Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  MIRAGEplus Propeller Rattle

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   MIRAGEplus Propeller Rattle
floater88 posted 09-09-2012 04:33 PM ET (US)   Profile for floater88   Send Email to floater88  
I swapped out my aluminum [propeller] for a stainless steel MIRAGEplus, and now I hear a rattle when the motor is put in forward or reverse. The rattle is only there at idle speeds and goes away as I power up. I noticed the thrust washer that came with the Quicksilver Flo-Torq II was smaller than the one that was originaly there with the pressed in hub. I put the aluminum propeller back on with the original thrust washer and no rattle. I put the MIRAGEplus on with the original, bigger thrust washer, and there is still a rattle. The propeller is torqued down to 55-lbs-feet lbs as per the manual. There is no obvious damage to the propeller shaft or the thrust washer. I drained the lower case oil and no metal filings. The new propeller is a 15-1/2 X 17-pitch and the old one is 14-1/2 x 17-pitch. Could the weight of the stainless one cause [the rattle], as it's almost twice the weight of the aluminum? Anything else I should check? It's a 1991 Mercury 200-HP two-cycle outboard engine on a 1988 Revenge 20 W-T. Thanks
davej14 posted 09-09-2012 10:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
This is a pretty common condition, search this site for other posts. Install a flo-torq 3 hub and problem solved.
jimh posted 09-09-2012 11:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I don't think there is such a thing as a flo-torq 3. Never heard of it. For information about propeller rattle and FLO-TORQ hubs see

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006600.html

jimh posted 09-09-2012 11:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/017697.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005155.html

The above links also give excellent information about FLO-TORQ hubs.

ericflys posted 09-09-2012 11:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for ericflys  Send Email to ericflys     
I ran into a similar thing when I was testing props on my boat. I use a Flo-Torq IV hub kit, of which I have two. With both brand new hub kits and a brand new Mercury Enertia 17 propeller, I noticed a little wobble in the propeller. Upon closer inspection, this seemed to be caused by part of the propeller that mates to the thrust washer having a little play it it, basically with the prop off the boat and setting the thrust washer in the recess at end of the prop, I could slide the washer side to side a bit. With all the other props I tested there was no such play and the thrust washers from both hub kits fit snugly in recess at the end of the propellers. I had no such wobble with any of the other propellers including a Mercury MiragePlus. I did not buy that particular Enertia propeller because of that. I have not had a chance to try another Enertia, and I assumed was just that individual prop. I am currently running a Stiletto Advantage II and it fits tightly with no rattle. Again the results were the same no matter which one of my hub kits(inc thrust washers) I used.
Tom W Clark posted 09-10-2012 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The MIRAGEplus produces some prop rattle on my old 2.0 liter Mercury 150s too. Perfectly normal. Don't worry about it, the motors don't seem to mind.

If you don't like the sound you can use a Flo-Torq IV or Solas Rubex hub kit.

davej14 posted 09-10-2012 11:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
Yes, I should have said Fol-Torq IV, that will silence your rattle problem if you are annoyed by it.
floater88 posted 09-10-2012 12:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for floater88  Send Email to floater88     
Thanks for the links and info. Just wanted to make sure my new prop wasn't damaging my lower unit. Real happy with the performance of the new prop.
jimh posted 09-10-2012 08:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I have a Mercury MIRAGEplus propeller. It is mounted on my Evinrude E-TEC using a FLO-TORQ II hub. I have never noticed any propeller rattle.
davej14 posted 09-11-2012 09:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
JimH,

Interesting comment about your E-TEC. I have experience with two Merc aluminum black max props, an SS Merc Vengeance prop and a SS Stiletto prop on my 2000 Merc 75 ELPTO. The aluminum props did not rattle but both of the SS props rattled until I went to the Flo-Torq IV hub kit. There was no apparent damage but I finally got tired of listening to the rattle at idle speeds and answering "what is that noise" questions from passengers. Perhaps the E-TEC lower units design prevents rattle, that would be an improvement.

jimh posted 09-11-2012 09:57 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I was thinking of a different explanation: perhaps the E-TEC makes so much noise I can't hear the rattle.
Tom W Clark posted 09-11-2012 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
A 2000 Mercury 75 HP ELPTO should use a Flo-Torq III hub kit to quell prop rattle and shift clunk, not a Flo-Torq IV hub kit.

Flo-Torq III is for 75-115 HP motors (and some smaller BigFoot models)
Flo-Torq IV is for 135-200 HP motors (though commonly used on higher horsepower motors as well)

davej14 posted 09-11-2012 04:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
Thanks Tom, that is what I originally thought but I took jimh at his word. I should have stuck to my original post or looked it up. It was a while ago that I went through changing out the hub kit and jimh is usually right. At least this thread will end with the correct information from you and maybe jimh will clean it up to avoid confusion for future searches.
jimh posted 09-11-2012 11:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Dave--I am not sure what you are asking about in terms of fixing my mistake. I think you should use the proper nomenclature. There is no "flo-torq3" but there is a FLO-TORQ III. I don't know why Mercury insists on using Roman Numerals for this product, but they do. They do not use Arabic Numerals, such as "1" "2" or "3". I have no responsibility here in the choice of Roman Numerals. I just follow Mercury's convention. You should, too. When there is a perfectly good, distinctive, and unique model designator, you should not make up new names for things. That just creates confusion.

Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2012 12:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Jim writes:

quote:
When there is a perfectly good, distinctive, and unique model designator, you should not make up new names for things. That just creates confusion.

Jim -- You should take your own advice.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/020833.html

jimh posted 09-12-2012 01:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Tom-- I do follow my own advice. For any outboard engine where the manufacturer has given a unique identifier, I try to use that identifier. For example, Mercury has their VERADO engines. I have never suggested or used any identifier other than VERADO for those engines, although I have followed the Mercury convention of identifying the second generation engines with a notation of GEN 2 or GEN II.

In the case where Mercury calls several distinctly different engines with the same name, usually just "FOURSTROKE" I have suggested some other names to differentiate them.

As for the thread you linked to, if you check the date I think you will see that this was an article I wrote prior to the introduction of that Mercury engine. At the time I wrote that there was no announced name for the product. It was hard to call the product by the name that Mercury was using because they were not using any name for the product. It was just "a new engine" or something generic, like that.

When Mercury was developing the VERADO they gave out a code name for the engine. As I recall it was called Project-X or something like that, and I always used that name to refer to the engine.

I only create suggested names when the manufacturer has failed to provide a name or has used a name over again, creating confusion between multiple products. I completely respect product naming, unless the name is reused and creates confusion.

Most of the instances of this sort of confusion seem to come from Mercury. For example, the started out with OptiMax. Then they announced what was described as a significant re-design and announced an OptiMax The Next Generation engine (or OTNG or OptiMax Gen 2 or OptiMax Gen II). But not long after Mercury stopped referring to OTNG and changed back to just OptiMax. This is confusing, so I would prefer to call the OptiMax the OptiMax The Next Generation or the Globe OptiMax (in reference to the new logotype on the cowling that showed a globe).

I have seen some people try to make up derogatory names for engines. For example people call the OptiMax the OptiPop, alluding the engine blowing up. Or some people call the E-TEC the WEAK-TEC, trying to be derogatory about the engine.

My interest is more in resolving confusion and ambiguity about engine model names where the same name is used to describe significantly different engines.

By the way, the Mercury engine is the OptiMax, and not the Optimax. I don't think you will see that sort of attention to detail on most websites.

floater88 posted 09-12-2012 09:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for floater88  Send Email to floater88     
So back to my original reason for posting this do I just put up with the rattle or switch to the Flo Torq IV??
Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2012 11:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
floater88 -- As I said earlier, before Jim dragged us into the weeds: Don't worry about it.
jimh posted 09-12-2012 12:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The weeds (probably phragmites) were planted by someone else. I prefer to stay in the main channel in these discussions, but when I see someone going aground, I will come over and offer assistance.
jimh posted 09-12-2012 12:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
As for the rattle, we ought to consider the question raised earlier: does the gear case design play a part in producing or suppressing propeller rattle?
Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2012 01:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The weeds were sown by you Jim when you disingenuously stated you had never heard of a flo-torq 3 hub. Your pedantic observance of the use of Roman numerals really does not address floater88's concerns.

But fret not, when you are unwilling or unable to assist the people who come here for advice, I'll drag you out of the weeds and lend a hand.

jimh posted 09-12-2012 08:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Tom--You like to help people stay in the channel by moving the channel markers so they look like they're still in the channel. I like to help people stay in the channel by letting them know when they are getting into shoal water outside the channel.
jimh posted 09-12-2012 08:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
We ought to consider the question raised earlier: does the gear case design play a part in producing or suppressing propeller rattle?
davej14 posted 09-12-2012 09:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
floater88, aren't you glad you asked ?

I have experience with merc aluminum black max props with standard hubs and flo-torq hubs. Neither had any noticeable rattle. All stainless props I have tried had prop rattle until I installed a flo-torq III hub kit.

Now, to answer your question, your lower unit will not be damaged because you are experiencing prop rattle. In my opinion, the small investment in a flo-torq III hub kit will not prolong the life of your lower unit but it will make your boating experience more enjoyable. Just install it and move on.

L H G posted 09-12-2012 09:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
To answer Jim's question, it is the Mercury plastic drive sleeve that allows for prop rattle on the heavier props.
These same props with the old rubber hubs don't rattle as far as I know on the 2-stroke engines.

Before going to the "wire" solution of the III's and IV's, they tried a rear bushing for the performance lines such as Revolution-4, Tempest Plus and Trophy prop, which give the sleeve additional support on the prop shaft. This is all the 3.0 liter 2-stroke and Verado's need with those props.

Then the smaller 4-stroke engines came along with differnet idle characteristics, further incresing prop rattle. Hence the Flo-Torq III's and IV's. L4 Verados MUST use the FLo-Torq IV hub. So I think engine power strokes have some effect on porp rattle.

As proof of this, I have a pair of modern Mercury Laser II props with Flo-Torq II hubs, that I have run on two different engines. On the old Mercury "tower" in-line 6's, there is no prop rattle at all. But when I put these same props on the 3 cylinder Mercury 90's, I get rattle. Obviously, the power from the 6 cylinders makes for much more uniform idling than from 3 cylinders. So I switched to the III hub.

Incidentally, the introduction of the big Mercury 3.0 liter 2-strokes is what first indicated the need for the interchangeable Flo-Torq design. The engines were so powerful, that in regular use they were constantly "spinning" the rubber hubbed Mirage props. The plastic drive sleeves are a lot tougher, but brought these other problems to be eventually solved.

If you ever spin or damage a plastic drive sleeve, don't think you can replace it yourself on the spot. They still have to be taken to a prop shop to be punched out.

Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2012 10:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Simple things first:

quote:
If you ever spin or damage a plastic drive sleeve, don't think you can replace it yourself on the spot. They still have to be taken to a prop shop to be punched out.

Nonsense. You remove a spun Flo-Torq Hub insert exactly the same way you remove one that is undamaged. Drive it out with a hammer and the 1-1/16" socket you use to tighten the prop nut. Been there, done that.

Prop rattle is more prevalent on four stroke motors because the power pulses are half as frequent as on a two stroke. Larry is correct that a six cylinder two stroke will be less susceptible to prop rattle than a three cylinder two stroke for the same reason. The displacement of the cylinder relative to the weight and diameter of the propeller has some bearing on prop rattle as well. I'm not sure what role the gearcase itself plays; none, I suspect.

quote:
Before going to the "wire" solution of the III's and IV's, they tried a rear bushing for the performance lines such as Revolution-4, Tempest Plus and Trophy prop, which give the sleeve additional support on the prop shaft. This is all the 3.0 liter 2-stroke and Verado's need with those props.

More baloney. The bushings added to the Flo-Torq II hub kits for the Revolution 4, Trophy Plus, Tempest Plus, et al., have nothing at all to do with prop rattle. The bushing (which goes on the front of the propeller, not the rear) is designed to prevent wobble on these high performance props when used in high-speed, surfacing applications. It is still used to day for the exact same reason.

Mercury's Flo-Torq hub design was meant simply to make one prop useable on any brand of motor. The original Flo-Torq had a rubber insert they went inside the "square bore" of a Flo-Torq propeller. Now that virtually all propeller manufactures offer square bore props, any hub kit can be use with any prop on any brand of motor.

Yes, the rubber insert is somewhat softer shifting and will reduce prop rattle. If you want a low cost alternative to a Flo-Torq III or Flo-Torq IV hub kit, try SOLAS's Rubex hub kits; the insert is rubber just like the original Mercury Flo-Torq. It does not offer as much cushion as the Titanium rod Flo-Torq III and Flo-Torq IV (or PowerTech! Cushion-Lok, PPI SDS) hub kits, but it costs about $30 instead of $100.

L H G posted 09-12-2012 11:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Come on Tom. You're being a bit to authoritative tonight!

I had a damaged sleeve also, and it was so bad there was no way I could get it out. I tried everything. Couldn't even get the splined bronze sleeve out. I guess it just depends on how bad the damage is.

As for the other "baloney", that's a bit much too. I never said the bushing in the back of the drive sleeve was for prop rattle. As a matter of fact, I know it wasn't, since my Rev-4 props came with those, and they did nothing for rattle. I had to go the IV's. But the bushing does help support the heavy Rev-4 prop on the shaft. Most people here don't even know what we're talking about anyway.

Tom W Clark posted 09-12-2012 11:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
This is what Larry wrote:

quote:
Before going to the "wire" solution of the III's and IV's, they tried a rear bushing for the performance lines such as Revolution-4, Tempest Plus and Trophy prop, which give the sleeve additional support on the prop shaft.

That's baloney.

jimh posted 09-13-2012 12:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
As I mentioned before, I don't notice propeller rattle on my Mercury MIRAGEplus propeller on my E-TEC. The E-TEC is a six-cylinder engine, a two-cycle engine, and a darn smooth engine at idle. My MIRAGEplus has the plain-Jane FLO-TORQ II hub. Based on Tom's and Larry's comments, I suspect that the six-cylinder, two-cycle, and very smooth idle of the E-TEC are responsible for the lack of propeller rattle.

Also very interesting was Tom's mention of the SOLAS Rubex hub kit. That hub kit sounds very interesting.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.