9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

[PFS]

I recently bought a 1973 Johnson 9.5 hp. So far, it seems like a good little motor, but I've read a couple of posts where 9.5s may have a quirk or two. I would like to hear from other 9.5 owners about whether or not they like them, and what to look out for.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Landscaping Wiz 808]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

Hi PFS, welcome aboard! Those 9.5s are good, reliable little engines. The only drawback I ever came across is that it can be difficult to work on 'em sometimes since the power head is so low inside the cowling. Other than that, parts for them are readily available and their light weight makes them great for smaller boats!

Have fun with it!

BOB

 

[lakelover]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

My father had a 1969 that lasted 37 years with minimal maintenance and lots of teen age abuse (from me). I think that they are one of the engines that with regular upkeep can last just about forever. It was a great little motor.

It still ran when I sold it a few years ago. One of the things to look out for, that I had a problem with, was the gasket that isolates the exhaust from the power head wears out and they will not run with the hood on because all the smoke comes up inside and chokes them out. I've read some fixes for that too. I would have run it longer if I had wanted to mess with it.

Good luck with it!

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

properly maintained, great motors, some parts are getting scarce, as the rubber pee tube.

 

[PFS]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

Thanks for all the great replies! It seems like the exhaust system is the main drawback, and as mentioned; getting to it may not be easy either. Right now on Ebay someone is selling the rubber tube for it, so I may just go ahead and snap it up just to have it on hand (unless I can find a new one on this site). The idea of parts getting scarce may be the biggest headache of all.
They look like cool little motors, but they just don't seem very popular. Perhaps the reasons given above are why.

Thanks again for the info.
Paul

 

[pecheux]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

own a 1981 Johnny 9.9 ... never been touched by a mecanic ... IMO ze best in ze west ... and I would include the Omc 6 hp in that category.

 

[ChrisAG]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

They look like cool little motors, but they just don't seem very popular. Perhaps the reasons given above are why.

I think they had a relatively short production run and weren't extremely popular for one very subjective reason: they were damned ugly. Seriously, was there ever a motor designed that was less aesthetically pleasing? The Merc 9.8's were sleek, the Chrysler's at least were robotic in a boxy sort of way, and the OMC 9.9/15 starting with 1974 were low and tough looking, but the 9.5? It defies a positive description.

Just playing devil's advocate, I'm sure they were nice motors... but styling DOES play a part in the purchaser's decision (remember the Pontiac Aztek?)

 

[PFS]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

I guess it's true when they say;"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I don't know why, but I like the way they look. Then again, I'm the only guy I know of that still brings a black 1970's lunch box to work.

 

[rolmops]

Re: 9.5 hp Johnsons: good or bad

They were designed as low as possible so the fisherman could cast right over them.Bear in mind that the older 10 horse engines were a lot higher out of the water.
The engine is really a little to small for it to be a 9.5 and the 9.9 is a few cubic inches larger.
What I do not like about them is that only by using after market parts can you make them remote controlled which makes them useless as kickers.
On the other hand, with love and patience, you can make them perform forever.
I own what is probably the only long shaft remote controlled 1964 9.5 evinrude in the north east.I use it as a kicker on my 19 footer.