1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

[kfa4303]

Hi all. So I have the chance to trade a 4 yr old Minn Kota 40 lb. electric trolling motor for a 1961 Johnson 10hp QD-22. Any thoughts? Were/are they good motors generally speaking? I have a '66 33hp seaking I just brought back to life, thanks to the forums. Now I am hooked on these old Johnsons. A 10 hp kicker of the same era sure would be nice Thanks.

 

[eavega]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Different applications. Do you NEED an electric motor? Personally, if I didn't need a 10 HP gas motor, I'd keep my trolling motor since I have a use for an electric trolling motor for keeping me in position when fishing.

As to the QD-22, it is almost 50 years old. I owned a QD-21 and it was a relatively simple affair to get it running (fuel pump and impeller, change foot oil and we were off), but I do remember several warnings about the gearcase being weak on those vintage motors.

Just some thoughts.

Rgds

 

[F_R]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

It is "weak" if you neglect and abuse it.

 

[bktheking]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Good motors, if you want it trade for it.

 

[steelespike]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

If it is a sound motor they are fine.Peppy easy to work on reasonably quiet.
speeds about 21 mph possible on a light reasonably fast boat.
Routine parts are readily available some right here at Iboats.More involved new and used parts are available from many vendors and OMC(BRP) dealers coast to coast.
Good compression can help indicate a sound motor.100 psi is excellent,60 psi acceptical.Within 10% between cylinders.

 

[kfa4303]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Thanks for the input y'all. I think I'm gonna go ahead and make the trade. Ever since I got my 33 hp running I've become hooked on these little OMC motors. I never use the trolling motor, so it might as well go to someone who will. I'll be sure to give it the once over using everything that I've learned from here.

 

[Steve A W]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Uh Oh, sounds like You been bit!
Good Luck with it.
Steve A W

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

As FR noted, the lower units are only weak if they have not been/are not being taken care of. Keep the water out, keep a good prop on it and shift with authority at lowest idle. Allow the gearcase oil to leak out and water to enter, run a chewed up prop or ease it into gear at half throttle and the lower unit will come apart.

Otherwise a solid motor. It has the heavier rods with the needle bearings on the wrist pins - a much more robust design than the earlier bronze bearing. Still need to run it 24:1, though, as the center main can wear at leaner ratios.

 

[kfa4303]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Glad to hear they're basically good and worth a litle TLC. I'll be sure to go with 24:1 too. I've read all sorts of differet ratios for this motor, but it's hard to wrong with 24:1. Better a bit too much oil than too little. I've heard some concerns expressed that the flywheels on motrs of this era can be a weak spot due to the view hole in them. Is this true, or just a worst case scenario sort of thing?
I realize I may have to put a bit of money into it (famous last words), but that's ok. I'm still learning and I love tinkering. The size and scale of this motor should be easier to work and learn on than my Big Twin 33hp, which was a bit of bear to work on alone at time, but now runs like a top thanks to the forum.

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I've never had a problem with a viewport flywheel - at least not on a smaller motor, and I've had dozens of them go through my shop over the years...

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Those old 10hp's are good motors and simple to work on. My favorite years are the 56 - 58 vintage, because they have the heftier lower unit that was used on the Fastwins, but that's my personal preference. The later ones were good too. They are a hell of a lot easier to work on, than the old 9.5's too, so keep that in mind, should you get the opportunity to trade for one of those.

 

[meyerboy]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

My 1960 CD-17 is almost the same motor.

The good: It starts easy, runs well, has a sediment bowl for the fuel, I love the flip-over cowl.

The bad: This is one HEAVY motor, I have a 25hp that weighs about the same. The 24 to one makes this motor smoke like my grandfather used to. and the worst: you have to remove the powerhead to drop the lower unit.

I doubt I will ever sell mine, but I also doubt I would buy another.
I also will never run mine on the lakes here, as we are the last county in the west to allow the two-bangers on fresh water, and they way that thing smokes, it would only hasten their decision.

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

My 1960 CD-17 is almost the same motor.

The good: It starts easy, runs well, has a sediment bowl for the fuel, I love the flip-over cowl.

The bad: This is one HEAVY motor, I have a 25hp that weighs about the same. The 24 to one makes this motor smoke like my grandfather used to. and the worst: you have to remove the powerhead to drop the lower unit.

I doubt I will ever sell mine, but I also doubt I would buy another.
I also will never run mine on the lakes here, as we are the last county in the west to allow the two-bangers on fresh water, and they way that thing smokes, it would only hasten their decision.

No, you don't have to drop the powerhead to remove the lower on a 10hp. It has a coupler to unfasten, under the obround plate on the side of the leg.

Oh, wait a minute, you have a CD model, well, that's only a 5.5hp and considerably smaller than the old QD. You will find a bit of a difference in weight and yes, THOSE, you do have to remove the powerhead to drop the lower. The old 10hp calls for 24:1 also, which is odd, since they are fully jeweled, which the 5.5hp is not. The 1961 and later 5.5hp was though. If your powerhead ever goes tits up on you, then I would buy a 1961 to replace. It's the nonfriction type.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

My 1960 CD-17 is almost the same motor.

The good: It starts easy, runs well, has a sediment bowl for the fuel, I love the flip-over cowl.

The bad: This is one HEAVY motor, I have a 25hp that weighs about the same. The 24 to one makes this motor smoke like my grandfather used to. and the worst: you have to remove the powerhead to drop the lower unit.

I doubt I will ever sell mine, but I also doubt I would buy another.
I also will never run mine on the lakes here, as we are the last county in the west to allow the two-bangers on fresh water, and they way that thing smokes, it would only hasten their decision.

The 1960 5.5hp weighs 55lbs. I'd love to have a 25hp that weighs similar. The lightest OMC 25hp made that I'm aware off is in the low 80's... But I do agree, I hate having to remove the powerhead to work on the lower unit of the 5.5/7.5's... Design flaw in my opinion...

 

[samo_ott]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

Those old 10hp's are good motors and simple to work on. My favorite years are the 56 - 58 vintage, because they have the heftier lower unit that was used on the Fastwins, but that's my personal preference. The later ones were good too. They are a hell of a lot easier to work on, than the old 9.5's too, so keep that in mind, should you get the opportunity to trade for one of those.

You're off by a year... The '58's had the 4 bolt LU. Best years are '55-'57

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I thought 59 was the first year of the 4 bolt lower unit, but yea, it turns out you're right. it's okay though, I still like the '57 model the best and all the other motors that year as well.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I think I have at least 3 '58 QD's in the shed, all with no lowers

And in case anyone is wondering, I got em that way!

 

[jbjennings]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I was thinking that perhaps the drive shaft or pinion bearing/bushing was a little weak in the 58's which they later beefed up a little and were at least decent in the later models---if you kept water out.
Is that right, F-R or Steve?
JBJ

 

[1946Zephyr]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I think I have at least 3 '58 QD's in the shed, all with no lowers

And in case anyone is wondering, I got em that way!

Yea, I have an early 60's vintage with a lower unit on it, but it jumps out of gear real bad. The power head runs, but I think the shift dawg is shot. I just sold the prop to mettyfish this week. I'm going to part this motor out, till it's all gone.

 

[samo_ott]

Re: 1961 10 hp QD-22; Good, bad, ugly?

I was thinking that perhaps the drive shaft or pinion bearing/bushing was a little weak in the 58's which they later beefed up a little and were at least decent in the later models---if you kept water out.
Is that right, F-R or Steve?
JBJ

It's pretty much the same LU as the previous years 7.5hp so it wasn't really initially designed for the 33% more power. I'm sure they worked on it but it seemed to take a few years to get back up to speed.