Author Topic: need prop advise (Read 20708 times)

David CVX-16 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2016, 05:11:46 PM »

I''ll see if I can locate a 20" Raker

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2016, 05:51:46 PM »

I just found a used one on ebay for 170. It looks old but seems to be in good shape. A little polishing and it should work fine I hope.

David CVX-16 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2016, 08:27:40 PM »

Glad you found one. Just make sure it is 13 1/2 x 20, not 14 1/2 x 20.

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2016, 08:55:03 PM »

Quote from: David CVX-16 on March 07, 2016, 08:27:40 PM

Glad you found one. Just make sure it is 13 1/2 x 20, not 14 1/2 x 20.

Just checked....yup 13 1/2" thanks.

GCarlover · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2016, 01:49:04 PM »

If you are interested I have a Michigan SS 13x21 like new. PM me. There's a picture of my boat on my first posts with that prop on it.
http://forum.cgoamn.com/index.php?topic=3779.msg44922#msg44922

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #25 on:** March 08, 2016, 05:12:36 PM »

Quote from: GCarlover on March 08, 2016, 01:49:04 PM

If you are interested I have a Michigan SS 13x21 like new. PM me. There's a picture of my boat on my first posts with that prop on it.
I may. Let me check my finances (WIFE) first. Lol oh, BTW how much? You can email me at wcg555@gmail.com.
http://forum.cgoamn.com/index.php?topic=3779.msg44922#msg44922

GCarlover · « **Reply #26 on:** March 08, 2016, 07:39:18 PM »

Didn't find the raker you quoted on Ebay but there was a Suzuki 20" stainless for $225. I think they fit Johnson.
I'd like $200 for the Michigan.. It has 3 small vents to allow for more acceleration. I will pay for shipping. Where are you located?

David CVX-16 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2016, 12:47:59 PM »

Do not buy any prop but a Raker. They are the best.

GCarlover · « **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2016, 06:51:21 PM »

Message from another 140 owner from Scream and Fly: "I recall getting a consumer notice from Evinrude on my 1984 140 cross flow noting that gas had got so bad by the late 1980s that they suggested running premium gas in it- or retarding the maximum timing by something like 4 degrees which the dealer would do at no charge. I opted for premium."
I agree that anyone with a 1977 140hp Johnson should follow this advice. Also the 77-79s had a thin ring landing on the piston and were prone to burning out.

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2016, 08:05:26 AM »

Quote from: GCarlover on March 09, 2016, 06:51:21 PM

Message from another 140 owner from Scream and Fly: "I recall getting a consumer notice from Evinrude on my 1984 140 cross flow noting that gas had got so bad by the late 1980s that they suggested running premium gas in it- or retarding the maximum timing by something like 4 degrees which the dealer would do at no charge. I opted for premium."
I agree that anyone with a 1977 140hp Johnson should follow this advice. Also the 77-79s had a thin ring landing on the piston and were prone to burning out.

Hay thanks for the advise. I am confused though. What do you mean about the ring on the piston?

GCarlover · « **Reply #30 on:** March 10, 2016, 12:58:31 PM »

The space between the top ring and the top of the piston is too small on the 78-79 for sure giving it more compression and causing the piston to melt out at that point. Good compression on that motor is about 130 lbs. The 140 would have more than the 115.

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #31 on:** March 10, 2016, 01:42:30 PM »

Quote from: GCarlover on March 10, 2016, 12:58:31 PM

The space between the top ring and the top of the piston is too small on the 78-79 for sure giving it more compression and causing the piston to melt out at that point. Good compression on that motor is about 130 lbs. The 140 would have more than the 115.

OK ...we ran a compression test on it a few weeks ago and got between 127 and 130 on all 4.

V153 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 10, 2016, 04:32:07 PM »

Sounds purty tight. Run good oil and 93 octane and y'oughta be just fine.

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2016, 07:46:40 AM »

What is a good mixing rate? I like alot of oil. I had 16 to 1 the other day but it seemed to smoke quite a bit.

Hyperacme · « **Reply #34 on:** March 11, 2016, 11:38:56 AM »

Pre-mix at 50 to 1 or 16oz. oil to 6 gal. fuel.

I used Evinrude XD 30 pre-mixed in my Johnson ...
http://shop.evinrude.com/product/343544/764347/_/XD_30_2-Cycle_Oil

and ..

Mercury Premium Plus in my oil injected Mariner ...
https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/parts-and-accessories/mercury-marine-products/precision-lubricants/2-cycle-outboard-oil/

V153 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:54:02 PM »

Quote from: Wesley Ellet on March 11, 2016, 07:46:40 AM

What is a good mixing rate? I like alot of oil. I had 16 to 1 the other day but it seemed to smoke quite a bit.

50:1 is plenty, assuming the motor's already broken in. I'd use a synthetic blend. Used to run Quicksilver Premium Plus but lately been using Pennsoil XLF. Think it actually smokes a lil less at start-up, and it's about $10 bucks cheaper a gallon. Don't think the motor can tell the difference.

V153 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:56:41 PM »

For the record a Lightspeed runs very well on these boats. I have a 13 1/2 x 22 that's a good performer.

David CVX-16 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:37:00 PM »

I tested a Lightspeed 22 against a Raker 22 on the same day on my CVX and the Raker was faster. The Lightspeed has thick blades - great if you are fishing and hit objects, but not good for speed.

I am to the point now where if I ever switch to the 1988 Mercury 115 HP on the CVX, I will have the OMC Raker and OMC SRX rehubbed to fit a Mercury outboard.

These notes from June 13, 2013:

"First was the Mercury Lightspeed 22" pitch. Same as a Laser II, with a good reputation as a performance prop that holds the bow up. The take off was smooth and gripped better than the Rakers. Bow lifted. Gripped well around the corners. But the top speed was 52.8 MPH at 5,400 RPM, slowest prop tested for the day. Good prop, but perhaps the blades are too big.

Next the two Raker 22" pitch props, 53.3 and 54.2 MPH at around 5,300 to 5,400 RPM's. The Rakers are not quick out of the hole, and lose grip around the corners, but they are fast and hold the bow high. The motor hums with this prop. With a Raker 22" last fall in cold weather with quite a chop and back wind, the boat hit 55.0 MPH, so 54.2 MPH today in warmer weather and 9 gallons of gas in the back seat was respectable."

Wesley Ellet · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:39:40 PM »

Any idea what speed I can expect with the 20 raker?

David CVX-16 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:44:28 PM »

More notes from the same day on the 20 Raker:

"Then the two Raker 20" pitch props. Thought maybe the 20" pitch would give the boat more top RPM's and increase speed over the 22" Rakers, but the top speeds were slower at 53.0 and 53.5 MPH turning more RPM's, 5,500 to 5,700 RPM."

Your boat is about 100 pounds lighter than my boat, but I have the pad that the CVX boat runs on. I would say you should run about 53 to 54 MPH.