- This topic has 32 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
tcw3 expensive ????…..not really golfing is expensive…..
Joining AOMCI has priviledges 🙂
1 user thanked author for this post.
Tubs2 users thanked author for this post.
TubsI would disagree with the factory specs when it comes to CD/AD (plain bearing models) using 24:1. While everyone agrees oils have improved over the years, they have not improved that much to take a chance like this. In the end, it is up to the engine owner to decide, but I feel that factory recommendations like this are a good way to kill these old engines. Let’s remember that it was these types of manufacturer recommendations that came up with the 100:1 recommendation. If one were to read all the limitations (small print), they would realize that 100:1 was a bad idea, just like 24:1 for those old plain bearing engines.
2 users thanked author for this post.
The oiling list shown above is in my 1980 OMC Parts and Accessories manual to and I for one have to whole heartedly disagree with their 24:1 recommendations for the JW, CD, and AD motors. They did get it right for the five horse TN motors at 16:1 though but these motors had already been obsolete for thirty years at the time of publication.
The Johnson JW, CD, and AD motors are constructed similar to the TN motors with no ball or roller bearings in them of any kind, only sleeve style bearings. Why should the oiling requirements change for these motors when they are so similar to the TN’s? I can see using TCW Generation 1 oil at 50:1 on ’64 and later 5.5 horse CD motors as they got needle bearings on the rods big ends in ’61 but still used sleeve bearings on the cranks mains until their demise in ’79 as a six horse but recommending 50:1 mix in these motors ‘Only If Johnson Lubricant Is Used’ is bordering on insanity, if it isn’t already.
Now lets look at the big picture. OMC was in business for one reason only, and that was to make money. That’s what all big businesses are about, profit. They are not your friend and couldn’t care less if your old motor burned out while out on the lake as chances are you would be buying a new replacement motor from either them or one of the other major players of the day. The odds were you would buy another OMC motor, either a Johnson or Evinrude, since you enjoyed your old one so much before it went South. Selling new motors is what their business was all about and more sales meant more corporate profit.
I’m not the only one who feels deep down this was a corporate ploy to help increase sales. I could be wrong but can’t help feeling a bit suspicious about it. Since the extinct AD and JW and CD motors kept running so well year after year on 16:1 mix, sales, as in profits, weren’t what they could be if these motors weren’t replaced more often. One way to get around this would be to nonchalantly help the motors wear out quicker, by recommending a leaner gas/oil mix. After all, 50:1 was the new normal in ’64 and who wanted to use a heavier 16:1 mix when 24;1 or even 50:1 could or might do the job using the new TCW oil?
These older motors were designed and built with an expected lifetime in mind. They weren’t supposed to be so reliable and keep on running year after year as this cut into company profits. I’m sure this is why OMC published these oiling recommendations, to help speed up the process. After all, to be successful in business, sometimes one has to make shrewd decisions.
Some of my personal experiences can back this up. As an owner of many of the above mentioned motors, I have found that the majority of the 16:1 TN, AD, CD, and JW motors in my stable are in excellent mechanical condition internally and only require a new set of rings to be transformed into reliable runners again while many of the later 50:1 six horse and three horse motors I see are literally worn out. Scuffed and scored pistons and cylinder walls seems to be the most common problem with these 50:1 motors with worn rod bearings coming in second. Why? I’ll put my money down on not enough oil in the mix.
That’s my rant for the day and I’m off my soap box now as I have stumps to dig out before the ground dries out. My trusty old 16:1 Pioneer (OMC) 1074 chainsaw will be in use today, and probably tomorrow to. And if it throws a chain, I have another one to use which I bought brand new 40+ years ago!
2 users thanked author for this post.
The oiling list shown above is in my 1980 OMC Parts and Accessories manual to and I for one have to whole heartedly disagree with their 24:1 recommendations for the JW, CD, and AD motors. They did get it right for the five horse TN motors at 16:1 though but these motors had already been obsolete for thirty years at the time of publication.
The Johnson JW, CD, and AD motors are constructed similar to the TN motors with no ball or roller bearings in them of any kind, only sleeve style bearings. Why should the oiling requirements change for these motors when they are so similar to the TN’s? I can see using TCW Generation 1 oil at 50:1 on ’64 and later 5.5 horse CD motors as they got needle bearings on the rods big ends in ’61 but still used sleeve bearings on the cranks mains until their demise in ’79 as a six horse but recommending 50:1 mix in these motors ‘Only If Johnson Lubricant Is Used’ is bordering on insanity, if it isn’t already.
Now lets look at the big picture. OMC was in business for one reason only, and that was to make money. That’s what all big businesses are about, profit. They are not your friend and couldn’t care less if your old motor burned out while out on the lake as chances are you would be buying a new replacement motor from either them or one of the other major players of the day. The odds were you would buy another OMC motor, either a Johnson or Evinrude, since you enjoyed your old one so much before it went South. Selling new motors is what their business was all about and more sales meant more corporate profit.
I’m not the only one who feels deep down this was a corporate ploy to help increase sales. I could be wrong but can’t help feeling a bit suspicious about it. Since the extinct AD and JW and CD motors kept running so well year after year on 16:1 mix, sales, as in profits, weren’t what they could be if these motors weren’t replaced more often. One way to get around this would be to nonchalantly help the motors wear out quicker, by recommending a leaner gas/oil mix. After all, 50:1 was the new normal in ’64 and who wanted to use a heavier 16:1 mix when 24;1 or even 50:1 could or might do the job using the new TCW oil?
These older motors were designed and built with an expected lifetime in mind. They weren’t supposed to be so reliable and keep on running year after year as this cut into company profits. I’m sure this is why OMC published these oiling recommendations, to help speed up the process. After all, to be successful in business, sometimes one has to make shrewd decisions.
Some of my personal experiences can back this up. As an owner of many of the above mentioned motors, I have found that the majority of the 16:1 TN, AD, CD, and JW motors in my stable are in excellent mechanical condition internally and only require a new set of rings to be transformed into reliable runners again while many of the later 50:1 six horse and three horse motors I see are literally worn out. Scuffed and scored pistons and cylinder walls seems to be the most common problem with these 50:1 motors with worn rod bearings coming in second. Why? I’ll put my money down on not enough oil in the mix.
That’s my rant for the day and I’m off my soap box now as I have stumps to dig out before the ground dries out. My trusty old 16:1 Pioneer (OMC) 1074 chainsaw will be in use today, and probably tomorrow to. And if it throws a chain, I have another one to use which I bought brand new 40+ years ago!
Yeah, Mumbles got it right. OMC was ruled by the “marketing department” aka advertising/sales. The employees that came up with this oiling guide probably weren’t even familiar with the older plain bearing models, oh well. It is this same marketing department that ruled in the 80s, which drove the 100:1 recommendation. I’m not trying to defend the engineering department, sure they made mistakes, but the marketing department ran the show…Unfortunately.
2 users thanked author for this post.
So the consensus would be to run all the AD,CD,JW and all motors with the plain bearings on 16:1 TCW-3 oils? What about synthetic and synthetic blend oils? I know Tubs uses synthetic oil at a little lighter ratio and seems to have good luck. Is synthetic oil a much better lubricant than TCW-3? Even the Merc KE4 calls for 16:1 I believe and they’re supposed to be roller bearing motors I thought. I have a 1975 Evinrude 6HP and now I realize it has plain bearing wrist pin bearings( never really thought about it before) and it too should be run on a heavier oil mix.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Most of the motors I have, and have had, are pre. war
bushings motors. The small 1hp. Pal, Scout, Sea King.
and the like won’t run properly without 5 oz of oil per.
gal. I believe this amount of oil is necessary to achieve
a seal in these crankshaft bushings motors as they have none.
All my other bushing motors have run well on 3 oz. per.
gal. These are some examples I have on you tube for
anyone is interested.
1928 Elto Speedster “Crusty” My Favorite Motor.
1939 Fleetwin Model#- 4335 – 8.5 hp.
1933 Johnson OA-65
1929 Elto Lightweight # 2 Super Elto Antique Outboard Motor
There are others if one should want to search them out.
The above motors, as well as others, have been run extensively
without any issues or failures. I’m not trying to tell anyone
how much oil to run. Just offering my experiences as others
have. Anyone questioning how much oil is necessary can
consider what I have offered or is free discard it as they
should see fit.
Tubs1 user thanked author for this post.
So the consensus would be to run all the AD,CD,JW and all motors with the plain bearings on 16:1 TCW-3 oils? What about synthetic and synthetic blend oils? I know Tubs uses synthetic oil at a little lighter ratio and seems to have good luck. Is synthetic oil a much better lubricant than TCW-3? Even the Merc KE4 calls for 16:1 I believe and they’re supposed to be roller bearing motors I thought. I have a 1975 Evinrude 6HP and now I realize it has plain bearing wrist pin bearings( never really thought about it before) and it too should be run on a heavier oil mix.
Your 70s model 6hp will do OK on the 50:1 mix. Using a little extra oil on your 6hp wont hurt a thing, and the thermostatically controlled cooling system will help reduce any possible smoking. True, the wrist pin uses a plain bearing, but the bid end of the rods use needle bearings. I have never seen an wrist pin issue on a 6hp. The older 10hp models are a different story indeed.
Again, no one will dispute that oils have improved greatly over the years. And, there may be instances that the oil mix can be lightened up a bit. But, I sure won’t attempt to address that here. In the end, it is up to the owner. But, I would never attempt to run any of my 50s model plain rod bearing (big end) engines on anything less than 16:1. These engines smoke very little, even on the heavy 16:1 mix, when in good tune. Rod failure is not uncommon on these engines, and a little extra oil is cheap insurance indeed.
The engines we are referring to are older models with plain bearings on the big end to the rod/crank. I guess I should have been more specific in my descriptions, sorry. D
Here is a picture of the new to me Johnson Sea Horse 10. Thanks for all the replies. I believe that I will mix the first tank of gas at the 16:1 ratio and see how it runs first. The motor overall looks to be in great shape for its age.
It will be a while before I get to use it. Here in Wisconsin it was snowing today and the next weeks weather still looks like cold and rain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
