Grumman Sport Boat--HP recommendation?

Jeff Reardon

Well-known member
Supporter
I am seriously considering purchasing a Grumman Sportboat from a friend who is selling one at a fair price. Need to factor in an outboard purchase to go along with it--I know my 15 hp is too large. This is a late 60's edition, pre addition of side floatation, and I think they were originally sold with a 6 or 8 hp max rating. I see a lot of them being run with 9.9's, too. I'm looking for as light and cheap as possible, which means a 6 or 8. I found old threads here about using them with mud motors or long tails, but I'd probably stick with a standard OB. Experience on how they go with moderate load on small outboards would be welcome. I'm not looking for Roy Boat fast--but I hunt and fish some bigger water and want to be able to cover a few miles without spending half a day on a cold boat aluminum boat seat.
 
I am seriously considering purchasing a Grumman Sportboat from a friend who is selling one at a fair price. Need to factor in an outboard purchase to go along with it--I know my 15 hp is too large. This is a late 60's edition, pre addition of side floatation, and I think they were originally sold with a 6 or 8 hp max rating. I see a lot of them being run with 9.9's, too. I'm looking for as light and cheap as possible, which means a 6 or 8. I found old threads here about using them with mud motors or long tails, but I'd probably stick with a standard OB. Experience on how they go with moderate load on small outboards would be welcome. I'm not looking for Roy Boat fast--but I hunt and fish some bigger water and want to be able to cover a few miles without spending half a day on a cold boat aluminum boat seat.
Jeff,

Always wanted one but never did. Used to see them occasionally on various bodies of water in Wisconsin including the Mississippi River. Got checked by a warden on the Mississippi one time back in the '70s and he had a 15hp Evinrude on his Sportboat. That wasn't the only one with a 15hp either. I suspect a 9.9hp would be quite adequate also
 
I see a lot of them being run with 9.9's, too. I'm looking for as light and cheap as possible, which means a 6 or 8.
Jeff,
I've spent many a day fishing in one of those, from the early '60s vintage. Yes, if memory serves me correctly they had a 6hp rating. Actually a 6hp was quite adequate for one or two guys with fishing gear. Guessing a speed up to about 5 or 6 mph.

Put either a 9.9 or a 15 hp on the transom, you are advised to have a guy in the front (or ballast) to offset the weight of the motor. A 9.9 or 15 hp has always weighed the same. A 9.9 will push two guys and their fishing gear faster than is prudent. You also need to watch your backwash when slowing down too fast. Three guys was a good match for weight to power ratio.

I'm also positive, three guys, their gear, a 3 gal fuel tank and a 9.9 was probably near or over the load limit. We were typically on small water where wind was not typically going to raise big waves.

That said, we did prefer and used, the 9.9 hp for a three man load, the 6hp just wasn't enough to obtain the speed we desired.
 
Last edited:
If you dabble in book of faces there's a Sport Boat Group on there. Lots of info and mods. are discussed. From what I've seen 6hp seemed to be the sweet spot for one guy and gear. Many on there use a raised transom i'm assuming to operate shallower than standard will allow.
 
Are the new ones the same hull design as the vintages ones? Pricey little boats.
 
I am seriously considering purchasing a Grumman Sportboat from a friend who is selling one at a fair price. Need to factor in an outboard purchase to go along with it--I know my 15 hp is too large. This is a late 60's edition, pre addition of side floatation, and I think they were originally sold with a 6 or 8 hp max rating. I see a lot of them being run with 9.9's, too. I'm looking for as light and cheap as possible, which means a 6 or 8. I found old threads here about using them with mud motors or long tails, but I'd probably stick with a standard OB. Experience on how they go with moderate load on small outboards would be welcome. I'm not looking for Roy Boat fast--but I hunt and fish some bigger water and want to be able to cover a few miles without spending half a day on a cold boat aluminum boat seat.
Jeff,
Here is a string on Grumman Sports Boat from Michigan-Sportsman website.
Larry

 
Thanks all. Big jump up in weight from 6 or 8 to 9.9. 4 Stroke 6's are 52-60 pounds. 8's 80-90 (100+ for Hondas). 9.9's are all over 100, except for a few Mercurys that are 84. (Guessing those are just tuned versions of the 8's.) I'd never put more than 2 in this boat. The only differences between the old ones and the new ones seem to be that they added side floatation to make them Coast Guard legal at some point. The old ones have floatation, but can turn turtle in ways the CG doesn't allow. Would not consider a 15. Overpowered short/narrow boats are scary! Everything I know about these suggests they need substantial weight in the bow to operate solo, like most canoes and similar hulls.
 
If your willing to settle for an older 2 stroke, Mercury's 9 & 15 use to come in a 73 LBS. I have the 15 on a Ghenooe that is rated for a 10 hp. . The 8 they made prior to that was about 2 lbs. lighter. Use to have one of those on same Ghenooe. At any rate an older 2 stroke motor will be a good bit lighter than current 4 strokes.
 
We use 6 or 8 hp 2 stroke Yamahas (sorry only photo of Yamaha) on ours in the marsh. They will fly! Also the small long shaft mud motors work well.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4577.JPG
    IMG_4577.JPG
    76.3 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_9567.jpg
    IMG_9567.jpg
    279.7 KB · Views: 29
  • IMG_6438 (1).jpg
    IMG_6438 (1).jpg
    297.2 KB · Views: 29
Additional research has raised some new issues. I reached out to a friend who has been running a sportboat for decades, and who strongly advocates for (1) no need for more than 6 HP; (2) the lightest motor possible, preferably a 2 stroke for this reason; and (3) a two cylinder motor rather than a one cylinder. (This last complicates the modern picture quite a bit.)

As far as I can tell, all the modern motors 6HP and under are one-cylinder 4 strokes. They weigh between 50 and 60 pounds. Stepping up to an 8 HP stroke gets me a twin cylinder motor, but will bump the weight up to between 80 and 90 pounds.

I'm interested in thoughts on performance of two cylinder vs one cylinder motors. My friends comment was that the two cylinder motors "go better", and that experience seemed rooted in compared older two strokes in the 4-6 hp range. Any thoughts on whether that preference was accurate, and whether it translates into the same choice in modern 4 strokes?

I will follow his advice to look for a mint 2 cylinder 6 HP Evinrude or Johnson on the used market, but I think that might be hard to find on today's market.

BTW, this post makes me think about how much we miss Tom Scholberg on these kinds of questions.
 
My friends comment was that the two cylinder motors "go better"
Personally, I would not be dead set on a two cylinder engine of the same displacement as it's single cylinder counterpart. Stepping from 6hp to 8hp is obviously going to "go better".

If it were me (based on your info, I haven't researched current 4 stoke engines) I would go with a current 4 stroke 6hp at 60lbs of weight.

Twin cylinder engines are better balanced, and thus more refined than single cylinder engines. The internal forces within a twin cylinder engine are better counterbalanced by the movement of the two pistons, and thus they can rev higher while having less vibration. Since there is an extra cylinder on twin cylinder engines, there is naturally an extra piston as well accompanied by all the associated components. With all that extra componentry twin cylinder engines are more complex, and generally more expensive to manufacture.

To displace any given cubic capacity, a single cylinder engine makes use of bigger, heavier components. For the same cubic capacity, a twin cylinder engine will have lighter componentry as the cubic capacity to be displaced is divided in two parts, and a smaller volume needs smaller and lighter components to be displaced. Do note, that while the internal componentry will be lighter, with the need of two separate cylinders and additional parts, the overall weight of the engine will be heavier than a similar capacity single-cylinder engine. The lighter componentry, however, along with a relatively balanced and vibe free nature of twin cylinder engines, makes them more rev happy, so they can reach a higher rpm and produce more power for any given cubic capacity.

On the other hand, while single cylinder engines aren’t the most high-revving, their longer strokes and heavier componentry allows them to create a lot better torque, and that too at the lower end of the rev spectrum, making them very usable and tractable in low to mid revs.

A single cylinder engine creates more torque lower down the rev range, while a twin creates more power higher up the rev range, with somewhat compromises torque delivery at the lower end.

Single cylinder engines - advantages

Better torque and low-end performance

Thanks to their larger bores and strokes, single cylinder engines produce higher torque at lower revs, making them more suitable for load lugging and for applications where high torque is required lower down the rev range.

Fuel-efficiency
While there may be exceptions, where lighter materials and more modern and expensive technology is used, but as a rule, for any given cubic capacity, single cylinder engines are more fuel-efficient as compared to twins.

Lower cost of maintenance
With their simple construction and lesser number of moving parts, single cylinder engines are easy to maintain and repair. The cost of replacement of parts for single cylinder engines is also significantly lower than their twin engine counterparts.
 
Personally, I would not be dead set on a two cylinder engine of the same displacement as it's single cylinder counterpart. Stepping from 6hp to 8hp is obviously going to "go better".

If it were me (based on your info, I haven't researched current 4 stoke engines) I would go with a current 4 stroke 6hp at 60lbs of weight.

Twin cylinder engines are better balanced, and thus more refined than single cylinder engines. The internal forces within a twin cylinder engine are better counterbalanced by the movement of the two pistons, and thus they can rev higher while having less vibration. Since there is an extra cylinder on twin cylinder engines, there is naturally an extra piston as well accompanied by all the associated components. With all that extra componentry twin cylinder engines are more complex, and generally more expensive to manufacture.

To displace any given cubic capacity, a single cylinder engine makes use of bigger, heavier components. For the same cubic capacity, a twin cylinder engine will have lighter componentry as the cubic capacity to be displaced is divided in two parts, and a smaller volume needs smaller and lighter components to be displaced. Do note, that while the internal componentry will be lighter, with the need of two separate cylinders and additional parts, the overall weight of the engine will be heavier than a similar capacity single-cylinder engine. The lighter componentry, however, along with a relatively balanced and vibe free nature of twin cylinder engines, makes them more rev happy, so they can reach a higher rpm and produce more power for any given cubic capacity.

On the other hand, while single cylinder engines aren’t the most high-revving, their longer strokes and heavier componentry allows them to create a lot better torque, and that too at the lower end of the rev spectrum, making them very usable and tractable in low to mid revs.

A single cylinder engine creates more torque lower down the rev range, while a twin creates more power higher up the rev range, with somewhat compromises torque delivery at the lower end.

Single cylinder engines - advantages

Better torque and low-end performance

Thanks to their larger bores and strokes, single cylinder engines produce higher torque at lower revs, making them more suitable for load lugging and for applications where high torque is required lower down the rev range.

Fuel-efficiency
While there may be exceptions, where lighter materials and more modern and expensive technology is used, but as a rule, for any given cubic capacity, single cylinder engines are more fuel-efficient as compared to twins.

Lower cost of maintenance
With their simple construction and lesser number of moving parts, single cylinder engines are easy to maintain and repair. The cost of replacement of parts for single cylinder engines is also significantly lower than their twin engine counterparts.
Between this and your reply to Dani, you may be the new Tom Scholberg! Thanks!
 
How far will you be typically traveling?
A trolling motor and a AGM battery might be a good option.
 
How far will you be typically traveling?
A trolling motor and a AGM battery might be a good option.
Depends a lot. Fishing, some of my use will involve long runs, often starting by running 6-8 miles upstream to float my way back down. I fish some big lakes where I might make 4-5 miles runs. Ditto for some of my salty duck spots.
 
Yeah, that’s probably too long a run for a TM, you’d end up with more weight in batteries vs a gas engine.
 
I’m surprised no one mentioned “just because you have a 15 hp doesn’t mean you have to use it all”

Im a big fan of sportboats and there are some trade offs. If speed or heavy loads are the top priority it seems like people like 8-15hp. If trolling while fishing is top priority you probably want a 4hp give or take.

The older Johnson and evinrude 3-4hp motors with weedless lower unit are really a nice versatile motor for the sportboat and they are two cylinders.

my biggest thing with motors for small boats is a self contained gas tank. I’d rather throw a 1-2 gallon gas can in the back when needed instead of having a fuel line and 3-6 gallo tank all the time
 
Never really thought about a sportboat before. This thread has me looking. Looking almost always ends in new toys. Nobody tell my wife I'm looking. :)

my biggest thing with motors for small boats is a self contained gas tank. I’d rather throw a 1-2 gallon gas can in the back when needed instead of having a fuel line and 3-6 gallo tank all the time

That quote is my way of thinking. For hp, if you need more to go farther faster, get a bigger boat and a bigger motor and stay safe.
 
Thanks all. Only thing I disagree with is the internal fuel tank. Maybe larger and newer motors, combined with better efficiency of a 4 stroke motor, preclude this, but when I ran a 3.5 HP on my sculler, it was common to burn more than a tank of gas in a morning of hunting. Nothing spells "spilled gas" quite as effectively as trying to pour 2 stroke mix from a 1 gallon fuel can into a motor sitting on your transom. I think those old 3.5's had a 1 pint fuel tank? Looks like the boat is ready for pick up this weekend, so I better start motor shopping.
 
I’m surprised no one mentioned “just because you have a 15 hp doesn’t mean you have to use it all”

Im a big fan of sportboats and there are some trade offs. If speed or heavy loads are the top priority it seems like people like 8-15hp. If trolling while fishing is top priority you probably want a 4hp give or take.

The older Johnson and evinrude 3-4hp motors with weedless lower unit are really a nice versatile motor for the sportboat and they are two cylinders.

my biggest thing with motors for small boats is a self contained gas tank. I’d rather throw a 1-2 gallon gas can in the back when needed instead of having a fuel line and 3-6 gallo tank all the time
Agree the Johnson/Evinrude 3-4 HP with weedless props are great for hunting small waters. And with two cylinders they troll much more smoothly than a one-lunger. My favourite is a 1966 Folding Ducktwin.
 
Back
Top