively low Hp to CI) to even up the difference in torque.
When I bought my 15' I researched a bunch of the motor that may have been available (I like to research be prepared for purchases). I have never driven the 70hp Mercury but from what I read they often had problems with the pistons from running lean and they weren't the strongest 70hp (it was a relatively high strung design). The DF70 Suzuki is 340# and is a detuned 90 with just over 1.5L of displacement. I am not sure about the Mercury (I couldn't quickly find the spec on the mercury) but it has more than 60% more displacement than my 70hp 2 stroke evinrude. (91.7 CI vs 56.1 CI)
Dgood: that makes sense. I didn't realize the Suzuki was such a large engine compared to that older mercury. It would explain the perceived torque difference. Kind of like the old Buick Gran Sports with the 455, they had massive CID and lower rated HP compared to other makes, but they put down 510 lbs ft of torque. The torque combined with the right gearing was unbelievable. Think Diesel. Same theory. Those cubic inches would create an outboard that propped right, would haul the fat lady while singing.
I always thought that 2 strokes made more power pretty much everywhere which is why I questioned his statement in my head and brought it up here.
This direction of increasing cid, while good for power, doesn't help us classic 13 guys at all though.
Turk: Agreed, see my post above about keeping them in tune though. Your typical "bass pro financed Tahoe owner" doesn't know or care about the mechanics and tuning of their outboard. Generally, they want to buy, use, put away their boat. Computer controlled, modern engines have for the most part evolved to this. And I think it's a good thing. Lower maintenance and more time to use it. The penalty has been weight weight weight. Like I said before, build me a new 50 HP, 20" PT&T outboard that weighs less than 180 and I'll buy it tomorrow.
MG56 wrote:
Well, if you want to compare "today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors" against the old noisy, smoky, stinky, glacier melting pieces of crap most of us use on a daily basis I think that would be a great episode for Mythbusters. Of course I would want to choose the engine, prop and set up for the old piece of garbage, as well as outline the test criteria.
I think you are biased and your comments inappropriate.
Really? Because all I was doing was offering the opposition argument for the most blatantly biased opinion in favor of new engines I could hope to see, that I quoted from Tedious.
I can argue either side but it would be nice if someone that had a clue injected a little reality into the equation.
Sorry to hurt your feelings. I'll make it my life's mission from this point in time to be appropriate in every way, and spread happiness & warmth amongst the dim & fragile.
MG56 wrote:
Well, if you want to compare "today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors" against the old noisy, smoky, stinky, glacier melting pieces of crap most of us use on a daily basis I think that would be a great episode for Mythbusters. Of course I would want to choose the engine, prop and set up for the old piece of garbage, as well as outline the test criteria.
I think you are biased and your comments inappropriate.
Really? Because all I was doing was offering the opposition argument for the most blatantly biased opinion in favor of new engines I could hope to see, that I quoted from Tedious.
I can argue either side but it would be nice if someone that had a clue injected a little reality into the equation.
Sorry to hurt your feelings. I'll make it my life's mission from this point in time to be appropriate in every way, and spread happiness & warmth amongst the dim & fragile.
Well we are glad you have all the clues. The new engines are not odorless and if one buys such things they melt glaciers too. Thank you for being appropriate moving forward.
I understood what he was trying to say; when reading forums I always try to keep in mind that the written word is often harsher than the actual reality. I if give you a light push and while smiling call you a dumb a$$, it is understood that it is in a fun manner. However, writing in a forum , you're a dumb a$$ takes on a vengeance. Obviously the original guy felt strongly about the difference in emissions when comparing old engines and new. It may be that he's never had a good running old engine, is a new boat owner or just believes all the hype. Maybe none of the above. We'll never know and to each his own I guess. I never had an issue with the smell of an old outboard. As a matter of fact, sometimes it brings on a bit of nostalgia.
On the subject of engine choices, I must have missed a generation of outboards in my absence. Now that I'm paying attention, I noticed a lot of "VRO" type outboards out there. Was this simply an attempt to eliminate having to mix in the oil with the gas? Also a way to ensure the proper mixture was bring used? I also see "oil injection" on other outboards. From what I can tell, everyone recommends not using these systems as they are/were prone to failure. Is this due to lack of required maintenance or was there an actual problem with these systems? I would imagine ETEC uses a similar system.
AReinhart wrote:
So far, the only real advantage that keeps coming up regarding the newer engines is fuel efficiency. You get less power per pound and they cost 4 times what a late model engine costs. Are they REALLY that much more fuel efficient? I mean really.
Here is a data point. It is not the same comparison you asked for, but it does highlight the fuel saving ( or less weight, or extended range) you find between an old carbureted outboard and a modern injected one:
I'm repowering a 1985 Outrage 18 which came with a 1985 Evinrude V-6. Last 4th of July, I took the rig on a 200 statute mile round trip cruise in the Northwest. My cruise was around 30-33 mph, and after filling up at trip's end I realized about 2.9mpg.
Another member on this site repowered the same year & model of boat with a Suzuki DF140A (same as I am doing). He is reporting 16L/h at 29.2 mph. This translates into 4.227 gallons/hour and 6.9mpg. There are other differences at play here as well (instantaneous vs average, different cruise speeds, etc), so you cannot claim that the new Suzuki is 2.38 times more fuel efficient that the old Evinrude. But I think saying that you may realize around 2x efficiency is a good approximation. I'm planning on doing the same trip when I'm up and running later in the summer, so I'll have a more exact comparison.
MG56 wrote:
Well, if you want to compare "today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors" against the old noisy, smoky, stinky, glacier melting pieces of crap most of us use on a daily basis I think that would be a great episode for Mythbusters. Of course I would want to choose the engine, prop and set up for the old piece of garbage, as well as outline the test criteria.
I think you are biased and your comments inappropriate.
Really? Because all I was doing was offering the opposition argument for the most blatantly biased opinion in favor of new engines I could hope to see, that I quoted from Tedious.
I can argue either side but it would be nice if someone that had a clue injected a little reality into the equation.
Sorry to hurt your feelings. I'll make it my life's mission from this point in time to be appropriate in every way, and spread happiness & warmth amongst the dim & fragile.
Well we are glad you have all the clues. The new engines are not odorless and if one buys such things they melt glaciers too. Thank you for being appropriate moving forward.
That's the second time you attacked me and what I don't have a clue about is why.
Hello to all, much to be considered with deciding to go 2 or 4 stroke outboarding. Unfortunately availability of current 2 stroke technology is trickling down and whats still available has become a bit more complex for the D.I.Y. boat owner when motor repairs are needed. Thank goodness for extended warranties. This steady cross-over of engine technology has greatly influenced the personal water craft and A.T.V. market, so it's here to stay and grow even further.
Quite abit has been said regarding weight and fuel economy of a 4 stroke versus a 2 stroke, what I have not read much of is repair costs of a 4 stroke when warranty is done or bought used. Perhaps a 4 stroke can outlast a 2 stroke due to there ability in producing torque at less rpm's than a 2 stroke but, modern 4 strokes have become incredibly complex works of art requiring diagnostic software to trouble shoot.
From the posts 2 strokes appear to still have a loyal following regardless of make and build year (me included). Unfortunately the EPA and other sanctioning bodies would prefer to "agree to disagree" about 2 strokes. I enjoy my Yamaha 90 2 stroke and yes it does have some modern technology but, I have learned to work with it when doing repairs (thank you Mr. multi-meter). Carburators will never be as clean nor efficient as either an E.F.I. or Direct Injection system but you will not need a lap top to tune it...just a small flat screw driver, perhaps a needle nose plier and a good ear.
For those that truely enjoy and look forward to 4 stroke outboard technology, more power to them and their opinions should be respected. The same should be considered for the fans of 2 strokes modern and past. Each design has and continues to influence the boating world we some much enjoy and look forward to each and every possible weekend (except in Winter for those affected).
DnM: Very true on many points. I was trying really hard to avoid the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke debate as it's been done in depth many times here and there. It always ends up with people arguing over things that are not quantifiable. However, in the spirit of my rant, I guess it does deserve to be discussed. I too wonder about the long term maintenance of the newer 4stroke motors. I wonder if someday we'll be talking about vintage 2015 Mercurys as we do 1965 Mercurys. In my opinion, given todays excellent machining, precision and quality of materials, we will. Regarding the "computers needed to fix them", I remember working on performance cars in the 80's and saying the same thing. Those new cars require a COMPUTER to tune them. Dealer here I come. Yet today, I use a laptop to monitor my engine functions as comfortably as I use my ears to tune carburetor's. Fuel injection is no longer a mystery and people like me that can tune a carburetor are getting more rare by the day. I personally don't care what design I hang of the transom, I just want the biggest bang for my dollar. As of now,I am not convinced that a 4 stroke, at least in the medium sized outboard category, offers that. There are other benefits to a 4 stroke for sure. But it all depends on what you value and what you are looking to achieve. I don't boat for fuel economy or environmental greenness. I want to carry a certain amount of weight from A to B and back as fast and as cheaply as I can do so. As of today, a lightweight 2 stroke can do this faster and for less initial outlay of money. I would have to save a lot of gas to make up the difference in cost between a $1200 Johnson and a $7000 ETEC or 4 stroke. However, in reality I spend most of my time cruising at 20 knots wherever I'm going. I guess I'm really not in a hurry when I'm out there and just enjoy the fresh air and scenery. When it's just me and the dog,I would imagine a 30 hp outboard would do just fine. And in the 30 hp range, they all are light enough to mount on my 13 with no weight issues. On the other hand, when it is me, two friends and the dog, which by the way is perfectly within the max loading of a 13' whaler, the 40 hp is the only way I would want to go. And it is here that my choices are limited due to weight. This winter, I will likely pick up a mid 90's Johnson/Evinrude 48/50,go through it and then hang it in the spring. I may just alternate engines every year so as to use the Yamaha as well. I am well aware of the limitations of this hull. That darn hook makes itself known all the time. There is no sweet spot as it either rides wet or porposes badly. Turns out, my initial test, when I first bought the boat, was incorrect regarding speed. Apparently, my 35 knots was running with a 5-6 knot tide. I pretty much max out at 30 knots with a full tank and the dog. This is apparently about where it should be. Time will tell but I surely don't see the benefit to adding an equivalent 40 hp engine that weighs 60-100 pounds more. That cannot improve my boat no matter how much gas I save.
Tohatsu 50 hp TLDI is 207 lb with PT and a 15 inch short shaft. Perfect for the 1960's 13' Whaler if you can get a dealer to install it on your boat. Otherwise, go with the 40 hp that weighs the same and has a smaller carb.
Hello Geo, that Tohatsu does seem to be the lightest of the new outboards. We discussed it for a bit a page or two ago. Most if not all 13's made after the early 70's require a 20" shaft. Not to mention, in the Tohatsu manual for that engine, it says "207 lbs for our lightest model offered". The actual weight of a PT&T 20" logically will be more. Regardless, that 207 is still 47 lbs more than the 40 i have now. The 40/50 Tohatsu weigh the same. The reality is that an equivalent engine will be 60+ heavier. And that was the point.
It's funny how when you start to really research something, you learn enough to start questioning your own setup. Given all the discussion about how much heavier the engines are, I have been looking at ways to counter that eventual weight by redistributing what I currently have. This, along with not being able to trim the boat properly, and the fact that I think the boat should be faster than it is, makes me think I have it set up wrong. First, I think there is to much weight in the back.
When I bought it, it had a junk 3 gallon tank thrown in the back. I immediately pulled the 6 gallon tank out of the Achilles and used it for a few days. I was just getting used to the boat so I really didn't test it much and focused on getting everything in its place and running right. Next I bought a 12 gallon tank and have been happy with the range it provides. However, I have always had an issue getting the boat trimmed properly. It either runs wet at 25-27 mph or porposes violently at 30-32 mph. Everywhere I read about other owners running 35+ in their boats. Let's just say that I can comfortably run about 28.......
Looking into it further, I noticed that the outboard is mounted in its second to lowest position. Taking into account that I have 12 gallons of fuel,a group 27 battery and a 50 quart cooler mounted back there, it's very likely the engine is dragging in the water. I also have an SE Sport 300 hydro foil mounted. Without it I could barely get on plane.
So,before even considering a heavier engine,I think it is prudent to get the boat running right with what i have first. I think adding another 50-80 pounds back there would be bad to say the least. So, firstly I ordered a new 14 gallon tank that will fit under the front thwart seat. It's 43" x 15" x 6.78" high. I will need to buy an additional front seat so that I can attach it to the current seat making it wide enough to cover the tank. I saw a post on here or CW where the guy did just that and drilled a hole in the seat to access the fill hole. Looks extremely clean and will move a substantial amount of weight forward. I'm also going to have the marina raise the engine one hole, approx 3/4", to get more of the engine out of the water. It came with a nice 3 blade stainless prop already. I forget what size but ill post it tonight. I'm thinking that these changes will not only help my current setup,but also set the boat up for a successful repower down the road.
I looked further into the tohatsu tldi engines and can now confirm that a 50 hp,20" PT&T engine weighs 214 pounds. I'll see how the mods go and go from there.
So far though, I don't see how anybody is getting this boat beyond 40 mph. Going from 30 to 40 is a huge feat on a boat this small. The fact that people say they are doing it with a modern 240 pound 4 stroke mercury makes me think my boat is seriously set up wrong or they are full of it.
Additionally, if the efficiency of the new outboards is as good as people say, 14 gallons should take me a long long way.......
In looking at your photos showing it docked, you have a stern bias due to all the gear, battery and fuel in the stern area. Add the weight of the Yamaha 40 and it sits as it does.
Many members with large 2 stroke motors (40-50hp) on a classic 13 sport accommodate the weight by:
-raising the seats to sit above the side rail
-installing 12 or 6 gallon fuel tank under the forward seat.
-move battery to under the driver seat, port side.
My brother made these changes on his 1986 13' and it made a huge difference in ride and trim. WOT speed was upper 30's and less porpoising.
