Outrage 18, Yamaha F150 w/ Stiletto 17 vs 19

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Outrage 18, Yamaha F150 w/ Stiletto 17 vs 19

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Outrage 18, Yamaha F150 w/ Stiletto 17 vs 19

rjgorion posted 03-31-2006 06:17 PM ET (US)
Hello all,
As I'm sure many of you know, I have an Outrage 18 that I repowered with a Yamaha F 150 and have experimented with several props in search of the best or right one for my application.
I was able to get out today and test two Stiletto props. Prop # 1: Stiletto Advantage II 14.25 x 19 and prop #2: Stiletto Advantage II 14.25 x 17" I tested the 19, brought the boat in and changed props, then went back out and tested the 17. Below are the results. Mph is from gps. The load in the boat was exactly the same with each trial. Myself, one fishing rod, a tackle box and other misc. gear.
Date: 3-30-2006
Air temp: 56, cloudy 5-10 mph wind
Water temp: 52.5, with 1-2" ripple chop on the water.
Fuel: ~ 30 gallons.
RPM 19p (mph) 17p (mph)
1000 4.5 4.4
1500 6.4 6.1
2000 8.5 7.4
2500 20.7 15.4 on plane
3000 24/ 24.7 22.8/ 23.2
3500 29.5 27.9
4000 33 31.2
4500 40.1 34.4
5000 43.7 39.8
5300 46.4
5700 --- 44.2
5800 --- 44.5

At 2500 rpm, the boat was on plane with each prop. At 3000 rpm the first speed is with no trim and the second is with the motor trimmed half way out. All other speeds were recorded with the same trim (half way out) except the very last one, which was trimmed out a little more but not all the way.
Now the analysis and the questions:
One school of thought says that when a boat/ motor combination is propped correctly, the full-throttle rpms should be at or near the red line for that engine. Under this guideline, the 17p is the right choice.
Another school of thought is this:
The recommended rpm range for this motor (directly from Yamaha) is 5000-6000 rpm. The 19p full-throttle rpm is within this range and at every rpm the speed is greater compared to the 17p. This suggests greater efficiency and fuel economy throughout the rpm range without lugging the engine. We can also extend this line of thinking to the longevity of the engine using lower rpms to achieve the same speeds throughout the life of the engine.
While I did not record the time to plane for each prop, the hole-shot may be a little different but its hard to tell. Using this school of thought, the 19p seems like good choice. I'm inclined to go with the 17 because it gets the rpms up into the higher end of the range but an argument can be made in favor of the 19 as well. Does the 19 really put undue stress on the engine? Will the longevity of the engine be affected adversely one way or the other with either prop? This was an excellent opportunity to test two identical props under the same conditions with the only difference being the pitch.
Thanks, Ron
Joe Kriz posted 03-31-2006 06:48 PM ET (US)
Ron,
One thing I don't see is the speed at 5300 RPM for the 17 pitch prop. Did you just leave this out or forget to check the 17p at this RPM?
From the info, I assume that the 19 pitch will not go over 5300 RPM?
It looks to me like the 17 pitch is a better choice for you because it gets you closer to Max RPM.
My 1985 Evinrude 150 has about the same stats only a little less top end speed.
I think the time to plane is quicker for the 17 pitch which means a better hole shot. At least that is what I have found on both my Outrage 18 and my Montauk.
Thanks for posting the results.
montauk madness posted 03-31-2006 07:00 PM ET (US)
Can you raise your motor up a set of holes and stay with the 19P? You should get 100-200 more RPM's (getting closer to the upper end). I was able to do this with my Montauk and my Outrage 20 have been happy with the results.
Jeff
Peter posted 03-31-2006 07:01 PM ET (US)
While you might be inclined to think that you'll be getting better fuel economy with the 19P because its turning less RPM to go the same speed, that isn't necessarily so. The only way to really know relative efficiency is to measure fuel flow with a fuel flow meter.
I'm guessing that if you were to fill the fuel tank so its full and put one or two more people aboard the F150 might have a hard time making it over 5000 RPM with the 19P Stiletto. Not good to be in the bottom half of the WOT operating range with a relatively light load. If that were my boat, I would be using the 17P Stiletto.
rjgorion posted 03-31-2006 07:01 PM ET (US)
Joe, I just plain forgot to check the speed at 5300 rpm with the 17". I was looking at the incremental increases up to max rpm and just overlooked that one. And yes the 19p would only get up tp 5300 rpm.
Ron
elaelap posted 03-31-2006 07:50 PM ET (US)
Ron,
Thanks for the careful documentation and stats. I've got a 2004 F115 on the same boat, a classic Outrage 18, and thanks to help from Tom Clark, I've recently switched from a Yamaha K19 (19" pitch black stainless prop) to a Yamaha K17. I've only had one opportunity to try out the new prop, but I'm completely sold. My 19" prop could only get my motor up to 5600 rpm/40.5 mph wide open. The 17" prop gets me an easy 5800 turns, touching 5900 when trimmed a little more carefully. Those rpm gave me 35 kts (just over 40 mph) with me standing and with my antenna up and two rods sticking up in their holders in a breezy salt water channel.
My dealership mechanic has told me not to bother making the change--that 5500-5600 rpm is just fine for the motor--but I've read in several places that Yamaha four stroke motors like to run at WOT at close to their red line, 6000 rpm. The new prop seems to get me even more swiftly up onto plane--maybe an honest three seconds, maybe even slightly less--and there's a noticable increase in acceleration in my most sluggish range, from approximately 4500-5200 turns.
I plan to take my boat up to a nearby lake later during the summer and run some stats like yours. I've done the same with the 19" prop and posted the results two years or so ago when I repowered with the F115; it will be interesting to see how the stats compare.
Thanks again for a valuable thread.
Tony
rjgorion posted 03-31-2006 08:16 PM ET (US)
Jeff, the F150 is mounted on the second set of holes so that the anti-cavitation plate is 1-1.5" above the keel line (as per the Whaler guidelines) so I don't think that I want to mess with the engine height.
Peter, that's a good point about the load with a few people and all the gear. I had not thought about that. It reinforces my thoughts about the 17 (also thanks to Tom Clark).
Tony, if you need help or would like to get together to do the testing on your boat, I'd be happy to meet with you and compare notes. From these test results, the 17 seems like the better choice similar to what you found.
Thanks,
Ron
littleblue posted 03-31-2006 08:43 PM ET (US)
Oh what I wouldn't give for that engine!! Although I don't go that fast when going out for salmon in the Ocean, there are those days when your just cruising/fishing the upper San Pablo bay and want some speed!
Teak Oil posted 04-02-2006 09:18 AM ET (US)
45mph is about on par with most 2 strokes on an 18 Outrage, sounds like you have a great powerplant for the next 10-15 years
ratherwhalering posted 04-03-2006 12:49 PM ET (US)
Ron, I think you want the 17-inch Stiletto. The engine is climbing right up to the max RPM range, but not enough to exceed it. Engine height sounds just right too. With the 17-inch, you will not see the top end speed, but better hole shot, with superior mid-range performance and economy.
Think of a 10-speed bike, in a mid-level gear, rather than a lower gear. The mid-level gear makes for an easier start, but once you want to go fast, you can only pump your legs so hard. The lower gear will make it harder and slower to start, but you can go faster.
In reality, how often do any of us really go full speed? I'll bet less than 10 percent of the time. So, I'd select the 17-inch because it is more efficient at your common operating RPM.
I just ordered a pair of Stiletto 14.25 x 17" for a friends Protector, repowered with new F150s, and your performance report was very timely. If I can get 5800 RPM, at WOT, I will be a very happy camper!
rjgorion posted 04-04-2006 12:35 AM ET (US)
Rob,
thanks for the info. After the testing, the information provided here and my conversations with Tom Clark, I have decided to go with the Stiletto 17 as I think in the long run it is the better choice and I would be much happier. And you are right, we rarely go top speed for any length of time anyway and the difference in top speed between the two was only 1-2 mph and it is not likely that we could really tell the difference anyway. At any rate, the testing was useful in providing interesting and valuabe information for myself and others to use as a benchmark to which other test results can be compared. Thanks,
Ron
Tom W Clark posted 04-04-2006 10:52 AM ET (US)
Ron,
As we had previously discussed, I think the 17" is the right choice for you, but it was a close call. Either way, I am very impressed by the performance of your F150 on your boat. It certainly does seem to be the equal of the classic two stroke 150 HP outboard motors.
I also want to thank you for doing such a thorough job of testing the propellers and for doing it on the same day to help eliminate as many variables as possible to get really good comparative data. Nicely done.
prj posted 04-04-2006 12:40 PM ET (US)
Not to derail the thread, but
does this F150 really seem to be the equal of the 150 HP 2-strokes?
Is 44.5 MPH the expected WOT speed of the typical 150 HP ?
I ask because my 1989 V4 Yamaha 130 HP,
running a 19 pitch Yamaha stainless steel prop
has been GPS'd at 46.4 MPH in freshwater
under similar load conditions, perhaps only 15 gallons of gas.
Perry posted 04-04-2006 12:56 PM ET (US)
I read above that it topped out at 46.4 at 5300 RPM.
prj posted 04-04-2006 06:24 PM ET (US)
Check on that Perry, it certainly did achieve
the same top speed that my 130 reached.
And I certainly don't want to question that F150,
as I've heard ONLY wonderful things about it.
It's more of a general question about either the 150 HP engines
or the 130 HP V4, not sure which...
Won't someone at least question the accuracy of my GPS?
Tom W Clark posted 04-04-2006 06:50 PM ET (US)
Patrick,
Sounds like you have a pretty hot 130. What prop are you running and at what RPM did you see that top speed?
I presume 46.4 MPH is the average of a two way test run? What bolt hole position do you have you motor mounted on?
What would be impressive is to see both these boats on the same lake at the same time running side by side and seeing Patrick's 130 keeping up with Ron's F150
Teak Oil posted 04-04-2006 07:46 PM ET (US)
Buckda's 150 Merc ran about 45-46 with a radar arch and no passengers. A 2.5 liter 150 would probably do 48, as would a 2.6 OMC I would expect.
prj posted 04-04-2006 07:51 PM ET (US)
Prop is stamped 19-K and measures about 13 1/4" in pitch.
RPMs were 5600 and bouncing upward.
8-12" ripple on the harbor and a lot of air under the hull.
Gear Ratio on the 1.7L 130 HP Yamaha V4 is 2.0
Prop calculator yields a reasonable and efficient 7.9%,
with speed input of 46.4 MPH.
Motor is mounted one hole up, 1" plus from bracket to transom top
and the AV plate appears about even with keel,
but no battery in the boat to swing it down the few degrees to verify.
Ahhh, but you've got me on the two way run,
this I can't confirm but expect the answer is "negative".
I'll print out the table and hit the Lake in late April.
Tom W Clark posted 04-04-2006 07:54 PM ET (US)
As I said, a classic two stroke 150, like Buckda's Mercury 150 should push an Outrage 18 to a speed more or less equal to Ron's F150. Let's see, Ron's top speed was 46.4 MPH. I'd say that is pretty much equal to 45-46 MPH.
I had an Outrage 18 for years. It had two different Johnson 2.6 150 liter two strokes on it. That boat did about 45-46 MPH. Pretty consistent I'd say.
Tom W Clark posted 04-04-2006 07:55 PM ET (US)
Patrick,
I still say you've got a pretty "hot" 130.
rjgorion posted 04-04-2006 08:17 PM ET (US)
Thanks very much Tom and everyone else for the helpful comments.
Ron
ratherwhalering posted 04-10-2006 04:20 PM ET (US)
On a side note, I just tested a pair of Stiletto 14.25 x 17 props on 2006 Yamaha F150s, mounted to a Rayglass 26' Protector (6500lbs including gas and engines.) We hit about 47MPH at 5800 RPM, well trimmed out. I will compare these to stock Yamaha 19p stainless propellers next week, but I understand the max RPM on an identical 2005 rig offers 5300 RPM mat RPM at WOT (MPH unknown)
rjgorion posted 04-10-2006 09:04 PM ET (US)
Rob,
It looks like the Stiletto 14.25 x 17 is a good match for the F 150s all the way around. Of course there may be some applications where it is not the best choice but under the two current examples, it seems like the best choice. Let us know how the Yamaha 19s work out. Thanks,
Ron
Tom W Clark posted 06-09-2006 03:34 PM ET (US)
Patrick,
Did you ever get your boat out and test it?
prj posted 06-09-2006 05:12 PM ET (US)
Got out and goofed some Tom, but didn't run the test yet as
I still have a full tank of fuel from overwinter.
After the braggadocio, I certainly don't want an extra 350#s on board...
Planned on getting out tomorrow morning, but NOAA tells me of
a lumpy 4-6 with a NE blow coming down the full length of the Lake,
so won't make it then either.
Will you please direct me to or email your prop test chart?
Thanks, and will report in a new article when I get the data.
Tom W Clark posted 06-09-2006 05:40 PM ET (US)
This is what I have been using:
http://home.comcast.net/~tomwclark/Prop_Test_Sheet.pdf
Sal DiMercurio posted 06-09-2006 06:46 PM ET (US)
Lets clear up one thing first.
A post was made saying they felt the engine would last longer, work less, & use less fuel if the engine could only reach the lower portion of the rpm chart.
Such as only being able to twist 5000 rpms maximum on an engine rated from 4500 to 5500, or only being able to twist 5300 rpms on an engine rated from 5000 to 6000 rpms.
This thinking is what destroys engines.
You have the throttle handle pushed all the way forward & the fuel is poring into that engine at the maximum it can flow & your only getting 5300 rpms max when you should be getting 6000 rpms.
Now drop down 2" of pitch & your only 3/4 of the way into the throttle instead of 100% & your getting 5300 rpms & the engine is putting out far less effort which equals less burned fuel & less wear & tear on the engine.
So the moral is,..."DO NOT" think your doing your engine a favor by over propping it & forcing it to only be able to reach the lower end of the rpms scale.
Prop it so it "CA" get to the very highest end & your engine will last you longer & you wont be paying for near the amount of repairs.
Sorry for the long post but you are lugging your engine by holding it back at full throttle.
When an engine is over propped, it's over propped from the very second you put it in gear & all the way through the rpm scale, not just at wot.
Sal
Tom W Clark posted 06-09-2006 08:00 PM ET (US)
Sal,
Do you think it's bad to "over-prop" an outboard?
Sal DiMercurio posted 06-09-2006 10:56 PM ET (US)
Tom, surely you jest.
3 worst things you can do to an outboard, in this order.
#1...over heat, #2...no oil or the wrong oil & #3...over propping.
Think about pulling a 25 ft cuddy up a 5 mile long steep hill with a 5 speed stick shift pick-up & not down shifting, thats the same as over propping an outboard.
The engine she no gonna like that for to long, & if you continue, she's gonna quit on you on a very rough day in the very worst place you can be,.....not at the dock or on the trailer.
Sal
Tom W Clark posted 06-10-2006 02:30 AM ET (US)
Sal,
Yes, I jest. I think you have driven your point home. God bless you for that.
rjgorion posted 06-10-2006 09:41 AM ET (US)
Tom, thanks for all your help and you crack me up...too funny.
And Sal, thank you for your knowledge,
Ron

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Outrage 18, Yamaha F150 w/ Stiletto 17 vs 19
rjgorion	posted 03-31-2006 06:17 PM ET (US) Hello all, As I'm sure many of you know, I have an Outrage 18 that I repowered with a Yamaha F 150 and have experimented with several props in search of the best or right one for my application. I was able to get out today and test two Stiletto props. Prop # 1: Stiletto Advantage II 14.25 x 19 and prop #2: Stiletto Advantage II 14.25 x 17" I tested the 19, brought the boat in and changed props, then went back out and tested the 17. Below are the results. Mph is from gps. The load in the boat was exactly the same with each trial. Myself, one fishing rod, a tackle box and other misc. gear. Date: 3-30-2006 Air temp: 56, cloudy 5-10 mph wind Water temp: 52.5, with 1-2" ripple chop on the water. Fuel: ~ 30 gallons. RPM 19p (mph) 17p (mph) 1000 4.5 4.4 1500 6.4 6.1 2000 8.5 7.4 2500 20.7 15.4 on plane 3000 24/ 24.7 22.8/ 23.2 3500 29.5 27.9 4000 33 31.2 4500 40.1 34.4 5000 43.7 39.8 5300 46.4 5700 --- 44.2 5800 --- 44.5 At 2500 rpm, the boat was on plane with each prop. At 3000 rpm the first speed is with no trim and the second is with the motor trimmed half way out. All other speeds were recorded with the same trim (half way out) except the very last one, which was trimmed out a little more but not all the way. Now the analysis and the questions: One school of thought says that when a boat/ motor combination is propped correctly, the full-throttle rpms should be at or near the red line for that engine. Under this guideline, the 17p is the right choice. Another school of thought is this: The recommended rpm range for this motor (directly from Yamaha) is 5000-6000 rpm. The 19p full-throttle rpm is within this range and at every rpm the speed is greater compared to the 17p. This suggests greater efficiency and fuel economy throughout the rpm range without lugging the engine. We can also extend this line of thinking to the longevity of the engine using lower rpms to achieve the same speeds throughout the life of the engine. While I did not record the time to plane for each prop, the hole-shot may be a little different but its hard to tell. Using this school of thought, the 19p seems like good choice. I'm inclined to go with the 17 because it gets the rpms up into the higher end of the range but an argument can be made in favor of the 19 as well. Does the 19 really put undue stress on the engine? Will the longevity of the engine be affected adversely one way or the other with either prop? This was an excellent opportunity to test two identical props under the same conditions with the only difference being the pitch. Thanks, Ron
Joe Kriz	posted 03-31-2006 06:48 PM ET (US) Ron, One thing I don't see is the speed at 5300 RPM for the 17 pitch prop. Did you just leave this out or forget to check the 17p at this RPM? From the info, I assume that the 19 pitch will not go over 5300 RPM? It looks to me like the 17 pitch is a better choice for you because it gets you closer to Max RPM. My 1985 Evinrude 150 has about the same stats only a little less top end speed. I think the time to plane is quicker for the 17 pitch which means a better hole shot. At least that is what I have found on both my Outrage 18 and my Montauk. Thanks for posting the results.
montauk madness	posted 03-31-2006 07:00 PM ET (US) Can you raise your motor up a set of holes and stay with the 19P? You should get 100-200 more RPM's (getting closer to the upper end). I was able to do this with my Montauk and my Outrage 20 have been happy with the results. Jeff
Peter	posted 03-31-2006 07:01 PM ET (US) While you might be inclined to think that you'll be getting better fuel economy with the 19P because its turning less RPM to go the same speed, that isn't necessarily so. The only way to really know relative efficiency is to measure fuel flow with a fuel flow meter. I'm guessing that if you were to fill the fuel tank so its full and put one or two more people aboard the F150 might have a hard time making it over 5000 RPM with the 19P Stiletto. Not good to be in the bottom half of the WOT operating range with a relatively light load. If that were my boat, I would be using the 17P Stiletto.
rjgorion	posted 03-31-2006 07:01 PM ET (US) Joe, I just plain forgot to check the speed at 5300 rpm with the 17". I was looking at the incremental increases up to max rpm and just overlooked that one. And yes the 19p would only get up tp 5300 rpm. Ron
elaelap	posted 03-31-2006 07:50 PM ET (US) Ron, Thanks for the careful documentation and stats. I've got a 2004 F115 on the same boat, a classic Outrage 18, and thanks to help from Tom Clark, I've recently switched from a Yamaha K19 (19" pitch black stainless prop) to a Yamaha K17. I've only had one opportunity to try out the new prop, but I'm completely sold. My 19" prop could only get my motor up to 5600 rpm/40.5 mph wide open. The 17" prop gets me an easy 5800 turns, touching 5900 when trimmed a little more carefully. Those rpm gave me 35 kts (just over 40 mph) with me standing and with my antenna up and two rods sticking up in their holders in a breezy salt water channel. My dealership mechanic has told me not to bother making the change--that 5500-5600 rpm is just fine for the motor--but I've read in several places that Yamaha four stroke motors like to run at WOT at close to their red line, 6000 rpm. The new prop seems to get me even more swiftly up onto plane--maybe an honest three seconds, maybe even slightly less--and there's a noticable increase in acceleration in my most sluggish range, from approximately 4500-5200 turns. I plan to take my boat up to a nearby lake later during the summer and run some stats like yours. I've done the same with the 19" prop and posted the results two years or so ago when I repowered with the F115; it will be interesting to see how the stats compare. Thanks again for a valuable thread. Tony
rjgorion	posted 03-31-2006 08:16 PM ET (US) Jeff, the F150 is mounted on the second set of holes so that the anti-cavitation plate is 1-1.5" above the keel line (as per the Whaler guidelines) so I don't think that I want to mess with the engine height. Peter, that's a good point about the load with a few people and all the gear. I had not thought about that. It reinforces my thoughts about the 17 (also thanks to Tom Clark). Tony, if you need help or would like to get together to do the testing on your boat, I'd be happy to meet with you and compare notes. From these test results, the 17 seems like the better choice similar to what you found. Thanks, Ron
littleblue	posted 03-31-2006 08:43 PM ET (US) Oh what I wouldn't give for that engine!! Although I don't go that fast when going out for salmon in the Ocean, there are those days when your just cruising/fishing the upper San Pablo bay and want some speed!
Teak Oil	posted 04-02-2006 09:18 AM ET (US) 45mph is about on par with most 2 strokes on an 18 Outrage, sounds like you have a great powerplant for the next 10-15 years
ratherwhalering	posted 04-03-2006 12:49 PM ET (US) Ron, I think you want the 17-inch Stiletto. The engine is climbing right up to the max RPM range, but not enough to exceed it. Engine height sounds just right too. With the 17-inch, you will not see the top end speed, but better hole shot, with superior mid-range performance and economy. Think of a 10-speed bike, in a mid-level gear, rather than a lower gear. The mid-level gear makes for an easier start, but once you want to go fast, you can only pump your legs so hard. The lower gear will make it harder and slower to start, but you can go faster. In reality, how often do any of us really go full speed? I'll bet less than 10 percent of the time. So, I'd select the 17-inch because it is more efficient at your common operating RPM. I just ordered a pair of Stiletto 14.25 x 17" for a friends Protector, repowered with new F150s, and your performance report was very timely. If I can get 5800 RPM, at WOT, I will be a very happy camper!
rjgorion	posted 04-04-2006 12:35 AM ET (US) Rob, thanks for the info. After the testing, the information provided here and my conversations with Tom Clark, I have decided to go with the Stiletto 17 as I think in the long run it is the better choice and I would be much happier. And you are right, we rarely go top speed for any length of time anyway and the difference in top speed between the two was only 1-2 mph and it is not likely that we could really tell the difference anyway. At any rate, the testing was useful in providing interesting and valuabe information for myself and others to use as a benchmark to which other test results can be compared. Thanks, Ron
Tom W Clark	posted 04-04-2006 10:52 AM ET (US) Ron, As we had previously discussed, I think the 17" is the right choice for you, but it was a close call. Either way, I am very impressed by the performance of your F150 on your boat. It certainly does seem to be the equal of the classic two stroke 150 HP outboard motors. I also want to thank you for doing such a thorough job of testing the propellers and for doing it on the same day to help eliminate as many variables as possible to get really good comparative data. Nicely done.
prj	posted 04-04-2006 12:40 PM ET (US) Not to derail the thread, but does this F150 really seem to be the equal of the 150 HP 2-strokes? Is 44.5 MPH the expected WOT speed of the typical 150 HP ? I ask because my 1989 V4 Yamaha 130 HP, running a 19 pitch Yamaha stainless steel prop has been GPS'd at 46.4 MPH in freshwater under similar load conditions, perhaps only 15 gallons of gas.
Perry	posted 04-04-2006 12:56 PM ET (US) I read above that it topped out at 46.4 at 5300 RPM.
prj	posted 04-04-2006 06:24 PM ET (US) Check on that Perry, it certainly did achieve the same top speed that my 130 reached. And I certainly don't want to question that F150, as I've heard ONLY wonderful things about it. It's more of a general question about either the 150 HP engines or the 130 HP V4, not sure which... Won't someone at least question the accuracy of my GPS?
Tom W Clark	posted 04-04-2006 06:50 PM ET (US) Patrick, Sounds like you have a pretty hot 130. What prop are you running and at what RPM did you see that top speed? I presume 46.4 MPH is the average of a two way test run? What bolt hole position do you have you motor mounted on? What would be impressive is to see both these boats on the same lake at the same time running side by side and seeing Patrick's 130 keeping up with Ron's F150
Teak Oil	posted 04-04-2006 07:46 PM ET (US) Buckda's 150 Merc ran about 45-46 with a radar arch and no passengers. A 2.5 liter 150 would probably do 48, as would a 2.6 OMC I would expect.
prj	posted 04-04-2006 07:51 PM ET (US) Prop is stamped 19-K and measures about 13 1/4" in pitch. RPMs were 5600 and bouncing upward. 8-12" ripple on the harbor and a lot of air under the hull. Gear Ratio on the 1.7L 130 HP Yamaha V4 is 2.0 Prop calculator yields a reasonable and efficient 7.9%, with speed input of 46.4 MPH. Motor is mounted one hole up, 1" plus from bracket to transom top and the AV plate appears about even with keel, but no battery in the boat to swing it down the few degrees to verify. Ahhh, but you've got me on the two way run, this I can't confirm but expect the answer is "negative". I'll print out the table and hit the Lake in late April.
Tom W Clark	posted 04-04-2006 07:54 PM ET (US) As I said, a classic two stroke 150, like Buckda's Mercury 150 should push an Outrage 18 to a speed more or less equal to Ron's F150. Let's see, Ron's top speed was 46.4 MPH. I'd say that is pretty much equal to 45-46 MPH. I had an Outrage 18 for years. It had two different Johnson 2.6 150 liter two strokes on it. That boat did about 45-46 MPH. Pretty consistent I'd say.
Tom W Clark	posted 04-04-2006 07:55 PM ET (US) Patrick, I still say you've got a pretty "hot" 130.
rjgorion	posted 04-04-2006 08:17 PM ET (US) Thanks very much Tom and everyone else for the helpful comments. Ron
ratherwhalering	posted 04-10-2006 04:20 PM ET (US) On a side note, I just tested a pair of Stiletto 14.25 x 17 props on 2006 Yamaha F150s, mounted to a Rayglass 26' Protector (6500lbs including gas and engines.) We hit about 47MPH at 5800 RPM, well trimmed out. I will compare these to stock Yamaha 19p stainless propellers next week, but I understand the max RPM on an identical 2005 rig offers 5300 RPM mat RPM at WOT (MPH unknown)
rjgorion	posted 04-10-2006 09:04 PM ET (US) Rob, It looks like the Stiletto 14.25 x 17 is a good match for the F 150s all the way around. Of course there may be some applications where it is not the best choice but under the two current examples, it seems like the best choice. Let us know how the Yamaha 19s work out. Thanks, Ron
Tom W Clark	posted 06-09-2006 03:34 PM ET (US) Patrick, Did you ever get your boat out and test it?
prj	posted 06-09-2006 05:12 PM ET (US) Got out and goofed some Tom, but didn't run the test yet as I still have a full tank of fuel from overwinter. After the braggadocio, I certainly don't want an extra 350#s on board... Planned on getting out tomorrow morning, but NOAA tells me of a lumpy 4-6 with a NE blow coming down the full length of the Lake, so won't make it then either. Will you please direct me to or email your prop test chart? Thanks, and will report in a new article when I get the data.
Tom W Clark	posted 06-09-2006 05:40 PM ET (US) This is what I have been using: http://home.comcast.net/~tomwclark/Prop_Test_Sheet.pdf
Sal DiMercurio	posted 06-09-2006 06:46 PM ET (US) Lets clear up one thing first. A post was made saying they felt the engine would last longer, work less, & use less fuel if the engine could only reach the lower portion of the rpm chart. Such as only being able to twist 5000 rpms maximum on an engine rated from 4500 to 5500, or only being able to twist 5300 rpms on an engine rated from 5000 to 6000 rpms. This thinking is what destroys engines. You have the throttle handle pushed all the way forward & the fuel is poring into that engine at the maximum it can flow & your only getting 5300 rpms max when you should be getting 6000 rpms. Now drop down 2" of pitch & your only 3/4 of the way into the throttle instead of 100% & your getting 5300 rpms & the engine is putting out far less effort which equals less burned fuel & less wear & tear on the engine. So the moral is,..."DO NOT" think your doing your engine a favor by over propping it & forcing it to only be able to reach the lower end of the rpms scale. Prop it so it "CA" get to the very highest end & your engine will last you longer & you wont be paying for near the amount of repairs. Sorry for the long post but you are lugging your engine by holding it back at full throttle. When an engine is over propped, it's over propped from the very second you put it in gear & all the way through the rpm scale, not just at wot. Sal
Tom W Clark	posted 06-09-2006 08:00 PM ET (US) Sal, Do you think it's bad to "over-prop" an outboard?
Sal DiMercurio	posted 06-09-2006 10:56 PM ET (US) Tom, surely you jest. 3 worst things you can do to an outboard, in this order. #1...over heat, #2...no oil or the wrong oil & #3...over propping. Think about pulling a 25 ft cuddy up a 5 mile long steep hill with a 5 speed stick shift pick-up & not down shifting, thats the same as over propping an outboard. The engine she no gonna like that for to long, & if you continue, she's gonna quit on you on a very rough day in the very worst place you can be,.....not at the dock or on the trailer. Sal
Tom W Clark	posted 06-10-2006 02:30 AM ET (US) Sal, Yes, I jest. I think you have driven your point home. God bless you for that.
rjgorion	posted 06-10-2006 09:41 AM ET (US) Tom, thanks for all your help and you crack me up...too funny. And Sal, thank you for your knowledge, Ron