opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

[jdbwvd]

Hey all,

I've been a reading up on old Johnson/Evinrude models, and am thinking these 1964-1973 9.5HP "compacts" seem like a great deal... nearly 10 HP, but compact and lightweight for their age. Do you all have any opinions on them? Tough engines? Easy to get parts? Any personal experience would be great.

Thanks!
Jonathan

 

[R.Johnson]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

The weak point was the motor mounts, and they can be a hassle to change. Hold on to the steering handle, and rock the engine side to side, if a lot of give, they are broke, or about to be.

 

[F_R]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

The '64-65 had lousy vibration damping and shook so bad they wouldn't idle. That was fixed in '66.

Normal service work like ignition, carburetion, water pump,etc, is easy. But if you have to get into stuff like motor mounts they are a nightmare for the novice.

BRP seems bent on getting them out of circulation by obsoleting a lot of parts.

 

[R.Johnson]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

FR: There are a few other engines BRP could do that with, like the twin cylinder 50+.

 

[jdbwvd]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

BRP seems bent on getting them out of circulation by obsoleting a lot of parts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that may be an indication that they are competition for modern motor sales? Of course it may also be that they are damaging to the brand's reputation.

Perhaps I should broaden this question out... I'm looking around for more options on a 10HP or less outboard that I can tote in my pickup out to my 14' fishing boat. Any other favorites that fit this bill?

Jonathan

 

[R.Johnson]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

Just about anything but that 9.5. OMC made excellent small engines. My 1955 5.5, and 7.5 still going strong.

 

[jbjennings]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

I think you'd love a '55 through '57 10hp. Good looking and light. The 9.5 isn't particulary light. They definitely aren't worried about the 9.5 competing with modern motor sales!
The 7.5hp from '56 and newer are nice and quiet and run great. they're lighter than the 10's. But they don't have near the umph that 10's have. It seems like the 10 has twice the hp than the 7.5.
Personally, I love my 10's from the 50's. The 60's ten hp's are good, too, particularly the early 60's as far as looks.
I wouldn't even consider getting a 9.5hp over a 10. I'd rather have a mercury than the 9.5hp, actually. Besides, the 9.5's are hideously ugly. :redface:
Just my opinion,
JBJ

 

[R.Johnson]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

JBJ is right about the 10, they have good power, and idle down to a slow tick.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

One of the things that makes older OMC motors so "usable" in spite of their age, is the commonality with other model years & horsepower variations. These motors can easily be kept in good running condition because many parts are still available, and even when this is not true, parts can usually be found on the auction sites, repair shop "boneyards," etc.

The 9.5hp JonnyRudes, however, did not share parts with other OMC motors. Other than the coils, points, fuel pumps, and perhaps a couple of other parts, they were completely different than the other motors. This means that getting the parts to keep one running, is an issue now and will be more so with every year that goes by. And, as others have said, they are also a pain in the neck to work on. Most of the OMC mechs that I have ever talked to, hated them.

I suppose I would take a running 9.5 if someone gave it to me, but I wouldn't put much money into one. They're sort of cool little motors that worked pretty well, but they are basically dinosaurs that seem to be more appropriate as a conversation piece in someone's outboard collection.

If you need to stay under 10hp because of lake hp restrictions, I would go for a 9.9hp JonnyRude.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

I agree with JBJ. I'm a big 10hp fan and have many and have sold many. They are great engines. The 9.5's are dinosaurs and butt ugly!

 

[jdbwvd]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

My limited research shows that the 9.9s weigh in at 71 lbs, exactly the same as the 15s of those years. So that's a bit disappointing to know that you've got a motor the size of a 15, but with only 9.9HP. I guess that's what I liked about the 9.5s to begin with... they are small and light (60 lbs). It's sort of like a 20 gauge shotgun built on it's own reciever, not on a 12 gauge reciever. (Pardon the analogy). However, I am getting the message loudly that they aren't easy to fix up.

In the 10 HP models, are there any significant mechanical changes through the years that I should be privy to?

 

[F_R]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that may be an indication that they are competition for modern motor sales? Of course it may also be that they are damaging to the brand's reputation.

Perhaps I should broaden this question out... I'm looking around for more options on a 10HP or less outboard that I can tote in my pickup out to my 14' fishing boat. Any other favorites that fit this bill?

Jonathan

Perhaps "getting them out of circulation" is an unfair statement. As a retired purchasing manager for a manufacturing company, I know the problems associated with buying and maintaining obsolete parts stock. Take for instance the shift rod boot. BRP is not the manufacturer of that part, they buy it from a vendor that has the tooling. That vendor probably won't do a run of less than a thousand parts. And there would be a set-up charge for the machine to make them. Then BRP has to add their own overhead and profit. Bottom line is you would balk at paying the price and BRP would have 1000 obsolete parts on the shelf. Not only that, there are the bean counters that mandate that stock be "turned" or sold within 30 days, or 90 days, or whatever their school of thought dictates. There was a time that I dumpstered $1000's of parts because of the turns issue. Then had to purchase new ones in smaller quantities at 10 times the price. MAN!!, was I glad the day I turned 62 and retired!!!. Oh, and the company no longer exists. Wonder why?

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

Call me an old codger, FR, but I distinctly remember thinking when MBA degrees became all the rage, that problems such as your "throw it out" turnover issue, would be exactly the sort of stuff that would crop up in business. While the degree can still be a tremendous asset, sometimes I think business schools spend way to much time teaching complicated methods of financial analysis, rather than common sense and ethics.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

My limited research shows that the 9.9s weigh in at 71 lbs, exactly the same as the 15s of those years. So that's a bit disappointing to know that you've got a motor the size of a 15, but with only 9.9HP.

The reason why the 9.9 and the 15 of the same model years weigh exactly the same, is because they are exactly the same physically. The higher horsepower of the 15 is developed through engine tuning (carb, ports, etc.) This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned commonality of OMC motors, other than the 9.5 hp "pumpkin motor."

This can be a great advantage because you can pull most of the parts off of a non-running 15 hp model to fix something on a running 9.9 hp model, if need be. Another nifty advantage that some lake boaters like is that a 15 hp model can be easily disguised as a 9.9 hp model by removing the data plate on a 15 and replacing the cowl with one off of a 9.9. If you really want to get sneaky, you can take a 9.9 data plate and put it on a 15. And, for the truly obsessed, put a 15 hp powerhead in a 9.9 and replace the welch plug, so there's not even an "offending" serial number!

I suppose I should offer a disclaimer about not breaking the rules, but truth be told, I don't find this issue to be all that big of a deal. I know, I'm a bad boy .... just wear your PFD, dagnabbit!

 

[jbjennings]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

Steer clear of the '58 10hp's. Lots of 'em have bad lower units which were basically a modified 7.5hp lower unit. The pre-58 10's have a stout lower unit which is almost identical to the 18hp lower units. Makes it easier to find parts for, too.
Also, the 10hp's only weigh about 75 lbs. I've got a 9.5 out in the yard now and it doesn't feel all that light. The weight is shifted a little farther back on the transom which I would think would make it feel as heavy as a 10hp when on the water.
I recommend a '54, '55, or '56 10hp. I like the '53 too, but it has a carb. that's harder to fool with, and ANNOYING cowl which has about 1000 screws holding it on.
Hope you find a goodun'
JBJ

 

[CATransplant]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

While I'm a big fan of the 50s 10 hp outboards, they're not to everyone's taste. I think the 9.9 hp models are a better choice, overall. The design is good. They run well. Parts are readily available, and most shops will work on them, if that's necessary. They're more expensive, of course, because they're newer, but not all that much. You'll have a large selection of them in most larger markets, too. Check Craig's List.

 

[TN-25]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

The '64-65 had lousy vibration damping and shook so bad they wouldn't idle. That was fixed in '66.

Normal service work like ignition, carburetion, water pump,etc, is easy. But if you have to get into stuff like motor mounts they are a nightmare for the novice.

BRP seems bent on getting them out of circulation by obsoleting a lot of parts.

Dad bought a 9.5 new in '65. Later it was retrofitted with a "Vibration Isolation Kit" from the dealer which consisted of new motor mounts (perhaps other parts as well). I have driven a lot of 9.5s over the years and I have to say that dad's modified '65 was as smooth as any. I always liked them but that was purely for personal reasons. They had a lot of features on them, like positive stops for the tiller handle and a bracket that allowed you to run them in shallow water. Dad's originally came with an aluminum prop but he had to replace it in the 1970s. Lexan (plastic) was all that was available at the time. Remote controls (see attachment) supposedly were available for them but are a bit like the Indian rope trick - people have heard of it but nobody has actually witnessed it. My 1974 accesories brochure does not list any remote control throttle or shift parts for the 9.5.

The 9.9 & 15 from '74-on are hard to beat. They weigh slightly more than the 9.5 at 65 lbs . You could get or add electric start and charging capability to them, plus they had the efficient through-prop hub exhaust in addition to the other features from the 9.5. You could actually get remote controls for them for real.


The 10s are still reasonably well supported despite how old they are. I like what is being advised about looking for mid fifties versions. The 1958 was 7 lbs. lighter by using a light duty lower unit (carried through 1963).


I was out getting parts a few weeks ago at Durham Marine and saw a 1971 Johnson 9.5 being worked on by them.

Attached is a brochure picture of a 1971 9.5 with remote controls. It must have had special shift levers or something because the standard shifter was shifted by an up and down motion.

 

[arcadiainc]

Re: opinions on 1964-1973 9.5 HP "compact"

Have a 1970 9.5 Johnson. No problems. Sets low on the transon, cranks easily and has good power. A joy to remove from the boat with the build in handle. To each his own but I like mine very much.