Prop for 89 SN2001: wakeboard, slalom, surf
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50514
Printed Date: March-03-2025 at 5:38pm
Topic: Prop for 89 SN2001: wakeboard, slalom, surf
Posted By: brhillman
Subject: Prop for 89 SN2001: wakeboard, slalom, surf
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 10:44am
| Would love some advice from the experts here. 89 ski nautique, PCM 351 with 475 hours, power plus 1.23:1 transmission. We will primarily use the boat for wakeboarding, some slalom, and I'd like to try to get it to surf for my wife. Wakeboarding primarily with little to moderate weight, might add around 1k lbs in ballast at some point for wake and surf but nothing crazy, we get plenty of time on friends wake boats for all that. Hard to get current data on revs/speed because it currently has a federal supercup that's stamped "14RH17", which I'm assuming means 14x17?! The 17 pitch part would make sense, it darn near throws a wake at 600-700rpm idle in gear. Would love to slow that down a little bit, and pick up some holeshot and holding power. Don't care too much about losing top end, and slalom speeds will be pretty tame, but also don't need to be overrevving at all speeds. I've read every prop post I can find on this site and others, and I think I've narrowed it down to the ACME 654 (12.5x15) or the 1868 (12.5x14.25) but willing to be convinced otherwise. It sounds like the 470 might be a good choice too in a 3-blade, but the additional holeshot and smoothness of the 4-blades is appealing. I've been leaning 1868 just because if I ever want to add some ballast I don't want to be wishing I had less pitch, but also don't want to have to worry too much about redlining and overrevving all the time either, and needlessly raising RPM and fuel consumption. Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated! |
Replies:
Posted By: Jonny Quest
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 1:05pm
|
For heavier ballast I would go with Acme 1868. The 4-blade is nice for boarding and the engine RPMs will be a bit higher at the slow speeds for better performance. Just be alert to the tachometer when running 36+ mph as you may be bumping the redline for RPMs. JQ
------------- Current 2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 3:04pm
| Thanks Johnny! That jives with what I've been thinking. Would you consider 800-1000 lbs to be on the heavier side for ballast, to the point where the 12.5x15 654 would feel like too much pitch? |
Posted By: Jonny Quest
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 3:33pm
|
Either prop would work. Your 1989 may have either the PCM 270 HP engine or the 240 HP. At sea level, those are strong engines. How many people do you typically take? 1,000 pounds of ballast = 5-6 people. Be careful about overloading the USCG capacity rating. The more weight, the lower the prop pitch typically. Surfing and boarding put a significant amount of load on the engine as the hull isn’t up on plane. To generate the big wake, the hull is plowing water. That requires horsepower. Horsepower and torque are RPM related. A higher pitch will keep the engine RPMs lower at slow speeds. Too low of RPMs and the engine won’t develop sufficient power. If you plan on surfing and / or boarding primarily, I would go with the 1868. If you plan on doing a lot of skiing I would go with the 654. For reference, I have a 654 on my GT40 310 HP Ski Nautique—but I’m at 4,500 feet of elevation. JQ
------------- Current 2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
Posted By: fanofccfan
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 4:50pm
|
You may want to message Trbenj or maybe he will chime in. He had a thread started here a while back about ordering props. ------------- 2004 196 LE Ski 1969 Marauder 19 1978 Ski |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-21-2022 at 4:51pm
| Thank you very much for the advice and perspective, much appreciated! Yeah, I don't intend on going nuts with the ballast. Typically just driver plus observer, maybe one extra, so not a lot of people-weight. But might add a bag on either side of the motor box for fun at times, especially if the wife wants to surf. I'm all, I think most of our time will be spent under 30 mph (and most of that at 18-20 wakeboarding), so sounds like 1868 might work best. Thanks! |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 6:56am
That would make me wonder.......... "what was the 270 HP engine?"
|
Jonny Quest wrote:Posted By: Jonny Quest
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 10:24am
|
Coulda sworn my old 1994 Owners Manual showed a 270 HP option. Must have been the exhaust fumes… ------------- Current 2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
Posted By: audiodude
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 2:38pm
|
Hmm, when I purchased my 1989 2double01 ski, the owner said it was 270hp and the registration said 270hp, I figured it was a mistake and that it was really 240hp. ------------- 2000 Ski Nautique 1989 Correct Craft 2001 In the words of Milton Berle: "You can lead a man to Congress but you can't make him think" |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 2:52pm
| I only see a 240 hp spec for the 351 in my 89 owners manual, which appears to cover all PCM engines, Ford and Chevy, although I don't know how many of these found their way into the SN2001. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 4:35pm
|
240hp was the only spec 351w available until ‘92 when the pro boss debuted. The Chevy option box wasn’t checked very often in the 80’s but the 350 was rated 260-270hp depending on which literature you read. I don’t care for the 1868 on a lightweight 1.23 boat, but I’ve always got overall performance in mind. I also like the 3’s more than 4’s, as a lightly loaded boat won’t see the advantage the 4 can provide. 654 might be the compromise here, though it’s not one of my favorites. The 470 is a great prop. |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 5:36pm
| Thanks for the thoughts TRBenj. You like the 3-blade 470 over the 654 because top end speed would be a little better? Are there other advantages of the 3-blade I'm missing? I guess this is my struggle...does my described use case (up to 1000 lbs ballast plus driver and spotter) fall under the "lightly loaded" category where an all around prop like the 654 or 470 would be better, or is this heavy enough to warrant the 1868? I guess kind of splitting hairs and overthinking it, but that's my nature. |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 5:58pm
|
Literature, did somebody say literature? Here's some 89 literature in the link http://www.planetnautique.com/CorrectCraftManuals/1989/1989PCMOwnersManual.pdf" rel="nofollow - link It's pretty consistently inconsistent from one page of specifications to another and tries to cover a variety of years. You can even find a LH only 290 HP 350 Chevy along with the LH obly 390 HP 454 They were both pretty rare  But like said, yours is 240 And.............an occasional 1000 lbs isn't heavily loaded Being a 3 blade kind of guy, I'd probably go with the TRB recommended 3 blade. |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 6:13pm
|
Maybe you've seen the thread in the link or maybe not It has plenty of numbers to confuse you http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27222&title=1989-sn-1442-prop-update" rel="nofollow - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27222&title=1989-sn-1442-prop-update" rel="nofollow - link
|
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 7:01pm
| Thanks KENO, that's the same PCM engine section I was reading in my paper copy of the manual 😉 And thanks for the prop advice, you and TRBenj have me thinking 470 now, would definitely prefer the all-around performance if I can get away with it over the lower pitch. Anything will be better than what's on there now anyways. |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 7:14pm
|
Just thank me for the links, Thank TRB for the info in the last link about the props. He did all the work. money spending and testing
PS........You might even let an Acme 1442 sneak into the conversation See the link below http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16472&PN=1&title=89-ski-prop-tim-need-advise" rel="nofollow - link
|
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-22-2022 at 9:40pm
|
Always thankful for other folks to have spent the money and done the hard work, so definitely appreciate TRBs perspective. But also thankful for perspectives like "an occasional 1000 lbs is not heavily loaded". That's the kind of thing I've had a hard time figuring out from the dozens of threads I've read through. Had also considered the 1442 for sure, but based on what I'd read I had thought maybe the 12.5" props (470/654/1868) might work a little better in my case, being a little more wakeboard-focused with a little bit of extra weight. |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: March-30-2022 at 9:48am
New prop came yesterday, I went with the 470. The physical difference between the ACME and the stock prop is striking. Old prop was not seated on the shaft, and didn't even require a puller to get it off. Something interesting about the old prop, I originally thought it was a 14x17 since it has this 14RH17 stamped on the side of the hub:  but on the end of the hub it's stamped 14x16, which I think is the expected spec for the stock prop:  New prop lapped to the shaft and installed. It did take a few rounds with the valve grinding compound to bring down the high spots. Thanks to Pete for the great picture thread in the FAQ showing the proper procedure for installing a new prop:  Hopefully get her in the water this weekend to test it out!
|
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: March-30-2022 at 11:21am
|
Agree with your comment, when I got my first Acme and put it next to an older prop the difference was interesting to see. Not just size, but the precision as well. Good luck with the 470, think you made the right choice with the 3-blade. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: Sandman064
Date Posted: April-28-2022 at 10:34am
| Coming late to this thread but I have an 89 2001 and two season ago I put on a ACME 654 12.5x15 R4 1". Even though it is a four blade I like how smooth is it when I ski. Also gives a great little wake for my 8 year old that wake boards. I have my 3 blade prop I can revert to if needed, but with my knees I don't get to ski like I used to so my kid and wife take up most of the water time. |
Posted By: brhillman
Date Posted: April-28-2022 at 11:35am
| Doesn't sound like there's really a bad choice between these. We've had the boat out twice since putting the 470 on. WOT on the GPS it hit 46 MPH, but I think maybe my tach is a little off as it was only reading about 4400 RPM at that speed. I expected it to turn a few more revs, but definitely not disappointed in the overall performance so far. It really does jump out of the water. This was with two adults and almost no gear in the boat. |