Dimensions of 4, 5, or 6hp kicker

Mike, thanks, now you've got us thinking about our original choice - a 3.5. Did the 2.5 push your 16' in ocean current okay? I suppose we could get either a 2.5 or 3.5, and upgrade the carburetor and the prop? And I understand now what you and Steve are saying about the short shaft. The only downsides are the fact that they don't have a reverse shift, and the shifter is on the back. Well, and there is no external gas tank connection. (We can do without the alternator.) But as little as we expect to use it, might not be a bad trade-off since our primary goals are a small footprint and weight off the transom? hmmm :)
 
Just one other question about the short shaft vs. long shaft on the 2.5 or 3.5. Wouldn't it be more convenient to use if the long shaft were raised by 5" above the transom with some sort of mount? It would seem the tiller would be more accessible? thanks again everyone! - Karen
 
Karen,
Having the throttle higher up, would certainly make adjustments easier and I agree that having the shifter in the front will save the reaching.
The 2.5 and 3.5 (no reverse) Tohatsu 4 stroke (rebadged Mercury, Mariner, Nissan and Evinrude), do not have a high thrust prop option and the carburator is the only difference.
Suzuki has a 2.5 (no reverse), but the next size up is a 4 & 6 (carb is the main difference), which weigh about what the 4, 5 & 6 Tohatsu does. No high thrust prop option available.
Yamaha like Suzuki has a 2.5 (no reverse) and 4 & 6 (carb is the main difference), which weigh about what the Tohatsu does. No high thrust prop option available.
Honda has an air cooled 2.3 (no reverse) and a 5. No high thrust option is available.
I have all of these in the shed, if you would like to drive across country to find the one best suited for your application... :D
 
You have to remember that in similar displacement motors, just changing the carburetor will have most effect at the higher RPM range. The limit of many of the motors is gong to be the prop thrust.

Also unless the prop extends well below the bottom of the boat, reverse will not be very effective, since the prop wash will be against the transom. and reflected back. This is the reason that many of us use an articulating motor bracket because it will raise the motor up and help to keep the lower unit from dragging in the water when underway with the main engine. Also it gets the motor set back to clear dept sounder transducers, as well as getting the lower unit below the bottom of the boat.
 
srbaum, I would drive across country (maybe) if you had a 5 or 6 hp that weighed 40 pounds lol Seriously, thanks for all of the info!
 
thataway, thanks for the info, so are you a proponent of the short shaft or long for the 16, with a compensating mount if a long shaft?
 
My 15" shaft 2005 Mercury 5 hp single cylinder 2 stroke weighs 43 lbs.
It has forward neutral and reverse. It has an integral fuel tank as well as a snap on fitting for a remote tank.

Its primary function is as my emergency kicker motor on my 22 cruiser.
My non adjustable mount has 4" of setback from the transom.

With the 4" setback and a little help from the offset from the center, the 15" motor does well on the 20 transom and in the tilt position clears the water when on plane with the big motor. 3/4 throttle cruise on the heavily loaded 22 cruiser is 4 mph. Reverse is acceptable. I have a snap on steering tube that allows me to partially tilt the big motor and steer from the helm.

I keep the integral tank full and ready to go with premix.
In a total failure of the big motor where I may have to go for several days on the kicker, I plan to add oil to one of my main tanks to the proper mix ratio and snap the fuel line directly to the kicker.

This set up works well on my 22 and would do a stellar job on your 16,

Properly set up the 15" motors work well, are more readily available, and will function better on a wide variety of canoes, dingys, inflatables and other small craft than a 20" shaft motor. The short shaft (15") motors are also more compact. lighter, easier to move and store than the longer shaft motors/

There are several photos of this installation of the short shaft (15") kicker with the set back bracket on my 20 transom in the Bixby's Cub Photo album.

Also of this vintage are the Mercury 2.5 and 3.5 2 stroke Motors with a weight of 28 lbs.
I have owned both and they are good motors, simple, dependable and easy to work on and should push the 16 well.
But Forward and neutral only, reverse by spinning the motor 180 degrees.
Integral fuel tank, no factory aux fuel tank fitting, but would not be hard to add a tee and install the aux fuel fitting if you thought you needed it.


I have spent time on a friends 16 and every few pounds seems to matter.
I would consider the 2.5 or 3.5, 28 lb Merc short shaft (15") 2 stroke as your best option. Keep it simple, lock the little motor on center and steer from the helm with the big motor as a tiller on long stretches. and move to the back of the boat and steer the little motor directly when maneuvering.
Try it first just clamped to the transom and if you are not happy with the performance get a mount with a few inches of set back. The set back allows better water flow to the shorter shaft motor.
I would have no qualms mounting a well cared for vintage lightweight 2 stroke as a kicker motor.

Best of luck
 
California has lake where 2 strokes are banned might be the whole state by now. They just banned 4 stroke generators. you should check in to that before you buy a 2 stroke. Of course you said you want new and the 2 stroke would most likely be used.
 
So we're now leaning toward (hopefully a finale) Merc short shaft 4hp (for the reverse and external fuel tank hookup vs. the 3.5). We can see how that does, and can always upgrade the carburetor to a 6hp, and the prop to a 6" pitch (on the prop, probably earlier than later). It's 55 pounds, so that's pretty good.

The reason we want to stay small in hp to start is that what we really want is an electric, like a torqeedo, but not ready to go that route (after a LOT of study) - and a lower hp motor would give us a better feel for what a 3hp equivalent electric would be like. We saw the torqeedo in person recently, and it just wasn't very attractive. And we've looked at the E-propulsion, etc. But I'm sure there'll be a lot of changes in the electric market in the future.

Thanks for all of your input, and hope we're on the right track? - Karen

(Well, unless srbaum wants to sell us one of his equivalent motors :)
 
jkidd":2kiqg81i said:
California has lake where 2 strokes are banned might be the whole state by now. They just banned 4 stroke generators. you should check in to that before you buy a 2 stroke. Of course you said you want new and the 2 stroke would most likely be used.
Click to expand...

4 stroke generators are banned in a state with rolling power blackouts?!?!?!
 
Steve B., thanks for the link, but once again we are on the fence between an upgradeable 2.5/3.5 (for weight and profile), and the 4/5/6. Sent you a pm with questions :)
 
Back
Top