Firestone only? Or all rebranded Scott’s? Am I looking at this right? Firestone WAS a rebranded Scott, correct?

We have several of these models, the positives are their light weight and great power – they are also somewhat unusual in classic outboard circles. Like Jim noted, just because I have issues with these doesn’t imply they aren’t a favorite!

The early (1949) 5hp and 7.5hp Scott models used a cable in place of the later stainless shift rod; these become hopelessly corroded, kinked or non-operational. I don’t know if the Firestone and Corsairs had this but, if so, look out. All of the top tank models suffer from rust inside the tank, a problem they never seemed to be able to solve since it was common right up to the last Mac 4hp in 1969! Along with the corrosion, the gas caps can become incredibly hard to unscrew and the early twist grips get stuck – this may go along with the white fungus that seems to form on all Scott plastics and is a nuisance. (In the desert you may not have this problem!)

I particularly like the unique one-year only 1953 Gold Pennant 7.5 and 10hp models and have owned several. One of the big design oversights with these is the center strip on the cover, it is a PITA to remove, something you must do to work on anything involving the recoil, magneto or carb. This same design was used, after Scott dropped it, on many of the private brand motors through 1958. A related issue is the private brand motor covers being made of steel that corrodes easily and was very poorly pained. As others have noted, the weak lower unit seals and shift shaft are a common problem. And many of you have heard my diatribe against the %&*#!! carb drain that the Scott (and others) had on the Tillotson MD – this creates a host of issues including inconsistent running and poor economy. (Some of the private brands were spared this miserable device – a good thing!) The MD also gets taxed to deliver enough fuel on the 10hp, the bowl being so shallow and the float travel only about 1/2" – they can starve for gas in tight turns or choppy conditions. Consumer Reports reviewed these motors back in 1953 and found their tilt-lock design to be unacceptable – someone must have lost a finger! I also experienced an odd issue with one of the 10s I have: it had the leg improperly machined so the driveshaft did not align correctly into the powerhead. This created a horrible sound when it was running, possibly explaining why the motor looked like new – prior owner(s) were scared to run it! The issue was glaringly obvious the second I took the powerhead off and it was not easily remedied. Some sound proofing material inside the engine cover will also make these motors a lot more enjoyable – though that is an issue with all the motors available in 1953….

As has been noted since they were new, the Bail-A-Matic Scott, Firestone, Hiawatha and Corsairs waterpump location was not well thought-out. In addition to the wear on startup and heat from the exhaust that tears up the impellers, the impeller cup with stainless liner is a problem in itself. Corrosion between the two will bow the bottom of the cup making the pump useless – this seems particularly troublesome on the private brand motors that don’t have the bailer. The only fix is to replace the unit with new, something that isn’t easy to find anymore. Scott had developed an excellent lower unit design for the 16hp and it is odd they didn’t down-scale it to the 5, 7.5 and 10hp – that front cover and the shift rod seal are terrible, I’ve never been able to get any of mine to seal 100%.

Your post was only regarding the 48-58 motors – I have yet to own one of the ’59 Scott 5, 7.5 and 10hp models. For that year only they remedied the pump issue by relocating it (and bailer) to the lower unit. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a private brand ’59 Scott- I think Firestone had aligned with West Bend that year. Not sure about Wizard or Hiawatha, and the plug was pulled on Corsair back in ’56.

My favorite Scott – 1953 Gold Pennant 10hp (the one with the mis-aligned leg – now fixed)

Son Harry (a while back) and the 1952 Firestone 5hp

Son Graham and his 1965 McCulloch 4hp

I think this detent gadget, when stuck, is what causes the unnecessary force on the shift rod and fork. Operators push harder on the shift arm. I have two, one with the hole and one without. Both are stuck in a semi compressed position. Will not shift with the detent device in place. Shifts well without it. I want to insert a probe through the hole and knock loose the cam, but this is what I do just before I break something 🙁 I can see it happening! I doubt the motor will stay in gear without the detent cam.