Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Outrage 22, 300 Evinrude

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

Author Topic:   Outrage 22, 300 Evinrude
Teak Oil posted 03-26-2014 08:45 PM ET (US)   Profile for Teak Oil   Send Email to Teak Oil  
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/MontaukBob/library/E-Tec

It's been a long winter for everyone, and the next few weeks will be even longer for me while I wait for the Saginaw River to clear up enough to go for a ride and test out my new E-TEC on my 1992 Outrage.

My previous motor was a 1992 3.0 liter 225 that ran about 47-MPH at WOT running a modified 19" SST propeller at about 5,600-RPM with a normal load of a couple guys and some gear, with a best of 49-MPH a time or two.

I have a heavy, 120-lbs, Yamaha T8 kicker on the transom, the batteries in the console, and a very stout radar arch and radar that create a fair amount of drag. I moved the batteries to the console to combat some light porpoising I get at WOT, but I have never been able to completely eliminate it without using some tab, which creates drag.

The new 300 is mounted all the way up with a 21-pitch Viper propeller to start with. I breifly ran my old 225 at this height and did not encounter any [problems], so I chose this as a starting point. Lockeman's is going to get a couple more propellers for me to try, a Cyclone 21 and a Rebel. I also have a 22-pitch Raker I am going to try, just for giggles, but it may make my porpoising issue worse.

I get one BRP prop with my motor, so I am leaning towards either a Cyclone or a Rebel for the best cruising efficiency with a full load.

I also intend to buy a propeller for light loads. I am thinking about getting a 22-pitch Enertia, or possibly trying an Enertia Eco as a few more test results come out.

I would appreciate suggestions on two props, one for cruising efficiency (which will be used most of the time) and one for top end with a couple on board just to see what she can get for fun.

Thanks

Bob

jimh posted 03-26-2014 09:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
For your one Evinrude propeller, be sure to test the REBEL. It will be very good for fuel economy at cruising speeds.

What is the lowest speed your Outrage 22 will stay on plane?

Teak Oil posted 03-27-2014 06:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I would say it will hold plane under 20 mph, probably 15 with the tabs down.

I am leaning towards the Rebel based on your testing Jim, along with what I have read on THT. Doug at Lockeman's is a bass boat guy so he is big on Vipers

seahorse posted 03-27-2014 06:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for seahorse    

Cyclone props, with their stern lift characteristics, work very well to minimize porpoising, but they are not the fastest ones around.

Teak Oil posted 03-27-2014 08:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Since the Cyclone is also known for good cruising economy that may be the prop I go with for all around use.

I am looking forward to trying one, as it should also work well with having the outboard mounted all the way up. I believe the 21 they ordered may be too small, but we will see.

jimh posted 03-29-2014 08:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I will be interested to learn from you, after you have had the E-TEC on the boat for a season, the amount of time you will use the Yamaha 8-HP auxiliary engine. I explain my interest:

In the original configuration of OUTRE, the addition of the 8-HP auxiliary four-stroke-power-cycle engine was a nice complement to the 225-HP main two-stroke-power-cycle engine. The big engine was not very economical with fuel consumption when running at low speeds, and one could obtain a significant improvement in miles-per-gallon or savings in gallons-per-hour of fuel consumed by switching to the little engine when operating at displacement speeds. With the main engine now an E-TEC, however, I don't think there will be nearly as much difference in the MPG or GPH at displacement speed, due to the nature of the E-TEC.

Several years ago I had the exact same model of 225-HP Evinrude V6 two-cycle engine on my boat, and I was always aghast at the amount of fuel it could consume at displacement speeds. Having also changed to an E-TEC, I am now very favorably impressed by how little fuel the E-TEC consumes at displacement speeds. The low fuel consumption is possible by using a stratified charge mode of combustion.

Of course, having the auxiliary engine will continue to be a benefit, as it offers a redundant propulsion source. But I look forward to hearing about the difference in fuel consumption between the E-TEC and the auxiliary engine at low speeds.

Peter posted 03-29-2014 02:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I think the primary reason for having the kicker with the E-TEC 300 on the transom will be slower trolling speeds than will be possible running the E-TEC 300 at idle in gear. With a 21 inch pitch propeller (or there abouts) the speed at idle in gear will probably be approaching 3.5 MPH.
Teak Oil posted 03-30-2014 09:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
You are right Jim, the kicker will be seeing less use in no wake zones. The Yamaha is inaudible at idle, but when running between 4-5 mph it will probably be louder than the E-tec. Unfortunately I have no way to measure fuel consumption on the kicker.

Peter is right, when trolling for walleye I need to run around 1.5mph max, and the kicker is perfect for that.

Tom W Clark posted 04-08-2014 10:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Given the relatively high power to weight ratio, I would choose the Rebel over the Cyclone if cruise speed fuel economy were the goal.

The Viper may also work well.

Test them all and see.

Teak Oil posted 04-12-2014 05:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Well I finally was able to get some time on the water with my new E-Tec and I was thoroughly impressed.

At idle it is extremely quiet and almost vibration free. This motor feels nothing like a two stroke, until you hit the throttle that is. The boat just lept right onto plane, with a lot less throttle input than the old 225 required.

I only was able to use the 21" Viper prop today, but it performed pretty well. I am glad I had the motor installed as high as it would go, I had no issues with the prop ventilating on tight turns. I also had no porpoising at speeds over 45mph, which was a very pleasant surprise. Since the new motor puts more weight on the stern than the old motor, I can only surmise that the more efficient gear case coupled with a better prop eliminated the porpoising.

Here are the numbers, with two on board, 1/2 tank of fuel, and a light load of gear. Conditions were far less than optimal, with a 20mph wind blowing upstream, and a 3 mph current downstream. I am sure the wind knocked my WOT numbers by 2mph at least, but I was still happy with what I saw and felt.

 

RPM GPH MPH MPG SLIP
500 .18 2.8 15.56
1000 .60 5.39 8.98
1500 1.55 7.43 4.79
2000 4.06 9.05 2.23
2500 6.15 13.9 2.26 48%
3000 7.25 25.9 3.57 20%
3350 8.16 28.9 3.54 20%
3500 8.66 30.9 3.57 18%
4000 11.37 37.5 3.29 13%
4550 14.84 42.3 2.85 14%
5000 20.14 46.9 2.32 13%
5600 25.76 54.1 2.10 10%

For a first trip I was happy, but I think there is a lot left on the table, especially at cruise.

Teak Oil posted 04-12-2014 05:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Static trim, the drains are barely under the water.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/MontaukBob/Outre/20140412_122446. jpg

Teak Oil posted 04-12-2014 06:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/MontaukBob/Outre/20140412_154145. jpg
jimh posted 04-12-2014 10:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Great data. And very impressive numbers. Amazing that a 300-HP engine can run five hours and 35-minutes on one gallon of gasoline at 2.8-MPH.

The over-3-MPG from 25- to 30-MPH with the VIPER is very good. I bet the REBEL will be better.

And 54-MPH at WOT is great.

Given the cold water temperature for today's testing and the cold humid air, you will have to re-test the VIPER when you get another propeller to get a fair comparison with another propeller tested in warmer air and warmer water.

onlyawhaler posted 04-12-2014 11:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for onlyawhaler  Send Email to onlyawhaler     
Great pictures and numbers.

That dark gray almost look sinister. I really like it.

I would guess after you put a few more break in hours on your Evinrude and a good day, you are easily a plus 55 mph boat. Very fast Whaler.

Thanks for the update

Sterling
Onlyawhaler

Teak Oil posted 04-13-2014 12:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I agree the Viper probably did not get the best conditions for a test, the wind was horrendus. However I think the numbers from cruise speeds will not change much, along with the MPG. At 3350 rpms I had a real nice 29mph cruise, I am willing to be with a Rebel I can get about 32mph at that rpm and 4mpg. That is my goal
Tom W Clark posted 04-13-2014 12:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
So, best cruise speed fuel economy is your goal?
Teak Oil posted 04-13-2014 10:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Yes, my everyday prop should yield the best cruise economy and offshore handling in case I get into a bit of rough stuff. Top speed is secondary, just a bonus.

Going to call Lockeman's tomorrow, they were supposed to be ordering me a 21" Rebel and it seems like that might work well.

Still thinking about purchasing an Enertia Eco, the initial tests I have seen show great results.

Teak Oil posted 04-13-2014 10:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Tom, have you seen any situations where the Cyclone outperformed the Rebel on a Whaler style hull?

Lockeman's was going to be ordering a 21" Cyclone as well I believe.

seahorse posted 04-13-2014 11:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for seahorse    
A 19" Rebel will turn close to the same rpm as a 21" Viper. A 21" Rebel will be too big a pitch for your rig.
Tom W Clark posted 04-13-2014 11:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Try a 21" Mercury MIRAGEplus There are props that grip better and there are, in some instances, props that are faster, but the MIRAGEplus is an excellent cruise speed prop in this pitch range.

The Mercury Enertia and Tempest Plus are both worth trying as well.

Teak Oil posted 04-14-2014 08:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Today I obtained a 19" and a 20" Rebel for testing. Unfortunately the rivers all flooded over the weekend so I have another week of waiting at least.

Tom W Clark posted 04-14-2014 09:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I look forward to hearing how they perform.
jimh posted 04-15-2014 11:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Be careful testing borrowed propellers in a river in Spring flood. There could be a lot of debris in the water.
Teak Oil posted 04-20-2014 10:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Well after Easter dinner today I was able to sneak out and go for a ride and give the Rebel props a whirl.

Conditions today were very similar to my last test, same fuel, same number of people (2), and same gear load. Water temp was nearly the same, but ambient was about 15 degrees warmer.

I was a little disappointed with the Rebel props as far as cruise MPG, the 20" was slightly better than the Viper, but is a little too tall (5350 rpm at WOT).

The 19" Rebel was better at WOT (5650 rpms) but delivered worse cruise MPG than the Viper.

19" Rebel

RPM GPH SPD MPG SLIP
3250 7.98 28.1 3.52 11%
3500 8.74 31.2 3.57 8%
3750 9.50 33.5 3.53 8%
4000 10.91 36.7 3.36 6%
4500 14.01 41.3 2.95 6%
5650 26.10 53.5 2.05 3%


20" Rebel
RPM GPH SPD MPG SLIP
500 0.20 2.99 14.95 42%
1000 0.69 5.70 8.25 44%
2500 6.41 16.6 2.59 35%
3000 7.36 27.0 3.67 12%
3350 8.79 31.7 3.60 8%
3500 9.16 33.5 3.66 7%
3750 10.6 37.2 3.49 3%
4000 11.6 39.3 3.37 4%
4500 16.7 44.2 2.64 4%
5000 22.3 49.9 2.23 2%
5350 26.9 53.6 1.99 2%

I am a little unsure which way to go now, I am thinking about getting the Viper and then buying an Enertia Eco for MPG.

jcush87 posted 04-21-2014 07:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
I would stick with the 19 Rebel. From my experience testing props, the Rebel's handling was so much better than the viper's. Also, if you load the boat up heavier, you will like that extra traction getting on plane. For me, the viper tended to get bogged down going up a wave, and over rev on the way down. the Rebel was much more steady and I could just set the throttle and let it do its thing. In the end, the Rebel was a bit too uch prop for my 175, and I ended up with an Enertia. It should be noted that the Vipers i tried were 19p and 16p vs a 15p rebel and enertia. I also found reverse control to be severely lacking with the viper.

Also worth mentioning is I am sure if you were in rougher water and not a flat river, you would see a very big difference in economy between the 2 props. The Rebel really stands out in some slop.

Teak Oil posted 04-21-2014 07:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
You make a good point the Rebel did handle better around the docks and had more reverse thrust.

Also the rough water handling would likely be much better, however I plan on buying an Inertia Eco regardless, probably a 19", so that would likely be my rough water prop.

jimh posted 04-21-2014 10:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The difference in fuel economy between the REBEL in 19-pitch or 20-pitch seems to be about 0.1-MPG, in favor of the higher pitch. The fuel economy is in the range of 3.6 to 3.7-MPG, so a change of 0.1-MPG represents a change of about three-percent.

On the other hand, the 19-pitch allows the engine speed to accelerate to the sweet spot of the recommended full-throttle speed range. Since the test was done in cold weather with a very moderate load, I would anticipate that in warm weather with a heavier load you may find the engine speed at full throttle will be lower. On that basis, I would prefer the 19-pitch. You may give up a possible three-percent better fuel economy with the 19-pitch, but you will probably find the engine likes it better in the long run by being able to run up to its full-throttle speed range in hot weather and with heavy loads.

jimh posted 04-21-2014 10:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The difference in top speed between the three propellers tested amount to about 0.45-MPH in a range of 54 to 55-MPH. This is a change in speed of less than one-percent. It is my observation that in most propeller testing there is likely to be variation of at least one-percent due to differences in factors other than the propeller under test, such as temperature, humidity, sea state, wind, current, and so on. On that basis, I would not automatically assume the less than one-percent difference in performance was entirely due to the propeller under test.
Teak Oil posted 04-21-2014 02:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I just expected more than a 0.1 mpg increase at cruise for the Rebels vs the Viper. That's only a 3% difference. I was expecting closer to 10% based on reports on other hulls.
Tom W Clark posted 04-22-2014 10:21 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The Cyclone is the only other BRP propeller worth trying and I do not think it will provide better cruise speed fuel economy than the Rebel.

Mercury offers several propellers worth trying including:

MIRAGEplus (this may well offer the best fuel economy)

Enertia

Enertia ECO

Tempest Plus (a good prop only on boats that can exceed 50 MPH)

Revolution 4

We can speculate about all these different propeller models but the only way you will know how they perform is to test them on your own boat. That is what I did on my own boat (I have yet to test the Enertia ECO).

Teak Oil posted 04-22-2014 08:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Ordered an Enertia Eco today, according to Ken it should be at my house next week.

I will try it(19") vs my 19" Rebel on Saginaw Bay and make sure I will not have any problems running in the rough with the motor all the way up.

Also, running in a little chop is more realistic for me than running on the river.

jcush87 posted 04-24-2014 07:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for jcush87  Send Email to jcush87     
Cool! please post some pics (compare to Rebel if possible) and let us know how it runs!
Teak Oil posted 05-10-2014 08:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Tried the 19" Enertia Eco last night and was pretty disappointed. I did not get any numbers, I will probably get some tomorrow.

Every time I tried to get on plane it ventilated badly, and in tight turns as well. This baffles me because the Rebel and Viper did not, and the Enertia has the most blade area of them all.

Top speed was about the same, but it does not matter because the prop is unusable the way it ventilates. I do not want to have to lower my motor just to use this prop when the others have worked well.

The PVS holes are all plugged.

Peter posted 05-10-2014 10:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I wonder if the 16 inch diameter does not leave enough gap between the propeller and the anti-vent plate.
Teak Oil posted 05-11-2014 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe the large diameter coupled with my high mounting height is allowing the prop tips to "grab" some air causing the ventilation.

I only have 1/8" gap between the prop tips and the a/v plate.

To get any clearance at all I had to grind a relief into the steering tab.

Clearly the E-tec lower was not designed for a 16" diameter prop.

bloller posted 05-11-2014 10:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for bloller  Send Email to bloller     
The prop ventilated even when trimming in on take off? With my current setup I have to trim in a bit on hard take offs and tight turns. I had never experienced this before with other props on this motor and others but the prop performs so well at cruise and WOT
Tom W Clark posted 05-11-2014 10:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
The very large 16" diameter of the Enertia ECO means the blade tips are much higher at the top of their arc than a 21" Viper, which has only a 14-1/2" diameter, and thus breaking the surface of the water by too much.

You would probably need to lower the motor one bolt hole to run the Enertia ECO without ventilation.

In contrast to the Enertia ECO, a 21" pitch Enertia has only a 13-7/8" diameter.

Teak Oil posted 05-12-2014 06:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Data for the Eco prop. Once up on plane it hooked up okay, but would not hold plane much lower than 3000 rpm or in tight turns.

If I end up lowering the motor a bit this prop may be an option, as the numbers once it hooked up are decent, though far from revolutionary vs the others.

RPM MPH GPH MPG Slip%
3000 27.3 7.26 3.76 6%
3300 31.2 8.67 3.59 3%
3500 33.4 9.24 3.61 2%
3750 35.6 10.4 3.42 2%
4000 38.5 12.1 3.19 1%
4500 43.2 16.1 2.68 1%
5600 54.1 27? 1%

jimh posted 05-12-2014 09:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Perhaps the Enertia ECO is not going to work properly in the propeller aperture of your E-TEC, which is probably not quite the same as the propeller aperture on all the Mercury gearcase engines used to develop the propeller. The blade tips must have close clearance on the E-TEC to the bottom of the A-V plate. Maybe that affects the propeller performance.
Teak Oil posted 05-12-2014 09:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I do notice that the Eco is about 2mph faster across the board up to about 4500 rpm while delivering the same fuel economy, so in that aspect it IS more efficient at cruise than the other props I tested.

I have not been in rough water yet with the others to see if they will ventilate in a chop. If so then I will have to lower the motor one hole.

Peter posted 05-13-2014 07:17 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
If it is delivering the same fuel economy, how can it be more efficient at least as to fuel consumption? If it is going faster for a given RPM, that just means that its effective pitch is higher than a prop that is producing a lower speed at the same RPM.

I do not believe that there is any industry standard by which propeller manufacturers designate pitch of their propeller offerings. So if that is true one would expect to see some variability in the designation versus the effective pitch between two different propeller models with the same nominal pitch.

Teak Oil posted 05-13-2014 01:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Both 19" props (Rebel & Eco) have about the same top end and rpm at WOT, but at lower speeds the Eco was 2mph faster for about any given rpm, i.e. it had less slip at those rpm ranges.

Fuel efficiency was very close, but going faster and getting the same mileage is nice too.

As I mentioned though, the difference is small so getting an Eco to replace your Rebel would not pay off financially, at least on my hull.

Peter posted 05-13-2014 09:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
If you plot the MPG versus speed of the Enertia Eco 19 versus the Rebel 19 between 27 and 40 MPH the curves lie on top of each other. In other words, despite running at a different RPM for a given speed, the Enertia Eco is not more efficient than the Rebel 19 in the testing done.
Teak Oil posted 05-25-2014 08:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
I knew the Viper had a little more in it and I was right. Out on Saginaw Bay today with a half tank of fuel, fishing gear and three aboard I hit 56.5 mph in a light chop. Getting some air under the hull definitely helped.

This E-TEC 300 is just amazing to run.

I think I am going to leave the engine all the way up, try a Revolution4 propeller, and sell the Enertia Eco. If the Revolution4 can hold a good grip where the Eco could not, it would be my all-around-use propeller.

Tom are you interested in swapping a Rev 4 for a Enertia Eco? I would need 18-pitch, I think, for heavy loads. Sometimes I have up to nine people in my boat.

cooper1958nc posted 05-27-2014 05:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for cooper1958nc  Send Email to cooper1958nc     
The above test results are consistent with my skepticism regarding propeller designs. If any data exist to demonstrate a given design outperforms another (other than just through differences of effective pitch) I would love to see it. I suspect propeller designs are marketing animals, but if someone can post real test results that shows different designs of equal effective pitch are markedly different in efficiency, that would be great.
Tom W Clark posted 05-27-2014 08:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Bob -- I do not have any Revolution 4s at this time. I do encourage you to try one though. You should try an Enertia as well.
Teak Oil posted 06-15-2014 09:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
Today for Father's Day I decided to go out on Saginaw Bay and try two more props, a 19" Revolution 4 and a 21" Tempest Plus.

I had the same weight load as the other tests, my son and I and about 50 gal of fuel on board. This time I was in open water because I wanted to see how the Rev4 would handle a chop. There was a solid 1-2' chop which made recording numbers a real chore.

The Rev4 came first, and I was pretty pleased with the way it handled. It jumped on plane and held plane a little better than the Viper I have been using, and did not lose its grip at all in turns. I could trim this prop literally as high as I wanted to and it would not lose its grip. I think this will be my all purpose prop.

RPM GPH MPH MPG SLIP
2750 5.87 20.4 3.47 24%
3100 7.09 26.1 3.68 13%
3250 7.79 27.8 3.56 12%
3600 8.61 31.4 3.65 10%
3750 9.69 34.1 3.52 7%
4000 10.8 35.7 3.31 8%
5800 ???? 54.2 ???? 4%


Next I tried the Tempest Plus as my speed prop and had mixed results. The prop was shipped to me with the PVS holes partially plugged. This prop slipped badly until I hit 35 mph, then I could feel and hear it lock up and get good grip. From that point on it was an ANIMAL. The acceleration was amazing, and it pulled hard right up to the top speed of 57.5 mph. At that speed it took everything to hold on, let alone write down numbers. I didnt bother recording any other numbers because they will look skewed. I need to try this one again with the PVS holes completely plugged and see if it eliminates the annoying low speed slip.

If I cannot get it to hook up I will try to trade it for an Enertia.

jimh posted 01-04-2015 03:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Reviewing the data for the propeller tests for the REBEL (20-pitch), the ENERTIA ECO (19-pitch), and the REVOLUTION4 (19-pitch), it looks like at a moderate cruising speed, around 27-MPH, the outcomes were

REBEL = 3.67-MPH
ECO ENERTIA = 3.76-MPG
REVOLUTION4 = 3.56-MPG

(see above for details of this data)

The ECO ENERTIA produced a 0.09-MPG improvement compared the the REBEL. In percentage that was an improvement of 0.09/3.67 or 2.4-percent. The claim for the ECO ENERTIA was to provide a 10-percent improvement, so it failed to substantiate the claimed advantage. A difference of only 2.4-percent could be attributed to measurement error.

The ECO ENERTIA produced a 0.2-MPG improvement compared to the REVOLUTION4. In percentage that was an improvement of 0.2/3.56 = 5.6-percent. The ECO failed, again, to substantiate the claimed advantage of 10-percent improvement. A difference of 5.6-percent is more substantial, and is probably indicative of a real improvement.

I have lost track of the ultimate propeller selected for the boat. Bob--what propeller did you settle on? Which propeller were you running on the boat when we were cruising in the North Channel in August?

Teak Oil posted 01-05-2015 03:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
This whole project really proved to me that all the props I tested gave nearly the same fuel economy, the main difference was the handling characteristics of the different styles.

To answer your question Jim I ended up lowering the motor one hole from the highest setting since every prop, even the Rev 4, ventilated at one point or another. I did this right before the North Channel trip. I have settled on the 21" Viper for now (and I used it in the North Channel as well) due to it's excellent combination of speed and economy on my hull. It does not ventilate at all at the current height in waves up to solid four footers.

I intend to swap the Rev4 for a standard Enertia this spring, as that is the only mainstream Mercury prop I have not tested. I also intend to see if I can get Lockemans to let me test one of the new BRP props this spring.

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.