'54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

[67Johnson6HP]

Your opinions Gents. What are the pros and cons on these two Johnson outboards (other than the 4 years difference in age).

 

[HighTrim]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Both beautiful. There are alot of guys on here that are very experienced on these motors, you are in the right place. I am very interested in those exact years myself, from 54 to 58, the 57 I think being my favourite. I believe the 58 is about 7lbs heavier, same 16.6 cu engine though. FR, WBeaton, Samott, JBJ, just a few of the guys that are very familiar with that vintage, and will be able to guide you.

1954

"http://www.old-omc.de/j_1954/seite_08_11.jpg"

1958

"http://www.old-omc.de/j_1958/seite_07.jpg"
"http://www.old-omc.de/j_1958/seite_13.jpg"

 

[tmcalavy]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Both good, sound, reliable, easily maintained outboards. Question for me would be: do I want to run an old two-line pressure tank (54) or run a modern, single-line tank (58)? Hands down, all things being equal, I would go with the 58, or try to get both with a little horse tradin'.

 

[K.B]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

'57 for me. GREAT motor. you can use it as a trolling motor, twist it all the way down with the stop screw turned in just enough to keep it from dying, and you can do figure 8's around crappie stumps/mats for a WHILE!
Or you can cruise the river for a long time on very little gas. Great to knock around the shores, creeks with a flat bottom but quick enough to scoot away from yachtsters!

 

[jbjennings]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Well, I'm not lucky enough to have a '54 but it is very similar to my '55 10hp, which is one of my favorite motors. Myself, I would choose the '54 because it has an excellent lower unit compared to the '58. SamOtt LOVES his '58 10 but he mentioned he had been through a couple of lower units on his. I've noticed that good '58 lower units are harder to find in good shape. The '58 is a good looking motor, but I LOVE the looks of the '54. I don't know of any other issues with the '54. I'm also thinking that both the '58 and '54 use a pressure tank, but I like my pressure tanks and never have any trouble with 'em. The '54 lower unit goes to the 10's and 18's from about '54 to '57 and even further for the 18's. So it's easier to get parts for. I think both would be great if they're working good.
Just my opinion,
JBJ

 

[HighTrim]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

I'm also thinking that both the '58 and '54 use a pressure tank, but I like my pressure tanks and never have any trouble with 'em. JBJ

I was always under the impression that the pressure tank was phased out in 58, or was it just the bigger V50 that came with the fuel pump, and not the smaller motors?

 

[wbeaton]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

The 1958 has a problematic lower unit, however, don't let that scare you off. They had that fixed by 1960 (I believe) and parts are still plentiful. Lots of 1958's are still running on the original lower unit. The 1958 is also quieter than the 1954.

Both use pressure tanks. The single line became an option I think in 1959 and standard in 1960, but that's sort of a guess.

The real question is whether you like the green or the red. I prefer the green. I prefer the 1954-1957 Johnson/Evinrudes, but I also have 3 1958 Johnson/Evinrudes. All are good motors. The 1958 is probably the most sought after 50's Johnson as most people seem to like their looks best. Shouldn't make a difference in price though. Choose the one that looks best or is the better deal.

 

[rolmops]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

For what it is worth.
The '54 weighs 7 pounds less.

 

[wbeaton]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

The smaller lower unit on the 1958 makes it theoretically faster. So weight to power is a wash. I find them all about the same as far as performance goes.

 

[Deanrt]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

I have an 'old' Johnson 10 hp that im not sure of its year and was wondering if anyone had a pic of a '58. I would get the #'s but its buried in the garage. I was only able to use a few times cause the hi n low adjustments will not stay tightend. Im sure its an easy fix but i just keep buying more motors so it just sits there. Thanks, Dean

 

[F_R]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Picture of a '58 at "http://www.old-omc.de/j_1958/seite_07.jpg" without the " marks.

There is always an arguement over weights of the Johnson 10s. The "official" weight as listed on the above website is:
1954 QD-15 = 60 lbs
1955 QD-16 = 67.5
1956 QD-17 = 70.5
1957 QD-18 = 72.5
1958 QD-19 = 67

I really don't understand why so much difference in weights, except the 1958 did lose weight due to the smaller lower unit. Which isn't all that bad as it is badmouthed to be. But you do have to run it with oil for a lube and not water....that will tear it up.

 

[wbeaton]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

I wonder why the weights are so much different as well. I suspect it has to do with a combination of little things.

The 1954 has a different lower unit than the 1955-57 and less sound deadening. The 1954 and 1955 both have a smaller recoil than the 1956-58. Also the cowl was changed for the 1956-58 and may also account for some weight difference. 1958 added a kill switch so the weight would probably be higher still if they hadn't switched to the smaller LU.

 

[jbjennings]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

WB,
I forgot that the '54 has a lower unit like the '53! So it actually would be a little tougher than the '58 to find a l.u. for, right? I guess the '54 has a powerhead like the '55 but a lower like the '53. I think F-R has worked on one or two more '58 lower units than I have so I trust his opinion totally, but they sure do look wimpy compared to the earlier 10hp l.u.'s.
Both the '54 and '58 are nice looking motors as a whole and a nice color choice on both, too.
JBJ

 

[67Johnson6HP]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Thanks to all - I appreciate your input(s). I had thought I remembered something about the l/u's in those years but wasn't sure. Thanks again.

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

The '58 is a bit more refined - it has a belly pan/cowling with rubber gasket (which adds a bit to the weight) and it has the later style recoil (without all the little springs and cogs). As was pointed out, the weakness is the lower unit which won't take as much abuse as the '54's. Simple fix - don't abuse it! Keep it topped off with lower unit oil - if water is getting in, reseal it. Keep the RPM down when shifting. Keep a good prop on it - those blades aren't "extras". Don't hit anything with it.
- Scott

 

[linxlvr]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

I have a '58 that I do like very much. If you need pics or such feel free to PM me.
Model QD-19

And yes as the others mentioned, the 58 is a pressure tank type.

--
dw

 

[4.0l sahara]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

I thought 56 to 58 were the same?

I'm buying this 10hp he says it's a 56 does that sound right.

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Yes, that motor is a 1956.
No, the 1958 is different from the 1956 & 1957 model year. They added a kill button in the front belly pan, and re-rigged the 5.5/7.5 lower unit (heavier gears, driveshaft and bearings) to handle the 10hp, which lead to the issues mentioned previously.
- Scott

 

[4.0l sahara]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Thanks I just get confused easily

 

[K.B]

Re: '54 0r '58 10HP Johnson

Also, the '56 10's are the only year that the hood has "10" metal markers on the hood sides (that I am aware of. Have a spare set if anyone needs)