1954 15 hp vs 1966 9.5 hp Outboard Ratings

[Weirdboymike]

Hey All!
Got a question regarding two of the 7 outboards I own and how they stack up. I have a 1954 15 HP evinrude (15012) and a 1966 9.5 HP Johnson (MQ-12A). I had a buddy give me the 9.5 as a gift and bought the 15 from a co-worker. I got both very clean and running perfect.

The question is concerning the actual hp ratings and how they compare. I know the 9.5 doesn't have the best reviews for maintenance and repair but that aside how close in HP are they? I believe the 1966 motor could have been rated at the power head and the 1954 motor at the prop.

The 9.5 is 5 lbs less than the 15 and I am headed on a camping/fishing trip where weight is a concern with all our gear plus just general curiosity. I plan to take both back out on the lake for test runs prior to the trip and plan on bringing both in the truck (as a fail safe).

 

[flyingscott]

Both motors are rated at the powerhead. The 15 is heads and tails above the 9.5, just a better overall motor. The 15 will be more powerful as it has a 20 CID powerhead whereas the 9.5 has a 15 CID block I believe. I am biased I really never liked the 9.5 evinrude/johnson motors I always thought they were a tad underpowered for there rating. But there are guys who like them but for me I would run the 15 all day long and keep the 9.5 as a spare. That way you can put off the exhaust leak (if it doesn't have one already) for as long as possible. The 15 will probably be cheaper to maintain.

 

[Weirdboymike]

The 15 is by far cheaper and easier to maintain. I do plan to sell it (9.5) after my trip as I already have a '75 9.9 Johnson that won't take too much to get running and a '57 7.5 hp johnson as back ups. That 15 Fastwin will probably outlast me though.

Thanks for the info I didn't know they were both rated at the powerhead. All I knew was they changed how they measured sometime in the 60's from what I have been reading.

 

[jimmbo]

OMC crank rated their engines through 1984, 1985 was the year they started rating at the prop.

 

[Weirdboymike]

Thanks Jimmbo

 

[fishin98]

I'm not a fan of OLD outboard motors...of all the ones you mentioned....Keep the 9.5 and 9.9....Find someone who loves OLD motors. I know from experience, nothing will spoil a fishing trip more than having your motor crap out on you.

 

[jimmbo]

I know a lot of mechanics really liked the 9 1/2. Well they didn't really like having to work on them, but those engines were job security

 

[flyingscott]

I'm not a fan of OLD outboard motors...of all the ones you mentioned....Keep the 9.5 and 9.9....Find someone who loves OLD motors. I know from experience, nothing will spoil a fishing trip more than having your motor crap out on you.

So you would pick the 2 motors with the best chance of ruining your trip.

 

[fishin98]

So you would pick the 2 motors with the best chance of ruining your trip.

Both of those motors running properly are better than those OLD 1950's motors, which are NOT tolerant of today's fuels. I had 1950's OMC's and the low profile 9.5 and 15hp OMC's. The 9.5 and 9.9 are nice motors, the only issue is they are low profile, so the mechanic's,especially back yard engineer's with FAT fingers, don't have much room to work on them. He has time to ensure the 9.5 and 9.9 are working properly. In their day the 1950's and early 60's OMC were the best small o/b's around, like everything else from that era their time is over. Of course he can do what he wants. Just my 2cts!

 

[flyingscott]

Both of those motors running properly are better than those OLD 1950's motors, which are NOT tolerant of today's fuels. I had 1950's OMC's and the low profile 9.5 and 15hp OMC's. The 9.5 and 9.9 are nice motors, the only issue is they are low profile, so the mechanic's,especially back yard engineer's with FAT fingers, don't have much room to work on them. He has time to ensure the 9.5 and 9.9 are working properly. In their day the 1950's and early 60's OMC were the best small o/b's around, like everything else from that era their time is over. Of course he can do what he wants. Just my 2cts!

You are wrong about the old motors not being tolerant of todays fuel there are many still running on pump gas. The 75 9.9 has the low tension magneto system that has a well earned reputation as troublesome. The 9.5 hp is an exhaust leak waiting to happen.

 

[fishin98]

You are wrong about the old motors not being tolerant of todays fuel there are many still running on pump gas. The 75 9.9 has the low tension magneto system that has a well earned reputation as troublesome. The 9.5 hp is an exhaust leak waiting to happen.

How about this...It's 2017...1954 motor 63 years old,1957 motor 60 years old,1966 motor 51 years old,1975 motor 42 years old....if it were me, I would place more faith in a properly running newer motor(s). I currently own a 1992 Honda 2hp,1999 Merc 15hp 2str,2007 Merc 5hp 4str, all will be gone soon, as I'm going to purchase a 2017 Tohatsu 20hp electric start Power tllt and trim, why..Because it's time to upgrade...for years I screwed around with O/B motors, instead of going fishing and boating. I understand messing around with OLD motors if you are a purist and want a period correct motor on your restoration. Throwing money or faith into 50's,60's,70's,80's and some early 90's motors is a waste. Maybe the OP is running a a very low budget,,,(been there and done that)..I hope he has a good set of oars. BTW when ethonal blends came into being, I owned older motors, gaskets,fuel lines and rings did not tolerate it.....BTW I'm 65 years old and been at this for a very long time.

 

[flyingscott]

Your right it is 2017. You know what boat motors did in 1954 they pushed boats. You know what they do in 2017 also push boats. By the way ethanol did not effect rings. I would still take the 1954 evinrude 15 hp over your 1999 15 hp Merc the Evinrude has a MUCH better lower unit kind of a step back there. If any of your motors make it to 63 years old and still run let me know. Prettty impressive track record for an OLD motor. Don't confuse new with being better.

 

[jimmbo]

You are wrong about the old motors not being tolerant of todays fuel there are many still running on pump gas.

You are correct about lots of old motor still running today, but there are caveats... The fuel system can have issues with that crap they put in gasoline these days called Ethanol, or worse Methanol. Some parts, like hoses, float needles, gaskets, o-rings, which the most trouble, are usually updated in newer overhaul kits. Unfortunately some of the older carb bodies and fuel bowls would get corroded by the Ethanol, that is not so easy to cure.

 

[flyingscott]

You are correct about lots of old motor still running today, but there are caveats... The fuel system can have issues with that crap they put in gasoline these days called Ethanol, or worse Methanol. Some parts, like hoses, float needles, gaskets, o-rings, which the most trouble, are usually updated in newer overhaul kits. Unfortunately some of the older carb bodies and fuel bowls would get corroded by the Ethanol, that is not so easy to cure.

You cannot hold methanol problems against 1950s motors, because it was a problem on motors into the 90s. The float bowls are an easy fix I have coated them with gas tank sealer.

 

[jimmbo]

Doesn't that add weight to the float, shellac is not much more viscous than water and goes on pretty thin, but gas tank sealer? A motor from the 90s is looked on as old, the ones from the 50s are close to ancient history

 

[flyingscott]

Doesn't that add weight to the float, shellac is not much more viscous than water and goes on pretty thin, but gas tank sealer? A motor from the 90s is looked on as old, the ones from the 50s are close to ancient history

You said fuel bowls that's what I coat with tank sealer. I coat the floats with Aero gloss works well. If it is a brass float I can usually re-solder them and make them good as new. The 50s motors may be ancient but they still run well and are generally cheaper to repair than a new motor. They offer excellent opportunities for first time boaters. When I went out on the lake with my 1964 Starcraft Del Ray with my 1964 McCulloch 75 hp not once did I hear that boat is to old to go out in. People were just happy to go boating.

 

[jimmbo]

My mistake, I misread and thought you meant the floats. I love older motors especially ones from the 60s, 70s, and even early 80s. Newer engines are boring. 75hp McCulloch... that was an interesting engine. Using McCulloch oil it could mixed a 100:1. Is it the one that had an induction system that allowed all the cylinders to share a common plenum with all three carbs at high speed?

 

[mla2ofus]

I've had a '54 15HP 'Rude for about 12 yrs and it has been a reliable, easy to start engine. Will troll on my 12' Livingston all day and never miss a beat. I had to change the coils about 6 yrs ago due to insulation breakdown. I also changed the pump impeller right after I got it. I run non ethanol gas in it and have had no fuel system problems. I did run ethanol gas until I found a local source for non ethanol. So I'm with the "ancient" crowd but maybe it's because I'm ancient and the old 'Rude and I have some things in common since it's just 7 yrs younger than me . But I seem to be crankier than it is, LOL!!
Mike

 

[flyingscott]

My mistake, I misread and thought you meant the floats. I love older motors especially ones from the 60s, 70s, and even early 80s. Newer engines are boring. 75hp McCulloch... that was an interesting engine. Using McCulloch oil it could mixed a 100:1. Is it the one that had an induction system that allowed all the cylinders to share a common plenum with all three carbs at high speed?

The 60 and 75 hp McCulloch all had the common plenum it was supposed to make it harder for one cylinder to lean out. The one on the right I am restoring right now. The one on the left is next.

 

[jimmbo]

I never saw a McCulloch engine until late 1973 when we went out to a lake about an hour out of town. At this lake it seemed 5 out of 6 boats had a McCulloch or a Scott-McCulloch on it. I was only 13 and it was almost 44 yrs ago so I can't recall much about them, except they were faster than our Johnson. They did have some neat features, like a programmable shallow water drive.
Nice to see you are keeping a bit of History from fading away

To the OP: Sorry for going off on a Tangent