Evinrude vs. Sea king

[Todd j]

I have aquired a 7.5 horese Evinrude Fleetwin SN 277426. It has a tank with it!
I also, at the same time got a Mont. Wards Sea king 6hp Mod. vwb 52106 sn 57y 2114. They both have the same length from the transome to the prop centerline. I have managed to start each. The Evin. is missing all the knobs outside of the engine cover.

Which one would make the best kicker for a 14-17 ft boat. It will be a back up to my 50hp Mercjet. They both need carb, fuel pump, water pump, and new seals in the lower unit. I was able to find parts available for the sea king, but havent done any thing with either.

I am leaning slightly towards the Sea king as it is a slightly smaller package. I think it uses 50:1, I think the Evin. uses a more oil to fuel, but I dont know. If either one uses other that 50:1 it will require a second fuel tank to sit next to the one for the Merc.

What do you all think?

Todd

 

[samo_ott]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

I would take an OMC over all others 10 times out of 10. Of course you are on a Johnson/Evinrude forum so we all will say that.

The 7.5 is 24:1 ratio. Are you sure the Sea King is 50:1? I'm surprised you found Sea King parts but Evinrude parts are very easy to find on this site and others and a lot are still stocked at BRP dealers.

Plus as a 2nd engine, don't you want more hp to get you home faster?

BTW, what model # is the Fleetwin?

I certainly can see your issue with not wanting 2 tanks... But a lot of times when an engine fails it is due to fuel issues... So having a 2nd fuel system might not be a bad thing...

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

according to # sea king is not an OMC built sea king. i would go with the rude, and most parts are available at laingsoutboards.com

 

[Todd j]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

I knew I would get some bias here, so I posted the identical questions on the Sea king forumn!

I am not totally sure the Sea King is a 50:1. I used it just long enough to hear it run. The VWB in the model number of the sea king designates it as a Chrysler product with the Sea king badge. I was able to find all the fuel system parts at a local dealer. They were not in stock, but were available. I am a little disappointed to see they used plastic starter gear, and a plastic pulley on the pull string?!

"Plus as a 2nd engine, don't you want more hp to get you home faster?" I dunno what you mean by that? The 50 horse does Okay?

How do I find the model of the Fleetwin? It is a little rough on the outside, but like a shiny new penny under the cover. I can tell you that it has all the capabilities to run controls to it.

"I certainly can see your issue with not wanting 2 tanks... But a lot of times when an engine fails it is due to fuel issues... So having a 2nd fuel system might not be a bad thing..." Good point, If the sea king uses 50:1 I was planning on converting it to use the same fuel attachment as the Merc.

Todd

 

[tmcalavy]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Mid 60's and later Sea Kings were West Bend/Chrysler made, as per the vwb in the model/serial number. Prior to that they were Gale made, a sister mfg. arm of Johnson/Evinrude/OMC...Gale's were the plain Jane cousins. If everything checks out on the Evinrude, compression, spark, etc., keep it and use it as a kicker and trade the Chrysler for some more goodies. Course if you like the Chrysler, do just the opposite.

 

[jbjennings]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

that evinrude 7.5 is a great motor---not a single quirk that I can think of. Your sea king made by Chrysler is not nearly as fine of an engine--not even comparable. The evinrude is also very easy to work on and get in tip-top shape. It might be one that you have to take the powerhead off to change the water pump in order to disconnect the shift shaft, but don't let that worry you, as even I can do it in about 15 minutes because it's so well designed. A good flathead screwdriver and 7/16 end wrench will just about take care of it. As far as year model, look at the welch plug on the cylinder block, it'll have a useful I.D. number.
Yes, I'm biased too, but feel very certain I'm also very right in this case. I own a '55 7.5 evinrude and LOVE it. I'll bet after running them both and working on them, you'll agree.
JBJ

 

[Todd j]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Welch plug numbers read
7520
15195
Does this tell me a year or model #?

Todd

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

A 7520 is a 1956 engine. I agree with the others that I would run the Evinrude simply because they are pretty bulletproof motors and parts will be easier to get.

My personal opinion on oil is that I would run it at 50:1 because there is a world of difference between the oils used in the past and the synthetics that are used now. I have a pair of '58 35hp Bigtwiins that have been run extensively at 50:1 with no problems. That said, many don't agree with me so let some of the others express their opinions and why they feel the way that they do. From all of our thoughts, you can make up your own mind on what to do.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

A nice engine. It should look like this:

old-omc.de/e_1956/seite_16_17.jpg

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Nice pics. Steve. I love the one with the tiller steered skiff - reminds me of a boat that I had as a kid with a 7-1/2 on it.

 

[Todd j]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

For some reason I cannot click on the link?

Todd

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

you have to copy and paste into browser. clickable direct links not allowed on iboats.

 

[wbeaton]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

First...Don't use 50:1 in the Fleetwin. I has ALL friction bearings unlike the 35 hp mentioned and it just plain needs more oil - 24:1.

Second...If you use the Fleetwin you will need a second tank anyway since it has no fuel pump.

Fleetwin over Chrysler/Westbend anyday. The 7.5 hp is a nice motor. I have two 1956's.

 

[tmcalavy]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

I concur with wbeaton...don't run a friction-bearing outboard at 50:1 unless the manufacturers documentation recommends it. I know some folks do it, but they are engineered for a richer mix, like 24:1 or 16:1, so why take a chance with the leaner mix that may cause harm? Oil is cheap, taking the chance isn't worth it. Not knocking those who do run leaner mixes. Just my .02 cents.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

And if you use synthetic oil, it's biodegradable (of course, it's not as cheap though)

 

[steelespike]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

I agree the Fleetwin is a sweet running motor and routine parts are readily available at any number of places.But we are talking a 20 year age difference.
and the convience of the same fuel mix.If I'm not mistaken gearcase seals are a weak point on all the 50s E/J motors.Gearcase is easy to work on but
is not bullet proof.There is no doubt the starter gear is a weak point on the Chrysler and should be kept in mind when cranking.
Definately keep the Fleetwin and fix her up but for ease of set up the Chrysler may be the one.Give both a careful checkup and make your decision.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Personally, I'd rather have a 20 year older J/E in good condition than a newer other brand. They are easy to work on. Parts are easy and cheap to get.

 

[wbeaton]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

for ease of set up the Chrysler may be the one.Give both a careful checkup and make your decision.

I agree with that and meant to say it as well. Lower unit seals on the 7.5 hp are no problem to change, but they are probably shot by now.

 

[kenmyfam]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Keep them both, try them both and keep the one that you like the best. Personally I would do the Evinrude first though !!!!

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Evinrude vs. Sea king

Just because the oil issue is interesting, here's Q that someone may know.

I have a pair of Johnson 6hp motors that have also been run on 50:1 mix, synthetic oil. One of the motors is a '67 and the other is a '69. They were set up in a somewhat unconventional fashion, with both being mounted on a 15' fiberglass boat that weighed about 800 pounds. With both motors running at WOT, which was exactly what they were run at most of the time, they only pushed the boat at about 8mph. Since a 15' boat at that speed is trying to climb out of its bow wave, the motors would have been under a bit of stress. I sometimes ran those motors for long hours at a time at WOT and I did so for about three years. They also were not 100 hour per year motors. I really don't know how many hours I put on them over the three years, but I would take a guess at about 750 to 900 hours. Add to those hours, however many hours they had accumulated in the thirty years before I acquired them. One of these motors now sits on a rack in my shop, ready to be used if I need it, and the other serves as a kicker on my current boat. Both motors still run fine.

As far as I know (I have never had a reason to crack the casings), neither of these motors uses needle bearings. And, short of running a motor in an environment where proper cooling becomes an issue, I don't think you could "abuse" a motor more than I did by running it at WOT basically all of the time. It is my personal opinion that the reason why I have been able to do this at the 50:1 mix (which, in all fairness, is what these motors were intended to be run at) is the improved quality of synthetic oils. The simple fact of the matter is that synthetics have superior viscosity and resistence to shear (film strength). They just keep the metal parts away from each other to a much higher degree.

So, is the bearing design on my sixties 6hp motors that much different than that of the fifties 5-1/2 and 7-1/2 motors? Again, this question is not for the purposes of disagreement - I am just curious.