BoatTest.com Reports on Mercury ENERTIA ECO Propeller

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  BoatTest.com Reports on Mercury ENERTIA ECO Propeller

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   BoatTest.com Reports on Mercury ENERTIA ECO Propeller

Hoosier posted 03-26-2014 09:40 AM ET (US)
[The BoatTest.com report on comparison testing of a Mercury ENERTIA ECO propeller and Mercury REVOLUTION4 propeller on a twin-engine large center console boat] is well worth reading.
http://www.boattest.com/engine-review/Mercury/19500078_Enertia-ECO_2014
jimh posted 03-26-2014 12:59 PM ET (US)
The BoatTest.com report compares the ENERTIA ECO three-blade propeller to the REVOLUTION4 four-blade propeller, which is the same comparison used in some of the promotional material distributed by Mercury for the ENERTIA ECO following the announcement of the new propeller about six months ago. In the Mercury literature the claim for improvement was limited to ten-percent better fuel economy at a selected speed range.
In this report the data collected shows a much larger improvement in fuel economy at selected speeds. The change of propellers produced a very impressive gain in fuel economy of 18.6-percent at a 30-MPH cruise. The gain was then very abruptly cut to less than ten-percent (9.6-percent) when the boat speed was increased 5-MPH to 35-MPH. As boat speed increased, the difference in fuel economy between the two propellers decreased.
The report suggests that at certain selected cruising speeds the ENERTIA ECO can improve fuel economy over the REVOLUTION4 propeller on the boat under test.
I look forward to seeing more test data, particularly test data that compares the ENERTIA ECO to other three-blade propellers known to improve fuel economy. Worthy test opponents would be the Evinrude REBEL propeller or Mercury MIRAGEplus. These propellers have also demonstrated the ability to produce better fuel economy than the typical four-blade propeller.
acseatsri posted 03-26-2014 07:25 PM ET (US)
I'm disappointed that no engine RPM's were reported. Did both props attain the same WOT RPM? Were the speeds at certain RPM's comparable, or was it more a result of different cupping/pitch? And again, why didn't they test against the ECO against another 3-blade propeller of the same size & pitch?
It's been my experience on MUCH larger boats that increasing diameter is always more efficient than increasing pitch.
Peter posted 03-27-2014 06:34 AM ET (US)
I would like to know how the Enertia Eco compares to the most similar propeller -- the original Enertia. I'm willing to bet that the original Enertia will beat the Rev 4 as well and so one could make the kind of claims that Mercury is making for the new Enertia Eco with the old Enertia propeller. Using the Rev 4 as the basis for comparison is like comparing apples to oranges and amounts to nothing more than marketing hype.
There is more to propellers than just fuel efficiency and top speed. Propellers can have a significant influence on the ride quality and that should not be overlooked.
jcush87 posted 03-28-2014 06:57 AM ET (US)
interesting test. I too think they should compare to the Enertia, or perhaps the Mirage plus (seems like the most common prop and would be a good baseline) The rev4 is designed to hold a boat in rough conditions, economy wasnt its top priority. Also, is it just me, or does that rev4 show a very worn finish? Looks like it has no shine. Are they testing a well used prop against a brand new one?
To me it seems like the Original enertia is great below 17p, above that many reports say the diameter is too small and it is less effective. Looks like the ECO improves the higher pitches a bit.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

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

Author	Topic: BoatTest.com Reports on Mercury ENERTIA ECO Propeller
Hoosier	posted 03-26-2014 09:40 AM ET (US) [The BoatTest.com report on comparison testing of a Mercury ENERTIA ECO propeller and Mercury REVOLUTION4 propeller on a twin-engine large center console boat] is well worth reading. http://www.boattest.com/engine-review/Mercury/19500078_Enertia-ECO_2014
jimh	posted 03-26-2014 12:59 PM ET (US) The BoatTest.com report compares the ENERTIA ECO three-blade propeller to the REVOLUTION4 four-blade propeller, which is the same comparison used in some of the promotional material distributed by Mercury for the ENERTIA ECO following the announcement of the new propeller about six months ago. In the Mercury literature the claim for improvement was limited to ten-percent better fuel economy at a selected speed range. In this report the data collected shows a much larger improvement in fuel economy at selected speeds. The change of propellers produced a very impressive gain in fuel economy of 18.6-percent at a 30-MPH cruise. The gain was then very abruptly cut to less than ten-percent (9.6-percent) when the boat speed was increased 5-MPH to 35-MPH. As boat speed increased, the difference in fuel economy between the two propellers decreased. The report suggests that at certain selected cruising speeds the ENERTIA ECO can improve fuel economy over the REVOLUTION4 propeller on the boat under test. I look forward to seeing more test data, particularly test data that compares the ENERTIA ECO to other three-blade propellers known to improve fuel economy. Worthy test opponents would be the Evinrude REBEL propeller or Mercury MIRAGEplus. These propellers have also demonstrated the ability to produce better fuel economy than the typical four-blade propeller.
acseatsri	posted 03-26-2014 07:25 PM ET (US) I'm disappointed that no engine RPM's were reported. Did both props attain the same WOT RPM? Were the speeds at certain RPM's comparable, or was it more a result of different cupping/pitch? And again, why didn't they test against the ECO against another 3-blade propeller of the same size & pitch? It's been my experience on MUCH larger boats that increasing diameter is always more efficient than increasing pitch.
Peter	posted 03-27-2014 06:34 AM ET (US) I would like to know how the Enertia Eco compares to the most similar propeller -- the original Enertia. I'm willing to bet that the original Enertia will beat the Rev 4 as well and so one could make the kind of claims that Mercury is making for the new Enertia Eco with the old Enertia propeller. Using the Rev 4 as the basis for comparison is like comparing apples to oranges and amounts to nothing more than marketing hype. There is more to propellers than just fuel efficiency and top speed. Propellers can have a significant influence on the ride quality and that should not be overlooked.
jcush87	posted 03-28-2014 06:57 AM ET (US) interesting test. I too think they should compare to the Enertia, or perhaps the Mirage plus (seems like the most common prop and would be a good baseline) The rev4 is designed to hold a boat in rough conditions, economy wasnt its top priority. Also, is it just me, or does that rev4 show a very worn finish? Looks like it has no shine. Are they testing a well used prop against a brand new one? To me it seems like the Original enertia is great below 17p, above that many reports say the diameter is too small and it is less effective. Looks like the ECO improves the higher pitches a bit.