Welcome Guest - Sign Up today
Welcome Guest - Sign Up today
  • Dear Community Members,

    Over the last two years, there have been updates to the environment that have introduced challenges in usability, performance, and security. Efforts to improve the technology, user interface and site performance have revealed weaknesses in the platform and outdated software our site uses. This has made it increasingly difficult and frustrating to support and upgrade to more modern reliable standards that users deserve. This is not the experience we want for the members of this community.

    Members want a fast site that performs well across all devices, to be able to find relevant and interesting content, and easily share through text, images, video, and messaging on a secure platform. Our goal is to provide this user experience to all members. We will be updating to a new platform to better meet the needs of this community and allow us to provide support more efficiently. Our focus is to create a sustainable platform that performs well and loads faster on all devices while offering seamless ways to search and connect. Technology is constantly innovating - by creating an environment that we control we can maintain the site with more frequent improvements and maintenance updates.

    Although change can be difficult, we are here to support you through the process. We make every effort to review existing settings and make the changes needed so the migration goes smoothly. If you notice something doesn’t seem correct once the site goes live, don’t panic! We’ll have a dedicated person monitoring as the site goes live to answer any questions and provide support through this change. What’s next?

    When will this be happening? The plan is to put our current forums into maintenance mode (off line) at around 9am MST on 9/30/2020! The whole transition should take 24-36 hours. We recognize the user experience is slow and there are bugs from the outdated software. The sooner we can change that the better we can make the experience for you. You’ll start to see activity related to cleanup in preparation for migration very shortly. We will post an announcement to the community prior to starting the actual data migration.

    We appreciate each member’s contribution to this community and look forward to an improved experience for you all.

    - Management


No announcement yet.

Hey guys new user with a few questions.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey guys new user with a few questions.

    Me and my girl got a 10ft dingy with a 9.9 2stroke yamaha and had a ton of fun this summer. Next year we plan to do it a little bigger and get a 14 or 16 foot v-hull Jon boat. I have a 1962 evinrude "fast twin in decent working condition in the basement. Would it be worth it over a 9.9. 2 stroke yamaha from 1994? The yamaha runs amazing and the evinrude would need some work to get running tops. I added a picture or 2 so you guys could see our setup!

  • #2
    Id go for the fast twin if it worked well, if its compression etc is fine you should get quite a bit more power despite its extra weight.
    Wheres that picture taken by the way?


    • #3
      Those old fastwins were not very heavy..-------I would say the fastwin is around 85 lbs.----Yamaha 9.9 might be 78 lbs.


      • #4
        What is your goal, a larger boat and need more power for it?


        • #5
          for what it's worth that 10ft takes a 5hp max. i know because i have the same one only a grumman which i believe was bought out by omc/sea nymph. i've put a 9.9/15 on it and it was way too heavy. the 18 evinrude is lighter than the yammy but not much. i will say those 18hp motors are really strong. every bit as fast as a newer 15hp 2 stroke. probably has to do with the tiny, narrow bullet like lower unit. racer i thought the fastwin was only 69 lbs? the 15 merc i had was definitely heavier.


          • #6
            I used the factory brochure to find the weight of a 22 cubic inch model.----Where did you find the given weight at 69 lbs.----I believe the 10 HP those years was 64 lbs


            • #7
              Sign up today
              makes sense... i guess i was thinking 79lbs?