Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  ENERTIA ECO Propeller Announced

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

Author Topic:   ENERTIA ECO Propeller Announced
jimh posted 09-04-2013 01:44 PM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
Brunswick have announced they will be introducing a new propeller under their Mercury Marine brand. The propeller will be called the ENERTIA ECO. The ENERTIA ECO propeller is claimed to provide improved fuel economy, and perhaps one can infer that the "ECO" in the model name is suggestive of "economical" fuel consumption. It is unlikely to refer to an economical price for the propeller. Typically the ENERTIA propellers are about $600, unless purchased by mail from a particular dealer somewhere in the backwoods of West Virginia, Kentucky, or Tennessee.

The ENERTIA ECO is constructed from a special alloy of steel, often referred to as Unobtainium by boaters or as X7 by Brunswick publicists. At one time Brunswick indicated this alloy was going to be patented, but, as far as I know, there is no patent. Brunswick publicists now refer to it as a proprietary alloy of stainless steel. One of the characteristics of the alloy has been described as an ability to flex under load.

The ENERTIA ECO is said to be made in 16-inch diameter. Such a large diameter may limit its application. I suspect that the newer gear case designs used by Brunswick on their VERADO-branded outboard engines will be large enough to accommodate a 16-inch-diameter propeller, but I wonder if outboard engines made by other manufacturers can swing such a large diameter propeller.

The blade geometry is described as having a high, progressive rake. Having a propeller with blades of 16-inch diameter and a high, progressive rake is claimed to be made possible only through the use of Unobtanium (X7) alloy. The precise reasons why the use of 16-inch diameter and high, progressive rake blades is exclusively possible with only this alloy of steel is not clearly explained by Brunswick.

The ENERTIA ECO propellers will be available in pitches of 17, 19, 21, and 23-inches in both right-hand and left-hand rotations.

Brunswick further claims that use of the ENERTIA ECO propeller will produce an improvement in fuel economy of 10-percent at cruising speeds. It is not clear to me what the improvement in fuel economy of 10-percent is measured against. I am sure there is some propeller which, if compared to the ENERTIAL ECO, will allow for the ENERTIA ECO to have a 10-percent improvement.

The propeller will first be shown at IBEX, the International Boatbuilders Exhibition and Conference held in about two weeks, in Louisville, Kentucky from September 17 to September 19, 2013.

L H G posted 09-09-2013 04:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
In "SOUNDINGS TRADE ONLY", Sept 2013 issue, there is photo shown of the prop, and to me, it looks more like a larger diameter Tempest Plus than the conventional Enertia.

[Redacted thread; cut and paste of press release has been removed. All the information in the press release has already been given in the discussion.--jimh]

Tom W Clark posted 09-09-2013 09:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I look forward to testing a pair.
seahorse posted 09-17-2013 11:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for seahorse  Send Email to seahorse     

September 17, 2013


For information contact:

Lucas Lauderback

Mercury Marine


Mercury Marine introduces Enertia ECO fuel-saving propeller

FOND DU LAC, Wis. – Addressing the related topics of increasing fuel costs and environmental stewardship, Mercury Marine is pleased to introduce the new Enertia ECO propeller today at IBEX in Louisville, Ky.

The Mercury Enertia ECO was specifically designed for high-horsepower outboard-powered boats, offering boaters a 10 percent increase in fuel economy at cruising speeds while also living up to the performance and reliability standards inherent with all Mercury propellers.

To maximize the fuel economy improvement provided by the Enertia ECO, Mercury Marine engineers designed a new propeller with a broad 16-inch diameter, large blade area and a high progressive rake, a combination made possible only through using Mercury’s proprietary X7 stainless steel alloy. While the Enertia ECO design results in reduced hull drag through increased bow lift at cruising speeds, it still matches the performance of other Mercury propellers such as the Enertia and Revolution 4.

“Mercury Marine already produces fuel-efficient engines, as well as driver aids such as the ECO Screen display,” said Jared Reichenberger, brand manager for Mercury Propellers. “As marina gasoline prices have continued to rise, however, customers are increasingly focused on fuel economy. We realized an appreciable fuel economy gain could be found in the design of the propeller itself.”

While boaters continue to demand the best acceleration and top speed, there is also a growing requirement for efficiency and fuel economy at cruising speeds where a vast majority of their operating time is spent.

At cruising speeds, the Enertia ECO posts a minimum of 10 percent fuel economy gain compared to Mercury’s already-efficient line of offshore propellers. This gain translates to dollars as the typical offshore boater averages nearly 100 hours on the water each year. At today’s gas prices, this propeller alone will save that boater more than $550 per year, which translates to more than $5,500 over 10 years.

In addition to saving money, the Enertia ECO provides additional range from each tank of fuel. Whether they are pursuing fish farther from shore, or simply cruising longer between fill-ups, boaters can now significantly extend their range with a simple propeller change.

These savings will be available to consumers beginning in January 2014 in right- and left-hand rotation across four pitches: 17, 19, 21 and 23 inches. All feature a 16-inch diameter.

More information is available at

L H G posted 09-18-2013 02:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
If the claims are true, a 10% reduction in fuel use is significant. Since performance is the same, will the Enertia ECO replace the regular Enertia, just as the Mirage Plus replaced the original Mirage?

It is widely known that Mercury reduced the Verado 3-star rating to a (2.90) 2-star rating to improve fuel economy on these engines, 150-350 HP. I am wondering if this new prop could now allow Verado the same 2-star better fuel economy and a return to the 3-star rating? Note that the press release says they are designed for high HP outboard boats, so the Verado applications should be considerable.

I have determined these new propos will fit my Mercury 200 EFI's, so I am going to look into getting a pair of these this winter. Two seasons, maybe less, should pay for them.

Tom W Clark posted 09-18-2013 03:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
When the Enertia first came out, Mercury touted it as offering up to 10 percent greater speed and fuel economy.

There were (and are) those simple folks who think this means it *will* offer 10 percent greater speed and fuel economy, but that does not mean it is true.

There may well be some application where speed and fuel economy is improved by using an Enertia Propeller, especially if the propeller being replaced is not well suited to the application, but there is no guarantee.

On my 25 foot Whaler with twin 150 HP mercury outboards, going from a pair of 19" MIRAGEplus prop to a pair of 19" Enertias resulted in lower top speed and reduced fuel economy.

It's always nice to have more propeller models to choose from and I suspect the new Enertia ECO will be a good fit on some boats, but don't be a sucker and fall for simplistic marketing BS and think you can necessarily improve fuel mileage by 10 percent with this prop.

OMCrobert posted 09-18-2013 03:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
The 13 pitch Mirage Plus has always been 16" inches in diameter so large HP swinging that diameter is not a problem. Part of the benefit of Enertia has always been the increase in rpm which is achieved with blade rake and thinner blades which allow you to increase one pitch size.
OMCrobert posted 09-18-2013 03:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
The 13 pitch Mirage Plus has always been 16" inches in diameter so large HP swinging that diameter is not a problem. Part of the benefit of Enertia has always been the increase in rpm which is achieved with blade rake and thinner blades which allow you to increase one pitch size.
L H G posted 09-18-2013 04:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Tom - What I remember from Enertia marketing is that it could improve speed by 2 MPH. I don't remember anything about economy. Mercury later said the 2 MPH speed claim was over Mirage Plus in 21" pitch or less. Your case is evidently different, and that could be because, with 2.0 liter 150's, you don't have a high HP to weight ratio.

In my case, with considerable testing, the Revoution-4 props were 5 MPH faster than Mirage Plus, achieved mainly because of how they completely lift my relatively light hull out of the water over 50 MPH. They are literally too much prop, too much overall hull lift, for the HP/weight ratio. Laser II's were also faster than Mirage Plus. So I would guess the Enertias would be faster also.

I am looking forward to a pair of the ECO's.

jimh posted 09-18-2013 07:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I have already tested a couple of propellers that give better fuel economy than my MIRAGEplus, so I do not expect the ENERTIA ECO will have trouble meeting the publicists' claims--it is all a matter of what boat and what propeller you compare to. I am confident there is some boat and propeller combination out there that will be able to be improved with these new Mercury-brand propellers.

Anyone who buys a pair of these new ENERTIA ECO propellers will be spending about $1,300. When people spend that kind of money there tends to be an influence on the results they report. There are very few guys who will spend $1,300 on propeller and then announce their boat went slower and got worse fuel economy.

L H G posted 09-18-2013 07:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
My favorite prop dealer has already quoted me $449 each, including shipping. I can't get them until late January, however. Hub kits are included.
Tom W Clark posted 09-18-2013 09:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Larry -- The power to weight ratio of the 150 HP outboard motors on my 25 is about 2.6 pounds per horsepower.

What 150 HP outboards does Mercury sell today that are better than that?

BTW, I have also tested two different sets of Revolution 4 propellers on my boat and neither offered as much speed or as much fuel economy as my MIRAGEplus propellers. The Rev 4s are not know for top speed. They are know for load carrying capacity and grip, especially at slower speeds.

I've tested twelve pairs of props on my boat. I gained 15 percent fuel economy and top speed by switching to the MIRAGEplus propellers I use today. Of course, that was form the crappy BlackMax aluminum props the boat came with.

OMCrobert posted 09-18-2013 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Each boat is different and no one should ever buy a prop without testing it first. More props and a better selection is win/win for everyone. I think the street price will be the same as most other props.

The new prop is innovative and I will be interested to see how the larger diameter helps.

jimh posted 09-19-2013 12:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Tom--I look forward to seeing your test results. Since your boat has a fuel flow measurement system, you will be able to gather actual data about fuel economy.

As I have often said, one of the drawbacks of being able to actually measure fuel economy is that you will have real data. It is hard for real data to ever be as good as the data made up by people who have no way of measuring their fuel economy. When you have no fuel economy instrumentation, it is really easy to get an improvement in fuel economy.

L H G posted 09-19-2013 01:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Tom - by horsepower to weight relationship, it is total HP (in your case 300) to total weight of boat, not just engine weight.

One of the reasons for your bad experience with Rev-4 props could be that your engines are too low for them. Mirage Plus cannot take the height of the Rev-4's or Tempest Plus. I also think Rev-4's are for higher HP engines, remembering they were originally designed for big block stern drives. In my case, the bracketed 200's are running with the anti-vent plates 4" above the hull, and I have been told to go up another 2 bolt holes for maximum top end. No thanks, I don't need any more speed. The boat cruises nicely at 2200 RPM and 23 MPH, with a great, soft ride because of the lift. I run them with two large vent plugs and two wide open vent holes (no plugs at all), each prop.

jimh posted 09-29-2013 11:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Here is a nice close-up image of the new propeller.

Image: Mercury Marine ENERTIA ECO propeller
Mercury Marine ENERTIA ECO Propeller

It appears that the exhaust hub has a slight flair. The blades have the usual flat and ground sharp edge, and have quite a bit of twist to them, which I think suggests progressive pitch.

Tom W Clark posted 09-29-2013 11:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Blade shape look like the Tempest Plus.

Twist does not suggest progressive pitch, it suggests large diameter.

Progressive pitch can be seen in propellers where there is a distinct concave shape on the forward face of the blade at a given distance from the propeller's center. This propeller looks modest in that regard.

jimh posted 09-29-2013 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The ENERTIA is noted for having thin blades, which, it is claimed, is made possible by the special alloy used. Do the blades of the propeller in the image above look particularly thin? They do look a bit slender to me.
Tom W Clark posted 09-29-2013 05:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
There is no way to tell from the photo, which has been cropped and touched up. You need calipers to measure blade thickness of the prop in hand.
jimh posted 09-30-2013 09:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The entire propeller appears in the image, so I am not sure what is meant by the image described as cropped. If someone altered the appearance of the propeller in the image, it was done before I received it.

Regarding these anecdotal reports of various propeller usage, I have already found a propeller that will provide improved fuel economy compared to a Mercury MIRAGEplus: the BRP REBEL propeller. The BRP REBEL gave the best fuel economy of any propeller I have tested. Maybe the ENTERTIA ECO copies the BRP REBEL design.

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Maybe the BRP REBEL copies the Chrysler propeller design. Seems just as likely as the ECO copying the REBEL.
jimh posted 09-30-2013 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I don't see any basis for that speculation. Are you saying you have tested the Chrysler propeller design and it gets improved fuel economy compared to the Mercury MIRAGEplus? Or are you just making some off the wall comment?
Tom W Clark posted 09-30-2013 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The entire prop appears it the photo but the background does not. That is what I mean by cropped.

The only indication of thickness one can get from this photo is the trailing edge of the blade on the left side and that may, or may not be, how it appears in real life. The edge of the image in rather pixelated so who knows how thick that trailing edge really is.

At any rate, that is not really relevant. The X7 alloy allows thinner blades because it is said to be stronger, but that thinness will appear in the middle of the blade, not at the trailing or leading edge where any propeller manufacturer of repair shop can already make them as thin as they like.

Tom W Clark posted 09-30-2013 10:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Robert -- The Chrysler reference did not make any more sense the second time around.
OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 10:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
The back button is my enemy. The point of my post was to illustrate that the nonsense of suggesting the new ECO prop is a copy of the REBEL.
jimh posted 09-30-2013 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
My suggestion was not nonsensical. It was based on my observations made from using the two propellers. Also, the appearance of the ENERTIA ECO is somewhat similar to my recollection of the REBEL. (I am sorry but I do not have a good image of the REBEL to demonstrate with.) Of course, I have not used the ENERTIA ECO--no one has, so you cannot hold that against me.

We have seen that developments by OMC or Evinrude have been widely copied by others, most notably Yamaha, who made just about exact copies of some OMC engines, and this is a reasonable basis that innovations by Evinrude might be copied by others. In the case of Chrysler and its engines or propellers, I do not recall anyone citing them as innovative or copying them, so I can understand how you might use them as a ridiculous comparison. But Evinrude has been innovative, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that some element of the REBEL propeller that engenders its improved fuel economy might be employed in the ENERTIA ECO. To suggest that this is nonsense seems to me to be without any basis.

There seems to be some sort of mythology that only Mercury can accomplish innovation in propeller design or manufacturing, but I do not see any basis to support that belief system. I will acknowledge that Mercury makes many models of propellers, so just by numbers alone they would be likely to have hit upon something useful. My suggestion that the ENERTIA ECO may have copied some feature of the Evinrude REBEL is just an extension of my belief that Mercury does not possess any sort of exclusivity on propeller design or innovation.

Tom--I very much like your observation regarding where the blade might be thinner, and that at the very edge it is simple to get a thin blade, whereas at the root it is much more difficult. That makes perfect sense.

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 11:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
I see no proof or even suggestions to merit the idea that this propeller was a copy of the REBEL. Your only support is that Yamaha copied OMC two decades ago and that you think it looks similar to a prop you ran years ago.

To suggest that the ECO prop is a copy of the REBEL is unsupported nonsense.

jimh posted 09-30-2013 12:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
No, no. I already explained the two basis for my conjecture. Let me repeat:

--the REBEL has proved in real world testing to improve fuel economy compared to the MIRAGE; the claim is the ENERTIA ECO will do the same. Therefore it is reasonable to conjecture that perhaps the ENERTIA ECO incorporates some of the same designs found in the REBEL because it claims to be able to accomplish the same results;

--there is a general similarity in appearance.

On the other hand your conjecture that the REBEL is a copy of some Chrysler propeller is unsupported by any basis. I think you made it as an attempt to ridicule my conjecture.

It would be more effective for you to make some argument about why there is unlikely to be any similarity in the ENERTIA ECO and the REBEL if you want to dispel my conjecture. Otherwise you need to explain how you can dismiss it out of hand, without any reasonable basis. Perhaps it reflects a bias or belief system you hold that only Mercury can be innovative.

I find this belief system or mythology to be widespread. For example, if one were to say the REBEL copies the MIRAGE, would you have a problem with that? Let me speculate you would not. But when I conjecture that the ENERTIA ECO copies the REBEL, you seem to dismiss this as nonsense. Please explain why it is nonsense.

jcush87 posted 09-30-2013 12:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
I Took this image of a BRP REBEL in 15" pitch recently. Personaly it looks like a tweaked MIRAGE plus to me. This picture is a similar view, just looking down a bit more than the ECO picture.

The enertia eco appears to have higher aspect blades than the MIRAGE/REBEL or original ENERTIA. My side my side comparison of the MIRAGE/REBEL showed they had almost identical geometry, the only difference detectable by the naked eye was the REBEL has a fatter trailing edge with more cup.

jcush87 posted 09-30-2013 12:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
apparently my link doesn't work.
copy and paste...
Tom W Clark posted 09-30-2013 12:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark

Compare and contrast with photos here:

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 12:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Your entire idea is hinged upon the fact that one prop got better economy? That is nonsense. A good arguement would compare blade rake, diameter, material, hub length, pitch progression....... But your theory is simply based off fact the one prop on an obscure repower got better economy. Nonsense.
OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 12:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
A Mirage plus is nothing like an Enertia or the new ECO.
jimh posted 09-30-2013 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
My assertion is also quite plausible on the basis that the ENERTIA ECO comes out after the REBEL. Perhaps the Mercury propeller boys just bought themselves a REBEL and reverse-engineered the ENERTIA ECO from it.

I have read many claims in which other manufacturers are reported to have bought Mercury products and reverse-engineered them. Those claims usually do not arouse such a wild protest as the claim I make here. Is there some rule of nature that only others can reverse-engineer their products from Mercury and not the other direction?

jimh posted 09-30-2013 01:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
First of all, we have no idea if the ENERTIA ECO will even improve fuel economy. It is only a claim. There is no evidence of this. However, let us assume it does. Now we compare to my conjecture. The REBEL improves fuel economy. Therefore, perhaps there is something similar--even identical--in the design of the REBEL and ENERTIA ECO that produces improved fuel economy. How can this be nonsense?

Let us test the opposite of my theory: this would suggest that there is nothing remotely similar about the ENERTIA ECO and REBEL, and that the method of improving fuel economy in the REBEL is completely different and unrelated to the method used in the ENERTIA ECO. That seems like a far more unreasonable speculation, yet that is what one must believe if one is to dismiss my speculation as nonsense. Common sense tells us that it is much more reasonable to believe that the improvement in fuel economy in the two propellers comes from similar methods.

On another topic, much less speculative, I note that the diameter of the ENERTIA ECO is very large, 16-inches, and all models, regardless of pitch, are made in this diameter. This method is in contrast to the normal approach to propeller design where the diameter and pitch seem to vary, with the general notion that the diameter tends to decrease when the pitch increases. In the past, there has even been a careful analysis of the ratio of pitch and diameter which suggested they were important to create the most efficiency. It was even argued, by extension, that because of this the gear ratio of the outboard engine must be carefully selected to be a certain value--and, as usual, only the Mercury gear cases had the right ratio.

With the diameter remaining constant at 16-inches, the pitch-diameter ratio of the ENERTIA ECO changes with each propeller. This seems to diminish the credibility of the theory that only certain pitch-diameter ratios could be efficient.

As a casual observation, one might conclude that large diameter is the factor that introduces good fuel economy.

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 01:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
How many different application did you test the REBEL in? Different engines, hulls, conditions? Did you move engine height? I am sure there are several propellers that will improve fuel economy in a limited nonscientific test.

Just because the REBEL got the best fuel economy on in your extremely limited test leads you to the conclusion that any propeller that improves fuel economy must be a copy of the REBEL?

The method in which the Enertia gains fuel economy is completely different from the REBEL. The ECO to come does it with X7 alloy which allows for thinner blades and more radical prop rake and also uses a much large diameter which the REBEL does not.

You are right, that is not nonsense, it is absurd to suggest that ECO copies the REBEL in my opinion.

jimh posted 09-30-2013 02:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I think the REBEL blade diameter was 15.5 or 15.75. That is not much different from 16-inches. I disagree with your characterization of the ENERTIA ECO as having "a much larger diameter." To me, 0.25 inch is not much larger, nor is 0.5-inch.

The use of Unobtanianium was previously cited as leading to more speed. It appears to now be conjectured to cause more fuel economy. If it does both at once, why do we need two models of ENERTIA, one for speed, one for economy? This seems to rule out the notion that use of Unobtainium causes better fuel economy. If it did both at once, we would only need one model of ENERTIA.

My test may be limited but it is a test. So far we have no tests of ENERTIA ECO. It is hard to refute one actual test but accept no tests in preference.

The blades of the ENERTIA ECO do not appear to have a radical rake.

I have now refuted your arguments four times:

--there is not "a much larger diameter" in the ENERTIA ECO

--there is a paradox in having two models of ENERTIA if Unobtainium is the key to fuel economy;

--accepting unproved claims over a proven claim is not rational;

--the blade design of the ENERTIA ECO does not appear to have much rake, at least not in the pitch model shown in the image.

I would be glad to hear some rational argument in which you can preclude the possibility that the Mercury ENERTIA ECO has nothing similar to the Evinrude REBEL in the manner in which it improves fuel economy.

Do you have any first-hand experience in using an ENERTIA ECO? Have you seen one yourself? Have you seen the higher pitch versions?

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 02:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
19 pitch ECO is 3/4 inch larger than the 19 REBEL.
21pitch ECO is 1 inch larger in diameter vs 21 REBEL
23pitch ECO is 1.25 inch larger in diameter vs 23 REBEL.

I would call that "a much larger diameter".

The alloy is different and I contend the material, blade shape, the root of the blades, rake, and diffuser ring is vastly different from the REBEL.

You have made no line to connect the ECO to the REBEL accept the REBEL improved fuel economy on your boat in a limited nonscientific test.

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 02:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
The more that I look at the lines, blade shape and dimensions of REBEL, the more I am convinced that the REBEL is a copy of the MIRAGE PLUS Propeller.

Check out the pictures side by side. It is a dead ringer.

I am even more convinced that ECO has nothing to do with the REBEL at all.

OMCrobert posted 09-30-2013 02:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
The more that I look at the lines, blade shape and dimensions of REBEL, the more I am convinced that the REBEL is a copy of the MIRAGE PLUS Propeller.

Check out the pictures side by side. It is a dead ringer.

I am even more convinced that ECO has nothing to do with the REBEL at all.

prj posted 09-30-2013 03:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for prj  Send Email to prj     
As an architect, I take great offense to the inappropriate use of one of my profession's great contributions to engineering: Unobtainium. To suggest that the ECO is constructed of this magical material is to completely misunderstand the properties of Unobtainium.

To clarify, Unobtainium is a structural engineer's mocking description of the material required to perform impossible structural tasks as designed by an architect.

Architect: I've got low headroom, so we need to this 30 foot span done with a 6" wideflange.

Engineer: Is that so? You want me to spec it as Unobtainium?

Its a magical material, one that doesn't exist. Thats the "un" prefix.

Mercury's material actual does exist. It has been obtained. They call it X7 and I suppose its a proprietary alloy of some sort, whose attributes the massive team of Mercury propellor R&D engineers liked for this application.

Jim should go back to the overt mocking of the product names that Mercury has kept ambiguous or outright confusing. With this propellor alloy they provided a very clear, short and memorable proper name to use: X7.

jcush87 posted 09-30-2013 03:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
another note on the "unobtanium" or "X7" alloy, the use of this lighter alloy does not mean a lighter prop. in fact when i weighed the propellers i found the following:
MIRAGE plus: 12.8lbs
REBEL: 12.8lbs
Enertia: 13.6lbs

the light weight stronger/thinner X7 alloy made for a heavier prop! But the ENERTIA does have a ton of blade area. I dont hve an accurate way to measure volume so I cant tell th density difference, but it would be interesting.

Tom W Clark posted 09-30-2013 03:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Depends what pitch you measured. The lower pitch ENERTIAs are pretty massive.
jimh posted 09-30-2013 05:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
prj--You make a valid point. X7 is a reasonable name--for the seventh in a series of experimental space capsules or a title for a B-movie horror cinematic film. From now on I will refer to the alloy formerly known as Unobtainium as Mercury's proprietary amalgamation of stainless steel and other trace elements. Part of the confusion comes from the Brunswick publicists who initially said this Rearden Metal would be patented, which would have given us a peak into its composition. But I can't find any reference to a patent, and the stature of the material is just now down to a proprietary compound. I do agree, X7 does give it a bit more flourish. OK, X7 it is.

Now what do we call the proprietary alloy that is used to make the BRP REBEL? Any suggestions? How about Evinrudium?

jcush--Thank you for the weight data. That is interesting stuff.

jimh posted 09-30-2013 05:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It is clear that an Evinrude REBEL cannot be just a copy of a Mercury MIRAGEplus because:

--the REBEL delivered better fuel economy in my controlled and scientific testing;

--the REBEL may be made from a different alloy; I believe it is made from Evinrudium, a proprietary admixture of metals with special properties that improve fuel economy when used to make outboard engine propellers [also once called E7--jimh]. This is so secret that Evinrude has never even mentioned this in public least the alloy be reverse engineered by competitors' by simple material analysis .

L H G posted 09-30-2013 07:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
[Changed topic; please we are discussing the ENERTIA ECO propeller. You should start a new thread for your new topic. I think we can have a good discusison on that topic, but it distracts from our discusion here. We are talking about the ENERTIA ECO, how it works, and how it might have been developed.--jimh]
jcush87 posted 10-01-2013 05:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
Tom, all the weights were 15p propellers. Forgot to add that. The 15 enertia is MASSIVE!
jimh posted 10-02-2013 02:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The image (above) is at an oblique angle. Too bad we cannot have an overhead and side view. We could then compare more easily the blade shape and the rake angle of the ENERTIA ECO to other propellers. However, my observation of the image suggests that the ECO ENERTIA

--does not have the Elephant Ear blade shape seen in the original ENERTIA

--does not have highly skewed blades like the original ENERTIA

--does have a rather long exhaust tube or snout, like the original ENERTIA

I think it is quite reasonable to say that the ECO ENERTIA looks much more like the BRP REBEL than it looks like the original ENERTIA. It is clearly not some evolutionary or incremental change from the original ENERTIA.

The two aspects of this new ECO ENERTIA series that are distinctly different than all previous propeller series from Brunswick are

--the constant diameter, regardless of pitch, and

--the really very large diameter, just about the biggest possible diameter than can fit in an outboard gear case

Perhaps these propellers are developed with an eye to improving the fuel economy of the VERADO. With the VERADO on its third generation of gear case design, these propellers may be designed with those new gear case designs in mind. With the VERADO doing so poorly in fuel consumption tests, perhaps Brunswick thought they could offset the poor engine performance with enhanced propeller design.

Tom W Clark posted 10-02-2013 06:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The two aspects of this new ECO ENERTIA series that are distinctly different than all previous propeller series from Brunswick are

--the constant diameter, regardless of pitch...

No, that is not true at all. Several models of Mercury propellers have a constant diameter regardless of their pitch. Off the top of my head I can think of the

- Revolution 4 @ 14-5/8"

- VenSura (fka Offshore) @ 14"

- Tempest Plus @ 14-5/8"

- Fury @ 14"

- Trophy Plus @ 13-3/4"

Tom W Clark posted 10-02-2013 06:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I do think the large diameter is the most remarkable aspect of the new Enertia ECO model.

I suspect Mercury has finally taken a lesson for Suzuki who has always used larger diameter propellers with lower gearing to produce very fuel efficient outboards.

jimh posted 10-03-2013 07:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
That Mercury has previously used a constant-diameter approach to propeller design is quite interesting. I had not noticed that before. That is even more evidence that the notion of having a certain ratio of pitch to diameter is not very important in determining propeller performance. That argument cannot be supported at all if one looks at those Mercury propellers. I guess we can throw that out the window.

I wonder if the constant diameter is an artifact of real research into propeller design, or it is just an artifact of manufacturing efficiency. One might think, on an assumption that pitch-diameter ratio must have some influence and on the historical tendency of outboard propellers to reduce diameter with increasing pitch, that this new approach to propeller design using a constant diameter must reduce efficiency of the propeller or at least hinder some of the models from working as efficiency as possible--if the theory of pitch-diameter ratio has any validity. On the other hand, perhaps there is some manufacturing efficiency in making all of the propellers with the same diameter. This is just my speculation, nothing more.

OMCrobert posted 10-03-2013 09:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Most props are building using a lost wax technology so they are cast one at a time allowing for any diameter desired once the wax mold is set up.

Mr. Clark brings up an interesting point about the Suzuki's using larger diameter props for sometime. They do this to take advantage of the lower gear ratio but they run into a serious problem and that is the lack of top end speed. You almost never see a go fast or triple/quad Suzuki 300hp engines on a boat because you are limited to below 60mph (give or take) because you would need to swing a 34pitch prop with their gear ratio to get above it.

My theory is that the new ECO prop is designed for midrange performance and lower. By focusing on this performance aspect alone they can improve fuel economy.

As we know, the vast majority of boating is done at midrange and below.

jimh posted 10-03-2013 10:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
In some motion picture recordings that show the operation of a propeller manufacturing facility, I have seen a method used to make propellers in which the blades are not part of the initial wax mold for the hub. The hub is cast in wax and the blades are cast in wax separately. The blades are then joined to the hub while the waxes are still somewhat warm. I suppose in this method all the blades are made from the same master mold so they would be (nearly) identical. I was thinking perhaps this approach might be used to make different pitches. The blade shape is the same but there are different hubs with different impressions on the hub in which the blades are to be set. By changing the angle of the blade attachment to the hub, the pitch would change, in much the same way a variable-pitch propeller works.

I think the separate hub and blade casting method is used mostly to make four-blade and five-blade propellers where there is likely to be overlap of the blades. That overlap might be difficult to achieve in a single mold--I am just guessing about this as I never tried to make a propeller wax mold.

Perry posted 10-04-2013 02:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
I have tried 8 different props on my Outrage 190 and the 17" pitch Enertia is the one I have on my motor now. It provides the best acceleration, fuel economy and 2nd best top speed of all the props I have used. The best thing about the Enertia I like is the grip. In big seas it has surpassed all the others including the Powertech Offshore and 4 blade Solas.

Anther thing I like about it is the light weight construction. The "clunk" is almost non existent, partly due to the Mercury hub and also the light weight thin blades. If the new Enertia ECO is even better, it will be a damn good prop.

jimh posted 10-07-2013 09:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Perry--thanks for reporting your personal, first-hand experience with the ENERTIA propeller. I very much appreciate first-hand reports in preference to regurgitation of the claims made by Brunswick publicists.

Regarding the weight of the ENERTIA, which you characterize as being light, we have a similar first-hand report that shows the ENERTIA actually weighs more than some other popular models of Mercury-brand propellers, specifically the MIRAGE, which seems to contradict your observation.

L H G posted 10-07-2013 12:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Mercury has never claimed the X7 Enertia/Enertia ECO alloy is lighter weight stainless. They have only said is it 30% stronger and allows thinner blade sections. Who knows, it could even be heavier?
jimh posted 10-08-2013 07:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I don't think the density of stainless steel varies much with different grades. The added elements are in small amounts, and in the end it is still mostly steel.

I don't recall the claim of Brunswick's publicists that X7 was stronger, or that it was 30-percent stronger than some other kind of steel. Where are these claims made?

The only claim of the publicists that I recall is that the alloy allowed for thinner blades, and it was able to flex. The inference I made is that the alloy allowed for thinner blades because normally the blade might break off at that thickness, but due to the elasticity or flexibility, the thinner blade would not break away. Instead, it would flex. If there were a way to make steel 30-percent stronger, then this would be a fantastic achievement. I would have to think that being able to make steel 30-percent stronger would be quite an astonishing breakthrough. Metalurgists have been working with steel for decades, and to think you could suddenly make the basic metal become 30-percent stronger than other alloys would be quite an achivement.

OMCrobert posted 10-08-2013 08:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert

Mercury Alloys

X7 Alloy
A revolutionary proprietary alloy from Mercury that shatters the rules of propeller design.

30-percent stronger than conventional stainless steel

Four times more durable than conventional stainless steel

Allows prop designs that are impossible with conventional stainless steel

jimh posted 10-08-2013 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Well, there you go, a revolutionary alloy. It truly is a Rearden Metal.

It is a shame that Mercury is keeping this to themselves and only using it for propellers. The world could greatly benefit from a new steel with 30-percent more strength and four-times the durability. Imagine if this steel were used in architectural applications! In automobiles! In bridges! The possibilities are endless.

OMCrobert posted 10-08-2013 10:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Suzuki had a titanium prop on their 300hp+ engine at the Miami boat show in 2013. Stronger material has always been around it just comes down to cost. I dont think many boaters will spend $11,000 for a propeller for their 250hp outboard.

jimh posted 10-08-2013 12:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The lack of any significant increase in the MSRP of the ENERTIA propellers, made with the proprietary and revolutionary steel, suggests that this new breakthrough is steel is not being sold at a premium price. I would infer that this reflects the cost, that is, it does not cost much more--if any--to make a propeller from the proprietary and revolutionary X7 alloy than from whatever commonplace, old-fashing, run-of-the-mill, standard grade stainless steel that was being used to make all the other propellers sold by Brunswick under the Mercury brand. This is another reason--no extra cost--for Brunswick to give this new metal to the world. We could have greater strength and four-time durability of all stainless steel. A kitchen sink that could last 400 years!
OMCrobert posted 10-08-2013 05:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
No one wants a sink that will last 400 years. Everyone knows that.
L H G posted 10-08-2013 06:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Jim's cost statement about the X7 alloy is not quite true. The Enertia is Mercury's most expensive three-blade propeller at $449 each. The other $449 props are all 4 or 5 blades.
jimh posted 10-08-2013 11:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The ENERTIA is clearly the best propeller Brunswick can make, as it gives more speed and more fuel economy, or at least those are the claims, so it is reasonable it will sell at a bit of a premium, but I don't see that it sells at very much of a premium, nor is it possible to infer that the premium is due to extra cost of the steel. If Brunswick had a propeller that gave more speed or more fuel economy, they could charge more for it even if it were made of out the plain-jane, old-fashinion, 30-percent weaker strength, one-fourth as durable stainless steel that they have been using for all these years.

As for prices, the REVOLUTION4 sells at a deep-deep-discount price $449 and the ENERTIA sells for exactly the same price from the same dealer. The MIRAGEplus, a propeller that LHG loves to dismiss as a terrible propeller, one of the worst choices available from Mercury, sells for $399, No wonder the price is $50 less than the state-of-the-art ENERTIA made from the revolutionary new steel invented by Brunswick, as we have been hearing about how much of a dog the MIRAGEplus is supposed to be.

The premium price for the premium propeller--perhaps the greatest propeller ever made and certainly the propeller made from the greatest steel ever invented--is just $50. That is, exactly as I said, only a bit of a premium. I mean, let's face it, the ENERTIA is going to save you $50 in fuel before you get very far from the dock.

L H G posted 10-09-2013 01:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I never said the Mirage Plus was a terrible propeller. Actaully, I think within any propeller category, Mercury propellers are the best you can buy, and offer the best residual value, including the aluminum propellers. A MIRAGEplus , a 20 year old design, is hundreds of times more popular than the BRP MIRAGEplus-copy-cat REBEL, brought out 20-years later. We all see Mercury propellers on all the other brands like Yamaha, Honda and Evinrude, but never see their propellerss on Mercury engines. Not much cross selling there.

Like the REVOLUTION4, the MIRAGE was developed as a sterndrive propeller, and with outboards is recommend for heavy boats with high power. For those hulls that need 25=pitch and higher, they are what you want, since the REVOLUTION4 are only made up to 23-pitch and the ENERTIA up to 22-pitch. They don't hold particularly well at higher mounting heights in offshore seas. I don't have an application where they make sense for me, and did not perform well on my Outrage 25 with twin 200 EFI Mercury engines. On the contrary, Tom Clark says they are the best for his 25 Revenge with transom mounted 150-HP engines.

The REVOLUTION4, Tempest Plus, Trophy Plus, Fury, Bravo I, and ENERTIA are all more modern designs and better performing propellerss for the designated applications, which includes offshore center consoles like I have. If anybody checks Boston Whaler's performance reports on their new boats that use 135-HP or more, you will find the Enertia selected almost universally. That's a pretty strong endorsement that it is a superior propeller for the kind of hulls we run. They must know something, and are not showing the MIRAGEplus ever since the ENERTIA came out. On the larger models they are using the REVOLUTION4.

It will be interesting to see if Whaler now starts showing the ECO as their propeller of choice for 150-HP and up.

Peter posted 10-09-2013 08:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I had poor experiences with the Mirage Plus propellers on both the Whaler 27 WD and the Outrage 18 in rough water. If the water was flat, they were the most economical propellers I ran but in rough water, once they lost grip they did not recover well and that made for an uncomfortable ride. On the Whaler 27 WD, I ultimately settled on Revolution 4 propellers and on the Outrage 18, the old fashioned OMC SST propeller performed far better than the Mirage Plus. I got the same speed at the same RPM as the Mirage Plus without the loss of grip in rough seas.
Peter posted 10-09-2013 08:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
By today's standards, an Outrage 25 with a deadrise significantly below 20 degrees would not be considered an "offshore center console" but rather a bay boat.
jimh posted 10-09-2013 09:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It does not seem like much of a comparison to judge the popularity of a propeller that has been available for twenty years and has been specifically designed with a universal hub system with a propeller that has only been available for a few years and has a hub system that only fits its own brand of engines. I really don't know what that comparison proves, other than to show that, if you make a propeller for twenty years with a universal hub system, you can have more of them in use than a propeller that has only been made for one-quarter (or less) of that same period and has no universal hub system. But you are certainly correct, there are more MIRAGEplus propellers out there than REBEL. But that does not affect the outcome of my testing, that found that the REBEL gives better fuel economy than the MIRAGEplus does.

It looks to me like the ENERTIA ECO has more in common with the REBEL than the MIRAGEplus , and that is why it seems reasonable to speculate that the ENERTIA ECO is just Brunswick's copy of the BRP's REBEL. After all, BRP has the benefit of 20-years of time to make an improvement. It would be completely expected that in 20-years of testing and development there could be some refinement in propeller design that permits BRP to make a better propeller than a 20-year-old propeller design. Brunswick probably saw they were getting behind the curve with their MIRAGE design, and they updated it with the ENERTIA ECO, based on the REBEL. This is a completely logical conclusion. Brunswick probably bought a REBEL, tested it, saw how well it worked, and put their supercomputers and staff of 50 engineers to work on making something equal or better.

Thanks to LHG for the short presentation on the history and application of all Mercury propellers. I am not at all surprised by LHG's initial premise: "...within any propeller category, Mercury propellers are the best you can buy..." but my testing has not shown that to be true. I found that BRP propellers worked better on my boat. BRP propellers have been developed to work on BRP engines, where they operate behind BRP gear case designs. That is the situation I have on my boat.

Let me explain a bit about my propeller testing and how it has differed from LHG's. I have a single engine boat, so it is much simpler for me to test propellers. I have an open mind about propellers, so I have tested propellers from several manufacturers. I have tested more than a dozen propellers made by four manufacturers. In contrast, I believe that LHG has only tested Mercury-brand propellers, and has perhaps tested a total of four different types on his twin engine boat. This is understandable, because testing on twin engine boats makes it much harder to test propellers, and if you limit yourself to one brand, you limit the choices.

Now a person who only tests Mercury-brand propellers is going to find that the best propeller he has tested is a Mercury-brand propeller. I don't think you can escape that outcome with the testing criterion set up by LHG. Also, I don't think a test of perhaps four different propellers is sufficiently comprehensive. There are many propellers available. Heck, even limiting yourself to the Mercury-branded Brunswick propellers gives a lot of choices.

I don't know that citing the use of Mercury-brand propellers on Boston Whaler boats is much of an endorsement. It would not make any sense for Brunswick to use anything other than Brunswick propellers on their Brunswick boats. Also, if Brunswick were to use their most expensive propellers on some of their most expensive boats, this would not be much of a shock. I really do not find there is any really independent data that can be taken from the practices of Brunswick with regard to what propeller is the best choice. It is likely that Boston Whaler propeller selection will be the best choice available from Mercury-brand Brunswick propellers. That seems quite certain.

What I have found from my propeller testing is every boat, motor, and propeller combination works differently, and there is no certainty that a particular brand propeller will work exactly the same in every application and be the best. If I may give a bit of a simplistic explanation--a sort of corollary to LHG's assessment of the propeller application process--I say this: a propeller operates behind a gear case. There are different gear case designs among outboard engines, even engines of the same brand. The flow of water around the gear case will be different with different designs. This affects the propeller operation because the propeller is downstream of the gear case. In a similar way, the gear case is downstream of the hull. The water flowing off the hull is different for every boat. The propeller operates in a variable environment, created by the water flow off the hull, over the gear case, and into the propeller. Further modifying the propeller environment is the outboard engine mounting height and trim. All of these effect the propeller environment on a boat. Because this environment is so variable, the performance obtained with a particular propeller is subject to a lot of variation from boat to boat.

Because there is so much variation from boat to boat, the claim that one particular propeller, in this case the Mercury-brand ENERTIA ECO propeller, can improve fuel economy in some applications is not much of a claim. You could probably make this claim about any propeller because there is some boat out there where that propeller would make an improvement. Now, if the claim is that the ENERTIA ECO will always make a ten-percent improvement, that is quite a mighty claim.

By the way, I also have to note that the use of "ECO" in the naming of this new model of propeller is intentional and intended to associate the propeller with Ecology. Brunswick publicists suggest that association in their press releases where they included some goofy statements that suggest that Brunswick was introducing a "green propeller" and that Brunswick was "ever mindful of the environment." These are really hilarious statements for Brunswick to make considering their on-going manufacture of non-compliant EPA emission engines in their VERADO line, which all fail to meet the current EPA standard for emission and are only able to be sold by use of emission credits and fleet averaging, and tend to have some of the poorest fuel economy of any outboard engines.

OMCrobert posted 10-09-2013 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Not a single fact in that long paragraph.
K Albus posted 10-09-2013 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
Mercury Marine's sale of Verado engines is compliant with the applicable EPA regulations. If you really believe that they are not, perhaps you should do your civic duty and report Mercury Marine to the EPA. Here's the pollution reporting link: . Please keep us apprised of your efforts.
K Albus posted 10-09-2013 10:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
My apologies - that link is for the Australian EPA. I'll be back shortly with a U.S. EPA pollution reporting link for you, Jim. I want to make this as easy as possible for you.
K Albus posted 10-09-2013 10:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
Here you go, Jim: . Again, please keep us up to date on the progress of your complaint.
OMCrobert posted 10-09-2013 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Don't let facts get in the way.

According his logic, any product that improves fuel economy has to be a copy of the REBEL Prop.

Even though we have already reviewed is, we will have to go back to it again.

1.) The blades are shaped differently.
2.) The material of the prop is different.
3.) The blade rake is different.
4.) The diameter is completely different.

19 pitch ECO is 3/4 inch larger than the 19 REBEL.
21pitch ECO is 1 inch larger in diameter vs 21 REBEL.
23pitch ECO is 1.25 inch larger in diameter vs 23 REBEL.

And yet in spite of all of the FACTS, we continue with this nonsense.

L H G posted 10-09-2013 12:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
[Changed TOPIC to reflect on himself and how his articles cause others to respond. This is a good topic for self-reflection, but it does not fall in the scope of this discussion. I have deleted the article--jimh]
jimh posted 10-09-2013 03:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Kevin--I have not made any allegation that Brunswick is in violation of any EPA regulation. Their compliance is the concern of the EPA, and, knowing the nature of governmental regulatory agencies, I am sure they have followed Brunswick's outboard engines closely.

My observation was to point out the incongruity of Brunswick's publicists in associating themselves with the Eco-movement by using the term ECO in their propeller model name, as well as suggesting they were Greeen, a figure of speech suggesting, again, ecological concern, and their explicit declaration that they were "ever mindful of the environment," while at the same time making some of the largest outboard engines, stern drives, and other marine engines on the planet which tended to not meet the 2008 EPA guidelines or the CARB Three-Star guidelines. I think it is a bit of a stretch to try to associate the terms ECO and green with Brunswick outboard engines and propellers. Running triple VERADO 300-HP engines is not something that anyone could consider to mindful of the environment or ecologically beneificial or green. Brunswick and their publicists should stop the charade. Apparently they must think boaters are idiots and will accept this bunk without any sort of critical thinking. Perhaps they are right. I may be the only participant here who thinks the ENERTIA ECO is unlikely to achieve any sort of global benefit to mankind through its impact of the planet ecosystem.

jimh posted 10-09-2013 03:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
OMC'bob says about my thesis that there could be an influence from the BRP REBEL in the design of the Brunwick ENERTIA ECO"

Don't let facts get in the way.
According his logic, any product that improves fuel economy has to be a copy of the REBEL Prop.

I am afraid I do NOT make that generalization. I simply observed the following sequence of events:

--Mercury produces the MIRAGE, perhaps 20 years ago; it is a wildly successful propeller, perhaps the most popular three-blade propeller of the last two decades, in spite of the negative remarks about it by LHG.

--BRP produces the REBEL, which comes out after the MIRAGE.

ASiDE: At this point it has been commented that the REBEL appears to use some of the same design elements of the MIRAGE. Now, when this suggestion is made, no one says it is nonsense. There is no fury, no rage, no indignation, no accusations of nonsense.

--Mercury comes out with the ENERTIA ECO.

--I suggest that the ENERTIA ECO may use some of the design elements in the REBEL. I suggest this because the REBEL improves on the fuel economy of the MIRAGE, and this is the claim to fame of the ENERTIA ECO.

--At this point, all hell breaks loose. The Mercury fans go off their meds, insisting that this association is complete nonsense. Yet, they cannot refute my suggestion with anything other than to dismiss it entirely as just nonsense. There is not one rational argument made about my suggestion of a linkage between the ECO and the REBEL that has not already been made about the REBEL and the MIRAGE. Yet, one association is taken as a matter of fact and the other is declared nonsense. However, there exists nothing to prove or disprove either association. They are both just conjectures. It appears to me that the crucial determinant in believing in one or the other is a prejudice toward believing that all propeller technology stems from Mercury. This is an amazing argument to make. I cannot believe that we have a cadre of people that believe that all propeller improvements come from Mercury, and the entire propeller industry just stands still, waiting for Mercury to make new propellers. So my challenge to my critics is to explain if they really hold this view, as it seems to be the only real basis for them to argue against my suggestion that the ECO is perhaps a derivative of the REBEL.

jimh posted 10-09-2013 03:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
By the way, it is already clear the LHG believes that all propeller improvement comes from Mercury by his prior declaration that in all cases the Mercury propeller is the best. So it is not necessary for LHG to admit he thinks all propeller improvement must come from Mercury. I believe he has already said that is his belief.

I would like to hear from OMCRobert and KAlbus in this regard. Do they believe that all propeller improvement comes from Mercury and all other makers just copy their designs?

jimh posted 10-09-2013 04:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re OMCRobert's list of aspects of the ECO: were you able to make all of those inferences from just the one image of the ECO? Or, have you compared the ECO and REBEL in person? If you have the ECO on hand, could you tell us how you came to have one? I think Brunswick is not yet selling them to the public. Also, can you give us details of comparison tests in controlled conditions where the ECO improved fuel economy by ten-percent? I am looking forward to seeing data from Tom W. Clark on this, but if you have already tested the ECO, please give us the data.
K Albus posted 10-09-2013 04:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
I have no opinion on whether the Rebel is derivative of the Mirage or the Enertia-Eco is derivative of the Rebel. I have not examined each of the propellers and compared them to each other to enable me to form an opinion on the matter. I will state, however, that Jim's assertion that the Enertia-Eco is derivative of the Rebel is a clear example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

My participation in this thread had nothing to do with the differences or similarities between the Rebel and the Enertia-Eco. My participation was merely to call Jim to task for the anti-Mercury FUD he was spreading. Mercury Marine's outboard motor line meets U.S. EPA regulations, but Jim continues to try to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the entire motor line, and even about Mercury Marine's parent company Brunswick, by repeatedly pointing out (in very unflattering terms) that the Verado motor line is only two-star-rated rather than three-star-rated. Mercury Marine is at least as green as it is required to be in the U.S., and I sincerely doubt that Jim can demonstrate that any other outboard manufacturer is greener than Mercury Marine in the U.S.

How about this proposition: Since Jim cannot prove that BRP is greener than Mercury Marine, then Mercury Marine must be greener than BRP.

jimh posted 10-09-2013 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Kevin--the same logic assumption was used to declare that the Evinrude REBEL was nothing more than a "copy cat" of the MIRAGE. (I believe it was LHG who used that derogatory term to ridicule the REBEL.) Why is there no concern about the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc when these claims are made about Evinrude, but when the exact same logic is used to suggest the ECO is a derivative of the REBEL, all hell breaks loose. This is a case of one-way logic, or diode logic. I think these Mercury fans need to open their minds a bit.

There is nothing about my statement regarding the basis on which the non-conforming VERADO two-star engines are sold. That is not FUD. It is just the truth. You should recall that it was in a discussion that I began on that topic that we were able to learn in detail the actual variance from compliance that exists in the VERADO engines, and to estimate how much fleet averaging was going to be needed. This was a very factual and revealing discussion, and it is the only discussion of its kind you can find anywhere on any boating forum. I think it was a significant achievement to get to the details of the VERADO non-compliance and the amount of fleet averaging needed to permit them to be sold. But we are getting off the topic.

I only mentioned this non-compliance with emission by the VERADO as an example of the incongruity of Brunswick publicists declaring their engines and propellers as possessing some sort of beneficial ecological features. As I said before, no matter what propeller is used, a boat with triple 300-HP VERADO or maybe triple 350-SC VERADO engines cannot be viewed in any way as being something that benefits the planet's ecosystem. A recreational boat with 900-HP VERADO engines is a fantastic indulgence by some wealthy individual on the planet's ecosystem, not a "green" boat. If you want to characterize your company as being a "green" company, you ought to make sailboats. When I read the publicist's claim that Brunswick was "ever mindful of the environment" I thought I was reading an Orwell novel.

jimh posted 10-09-2013 10:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Kevin--BRP is not making any claims about their propellers being "green" or producing an ecological benefit to the planet. Your argument fails because of this. Your initial supposition is not supported in fact and is a false assumption.
Don SSDD posted 10-10-2013 07:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Don SSDD    
Interesting discussion, emotions of posters aside.

I agree with what Jim said (and your sarcasm Jim) about prop testing- the only way to prove better fuel economy due to a prop design is to test it, with the only variable in the test being the prop. Same boat, engine, engine mounting height, boat load, wind, etc.

Show us an independent test with these parameters and numerous props from numerous manufacturers tested on numerous boats and numerous engines and you have backed up your fuel economy claim.

Or at least tell us what testing was done to make whatever claim you are making?

With all the variables, I doubt anyone can make a prop that will improve fuel economy 10% on all boats, on all engines, at all speeds?

Manufacturers all make claims about their products that if worded correctly may be true. They quite often make claims that are not true, but also are difficult to prove true or untrue. They are like politicians or anyone selling anything.

Brunswick are going to sell Brunswick boats with Brunswick motors and Brunswick props, why would they ever sell anything else? They will sell us their best product, but that isn't necessarily the best product available. Even for their own products.


PS. I own a Merc 90 2 stroke, it is the best motor I have ever owned. But then again, it is also the only outboard motor I have eevr owned.

OMCrobert posted 10-10-2013 08:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
I am shocked this nonsense continues.

The REBEL is round ear prop based off of the MIRAGE. They are large round ear props. Comparing them side by side, you can clearly see this. I dont think many with argue this.

The Enertia ECO looks nothing like a MIRAGE or REBEL at all. It looks like it was based off the of FURY as it has almost a straight trailing blade edge.

It looks nothing like a large round ear prop. These are the FACTS.

1.) The blades are shaped differently.
2.) The material of the prop is different.
3.) The blade rake is different.
4.) The diameter is completely different.
5.) The trailing blade edge is completely different.

OMCrobert posted 10-10-2013 08:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
I am now waiting for the claim that the ENERTIA ECO is a copy of the OMC RAKER now that EVERYONE can see it looks nothing like the Mirage or REBEL.

Peter posted 10-10-2013 09:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The Enertia Exo looks alot like the Yamaha Saltwater Series propeller.
K Albus posted 10-10-2013 09:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
Jim, the FUD is your contention that the Verado motor line is "non-compliant" and that it "fail[s] to meet the current EPA standard for emission." The Verado motor line is fully compliant with the EPA regulations and meets all current EPA standards for emissions, even if it does so with offsets from other Mercury motor sales.

The FUD also includes trudging up the Verado emissions discussion in an attempt to discredit an unrelated propeller. And suggesting that the entire Brunswick corporation is "goofy" and "hilarious" based on some advertising puffery by just one of its divisions, Mercury Marine.

Finally, Jim, your argument about a boat powered by triple Verado 300s or 350s presents another logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. Do you really expect us to believe that the new Enertia-Eco propeller will only be used in large, triple-engine installations?

The real question is not whether a triple-outboard powered boat can ever be considered green, but whether a triple-outboard powered boat equipped with Enertia-Eco propellers is greener than a comparable triple-outboard powered boat equipped with some other propellers. It seems that you've already determined that an Enertia-Eco equipped boat couldn't possibly be greener, based primarily on the "fact" that the Verado motor line is "non-compliant" with EPA regulations.

K Albus posted 10-10-2013 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
The video linked by OMCRobert shows that the 10% increase in MPG claimed by Mercury is at optimum cruising speed on 32-foot center console boat, when compared to the same boat equipped with a Revolution 4 propeller.
jimh posted 10-10-2013 01:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I am shocked this nonsense continues.

I am shocked that the denial of the obvious continues.

jimh posted 10-10-2013 02:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Kevin--You are completely wrong, and you are now spreading FUD yourself. If the VERADO were the only engine made by Mercury, it could not be sold. It fails to comply with emission standards. The EPA regulates the total product mix of a manufacturer. If Mercury only made VERADO engines it would not be able to comply with EPA regulations with the present configuration of the VERADO. Mercury would be forced to reduce the emission output of the VERADO to meet the present regulations. As we have discussed over and over, Mercury exploits the corporate fleet averaging of the EPA requirements to allow the VERADO to be configured for a non-compliant emission rating, and then uses other compliant engines to meet the fleet averaging emission. That was clearly demonstrated with a careful and detailed analysis in prior articles. It is a distraction here to continue to debate this point. You should start a new thread to debate the legality of the VERADO and its Two-Star rating. I would be pleased to participate.

This situation with the VERADO is just like FORD meeting MPG fleet minimum. The FORD truck Kevin is driving could not be sold if FORD only made that truck. It is only by getting a lot of young kids who cannot afford to buy a car bigger than a Focus that FORD pumps up its fleet MPG to the point where a few wealthy folks can drive around town in a gas-guzzling FORD super-duty SUV.

As the recent report on global climate change showed, climate change is being caused by big SUV's and VERADO Two-star outboards being used in triple rigs. This is not subject to dispute any longer.

jimh posted 10-10-2013 02:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Kevin--I am not discrediting the ENERTIA ECO propeller. I am talking about the incongruity of Brunswick making claims of global ecological benefits--being "green"--by their manufacture of this propeller. It is a bit absurd, don't you think? A propeller to save the planet?

It may turn out to be a nice propeller. We do not have any real test data or first-hand experience to validate the claims. You cannot find a single word I have written that speaks about the propeller in a disparaging way. It is made of a super steel, for heaven's sake. A new metal that might be able to change global construction methods. Now this X7 steel, that could save the planet. But only if Mercury licenses it for low cost to others. They should not keep the miracle of X7 to themselves and only use it for propellers.

jimh posted 10-10-2013 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
From the mentioned video the on-camera presenter, apparently a Mercury propeller representative says:

ECO meaining economy.

Exactly as I said. See my initial article:

" can infer that the "ECO" in the model name is suggestive of "economical"..."

That is the engineer talking. These goofy publicists turned "economy" into "green" and planet-aving ecology.

I feel completely vindicated!

K Albus posted 10-10-2013 03:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for K Albus  Send Email to K Albus     
I also noticed that the presenter in the video said, "ECO meaning economy." That seems to be at odds with all of the green print and the leaf incorporated into the "O" in the Enertia-Eco logo on the display, which would suggest "ecologically-friendly."

Regardless, the fuel savings claims by Mercury are nothing more than marketing hyperbole. Sort of like Evinrude's claim that its E-Tec 250 and 300 horsepower motors have "[m]ore displacement, more torque, more top-end than anything in the V-6 class."

While the Enertia-Eco may provide improved fuel economy over some other Mercury propellers in certain conditions on certain boats, I suspect that there are just as many, if not more, situations where it would not provide improved fuel economy. To me, it appears to be just another propeller.

Jim - I'm not the one spreading FUD here. Please point to any negative, dubious, or false information I posted about any brand or product here. You introduced the subject of Verado emissions into this thread, a topic which you admit "is a distraction here". You know the Verado motor is not the only motor manufactured by Mercury, and you know that the EPA regulations apply to a manufacturer's entire product mix and not to individual motor models. Mercury Marine's product mix is EPA compliant, and thus, the Verado is EPA compliant. Why do you continue to insist that the Verado is not EPA compliant, even in threads about unrelated topics such as new propellers? Can you point to one statute or regulation that the Verado fails to comply with?

OMCrobert posted 10-10-2013 03:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
In the face of overwhelming evidence against the fact, are you still going to stand by your nonsense that the new MERCURY ENERTIA ECO has anything to do with the REBEL?

jimh posted 10-10-2013 06:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It is hard to know with any precision by what process the ENERTIA ECO design was achieved. The presenter talks about modifying the blade rake, which I assume he means modifying it from the original ENERTIA, but that is not made clear. The presenter also talks about the blade edges: I think he means the trailing edges. They appear to me to be ground flat with a sharp edge. Perhaps the reference is to added cup on the blade edges, which is a trait of the REBEL more so than the MIRAGE.

In general, I would say the ENERTIA ECO looks more like a REBEL or MIRAGE than it looks like the original ENERTIA.

Perhaps when Tom Clark has an ENERTIA ECO he can take a few images of it in overhead and profile, and we can then compare the ENERTIA ECO to the MIRAGE and ENERTIA.

We will have to wait at least three or four months. The ENERTIA ECO will not be available until 2014.

As for the demonstrated fuel economy improvement, it seemed to occur in a narrow range of boat speed. Also, the comparison was with a four-blade propeller, and it is my impression that, in general, you can get better fuel economy with a three-blade. That makes the comparison a bit of a stacked deck.

OMCrobert posted 10-10-2013 09:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for OMCrobert  Send Email to OMCrobert     
Please look at the MERCURY FURY and then the ENERTIA ECO. I think you will agree that it looks way more like the FURY than the MIRAGE/REBEL.
cooper1958nc posted 10-11-2013 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for cooper1958nc  Send Email to cooper1958nc     
I am *extremely* skeptical of new propeller designs. In 100 years of development of aircraft propellers the gains have been modest at best. There is no magic propeller or magic wing. Where is the data? I would like to see real comparisons from disinterested testing people.

The number of blades is pretty much irrelevant. Fewer blades are in theory more efficient. Having more blades can sometimes reduce cavitation by keeping pressure changes better under control. Secondary considerations also control.

The best way to get good midrange economy is to overprop. An engine, which is really an air pump, can develop the same power either with high manifold pressure and low RPM or high RPM and low manifold pressure. Most of the physics favors the former, because of (a) less friction losses; (b) higher cylinder pressures that promote more complete burning; (c) greater time for combustion event; and more.

So, to get the best midrange economy: (a) get the biggest diameter prop you can; (b) select the highest pitch you can live with, i.e. that lets you plane the boat and but keeps RPM as low as possible. You will give up responsiveness and maybe top speed, but you will gain midrange economy.

Until the manufacturers give us multispeed lower units (this should happen, at least a two-speed) its all a compromise.

jimh posted 10-13-2013 10:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Perhaps one reason for Mercury producing so many propeller designs and seemingly constantly introducing new models is to create demand for their propellers. It is typical that a new model of any product, particularly one for which there are great claims of improvements compared to prior models, will generate interest and cause a spike in sales. By proclaiming the ENERTIA ECO to be made from a super metal, and asserting that use of the ENERTIA ECO will reduce fuel consumption, Mercury is generating new interest in the propeller.

We can see the effect of this advertising on LHG and Tom W. Clark. Both have expressed immediate interest in buying the ENERTIA ECO. It might very well turn out that the propellers they presently own will produce better all-round performance of their boats than this new Mercury ENERTIA ECO can achieve, but by this elaborate promotion of the ENERTIA ECO, Mercury will have sold more propellers than it would have otherwise been able to do.

Also, as I mentioned before, these claims often tend to be self-fulfilling. It is the rare boater who will spend $1,200 on new propellers based on a few advertising claims, and then admit that the propellers he already had worked better. Typically when a boater buys a new $600 propeller, that propeller will turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, even if it just works as well as his old propeller.

jimh posted 01-18-2014 12:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Now that 2014 has arrived, I am restless in anticipation of first-hand, carefully conducted, performance test data that compares the Mercury-brand ENERTIA ECO propeller with some other well known propeller choices on popular Boston Whaler boat hulls with a variety of engines. Have we any test data available?

Also, I would very much appreciate seeing a photographic image of a Mercury-brand ENERTIA ECO propeller in direct overhead view and sideways views. In this way, we could see the blade rake and skew more easily, and we could compare with the views seen in

of the MIRAGEplus and ENERTIA propellers.

jimh posted 01-18-2014 01:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I looked through my collection for an image of an Evinrude REBEL propeller. I didn't find any really great shots. This is the best one I have:

Photo: Evinrude REBEL propeller 15-1/2 x 15
Evinrude REBEL propeller 15-1/2 x 15

Unfortunately, it only shows the blade shape in an oblique view. You can see the flat-ground trailing edge. It is hard to see the cup on the trailing edge, or the complex blade shape. There is a change in shading on the upper right of the blade that does show some cupping. You can see the exhaust tube flares. The camera was too close to the propeller, so it makes the exhaust tube appear to be tapered; it is not. I don't have a REBEL on hand to take any new images, alas.

Peter posted 01-19-2014 07:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Some smoke and mirrors involved in promomtion of the Enertia Eco? You decide.

This video from the IBEX show on the Mercury Enertia Eco is interesting. According to the video, the 10 percent improvement claim is with respect to a 32 foot center console using the 4 blade Mercury Revolution 4 propeller. Based on my experience with the Mercury Mirage Plus and Revolution 4 on the same boat, the 3 blade Mercury Mirage Plus was nearly 10 percent more efficient than the 4-blade Revolution 4 at cruise speed. That wasn't unexpected given the Revolution is a 4 blade propeller and the Mirage Plus was a 3 blade propeller. The problem for me was the Mirage Plus would lose grip in choppy water so there was a compromise between improved efficiency and ride comfort. Ride comfort won out and I ran the boat with Revolution 4s.

In my opinion, Mercury set the bar low for its 10 percent improvement claim. Why didn't Mercury compare it to the ordinary Enertia? Seems to me that the ordinary Enertia would be the proper baseline for comparison, not a propeller with 4 blades. The Enertia has been marketed as an offshore propeller and used on offshore boats.

Tom W Clark posted 03-08-2014 09:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
...will be available to consumers beginning in February 2014 in right- and left-hand rotation across four pitches: 17, 19, 21 and 23 inches. All feature a 16-inch diameter. mercury-introduces-enertia-eco-fuel-saving-propell/

I note that it is now March 2014.

Has anyone even heard a rumor of these propellers becoming available any time soon?

Tom W Clark posted 03-10-2014 10:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The 19" right hand model is available now, Mercury part # 8M0040400 19

It is rumored the left hand 19" as well as 21" and 23" will be available by the end of the month.

The 17" is rumored to be coming by the end of the summer.

acseatsri posted 04-14-2014 03:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for acseatsri  Send Email to acseatsri     
Do you have the 19P available, and how much?
Tom W Clark posted 04-14-2014 10:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I do not sell new Mercury propellers.

Ask Ken Reeves, aka "Prop Gods"

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.