1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

[ali'i]

Can anyone explain how, for better or for worse, a 1971 4hp Johnson, with the weedless (angled) shaft differs from a normal straight shaft, as far as being used for a kicker on a 14ft, approx. 1400lb fiberglass boat, BTW,, weeds are not a concrern. Thanks

 

[oldcatamount]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

Won't make a bit of difference. The weedless prop is angled so the the low edge of the blades will chop weeds before they get wrapped around the lower unit (in theory anyway).

 

[F_R]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

Kind of a toss-up. The weedless drive is slower than some motors of equal horsepower because of the angled drive and shape of the lower unit. On the other hand, the right angle drive was made for high thrust requirements such as an auxillary on a sailboat. It probably would be right at home on a 1400lb boat, but come out second on an aluminum jon boat. I guess one would have to try both on the same boat and observe the result.

I have personally compared the weedless with other brands of 3-4hp motors and the weedless loses in the speed department. But it was made for a purpose, and in the intended environment, nothing else compares.

 

[hardwater fisherman]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

i have a 1977 johnson 4hp with weedless drive. and i had it on a 14ft runabout and it preformed well. it got my back to the dock once. and i have used it for trolling also. it would work in a headwind and current. not very fast but it pushed the boat. also mine only has a 2 blade plastic prop. i think the 1971 model has a 3 blade prop. just something to add i was able to mount it on the transom all the way to one side so it was just long enough to operate. if it does not hang low enough it wont be much good too you.

 

[oldboat1]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

I use a '57 3hp kicker with weedless lower unit as a trolling motor on a 14' aluminum, with an 18hp main motor. Runs like a sewing machine as a troller, but with plenty of thrust to get me home if I need that.

 

[boobie]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

It all depends on what kind of waters you're going to use it. They're both good motors.

 

[oldboat1]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

yup. 4hp is still 4hp, and tough in a headwind or quartering wind. but that's what makes it fun, right? Go for it! btw, I have one of those extending, articulated tiller handles -- might be something to keep in mind, as it allows you to steer in the middle seat (good weight distribution).

 

[ali'i]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

Been Googling for hours to try find the weight of the motor before going to look at it, it's a long drive and get every thing from
35 lbs to 50 lbs, anybody know for sure, 15lbs is a lot when you have a bad back, its weedless model 4W71D, Thanks

 

[kbait]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

35 lbs from original brochure from 'the old omc site' : http://www.old-omc.de/e_1971/seite_22_23.jpg

 

[ali'i]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

35 lbs from original brochure from 'the old omc site' : http://www.old-omc.de/e_1971/seite_22_23.jpg

Proves one thing, don't rely on Google for everything, that's one website that never came up no matter what I put in the search, 71 Johnson, 71 Evinrude, OMC etc, Thanks

 

[TN-25]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

The weedless works great at shedding weeds due to the angle of the skeg, the slight downward angling (20 degrees) of the prop, the gearing (spins faster but combined with a shallower pitch on the prop to help chop through weeds that aren't already deflected down). It was an effective weed fighter. I have used both a weedless 3 & 4 and found them to work very well for their intended purpose. On the other hand for 1964 the high thrust version was introduced. The prop was parallel to the water surface for added efficiency, plus the gear ratio & pitch were juggled to work better at providing thrust.
The foot of a 1964 - 72 straight drive 3 or 4 can be swapped onto any year weedless. The non-weedless 4 lower unit was changed for 1973 and no longer could you simply swap the foot, it would require the entire midsection & lower unit.

Pictured below are 1972 Evinrude versions for comparison:

 

[tazrig]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

Back in the day me and all my friends had 4 hp jonny's or rudes and the weedless were definately slower but not by much. Think of it this way. If a prop is pushing thrust straight back from a boat that is far more efficient than if it pushing down at a 30 degree angle. Very similar between shaft driven propellers (weedless) and Pod drives (regular) on newer larger boats.

 

[Fleetwin]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

Kind of a toss-up. The weedless drive is slower than some motors of equal horsepower because of the angled drive and shape of the lower unit. On the other hand, the right angle drive was made for high thrust requirements such as an auxillary on a sailboat. It probably would be right at home on a 1400lb boat, but come out second on an aluminum jon boat. I guess one would have to try both on the same boat and observe the result.

I have personally compared the weedless with other brands of 3-4hp motors and the weedless loses in the speed department. But it was made for a purpose, and in the intended environment, nothing else compares.

I agree, Having owned both a right angle and weedless 4, the right angle drive provided more thrust.

With that said, if the weedless works for you, that's good.

 

[ali'i]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

If a weedless was mounted in a tilted forward position, there by putting the prop at more of a right angle, would that give it the thrust more like the right angle version of the motor?

 

[dazk14]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

If a weedless was mounted in a tilted forward position, there by putting the prop at more of a right angle, would that give it the thrust more like the right angle version of the motor?

Sure, that might add a small percentage more, but it needs to remain deep enough.

I think you're torturing yourself here.

If you've found a great running 4 of that vintage for a good price, buy it. They're nice trolling motors in any form and won't leave you stranded.

They are amongst the smoothest running motors ever built and can be set to idle so slow, you can hear each cylinder firing.

How much are they asking? Can you copy/paste the ad.

I'm sure I've got a straight shaft lower kicking around, so if you prove me wrong, I'll send it to you.

Compression warm should be ~90psi.

 

[tazrig]

Re: 1971 4hp Johnson weedless, vs non weedless

If a weedless was mounted in a tilted forward position, there by putting the prop at more of a right angle, would that give it the thrust more like the right angle version of the motor?

It would give you a tiny bit more speed maybe the difference between 8mph with a weedless and 10mph with a strait shaft. Either one will do you just fine. They were like iron!