That's What's Up!

[Bevan]

BEVAN - for what its worth, I went from the 1579 to the 1235 on my 2008 SANTE 210....feels like I went from the Griswold's Family Truckster to a 911 Turbo. I called the guys at ACME before I made the switch to ask them what the current best prop was for my boat (this was about 4 months ago - do not believe the 5 blade was avail then) and he said 1235 all the way. He said I would get a much better hole shot (yep, with Full Fly High, the boat leaps out of the hole pretty well), more top end speed (yep, I went from 37.7 mph to ~42 mph on the Zero Off), and better fuel economy (I haven't really noticed much of a difference here).

Andrew - thanks for that, sounds like the 1235 is the way to go and will be checking it out for sure

[RogueOne]

So the OJ posted above is a 13.5" and we need to get RougeONE a 1579 so he can compare the 2 for us. Thinking this 5blade might be the ticket for surfing

I'll second that motion....oh wait can I second a motion for something in my favor? . But seriously if you need a comparison done I go out at least once a week and can compare them side by side if someone can let me "borrow" one.......NautiqueJeff.........

[Sac Surfer]

If the 1235 won't work I wonder about the Acme 1433, seems to be no mention of it in this thread.

Diameter: 14"
Pitch: 14.25"
Cup: .105

[OKWAKEBDR]

If the 1235 won't work I wonder about the Acme 1433, seems to be no mention of it in this thread.

Diameter: 14"
Pitch: 14.25"
Cup: .105

Yes, the 1433 should work with no problem. The performance won't be as good as the 1235 because of the slightly smaller diameter. It should be better than the 1579 though.

Jeff has 3 props to tests:
1579 stock prop (13.5 x 14.25 4 blade)
2133 (14.0 x 13.5 5 blade)
1617 (14.0 x 13.75 4 blade) - my hope is this prop will perform similarly to the 1235 (ie will get heavily weighted 210s out of the hole efficiently); it will probably sacrifice a little bit of top end speed and will probably run slightly higher rpms (as compared to the 1235), but won't have a problem with prop burn.

[Mikeski]

This prop must have made it on the PN boat by now?

[NautiqueJeff]

I have tested the 1579, 1617 and 2133 props from ACME on the 2012 Super Air Nautique 210 Team Edition with the Excalibur 343 engine. All work well with no ballast and stock ballast. I found that the 1617 significantly improved holeshot with all levels of ballast, without losing significant top-end speed. In my tests, it was easily the best performing propeller.

I really wanted the 2133 five-blade to work well, but it just did not perform as well as the 1617. The 2133 is slightly better than stock, but I found it NOT to be worth the significant cost of the propeller. Also, the 2133 significantly reduces top-end speed. I ran the 2133 for three days, pulling wakeboarders, water skiers, and surfers. The 2133 was super-smooth, and the surf wake was about the same as the 1579. As you increase above 3,800 RPM, the 2133 is quite noisy.

I only ran the 1617 for one day, but will be switching back to that prop now. The wake was the same shape as stock, and the prop was not louder than the 1579.

[Mikeski]

Nice write-up Jeff. That's a nice table of data, what about RPM at 23mph and at WOT? From your data the 1617 is clearly your best choice of these three.

[bsb4fsu]

Great test Jeff. Does anyone have test numbers on the 1235?

[Bevan]

Great test Jeff. Does anyone have test numbers on the 1235?

^^^Yes, would be interested to see these as well...^^^

[OKWAKEBDR]

It seems to me like the diameter makes a BIG difference. (Which confirms what everyone has been saying.) The 1617 is 1/2" larger and 1/2" less pitch, so it's not quite an apples to apples diameter comparison to the 1579. I'm not sure how the 1235 would compare to the 1617 since the 1235 is 1/2" larger and 1/2" more pitch. I bet the 1615 is a real stump puller. There are so many people out there running the 1235 on their 210, perhaps we can get one of them to give us numbers. As far as i know, no one has ever tested the 1617 and 2133 before Jeff did.

I just know there are quite a few people (myself included) that are hesitant to run the 14.5" diameter prop on the 210, so unless the 1235 is significantly better than the 1617, it appears that the 1617 is going to be the best ("safe") prop.

[bsb4fsu]

I have a 1235 that I pulled off one of my previous boats. I will try to swap it out and get some numbers on it in the next few weeks.

[djmekinac]

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

[OKWAKEBDR]

Nice write-up Jeff. That's a nice table of data, what about RPM at 23mph and at WOT? From your data the 1617 is clearly your best choice of these three.

Just heard from Jeff. The 1617 was 3250 rpm with stock ballast and a little over 3400 rpm with stock ballast + 2100 lb fly high system.

That's slightly higher (about 100rpm) than the 1235, but still pretty good. I'd sacrifice that to avoid the risk of hull burn anyday - especially considering the excellent "out of the hole" times above. I just can't imagine the 1235 doing significantly better than that - hopefully someone will chime in with "time to 23 mph" results on the 1235.

[Bevan]

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

djmekinac..

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

[Sac Surfer]

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.