MacGregorSailors.com

While looking at the Suzuki specs online I noticed they have a new 9.9 EFI lean burn that supposedly uses about 18% less fuel than the older carb version and is the only 9.9 EFI. Its a tuned down version of their 20hp so its 300cc vs the standard 200 cc and has a 12A charging vs the usual 6A. The 20" remote steering, electric start, power tilt/trim with 10" 4 blade high thrust prop is around 120lbs. I would keep my ignition, flush controls, tilt/trim and tach the way they are. I am thinking of giving it a try. You can get them shipped right to your door, how crazy is that



What are your thoughts about downsizing and the Suzuki EFI as a pick?

I don't know much about Suzi's. Why not make the switch to a 26C? As I understand it is a fun boat to sail (fast) and is lighter to trailer.

That's a big downgrade, how about something in middle?

25,30,35hp?

Something lighter and smaller and still have a stronger engine in case you do need it.

EZ wrote:I don't know much about Suzi's. Why not make the switch to a 26C? As I understand it is a fun boat to sail (fast) and is lighter to trailer.

Well, that is a novel approach. Kind of like buying a new house to replace the furnace. Thinking outside the box.

My x came with a 9.9 and it did everything I needed it to do .docking was a little tough .but it would cruise at hull speed with out issue but I believe the etec 90 burns about the same amount of fuel at hull speed .about a gallon or so a hour .the 9.9 was running fairly hard while the etec not even breaking a sweat .when you get in a hard running tide or maneuvering I believe you would miss the bigger motor .i went from a 9.9. To a 50 then to a 90 . You can always throttle back but with the smaller motors you can't always throttle up.

I've been a longtime advocate of the 9.9 pn the Mac.

I bought mine with a BF EFImercury 50, which has been great, but I never run it over 50 unless, like you, I do because I can.

With a 9.9 You get fantastic..

Room
Fuel economy
Space on transom
Save on installation ( you can do yourself)
Resale value...tons of 9.9 kickers in demand over 50s, and ship able/installable adds value.
Serviceable...take it off, take to service center

I liked my reserve power of my 50 until I made Westport gut at full ebb tide with my 4HP Nissan at full throttle. I was only making one knot, but I only needed it for 15 minutes. Now I realise I'm carrying a lot of weight for little benefit.

We were told that most Mac owners either go with 9.9 hp or 40hp, but that we needed at least 40hp to plane to empty the ballast tanks unless we just drained from the trailer.

Any truth to that?

I think the minimum motor if you wanna truly plane is a 70 maybe less with a completely empty boat and ballast .

My 9.9 did really well ,it was a sail drive motor but not like one of the big foot motors .

My $.02...try it this summer and see how you like it.
If you don't you haven't invested a lot of $$ (9.9 is not going to cost you a ton), you know what it will cost you to put a new big motor on (which you were contemplating anyway), and after only one season you can probably get 80% of the cost of the 9.9 back out of it when/if you sell it so you won't have lost much for the experience.

Oh, of course you then have to report back on your findings in great detail here...

Why would u want to replace a perfectly good running eng !!! how many hrs r on it

My 2008 MERC 75HP four stroke has 0ver 13,000hrs on it runs like a charm , I did have issues with it in 2013 with bad gas causing problems with my fuel injectors & last yr with the fuel system again due to enthanol gas , but these where issues caused by gasoline issues not my engine & I would have had the same issues with a newer engine , the gasoline issues actually affects the newer engines just as bad or even more worse , so now I use ethanol gas treatment all season long & not just in the fall before winter, because a lot of marina,s r now selling ethanol gas but still charging u for hightest ethanol free gas ! Just saying !!

J

My M had the sixty on it. Having used it for three years, the least I'd go with is a 20 hp motor.
My motor gets about the same milage as my honda 5 used to, at around four knots, but will do four knots in worse conditions. A smaller motor will save weight in the back and make using the boarding ladder on the M model a bit easier. It's also a lot cheaper to buy.
The only time i plane the boat is in flat calm and only just to exercise the engine. I am quite fuel conscious when cruising otherwise. This cheap gas we in the USA suddenly seem to have isn't going to last. I expect marine fuel to return to 4 a gallon in the future. Weather I wait until my current engine is worn out, or trade it while it still has good value is open for debate.
In the end only you can decide what motor is right for your use.
Ix

Thanks for the replies. My thinking is heading along your lines vizwhiz. If I give it a season and it doesn't work out I wont lose too much. At first I totally dismissed the 9.9, but then started looking at all the heavier boats and catamarans that rely on them and seem to do just fine. Along the same thinking though I added an electric trolling motor against most advice. I would have to classify it a fail. I like what it does and am keeping it, but its not near what I had visualized.

I've been a longtime advocate of the 9.9 pn the Mac.

I have read that a few times and think its what got me started thinking that direction

My x came with a 9.9 and it did everything I needed it to do .docking was a little tough .but it would cruise at hull speed with out issue but I believe the etec 90 burns about the same amount of fuel at hull speed .about a gallon or so a hour .the 9.9 was running fairly hard while the etec not even breaking a sweat .when you get in a hard running tide or maneuvering I believe you would miss the bigger motor .i went from a 9.9. To a 50 then to a 90 . You can always throttle back but with the smaller motors you can't always throttle up.

That is what I was guessing. Which 9.9 did you have? Did you have it set up remote throttle and steering? Did you get to sail it enough to see if there was much of a difference sailing with the lighter vs heavier motors?

That's a big downgrade, how about something in middle?
25,30,35hp?
Something lighter and smaller and still have a stronger engine in case you do need it.

The same 9.9 is available as an identical 20 with only a different computer and has great reviews which is tempting. From what I am guessing if a 9.9 will push the boat to hull speed at 3/4 throttle, full throttle will get it just started plowing, and it will take at least 40 more hp more to get any real advantage if the props are similar diameter. I had a 50 and the biggest advantage of the larger motor to me is slow speed maneuvering where you are using less than 10 hp. The 14" prop on the larger motor will walk the boat around and reverse direction without revving. Which I would miss.

Tattoo new wrote:We were told that most Mac owners either go with 9.9 hp or 40hp, but that we needed at least 40hp to plane to empty the ballast tanks unless we just drained from the trailer.

Any truth to that?

With our , I am pleased with the 60HP Etec performance but I would have gotten the Suzuki 70HP if offered from the factory. I'm not sure if she would plane with 40HP or not, but i usually am at 4800-5200RPM on the ETEC 60HP at a comfortable cruise speed on plane. I think the 40HP would stuggle against crew, supplies and ballast weight. But i don't know for sure since I've never tried anything but the 60HP Etec.

The 9.9 would be nice for hull speed folks not interested in going faster than hull speed.

-Robert

EZ wrote:I don't know much about Suzi's. Why not make the switch to a 26C? As I understand it is a fun boat to sail (fast) and is lighter to trailer.

I second this.

The X/M are powersailors. The don't sail well so we make up for it with a big motor.