That's What's Up!

[djmekinac]

I forgot to measure the clearance on mine last w-e. I will get it next w-e and post a pict with the measure.

[JWAT]

You guys are keeping me interested in the 1235 for my 2010 210. Just wish someone would clear up the prop burn/clearance issues before I put $600.00 down.

I honestly don't think there is a whole lot more to clear up. Basically, some people experience prop burn with the 1235 and some do not. I am one who thought I didn't until I looked closer and found out that I am getting some prop burn now as well. If you buy the 1235, you might as well just be prepared to have the gel coat re-done every few years.

[djmekinac]

djmekinac..

Got a 1235 coming for my 210, what prop/hull clearance do you have so I can compare?

I've measured 3/8" of clearance.

[Nordicron]

You guys are keeping me interested in the 1235 for my 2010 210. Just wish someone would clear up the prop burn/clearance issues before I put $600.00 down.

Here is mine:

[thedude]

I just ordered the 1433 after speaking with the guys from Delta Prop. I had planned to go with the 1617, but I think it might be a little aggressive for my application. I will report back with some test data and RPM's once I get it installed.

[OKWAKEBDR]

I think the 1433 would be a terrific prop as long as your total weight load is under 3k lbs (ballast + people). I don't think it will run as well as the 1235, but it shouldn't cause prop burn either.

[OKWAKEBDR]

I have another 5-blade on its way to me to test out. Acme Part #2407 13.5 x 14.5 .060 cup 5-blade.

[OKWAKEBDR]

I have another 5-blade on its way to me to test out. Acme Part #2407 13.5 x 14.5 .060 cup 5-blade.

In case anyone is still tracking this thread (or interested), I tried out the 2407 5-blade this weekend. (I'm the new owner of the PN boat).

I did to get precise measurements like Jeff did because I took the prop off after about 1 hour - that is how bad it was. With no ballast, it was okay, although it maxed out at 38 mph. However, when I loaded up all the ballast (approx 3k lbs) it would not get on plane. I dropped about 1k lbs out of the back and was able to get it going, but it cavitated very bad when i slammed the throttle. I had to ease into it to keep it from doing it. It does run about 300 lower rpms at wakeboarding speed than the 1617. After a couple sets with my buddies, I put it back on the boat lift and put the 1617 back on. With it, I had no problem getting the boat up with all the ballast and 5 guys in the boat (no one sitting in the bow). The 1617 is only running about 3600 rpm with full ballast at 23 mph with the wake plate on 3. With the wake plate on 1, the rpms drop by about 150.

The 5 blades just do not seem to perform on nautique (so far anyway).

I'm really pleased with the 1617. I do not want to run the 14.5 inch diameter 1235, so I can't comment as to whether it performs any better. Even if the 1235 does run better, it's just not worth the prop burn risk to me when the 1617 does everything I ask it to do.

[Bevan]

1235 installed and ready to go for the weekend

[Nordicron]

1235 installed and ready to go for the weekend
[ATTACH=CONFIG]19749[/ATTACH]

You will like very much! But be ready to do something about the prop burn that is eventually gonna come your way....

[Bevan]

You will like very much! But be ready to do something about the prop burn that is eventually gonna come your way....

Love it...night and day compared to 1579!

Thinking i might try a peice of 3M clear on the hull above the prop? Will be interesting to see if it stays on or effects the shape of the wake?

[Bevan]

Love it! Night and day compared to the 1579

Gona try a piece of 3M clear on the hull above the prop - will be interesting to see if it stays on or affects the wake shape at all?

[Mikeski]

I would use aluminum tape you get from the HVAC supply (or local hardware). It is thin, sticks like crazy, and has the cooling benefits of aluminum even though it is thin.

[Bevan]

Thanks Mikeski, will give that a try.

[Clibka]

I've been running a 1235 for 2 weeks now, had one for 4 years on the previous boat with no prop burn.

0-23.5 mph stock ballast 6.45 sec max rpm reached 3950, 3150 on ZO at 23.5
30.5 mph (stock ballast) 3800 rpm
got 43 mph at WOT

Hey guys, sorry to drudge this back up, but I have been wanting to narrow down the replacement for my 1579. I Just want to clear this up and put a period on it if that's possible:

-DJ says that with stock ballast to 23.5 it took him 6.45 seconds on a 1235
-Jeff says that with stock ballast to 23 it took 6.2 seconds on a 1617 (if you adjust for the additional .5 mph that DJ went to, it would have taken Jeff 6.34 seconds to 23.5)

The conclusion from this data set can be that they are almost identical with the 1617 actually having a slight advantage pushing stock ballast and no prop burn?

I acknowledge that it is not fully conclusive since we don't have numbers for a 1235 sacked out but I would venture it is pretty close?

Currently the 1235 is $550, then you would have to add in potential cost of gel repair or burn prevention, time to deal with that issue, headache thinking about it, and chance of lost resale value (minimal I know, but still a potential cost). The 1617 is currently $475 without ANY of the previously discussed costs. I just can't imagine the 1235 is worth THAT much more? Someone please prove me wrong.

Happy EASTER!!!