---

I've had two whalers in my life, a 1987 11' Super Sport with a matching 20 hp PT&T Johnson on the back and currently a 1977 13' Sport with a 1997 dual carb Yamaha 40 PT. As such I've been out of the outboard game for some time now. My sailboat has an inboard and until last month, my Achilles had a trolling motor on it. Obviously, this 4 stroke phenomenon is new to me. The pro and con has been beat to death and I really don't care that much to try and decide which is truly better. It is funny though that after many years of limited outboard exposure, (a few Seahorse 6's thrown in here and there) within three weeks I own two and now have three carburator's on my bench.......anyways, on with my rant.

Let's talk about power. I routinely find myself with two people and a dog in the boat. Add 12 gallons of gasoline, required safety gear and a cooler full of man fuel and you have a loaded boat. I removed the hydro foil and had issues getting on plane. Needless to say, another is going back on. I read all the time about how guys are happily bolting on 25's and saying how great it is. From my personal experience, I wouldn't want 1 hp less than 40. Hell, 50 might be better. Unfortunately, my boat came with a non power trim Yamaha 40. Now, not knocking the yammi guys but I find myself constantly on boats.cm and Craig's looking at outboards. Generally not what someone does when they just bought a complete, restored and running boat two weeks ago....I guess you could just say I don't like having the yamaha on the back. From what I can tell and the general consensus is that the classic 13 was designed for a two stroke engine under 160 pounds or so. Good luck with that. There is no new 40 hp outboard with PT&T sold in the United States that weighs less than 210 pounds. I think my Yamaha is listed at 133 dry. Located in the aft storage compartment of my boat is th e battery, 12 gallon fuel tank and cooler....and I like it that way- out of the way and tidy. Initially, after some searching I found out Evinrude was still being sold and that they are still 2 strokes. Then the huge punch in the face, the 40 and 50 weigh in at a staggering 240 pounds. Now I've got the 20" transom but with all that weight in the back, things won't be right. If I sit on the transom, it's only 5" or so from the water...and I weigh 180. So adding a 100 lbs to the motor means something.

That pretty much leaves the older outboards as the only real option. And having said that, the Yamaha runs fine and has low hours. As much as I don't like it, it really doesn't make any sense to remove it and bolt on a just as old, johnson/evinrude. The weight of the new engines has pushed them right out of the market for me. If Evinrude or Mercury sold a lightweight 40/50 hp engine, a local dealer would be $6000 richer tomorrow morning. I guess we are such a small market that the engine manufacturers don't hear us. Maybe I'm expecting to much. Maybe I feel like we moved backwards in the under 60 category. Maybe I'm going to put this tablet down, go start my old Yamaha, and go for an evening boat ride. ;)

---

See our "Current Engine Choices" articles here:
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...p?cat_id=4

---

Thanks Joe, I found that early on and it solidified my fears. After coming back in tonight I came to the conclusion that maybe not getting a new engine isn't so bad. The great thing about the older engines is that you can work on them. Properly kept up and tuned they can be just as reliable as a new engine. There was a quote I read either on here or CW that said something like "1960's tech got us to the moon and back, it can certainly reliably run a 2 cylinder outboard motor.." Might be something to that. Replacement parts for the older engines are very easy to find, thanks to ebay and the rest of the net. It all falls back on the statement "if they won't build what we need, we need to fix what we have". I think ultimately, I may find a late 80's Johnson SPL 48 and in my spare time, make it new again. Dirt cheap, easy to find parts and simple. Aftermarket T&T jackplate fixes the only real issue with the motor. It's about 188 lbs if I remember correctly. I noticed tonight that I can't fit under the steering console anyway so moving the battery there negates some of the weight difference. The extra 10 hp negates the rest.

I really wish I could lock down why I don't like my Yamaha C40. It starts easily, screams at WOT and though it idles like crappie runs and runs....Maybe it's because a classic whaler deserves an American engineered engine. When I was a kid, and first exposed to whalers, you ran one of four different outboard engines: Johnson's were the staple. Grandpa's ran Evinrude's for fishing. The racers ran Mercury and the broke people ran Chrysler.....

Those days are long gone apparently. Looking around my Marina you would think you were in Tokyo judging by all the Yamaha and Suzuki cowls in sight. Nothing inherently wrong with that I guess (no problem with Japan, the Japanese or Tokyo) but what happened? This thread was not started as a "which engine will fit best" but more as a "what happened to all my choices".... It would seem Mercury is the sole survivor and those engines are too heavy...

---

Actually, the sole survivor would be Evinrude. Mercury still puts their motors together here, but many major components are actually made overseas, in China and Japan as I understand it. Yamaha actually used to make powerheads for them, and they may actually still be doing this! :) I am not certain, but I bet even Evinrude is outsourcing globally for some of their engine components as well.

We have lived too long for the local US economy, almost everything is globally linked nowadays. You can still get US grown produce if you use a farmer's market...

Oh, and one more thing...
My 1986 Outrage 18 was originally equipped by the dealer with a Johnson140 V4. It ran like a champion, after you got used to breathing the smoky fumes first thing in the morning after paying for the gas and oil it consumed on the last trip out. My 1989 Whaler 27FC WD was equipped originally by the dealer with a pair of Yamaha 200's that had pretty much the same problems the Johnson on the Outrage did first thing in the morning :)

I have since bit the bullet on both boats and gone to the new 4-stroke technology Yamahas, and even with the weight difference, I would NEVER go back to the original smokers that ran rough and loud originally on my transoms :) I have to actually look at the console run indicators or the cooling water discharge to tell if my motors are running or not when they are idling, and the boats don't vibrate anymore when trolling :)

---

Wow, no kidding about mercury...Evinrude is now Canadian. Bombardier or something. I think that company used to make jet ski's. My rant was the result of search for a repower down the line. I just couldn't believe how much has changed. Sailboat people live in a different world so I never paid attention to what happened within the small powerboat field. I completely understand globalization. I've lived in quite a few different countries in the last 20 years and think it's a good thing. I just couldn't believe the U.S. is essentially out of the outboard market. All in all, due to the weight issue, I guess I'm out of the market as well. This thread was totally a rant and I hoped it would spark some discussion as to why this all happened. As good as the new outboards seem to be, in regards to fuel economy, emissions and wow are they quiet, what good is that if they have become to heavy to mount on your boat??? Maybe I'm overestimating what a 240 pound engine will do to my whaler. I just don't see how a, let's say for the sake of discussion, 240 pound 40 etec will perform better than a 188 pound spl 48. Or a 166 pound Johnson 40 for that matter. That's why I said it's like we moved backwards performance wise. The guys running etec 40's on their 13's say that the lower unit sits in the water some at full lift. The skeg on my Yamaha does as well. That's what zinc and anti fouling is for. It's the lowering of the freeboard that I see as an issue. I run in some pretty heavy seas for a 13 sometimes. I need all the transom I can get! So I guess to summarize so far, the engines are too heavy and none are made in the US anymore........hmmm

---

The vibration is something I didn't think about. My Yamaha vibrates so much at idle speed my stern light moves 2" back and forth, lol.

---

According to the new Consumers Report of all cars and light trucks sold new in the US the maximum actual US content of any is 75%. I highly recommend that issue to get some good news about US manufacturing.

Although BRP is a Canadian company all the Evinrude jobs are in the US. To me that's a major plus.

---

Butch: Yeah I guess that means something. I did a lot of reading about OMC and Mercury and it seems that they just got to complacent with what they were selling. It only takes a breakdown/rescue or two before people throw brand loyalty overboard. I mean, look what happened with Evinrude and the early lower units on their ETECS. 6 months later, pro fisherman all had Yamaha's on the back and all the amateurs soon followed suit. Maybe this highlights a larger problem that goes beyond whalers and outboards. And like Silent P said, once you experience the quiet, clean engine, you'll never go back. A friend of mine has quite Dauntless and recently repowered with a new Suzuki. It replaced an older Johnson 2 stroke. I myself actually had to look at the cooling water stream to verify it was running. He can't stop talking about how much fuel he is saving. Apparently, an unbelievable difference.

Now, I'm not one to dislike new tech. Far far from it actually. Like I said earlier, if I could buy a new 180 pound 40/50 hp remote, PT&T motor I'd buy it today. I'm retired but young so I burn a lot of gas in my boats. Personally, I don't mind the " stink in the morning" from the older outboards. It reminds me of days past when we didn't think about things like that. And as far as reliability, my 1982 Johnson 7.5 starts cold on the first pull. Every time. I'm only rebuilding the carb because that's what I always do with a new to me engine. I buy things that I want to keep for awhile and I do complete overhauls on most systems to kick off a reliable period of ownership. The 1997 Yamaha sat in a garage for 10 years, hence only having 80 hours on it. I'm sure once I rebuild those carbs it will idle fine as well.

Reading posts about 13's on this forum has also shown me that I'm not alone. A LOT of guys are still running old 2 strokes on their boats. I wonder if that would change if the manufacturers would build something we could use???

I guess I should stress for those who won't read the first few posts, some of us need 40+ hp on our 13's. Hats off to the guys who are content with a 25/30. At least the new engines in that range weigh less than 180 pounds. But load your boat up and that 25 is worthless. And to the guys who say "40 hp is even to much. I was afraid to run at WOT with it".....well, I really don't know what to say to you other than ever try sailing? :) My boat needs the 40. I fish an lnlet that is a 15 minute ride at WOT to the safety of my Marina. Storms come up quick and we are on the Ocean. I watched a few videos on Ytube that had guys running Johnson 48SPL's on their 13's. I am seriously contemplating picking one up and restoring it. That got me thinking: why are new engines so quiet? The Etec is 2 stroke and it's quiet. Did they change the exhaust? Add sound deadening material to the cowl? Anyone ever try adding high tech sound dampening material to the cowl of an older engine?

---

...Anyone ever try adding high tech sound dampening material to the cowl of an older engine?

Yes - See my personal page. It did make a substantial difference.

---

Careful if you decide to fool with the exhaust. There is a symmetry to the running of motor and flow of air. Check with manufacturers what might be available. I would not attempt aftermarket.
Garris

---

Agree there is usually a stock exhaust tuner installed that should not be modified

---

I agree with you the 11 and 13 don't have any new technology motor options available for repower for max rated hp. My neighbor has an old 40 Johnson 2 stroke. The boat sit really low in the back. When you add p&t to the 48 it is going to be similar.

If speed is important, have you thought about a classic 15' ? They handle the rough water so much better than classic 13's plus they are faster when equiped with 60 & 70 up motors. The only down side is the cost and they loose some lateral stability.

---

Have you looked at the Tohatsu 40hp TLDI? It is #207 with tilt & trim.

---

Dgoodhue could you define what you mean by "lateral stability"?

---

Wow WLA, that is a beautiful boat. Everything has a place and is well thought out and finished. I've been involved in the full restoration of my 30' sailboat for the last three years; have a ways to go, but when it's finished, what you did is what I'm going to do to mine. It's all in the details. The dynamat or something similar is what I had in mind. I just did my wife's entire car with it and was impressed. I figured something in the cowl would help, considering that I don't think it's to loud as it is. Not whisper quiet, but not obnoxious either.

GCH, I have no intention of messing with the exhaust. It's already a through the prop type. I was just wondering what they did to make the 4 strokes and Etec so much quieter.

Dgood, I already have the yamaha 40 on the back. It weighs approx 40 pounds or so less than the SPL. Add the power trim jackplate from Bobsmachineshop, the standard series that puts the hydraulic motor inside the boat, which adds about 14 pounds to the transom. This makes about 55 pounds more than my current setup. Move my battery and cables under the console and it should balance out nicely. The additional 10hp should counter the additional 55 pounds on the boat as well. Nothing locked in, I was just exploring options.

Additionally, when I decided to buy another whaler, I considered the 11, 13 and 15. I wanted the classic sport models. I've already had an 11 and I feel like I've outgrown it for my needs. I always wanted a 15 because they fly and handle chop better. What it came down to though is fuel usage and my ability to handle the boat by myself. My 15 would have a 70 or 90 on it. That's just how I do things. I spend most of my time on the water so like I said, I burn a lot of gas. A 90 burns a lot more than a 50. It's a hole different level of boat. As is the 15 compared to the 13. I'm on one usable leg and the 13 is within my ability to move around. I got the right boat.

I think what he meant by lateral stability is the difference in how stable the boat is standing on the gunwale. The 11 and 13, with their tri hull design, are extremely stable. The 15 gives some of that up in exchange for better rough water ability.

I did see that Tohatsu. But if you look closely, it says 207*... The fine print says that is the weight of the lightest version. Being that it's available as a 15" tiller model, I can almost assure you that the 20" remote model weighs quite a bit more.

It's funny to me how everything else in the world has gotten smaller and lighter. Except our outboards.

---

Northern: any reason you changed the words in that quote to "cnsuperpower.com" and "fujihd.net" ????

But yeah, agreed. Remember though that my idle circuit is gummed up. It will idle smoother once I do the carbs up. I've got two nice carbs on my bench in line for a rebuild soon. Ill basically have two sets of carbs, one always ready to bolt on when needed. Whoever gets this Yamaha after me will be getting a good motor with spares and manuals....I'm sure when I decide to sell it one day someone will appreciate that. :)

Looking further into the outboard field I learned a few things. Apparently, their is a large aftermarket in place that rebuilds and restores these older 2 strokes. Shows what I know. The cheap performance boat sector, as in those 70's vector spaceship looking boats, love the older 2 strokes. Therefore a market was created and you can even buy performance parts, reeds and such, for these engines. I didn't know that until yesterday. Basically, I can put together a 40/48/50 Johnson that will run better than it did in 1990. Do some minor sound dampening and you've got a light, powerful and reliable engine. All for less than the cost of a new 50....Looking at it another way, the boats a 1977 with varnished mahogany. A classic boat does not look out of place with a classic motor.

Back to the weight issue and the reason for my rant: why is the etec so heavy? It's still a 2 stroke made with more modern materials than an Evinrude from the 90's. Shouldn't that have resulted in a LIGHTER motor? I think I need to scour the marinas and find a 13 with a 40/50 Etec on the back. I'd like to see how they sit in the water. As you can probably tell, I'm exploring all the options here. I've ranged from restoring an old motor to exploring the new so far.

I could have sworn that whaler sold a "classic" or "retro" 13 a few years back. Not many made. But, it was during the 4 stroke revolution. What did whaler power it with? Was it still rated for 40 hp and if so, they must have considered the fact that the new 40's weigh 100 pounds or so more. Honestly, looking closely at mine, if I moved the gas tank and battery under the front seat, the 40 Etec would likely perform fine. Has BW ever commented on repowering their classics? I mean, they have to know that their boats last and by now, many people are looking to modernize the power plant.

---

There are hundreds, no maybe thousands, of Boston Whaler 13 and other length hulls here on Cape Cod. Yes, we are infested with Boston Whalers. We see all kinds of power on 13's at the dock: 15 hp to 48/50 hp. Yes, the Evinrude E-Tec 25, 30, 40 hp is a very popular outboard motor for a BW13 repower. I know a dock less than 10 miles from me where there are more than 15 individually-owned BW small boats and they are all powered by Evinrude E-Tec outboards motors. I guess people here on Cape Cod place value in the most economical, reliable, only direct injection, U.S.-Manufactured outboard you can buy with low emission (CARB 3) and less maintenance, when compared to a four stroke. And the torque is just incredible.

---

ARheinhart -

Thanks for the compliment. Dynamat is impressive stuff. I think the big difference in the loudness of the new engines 2-stroke vs 4-stroke. There is a reduction in the number of combustion events by half per RPM and take away the reed valve noise.

I would still consider the Tohatsu TLDI 40 or 50. It's based upon the same engine block mine (bullet proof) is but converted from carbureted to direct injected. The difference in weight between the remote and tiller models should be relatively small.

---

Tohatsu outboards are well known in the sailing community as well. They are cheap and reliable. It's funny, only recently have they started to gain a foothold here in the US. But, they are one of the largest and most popular outboards in the world. You can find them everywhere, from a skiff in Tahiti to a whaler in south Africa.

Nonetheless, it does seem to be the lightest engine out at the moment. Returning Full circle to my original rant; not a lot of choices.

I did find a Ytube video of a guy who bolted on a Honda 50, 2013 model, to his 89 Super Sport. He was surprised, as was I, how well it sat in the water. I guess what it's starting to come down to is weight distribution. Considering the fact that I put a 12 gallon tank in place of the 6 that came in the boat, well, that is the difference between a 2 stroke and new engine right there. I guess I need to start exploring moving the battery forward.

---

While no good for the small boats, I am very impressed with the Suzuki DF140. Power to weight, and it is really does seem to have close to all of it's rated 140 hp, despite rumors of it being weak by 10 hp or so. One of the finest running engines I have ever owned.

---

Some of the 3 cylinder Mercury four strokes offer considerable weight savings over the 4 cylinder versions. The 40 hp 3 cylinder weighs in at 216 lbs., for instance, while the 40 hp 4 cylinder tops the scale at 260 lbs. Specs are available at https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/engines/outboard/fourstroke/40-60-hp/.

---

It is not fair comparison to say its going to burn a lot more gas with a 15' vs 13' classic whaler. I guess it some of it depends on how you drive your boats (ie WOT all the time no matter what or a lots of idling would favor the smaller motor).

A 13 with 50hp is 40mph boat, a 15 with 90 should be a 50+ mph boat. To match the performance of 13' with 50hp, a 15' would need 60hp. (~40mph) The fuel consumption would be about 20% more at WOT. A 70 or 90hp would likely be more efficient at 40mph than a 15' with 60hp would be, so the difference would be less than 20%.

Obviously your happy with your 13'; I am not trying to talk you into a 15', but I don't think of my 15' with 70hp as gas guzzler compare to a 13'.

---

I looked up the older 2 stroke 40, 48, & 50 OMC motor and they use to be ~45 ci displacement. The new ETEC motors are ~53ci and use a larger lower unit. The etec motor covers the 40, 50 & 60hp range. [I know that OMC did use to make a 60hp 2 cylinder stroke motor but it was when outboard were rated at the power head, the 2 cylinder 60hp went away when OMC changed the HP rating to the prop.]

I wish that Evinrude would make an ETEC based on the old 56ci 3 cylinder motor (or at least something lighter than 320#'s). The current 75 & 90 are 79ci motor. it would be a great motor for the classic 15', but it will probably never happen. At least Yamaha makes a light 4 stroke with 70hp motor that is great fit for the 15'.




Since BW and Mercury are both owned by Brunswick, they would probably recommend a 25hp Mercury 4 stroke.

---

Tohatsu now makes a 4-stroke 40 and 50 that both weigh in at 209#: http://www.tohatsu.com/outboards/50_4...0_4st.html

---

Ancient: I wonder why merc would put out a 3 and 4 cyc. engine of the same hp...But it is Mercury so I guess that's feasible. Remember the big "Tower of Power" engines? Good god.

Dgood: Ill buy that. But there is a difference. And I wouldn't have a 60 on my 15. I would have the max or more. Fuel usage was one of many reasons I chose the 13 over the other 2. A big reason is that I have one good leg. The 13 is lighter and therefore easier for me to push around. The 15 is by no means a fuel hog but no matter how it's mixed a 70-90 burns more than a 40-50. I do not run WOT much. It's too rough here for that. Being the thread was about engines, the fuel was what I brought up in my post. Another reason was that I also have a 30' sailboat and a 2015 Achilles with a 7.5 Johnson. The Achilles will do every bit of 15 knots so it qualifies as a true boat. :). I needed an in between that would get me out and back quickly, be easy to clean and cheap to run. I have always wanted a 15 SS and let me tell you, it was very hard to cross it off the list. But in the end, the 15 is a much bigger, heavier and faster boat that would have been excess for my needs.

Regarding the 25 4 stroke. Uh huh...you're likely right. I'm not sure a 25 would be safe for me. Today, out in the sound, Mrs Ocean decided to throw a tantrum. Waves got pretty big. I had to modulate the throttle for 20 minutes straight racing a storm back in. In the troughs, I had to peg that Yamaha 40 everytime to climb the back of the breakers I was getting into. Me + gear + dog = needing every horse. My operating area requires a tough boat. There is NO other 13' I would go out there in. Come to think of it, I don't see many....any....other 13' anything's out there. Montauks abound though. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that whaler would be making a mistake to recommend a motor the size of the 25 for the 13. Considering the 11' runs nicely with a 20......

The whole point of my rant/thread is coming to light. I love my 13. It's size and performance match up to what I do almost perfectly. The problem is modern power. With my current setup, 1997 Dual carb 40 yammi, 800cca battery and 12 gallon fuel cell, very very rarely do I get even a drop over my 20" transom. Every once in a while, if the seas are right, ill get a splash. But would that be the case with an engine that weighed 100 pounds more? I dunno.....it would be a $6500 mistake though if it started to. But at the same time, in order to keep the weights where they are, I'd have to decrease power. Progress??

---

Additionally, earlier I quoted 133 dry for my Yamaha. For some reason I suspect that's low. Given what's out there, considering all the different weights and such, if I HAD to repower tomorrow, (yammi fell off the back or something), I think an early 90's John/Rude 48SPL with a PT&T jackplate would result in the best performance. Obviously I might have to move the battery under the console. The combination of such a small weight gain, plus the added performance of the T&T jackplate and the modest increase in power- would likely scream and haul some bodies effortlessly. The repositioning of the 55 lbs battery should offset the small weight gain on the transom. I don't think ANY modern outboard would offer a better performance envelope than that package. And that....is in essence my rant. I want that envelope, plus a quiet and fuel efficient engine....tall order apparently....;) Sometimes I wish this was an outboard manufacturers forum and outboard engineers would read it and go "hmmmm, well darn Jimbo he has a point". "Our power to weight ratio does suck" "Better tell Bob over at advertising that he needs to put more pictures of clean mountains and clear water in the ads to distract people and make them think that they are compromising for the environment"......

---

I think the progress you'll realize is an increase in fuel efficiency. Using the Tohasu as an example, it will likely get 2x better fuel efficiency than your carb'ed Yamaha, so you'd have the same range using 6 gal of fuel as you currently do with 12. 6 gal of gas weighs about #36, so you are now down to #171 (for the lightest model, of course...). Still pretty close, and cheaper to run too, since you get better mpg and you could use that nasty old E10 from your regular gas station. I'm guessing you'll burn less oil too.

The progress wasn't entirely backward.

---

Dennis: 2x better fuel economy? REALLY? If that's a fact, maybe you're on to something. BTW, I don't carry a 12 gallon tank because I burn that much everytime I go out. I picked up the 12 gallon tank because being handicapped, I can't carry gas cans or a gas tank without extreme difficulty. Therefore I fill up at a Marina down the river from where I keep the boat in its slip. I have the 12 so I don't have to deal with the fuel dock quite as much. I'd have to use the fuel dock even if regular gas was on sale for .99 gallon again.....I pay for marine fuel because I have to. But you're right, better fuel efficiency in most cases would allow a smaller tank. Though I think there are quite a few 13's with 40's running around with 6 gallon gas tanks. Ill make a safe bet that they might be the majority. Without inadvertently stepping into the worn out 2 vs 4 stroke debate, I buy my outboard oil in bulk so it's pretty cheap over the season. Not to mention, my year Yamaha runs at 100:1, so it uses very little oil. (I was warned that they had issues running 100:1 and changed their later engines back to 50:1. The reason was engines left sitting for long periods of time ((winter)), didn't have enough oil left on the cylinder walls and started rusting. This does not affect engines that are run often or fogged before storage) Regardless, I end up running 75 to 100:1.

Back to your point though, you're right, not entirely backwards. But again, 15 years ago I had the choice between 7 different brands and numerous models within those brands. Nowdays you and others have presented me with 1. And it still weighs a LOT more than an engine made in 1990 with 10 more hp to boot.

Like I said earlier, I can't see the logic in it. Ok, the weight is more because it runs cleaner and gets better mpg....so technically, it has a worse power to weight ratio and costs more to buy BUT, you'll save a little on gas.....I drive a 4x4 Grand Cherokee with a Hemi, you may see what's important to me...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an advocate for either type of engine. I'm playing a bit of devils advocate fishing for ideas. I WANT a lightweight, quiet, clean burning fuel efficient outboard for my whaler. Why can't I have that? My Hemi makes more power, is lighter, more fuel efficient and burns cleaner than any hemi engine in the past. My point is that I shouldn't have to restore a 20 year old outboard to get the best package for my boat.

---

WLA: that new tohatsu is a nice motor, but read the specs carefully. The little asterisk says "209 is for the lightest engine". Being that it's available as a 15" manual start tiller model.....good advertising though. Option that out in a 20" model with PT&T and let's see what it weighs.

---

Why don't you call tohatsu and ask them how much the remote/PTT/20" model weighs?

Are you confident your current engine weight was not rated in the same way? If it was it actually may weigh more than you think.

I would suggest getting the facts first rather than making decisions based upon assumptions.

---

You're missing my point. I'm not deciding on a new outboard. I don't need to. The lightest version is STILL heavier than what I have and STILL heavier than an SPL 48 from the 90's. I think it's a very safe assumption that a 20" weighs more than a 15". There's more there. Remember back to the beginning, this thread was a rant because I was shocked that I can't buy a new outboard that has the same power to weight ratio I'm used to having. And the fact that I have a lot less choices than I used to. It is a thread for discussion. Everyone asks "what should I buy". Know one really talks about what were talking about here.

On that note, I was just reading a thread here about a guy who replaced his 90 2,stroke with one of Mercurys new , higher cubic inch 90 4 strokes on his Montauk. He said that the engine weighed more but he gained almost 10 mph with the engine. Now THAT is an improvement. Maybe Merc underrated the engine, maybe he got one of those 1 in 10000 motors that just runs better. If this was across the board, maybe the weight penalty wouldn't matter as much.

You do have a point about the Tohatsu being lighter than the rest though. Maybe it's a trend in the right direction. I agree that my Yamaha likely weighs more than its supposed to. I noted that earlier. Once the difference is within the weight of a battery, the issue is then moot.

---

No, I'm not missing your point. The difference between the 15 and 20" version of the Tohatsu 40 and 50 4 stroke is 5" of shaft housing (aluminum) and 5" of drive shaft - 5-10 lbs at most - thats not a lot. Believe me I love my 50hp 2 stroke but I'm lucky to have a very low hours basically new engine. However, it doesn't sip gas though and the new engines do. I think the other members point about needing less gas on board for the same range is valid.

What I'm suggesting is that you get all the facts so you can make a fair comparison. If restoring an SPL 48 is the way you want to go by all means go for it.


Information you need to make a decision if you wish to be objective:

Weight of SPL48 + PTT Solution + 12 gallons of gas (and cost to purchase and restore) vs

Weight of Tohatsu 50 or other 50hp option (and cost) + weight of 6 gallons of gas (or whatever would get you equivalent range to SPL48 with 12 gallons)

---

I see what you're saying. The gas tank is a non issue for me because I would have the 12 regardless of what engine I have for the reasons I listed earlier. The 48SPL with the jackplate should come in at just under 200 pounds. Your point is that the Tohatsu already has the PT&T and would come in somewhere around 220 or so, at a minimum. Then factory the gas savings and other benifits of a new engine. I'll buy that. I wonder what Tohatsu did to undercut the other brands by 20-40 pounds?

So out of all of this, whenever I decide to repower, I have the choice of one engine , and it will weight at least 50 pounds more than what I have now. BTW, I used the 48SPL as a reference simply because it has a very high power to weight ratio. A 1999 Johnson 40/50 with power tilt and trim weighs 190. Assuming your numbers, the Tohatsu will be within about 30 pounds of the Johnson. But, for the sake of this discussion, ALL the new engines we are talking about are within 50 pounds of that. My group 31 battery weighs about 47 pounds so all of this is within a small range. This all changes though when we compare what is on my boat now, and what was available in 1996. My current engine with power tilt, no trim, weighs 133. The Yamaha with power tilt and trim weighs 155. Now we're talking an 87 and 65 pound difference. The gas tank is irrelevant. The power trim, tilt and height adjustable jackplate weighs 14 pounds, and has the hydraulic motor mounted separately so less weight on the transom. That would put my current combination at 147. The top speed and holeshot advantages of the jackplate can't be ignored. But just on weight, take two identical 13' Super Sports and put my engine with the jackplate on one, a 220 pound Tohatsu on the other and see which boat is faster out of the hole, carries more weight and has a faster top speed. Not to mention sits higher in the water. These are issues that someone has to consider when they want to repower their 13' classic. As I said earlier, I don't really want the Yamaha I have. It came with The boat. For the sake of a classic boat, which a pristine 1977 13' Sport is, I would rather have a period correct engine available. Ideally, the everyday runner would be a new engine with all the above said benifits. Tohatsu seems to be leading the way in the right direction. Which doesn't suprize me given the kind of company Tohatsu is.

---

http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u...etcdzg.jpg

Here is how my boat sits with a full 12 gallons and full cooler.

---

That looks low. Three men, gear & a dog on a 13 is going to stop being fun real quick, regardless of how much power you have on it. You should sell that boat to someone that likes it the way it is and go buy a Montauk. Seriously, the Montauk can handle the extra weight without destroying the fun factor. Let's put it another way, if I was one of the three men I'd sit the ride out.

---

It's sits no different than the other 13's in the area. It must have been a while since you messed with 13' whalers. They don't have much freeboard as is. I agree,your Montauk is a nice boat. Way more than I would want or need though. My boat works just fine for what I use it for and I wouldn't want anything more. You must have missed the post comparing the 13 and 15. To catch you up, the thread is about modern engine choices compared to 10 years ago. What are you running on your boat and why did you choose it?

---

I have a 1974 13 now that I bought without an engine, and I've been "messing" with Whaler 13's since about 1971. I ended up putting a 1987 Mercury 35 HP on it that weighs about 150 lbs.

Why did I choose that engine? Easy, I wanted "enough" power but I also wanted to keep the weight down. I saw a Yamaha 40 HP when I was looking, probably what you have now, but I'm a Mercury Fanboy. If a new engine was ever in the equation for that boat I suppose I would go with the Tohatsu 50 HP 2 stroke.

My nephew has the Montauk on my personal page, but that has a 1983 Mercury 70 HP that weighs about 190 lbs. The Montauk I have now has the original 1973 Mercury 65 HP, which is basically the same engine as the 1983 70. They have those engines because that is what came with them.

I have been going through the same exact thing with those Montauks that you are with your 13. I want more power and new engines are substantially heavier than what I have now, not to mention they are HUGE. It defies logic that a newer product is not smaller/better/cheaper.

Most people aren't like us. When I say I want more power I'm not talking about going 40 MPH vs 35 MPH. I'll most likely get a mid-eighties Mercury 115 HP that should do about 50 MPH. I'm guessing that engine will weigh 130 lbs more than what I have, but I have to accept the fact any engine I want will weigh at least that much. I did look at the new Mercury 115 HP, at an additional 40 lbs, and I haven't crossed it off the list yet.

---

Agreed, your train of thought is exactly where I'm at. That is EXACTLY what my rant is about. It defies logic. I used to mess with the old blue stripe mercs on small hydros back in the mid 80's. Nothing could outrun them HP for HP. These whalers don't like going faster than mid to high 30's it seems and that's fine by me. What would be ideal would be being able to do mid 30's with three people on board. I see that you are doing the exact same thing though, keeping the older motors because they just offer more power for the weight.

---

Don't mean to interfere with your ranting, gents, but I'll just point out that many of the older motors you reference were rated at the output of the crankshaft, while newer motors are rated at the prop. So while the smelly, noisy environmental disasters of yesteryear still probably had a better power to weight ratio than today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors, you are in some cases comparing apples and oranges.

Tim

---

Yes the switch over occurred c.1983 - 1986 depending upon the brand/model of outboard which translates to a difference of ~3-4% between rating at the powerhead vs the prop. Another factor that must be considered.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Dennis

---

That's the second time you attacked me and what I don't have a clue about is why.

[comment deleted]

---

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).

Best to all,
Angel M.

---

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.

---

Thanks Phil, that's what I was starting to think as well. So today I moved the 3/4 full 12 gallon tank up to the front seat. It's just sitting there until I get my 14 gallon under seat tank. I just put fresh carbs on the engine, runs much smoother now. Tonight was a very light chop, the kind that breaks the wetted surface without slowing you down. It did seem to ride a bit better when encountering wakes. At max trim, with a slight porpoise, I hit 28.3 mph against the tide, 31.9 mph with the tide. Basically no change except a slightly better ride. And that's subjective I guess. Maybe the weight doesn't effect this whaler as much as I originally thought. Though I must say, if 29-30 is all the 13' with a 40 is good for, I should have bought an 11. Just as fast with less fuel use......j/k. Somethings wrong or most people are full of $hite. Lol

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is if my 160 pound Yamaha has trouble breaking 31 mph downstream, an engine weighing 60 pounds more would be a waste. I must say though to all of us who remember a "seat of the pants 40 mph whaler", 31 mph sure does feel fast..

---

Additionally, to anyone who doesn't re a d the last four pages, I'm happy with my 13. It's rock solid and gets me out where I want to be. I'm just exploring my current set up, looking for tweaks, arranging things to their best locations, and ranting about the heavy weight of a replacement engine......Though I do see now why people usually recommend the 15 if you're looking for a classic whaler. It's only a little bigger, is actually fast and you don't have to worry as much about your engine choice. Plus....they say it rides much much better....


I also must have a ghetto stainless steel prop. There are no markings on it anywhere. No name. No size. Nothing. It's looks like I have 2" of clearance between the blade tip and cavitation plate though. Eventually I'm putting a tachometer on so that will help.

---

I don't think you are going to see 40mph out out of 40hp Yamaha, but the speeds you are seeing are slower than I would expect.

At what height is the engine mounted? (ie which bolt hole in the bracket)
Are you trimming the motor out?
Perhaps a different prop will help. A tach is needed to properly figure it out.

---

DGood: Agreed. I dont expect 40 mph out of that 40hp. Though people will tell you all day long their 13 runs 45+.......:) If you average my speed both ways it ends up with me doing about 30 MPH. We raised the motor up one hole today at the marina to see if that helps. It did nothing except make it ride a little better. The boat seems to ride more level now. I gained no speed and lost no speed. It is now three holes down from the top or two holes up from the bottom. The cavitation plate is 3/4" above the bottom. Before it was below the bottom. The marina manager, who I know and respect, stated that he wouldn't raise it any more. He said it looks good and if anything at the top range of where it should be.

At this point I am starting to think it has the wrong prop. Though I am in the dark until I hook up the Faria tach. Just because its cheap, I ordered a 10 1/8 x 15 three blade aluminium prop to try out. It was the recommended size for speed with my boat and engine combo.

I'm doing all of this because before I start messing around with other engines I want to maximize the gear I currently have.

Funny observation though, while it was on the sling today, I noticed that the bottom has a very pronounced step molded into the hull about midway from the bow. It is VERY pronounced and drops off a good 2'. I looked at other 13' whalers laying around and they do not have this. This boat was apparently a Frankenstein boat that started life in 1977 as a tiller model. Over the years it was converted to a sport and I finished the conversion to a Super Sport.....very strange though. Unfortunately, I forgot to snap a picture.

---

I faced a similar dilemma a few years ago when replacing an old 40 2strk. on a 16 ' Carolina Skiff. I am in the extended warranty business and Tohatsu does make a great motor. The 40/50 series are low pressure direct injected 2 strokes with similar fuel efficiency and quietness of operation to the 4strokes. That being said, I went with the Mercury 30 h.p. 4 strk ---- which is actually made by Tohatsu ! I did this because of the weight difference ( 167 lbs vs the 205). Tohatsu supplies Mercury with all of their engines below 40 h.p.

Another possible consideration is the horsepower rating. Up until I believe the very late 80's or early 90's, Mercury and OMC both rated their motors in horsepower at the powerhead and not at the propeller shaft. They eventually changed because Yamaha, Honda, and Suzuki always rated their motors at the shaft and were actually advertising that fact. There is about a 15% difference in that rating. That being said, a newer 40 would be pretty close in actual h.p.to the older 48. The 48 by the way was a 50 but without oil injection. Good Luck !

---

I knew the 48 was supposedly a stripped down version of the 50 but I didn't know about the oil injection. It seems most people bypass that anyway.

As time goes by and I get all the little details sorted out with this boat it's becoming more and more predictable and comfortable. Moving the tank forward really helped the most and the boat just feels balanced now. I'm sure when I install the 14 gallon under the front seat it will.be perfect. As a bonus, I now have boarding area in the back where the tank used to be. It's right where I mounted the rope ladder and has non skid to boot. Sand a and water now stay back there instead of all over the mahogany. :) Being balanced, the boat seems to handle waves much more comfortably than before. It's like the hull is now dealing with the waves instead of flying over them and slamming the aft two feet into the water.

I ordered the Faria 7k Tach so I won't be in the dark much longer. Ultimately the boat will get repowered. Maybe not this year, but eventually. I don't know why but I just don't like the Yamaha. (Discussed in depth earlier). I'm not sold on the need for a 4 stroke engine in this power range so I will likely look at ETEC's. The more I read about them a and the more people blindly bash them the more interested I get. I think if I can balance the boat with what I have, when the time comes, it's simply a matter of moving the difference in weight forward again. Hence, maintaining the balance.

Back onto the motor rant, As I read hundreds of pages worth of opinions regarding engines, it really amazes me how vehemently people will defend the virtues of a particular engine make. It as if they helped design it and own half the company. I've always found that a majority of people have only had one or two real boats and they become fans of whatever is hanging on the transom when they buy it. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to at marinas and boat ramps who will spend 20 minutes selling you the virtues and perfection of their outboard and claim that "my Yamssonukirude is the best and most reliable engine manufacturer in the world".....so I ask what went wrong with their last outboard and they tell me it's their first boat and they bought it last month......but they heard from a friend cousin brother priest mother that it's the best.......amazing and entertaining. Even marina staff 're not immune, I watched a dock hand moving a boat last week a and it had an Etec 50 on it so I asked him what he thought of it. He said they were garbage and said they are always having problems. So I asked him what was happening. He said simply, "they are harder to flush compared to Yamaha......"......that was all he could think of on the spot. Hmmmm. Yamaha has a HUGE dealer presence here so almost every boat on the river has a Yamaha on it. Literally. Is what it is I guess.

---

The engine mounting position that you currently have is called 1 hole up. Whaler used to conservatively recommend 1 hole up. I don't own a 13' whaler (and have only ridden in them), but I think the recommendation on the forum is either 2 or 3 holes up depending on the prop. The higher mounting position with get the boat on plane easier (and more level). 13's whaler seem to like weight forward, so you rearward bias may be compounding the issue. The classic whalers usually don 't need a fin on the lower unit if the motor is mounted properly. The fin you have currently may be dragging in the water which is affecting your top speed. I would correct the engine mounting before playing with props.



13's Whaler have a hook in the hull. I have never look at the underside in detail though.



A lot of the VRO are disabled by using a regular fuel pump. I think they are disable for for two reasons, one if the VRO does fail, it is a lot cheaper to buy a non VRO fuel pump and I think their is a lot people (mechanics included) who are quick to blame the VRO for every engine problem. I have seen at least half dozen people claim the VRO ruin their motor because when you get the details, it is usually is only piston damaged. It is very likely a lean carb cause the problem, a no oil condition would cause problems with the entire engine oiling.

IMO the VRO is good system,, it save oils and it has less smoke idle. It fails running rich (oil).

---

Interesting. I've read every piece of literature I could find looking for whalers recommendation and came up empty. Thanks. My motor currently looks high. Keep in mind that this started 38 years ago as a tiller boat. The holes that mount my engine were likely not put there by whaler. I'll snap a better picture when I'm down there today. The marina will gladly raise it again but the owner didn't recommend it. Agreed on the weight forward. I bought and installed a Tempo 14 gallon tank that fits under the front thwart seat. It sits and rides much better now. Seems to handle waves better for some reason as well. Now the only things aft are my battery and 40 quart cooler. And they are both up against the seat backrest. I tried to look at the lower unit while at WOT, a balancing act for sure, to me, it looked as if the fin and cav plate was still in the water. I questioned the marina about this, because I've researched it and found pictures on here showing what it should look like. My lower unit and cavitation plate/hydrofoil throw up their own rooster tail. They are clearly NOT out of the water. My fear in raising it more come from not wanting to loose prop bite in rough water, which we get here a lot. At some point I'll try to get a picture of the lower unit at wot without killing myself.

I made a point of looking for the hook. I saw nothing even close. What it has is a huge step, like a hydro, mid way aft. I looked at pictures of many other 13's and can't see this. Man I wish I would have taken a picture. After the step, it is flat to the eye. There are two 3"+ strakes running aft though. Maybe I just didn't see it as maybe its not obvious.

That makes sense regarding VRO. The idea is sound. People tend to bad mouth things if they have an issue even if they were the cause of the issue. It goes back to my post about maintaining older outboards. I work on stuff. All the time. The first thing I do when I get a new piece of equipment is buy all the manuals for it. Maybe it's because I build muscle cars. Maybe it's because I've been a mechanic most of my life. Maybe having a full minus HVAC ASE cert for years caused it....I don't know. But I always work on my own equipment and follow the manufacturers specs. I rarely have problems with things. Sometimes I am utterly amazed at the lack of understanding some people have regarding the equipment they operate. Not to bash or sound arrogant, but a lot of people are just ignorant when it comes to machinery. Like the dock gurus whose answer for every issue is to replace the $6 fuel filter or add a gas treatment. Rarely if ever is a major issue in an engine caused by something like the little filter on the side of the engine being so clogged, the engine blows smoke and won't run......I digress.

Witnessed my first towed Evinrude G2 yesterday. First one I've even seen. Looks like it should power the space shuttle's dinghy or something. I wasn't able to catch up to him to ask what happened but he had a boat full of well dressed people and I'm sure he wasn't happy. Towboat had him. Who knows, maybe he ran out of gas. It was a BIG one though and I'm sure it cost more than my three boats combined.

That leads me into my next rant,

When I'm out on the water, I have a small tool box that holds all the basics I need to partially disassemble my outboards. I can pull carbs, check plugs, rig fuel systems. With these new outboards, can a normal man even fix anything on them while drifting in the water? The guy with the g2 made me think about that. Looking at that engine, there is NOR much you can do when it shuts down.I've watched too many people sit there wearing down their battery blindly turning over an engine that is not starting. HINT:if its not starting, unless it's flooded, Turing it over non stop until the battery dies will not make it start. You have to start troubleshooting.....I once watched a guy start cussing so loud you could hear him half a mile away, he then proceeded to start kicking and punching his cowl until the fiberglass broke and it fell in the water. Turned out someone had knocked the fuel hose loose on his portable tank while climbing into the boat. Started right up when we reconnected it, without a cowl on the engine.......

---

You should probably start a new thread about dialing in your specific boat. It's difficult to review the facts & details you have shared throughout this thread.

A couple of quick points, I'd be careful about putting the 14 gal fuel tank under the front seat if you regularly have a couple guys sitting up there. That might be too much weight forward.

As for engine height you want the cavitation plate at the surface of the water at speed. If your boat is heavy all the way up might not be high enough.

---

Hi MG, I run enough with just me and the dog that it warrants setting the boat up for that. Having said that, this thread was kind of a catch all thread discussing engines, engine choices (or lack of) and general issues with setting up a new to me boat. It wasn't really a "troubleshooting" thread per se' but more of a bounce ideas and rants off the top of my head regarding my particular setup and the issues I'm facing. These issues and ideas; I think would be common to anyone who picks up a 13' sport for the first time. Getting the boat set up, possibly re-powering and dealing with all the rigged junk that previous owners over the years "engineered". It's kind of a "catch all" so to speak because if I started a new thread for everything wrong with this boat and the current state of outboards I might as well start my own forum. Think of it as a discussion where various things come up. I guess if no one replies to anything and I end up talking to myself I'll move on. So far, there seems to be a reasonable back and forth regarding this stuff. Now that I've explained myself, if it is faux pas to do so, please let me know.

Numbers are in. I'm kind of in disbelief but I don't see how its wrong. I installed the tachometer. With the unmarked stainless steel prop my tach says WOT is 3500 RPM at 30.2 MPH. My owners manual says 4500-5500 at WOT. Holy crap. This prop must be for a Volkswagen or something. I dont see how the tach can be wrong. It's set on the 2 CYL setting and reads the idle RPM, 1150-1100 correctly. It sure sounds like more than 3500 RPM. Unbelievable. The new aluminium 10 1/8 x 15 prop should be here soon so I'm really curious to see what happens. .

---

The Tach settings are usual number of poles the inductive pick up has. I think the Yamaha 40 strokes use 3 pole setting. You will want to confirm that number.

---

The instructions say that the Yamaha I have, 1997 2 cyl 2 stroke C40 is in fact a 6 pole. The only options it gives you is 4,6,8,10,12 pole. At any other setting, the idle RPM is way off. I've been around engines long enough to know what 1100 rpm compared to 400 rpm sounds like. Ironically, I had originally set the idle speed by ear. When I finally hooked up the Tach, it was reading 1100 rpm. Which is what I was aiming for. Scary accurate my ears are.....lol, (very lucky that day I guess)...for some reason, I believe it. That would explain my low top speed. 1000-1500 rpm should be worth 5 mph or so on this hull. My 10.125x15 prop us in. Just waiting on the hub. Maybe I'll buy one of those little $25 tock tachs to verify my expensive tachometer. Man does this ever end? You buy instruments to check things.....then don't trust the instruments...so you buy instruments to check the instruments.

Beyond that, I had rebuilt the carburetor's to try and cure a rough idle. I found a clean set on eBay for a 1996 C40 and bought the factory rebuild kit. Now, I've rebuilt hundreds of carburetor's in my lifetime so this was nothing new. After installing them, going through the factory service manual and setting up all the adjustments, I just couldn't get the engine to run right. The idle smoothed out but it would miss, sputter and surge at 1/4 throttle on up. I checked for air leaks and went through the entire range of adjustments. The problem only got worse. So yesterday in frustration I bolted the old carbs back on and now I trust the engine again. I did notice that while the carbs look the same, they had a different number inscribed on the throat. I'm beginning to think the guy sold me something else as the part numbers for Ute 96-97 C40 carbs are the same....I got so frustrated that I inflated my Achilles dinghy, strapped on the 1982 Johnson 7.5 that I rebuilt and used it to go fishing with instead. I know that this is not typical and there is a cause for what's happening but man, my first Yamaha outboard and I'm ready to dump this thing over the side.

It's funny how a brand prejudice forms. I've had nothing but joy from all my omc products in the past. Even when fighting starter recoil issues while broken down in a surf. I fixed them because they are simple. They last. My experience with Yamaha so far has been problematic. I've had Yamaha motorcycles over the years and loved them. I've rebuilt Yamaha engines from 600cc to 998cc. Triple carb monsters that required my mercury gauge to tune. Yet, here I am, cussing the Yamaha name and contemplating unbolting the engine mounts so it falls off the back. It's very easy to understand why people bash certain brands. I actually understand how all this stuff works and caught myself falling victim to brand hate. Then all it takes is one guy walking the dock who says "Yamaha is great right up until they break" and at the moment you agree and there it begins. To the average person, their engine causes issues like this and they are forever scarred.

I guess I can't put it off anymore. If I'm going to get this engine running right I'm going to have to buy a few special tools. But while this sucks, at least I can. This is what I'm afraid of with a new engine. When the computer I'd beeping and shutting down the engine, requiring factory computers to diagnose and fix....what does the average man do then?

---

I don't care what you do but you have a lot of issues going on and I find it all hard to follow. For instance, you mentioned you bought a 15 pitch prop, which might be a little tall, and I had to re-read all thru this to find out you don't even know what prop you have now. I think a thread about how you dialed in this boat would be a great help for those who go through the same thing in the future, and make it much easier to follow for those participating in the dialing in aspect of this thread. Honestly, there are what, 20,000 words spread over 4 pages here, and counting?

I know starting a new thread will at first seem redundant but it will be much more concise, efficient & a better reference. Again, I have zero problem with what you have going here.

While I am offering up unwanted advice I think you should set up a Personal Page here. It is really simple and it would be very helpful to be able to open your PP and see a picture of what you are dealing with on any given day.

---

Did you try the 4 & 8 settings? I don't know what Faria tach you have but I find the WOT RPM of 3500 low. Did it sound to you like you have another 2000 RPM left?



You can usually cure a rough idle by doing a de-carb, but why not re-build the original carbs?



I'm an unapologetic Mercury fanboy so I get the brand loyalty, but I don't think your Yamaha deserves all the hate. Seriously, the only thing it has done wrong thus far is have a rough idle. Simple, put a can of Seafoam in a gal of gas and start it. While it is running get a can of Seafoam spray and spray 1/3-1/2 of it in the carbs. Shut the engine down and let the chemicals work for a few hours. Start it again and use up the rest of the spray, shut it down overnight. Anything left of the gallon of gas/Seafoam mix use up at the end of using the boat.

The more times you can run that gallon thru the carbs & let it sit the better. You've re-built enough carbs that have been sitting to know what we are trying to clean out here, and you should know one flush isn't going to clean out stubborn deposits. Also, I only mention Seafoam as it is something most people know & is available everywhere, but there must be a dozen products that do the same thing.



Outboards have had electronics that can fail in the blink of an eye, regardless of how well you maintain your engine, for more than thirty years. Luckily my Montauk engine is over forty years old. Unless I blow a hole thru the side of the block all I need to bring is a coat hanger and some duct tape.

---

I thought of something to note about the reliability of electronics. In general they are going to fail within the first 30 days or be very reliable.

That is until they are subjected to adverse conditions or become very old. I'll let you define what is very old with regard to outboard engines, whose very operation could be described as adverse because of just the vibration & heat.

I would have a great deal of trust with the electronics of an engine that is only 5-7 years old. Another way of putting that is if your engine is over 5-7 years old you are on borrowed time.

---

Yeah I hear ya. I always liked the coat hanger fixes. The other day the wife and I were exploring some back creeks in the inflatable. I keep three tools in its carry box, a flathead, a pair of pliers and a small adjustable wrench. She asked, "that's all the tools you carry? What if something breaks!" I laughed and said that I can darn near field strip this old Johnson with those three tools. It's all ill ever need.

Ill look into setting up a personal page. I can see the usefulness and I guess it would help to see who you're talking to and what equipment I have.

I also agree that some of this needs to go to separate threads. This thing is full of issues. The only ones I've brought up were the idle and lack of speed. I'm developing a distrust for this engine. Which sucks because I operate in areas where you can get in trouble fast. I was r really po'd when I had issues with the new carbs as I really took my time with them and they are immaculate inside and out with all new parts. I bought the second pair because they were $40 and I wanted a spare set to have available on the shelf in my shop. I don't like down time and it was easier for me to take my time on the second set without disabling the boat.

The tachometer is a wash so far. I'm going to call faria tomorrow, it's their Chesapeake series 7000 Rpm outboard tachometer, and see if they have any suggestions. No, it does not sound like there is another 1500 Rpm available. It sounds like 5000+

I took off the unmarked stainless prop, mounted the 10.125x15 aluminum prop today. Now I at least know what I have. Funny thing though, according to the tach, I'm still turning 3450 @ 30.3 mph! Almost no change at all from the unknown stainless prop.

This motor supposedly had about 80 hours on it. Not much for a 1997 engine. It must have sat a lot. I ran the "shock treatment" of ring free through it and am now running 2oz per 10. Twice the maintenance amount for another tank. The idle cleared up a bit but this engine just doesn't sound healthy under 1500 or so and at various rpm between idle and that. It's hard to explain on a forum but you'd understand if you heard it. Something is not right. It's not bad but definitely not 100%. It has never quit on me, even when wheezing and squeaking through the silencer(weird backfire) with the rebuilt carbs.

The words about Yamaha were said in a half joking manner with regards to how brand prejudice begins. Truth be told, I might hold this thing to a higher standard because I really just don't like this engine. No other reason than its not what I want on the back. But regardless, it's what I have so for this season at least, I've got to make it work. By special tools I meant basic troubleshooting stuff. I had a box with a compression gauge, dial indicator and a few other tools in it that disappeared in a recent move. I need to start at the beginning with this engine and get preliminary compression readings and check the timing. If the compression is good, the timing is right and their are no air leaks + clean carbs, adjusted properly and good spark; it should run right. There is nothing else to this engine.

Though I must say, this frustration again had me looking at outboards for sale. I bought this boat to enjoy and use while I restore my sailboat. Unfortunately, all I do is work on it INSTEAD of the sailboat. But I'm stuck either way. I can't sell this Yamaha until it's running right and if it was running right I wouldn't be in a hurry to sell it.........so.....smiles and cold beer.

---

oh and I should add that I've tried every setting on the back of the tach. #2, 6 pole is what the instructions say and is the only one that seems even close.

---

I own a 1976 13' Whaler. I bought a 25 hp Suzuki 4 stroke to repower another boat & switched to the Whaler instead. I cut the stern down to 15 " as the motor was a short shaft. Electric start and tiller steer, I've been very happy with it. With a Whale-tail on the lower unit it planes off quickly and runs around 22 knots. I did add about 50Ibs of lead up front to stop the porpoising. Even 22 knots at times is a bit much if the water gets choppy, so slow down. I don't mind performance, but ass slapping in rough water ain't fun for the boat or the folks in it. I worked for Seaford Marine in the early 60's, and do remember the 13's all came with 35-40 hp Johnson's then. I would think they weren't much faster than what I have now. Plus now, the low smoke & noise levels are very welcome.

---

Areinhart now that you have your old prop of I'm surprised there are no markings at all not even a mold number?
But mark one blade and turn it 360 deg. over a flat service in the axial direction either CW or CCW and see how far it traveled. That, the diameter, and prop angle to hub, will get you close to to what this old prop's spec are.
And with your in water results I bet it is close to what your new prop is, hence the same performance.