9.9 not exciting enough 😂

[Buster]

If it were mine and I wanted speed/performance I'd be looking for a 25 2 stroke or a 20hp 4 stroke. Might have to move a little weight up front when by yourself for optimal ride but with passengers or loaded with gear it would plane out and get you at minimum upper 20mph.

Can confirm. Upper 20s/low 30s was where mine was with the Merc 25 2-stroke and 100 pounds or so of ballast or another guy up front.

 

[Crose92]

Not gonna get much from the 9.9 on a 14' ....Moving up to a 15 will make a noticeable difference until you get an extra passenger or two, then back to where you are now. If your looking for performance with a passenger or even two, go with a 25 hp on a tiller steering type. If you add a side console then Mabry a 30 or 35 hp depending on what your hull is rated. Is your 9.9 motor a model where a simple carb change can make it a 15 hp?

Im not sure its a 1997 mariner 9.9 if that helps any

 

[Buster]

This thread prompted me to do a little research that I think might be of interest. My 1966 Lund C-14 (Not WC, which doesn't show up until the mid 80s) has a length of 13-8, 55" beam, weighs 160, and the plate shows a capacity of 960 and is rated at 25HP. In '69 Lund added 4.5" to the length, 5 pounds to the weight, and the capacity drops to 880 and the rated HP to 20. Throughout the next 14 years various minor tweaks are made, the capacity varies dropping as low as 780 and settling in at 807, and the rated HP at 17 by DOT standards or 20 by BIA. All with the same length, beam, depth and transom as the 69 model.
In '84 Lund replaces it with the WC-14 in both a 15" and 20" transom model. The comparable 15" transom model is 13-10 long, has a 63" beam (vs 55), is 3.5" deeper amidships and at the bow, has a capacity of 785 pounds, and is rated for 25HP.
So the same model number gets 4+ inches longer and loses about 20% of its capacity and HP rating. Then it's redesigned to get significantly wider and deeper, and ends up with essentially the same capacity as the older model and the HP rating of a model 20 years older and fairly significantly smaller. Similarly, the relatively unchanged over that period S-14 model is rated at 50HP and 1195 pounds in 1966, but by 1984 with the same dimensions it's rated at 35HP and 895 pounds.
Clearly the rating standards changed over this time. I'd be wary of assuming these older boats are comparable to newer models, and I'd even be wary of their rating plates. On the other hand, unlike Dr Johnny Fever, I don't think the Boat Cops are going to track you down for not abiding by current standards, so we do what we feel comfortable with. I just think this sort of information is interesting and useful in each person deciding what they're comfortable with.

 

[flatheadsteve]

This thread prompted me to do a little research that I think might be of interest. My 1966 Lund C-14 (Not WC, which doesn't show up until the mid 80s) has a length of 13-8, 55" beam, weighs 160, and the plate shows a capacity of 960 and is rated at 25HP. In '69 Lund added 4.5" to the length, 5 pounds to the weight, and the capacity drops to 880 and the rated HP to 20. Throughout the next 14 years various minor tweaks are made, the capacity varies dropping as low as 780 and settling in at 807, and the rated HP at 17 by DOT standards or 20 by BIA. All with the same length, beam, depth and transom as the 69 model.
In '84 Lund replaces it with the WC-14 in both a 15" and 20" transom model. The comparable 15" transom model is 13-10 long, has a 63" beam (vs 55), is 3.5" deeper amidships and at the bow, has a capacity of 785 pounds, and is rated for 25HP.
So the same model number gets 4+ inches longer and loses about 20% of its capacity and HP rating. Then it's redesigned to get significantly wider and deeper, and ends up with essentially the same capacity as the older model and the HP rating of a model 20 years older and fairly significantly smaller. Similarly, the relatively unchanged over that period S-14 model is rated at 50HP and 1195 pounds in 1966, but by 1984 with the same dimensions it's rated at 35HP and 895 pounds.
Clearly the rating standards changed over this time. I'd be wary of assuming these older boats are comparable to newer models, and I'd even be wary of their rating plates. On the other hand, unlike Dr Johnny Fever, I don't think the Boat Cops are going to track you down for not abiding by current standards, so we do what we feel comfortable with. I just think this sort of information is interesting and useful in each person deciding what they're comfortable with.

In the 80s merc and omc started rating outboards at the prop instead of at the head. As a result the new ratings were roughly 20% less....this change over in how hp was rated also effected some boats capacity plates during that period. When looking at older boats ratings it should be considered too but remember yamaha always rated their engines at the prop and never had to change.

 

[Buster]

In the 80s merc and omc started rating outboards at the prop instead of at the head. As a result the new ratings were roughly 20% less....this change over in how hp was rated also effected some boats capacity plates during that period. When looking at older boats ratings it should be considered too but remember yamaha always rated their engines at the prop and never had to change.

Thanks for the info. That really helps flesh out the story somewhat.