1972 Johnson 50

[Lower]

Can anyone tell me if this is a decent motor and also if the model number will designate short or long shaft. It's going on 15 ft Starcraft lancer if it works out. Here's model number 50ESL72 C

 

[racerone]

It is a long shaft.After 40 years it is hard to comment on whether it is still a good motor.

 

[Lower]

Thanks!

 

[Faztbullet]

Wasn't that good of engine new IMO........lots of idle problems and crankcase leaks

 

[eavega]

The 1972 is also a hydroelectric shift LU. Somewhat more complicated than your mechanical shift, required a specific type of gearcase oil, and if the solenoids fail, they are NLA and very hard to get. The remote control is also NLA, so if that goes you are reduced to rigging up your own switching system for the gear shift. Given that the motor is over 40 years old and obsolete shifting technology that J/E abandoned after 4 years, I'd say you should probably try to find something else.
For the record I had an Evinrude 1972 50 HP, which lasted me one season before blowing a piece of piston skirt through the crank case on labor day weekend. I babied that engine and took meticulous care of it. Unfortunately 40 years old is 40 years old.

-E

 

[Guest]

In general, the 50 hp J/E engines were very good, but your '72 was only the second year that engine was in production. they built that engine up until 2004.

Any 50 hp OMC motor, 1975 and later will be fine, as OMC had redesigned corrected these shortcomings by then. As evega stated, the hydro-electric shift went over to full mechanical shift back then and now, just about any OMC control will work.

You will find that these motors all look identical to your 72 (except for paint and decals) up to about 1987, when the lower leg and clamp arrangement was redesigned.

I have own several of these engines ( '75, '83, '92 and '99) and they are damn near bullet proof.

Good luck with your 72.

 

[juno pierrat]

48 spl are good also, no vro, 3 separate parts under fly wheel, not one large stator(expensive), compression for mine 1987 has been above 145 for 4 years i've owned it

 

[Lower]

Ok! I'm trying to restore a 1963 lancer and someone was telling me a Johnson 75 triple cylinder would be a good match but I guess I need to be patient. Can't seem to find any in southern in region

 

[flyingscott]

Ok! I'm trying to restore a 1963 lancer and someone was telling me a Johnson 75 triple cylinder would be a good match but I guess I need to be patient. Can't seem to find any in southern in region

The 70 hp can be easier to find and IMO a better all around motor than the 75 hp.

 

[Keyboardman]

I have a '74 50hp Johnson and after a lot of work it's a solid running engine. Idles like crap but never dies.

 

[eavega]

Given the choice between a 1972 50 HP, and a 1975+ 70 HP Three Cylinder, I'd go with the 70 HP all the way! I think the 75 HP is just the 70 HP that has been tweaked some for slightly more power. The only catch with the 70 HP is that you do end up with 3 carburetors, so if you have to rebuild carbs its 3x, and you have to synchronize all three carburetors for optimal performance. Its not too hard but you have to pay attention to it. I replaced the '72 evinrude 50 with a 1976 Johnson 70 HP, which performed admirably for the last 3 years I owned the boat. The only catch was with the 1976 model year had a TSB about having to re-jet and tweak the carburetors to solve a mid-throttle flat spot. It was only the 1976 year and once the fix was applied. I think you'd be happier with a 70 HP 3-cylinder than the 50 HP.

E

 

[Guest]

The 70 hp OMC were great motors, I had friends who owned several, and I once owned one myself. They are fast motors and relatively good on fuel. I had one on a 15' Boston Whaler and it was a rocket sled. The only reason I sold it is because I wanted a bigger boat.

 

[Lower]

Well maybe I'll hold out for a 70 then!

 

[Lower]

What's your all's opinions on maybe the older Chrysler motors the 70 hp