Enertia test results

[muchco]

I was able to get a hold of a 21P Enertia and run some test of my own. I have a DC175 Larson with a Evinrude 150XP. I have a manual Jack plate with 4" of set back and ran the following tests with the prop shaft 4 1/2" below the pad. The results were as follows:

21P Enertia 5700 RPM 54.8 MPH (gps) 18 PSI water pressure. 14.2% slip. I tested with the PVS holes closed, small, medium and large hole plugs. I also tested with the plugs completly removed. In my application the plugs with the large holes gave me the best hole shot.

20P X 14 1/2" BRP Raker 5700 RPM 54.6 MPH (gps) 18 PSI water pressure. 10.4% slip Good hole shot.

22P X 13 3/4" 4 Blade Predator (over hub venting) 5600 RPM 56.2 MPH (gps) 17 PSI water pressure. 14.3 % slip. Good hole shot.

I was surprised with all the hype the Enertia is getting that in my test, it did not have much of an edge on my 20 pitch Raker and was edged out by my Predator. I'm waiting for my dealer to get a 22P Enertia and plan to do a like test. The results may be interesting. 8)8)8)

Has anyone else got any test info or comparison date testing an Enertia prop.

Regards, Muchco

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Enertia test results

I just got back from trying out a 20" Enertia. I usually run a 20" Raker on a Glastron 195 with a 5.7 Volvo SX. I found the Enertia to be identical up to 2600 rpm after which it was 1 to 2 mph faster at any given rpm, than the Raker. WOT was slightly lower but top speed was higher. Holeshot was comparible even with the vents plugged. I found the Enertia could be trimmed out a tad more before it would loose its bite. Entire boat seemed to ride higher, and handled very nicely.

 

[Crownie2]

Re: Enertia test results

Thanks for sharing, guys!

Bob

 

[walleyehed]

Re: Enertia test results

In my testing of the Enertia (one fact you've left out) is how high they will run efficiently.
The Enertia will run much higher than expected compared to a Raker, and my gains were very substantial.
As most of you know, each hull will react differently with any given prop.
And muchco, if I may be blunt, and no insult intended, but those slip numbers "suck" for a pad-bottom boat, which indicates to me that the set-up is far from optimum.
To see even the full potential of the Raker, a low-water pick-up must be used even for the Raker, so I assume you have that to be able to maximize the 4-bld..

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Enertia test results

I wish there was a way I could easilly raise the drive on an I/O:'(. That said I was still impressed overall how the Enertia ran being fully submerged.
It weighs quite a bit less than the Raker too.

 

[Crownie2]

Re: Enertia test results

I was going to say, install a Stern-Jack, but I see you have the gray I/O...

Bob

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Enertia test results

Stern-Jack isn't an inexpensive option, but it does improve the arc the prop travels while trimming. That was one thing the old OMC stringers were better for.

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Walleyhead, I apolagize for using the wrong termenology regarding the engine height and using the word "PAD". I described my boat as a DC175 Larson. This is not a Bass boat and it does not have a pad. It's a recreational fish and ski style of boat with a deep v. My motor does not have a low water pick up. My engine is set up so that the center of the prop shaft is 4 1/2" below the lowest point on the hull (NOT THE PAD). In you opinion what should the slip results be if the ones I have "suck" as you say. I have run the motor higher with the Raker and the Predator and the props start to slip at the upper end of the trim range and the rooster tail gets well above the cowling (water pressure starts to decrease). The bow actually falls down and the speed decreases.
Please do not take my response the wrong way, I respect your opinion as well as others on this form. Does the fact that I used the wrong term to describe the bottom of the boat to prop shaft height change what the expected slip should be? In your opinion does my set up still suck?
I'm not trying to be a smart ??? but I thought that I had a decent setup considering my boat weighs approx. 2600 lbs and was designed for recreational use.
I get the feeling that you think I was slamming the Enertia prop. That was not my intention I was just doing a straight across comparison without changing any variable other than the prop itself. Mercury's information doesn not state anything about setup change. There information stated when compared to a SS prop of the same pitch they gained 2 mph and 23% better 0 - 30 times. In my experince that did not happen even when tested against a prop with 1" less pitch. I have to admit that the 0 -30 times with the Enertia were at least equal to or better than the Raker or the Predator.
I look forward to your response.
Regards, Muchco

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Walleyhead, I apolagize for using the wrong termenology regarding the engine height and using the word "PAD". I described my boat as a DC175 Larson. This is not a Bass boat and it does not have a pad. It's a recreational fish and ski style of boat with a deep v. My motor does not have a low water pick up. My engine is set up so that the center of the prop shaft is 4 1/2" below the lowest point on the hull (NOT THE PAD). In you opinion what should the slip results be if the ones I have "suck" as you say. I have run the motor higher with the Raker and the Predator and the props start to slip at the upper end of the trim range and the rooster tail gets well above the cowling (water pressure starts to decrease). The bow actually falls down and the speed decreases.
Please do not take my response the wrong way, I respect your opinion as well as others on this form. Does the fact that I used the wrong term to describe the bottom of the boat to prop shaft height change what the expected slip should be? In your opinion does my set up still suck?
I'm not trying to be a smart ??? but I thought that I had a decent setup considering my boat weighs approx. 2600 lbs and was designed for recreational use.
I get the feeling that you think I was slamming the Enertia prop. That was not my intention I was just doing a straight across comparison without changing any variable other than the prop itself. Mercury's information doesn not state anything about setup change. There information stated when compared to a SS prop of the same pitch they gained 2 mph and 23% better 0 - 30 times. In my experince that did not happen even when tested against a prop with 1" less pitch. I have to admit that the 0 -30 times with the Enertia were at least equal to or better than the Raker or the Predator.
I look forward to your response.
Regards, Muchco

PS For clarafication, please find attached a picture of my boat and motor used in my test.

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Sorry about that the previous picture files size was too large. Here is some pictures of boat used on the test.

 

[walleyehed]

Re: Enertia test results

Not sure how this came out this way, but oh, well.........guess you can still read it.

"with a Evinrude 150XP. I have a manual Jack plate with 4" of set back and ran the following tests with the prop shaft 4 1/2" below the pad. The results were as follows:"


This is where I made an assumption that was incorrect...
When we measure prop heigth on a pad-bottom boat, we refer to the prop shaft center as a certain measurement below the pad.
When we deal with a deep-V or any other boat, we refer to the AV plate in relation to boat bottom.
For some reason, I can't get your pics to open for me..
I did not take in any way that you were slamming the prop in question, and I meant nothing personal, and I hope the feelings are the same from you.
When you said you were running 4-1/2" below the Pad, I had no other way to take that.
10% on the Raker is not bad, but my results on a deep-V with the holes plugged on the Enertia, was about 1-1/2% lower slip than the 20P Raker, and substantually faster. Now, let's take into account, the Rakers we are running "may" not be new...may have a bit of wear, and may not quite hold as well...My 20P Raker has about 75 hours on it since Rich Boger worked it for me...thinner blades, basically labbed the prop, and I can't get it to run as high as the Enertia....then again, we have 2 different boats with different loads.
Your slip numbers are OK for the Raker, but not as good as I would expect from the Enertia or the predator
I'm running nearly an Identical engine to yours, and my water pressure at 5900 is 22-22.5lbs.
This is killing me that I have agreed not to post my Data until all Enertias are run, as well as 7 others I have yet to run. And yes, the truth is that another boat of different design will get different results.
No hard feelings, I hope...that's not what I intended.
I want to also run a new 21P TXP, but with the TXP I have now, I can't keep my hat on as it is.....

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: Enertia test results

:}

 

[Crownie2]

Re: Enertia test results

Also, Mucho, FYI the other prop compared to the Enertia in the results stated is the Mirage Plus.

So you can see this is not really meant to to be an all-out speed prop. Just a good all-around prop for many applications!

Bob

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Walleyehead, no hard feeling on my end either. I appreciate your input and responses. Sorry I could not get the pictures to work. The first time my files were to big, and I'm not sure what happened the second time.
Anyways regarding the water pressure, I have just installed a new water pump this spring. when I run a 19 pitch prop I can get my enging to run 5800 - 5900 then the rev limiter cuts in. At this RPM I get 19 lbs pressure. I read alot on these forms and here people talking about hi pressure pumps. When I ask at dealers they say that there is only one BRP replacement pump for my engine. To your knowledge is this correct. Does a 25" shaft motor have a different water pump, with higher pressure for the longer shaft? My local marine mechanic says not to worry about wether the pressure is 18 or 22 but what it was with a new pump installed and use that pressure as a bench mark. Is he inncorrect.
I will have to pick up the Enertia prop again from the prop shop and try a few more runs and experment with the engine height. To clarify my engine height the AV plate would be approx. 3 1/2" aboce the lowest part of the V.
Once agian I harber no hard feelings and I appreciate the input. Thats what these forms are all about.

Regard Muchco

PS if anyone can tell me how to post picctures I would like to try it agin to give you a better picture of my set up.

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Walleyehead,

I forgot to mention, I am really looking forward to your test results, I will be watching. Whats the part number of the TXP you are running? Is it a lightning? # or 4 blades?
Thanks again for your time.

Muchco

 

[rickdb1boat]

Re: Enertia test results

Muchco

In order to post pics, you must have them hosted at a site such as photobucket.com. It's free. Once you have them hosted, copy the URL of the picture and when you reply, click on the little yellow box above the reply text area and paste it in there. Hope this helps...

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Thanks for the tip on posting pictures, I will give this a try.
Regards Muchco

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

OK here we go I wil try and post the pictures of my boat and it's setup again:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0725.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0724.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0723.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0722.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0721.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0720.jpg
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l64/Muchco/Img_0558.jpg
I hope this worked. Muchco

 

[muchco]

Re: Enertia test results

Rick, thanks again for the tip on picture posting. It appears that it works.
Bob, I agree with your statement that the Enertia would make a great all around prop. If I was a 1 prop guy the 21 Enertia would be the ticket. I'm going to experment with the transom height and see if I can squeeze any more out of my recreational setup using the 21 Enertia.
Regards, Muchco

 

[walleyehed]

Re: Enertia test results

Muchco...no rev limiter on that beast other than reed-float above 6400-6500RPM.
Where is the low-water pick-up located on that unit?
I'm not seeing it in the pics...