posted 02-19-2013 03:32 PM ET (US)        

[I] was told [the] right diameter for aluminum would be 14.5-inch. Does that sound right?

What pitch range is okay for this motor and hull combo?

Will after-market propellers need hub adapters and fittings?

posted 02-19-2013 04:15 PM ET (US)            

That said, if you do stick with aluminum, I'd just use the 14" x 19" Yamaha aluminum three blade, part #6G5-45945-01-98

If you want a good stainless steel prop I'd use the 14-1/4" x 18" Yamaha Performance Series 3-Blade, part #MAR-GYT3B-V6-18

The Yamaha Performance Series 3-Blade is the same propeller as the Stiletto Advantage and the Turbo 1, but offered in even pitches.

The Yamaha Performance Series 3-Blade can be had for as little as $475 but if you buy the Stiletto branded version of this prop, you can get it for as little as $250, or less.

The Yamaha branded versions use a press-in rubber hub. The Stiletto and Turbo branded versions use a square-bore style hub kit.

posted 02-19-2013 04:24 PM ET (US)         

Mercury's aluminum Black Max/Quicksilver props are surprisingly good, and perform well, if that is what you want and price is an issue. For my money, and applications where I use them, they are absolutely the best performing aluminum prop on the market. You can get one for $150 shipped to your door, with hub kit. 19" pitch seems correct for your rig if the engine is in good shape and up to full power.

For stainless, I would recommend the Mercury Laser II in 19" pitch also. This is an excellent performer and will give you the best top end. They can be had for $349, to your door. Because they are popular, you may also be able to find a good used one on many boating web sites or eBay. I run one of these on my similarly sized classic Outrage 19, also with 150HP. This prop offers good bow lift for an additional 2 mph top end speed over what you will get with the aluminum. At least that has been my experience when testing these two props on the same rig.

If your engine is mounted one hole up on the transom (3/4") and you don't want to raise it up, the aluminum is probably your best bet. If you want to go to the expense of raising it up one or two holes more, than the Laser II is what you want. Mine is on a jack plate, so height adjustments for my trials were easy.

For additional information on Mercury props, see here:

posted 02-19-2013 07:16 PM ET (US)            

He also tested several props including the Advantage. You should be able to do a search here and find more information.

posted 02-20-2013 06:43 PM ET (US)         

Glad that you asked, Jim. I own 5 Mercury Black Max aluminum props, and for various conditions (such as salt vs fresh) I sometimes use them on 4 Whalers. I do not use them on the counter rotation 200 EFI's on my bracketed Outrage 25. For my hulls 21' or less, there are boating application situations where there is no difference that I can determine between the Black Max and various Mercury SS performance props. Cruising at speeds up to 30-35 MPH in relatively calm water is one, for instance. Fuel economy is very good also. As I have said, they are surprisingly good performers for the very low cost, and the cupping holds very well at elevated engine heights also.

I also have fairly recent experience with Michigan Wheel and OMC aluminum props on three different engines. The Black Max Mercs give the boat a much better overall lift, feel and speed. Those other brand aluminums did not perform well at all, at least in comparison to what I am used to. If one is unsure what aluminum prop may be a good purchase, it is reasonable to assume that someone who makes such widely used and in demand SS performance props (such as the Mirage Plus) would also know how to make a pretty good aluminum prop.

I see lots of Mercury props being run on Yamaha, Honda and Evinrude engines, but I never see Yamaha or Evinrude props being run on Mercs. I'm sure Mercury's invention of the interchangeable Flo-Torq II, III & IV hub kits, and susequent licensing to other manufacturers, has been a huge success for Mercury propeller division sales.

posted 02-20-2013 11:40 PM ET (US)            

You did just mention something completely new and totally unknown to me. What makes you think other manufacturers are licensing field-replacement propeller hub designs from Mercury? I have never seen any indication on the packages of the Evinrude TBX propeller hubs indicating they are made under license from Mercury. Nor do I recall seeing any sort of licensing agreement mentioned on the TURBO propeller hubs. And the Yamaha SHIFT DAMPENING SYSTEM just so proudly announced--could this be something licensed from Mercury?

posted 02-21-2013 01:12 AM ET (US)         

Only years later did other manufacturers come up with a replaceable hub. What took them so long? Maybe patents? I don't know. But I have a recent fixed vent hole Stilleto prop, and for some strange reason it has the identical square bore of the Mercury props, and accepts the Mercury hub kits perfectly. How could this be? You'd think they would have dveloped their own proprietary prop hub receiver design. For some reason unknown to me, the square bore in the Mercury props has become the standard of the industry. Only some brands of the hub inserts have a different design (and not as good). I don't like the Stiletto hub insert at all, and don't use it.

Tom may be able to shed some information on when the other brands first offered interchangeable hubs.

posted 02-21-2013 10:38 AM ET (US)            

The notion of where Mercury aluminum propellers ranked in comparison to all other aluminum propellers was introduced by you. You said:

quote:

---

..they [Mercury propellers] are absolutely the best performing aluminum prop on the market."

---

You imparted two particularly unusual characteristics to Mercury aluminum propellers:

--they were the best in performance

--this judgement was an absolute

Having done a lot of propeller testing myself, and having made careful measurements of engine speed, boat speed, real-time fuel economy, and throttle load, I have never seen any propeller or any brand stand out from all the rest in such a way that I would be willing to declare that particular propeller or the particular brand as being the absolute best performing for my particular boat, engine, and load situation, let alone for all boat and engine combinations across the board. I see so much variation in the testing that sometimes it is hard to reproduce test measurements you got just the day before. And this is just testing on one boat.

posted 02-21-2013 10:44 AM ET (US)            

So, then, can we assume you think the Yamaha Performance Series 3-Blade is a better propeller than say, the Stiletto Advantage?

The Performance Series 3-Blade is branded as Yamaha, the maker of outboard motors. The Advantage is branded as Stiletto, who does not make outboards.

posted 02-21-2013 11:07 AM ET (US)            

In industry we see a lot of instances where a particular design and dimensions have become standardized. For example, there is a very common tapered shaft design used on steering shafts and steering wheel hubs. This particular shaft and receiver standard is used on helms and steering wheels by just about all manufacturers. I don't know that there is a licensing of a patent that covers it. I think this is the same situation with the square-bore propeller hub.

The field-replaceable propeller hub designs used by TURBO, Evinrude, and Yamaha are all significantly different than the Mercury designs.

It is apparent that Mercury manufacturers propellers in a very large number of designs, and that by using a variable hub coupling they could allow their propellers to be adapted for use on outboard engines made by their competitors. It is also clear that Mercury has taken the time to design, engineer, and manufacturer hub kits that allow their propellers to be used on many competitors' outboard engines. I suspect that there was a great deal of careful consideration and planning required to make the Mercury propeller dimensions have characteristics that would make them adaptable to the greatest number of applications. When planning for mechanical interchangeability, one has to adopt a particular strategy. For example, consider the variation in the propeller shaft length.

In terms of propeller shaft length, if you wanted to make a universal design for a propeller, you would want to design your propeller for the shortest shaft length. In this way, your propeller could be used on your brand, and with the addition of spacers, it could be adapted to other brands with a longer shaft length. If you did not follow this approach, you would reduce the number of applications for your propeller. If you were an engine manufacturer and your propeller shaft length was 0.5-inch longer than competitors, your propeller hubs would be too long to fit on the shorter shafts of competitors' engines. Therefore, in designing propellers with the notion of making them fit as many applications as possible, you would have to carefully analyze these situation of dimensions and fit in order to maximize the number of competitors' engines that could use your propeller.

In the propeller marketplace I see three situations:

--engine manufacturers who offer a line of propellers designed to work with their engines; in this category I would put Yamaha, Evinrude, and Honda;

--propeller manufacturers who offer a line of propellers designed to work with as many brands of engines as possible; in this category I would put Michigan Wheel, Turbo, and several other propeller manufacturers;

--an engine manufacturer who offers a line of propellers designed to work with their engines and also carefully crafted to be useful on competitors' engines; in this category I would put Mercury.

posted 02-21-2013 11:55 AM ET (US)            

I have had very different experiences with the Mercury aluminum propellers, in fact, my own boat came with a pair of aluminum Black Max propellers. I have tried many different pairs of propellers on my own boat including pairs of:

17" Mercury Revolution 4
19" Mercury Revolution 4
19" Mercury BlackMax aluminum
19" Mercury Enertia
19" Mercury HighFive
19" Mercury Offshore (VenSura)
19" Mercury MIRAGE
19" Mercury MIRAGEplus
19" Mercury Tempest Plus
19" Stiletto Advantage II
21" Mercury Laser II
21" Mercury Offshore (VenSura)

The Mercury aluminum propellers offered the worst performance of all of these props, ventilating and slipping badly on both acceleration and during tight turns unless the motors were tucked in. And this was with the motors all the way down on the transom.

They did provide a pretty good top speed, in the lower end of the 45-48 MPH range all these propellers fell into.

The last Montauk I bought came with a 21" aluminum BlackMax on its Mercury 90 HP outboard. When I test drive the boat it would only do 38 MPH. After installing a 20" Quicksilver Lightspeed on it, the top speed increased to 44 MPH with much improved handling.

I helped a friend prop his vintage 25' Bertram with twin 135 HP MerCruiser Sterndrives. That boat was repowered and had Mercury aluminum Alpha 4 propellers installed. Top speed was 36 MPH and the boat ride was not very good. After some experimentation, we ended using a pair of Mercury Offshore (VenSura) propellers. Handling was much improved and top speed went up to 40 MPH.

posted 02-21-2013 04:28 PM ET (US)         

1. I don't run any of my Mercury Black Max props fully submerged like you did on your 25 Revenge. In all cases the engines are up in the 3rd bolt holes or higher. I own them in lower pitch than the primary propeller, and use them when the boat is heavily loaded with fuel, gear and people. Here they have proven to be a good performing all around economical alternative for cruising speeds.

2. I would never run Black Max aluminums on my 25 Outrage, even if I could (they don't make them in Counter rotation) The boat is way too fast for them. I mentioned I don't use them when anticipated speeds are much over 30 MPH. Those other props you tried out are far superior for big Whalers like we have, with highly elevated engine heights.

3. As for the Montauk, my speed differences are not as extreme as you mentioned, and I don't know the engine height when you tested the Black Max. When I want to push my Montauk up to the 50's, I would not use a Black Max aluminum either, and the Mercury Laser II is clearly superior in every respect. I have found that once I am running close to 35 MPH, over that the aluminum props tend to go "flat", and performance falls off. But for leisurely use of the boat, 25-30 MPH, the Black Max has always performed fine, and with little ventilation even installed up 1-1/2".

4. I was told long ago, by a Mercury person, to stay away form the 4 bladed Alpha props for the V-6 engines. He said they were terrible, although I have never tried one.
I have not recommended that prop to anyone and those are not the props I am talking about here. I don't know why they even make them.

If you think Mercury 3 bladed Black Max props suck, good for you. I disagree. Is there another brand that you think makes a better performing aluminun than Mercury? Jim seems to be indicating there is. I am also planning on trying a new Mercury 4 bladed Spitfire medium gearcase prop, mainly out of curiousity.

posted 02-21-2013 04:51 PM ET (US)            

http://www.boats.net/parts/detail/yamaha/Y-6G5-45945-01-98.html

posted 02-22-2013 10:02 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I was told long ago, by a Mercury person, to stay away from the 4-bladed Alpha props for the V-6 engines. He said they were terrible, although I have never tried one.

I have not recommended that prop to anyone and those are not the props I am talking about here. I don't know why they even make them.

---

As far as I can tell, the Mercury ALPHA series of aluminum propellers are no different than any of the other Mercury aluminum propellers. They are made of the same material, aluminum, and from my experience with them, the ALPHA four-blade propellers work like any of the other Mercury aluminum propellers.

Since the notion that there is something intrinsically bad about the Mercury ALPHA four-blade propellers is attributed to someone not involved in this discussion, that fellow is not here to explain his statement. But I cannot see any particular logic to it, or see any basis for making the statement.

My test results with the Mercury ALPHA four-blade propellers showed they were typical of aluminum propeller performance as already described. The ALPHA four-blade I tested worked very well, up to a boat speed of about 30-MPH. Above 30-MPH the propeller began to show less boat speed increase as the engine speed increased, which I took as an indication that under the load of a 225-HP engine the aluminum blades of the ALPHA four-blade were probably flexing and producing less thrust than a stainless steel propeller of the same shape and dimensions whose blades were not flexing. This is a characteristic of all aluminum propellers. Perhaps the ALPHA four-blade design uses thinner blades than the typical three-blade aluminum, and its blades flex more. Until the boat speed climbed over 30-MPH, the ALPHA propeller was doing a very good job, and I was impressed with it.

It is clear that there is an improvement to be obtained from using stainless steel propellers instead of aluminum. We can deduce this relationship by this simple observation: stainless steel propellers cost more than aluminum propeller. If there were no difference in what a stainless steel propeller provided to a boat compare to what an aluminum propeller provided, it is unlikely that hundreds of thousands of boaters would be willing to pay four times more for a stainless steel propeller than for an aluminum propeller. We have to accept the outcome of using an aluminum propeller; it won't work as well as a stainless steel propeller.

posted 02-22-2013 03:03 PM ET (US)         

"Mercury's aluminum *Black Max/Quicksilver* props are surprisingly good, and perform well, if that is what you want and price is an issue. For *my* money, and applications where *I* use them, they are absolutely the best performing aluminum prop on the market"

For someone else's money, the Yamaha aluminum may be the best performing on their Yamaha engine, even though they generally cost more to buy. Tom appears to think that way with his recommendation to this fellow.

None of the above statement had anything to do with the large hub Mercury 4 bladed aluminum Alpha line.

posted 02-23-2013 10:41 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Maybe Tom has some actual experience with the Alpha - I do not.

---

posted 02-23-2013 10:48 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The great number of styles and sizes of Mercury aluminum propellers...

---

No, Mercury does not offer a great number of styles of aluminum propellers. They offer only two styles: three blade and four blade. That's it.

In contrast, Mercury offers over two dozen different styles of stainless steel propellers. That ought to tell us something right there.

Most automobile tire manufacturers offers dozens of different models of tires, but most only offer one style of compact emergency spare tire.

posted 02-23-2013 01:46 PM ET (US)            

The notion that your judgement comes from your own applications is reassuring. In general, I would hope that when you offer advice it is based on your experience, and is not just a repetition of advertising gimmickry.

We are left with the notion that there is something about Larry's application that is particularly limiting, so that his declaration of Mercury aluminum propellers as being "absolutely the best" should now be considered to be more carefully qualified. This is harder for me to accept because Larry's applications seem to span the range of Boston Whaler boats, from 17-footers to 25-footers, and with all sorts of engines in single and twin combinations. Who else owns a fleet like that to report to us on their propeller test results?

If Larry were to say he once tried one OMC aluminum propeller and it did not work as well as a Mercury aluminum propeller he later bought (with his own money) and tried on the same boat and motor, that is a bit of a different spin on things. In general I find declaration of absolutes to be a risky business, and I recommend avoiding them. I even try to take my own advice on that. (If I said it was absolutely necessary to avoid absolutes, I would have already violated my own advice.)

posted 02-24-2013 02:57 PM ET (US)         

http://www.dansdiscountprops.com/BuyNow/Quicksilver.cfm#QuicksilverA

If one is already running a prop that has an interchangeable hub system, including the Mercury Flo-Torq II, (such as I am doing) another hub kit is not needed and these propellers are a GREAT deal for many mid-range speed boating needs, or for less saltwater galvanic action.

posted 02-24-2013 03:18 PM ET (US)            

I think that if it is important to for afinelli to save $19, then he should buy the aftermarket Quicksilver propeller you recommend.

posted 02-24-2013 04:39 PM ET (US)         

In the aluminum line, the props are identical.

posted 02-25-2013 09:31 AM ET (US)            

At the names suggests, there is a strong relationship. From what I can tell, Brunswick products branded with the Mercury name are typically sold only by authorized Mercury dealer. Nearly identical products are often found branded as Quicksilver. The Quicksilver brand appears to be able to be sold by retailers who are not necessarily authorized Mercury dealers.

As far as I can tell, the dual branding with Mercury and Quicksilver brands is just a way for Brunswick to gain a business advantage. They limit sale of the Mercury brand to special retailers--their authorized Mercury dealer partners--and then sell nearly identical products in big-box stores like WALMART under the Quicksilver brand.

I have not made my own careful study of all the Quicksilver branded propellers, but L H G's mention that they are older designs makes sense. Brunswick is probably using a business strategy of introducing new products under the Mercury brand. The obsolete products are then moved to the Quicksilver brand, giving the obsolete products a longer life and the chance to be sold through the retailers that do not have access to the Mercury branded products.

This is a good business strategy for Brunswick. They can have products at different price levels in different markets under different brand names. By keeping the older or obsolete products confined to the Quicksilver brand, they can keep their premium brand Mercury products looking more attractive, and they may be able to sell them at a higher price.

I don't know how the authorized Mercury dealers feel about the Quicksilver brand underselling their Mercury brand products. They probably thought they were getting an exclusive sales agreement and a protected territory when they went into business with Brunswick as Mercury dealers, and I suspect they are not happy when they see customers going to WALMART to buy Brunswick products at much lower prices that are indistinguishable from the Mercury branded products.

posted 02-26-2013 11:11 AM ET (US)            

First of all, I deeply appreciate everyone's sincere efforts to help me with this, and I'm very impressed by how much "interest" there is in this topic. I hope no one takes offense when I say the mountain of replies now add up to what is for me a little too much information.

In retrospect I probably could have added the following info to the initial inquiry: the prevailing mode of boating that my wife and I do in our beloved Outrage is described by some as "gunk-holing" I think, and by us as "toodleing around". We stay mostly within sight of land in the tidal rivers, harbors, and connecting waterways of mid-coast Maine. We go occasionally into open ocean when rounding points of land or visiting an off-shore (but not too distant) island. We rarely exceed 25 (maybe 30) MPH -- for example when charging back to port ahead of an advancing storm. We sometimes have two to four other passengers with
us, but not very much by way of gear.

For this replacement prop purchase I'm looking for a balance point between price, performance (including fuel efficiency to the extent affected by prop design), and reliability/ durability. I might go with the SS Stiletto as an affordable off-brand substitute for the Yamaha, or with one of the aluminum substitutes. Based on the initial responses to my inquiry, my remaining questions are:
(1) for the type of boating we do will I pay a significant price in terms of performance (including fuel efficiency) by going with an aluminum prop vs. stainless, and
(2) do props that involve use of a hub kit/converter add any additional performance or reliability issues or other complications to be concerned about?

posted 02-27-2013 11:32 AM ET (US)            

On my own boat, switching from the original Mercury aluminum propellers to a good stainless steel model improved my fuel economy by 15 percent. For me that was significant and those stainless steel propellers paid for themselves long ago.

But the benefits of stainless steel are a little more nuanced than that. A good stainless steel propeller will offer better handling for your boat, an improved ride even. Less bow rise during acceleration, less ventilation in tight turns. All of that may not be important to you but one of the greatest advantages of stainless steel is long term cost:

If you buy an aluminum propeller for $150, you will probably replace it at least once during your ownership of the boat, so your cost will be at least $300. If you by a stainless steel propeller for $250, it may well last the lifetime of the motor because it is so much stronger and durable.

Furthermore, a stainless steel propeller affords a greater degree of safety because of its greater strength; it is less likely to be so damaged as to leave you stranded. An aluminum propeller is extremely easy to damage, even grazing a sand bay can tear up the edges of the blades. It does not take much of a prop strike to break off an aluminum blade entirely

posted 02-27-2013 11:42 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I might go with the SS Stiletto as an affordable off-brand substitute for the Yamaha...

---

If I didn't make this clear earlier, let me do so now. Stiletto is no more an "off-brand" than Quicksilver. Just as Quicksilver propellers are made by Mercury, Stiletto propellers are made by Yamaha.

In fact, the Stiletto Advantage is the same propeller as the Yamaha Performance Series 3-Blade, except it is $200 less expensive.

posted 02-28-2013 01:50 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...I fully understand your opinion of Mercury propellers.

---

Don't misunderstand me. My opinion of Mercury propellers is very high. I use Mercury propellers on my own boat and Mercury makes as good a propeller as anybody.

And I am talking about large outboard propellers here. For intermediate size propellers, Mercury really does not offer much at all, the old Vengeance in lower pitches, the Laser II in higher pitches plus the Trophy Plus four blade. Mercury's strength is in the models of stainless steel props for large gearcase motors like yours where they offer over a dozen different models.

posted 02-28-2013 02:46 PM ET (US)            

o <-- Bolts through this hole, motor mounted "All The Way Down"
o <-- Bolts through this hole, motor mounted "One Hole Up"
o <-- Bolts through this hole, motor mounted "Two Holes Up"
o <-- Bolts through this hole, motor mounted "Three Holes Up"

With a modern stainless steel propeller, the preferred position on the Outrage 18 is "Two Hole Up"

o
o
o <-- Bolts through this hole, motor mounted "Two Holes Up"
o

In general, the theory on motor mounting height is to have it set as high on the transom as possible without the propeller loosing grip and ventilating. But this varies from propeller model to propeller model, and to the type of boat and the purpose and speeds at which it used.

Boston Whalers are very middle of the road performance boats so we do not need to consider the needs of high performance, high speed applications where exotic propellers are used. And with your motor, there are only four choices anyway and we know the first one is too low.

With the motor mounted higher, there is less gearcase in the water and less drag. The difference between one set of holes and the next is 3/4" yet even that small a distance can have a profound effect on speed and handling.

Not only will less drag mean more speed, it will also mean better fuel economy as well as lighter steering effort.

The bow will rise less on acceleration because the lever arm of the motor is shortened.