Has anyone ever ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED prop burn from a 1235 on a 210?

[OKWAKEBDR]

I'm referring to an '07 and newer 210...

I know Acme says it will happen, but I'm just curious to know if anyone has ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED it?

I wanted to try the 5-blade 2133, but I'm getting very mixed reviews on it. I've also had someone recommend a 14.0 x 12.75 4-blade, but that just seems a little overkill.

I'll be in the 2-3k range of total ballast with the goal of the prop to get it on plane and run at wakeboarding speed as efficiently as possible. It is only about a 10 minute boat ride to my riding spot, so I don't care about top-end, but I don't want to run 4k rpm at 23 mph either.

Considering the following props:

1235 14.5 x 14.25
1615 14.5 x 13.75

or, if I can't do a 14.5

1847 14.0 x 14.25
1617 14.0 x 13.75

From everything I've seen, it appears that a larger diameter is better, so I'd rather go with the 14.5, but I will likely have the boat for 5+ years.

[HS]

Can't comment on gel burn (never had it), but had a comment on the props:

I like your idea of trying the 1847 (for one example) because, according to Bill Weeks at ACME, with the added cup of .150 (vs. .105) you will get the hole shot advantage of the diameter and pitch and then the cup "takes over" once you've gotten to cruising speed (maybe worth 100 - 200 less rpm, or something). Check to see what your current clearance is with the prop that is already on your boat (Bill says there could be a slight variation from boat to boat).

I forget what his magic number was on prop clearance, something grater than .75" is what I recall.

If I were to change from my current 1579, I would go to either with the 14 x 14.25 in the 1433 (.105) /1847 (.150) or the 14.5 x 14.25 in the 1235 (.105 cup) /1273 (.150 cup) but I haven't done anything yet.

I saw some pictures posted recently showing the prop clearacne of two props (forget which PN member it was) he showed .875" clearance with the 1579 and .4375" clearance with the 1235.

[robertsmcfarland]

we ran the 1235 with similar ballast load if not more with no burn ever, brought down the rpm to 3000 @ 23mph.

[OKWAKEBDR]

we ran the 1235 with similar ballast load if not more with no burn ever, brought down the rpm to 3000 @ 23mph.

3k rpm at 23 is TERRIFIC!

How did the 1235 do moving that much weight out of the hole? How did it compare to the 1579 with stock ballast? That's all I'm really trying to get to - I want a prop that will move 2k - 3k of ballast (+ people) similar to the way the 1579 moves the boat with stock ballast (+ people).

[NautiqueJeff]

Great thread! Useful information here! Keep it coming!

[JWAT]

Ive ran the 1235 on my 08 210 with ~2500 lbs of ballast for three summers with no issues.

[robertsmcfarland]

not sure about the original prop and just factory ballast just do not remember, but orig prop and new 1235 with 2500 pounds on top internal ballast night and day.

[Chad52]

I was the one that posted the clearance pictures. I've been running a 1235 all year this year with no issues whatsoever. Well worth the swap over a 1579.

Chad

[TRBenj]

Prop burn doesnt happen instantly. It is very real, however.

Our BFN had a touch under 1/2" of clearance with the original prop:



The rudder and rudder port also took a huge beating.

[Miljack]

Tim,
wouldn't the fact that you're "typically" running a BFN at the top of it's Rpm range affect the gel burn issue? Also, don't the older boats have 1:1 transmission ratios? This would affect the speed at the tip of the prop, **which I would GUESS** would affect the gel burn issue.

My $0.02.

BTW, our 230 ZR6 ('08) runs the 1235, pulls great, even with the fly hi add on for wakeboarding. It does take a lot longer to get on plane with the extra ballast, but not a problem. The 230 looks like it has room for a bigger prop because of the "pocket" CC molds in the bottom of the hull.

[TRBenj]

The prop speed is higher on a 1:1, yes- so I could see the potential effects of that difference.

No idea about how the boat was used prior to us buying it though- the previous owner was certainly no barefooter! Not even sure if he skied- I sort of doubt it. I have no reason to believe that if we could pull the hrs vs. rpm range (as you can on new PCM's) that it would be atypical of other ski boats. IE, most time is spent below 2k RPM, by a very large margin.

I would still be very wary of running minimal (less than 3/4") clearance on any boat for an extended period of time.

[Sac Surfer]

I'm interested in the 5 blade acme as well, anyone running this on a 210?

[gride]

there's an acme 5 blade? i thought just OJ had that? there's a simple answer to all of this. talk to acme. they know what props fit your hull properly.

[Sac Surfer]

Gride,

http://www.deltaprop.com/boat-props/...red-shafts.asp

[OKWAKEBDR]

Acme has mixed reports on the 5-blade also. Basically, what I have heard is that you will get lower rpms at wakeboarding speed, but it does not necessarily pull out of the hole any faster than the 4-blade. What I'm not sure about is if they are comparing a similar diameter and pitch 4-blade to a similar diameter and pitch 5-blade. It just seems to me that a 5-blade 14x13.5 is going to get out of the hole faster than a 4-blade 13.5x14.25 or even a 4-blade 14.0 x 14.25. I just have not found anyone that really knows the answer to that question.

If the Acme 2133 14x13.5 5-blade will get 3k lbs of ballast (+people) out of the water more efficiently than the 1579 13.5x14.25 that is on the boat now AND run lower rpms at speed, it just seems like the best of both worlds to me, and I would buy the prop in a heart-beat. I need someone to let me buy it, but swap it out for a 4-blade if it doesn't do what i want it to do.