Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
9.9 on 13ft whaler
|Author||Topic: 9.9 on 13ft whaler|
posted 02-13-2004 10:13 AM ET (US)
In nj once you turn 13 you can drive a boat which is bigger then 12ft with a max hp of 9.9. I am thinking of buying one for my son. I like the stability of the 13 ft whaler but question how fast the boat would go with a 9.9. Would it plan at all. Has any one had any experience with this. Does any one have one for sale.
posted 02-13-2004 12:18 PM ET (US)
BW catalogs list 9hp as minimum to plane a 13 Sport satisfactorily with a light load.
So, I think the answer is yes for a standard or a Sport.
If you are interested in a '96 Johnson rope start 9.9 4 stroke short shaft (For blue liner 13s) I have one I am willing to part with below NADA average retail.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 02-13-2004 04:18 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the info. I did call up BW and a 9hp will get it up on plane. They also said a two stroke would be lighter which would allow it to plane better.
posted 02-13-2004 07:03 PM ET (US)
Camp Seagull, on NC's Neuse river, has a fleet of 13's with 9.9's. We went out three to a boat and just got on plane. They were the sport package with remote and battery and we were 13. A pull start (no battery) with tiller would be great.
posted 02-14-2004 12:20 PM ET (US)
Glad to see you here. Good luck with your search. Glad I referred you?
posted 02-18-2004 11:52 AM ET (US)
I have an old 13 (1966)that I have run my mercury (1998)9.9 4s and a 18 Nissan/tohatsu 2s. Both engines will plane the boat with just me and a light load. The mercury is a heavy engine for a 9.9 but it still manages quite well and when we crab the 4s seems to not scare them off the trot line. I would not close the door on a small 4s on a 13.
posted 02-18-2004 04:09 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the info. Do you think the 2 stoke would be a little quicker and would get you up on plane faster. Also what size shaft is the 9.9.
posted 02-19-2004 10:35 AM ET (US)
Pre 1973(blue hulls) are 15" shaft....post 73 are 20".
posted 02-19-2004 11:07 AM ET (US)
I have a pre 1973 13' hull. I fashioned a wood transom extension(raised the transom height to 20") out of pressure treated plywood. It will not make the archives for looks or workmanship, but it was a cheap and easy way to use a 20" shaft motor. It works fine for 15 hp and under motors. I would be reluctant to buy a small short shaft motor since the long shaft motor can do double duty as a kicker on the Montauk when necessary.
posted 02-19-2004 06:07 PM ET (US)
Sorry for the delay I just read your message. The two stroke 18hp is a lot quicker as about 20 pounds lighter and more powerful than the mercury 9.9 4s. I never used GPS but the 18 Nissan/tohatsu is a strong running motor and feels awful close speedwise to the old 33hp OMC the boat came with. It pushes the boat as fast as I want to go and too fast for my nephew.
I have done away with the side console and made this 13 a standard. This works for me right now because I use it to crab with and the boat is used by the kids. We wanted to be able to put on smaller hp motors depending on who was running the boat. My 1966 as mentioned above is a 15" transom. I actually prefer the boat most times with the 9.9 4s as I use it to explore/relax and the quieter motor allows me to see more wildlife onshore. For these reasons the 9.9 seems to reside on the 13's transom most of the season. I think your son probably being much lighter than my 230lbs would find a 13 with a 9.9 even more fun.
posted 02-21-2004 07:36 AM ET (US)
Why does a kid need to plane? No matter who's lying or telling the truth here about how great a 9.9 performs on a 13, there seems no doubt it will push it. I know my son would be stoked just to be out there.
posted 02-22-2004 10:50 PM ET (US)
I would buy a cheap 4-6hp used that you can resell quickly after he is allowed to run with more than a 9.9hp. The problem is that he will out grow it VERY FAST. I would invest and buy a 25hp-40hp and a CHEAP 4-6hp that he can putt around with until he can use the bigger one. When he is 16 he is not going to want to take the ladies out in a 13 whaler with a 9.9, he is going to want the 50hp!
posted 02-23-2004 12:52 PM ET (US)
When he is 16 he will want a Montauk.
posted 02-23-2004 03:43 PM ET (US)
That would be a good time for him to learn the value of a dollar and buy one if he wants.
posted 03-04-2004 05:19 PM ET (US)
WOULD YOU SAY A 9.9 - 2 STROKE WOULD PERFORM BETTER THEN THE 4-STROKE. MY THOUGHTS ARE THE 2-STROKE RESPONDS FASTER AND WILL GET UP ON PLANE QUICKER WHERE AS THE 4-STOKE IS LIKE STARTING OFF IN SECOND GEAR. DID YOUR 4-STOKE GET UP ON PLANE EASILY AND RUN WELL.
posted 03-04-2004 07:38 PM ET (US)
Jasonw, ahh thats a loaded question as each motor is different. The simple answer is yes with a light load like your son a two stroke 9.9 will be quicker to plane and maybe a tad faster at top end. But I think my four stoke 9.9 while at a weight disadvantage has more torque and that moves a heavier load (like me) just as well or better. Truthfully though, I haven't run the 13 with a 9.9 two stoke, for a comparison.
If time to plane and speed are whats most important to you and your son then the two stroke is probably a better option. I really doubt there is much discernable difference thats why I was advising not to close the door on a four stroke should one become available. The ability to troll stealthly along the shoreline and the smoothness and economy of the four are added bonuses. Someone mentioned above that your son would outgrow the motor in a couple of years and that is probably true. Because of this I would be more concerned about age/hours /condition of an available motor than whether it was a two stroke or four stroke.
posted 03-04-2004 07:41 PM ET (US)
Jasonw, shoot forgot the simple answer to your inquiry. Yes my 9.9 four got up on plane and ran very well. The 13 is a very efficent hull design.
posted 03-05-2004 08:15 AM ET (US)
thanks for the info.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.