Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

[Dougan]

So in my quest to get the perfect ~10 hp motor, I've found that some of the common ones under $500 are:

60's/70's evinrude sportwin 9.5 hp (johnson included)
70's/80's evinrude sportwin 9.9 hp (johnson included)
70's/80's mercury merc 110 9.8 hp

Anybody well-versed in these motors that can compare them? Knowing I'm probably going to have to drive a couple hours to purchase one of these, I want to do my research to make sure I'm getting the right model this time. How do they compare in power? Is the 9.9 really that much heavier/more powerful than the 9.5? Any other thoughts on any of these motors?

I really appreciate the support you've all given me to this point. Thanks!

 

[ezeke]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

The 9.9 was/is a better motor than a 9.5 and is easier to repair.

The 9.9 is also newer than the 9.5 and parts availability is slightly better.

 

[JB]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Yup. What ezeke said is right on.

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Many people will agree that the 9.5's are great motors, but hard to work on. The 9.9's are newer and simpler to work on, plus there are simple ways to upgrade those 9.9's to a 15hp too.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

9.5hp OMCs are cool little motors, but I wouldn't want to own one. Too many NLA parts and they are a pain to work on.

As for Mercs .... let's just say there is a reason that I don't hang out on the Merc/Mariner forums!



???

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Mercs are okay motors and probably just as popular among the boaters/fishermen as the OMC's are, but a lot of them require a few special tools to work on them. I had to manufacture cover plate removal tools for waterpump jobs and lower unit rebuilds on a Mark 20 I had. Like Jay here, I prefere the OMC's.

 

[cajuncook1]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I would say your best bet would be the 9.9 Evinrude.

- The 9.5 is a nice motor and runs well, but parts are becoming no longer available(nla) and harder to work on. I have 1965 and 1972 models of the 9.5hp Evinrude.
- I have a 15hp Evinrude(basically the same as the 9.9hp) year 84 and it runs smooths and very dependable. (Parts are easily available from Iboats, BPR, and ebay. (You will also have better luck finding a marine mechanic willing work on your motor) (9.9hp power and speed is much more noticeable and has better gas efficiency than the 9.5hp )

- Sorry no experience with Merc 110, but I'm a JohnnyRude dude.

This forum has wealth of experienced guys and very welling to help. They even use diagrams and pictures to help you out. ( I'm fairly new to the self repair and rebuilding. These guys have been great!)

Just my 2 cents,

cajuncook1

 

[BigB9000]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I said it before, and I'll say it again,

Go ask a question in the merc section, then in the Evinrude section, and see which one gets answered.

 

[Dougan]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I appreciate all the feedback. Gives me a better sense of what I'm looking for, that's for sure.

The only thing I'm still weary about is the weight of the motor. My boat is very narrow and shallow, and my current motor is just too heavy for it. The current one is a '58 Merc Mark 10 long shaft that I got for $75, and I'm pretty sure that basically any motor I get will be lighter than it.

Still, with the amount of water that beast lets in, and how high it sticks the bow up, and lastly the amount of wear it puts on my transom from being trailered, it's taught me to be a bit weary about weight on the motor. It's hard to say how much the thing weighs, because I'm not good at gauging that. But, comparing it to my 50 lb 6 hp evinrude, I would say it's 80-90 pounds, which makes me weary of the 9.9 which appears to weigh in at 75. I suppose that all 3 of these problems could be explained by the long shaft on such a shallow boat as well.

At this point, given your responses, I think I will probably still favor the 9.9 over the 9.5 and just cross my fingers that it's not going to be overweight. However, given the market out there, I think it's more likely that I'll land a 9.5 and from what you've all said, I won't be too worried if I have to "settle" on that. But is anybody able to speak on the weight of the 9.9 compared to the 9.5, or maybe other ~10 hp motors? Just to settle me down? Ideally I would find one and throw it on my boat just to see, but, even if I couldto do that, I'd have to chip through the ice....

Thanks!

 

[ultra353]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Like everyone says, the 9.9 is a better motor. However, the 9.9 is going to cost more to purchase and weighs more, which sounds like a concern to you. The 9.5`s are good running(not speed demons though), weigh 60lbs, but harder to work on and some parts are nla. If you decide to go for a 9.5 here are some of the most trouble areas: Leaking exhaust around the shift shaft- i.e, it runs poorly with cover on-runs good without it, Broken front motor mount-if you can move the flywheel back/forth more than an inch, Carburation: All "jets and orifices must be completely clean" to idle and run smoothly. . I am in no way an expert and most of the guys on here have helped me with my 9.5 and know way more than i do, so i always asked and always recieved excellent help.

 

[ezeke]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

The standard 9.5 weighs 60 pounds. A 1982 rope start standard 9.9 weighs 72 pounds.

On the 9.9 you have to add 5 pounds for electric start.

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

My personal favorite is the 1957 10hp Evinrudes. They're simple to work on, still a lot of parts available for them and they don't have a weight problem. I'm willing to bet that it may even be a tad lighter than the 9.5 plus the quality is there.

As far as NLA parts? Hogwash. I can still find all the parts I need to completely restore one. Just need to look at the right resources

 

[cajuncook1]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I appreciate all the feedback. Gives me a better sense of what I'm looking for, that's for sure.

The only thing I'm still weary about is the weight of the motor. My boat is very narrow and shallow, and my current motor is just too heavy for it. The current one is a '58 Merc Mark 10 long shaft that I got for $75, and I'm pretty sure that basically any motor I get will be lighter than it.

Still, with the amount of water that beast lets in, and how high it sticks the bow up, and lastly the amount of wear it puts on my transom from being trailered, it's taught me to be a bit weary about weight on the motor.

Couple of questions:

- what is the size of your boat?
- what size motor is the boat rated for?
- what are the max weight limits of your boat?

Things to consider:
- if your bow is elevated due to weight, then consider placing the fuel tank in the middle of the boat with an extended fuel line. Also consider the position of the battery in the boat. Use a covered battery box and secured it in the middle or front of the boat and use extended battery cables.

- If your boat is smaller, having a fuel tank, trolling motor, battery, outboard motor, and your self will certainly cause the bow to elevate up and back of the boat to be lower and allow alot water to splash in.

- By readjusting the weight in the boat and keeping in mine the motor hp rated for the boat, max weight limit of the boat( that includes all persons in the boat, equipment, and the motor), you may be able to keep your existing motor if you are please with its running condition.

- Using a transom saver on your boat/trailer will help prevent undue stress of the motor on the transom during road travel and also protect and help prevent undue stress on your motor's mounts and clamp assembly.

Just a couple of thoughts!!

cajuncook1

 

[Richman]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I ran a new 1976 9.9 Johnson on a very light 12 ft. aluminum boat as a kid. I blew away a kid in a similar boat with a 9.8 Merc. I have to say that I now run a 2004 15hp Merc on a 14 foot fiberglass skiff and it is one of the best engines I have ever owned. Don't knwo much about a Merc 110 though.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

After reading your comments about weight issues with a 75-80 pound motor, I would say that you ought to stay with the 6hp motor that you now have. Sounds to me like you have a very small boat that wasn't designed for a motor in the range of a 10hp.



???

 

[Dougan]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

My boat is an old (maybe 70's?) 14 foot alumacraft. Best picture I can find on the internet is the one below. But, my boat is shallower than that one. It is only rated for 12 hp. I don't know the maximum weight and the boat is currently not somewhere I can get at it (stored for the winter).

(Image tag removed because this picture is huge. Just paste in browser)
http://conductorjonz.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/alumacraft-fdr-11-14-09-002.jpg

I usually don't use a battery on the boat unless I'm fishing at night or trolling. I try to keep the gas tank emptier (I rarely take it out for long journeys so it doesn't need to be too full) to lower the weight on the boat. When it's just me, I'll usually put a cinder block up front somewhere to keep the bow down so I can see where I'm going.

Honestly, I think a lot of this is also caused by the fact that it's a long shaft. If there ever were a boat that needed a short shaft, it's this one, due to how shallow it is. When I travel with the boat, I have to prop the motor all the way up so the skeg doesn't hit the road, and then it rolls around a lot. I like your transom saver idea, and wonder if there's a way I could pull that off. Still, I'd like a new motor. Although this thing has never failed me, I still worry about its reliability.

 

[jbjennings]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Here's what I think:
I own a merc 110 AND a johnson 10hp, and have ran many 9.9's.
A merc 110 9.8hp motor will run off and hide from an OMC 9.9 or 10hp motor. It also has a lower unit design that is MUCH better at cutting through weeds than an OMC lower unit, and the slip clutch prop doesn't have a drive/shear pin like the old 10's and 9.5's. It is also a darned good looking motor.

The 9.5 motors are by far my least favorite of the small OMC motors. ALright, the truth is that they're ugly, hard to work on, and consistent about having trouble with exhaust leaks. There aren't any other OMC motors that I dislike below 35hp and above 3hp.

The OMC 9.9 and 10hp motors are such incredibly nice motors that they are BY FAR the more desirable motor than a merc 110 if you are going to have only one motor and it has to be dependable for long periods of time.
THe merc 110's of various years have lots of expensive electrical parts like triggers, switch boxes, and power packs that love to go out. They also are notorious for being hard to start when cold if they aren't in absolute perfect tune. The bearing carriers can be hard to remove without breaking them for the shade tree mechanic, and the cooling systems can be quite contrary as well. That said, I love my merc 110 and find it to be quite pleasing to hear going down the lake at WOT, and I don't have to worry about shearing a pin as well. They crank darned easy after the first start of the day.
OMC 9.9 and 10hp parts are cheap, and the design is easy to work on. They are beyond reproach on reliability as well.

I might also add that the 110's don't even have a cylinder head that can be removed. Pre-1976 110's had mild steel drive shafts and almost all of them will be rusty and won't hold a seal, thus ensuring the lower unit gears and bearings are rusty.

Choose wisely!
JBJ​

 

[jbjennings]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I appreciate all the feedback. Gives me a better sense of what I'm looking for, that's for sure.

The only thing I'm still weary about is the weight of the motor. My boat is very narrow and shallow, and my current motor is just too heavy for it. The current one is a '58 Merc Mark 10 long shaft that I got for $75, and I'm pretty sure that basically any motor I get will be lighter than it.



Thanks!

Dougan, Although I would LOVE to see and even own your merc mark 10, I can tell you from experience that if the water pump goes out, you'll have a better chance of catching a 100lb. bluegill than finding someone who can change the impeller on that thing. Even if you find someone that can, the question remains is----are they WILLING!!!
If you could post a pic of that motor running, I'd love to see it. I like the way they have all those water indicator holes in the leg.
Later,
JBJ

 

[jbjennings]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

I ran a new 1976 9.9 Johnson on a very light 12 ft. aluminum boat as a kid. I blew away a kid in a similar boat with a 9.8 Merc. I have to say that I now run a 2004 15hp Merc on a 14 foot fiberglass skiff and it is one of the best engines I have ever owned. Don't knwo much about a Merc 110 though.

I'm thinking your '76 9.9 might have had a 15hp carb on it, or the other kid was way chunky, because from my experience, a 9.8 merc is a very fast motor for it's horsepower. I love OMC's, but I believe merc is pretty much the top dog on speed as a whole. A '70s merc 20hp will leave an OMC 20hp like it's sitting still.
I'm going to have to pull out the GPS on my merc 9.8!
JBJ

 

[Dougan]

Re: Comparing 80's 9.5 and 9.9 OMC and Merc 110

Dougan, Although I would LOVE to see and even own your merc mark 10, I can tell you from experience that if the water pump goes out, you'll have a better chance of catching a 100lb. bluegill than finding someone who can change the impeller on that thing. Even if you find someone that can, the question remains is----are they WILLING!!!
If you could post a pic of that motor running, I'd love to see it. I like the way they have all those water indicator holes in the leg.
Later,
JBJ

Let me tell you what, that motor leaks, it is noisy, it has dents that make it look like it got run over a train, and it is heavy as hell. But that thing -always- starts in 1-3 pulls no matter how long it's been sitting (and it will sit for months at a time). I've never had any problems with it. I don't seem to have any videos/pictures of it, but I'll for sure get some and post them here in a couple months. I probably will keep the motor for the "antique" factor even if I get a newer one.

And by the way, if you -do- like these that much, I see them go on craigslist all the time.