prop pitch johnson 150 1999

[steelespike]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

I wonder if the 13.25 is even intended for your motor a 14 is the smallest I found in a brief search at the prop store here.

 

[dan02gt]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

Have anything to back up that statement; other than you heard it on the internet? :faint2:

The guys at Evinrude might have some input on that.

Jester, I was expecting a comment like that from you. Give Mark Croxton at Mark's High Performance Propeller a call he fixes them for a living and can tell you all about the alloy used in them. Here's a link to a thread about them you can get his contact info from his signature

Raker 11 vs tempest

 

[jestor68]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

Jester, I was expecting a comment like that from you. Give Mark Croxton at Mark's High Performance Propeller a call he fixes them for a living and can tell you all about the alloy used in them. Here's a link to a thread about them you can get his contact info from his signature

Raker 11 vs tempest

I didn't notice anything in the thread you referenced that stated any hardness data; just an opinion that this prop is more "durable" than that prop. And he was comparing Mercury's X7 alloy props to the Raker. No mention of the RakerII compared to the original Raker.

The RakerII is a better performing prop than the original. The miniscule difference in hardness(if it exists) only means that prop is better at chewing up sand and gravel. The Fact(?) that Mercury's X7 alloy may be tougher than BRP's alloy really isn't that important, if you stay off the bottom. If it is, get a Mercury prop.

I guess it depends on what your performance goal is. I prefer the prop that performs best pushing water and stay off the bottom.

Since the OP is presently running a Raker(original) and it isn't performing at the usual motor height, it doesn't make much sense to recommend another original Raker.

The only prop I broke in 30 years was a Mercury X7 alloy prop. Go figure. I guess that rocks aren't impressed by that little difference in hardness.

 

[dan02gt]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

I didn't notice anything in the thread you referenced that stated any hardness data; just an opinion that this prop is more "durable" than that prop. And he was comparing Mercury's X7 alloy props to the Raker. No mention of the RakerII compared to the original Raker.

The RakerII is a better performing prop than the original. The miniscule difference in hardness(if it exists) only means that prop is better at chewing up sand and gravel. The Fact(?) that Mercury's X7 alloy may be tougher than BRP's alloy really isn't that important, if you stay off the bottom. If it is, get a Mercury prop.

I guess it depends on what your performance goal is. I prefer the prop that performs best pushing water and stay off the bottom.

Since the OP is presently running a Raker(original) and it isn't performing at the usual motor height, it doesn't make much sense to recommend another original Raker.

The only prop I broke in 30 years was a Mercury X7 alloy prop. Go figure. I guess that rocks aren't impressed by that little difference in hardness.

Jester,

The Tempest is not a X7 alloy prop. The Fury is Mercury's X7 alloy 3 blade bass boat prop but the lowest pitch for it is 24P. If it was my boat I would run a Tempest Plus. I was merely recommending the Raker as another option.

 

[jestor68]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

Jester,

The Tempest is not a X7 alloy prop. The Fury is Mercury's X7 alloy 3 blade bass boat prop but the lowest pitch for it is 24P. If it was my boat I would run a Tempest Plus. I was merely recommending the Raker as another option.

Just because "X7 alloy" is mentioned in the description of the Fury prop(on their web site) does not mean that is the only Mercury SS prop made from the material.

The Enertia was the first prop to use the X7 alloy. Since then, it is used on select models of "high performance" props.

 

[dan02gt]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

Just because "X7 alloy" is mentioned in the description of the Fury prop(on their web site) does not mean that is the only Mercury SS prop made from the material.

The Enertia was the first prop to use the X7 alloy. Since then, it is used on select models of "high performance" props.

Jester, Did you read what I wrote? I said the Fury is their 3 blade X7 prop designed for bass boats. The Enertia is not a bass boat prop. I said nothing about it being the only X7 alloy prop.


I have a Enertia and a Laser II for a spare. I have also had and ran the Tempest, Mirage, Vengeance, and a Trophy. I'm well aware of what Mercury props are made of X7.

I think we've gave the OP some good suggestions for props and I'm really not interested in a pissing match about prop alloys. So I'm going to leave it at that, and move on from this thread.

 

[phoenixgold2100]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

I have to run the engine all the way down on the JP for this first gen raker to get any bow lift.

With the raker II would the engine be higher on the plate? Some guys say the stratos hull likes the prop deep from what I've read. Or is it this prop that likes to be deeper.

Also raker II 22 pitch rather than the 24 for more top end?

I'm not concerned about hardness of the prop if it's stainless and I'm not ramming it into the bottom it should be fine. Thanks again guys.

 

[jestor68]

Re: prop pitch johnson 150 1999

A couple of guys I talked to that run Johnsons say to step down in pitch when switching from the original Raker to the Raker II, due to the more aggressive design.

Therefore, it looks like the next size would be the 14.5 X 22 pitch. You should be able run the motor higher with the Raker II; experimenting to find the sweet spot.