2320 DVSL Test from Parker - F225 Yamaha
- Thread starter EDGEWATER
- Start date
Help Support Classic Parker Boat Forum:
samsims
Well-known member
Seems a little optimistic on the top speed and low on the mpg. I was on an 07 2320 w/ 225, it would do about 40 mph, same prop, 3 people and full tank. Mileage was around 3 at 4k rpm. Maybe some guys with this combo will share their numbers. Also, post this in the prop/hull database.
Stacy
Stacy
Peregrine
Well-known member
Now add a few hundred pounds of gear, safety equipment, another person or two, a 40 gallon bait tank full of water, stick some stuff up in the air like a tower, antenna's, outriggers, radar, and what do we have.......a 37 kt top end.
BTW, how often does anyone actually run close to WOT? I run 44-4800 as a cruise at 20-26 kts depending on sea state. May see 5,000-5200 on a super nice day for short periods of time. Total time a WOT in ~850 hours is probably under 15 minutes. Just curious.
Jeff
BTW, how often does anyone actually run close to WOT? I run 44-4800 as a cruise at 20-26 kts depending on sea state. May see 5,000-5200 on a super nice day for short periods of time. Total time a WOT in ~850 hours is probably under 15 minutes. Just curious.
Jeff
grouperjim
Well-known member
added this link to the prop database.
i had the f225 and 15x17 on the 23 DVCC and the numbers seem to be about right. if you try to run a 15.25x19 the f225 doesn't have the midrange torque to swing it without lugging the motor a bit. will swing the 19 fine in the higher rpms and MPG will improve, but not so good below 4200 rpm.
didn't try it.....but an 18p Enertia would probably be the ticket for the f225.
i had the f225 and 15x17 on the 23 DVCC and the numbers seem to be about right. if you try to run a 15.25x19 the f225 doesn't have the midrange torque to swing it without lugging the motor a bit. will swing the 19 fine in the higher rpms and MPG will improve, but not so good below 4200 rpm.
didn't try it.....but an 18p Enertia would probably be the ticket for the f225.
samsims
Well-known member
Peregrine- What kind of mpg do you see with that load at cruise, what prop are you running?
Peregrine
Well-known member
The prop is a 15x17 as in the test data.
At the stated cruise, I get around 2.0 nmpg, again depending on sea state. It can get down to 1.6-1.7 if it's snotty and I'm running at the low end. If I run up in the 5K range it get down into that area again.
Jeff
At the stated cruise, I get around 2.0 nmpg, again depending on sea state. It can get down to 1.6-1.7 if it's snotty and I'm running at the low end. If I run up in the 5K range it get down into that area again.
Jeff
samsims
Well-known member
Nice to get some data from a west coast 2320. Those are the exact numbers I get in ocean conditions with a F250 fully loaded fuel, ice, 3-4 crew, etc. Running a mirage 18 prop. The 18 hates low speeds sub 3600 rpm it doesn't stay hooked up. Midrange its great, I see 3.2 mpg in flat water, light load conditions.
I'm trying to improve the 2 mpg, I have a 17 rev4 now in testing but wont know the numbers on it (in the ocean) until spring). Probably will raise the motor a hole before then as well.
I was considering trying a 15x17 but it sounds like its the same as what I have. My boat came with a 14x19 from the factory, horrible ocean prop for this boat, to much slip, esp at low speeds.
You are correct max speed is not used much but it does help in determining how good a prop match you have. The only time I hit full throttle is testing the prop.
Stacy
I'm trying to improve the 2 mpg, I have a 17 rev4 now in testing but wont know the numbers on it (in the ocean) until spring). Probably will raise the motor a hole before then as well.
I was considering trying a 15x17 but it sounds like its the same as what I have. My boat came with a 14x19 from the factory, horrible ocean prop for this boat, to much slip, esp at low speeds.
You are correct max speed is not used much but it does help in determining how good a prop match you have. The only time I hit full throttle is testing the prop.
Stacy
grouperjim
Well-known member
samsims":2406ofq4 said:
yeah, that 14x19 is a real dog. I'm sure Parker puts it on there because it will hit 6k rpm, however it doesn't have enough blade surface to effectively push a boat as heavy as the 2320.
samsims
Well-known member
grouperjim- Didn't you raise the motor on your 2320 at some point then put it back down? What prop were you running?
grouperjim
Well-known member
samsims":2tuqpo4h said:
My buddy (07 2320) and I have been up and back down a few times. Props were rev 4 17, rev 4 19, 3 blade 17,18, 19.
In the sea conditions (Gulf of Mexico) I operate in, with the engine raised, props tended to ventilate badly in a short interval following sea. We are both all the way down.
My boat (06 f250) came with the 15x17, his (07 f250) with the 14x19. He described it pretty much the same as your experience. The 15x17 is not bad but the f250 can get better fuel economy with a bigger prop and still get 5900 rpm.
For the long range boating I do, the rev 4 17 is my second choice behind the 15 3/8 Mirage 18. The Rev 4 is a fun and responsive prop.....you'll like it. The bite is INCREDIBLE. The only reason I don't run it is because at cruise speeds it doesn't yield the fuel economy of the Mirage. The reason is because the Rev 4 uses a wide thrust cone which is why it provides such phenomenal stern lift. By sacrificing that thrust for lift, that thrust is lost at cruise which results less mpg. If I lived on the east coast of FL where long distances are not required to get to the fish......the rev 4 would be on my boat.
B-Faithful
Well-known member
On my last boat I found the rev 4 to give great economy when the seas were flat but horrible economy when the seas kicked up. It also would lose bite while "bogging" (though it almost never lost bite at full plane). It was an awesome prop around the docks! I ended up with an Enertia.
note that the boat was not a parker. it was a 25 Maycraft with forward weight though.
note that the boat was not a parker. it was a 25 Maycraft with forward weight though.
EDGEWATER
Well-known member
My boat is identical to the boat in the test report, including a 15x17 black prop. Only exception is the year (mine is a 2006, not a 2004).
I need to compare their performance data to my actual.
Only had the boat out a few times. It seems that I can hit 6100 rpm pretty easily. I though that a little more agressive prop might be in order here.
Parker told me to hold off until it's bottom painted.
This forum needs to start a "prop try-out program". Sux to have to spend hundreds of $$ to buy something that might be a flop.
I need to compare their performance data to my actual.
Only had the boat out a few times. It seems that I can hit 6100 rpm pretty easily. I though that a little more agressive prop might be in order here.
Parker told me to hold off until it's bottom painted.
This forum needs to start a "prop try-out program". Sux to have to spend hundreds of $$ to buy something that might be a flop.
EDGEWATER
Well-known member
Long tow from PA
grouperjim
Well-known member
Ken from PropGods only "sits at your dock" if you are in the local area. He will send you a prop in the mail and if it doesn't work out, he'll swap it for a nominal fee.
The 2006 2320 is a slightly different animal than the 2004 model tested in the report. Handling characteristics (CG) of the 2006 improved because the gas tank was moved a little more forward.
There are plenty of props tried in the Prop Database at the top of this Forum. However, the data are mostly applicable to the f250. Having personally had this hull with both the f225 and f250, I would say the Mercury Revolution 4 14 5/8 17 pitch would be a winner for the f225. The Merc 18 would be a little too much. The Yami SWS or Merc Mirage 3 blade 15 1/4 17 pitch would also work very well but would yield different handling characteristics. Those characteristics would be that with the rev 4 you would plane around 20mph instead of 27mph, and bite and feel around the dock would also be improved due to increase blade surface area.
In any case, the f225 is pretty much restricted to a 17 pitch prop due to its midrange torque being less than the f250........just pick the handling characteristics you want for the particular seas you boat in.
The 2006 2320 is a slightly different animal than the 2004 model tested in the report. Handling characteristics (CG) of the 2006 improved because the gas tank was moved a little more forward.
There are plenty of props tried in the Prop Database at the top of this Forum. However, the data are mostly applicable to the f250. Having personally had this hull with both the f225 and f250, I would say the Mercury Revolution 4 14 5/8 17 pitch would be a winner for the f225. The Merc 18 would be a little too much. The Yami SWS or Merc Mirage 3 blade 15 1/4 17 pitch would also work very well but would yield different handling characteristics. Those characteristics would be that with the rev 4 you would plane around 20mph instead of 27mph, and bite and feel around the dock would also be improved due to increase blade surface area.
In any case, the f225 is pretty much restricted to a 17 pitch prop due to its midrange torque being less than the f250........just pick the handling characteristics you want for the particular seas you boat in.
EDGEWATER
Well-known member
Very cool. Thanks grouperjim.
I'll be looking at the collected data on the sticky.
I'll be looking at the collected data on the sticky.
samsims
Well-known member
Your experience on raising the motor has me second guessing. What kind of performance did you notice when not ventilating? Was it worth it if not for the ventilation? At what speeds where you venting at?
Typical ocean cruise speed here is 18-23 mph, conditions don't usually allow anymore speed. Sometimes its 15 mph if it gets nasty. Once or twice a season you can do 30-35mph. I am certain at 20 mph and a full battle load, the motor is low, but then again the speeds are not that high so changing the motor height may not reduce drag enough to notice.
Typical ocean cruise speed here is 18-23 mph, conditions don't usually allow anymore speed. Sometimes its 15 mph if it gets nasty. Once or twice a season you can do 30-35mph. I am certain at 20 mph and a full battle load, the motor is low, but then again the speeds are not that high so changing the motor height may not reduce drag enough to notice.
grouperjim
Well-known member
the idea behind raising the motor with a Rev 4 is because it is a smaller diameter prop which consequently sits lower in the water. raising the engine a hole results 3/4 inch height adjustment.
The issue with a bracketed boat is the variability of what happens to the flow water once it leaves the stern prior to hitting the motor foot which is a ways back. In the Gulf we get an afternoon sea breeze which puts you in a short interval following sea during the return leg home. Cruising 25-30, with the engine raised one hole, the Rev 4, and to a lesser extent the 3 bladers, would catch air and ventilate to the point of taking the boat off plane. In one instance, I thought I had a spun prop.
With the engine down all the way, in the same sea conditions, all props would stay hooked up but would occasionally surge a little when in soft water which is normal. I never really noticed any advantaged performance-wise to having the engine raised a hole. But, if it is convenient try it. My only suggestion would be to change one variable at a time. First the prop, engine down. Then same prop engine up a hole. If you do both at the same time, you won't know which change did what.
The issue with a bracketed boat is the variability of what happens to the flow water once it leaves the stern prior to hitting the motor foot which is a ways back. In the Gulf we get an afternoon sea breeze which puts you in a short interval following sea during the return leg home. Cruising 25-30, with the engine raised one hole, the Rev 4, and to a lesser extent the 3 bladers, would catch air and ventilate to the point of taking the boat off plane. In one instance, I thought I had a spun prop.
With the engine down all the way, in the same sea conditions, all props would stay hooked up but would occasionally surge a little when in soft water which is normal. I never really noticed any advantaged performance-wise to having the engine raised a hole. But, if it is convenient try it. My only suggestion would be to change one variable at a time. First the prop, engine down. Then same prop engine up a hole. If you do both at the same time, you won't know which change did what.
B-Faithful
Well-known member
I wonder if the prop I run would work on the cabin models with the forward weight. It is a Powertech OFX 4 blade. It is a bow lifting prop and has the same biting attributes of the Rev 4 which is a stern lifting prop. Do not mistake it for the Powertech OFS which is a completely different prop.
Propgods will swap props out if you purchase from them for the cost of shipping and nominal fee. I wish I knew this with my last boat as yes they are a little more expensive for the props than places like Shorts Marine but when you figure how much it cost to buy then sell a prop you are completely satisfied with, they are probably a lot less expensive. You may want to give them a call.
Propgods will swap props out if you purchase from them for the cost of shipping and nominal fee. I wish I knew this with my last boat as yes they are a little more expensive for the props than places like Shorts Marine but when you figure how much it cost to buy then sell a prop you are completely satisfied with, they are probably a lot less expensive. You may want to give them a call.
DaleH
FOUNDER of Classic Parker Forum
B-Faithful":2bpymzh8 said:
FWIW, on my mod-V I tried a premium 4-blade prop with bow lifting reputation and it lifted the bow waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much ... so much so that I had to seriously apply tabs to see out the front of the boat. Applying the tabs that much killed ALL and ANY perceieved performance gains; my mileage was terrible.
grouperjim
Well-known member
Greg:
It's tough to generalize between a Parker and a Maycraft or Judge. All 3 are fine boats, but despite the perception that a Parker PH may be heavy by the bow due to the house, they are most definitely NOT. They are stern heavy all the way. Anything that adds to bow lift whether it be the prop, loading of the boat etc. will negatively affect running attitude and degrade performance as mentioned by Dale.
The 23DVCC squats a little more than the PH, but the PH has a step down so the absence of those heavy full sized stringers fwd offsets the weight of the house a bit. Additionally, the Armstrong bracket on my 2004 CC was mounted at a slightly different height on the transom than my 2006 PH. So Fish's observations with regard to his CC are valid but may not be the same for a PH due to variations in bracket height.
FWIW on my CC, I wish i had raised the engine a FEW holes......the factory position was all the way down, and water would actually wash up and over the motor cowl if you didn't back off the throttle VERY slowly when coming off plane.
The only other variable I can think of that may set my boat apart from any other post 2004 2320 is the weight of my ground tackle. I run with a 22 Delta, 35ft of 1/4 chain, 350ft of rode, and a windlass. That is probably 120+ lbs on the nose which will definitely lift the ass end up a bit.
In case you have not seen it, here is a video of my boat doing a standard takeoff with a Mirage 18. I've got some big flippers, and a Perma on the A/V plate, but a Rev 4 will give similar bow rise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwRnk9BnQPU
It's tough to generalize between a Parker and a Maycraft or Judge. All 3 are fine boats, but despite the perception that a Parker PH may be heavy by the bow due to the house, they are most definitely NOT. They are stern heavy all the way. Anything that adds to bow lift whether it be the prop, loading of the boat etc. will negatively affect running attitude and degrade performance as mentioned by Dale.
The 23DVCC squats a little more than the PH, but the PH has a step down so the absence of those heavy full sized stringers fwd offsets the weight of the house a bit. Additionally, the Armstrong bracket on my 2004 CC was mounted at a slightly different height on the transom than my 2006 PH. So Fish's observations with regard to his CC are valid but may not be the same for a PH due to variations in bracket height.
FWIW on my CC, I wish i had raised the engine a FEW holes......the factory position was all the way down, and water would actually wash up and over the motor cowl if you didn't back off the throttle VERY slowly when coming off plane.
The only other variable I can think of that may set my boat apart from any other post 2004 2320 is the weight of my ground tackle. I run with a 22 Delta, 35ft of 1/4 chain, 350ft of rode, and a windlass. That is probably 120+ lbs on the nose which will definitely lift the ass end up a bit.
In case you have not seen it, here is a video of my boat doing a standard takeoff with a Mirage 18. I've got some big flippers, and a Perma on the A/V plate, but a Rev 4 will give similar bow rise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwRnk9BnQPU
