Evinrude Model A? RBM – Help needed.

[pm-t2]

Yeah I posted some crap last night when I was tired, but I took it down because I didn’t think it was vicious enough. Actually I wanted to re-write some of it and was too tired to do it, and because I pretty much do what I bloody well want anyway. At any rate, here it all is again.

I have read enough of these posts that I decided to break my self-imposed silence only to make the following suggestions.

The spreadsheet that you have questions about was prepared through diligent work by experienced people who have spent countless hours WORKING on these machines, examining every component, making measurements and comparisons up and down the line. We recognize that it cannot necessarily be considered as infallible, but at the same time, it is one of the more reliable bits of information that have been created and saved for use by people who find one of these motors and need help figuring out what is correct and what isn’t.

Case in point – if the list says a 1914 motor has a two-ring piston in it, and you have a motor with a 1914 serial number that has a three ring piston, the answer is NOT that it must be a 1916 or later motor; the answer is it’s a 1914 motor that had a later piston retrofitted for whatever reason.

The fellows who are pointing you toward the motor being a 1914 model B are correct, at least for the powerhead section of it. The flywheel you have is unique to the 1914 model year. Kees is right, if it was battery ignition it should have holes in it. as for the gear foot, it would not be the first Evinrude rowboat motor that has had a later model gearfoot fitted to an older powerhead. Richard White made the point that lower units wear out while the brass ID plates do not. I’d go one step further with that concept to include the powerheads, as they typically are capable of outlasting multiple lower unit assemblies I once acquired a 1922 Evinrude motor that came with two spare lower units, both of which were worn out to the point of being useless unless they were rebuilt with new bushings and shafts; also, the foot that was on the motor also needed rebuilding, so there was some evidence that my 1922 Evinrude had outlasted the lives of three different lower unit assemblies.

The reason we know that 1915 was the FIRST year for the Model A with reversing foot is because a) there’s no mention whatsoever in the 1914 Evinrude literature or model guide of a motor with a reversing foot, b) all the Evinrude literature of the time touted the 1915 models as the first with reverse and also with the Maxim silencer muffler as standard issue on that motor, and c) the patent granted to Chris Meyer is dated as such. Simply put, there is no such friggin’ thing as a pre-1915 Model A Evinrude. Case closed.

One thing the fellows have not pointed out is that your gas tank has had the sediment trap section castrated to about half it’s normal size, and the method for feeding fuel from the tank to the mixer valve is all wrong. The sediment trap is supposed to have its front face even with the front right tank panel, where a bronze casting is soldered in place that incorporates a drain feature as well as the pipe thread port that accepts a male end of the mixer valve nipple.

Again, as Richard White stated, you have a very good and RELIABLE piece of information staring you in the face. I’m referring to the brass ID plate. It is in impeccable condition. The numbers are clear and sharp. It is not damaged or distorted in any way. Pay attention to it. Honestly, it is the most reliable bit of information that you possess as far as putting an accurate date on your motor. One can make all kinds of assumptions and guesses, but numbers don’t lie.

OK, all that aside, here’s a simple way to solve your dilemma – acquire enough parts to put a later powerhead on top of the Model A tower and lower unit, and also acquire enough parts to put together a proper 1914 Model B, that way you have two motors to play with and you can debate with your fellow Aussies about which one came first, the B or the A…….

And since it was brought up, no, it is NOT a hard and fast rule that ALL Model A’s are flywheel ignition, and all model B’s are battery. The A or B does not even refer to the ignition system used, it only refers to reversing or non-reversing foot. Hence, you have derivatives such as the “AA” or “EE” (four cycle twin with reversing foot, and by the way, the four-cycle twins were apparently not offered with a non-reversing foot, so don’t go looking for an Evinrude “AB” four-cycle Big Twin) or the much later LA and LB twins of the early-to-mid 1920’s.

Having said that – I have seen well over 100 model A Evinrude’s in my time of collecting, and none of them were fitted with battery ignition, they are all flywheel magneto type. This jives with the model A reverser being considered a “deluxe” or improved model that evinrude would have preferred to sell. Although it was advertised as being available with battery ignition (its in my files somewhere, don’t ask me to find it anytime soon), its obvious the vast majority of the A’s were not sold with a buzz box. The model B was also available with flywheel magneto IF the customer desired it, but the non-reversing model B may have been considered a step down from the A and the battery ignition would have been less expensive.

I would also go on record as saying that I’ve seen probably close to a hundred model B Evinrudes, and many of the 1914 B’s had flywheel magneto, but after 1914 the percentage of battery to flywheel mag motors really jumps. I have seen a few post 1915 model B’s with flywheel magneto, so they do exist, but the battery ignition types were far more prevalent. Again, probably due to available cost savings of an A versus buying a B.

One thing in common – Regardless of which model motor it may have been on, I’d say far better than half of the original condition flywheel magnetos that I’ve run into did not work, and their owners have reverted to wiring up a buzz box to run them instead of spending mucho dinero to have those coils re-wound.

Transversely, the model C and D Evinrudes have a more even split between flywheel magneto and battery ignition. For instance, I know of a 1915 Model D that runs very well on its original flywheel magneto, but another 1915 Model D I worked on (very close in serial numbers) never had flywheel magneto, and was battery ignition from day one.

Won’t even venture into the territories of the 3.5 HP large rowboat motors, pumper motors, Evinrude detachables installed through the hull as canoe motors, or inboard engines.

One last FWIW – I’ve been collecting, repairing, rebuilding, researching and operating rowboat motors for almost 25 years, and I know a lot of stuff, but there are folks out there more knowledgeable than I, but I’m still learning new rowboat motor stuff every day. But not many of them are willing to go out on a limb like I do at times and say "this is the frigging way it is, so get used to it". I’m not tactful in the least, and I make no apologies for it either.

Hope it helps anyway.

Best,
The Artist Formerly Known as T2
aka Christopher Scratch
Prime Minister, Southern Ontario Rowboat Motor Chapter
Cross Seagull/Detroiter, Koban, and Lockwood S.I.G. Leader
Special Features Contributor
Antique Outboard Motor Club Inc
Soon to be President of the Antique Outboard Chapter for the Criminally Insane

[brook-n]

AusF233,
Sent you a PM

Respectfully

[ausf233]

Awesome. That’s exactly the type of communication I was hoping for. Clear and concise.

For the record, I wrote to Richard earlier this evening stating that I agree with everything he has posted on this RBM thus far. If you check with him he will attest to that.

In addition there was never any doubt in my mind about the extensive research and time that went into putting the spreadsheet together. What was throwing me was the large number of pictures of RBM’s with incorrect parts and manufacture dates on the Internet. Because of that I felt it was necessary to ask questions that would assist in the clarification of what I have.

Incidentally, it was brought to Australia by a returning veteren and aircraft engineer at the end of WW1.

His son (grandfather of the seller I purchased from) ran a machine shop and it is during his ownership that changes and modifications were made.

If its ok with you, I would like to ask you directly in the coming days some questions, the answers to which will assist me to bring it back to its original state.

In the meantime, thanks again for the clear and concise information provided, and also to Richard and Kees for their contributions here. All is very much appreciated.

Regards
Spiro – AusF233

[ausf233]

Thank you Brook.

It’s approaching 1:00am here and I need to get to bed.

I’ll have a look tomorrow and respond accordingly.

Kind Regards
AusF233

[kees]

.
it seems that we run into a bad habit here
it was a good and helpful discussion / topic but now we are hiding things behind a PM ! ???
secrets or what ?
btw. was checking my pile of motors and parts and came up with
a model B with # 11514 ( an early 1913 )
a model B with # 20917
a model B with # 21306 ( both early 1914 )
shall I take photos ? and post it here ?
well, I think I wait for a while and take a walk first
clean my head and made up my mind
send you a PM 😯
such a pity
🙁
.

[ausf233]

quote kees:

.
it seems that we run into a bad habit here
it was a good and helpful discussion / topic but now we are hiding things behind a PM ! ???
secrets or what ?
.

Hello Kees, I can say with hand on heart that there have been no secrets shared via pm. When I started this thread it was suggested that I reach out to Brook Newcombe and to the Prime Minister of the Southern Ontario Rowboat Motor Chapter. You will see reference to that earlier in this thread.

Summaries of PM’s as follows:
To Brook. Introduced myself, referred him to this thread and my photobucket and asked for his opinion on what I had. Brook advised by return pm last night that he has been on vacation and will come back to me with his opinion soon.

To Richard. This was a response to a pm from Richard to myself, in which I stated that I agree with his logic and also believed that my RBM was most likely a Model B. That belief came from a full review of the spreadhseet night before and a cross check of parts fitted to my RBM.

The fact that I agree with Richards logic, means that I also agree with your logic. I am very greatful for the support you guys have provided and have stated that on numerous occasions already.

If however you have any remaining doubts, please feel free to contact both above-mentioned gentlemen directly and they will confirm.

quote kees:

.

btw. was checking my pile of motors and parts and came up with
a model B with # 11514 ( an early 1913 )
a model B with # 20917
a model B with # 21306 ( both early 1914 )
shall I take photos ? and post it here ?
well, I think I wait for a while and take a walk first
clean my head and made up my mind
send you a PM 😯
such a pity
🙁
.

I can only hope that that the above clarification to the pm situation has given you the peace of mind you need to proceed with posting the photos here. Even if you are still in doubt about me, consider that others following this thread would miss the opportunity to see them also.

There is always a potential for written communications to be taken the wrong way. to that end, I honestly believe that if we were having this entire discussion face to face, your opinion of me would be very different.

Respectfully.
AusF233

[westwind]

My 2 cents.

You have parts of several motors without the original pieces. You really can’t put the motor back to original because you don’t know how it started. The best you can do is pick the parts you like and make it into that. I suppose you could group all the parts into the respective origin and build a motor around that, then you would have 2, 3 maybe 4 motors, not saying that’s a bad choice either. I started with some lower cowls for a Chris Craft Challenger, and then found a motor to go with them…….

[ausf233]

Thanks you Westwind.

Using the spreadsheet as a reference, it appears most parts fitted to this RBM are standard for years 1914 and 1915 ie with the exception of the piston which is more recent.

As Richard and Kees have said, 1914 Model B is most likely correct and i’ll be happy to go that way if the parts needed to complete are readily available. If not, I may need to reconsider how I proceed.

Regards,
AusF233

[Author]

Posts