190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:27 am

I have a 2004 [190] Nantucket with the original Mercury OptiMax 135-HP engine.

The boat came with two propellers:
—a Mercury MIRAGEplus part 48-18278 with Performance Vent System (PVS); the PVS holes are filled with solid plugs; and
—a QuickSilver Mirage (#48 13700 A41 19P) which I have never tried.

When I have the boat loaded with family, I tend to accelerate more gently and travel below 25 MPH. If I get up on plane gently, I get what feels like excessive ventilation until I hit about 20 MPH, when suddenly the RPMs drop and the engine quiets down a bit.

It also feels like a slipping clutch. I find it annoying and sort of unpredictable.

I want to eliminate this ventilation. Where should I start?

What additional details would this forum find helpful?
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

macfam
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: “slipping clutch”

Postby macfam » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:37 pm

That ”slipping clutch” you describe maybe a slipping prop hub.

Is the Pitch on the spare Quicksilver Mirage close to the prop your using? If yes, give it a try to see if the problem subsides.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Propeller part number

Postby roundle1979 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:06 am

The current propeller is a part number 48-18278. 17P
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:14 pm

A MIRAGEplus propeller will use a FLO-TORQ hub. Inspect the plastic hub bushing.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:32 am

Photos of current propeller.

prop1a.jpg
Current propeller with some markings visible.
prop1a.jpg (12.82 KiB) Viewed 2263 times


prop2a.jpg
Current propeller, no markings visible.
prop2a.jpg (14.14 KiB) Viewed 2260 times


prop3a.jpg
Current propeller, close up of retaining nut.
prop3a.jpg (15.21 KiB) Viewed 2257 times
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:53 am

Have you inspected the propeller and hub for indications of the hub slipping?

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:33 pm

You cannot detect a slipping hub by looking at three pictures of the propeller posted above.

The best view to establish the propeller was a Mercury MIRAGEplus would be to show that name embossed into the propeller. Most readers don’t have a cross reference to Mercury part numbers.

There does not appear to be any blade damage shown in the picture that shows the blades. Damage would have to be very major to show up in a picture.

The 17-pitch MIRAGEplus is a large diameter propeller. This means the blade tips will be close to the anti-ventilation (A-V) plate. The MIRAGEplus may not tolerate being run with the A-V plate running out of the water.

What is the engine mounting height in units of holes above lowest position?

ASIDE: I have been using a MIRAGEplus 17-pitch for many years and it has never ventilated—even running in very rough seas.

biggiefl
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby biggiefl » Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:50 pm

To see if it is slipping you need to mark the hub and the prop, take it for a ride, let it slip and then look at the marks. If they have moved, need a new hub. You would mark it in pic 3. Mark the metal prop and part of the hub if you can see it(should). I use an awl or nail to just scratch it.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall(for sale cheap).

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:46 pm

My propeller is a Mercury MIRAGEplus; it uses a Flo-Torq II hub. The prop is a 15-1/2” x 17”, part # 48-18278. I believe that this is the factory propeller that came with the boat back in 2004

The problem is not with the hub, it is simply ventilating. Here are my observations

  • A number of other Boston Whaler Nantucket or Outrage 190 owners have reported similar traction problems with [a MIRAGEplus propeller]. The ventilation is mostly a problem in rough and choppy waters.
  • One of the reasons the current propeller is ventilating may be related to the fact that the motor is mounted quite high from the factory, which works for a prop like the Enertia, but not for the MIRAGEplus.
  • My MIRAGEplus propeller has some non-factory stampings. This propeller likely been repaired in the past by the previous owner; it's likely no longer in-line with the factory specifications

I will next try both an ENERTIA 17 and a REVOLUTION4 in 17-pitch. I am leaning towards the REVOLUTION4 as the stern lift may be helpful when I'm forced to reduce speed in choppy water.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:51 pm

Detailed example of the type of ventilation I experienced this season:

In late July I took a trip from Milton Harbor (Rye, NY) to Oyster Bay (Long Island, NY). Great day on the water.

When we left in the morning, it was calm. 40 gallons of fuel, two adults and 3 kids. No ventilation to speak of on the trip over. We spent a few hours at the beach at Oyster Bay. Before returning, we filled the tank (added 20 gallons, so a full 60 gallons). The winds speed increased to greater than 15-MPH in the afternoon, and there was more large boat traffic, so Long Island Sound had become choppy. Ventilation on the way home was noticeable and quite annoying as I was constantly adjusting speed (between 12 and 22 MPH) to ensure a safe and comfortable ride of my passengers.

Seems as though Whaler dialed this boat in for a lake rather than a snotty day on Long Island Sound.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Currently Kentucky

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby Phil T » Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:55 pm

You are correct, the Mirage is the original factory prop.

I think part of the concern is your acceleration technique.

I tend to accelerate more gently


Consider this:

When loaded you have more weight to get up and out of the water. While 2 strokes have a better torque curve than a 4 stroke accelerating slowly makes it hard for the engine and prop, especially in waves. I would accelerate to 4-7 mph and then accelerate very quickly till you are just on plane, then reduce throttle quickly before you gain too much speed.

With practice, it will not feel jerky to passengers.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
Member since 2003

biggiefl
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby biggiefl » Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:03 am

No boat likes to get on plane gradually, a prop is not going to solve your ventilation. You need to goose it and get on plane then slow down and trim up.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall(for sale cheap).

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:35 am

Spoke to Ken at https://propgods.com/.

Rev4 in the mail.

Looking forward to May.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

fno
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:01 pm

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby fno » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:31 pm

Good luck with the REVOLUTION4 propeller.

If that doesn't work I think you should describe the height of the motor on the transom in "holes up" or provide a photo of the anti ventilation plate and it's relation to the keel of the boat. There are many here with the experience and know how. They just need the right information.

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:39 am

The REVOLUTION4 propeller is probably too much blade area and too much weight for a 135-HP engine. If you want to try it, I recommend you do so on the basis that you can return the propeller for credit if you find it unsuited. I have tested a REVOLUTION4 17-pitch propeller, but I found in unsuited for my 225-HP engine. A 15-pitch MIRAGEplus would have been more suited, but at the time of testing there was no 15-pitch version available to try because Mercury was not making any in that pitch.

The propeller you describe as a MIRAGEplus lacks the normal markings found on a MIRAGEplus propeller. Usually the name MIRAGEplus is cast into the propeller hub and clearly identifies the propeller model.

In my own experience with the MIRAGEplus propeller I have not had a single problem with the propeller ventilating and subsequently losing thrust. I have operated in some very rough seas and the MIRAGEplus has never blown out or shown any sign of ventilating. And my engine mounting height is quite elevated compared to most installation. The engine is mounted one-hole-up on a Whaler Drive, which is probably a higher engine mounting than two-holes-up on a notched transom.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:37 am

jimh wrote:The propeller you describe as a MIRAGEplus lacks the normal markings found on a MIRAGEplus propeller. Usually the name MIRAGEplus is cast into the propeller hub and clearly identifies the propeller model..


Hi Jim--My prop was indeed one point a MiragePlus (it's clearly stamped); however, the additional markings/stampings indicate that it's been worked on in the past. While it may sound like I am complaining about the MiragePlus in reality I am just complaining about MY (old , corrected) MiragePlus.

Photos of my prop:

*Branding: https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thehulltruth.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_1291_5576d5ed2aa3bfe3f37c1d49b1d4e5addcb5dd5c.jpg
*Model number: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thehulltruth.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_1289_f1be2cbb4e5194642c99679b2798b06732fe52a1.jpg
*Non factory stamping (from repair work): https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thehulltruth.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_1290_136e50e8e6e1bf88c8c03a199f462c761f019ab6.jpg

I have ordered the [REVOUTION4 17-pitch propeller] through https://propgods.com; if I want to exchange it I can do so for $35. Ken seemed to think it was probably the right application based on my requirements. I realize that I may gain some low speed performance at the cost of a few top end MPH.
In any event, I'll try the REVOLUTION4 and report back in May.
Last edited by roundle1979 on Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:40 am

fno wrote:Good luck with the REVOLUTION4 propeller.

If that doesn't work I think you should describe the height of the motor on the transom in "holes up" or provide a photo of the anti ventilation plate and it's relation to the keel of the boat. There are many here with the experience and know how. They just need the right information.


The engine was mounted by the Boston Whaler factory: Here's a high res photo (not supported by this website):

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thehulltruth.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_0962_01e66d4bac0e0f29f56dea08854fd31ad36203a8.jpg
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:26 am



ROUNDLE--your reply has me laughing. Let me explain several things to your about photo images and this website.

First, you want READERS to see a photo and from the photo the READERS are to deduce the engine mounting height. This is really a bit awkward method, because you could just TELL US the engine mounting height. But maybe you can't figure out the engine mounting height yourself, and that's okay, we can figure it out from a photo.

The second problem is your claim that the photo is not unable to be made an in-line photo because of its "resolution." The image resolution has nothing to do with this. The image was rejected because either it exceeds the maximum image size, or it exceeds the maximum file size.

In fact, to show us the engine mount details by providing a picture is entirely possible. We just need a picture that just shows the engine mounting area, not the whole boat, the backyard, the sky, the ground, ladders, and other boats. So there is NOTHING preventing you from posting an inline image of the engine mounting. In fact, I will crop off all the other parts of the "high-resolution" image you want READERS to interpret and include it right now:

engineOrig.jpg
Fig. 1. The original image, cropped to show the engine mount only.
engineOrig.jpg (3.77 KiB) Viewed 3939 times


Now we have the third problem: the image exposure and contrast prevents seeing much about the engine mounting height. I tried to see more from the image by making some exposure corrections:

engine.jpg
Fig. 2. Image with exposure correction.
engine.jpg (4.78 KiB) Viewed 3939 times


Now we have the fourth problem: the mounting height is still not clearly seen. It might be--guessing--mounting one-hole-up

Please go back to the boat and take an actual high-resolution image of the engine mount with good lighting and proper exposure. Then crop the image so it is smaller than 900 x 900 pixels, and, if the image shows some detail that is usable, you are welcome to include it as an in-line image, or just as useful, host it where you hosted the other image. But please don't imply that there is something about the forum's limit on in-line image size or file attachment size that is impeding the announcement of the engine mounting height on your boat in this discussion.

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:37 am

I see in your more recent images of the propeller that the brand and model are clearly identified. Here is a cropped and re-oriented version of the original.
propeller.jpg
Fig. 3. Photo of propeller under discussion; rotated 90-degrees and then flipped 180-degrees so the cast-in text is reading left to right and right-side up.
propeller.jpg (11.29 KiB) Viewed 3934 times


Yes, it is clearly a Mercury MIRAGEplus propeller.

You have inferred that some propeller shop has worked on the propeller based on some stamped numbers. That might be very true. But the notion that because a propeller shop worked on the propeller it is no long in specification is not an intrinsic outcome. The MIRAGEplus propeller is just a standard line propeller from Mercury, and perhaps the propeller was sent to a shop for custom balancing or other work. Or the pitch might have been slightly altered. There is no telling exactly what was done. From all the images you have provided, I don't see anything unusual.

Another variation in performance: propellers might work differently on different engines due to the design of the gear case. When I bought my MIRAGEplus propeller, initially testing was a bit disappointing, and my notes mention some ventilation or loss of grip. However, when I changed engines on my boat and put the same propeller on a different engine with a different gear case, I was completely pleased with its performance and there has never been any ventilation. In my case neither engine was Mercury. You'd think a Mercury propeller on a Mercury gear case would work in an optimum manner. And apparently Boston Whaler thought so, too.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:47 pm

jimh wrote:
roundle1979 wrote:ROUNDLE--your reply has me laughing.

Glad I'm able to provide some entertainment.


transom1a.jpg
View of engine mounting bolt in upper mounting holes.
transom1a.jpg (4.69 KiB) Viewed 2256 times



IMG_1832.jpg
The cavitation plate shown relative to the bottom of the hull. Note that the engine is trimmed all the way down so the cavitation plate is not parallel, but this should give you a good idea of the engine height.
IMG_1832.jpg (150.97 KiB) Viewed 3905 times
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:44 pm

The engine mounting height as seen above is two-holes-up, or 1.5-inches higher than the lowest mounting height. The photo image that illustrates this is very clear—making the photo perfect for illustration.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Currently Kentucky

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby Phil T » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:44 pm

I would say to an owner who posted just this photo, the engine should be raised so the anti-cavitation plate is 1-2" above the bottom of the keel.

As shown, the current height appears to be less than 1/2".
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
Member since 2003

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:24 pm

An older post describes propeller ventilation from a MIRAGEplus—coincidentally on an Outrage 190, the same hull as my boat.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005861.html
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:31 pm

Propeller ventilation can be affected by many influences. An influence often overlooked is the outboard engine itself. I will give an example from my own experience.

I was using a particular propeller with my boat when the engine was a classic carburetor 225-HP two-stroke-power-cycle engine with no electronic controls. Engine speed was determined principally by throttle setting of the carburetor butterflies, the fuel jet orifice sizes, and the spark advance. The spark advance mechanically connected to the throttle movement, so spark timing changed. Once the throttle was opened to a particular setting, the engine speed would then be determined almost entirely by the load on the engine. This behavior is common on classic two-stroke-power-cycle engines with carburetors and no modern computerized control module.

With the engine as I described above, the particular propeller showed a tendency to lose grip or ventilate in rough seas.

Later, after an engine change and on the same boat, the same propeller showed no sign of ventilating. The new engine was a modern engine with sophisticated electronic engine controls, and individual cylinders fed fuel by direct injection. The behavior of this engine at higher throttle settings is quite different than the earlier engine. With the modern control system, this engine tends to run at the speed you set the throttle, and not vary much with small changes in load. I believe this behavior affects how the propeller performs.

With the older engine, any reduction in propeller load, as might occur with some initial propeller ventilation, would result in an immediate increase in engine speed in response to the reduced load. The increase in engine speed would then tend to cause more ventilation. More ventilation would reduce engine load further, causing more engine speed increase. This cycle would rapidly lead to the propeller losing grip and ventilating. To stop the cycle the throttle would need to be reduced, reducing engine speed, until the ventilation stopped. As soon as the ventilation stopped, the propeller would begin to get more grip, thus increasing the engine load. The increased engine load would reduce engine speed, requiring the helmsman to increase throttle.

The new engine behaves much differently. If the throttle is set for, say 3,700-RPM, the engine tends to run at that speed and will not suddenly increase or decrease speed if the load from the propeller suddenly is reduced or increased. The engine exhibits a great deal or reserve power while also not exhibiting a tendency to jump up in engine speed the moment the propeller load decrease. The result is that if some ventilation begins, the engine does not immediate respond with an engine speed increase. The result is that the ventilation does not increase. If in the next few seconds the propeller is more deeply immersed, as occurs when the boat is operating in rough seas, the propeller regains grip.

The overall all effect is that the same propeller behaves quite differently with two different engines, depending on the type of engine speed control system that is used in those engines.

The particular propeller I have used when observing this behavior was a Mercury MIRAGEplus. I was not particularly impressed with the propeller's ability to avoid ventilating with the old engine, but with a change in engines the propeller lost all tendency to ventilate.

I believe the engine affects the propeller's tendency to ventilate based on how well the speed of the engine is controlled.

The combination of the engine speed remaining steady and the propeller not ventilating creates the ability to run the boat at a nearly constant speed in heavy seas without constant adjustment of the throttle. This greatly reduces the burden on the helmsman when steering in rough seas. The helmsman can concentrate on steering the boat, avoiding really big waves, and he does not have to keep one hand on the throttle at all times to pull back if the engine speed begins to increase due to onset of ventilation.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sun May 02, 2021 2:41 pm

I have a new propeller whose dimensions are 14.6 diameter and 17 pitch

propeller_.jpeg
Photograph of a four-blade, stainless steel, polished, right hand propeller.
propeller_.jpeg (9.84 KiB) Viewed 2269 times

The propeller is a "Q4" and the part number 48-8M0103526.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sun May 02, 2021 3:24 pm

If the propeller shown above were a Quicksilver Q4 it should have a clear identification mark. See below:

Q4.jpg
Quicksilver Q4 propeller.
Q4.jpg (9.87 KiB) Viewed 2268 times


Also note that a Q4 has a flared exhaust hub. The propeller you illustrate above does not appear to have a flared exhaust hub.

A REVOLUTION4 has a rather long exhaust tube without flair.

A propeller sold as a REVOLUTION4 would have that identification clearly embossed on the propeller.

But the part number for a REVOLUTION4 would be 8M0151317.

I do not believe that one propeller can be both a REVOLUTION4 and a Q4 at the same time.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sun May 02, 2021 4:32 pm

My understanding is the [REVOLUTION4] and Q4 are the same propeller.

Both the [REVOLUTION4] and Q4 are flared when sized for smaller engine applications (between 12.7 inch and 14 inch).

The larger 14.6 inch [REVOLUTION4} and Q4 propellers are not flared.

[Some other equivalent names as understood in the same manner as Q4 and REVOLUTION4 are understood to be the same propeller;]
Revolution4 = Q4
Enertia = Q3
MIRAGEplus = Thunderbolt
Vengeance = Silverado
Tempest Plus = Torrent
Laser II = Lightspeed
High Five = QST 5
Black Max = Black Diamond
Alpha 4 = Diamond 4
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Mon May 03, 2021 8:36 am

What name is embossed on the propeller shown in the image you posted on May 2, 2021?

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Mon May 03, 2021 11:58 am

[The name embossed on the propeller is] "Q4."
Q4.jpg
The Q4 identification embossed on the propeller.
Q4.jpg (2.22 KiB) Viewed 1628 times
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Fri May 14, 2021 9:54 pm

The Q4 propeller met expectations for my 2004 Boston Whaler Nantucket 190 [when tested on the water on May 14, 2021].

[Test data for Q4 17-pitch four-blade:]
Test conditions: seas calm and smooth
Boat speed = between 36-MPH to 38-MPH [sounds like 37-MPH]
Engine speed = 5450-RPM
Trim reading = "8"
Increasing trim to "9" or greater increased engine speed but did not increase boat speed
In addition to gaining speed over the MIRAGEplus propeller, the Q4 propeller seemed to grip much better.

[Old test data for MIRAGEplus 17-pitch three-bald]
Test conditions: [unspecified]
Boat speed = 32-MPH
Engine speed = 5,500-RPM.
With a light load the engine gave an "over-rev" error.

Because the Q4 test conditions were calm and smooth, to draw conclusions may be [premature].

Note: the Mercury Optimax 135 has a redline of 5,500 to 5,600-RPM.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sat May 15, 2021 9:11 am

Thanks for the new test data on the Quicksilver Q4 propeller.

For best comparison of the performance of two propellers, you should test them at within a very short time span. Changing a propeller only takes perhaps 15-minutes. Many factors affect engine performance, such as air temperature, humidity, and air pressure, so data taken on different days could be influenced by changes in engine performance. Environmental factors also affect propeller performance, so wind speed and direction, wave heights, and water temperature affect propeller performance.

Earlier you indicated you were buying a REVOLUTION4 propeller. But later you commented:

The propeller is a "Q4" and the part number 48-8M0103526


The Q4 is apparently sold under the QUICKSILVER name. I believe the Quicksilver brand is sold by vendors who are not authorized Mercury dealers. This is probably some sort of Brunswick marketing plan in which the Mercury-branded products are to be sold only through authorized Mercury dealers, but the Quicksilver branded products can be sold by non-Mercury dealers. The inference that Quicksilver hopes their customers will make is that the products branded as Quicksilver are equivalent to similar products sold under the Mercury branding. The inference that authorized Mercury dealers hope their customers will make is that they are getting a genuine Mercury part.

From what I can tell, the MRSP of the Q4 17-pitch right-hand propeller with part number 48-8M0103526 is about $798. That must be about the same MSRP as the Mercury REVOLUTION4 propeller. I was expecting the Quicksilver branding to be at lower costs. Maybe retailers selling Quicksilver are more likely to offer discounts. Finding a list of MSRP data can be difficult.

What was the cost of the Q4 you bought, exclusive of any taxes and shipping?

ASIDE: according to some vendor listings, the Q4 is available at a lowest pitch of 17-inches. I believe the REVOLUTION4 is available in a 15-pitch version.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sat May 15, 2021 9:54 am

jimh wrote:What was the cost of the Q4 you bought, exclusive of any taxes and shipping?


I bought the propeller from Prop Gods and paid $599 for the propeller. A Mercury SSR hub kit cost $80.

When I ordered I was told I would receive either a [REVOLUTION4] or Q4, depending upon availability. I bought from Prop Gods due to the exchange policy: for a fee of $35, you can swap the propeller for a different model or different pitch.

Quicksilver propellers are Mercury's aftermarket brand and are made in the same factories, from the same molds, they are just stamped different. This is how Brunswick positions products and services to folks who do not own (or for vendors who do not sell) Mercury products.

I'm not sure about the pricing strategy. I would expect a [REVOLUTION4] and Q4 to have roughly the same MSRP.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sat May 15, 2021 10:06 am

Thanks for mentioning the hub kit.

[See new thread on the Mercury FLO-TORQ SSR hub kits at https://continuouswave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6436.

ASIDE: many years ago I tested a REVOLUTION4 using the then conventional FLO-TORQ II hub kit. The propeller was so heavy that any shift produced a very loud CLUNK from the engine; the engine never exhibited any sign of CLUNK with other propellers. Only the REVOLUTION4 could create that rather disturbing sound.

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sat May 15, 2021 10:12 am

Re propeller branding as Quicksilver and Mercury: I see that there are many non-Mercury engine dealers able to sell Mercury propellers. This further obscures the reason for the two brands of propellers. Maybe the branding is historical, along the lines of the Mercury-Mariner branding for engines.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sat May 15, 2021 7:57 pm

The SSR hub is one of the newer hub kits, launched in September 2020.

https://www.quicksilver-products.com/marine/propellers/hub-kits/flo-torq-ssr-hd/
[Moderator's note: I don't think the product described in this link is the actual product being used on the engine under discussion in this thread.]

https://youtu.be/WxlGldgvccY?t=85

I bought the SSR as I was told it might help reduce shift CLUNK, and I believe that it has.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sun May 16, 2021 8:15 am

RE the link to a QUICKSILVER website on the FLO-TORQ SSR HD, as you have provided above:

I don't think an OptiMax 135 has a 1.25-inch-diameter propeller shaft as needed by the Quicksilver FLO-TORQ SSR HD hub kit, so that hub kit would not work for you.

The second link you gave to a long recorded presentation is about a different product, the Mercury FLO-TORQ-SSR (no HD) which is for 1-inch diameter propeller shaft engines, which is what I assume an OptiMax 135 has.

I think the Mercury FLO-TORQ SSR (no HD) would be more appropriate for your application.

[Moved some information on the Mercury FLO-TORQ SSR hub kit products to a separate thread. See

https://continuouswave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6436 ]

ASIDE: I really find it much simpler to stick with the Mercury branded products for information. Continually mixing Mercury and Quicksilver names for similar products just creates confusion. I suspect that the reason the propeller vendor sent you a Quicksilver propeller was because he could not get a Mercury propeller. Mercury propellers might be in short supply due to the unprecedented high demand for new outboard engines. That is probably why he has had to send you a Quicksilver propeller instead of a REVOLUTION4.

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 am

Getting back to your test results that compare the MIRAGEplus 17-pitch and the REVOLUTION4 17-pitch:

It looks like a better comparison would to compare the MIRAGEplus 19-pitch and the REVOLUTION4 17-pitch. Your engine was approaching the rev-limiter with the 17-pitch MIRAGEplus propeller. I suspect that if you tried a MIRAGEplus 19-pitch propeller you would have gotten boat speeds like you are now getting with the REVOLUTION4 17-pitch.

In my own testing of the REVOLUTION4 17-pitch propeller, I found a similar outcome: compared to the three-blade MIRAGEplus 17-pitch propeller, the four-blade REVOLUTION4 17-pitch propeller seems to act like a propeller with more pitch than it is marked at. At that time, the 17-pitch was the lowest pitch available in the REVOLUTION4 propeller.

I think the REVOLUTION4 propeller's marked pitch may be intended to represent the effective pitch when the propeller is mounting at very high engine mounting heights where the propeller blades will be running in very aerated water and very close to or even partially above the water surface. If the REVOLUTION4 propeller is run with conventional engine mounting height with the propeller blades fully submerged into solid water, you need to consider the pitch as being about 2-inches more than marked.

For example, if testing against a MIRAGEplus 17-pitch running submerged, the comparable REVOLUTION4 propeller would be a 15-pitch.

The irony here is that in your first post in this thread you mention a "Quicksilver MIRAGE 19" propeller that you have "never tried." I would expect that that if this "Quicksilver MIRAGE 19" is a 19-pitch propeller equivalent to a Mercury MIRAGEPlus propeller, that propeller probably would be a very suitable propeller for your boat and engine.

You ought to test the "Quicksilver MIRAGE 19".

I know you have invested $680 into the REVOUTION4 17-pitch propeller and Mercury FLO-TORQ SSR hub kit, but that three-blade 19-pitch similar to a MIRAGEplus also may be a good propeller for your rig. There is no way to know until you test it.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sun May 16, 2021 11:29 am

jimh wrote:You ought to test the "Quicksilver MIRAGE 19".


I agree that a Mercury MIRAGEplis 19 would likely be a good propeller if I wanted to try a three blade.

The Mercury ENERTIA is newer three-blade propeller. Prop Gods suggested I try it if I decided that the Q4 was not the right propeller. The ENERTIA was used in Boston Whaler 2020 Outrage 190 performance testing:

https://bostonwhaler.imgix.net/wp-conte ... E-DATA.pdf

I may try my old "Quicksilver Mirage 19." It is an older propeller with a pressed-in hub that I keep on the boat as a spare. I suspect that the previous owner acquired this old propeller when he sent in the MIRAGEplus for repair.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sun May 16, 2021 11:49 am

jimh wrote:I don't think an OptiMax 135 has a 1.25-inch-diameter propeller shaft as needed by the Quicksilver FLO-TORQ SSR HD hub kit, so that hub kit would not work for you.


I have a 1-inch diameter propeller shaft. I have installed the FLO-TORQ SSR.

It has significantly reduced shift CLUNK.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Sun May 16, 2021 11:56 am

Re the MIRAGE and the MIRAGEplus: I believe the older MIRAGE model propeller from Mercury was not a FLO-TORQ hub design, but the blade design was similar to the propeller called the MIRAGEplus. Also, I don't think an old MIRAGE propeller would have the Performance Vent System. The MIRAGEplus is mentioned as having more blade cup.

There seems to be a popular notion that a four-blade propeller is intrinsically better than a three-blade. I have tried both types in several different models, and I have not found that the four-blade propeller is particularly better than a three-blade. I do have a four-blade on my boat right now, but I bought it for the hub system it uses, which is superior to the FLO-TORQ II hub on I have for my MIRAGEplus propeller. There is one essential difference between three-blade and four-blade propellers: the vibration frequency created by the propeller blades being shadowed behind the gear case and skeg will change with the blade configuration. Sometimes changing this frequency helps to eliminate sympathetic vibrations in the boat caused by the propeller.

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Sun May 16, 2021 4:46 pm

I spent most of my afternoon on Long Island Sound.

Winds were 10-15 MPH which produced a 2-3 foot chop/slop. These conditions were ideal for determining whether or not the new propeller reduced the ventilation problems that I described earlier in this thread.

I'm pleased to report that I did not experience any noticeable ventilation.

For my first run, I brought along 2 additional adults and three children. About 55 gallons of gas on board. Given the conditions, and my passengers, I kept the boat between 12 and 20 MPH. This is the scenario that created infuriating amounts of ventilation with my previous propeller. I'm really pleased that this seems to no longer be the case. The boat now feels much more predicable and easier to control in choppy conditions.
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

roundle1979
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 am

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby roundle1979 » Wed May 19, 2021 9:17 am

Small clarification about my above performance numbers:

I took my readings from my Garmin GPS (ECHOMAP Plus 74CV); my GPS is displaying KT rather than MPH. So, I believe my top end speed (37 KT) is actually 42.5 MPH.

This top speed is VERY similar to the top speed [of a 2003 Boston Whaler Nantucket 190 w/ 135HP Optimax] reported by Boston Whaler when the boat was launched at the Miami Boat Show in 2003: https://continuouswave.com/whaler/refer ... ucket.html

IMG_2342.jpg
GPS Screen Photo
IMG_2342.jpg (64.05 KiB) Viewed 1369 times
2004 Nantucket 190 w/ Mercury Optimax 135

jimh
Posts: 9249
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 190 Nantucket 135 OptiMax

Postby jimh » Wed May 19, 2021 11:01 am

Most GPS receivers in recreational grade chart plotters do not actually measure speed. They calculate speed from time and distance. It is possible to directly deduce speed from GPS signals using rather sophisticated methods, but I don’t think the typical GPS receiver in marine chart plotters does that. The speed value calculated with time-and-distance methods will be accurate to better than 0.5-MPH, which is really quite sufficient for propeller testing and analysis.

Generally any display of speed from a GPS receiver permits the user to choose the units of speed desired, so the distance can be any unit from meters or miles or nautical miles or kilometers, and the time can be in units of second or minutes or hours.

Nautical miles are a unit of distance used at sea and are derived from one minute of longitude, and are not in reference to land distance units which tend to vary by country.

A statute mile is 5,280-feet—whatever a foot might be.

A meter was intended to be defined as one ten-millionth the distance from the North Pole to the Equator on a meridian passing through Paris, but measurement errors in the 1809’s threw off the outcome.

Generally when operating a boat near land in the USA the unit of speed is the mile-per-hour, although some boasters seem to think the nautical mile per hour is, well, more nautical.

There is no telling where the SmartCraft display obtained its speed data. It could come from a Pitot tube sensor.

A Pitot tube sensor measures speed through the water. A GPS speed is speed-over-ground. The two can be very different if the boat is operating in moving water.