Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Powering a 1963 Sport 13
|Author||Topic: Powering a 1963 Sport 13|
posted 02-08-2009 04:53 PM ET (US)
What engine size is best for [a 1963 Boston Whaler 13-foot SPORT]? [Is] 50-HP [the best engine size for a 1963 Boston Whaler 13-foot SPORT]?
posted 02-08-2009 06:11 PM ET (US)
20-30hp lightly loaded. 30-40hp heavily loaded. If all you want to do is some crabbing than a 9.9 would be fine. A 1963 13' would require a short shaft(15") unless transom was modified in the past to allow a 20" motor
posted 02-08-2009 08:24 PM ET (US)
The "best" engine is hard to define. It could mean almost anything.
Mounting a long shaft (20-inch) engine on the transom of an older 13-footer designed for short shaft (15-inch) engines was nicely shown in PAGE 56 of the CETACEA collection:
posted 02-09-2009 11:06 AM ET (US)
How much stress do you want to put on a 46-year-old transom? Those bulkheads are not the strongest transoms to begin with and hence why they were changed in late 71. Also remember that a 40hp in 1963 is probably equiv to a 30hp today. I personally would keep it to a 25-30hp and make it light.
posted 02-11-2009 08:42 AM ET (US)
I also [plan] to re-power a 1969 Sport 13. I don't want to mess with the transom, so I am going with a short shaft. Older 40-HP short short engines weigh about 140-lbs. New 40-HP engines, of which there are no longer any short shaft, only longshaft, are 183- to 240-lbs. Also, add the weight of a jack plate. I'm going to get a 25- to 30-HP, the highest horsepower available in a short shaft.
Leftover two-cycle motors are 105- to 120-lbs, E-TEC motors are about 150-lbs, and four-cycle motors are 152- to 174-lbs. They are supposed to run 28- to 30-MPH wide-open with two to three adults on board. I wouldn't be comfortable putting a 200-lb. motor on mine, although some people are. I would with a 20-inch transom. I use mine for fishing only. If you water ski I would ask what engines people water ski with. Currently I have a 1971 Evinrude 40-HP short shaft (which weights 140-lbs) that does about 32-MPH wide open with two 200-lbs adults and gear, battery, trolling motor, when running well.
posted 02-11-2009 09:21 AM ET (US)
I have a 1967 13-foot Boston Whaler boat with a 1972 Evinrude 50-HP short shaft which weighs 185-lbs. It runs very well with this motor, but, if I were buying new, I would most likely stick with a motor around or under this weight, especially with the original transom height. I think the ideal motor for this boat is the 35- or 40-HP two cylinder Mercury short shaft that was produced in the 1960’s, the 1970’s, and the 1980’s. If you go new, I agree with the others; the 25- to 30-HP range would work very well with these older 13-foot Boston Whaler boats which are quite light compared to the newer models.
posted 02-20-2009 11:40 PM ET (US)
I have a 1964 SPORT 13 with a 35-HP Seahorse short shaft that works pretty good. I'd definitely go lighter for that transom, which ever way you go.
posted 02-21-2009 09:17 AM ET (US)
There has been a lot of good advice offered. Does MDCrabs have any comments?
posted 02-21-2009 08:14 PM ET (US)
...serve 'em hot with Old Bay and beer!
posted 02-21-2009 08:47 PM ET (US)
My 1963 Sport 13 featured in Cetacea Page 56 in 2002 is still running great. I have had no problems with the transom, the jack plate or the motor weight. In Summer and Fall, I use the boat nearly every weekend in the California Delta chasing Stripers and LMBs.
It seems in a blink-of-an-eye my kids have grown so we don't use the boat for water skiing or boogie-boarding anymore.
The only time I notice the weight of the motor is when I quickly back off the throttle after running at full and I get a small following wave over the stern. It really isn't that bad.
If I had to do the installation over again I wouldn't change a thing. I'm glad I went with the 20 inch shaft because I love the power trim and tilt. The Mercury has preformed beautifully and all I've had to preform is routine tune-ups, impeller changes and oil changes.
Thanks again, Jim, for such a great resource. Last year, my wife nearly talked me into buying a new Whaler, but, I love this one too much.
Ps. The young boy in the Cetecea page is now in college!
posted 02-21-2009 09:42 PM ET (US)
You did an excellent job on the jackplate and motor mounting on your Whaler.
|R T M||
posted 02-21-2009 10:27 PM ET (US)
I used to run a `58 Evinrude Lark 35 on my 13 footer, now I run a `08 25 Merc/Tohatsu EFI 4 stroke. Both motors will run 30mph. The big difference in performance is the lack of torque with the 4 stroke. Of course the lack of noise, and a lot less fuel consumption is nice though. Both motors are short shaft.
posted 02-23-2009 08:17 PM ET (US)
Here's my 1962 13' with Evinrude 50, plus jackplate:
posted 02-26-2009 10:20 AM ET (US)
Nissan/ Tohatsu made a 2 stroke short shaft big twin of 30 hp from 1996-2001 that is an ideal motor for an older 13'. It tips the scales at only 101 lbs with electric start. It's the lightest 30 hp that I could find. No they do not have pt/pt or all the bells and whistles. They are, however, very simple, strong and dependable and will not overburden the transom.
posted 02-26-2009 10:48 AM ET (US)
I had one...great engine. Friend still runs it on his 13'.
posted 02-27-2009 10:46 AM ET (US)
I'm going to run my 13 this weekend, weather permitting, 1st time out with a 50 on it! Oughta be pretty fast!
posted 02-27-2009 11:49 AM ET (US)
You could run a 150 on that transom LOL. With the right prop, it should go good. I have the same motor on my 13 footer except mine is a short shaft. I run a 19 pitch prop and I find it runs best on the 2nd highest tilt hole (no PT).
posted 02-27-2009 12:04 PM ET (US)
My 40 is probably about the same hp as your older 50. I ran a Rapture 17" SS prop and would hit 5600(5500 redline) with it mounted high and full tilt boogie. I think w/o PTnT the 17" SS prop would work great. The 19" I had on my 15' with a 60 and she would hit 6k with no PTnT and about 42ish. I think a 19 might be too large for a 13' Whaler unless you have it dialed in to do low 40's.
posted 02-27-2009 12:06 PM ET (US)
PS...the 60(1984) had a 6k redline and ran a 19" OMC SST. Check your redline and get a tach.
posted 02-27-2009 12:30 PM ET (US)
The redline on my motor is 6000 rpm. It's the early 70's 50Hp with the larger gear case which is the 12:32 gear ratio (2.6 to 1). You could be right a 17 might be better. That is actually what my brother said. I'm guessing it's currenly reving FT at 5000 to 5500 (by ear). Yes a tach would be nice - I should get one.
posted 02-28-2009 03:17 PM ET (US)
I have a 35 Seahorse on the back of my 64 sport...and she does real well with 4 adults on her. Getting 30 mph is about all you can usually get with this engine and 1 adult, but I would not recommend a larger than 40 hp.
These boats were not made for speed nor will they give you that much more speed to make it worth putting a larger engine on her...
Most people use there 13 s for putting around, not racing:)
posted 02-28-2009 03:51 PM ET (US)
I hear ya....when I bought this one (not too long ago), she was a basket case from sitting in the woods under large trees for a long time (owner got sick and passed away). The 50 came with it, so I decided to beef the boat up a bit during the recent restoration. I'd actually prefer a new 25 as I had on my last 13, and I may do that swap later, but for now I wanted to experience a 13 with a 50,,,cheaper $, and probably not one of my wisest boating decisions but hey....
posted 02-28-2009 07:17 PM ET (US)
I too recently fixed up sn old whaler which actually came with a 1961 28hp on it. The lower unit was leaking a little oil and my dad had the 50hp sitting in his garage collecting dust so we decided try it out. Funny, the 50 actually looks smaller. I use the boat mostly to take the kids out fishing and it performs very well with all on board. From what I've read on CW, these classic 13 footer whalers perform well with anything over 20hp.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.