PDA

View Full Version : New X2 Prop FYI


sseager
05-27-2014, 07:46 AM
Had a chance to get out with our new OJ prop this weekend. I was skeptical to make the change fearing that I would loose too much top end. I knew that we would never run much at top speed because we normally cruise at around 30-35 mph.

With our original prop which was a 14.25 x 14.5 we were able to achieve 42 mph top speed. With the replacement prop which is an OJ 14.25 x 14 we saw a top speed of 40 mph. The hole shot was noticeably improved. Both times out our weight was within 150 pounds, however neither time were we running full ballast.

chopp
05-27-2014, 07:48 AM
How is fuel economy with these props and full ballast. Do you run fly high ballast as well.

sseager
05-27-2014, 07:52 AM
I don't have the fly high but it's on the wish list. The boat is new to us so I only made it out once before swapping the props. The original prop had a ding from the previous owner and I wanted a spare. The fuel economy seemed pretty close. So I couldn't say either way.

bcd
05-27-2014, 08:12 AM
I switched to the ACME 2241 and didn't lose any top end. My fuel economy really improved (don't remember the numbers), and getting out of the hole with full fly high ballast really improved.

Miss Rita
05-27-2014, 10:01 AM
How is fuel economy with these props and full ballast.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? With all due respect, can you even talk about fuel "economy" when you're running a 4000 lb boat with 1000 lb ballast at sub-planing speed?

I don't think that switching from a 14.5" pitch prop to 14" would make any noticeable difference in fuel consumption.

As they say, if you have to ask about fuel consumption/cost, you can't afford it.

All bashing aside, what is the mpg of a heavily laden wakeboat? I know that a family IO might get about 5 mpg at cruising speed.

curver900
05-27-2014, 11:13 AM
BWAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? With all due respect, can you even talk about fuel "economy" when you're running a 4000 lb boat with 1000 lb ballast at sub-planing speed?

I don't think that switching from a 14.5" pitch prop to 14" would make any noticeable difference in fuel consumption.

As they say, if you have to ask about fuel consumption/cost, you can't afford it.

All bashing aside, what is the mpg of a heavily laden wakeboat? I know that a family IO might get about 5 mpg at cruising speed.

We spend $20K - $100K plus on a boat, $10k-$50k or so on a tow vehicle, $200 round trip gas for tow vehicle, $300 for boat gas, $450 for a new prop and then we wonder if we get better fuel mileage?

Mine doesn't have a odometer on it :confused:

chopp
05-27-2014, 05:43 PM
Yeah I probably worded that a bit wrong. I don't exactly mean fuel "economy" so to speak, but just how much fuel it is using , whether it is economical or not. I have a 2011 x2 with full fly high ballast and 14.75 x 15.5 prop and just wanted to compare. I need a better prop for holeshot and just want to see what the difference was in fuel use. I'm thinking of going to 14.5 x 14.25.

Miss Rita
05-28-2014, 03:00 PM
A few years ago Trailer Boats Magazine ran a fuel consumption comparison. They took three identical hulls with different power. One had a V6 IO, the next one a small block V* IO, and the third was a big block.
Of course, the big block had the best performance. Surprisingly, fuel consumption at "normal speeds", i.e. 25-35 mph, was nearly identical regardless of engine size.
The point? It takes a given amount of fuel to move a given load. Different props may give different performance characteristics, but fuel consumption isn't going to change much.
Incremental changes in prop size won't affect fuel consumption a bit.
Four and five blade props will be slower then 3 blade props, but "may" accelerate better and carry a heavy load better.

YMMV.

PS: Last year I upgraded from my old 13 x 13 cast prop, bought a new Acme 543 CNC 13 x 11.5. It accelerates HARD, is a couple of MPH faster than the old one. I really like it. I haven't checked fuel consumption.

bcd
05-29-2014, 07:58 AM
A few years ago Trailer Boats Magazine ran a fuel consumption comparison. They took three identical hulls with different power. One had a V6 IO, the next one a small block V* IO, and the third was a big block.
Of course, the big block had the best performance. Surprisingly, fuel consumption at "normal speeds", i.e. 25-35 mph, was nearly identical regardless of engine size.
The point? It takes a given amount of fuel to move a given load. Different props may give different performance characteristics, but fuel consumption isn't going to change much.
Incremental changes in prop size won't affect fuel consumption a bit.
Four and five blade props will be slower then 3 blade props, but "may" accelerate better and carry a heavy load better.

YMMV.

PS: Last year I upgraded from my old 13 x 13 cast prop, bought a new Acme 543 CNC 13 x 11.5. It accelerates HARD, is a couple of MPH faster than the old one. I really like it. I haven't checked fuel consumption.

If that holds true, take your car down the interstate at 70 mph for one hour, measure fuel burn, then drive back that 70 mph without overdrive and remeasure your fuel burn. For the same reason, vehicle manufacturers are adding more and more gears into their automatic transmissions to maximize fuel economy.