Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
snoozebutton

Do I have the right prop on my boat?

7 posts in this topic

What I have on came from the manufacturer. It's a 90 hp 4 stroke Johnson and on the prop it has 3X14X17. I'm guessing this mean 3 blade, 14 inch diameter, 17 pitch. It's seems good out of the hole, a little disappointed in the top end (38 mph with just me), and I'm getting some porpoising. I'm running 5,800 RPM's WOT and the manufacturer recommends 5,500 RPMs at WOT.

Would I get more porpoising with a 19 pitch? I think a 19 would give me a better top end at lower RPMs wouldn't it?

Appreciate any advice!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 19 would get you more top end and lower rpms ---- also less hole shot.

I don't know about the porpoising - I wouldn't think you'd get more. Redistributing the weight in the boat might help. Also a stainless prop might take care of the porpoising by giving you more stern lift, it's one of those things where you'd have to try some props to see what works best. It's always a trade-off, every time you gain something in one area you're going to be giving up something else in a different area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would try a 19 pitch 4-blade stainless renegade prop. That should keep your holeshot up to par, and also give you better top end whle eliminating most of your porpoising problems. For each pitch you to up, typically you drop about 200rmps. I would guess it should also bring down your rpms close to 5400. The only other solution to your porposing problem (besides prop) is to change the engine height or go with an ugly whale tail. You will also like a stainless 4-blade much better if you have any blow-out problems on tight turns, or if you like to pull any skiiers or tubes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14" diameter sounds a little large to me. I'm running a13 1/4" x 20 stainless prop on a 130 Yamaha. If your running an aluminum prop I would recommend going with a stainless 17P 3-blade prop. The stainless prop is more aggresive than the aluminum prop due to the cupping and rake and should lower your rpm some while at the same time maintaining good holeshot and top speed. A 19P 4 blade stainless prop will be too much prop IMO. 4 blade props of the same pitch tend to reduce rpm a couple hundred rpm over an identical 3 blade. My $.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you expect out of a 90 horse power that sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 75hp mariner and use a 13/19 and a 13/21t the 19 gets me going on plane faster than the 21t. but the 21t gets me a few more miles and hour both gat me to the buzzer @ 5500 rpms these props are not stainless. 1 have a 17ft lund Mr. Pike.I have got it to 41 by myself with the 21t and getter to go 38 with the 19. my buddy tried stainless on his 75 and only gained two miles and hour with the same pitch, he also tried a 13/17 and that thing freakin rocked just no top end it jumped out the hole really good tho.

Depends on how far you travel on water I only use the 21t up north and millac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies. I'm going to head to the dealer this week and talk it over with them but now I have some info so I won't sound like a total one-who-thinks-I-am-silly. grin

what do you expect out of a 90 horse power that sounds good to me.

I said a "little" disappointed. Just thought that with a 16' Alumacraft I'd be getting a little over 40 with that motor which I still think is possible with the right prop but first I have to deal with the porpoising issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors