Conference unifix::sailing

    I can personally recommend the Evinrude 4 H.P.  It's light, easy
    to use and has been very reliable over 2 seasons of use without
    any servicing (this period includes a total immersion !!!).
    
    Dave.
    

    Second the Evinrude endorsement. New ones are $800, bought mine
    at a pawn shop, like new, for $150. Funny thing, when I went to
    the dealer to get a manual, he told me he needed the serial number(some
    were made in Belgium). He showed me where the plate was located.
    When I got back to my boat, I discovered the plate was removed,
    hmmm......
    
    Anyway, good motor so far, very dependable.
    
    Keeping_my_auxiliary_under_wraps   :-)
    

    I have a Merc 4.5 that is 4 years old. There are those of us who
    beleive that is has more power than the corresponding motors from
    ***  or ###. (Outboard owners tend to be rather biased).
    
    I am using it to push my COM-PAC 19 at 2000 lbs. and have had no
    problems with it. I believe the best Merc prices around are at
    Doug Russell in Mass - advertizes in Offshore ea month but I don't
    know anyone who has done business with him. In N.H. Green's Marine
    in Hooksett is a volume dealer who should have a good prices.
    
    Wasn't the motor on the boat we rented in San Diego an Evinrude?
    I wasn't impressed with it.
    
    Happy hunting (and sailing)
    
    Bill
    

    I've had Johsons, Evenrudes and Merc.  My impression (impression
    are like sails on a sail boat, everyone has one) is as follows;
    
    Merc rate HP at the prop (so I'm told) there for are a little faster
    
    Johnson and Evenrude are made by the same people therefore are very
    similar.  Good wording engine.  HP is at power head.
    
    Mariner (spell) is made by Merc as a working motor.
    
    Right now I have a Merc on my boat, if I was to replace it I'd go
    with either a Johnson or Evinrude                   
    
    Reason:  Merc has a poorly (not very rugged) reverse locking arm
    design.  Most of the nuts, bolts and screw head are rusting (corrosion
    problem).  Design is more complex there for harder to work on.
    
    
    Just my opinion, and you know what thats worth.
    
    Happy sailing
    
    Tom
    
    

    
    I've been looking through the want-ad's for a small motor to power
    my 22' Kells... I've seen some ads refer to 'long shaft outboard'.
    Does this mean what I think it means? Would a motor like this be
    better for my application than the other type?
    
    John

    Yup!

    I have a 3 hp 1962(!) Johnson which is currently powering our
    Compac 16 and has seen use (and abuse) on several other boats
    a Comet, a Windmill, canoe, fishing row-boats.  I bought it used
    in 1964 for about $75 from a friend's dad.  As I recall they were $125
    new back then!
    
    Since I run it in very sandy waters (Plum Island Sound) I find I
    have to replace the water pump every couple of years but other
    than a hard-to-track problem in the carburetor back in 1976 (a
    float-bowl gasket it turns out) it still runs well in spite of my
    letting it overheat several times!
    
    It's made in Belgium same as the new ones I saw (4.5 hp) 
    and seem to have the same design.  If well taken care of I'd
    say the Johnson is a safe bet for a few years anyway.
 
    
  

    Reopening this note with a little more horsepower.
    
    Any opinons on a Johnson 9.9 two cycle vs a Yamaha 9.9 four cycle?

    As far as I can tell the Johnson is a proven design.
    
    The Yamaha (+$300) has a 12-14 amp alternator vs a 4 on the Johnson
    and a "state of the art" exhaust system to aid in reverse.
    
    Any opinons appreciated.
    
    

	I have a 9.9 Yamaha high thrust model mounted on a Pearson 26.  I bought
it primarily because of the  high thrust in reverse, for manueverability, and
the high output of the alternater (believe the output of the long shaft is 
35 amp peak).  I've used it for about a month now.  Its reliable, starts 
easily (electric start), and is very quiet.  It weighs more than the johnson
and is larger in size.  If you mount it outboard and expect to flip it up
when not in use, better plan on finding a long lever arm.  It can be a real
challenge to lift!  Because of the location of the cooling water outlet, an
internal mounting location in the lazarette will require special plumbing.

	One of the advantages to the unit is the ability to remotely position
the starter, throttle and shift linkage.  Yamaha offers the full cable set and
control head for this.

	There is more than enough thrust in either forward or reverse to 
manuever a 5500 lb boat in moderate winds (haven't tried yet in higher winds)
for docking.
				Ron

    We have a Johnson 'Sailmaster' 9.9 pushing our ODay 222 that is 2250
    bare hull and is at least 2700+ with all we carry.
    
    The engine start on the FIRST pull even after several weeks. Just pull
    out the choke, give a pull, and as soon ad the starter rope has
    recoiled, reach down and push the choke back in. We have electric
    start, but for the first start, I am usually standing and will start is
    manually. After that if I am sitting down, I will use the electric.
    Just a brief push of the button and thats it. We have the tank with the
    auto oil mix. I find that we do @4 knots at less than 1/2 throtle. If
    we open it to full throttle we pass hull speed and start to create a
    fair wake. The motor came with the boat and presume it has a standard
    prop. I may actually have to make my third fuel purchase of the season,
    depends on how the weather holds. 
    Fred

    
    I owned a Johnson 9.9 before it was stolen about 4 years ago, and 
    bought a Yamaha 9.9 to replace it.  I agree with the comments already
    made:
    
    	o  The Yamaha is considerably quieter
    
        o  Not having to mix gas & oil is a major convenience
    
        o  The Yamaha weighs more, 95 lbs for the long-shaft model. 
    	   Lifting it without an extension requires a bit of practice,
    	   and it affects the trim of the boat (for a 4500 lb boat) to
    	   hang that much weight off the stern.
    
        o  The only nit I have is that you can't lock the engine angle
    	   in place (except straight ahead), so you either have to put
    	   up with a little helm or modify the 'locking plate' so that
    	   it locks at an angle which will give you a neutral helm.
    
        o  I used to think the 12-14 amp alternator output was a big
    	   advantage, but now I'm not so sure.  If your batteries are near
    	   full charge this may do more harm than good unless you have
           protected them.

    Re .8>
    	The advantages of a four cycle engine have already been brought
    out...noise reduction, no oil mix required, fuel efficiency etc. IMHO 
    the main reason they haven't caught on is their inherent disadvantage 
    in the hp to weight ratio. The previous reply mentioned that the 9.9 hp 
    4 cycle weighs 95 lbs. A 9.9 Mariner for example weighs 69lbs (I assume
    the Johnson is similar). I also think they come up short in low end 
    torque.
    	I had an 8 hp auxilliary on my boat until it was stolen and rather
    than buy a new one I used a 25hp Merc I had on hand. The Merc weighs 
    112 lbs (17 more than the 9.9 hp 4 cycle). I removed it after several 
    outings because I felt it was too heavy. Even though I used the
    heaviest, 150# rated motor mount I could find, I still felt that the 
    forces it put on the mount would eventually result in it landing in 
    the drink.
    	I realize that my application is different...a power boat used 
    primarily for fishing. I probably experience more high frequency pitch 
    and yaw than a sailing application. My experience was also with a motor
    17 lb heavier but I still feel a 95 lb motor is too heavy to be mounted 
    on a swing up mount.
    	Of course, if you are using another kind of mount or direct on the
    transom of a dingy the extra weight may not be as important but it would 
    still feel much like a 20+ motor with the output of 10 hp (or maybe 8 hp
    considering the low end torque aspects).
    Regards,
    Paul

    I see all the discussion on brands other than British Seagull.  Does
    anyone have experience with British Seagulls?  I do.  They are
    expensive for the hp but elegantly simple and reliable.  They
    are not available for sale new on the East Coast.  Parts can be
    obtained from IMTRA corp in New Bedford,  Mass.
    
    Does anybody know of parts sources OTHER THAN from IMTRA Corp?
    
    You Australians and British sailors must run Gulls.  What are some
    impressions you may have?
    
    I bought a used Century Plus which had been sitting for God knows how
    long, (MANY years) and after minor cleaning it started on the 8th pull.
    Try that with an XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, or XXXX.  The point being that 
    virtually any PROPERLY STORED outboard should start easily after many
    years.  Not being properly stored (gas left in tank and carb) seperates
    the 'men outboards from the boys'.
    
    Jeff

re .13  like old motor cars, owners either LOVE or HATE Seagulls (or sometimes
both). They are quite widely used in the UK. 

Personally  I **HATE** them intensely and wouldn't own one if you gave it to me.
They are cheap, noisy, vibrate terribly, have crude controls,look ugly, 
tempremental to start, run erratically etc etc. Better operated as an emergency
kedge than an engine. I prefer the Japanese makes (any Japanese make).

Sorry, perhaps someone else will leap to their defence. I'd rather be sailing
than fixing the  #$%^&*!@#  thing again.

    re .14  I believe you have missed the point on the advantages of the
    British Seagull.
    
    I have owned and operated 3 different Seagulls since about 1960.
    Yes, they are noisy and vibrate.... BUT they are as utterly reliable
    an engine as I have ever met.  They are NOT cheap.  How can you call
    a piece of equipment manufactured with stainless, bronze, silicon
    aluminum, chrome, and other quality corrosion resistant materials
    cheap??  Not to name brands but I know of no other production outboard
    which currently use materials other than aluminum, plastics,
    fiberglas, and steel where they absolutely have to... that is, use iron
    or steel where thers is no other choice such as cylinder liners.
    "Whats wrong with THOSE materials?"  Its not so much that there is
    anything WRONG with those materials as it is that they (outboard
    manufacturers) don't put anything of a higher quality into them than
    they absolutely HAVE to.
    
    1. Simplicity = reliability.  And YES it does = reliability in this 
    case.
    
    2. "Tempremental to start".  Simply not true in my experience.
    
    3. "Look ugly"  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if they look
        ugly to you, then to you they are ugly.
        
       
        To me their simplicity is elegant, and therefore beautiful
        especially when simplicity is combined with quality 
        materials.
    
    4. "Run erractically"  Again, simply not true in my experience.
    
    
    5. "Vibrate"  yup, can't argue with that, they sure do.
    
    So, it all adds up to what you want.
    
    The British Seagully is designed to be a high quality high THRUST
    outboard designed to reliably drive DISPLACEMENT hulls, and that
    they do do well.
    
    If you want modern sleek covers, lots of bells and whistles and
    high speeds then clearly this engine is not for you.
    
    To each their own.
    
    Jeff

At one time I wondered why there were many Seagull outboards 
advertised as "used only once." But after seeing them in a show 
room with  buckets under their props to catch leaking oil, listening 
to them in what were quite harbors, watching owners tiring in 
futile attempts to get them running (didn't even have a recoil 
starter), I have to side with those who would prefer not owning 
one. I feel that the product is appropriately named.

Joe

    I had a Tohatsu (Nissan) 3.5 on my tender.  I sold it because my 
    mooring was 30' from my dock and I needed the exercise.  It wasn't
    cheap ($600 new) but was very reliable, quiet, and smooth (started
    on the first pull even after the Winter).
    
    Now I wish I had it back as my oldest kid is now 8 and would like her
    to start learning some fundamentals of powerboating with it on the
    tender (and also pick up a cheap used Sunfish or the like to learn
    fundamentals of sailing).
    

    As I understand the history, Seagulls were the original 'throw away',
    designed to be quickly and cheaply built for the invasion of Europe and
    left on the beaches. The current models are still basically unchanged
    from the original.
    
    A friend once bought a new one, and I always recall a sentence form the
    owners manual- "If the engine fails to start after a couple pulls, stop
    yanking on the cord like a fool and find out why its not starting" It
    then proceeded to a checklist of things like fuel, spark etc. Ive
    recalled this lots of times while watching somme nut yank and yank on a
    started, never checking anything.
    
    Clearly Seagulls are simple engines. And an earlier note had it right-
    you either love or hate them. 

    .18  Yes, that is correct, originally they were designed as a throw
    away engine to cross the English Channel for the Normandy Invasion.
    You must look at the criteria beyond that.  The most important
    military factor was an UTTERLY RELIABLE engine for that one crossing
    which could then be thrown away at the end of the single crossing...
    but NO failures  during that crossing please.
    
    After the War it was found that Frenchmen were diving for them,
    cleaning them up and using them for their fishing boats.  So British
    Seagull Corp. decided to manufacture them for pleasure craft and 
    commercial use.  In Europe the Gulls are widely used on Commercial
    Craft, so that should tell you something about their reliability.
    
    They have evolved from the throw away version.  I would not chrome
    plate a brass muffler on a throw away engine, would you?  Thats one
    example of the changes.  The three Gulls I have all have rope pull
    starts... why not?  On an utterly reliable engine you don't have to
    pull your brains out on a recoil starter, do you?  And, a recoil
    starter can break.  If your rope pull breaks you pick up a piece of
    small stuff and make a new rope pull on the spot.  BUT the new
    Gulls do have recoil starters and alternators and fwd, rev. neutral,
    and covers over the engine innards.  So, they are not quite as simple
    anymore.
    
    The lower unit is a semi-sealed unit... that means water can get in and
    a little bit of oil can get out... thus the buckets.  The water, even
    seawater doesn't hurt MONEL bull and pinion gears, nor bronze bushings.
    I agree, a sealed lower unit would be more environmentally sound.
    Very little oil gets out though... mostly its water that get IN.
    
    My point is that the U.S. Consumer is conditioned to expect quiet, 
    sleek, powerful, fast outboard motors which  typically takes a
    highly trained person to do more than the simplest of repairs on
    and expensive parts.  The Gull parts are EXPENSIVE... far higher
    than equivalent OMC stuff for example, but, I have found I rarely
    NEED any parts.
    
    When you find a high thrust, relatively noisy, uncovered guts exposed
    outboard around which anyone with the slightest amount of common sense
    and minor mechanical knowledge can operate and repair, some people just
    don't know what to make of it and condemm it out of hand because it
    doesn't look or operate they way they expect.
    
    I don't know where these reports of unreliability are coming from in
    this string.  I took a 20 year old Gull I bought used for 100 bucks
    which had been sitting God knows where for 20 years and it started
    on the 8th manual rope pull after a quick wipe out of the carb fuel
    bowl and adding fresh gas to it.  This was a salt water engine and certainly
    looked it because the prior owner did no maintenance on it from what I
    could see.
    
    When I read the unreliabity reports it makes me wonder... did the owner
    read the operating manual to get even a rough idea of how to start it?
    These engines differ slightly in that the throttle must be WOT for it
    to reliably start whereas a U.S. outboard would be started at idle. 
    The Gull will NOT start at idle throttle setting... but if you do it
    right (WOT) it starts on one or two pulls virtually every time.
    
    Anyway, to each their own.  As a displacement hull outboard you can't
    beat them.
    
    Jeff

    
    2 more �...
    
    My `Gull spent a couple of days at the bottom of Newport Harbor. A
    diver-friend found it ( a little quick visual-navigation as we were
    flipping! ) and, after 10 minutes with gardenhose and bathtub, she
    started right up. Fine performer, overall, not enough rpm for an
    inflatible.
    
    My next engine was an Evinrude, also no dissapointment. Lower cost,
    pushed the boat faster.
    
    I doubt the Evinrude would have survived, but didn't want to find out,
    either!
    
    The `Gull could be torn apart & reassembled QUICK. That I liked.
    
    Ya pays yer money....
    
    Scott

     I have 1971 WSL Seagull.  Runs great except that when my son 
     last cleaned the carb. he stripped the screw which hold the fuel
     screen.  Now it just leaks fuel.  The replacement cost for a new
     carb. is about $150.00.

     I would appreciate anyone knowing where I could located a used
     Seagull carb. that would fit the WSL model.

     Thanks,

     Sam

    Do you know what brand carb it is?  See if you can find a model and
    brand.  Villers is common.  IMTRA Corp. in New Bedford can give you
    the model/brand of the carb since you have the Ser No of eng.  Their
    number is in the book, why not give IMTRA a call for that info?
    
    Jeff

     I did a couple of weeks ago.  The replacement carb. is $150.00. 
     The repair mgr. does not have any used carbs.  The Carburator is
     AMAL or something to the sort.

     Regards,

     Sam
     

    When it comes to simplicity and open construction I suspect my engine
    is about the limit. I have a 1908 One cylinder inboard in a 17' dory.
    It starts and runs better than almost any engine Ive owned.
    
    Got a 'new' engine recently, a 1902 Palmer. WIll have to make a few
    parts for it before I can run it, but I expect it to be as reliable.
    
    RE the stripped screw in a carb a few notes back- why replace it, why
    not just re-tap to the next larger thread? 

    There is another Seagull Distributor on the West Coast, can look up
    name/address if you want.  IMTRA doesn't sell Seagulls anymore. The
    place on the West Coast does.  Therefore I expect the West Coast
    Distributor has a greater inventory of new and used parts. Good idea
    to rethread the stripped screw one size larger.  My carbs are Villers
    so I can't help you there.
    
    Jeff

    Jeff,
    Normally I'm "read only" in this conference, but I thought I'd
    jump in here since old outboards are one of my favorite subjects.
    To see the changes that have taken place in boating, look through 
    a few copies of any boat magazine from the 1950's or older.  Back 
    then, the boat *itself* played a much larger part in why people 
    went boating in the first place. Magazines covered a LOT more 
    stuff on how to build and maintain your own boat, work on your 
    motors, and they had a lot more coverage on races, regattas, etc.
    People back then *liked* to tinker with motors, modify or fix up 
    their boats, race them, etc. Some of us still do that now, and the 
    boat itself is as much a part of the experience as anything else.  
    
    Today, for most people though, the boat is merely a conveyance 
    for another activity such as skiing, fishing, cruising, etc. 
    People don't want to be bothered by a motor that by your own 
    admission is expensive, noisey, vibrates excessively, and is 
    hard to get parts for.  For them, a new Honda, Yamaha, or OMC 
    is the way to go, and you'll never convince them otherwise, just 
    as they'll never convince you to buy a new Honda.  I happen to 
    agree with you, or I wouldn't own 20+ antique outboards and 3 
    boats that are 30 to 40 years old.  But I can see the point of
    view of someone who wants a motor that will do its job cleanly,
    quietly, reliably, and for which parts and service are never 
    more than an hour or two away.
    
    By the way, I happen to know where there are three Johnson 4hp
    longshaft sailboat motors (1969, 1974, 1979 I believe) available 
    for reasonable prices, as well as a nearly new 1992 Honda 2hp 4 
    cycle shortshaft outboard.  Send mail if you want to know where 
    to find them (I have no financial interest in 'em).
    
    Rick
    
    

    Thanks Rick.  I know, as I have said to each their own.  The major 
    point which 'makes me see red' regarding the Seagulls is the accusation
    that they are unreliable.  That is THE major selling point (overseas)
    which makes them attractive to buyers.  If there is anything they ARE
    in my experience is that they are reliable.  Assertations of a lack of
    reliability I see as either a lack of knowledge (they didn't read the
    instruction book) on the writers part or poor second hand information
    which the writer has obtained.  People tend to judge things by their
    OVERALL impression, thus if the engine is 'ugly' unreliability is an
    attribute which is likely to be read into the overall impression.
    
    Not that no Seagull has ever failed.... the claim I make is that 
    compared to other outboards in general, the Seagulls shine as far
    as reliability is concerned.  Hard data?  Just my own experience
    with them and common sense... i.e. simplier things have less to go
    wrong.
    
    Fine on older generations liking to do their own work.  I love to
    because it saves me lots of money and I learn alot.  I suppose that
    homeowners doing their own work are the inverse of the way many boaters
    are now.
    
    I agree that I can't MAKE anybody agree with me.  I brought in British
    Seagulls to see what the consensus and general experience with them is
    on the topic of small outboards.  To my utter suprise they are not well
    known and when someone does know of them the comments are generally
    negative.  There have been a couple of people with positive comments
    but not many.  I guess Americans have quite different attitudes toward
    engines than Europeans.
    
    Ok on the source of other small engines for sale.  With one Johnson and
    two operating Seagulls I have quite enough outboards for now.
    
    Jeff

Jeff,
re: >> The major point which 'makes me see red' regarding the Seagulls is  
    >>  the accusation that they are unreliable. 

I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.  If you like Gulls, let other 
people think what they want.  It doesn't matter whether you drive a Ford
instead of a Chevy, a Harley instead of a Honda, or vote for Bush instead
of Clinton.  Someone's ALWAYS gonna tell you you're wrong!  Don't let it
bother ya.  If you like 'em and no one else does, that makes all the more 
used ones available to you for cheap money.

On the other hand, things here at DEC ain't so hot.  If there's no longer
a local Gull distributor, your one-man crusade to bring back the Gull sounds 
like a business opportunity in the making!  You should give it a go, you
obviously believe in the product and that's half the battle.

re: >> Ok on the source of other small engines for sale.  With one Johnson and
    >> two operating Seagulls I have quite enough outboards for now.
    
Actually, I knew you had enough motors, just thought I'd mention it in case
any of the sailors are looking.  4hp longshafts aren't that common.

Rick

    No, I don't loose sleep over it believe me.  The Gull never left, its
    just distributed overseas and on the WEST coast there are active
    distributors.  The East coast is slow on it thats all.  I agree with
    your points though.  Since this file is dead at this time of year and
    people do bring up points I disagree with I think it worth addressing
    here.
    
    Jeff