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.

 

[oneblueyedog]

Im not sure the rating plate is missing. Its 14ft long and im assuming starcraft because of the star logo in the corner supports. It came with a 1968 johnson 9.5 not sure if that is a sign of the age. Was trying to do some digging on which
Model im thinking either seafarer, sea scamp or superstar. Someone has modified the seats in it to just wooden planks so hard to tell

They made quite a few versions. Mine has a shallower draft. My plate says max 20hp. People 450 lbs. Max gear and people 650 lbs. Running a Johnson 9.5 and getting about 14mph with no gear with me at 175 lbs.

 

[Buster]

They made quite a few versions. Mine has a shallower draft. My plate says max 20hp. People 450 lbs. Max gear and people 650 lbs. Running a Johnson 9.5 and getting about 14mph with no gear with me at 175 lbs.

C-14 does 17-18 with the tohatsu 9.8 and just me. Drops to 12-13 with a buddy in the bow, 10ish with 2. I don't fish anywhere where it makes more than a few minutes difference in travel times, and if we're plowing along at 10mph, hey, it's time spent with friends even if we're not drowning minnows.

 

[hoarder]

I ran a Starcraft SF14L for years with both 9.9hp and 35hp motors. I never checked the speed on a GPS and the fish finder speed was all over the place but with the 9.9hp, it would only get on plane with must me, and minimal gear onboard. With the 35hp, it was FAST but at rest with me and the 120 lb motor on the stern it was uncomfortably close to taking on water over the transom and more than once I had passing boats wash water over the transom via their wake.
With a 9.9hp 2 stroke I had almost 4" of freeboard there.
I settled on a 15hp 2 stroke and used that for years.
I finally moved up to a wider, 16ft boat and hung the 35hp on that instead, and later a 50hp two stroke.
Which again gave me freeboard issues due to the added weight.
But I had the same issues with a 19ft boat I had years ago with a small block Chevy in it, if I stood at the stern, the scuppers would take on water.
Its just the joys of being 6ft 3in tall and 340 lbs I suppose.

With the 35hp on the SF14L I never really let it achieve top speed, I never really had the room to do so.
I'm not one to shy away from power but it was more than it needed by a good bit. I figured a 25hp would have been the right answer that way but I was more than happy with the 15hp that pushed it with two guys in it around 19-20mph. according to a buddie's boat's GPS who ran along side me a few times. The more weight I got off the stern the faster it would run.

 

[thill]

I had an old 2-stroke Evinrude 35. It was a GREAT motor, and very light. No PTT or anything else. It just ran and ran. A 4S 25 HP weighed about 2x as much and was almost dangerous on that boat