TZ X5 OJ Prop

[jrad12381]

Any updates on these 5 blade props?

[spencer]

Thanks for posting. That prop could be a winner when faced with summer gas prices. I am excited to see what it actually does for guys with 23's and 247's.

[skicrave]

We'll be doing a full instrumented review of all of the latest props in the spring, so stay tuned for more information, but in the meantime, here are my thoughts.

The TZ-X5 excels in boats with high output engine (think super charged, or 7.4L & 8.1L) applications. That's because the massive amount of torque those engines have at very low RPMs. With small block engines, there isn't enough torque to turn a prop with a higher pitch that can maintain holeshot and lower RPMs. Without that extra torque, you either get low RPM's and slower holeshot, or higher RPMs and faster holeshot.

Like I said, we'll have a detailed review in a couple of months, but based on the info in this thread, I think the above will hold relatively true.

[Mal Gal]

1327125734' post='506489']

We'll be doing a full instrumented review of all of the latest props in the spring, so stay tuned for more information, but in the meantime, here are my thoughts.

The TZ-X5 excels in boats with high output engine (think super charged, or 7.4L & 8.1L) applications. That's because the massive amount of torque those engines have at very low RPMs. With small block engines, there isn't enough torque to turn a prop with a higher pitch that can maintain holeshot and lower RPMs. Without that extra torque, you either get low RPM's and slower holeshot, or higher RPMs and faster holeshot.

Like I said, we'll have a detailed review in a couple of months, but based on the info in this thread, I think the above will hold relatively true.

Love reading all the comparisons..but what are your thoughts about the prop with 383 Hammerhead & 2006 23 lsv?

[Night Rider]

Has anyone run this with the 555 LSA in a 23 LSV?

[CJAY]

Anyone tested this at altitude? there are some who think it might not work

[skicrave]

Love reading all the comparisons..but what are your thoughts about the prop with 383 Hammerhead & 2006 23 lsv?

I will reserve judgement until we actually have a chance to test the prop on that specific power train, but my initial thoughts are that you won't see any benefit over a four blade.

Has anyone run this with the 555 LSA in a 23 LSV?

With an LSA you may have enough low end torque to benefit from a higher pitched prop with more surface area, so there's a chance this prop could be a good candidate. If you want to give one a try let me know.

Anyone tested this at altitude? there are some who think it might not work

Altitude will have the same effect on this prop as any other, so it's not really a question of whether or not this prop will work at higher altitudes, but rather will this prop work for your boat/power train combination if you use it at higher altitudes. The entire premise of this prop though is lower engine RPM's at the trade-off of some holeshot, so I would expect that running at higher altitudes may result in more sluggish performance than a lot of people are looking for.

Again, this is all opinion until we have a chance to actually test the prop under these conditions.

[CJAY]

Now if you had a lower HP engine wouldn't the propr that lowers RPMs helpout more, you'd be higher on its torque curve a tthe lower RPMs

[CJAY]

We'll be doing a full instrumented review of all of the latest props in the spring, so stay tuned for more information, but in the meantime, here are my thoughts.

The TZ-X5 excels in boats with high output engine (think super charged, or 7.4L & 8.1L) applications. That's because the massive amount of torque those engines have at very low RPMs. With small block engines, there isn't enough torque to turn a prop with a higher pitch that can maintain holeshot and lower RPMs. Without that extra torque, you either get low RPM's and slower holeshot, or higher RPMs and faster holeshot.

Like I said, we'll have a detailed review in a couple of months, but based on the info in this thread, I think the above will hold relatively true.

Wouldn't higher HP engines have more torque at higher RPMs while the lower HP engines have more Torque at the lower RPMs? The whole point of higher HP is to have more power at higher speeds

[skicrave]

Now if you had a lower HP engine wouldn't the propr that lowers RPMs helpout more, you'd be higher on its torque curve a tthe lower RPMs

This is mostly true, simply because of the relationship between torque and horsepower, but this applies to any engine, regardless of it's output and the prop being used. At higher altitudes you need higher engine speeds (RPMs) to maintain the same performance on the boat speed scale. For some boat/engine/altitude combos the TZ-X5 may deliver those higher boat speeds, for others it may not. Just because a particular prop (whether it's an ACME 1235, OJ 466 or TZ-X5) performs well for one application does not necessarily mean it will perform well for every boat/engine/altitude combo, there are just too many factors involved.

Wouldn't higher HP engines have more torque at higher RPMs while the lower HP engines have more Torque at the lower RPMs? The whole point of higher HP is to have more power at higher speeds

Not so fast, torque and horsepower are related through a mathematical formula: HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252

That means that and engine that has a higher HP rating can either make more torque, or its torque can be made at higher engine RPMs (either number in the numerator is bigger, which results in a larger fraction). So while there is some correlation between higher HP engines having more torque, it's not a hard fast rule. The Hammerhead 383 is a great example of that in the marine world; it has a higher HP rating than the Monsoon from the same era, but the torque curve is very similar, so that higher HP is coming primarily as a result of higher engine RPMs.

To summarize, there's absolutely no reason the TZ-X5 won't work at higher altitudes, the prop has no idea how much oxygen is in the air, BUT it may not be the BEST application for that specific boat/engine/altitude combination. My expectation is that because the goal of this prop was to lower engine RPMs, it will not perform as well at higher altitudes as other OJ (or ACME) props, simply because all else being equal, going to a higher altitude requires more engine speed to keep the boat speed the same.

[NewMalibu]

slight hijack: when i was at the boat show this past weekend, i was talking to the Acme folks about the 5 blade props. they pretty much tried their best to steer me away from the 5 blade, but then showed me their 15" 4 blade. they also said that Malibu is testing the 5 blade and may be close to selling it with their boats (not sure if it woudl be stock or an option). they were pretty convinced that the 15" prop would be a better bet for people like me who do a lot of surfing.

hijack off.

[skicrave]

Not a hijack at all, if there is clearance to run a 15", then I fully agree that for most (but not all) applications that is going to give a better combination of engine speed and boat speed. That is especially true for wakesurfing.

[TexasWakeRep]

slight hijack: when i was at the boat show this past weekend, i was talking to the Acme folks about the 5 blade props. they pretty much tried their best to steer me away from the 5 blade, but then showed me their 15" 4 blade. they also said that Malibu is testing the 5 blade and may be close to selling it with their boats (not sure if it woudl be stock or an option). they were pretty convinced that the 15" prop would be a better bet for people like me who do a lot of surfing.

hijack off.

+1 This is probably the route I'll be taking. I'm not willing to sacrifice hole shot for lower RPM. I'm more concerned about wear and tear during a long, heavy weighted hole shot at WOT.

[CJAY]

This is mostly true, simply because of the relationship between torque and horsepower, but this applies to any engine, regardless of it's output and the prop being used. At higher altitudes you need higher engine speeds (RPMs) to maintain the same performance on the boat speed scale. For some boat/engine/altitude combos the TZ-X5 may deliver those higher boat speeds, for others it may not. Just because a particular prop (whether it's an ACME 1235, OJ 466 or TZ-X5) performs well for one application does not necessarily mean it will perform well for every boat/engine/altitude combo, there are just too many factors involved.

Not so fast, torque and horsepower are related through a mathematical formula: HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252

That means that and engine that has a higher HP rating can either make more torque, or its torque can be made at higher engine RPMs (either number in the numerator is bigger, which results in a larger fraction). So while there is some correlation between higher HP engines having more torque, it's not a hard fast rule. The Hammerhead 383 is a great example of that in the marine world; it has a higher HP rating than the Monsoon from the same era, but the torque curve is very similar, so that higher HP is coming primarily as a result of higher engine RPMs.

To summarize, there's absolutely no reason the TZ-X5 won't work at higher altitudes, the prop has no idea how much oxygen is in the air, BUT it may not be the BEST application for that specific boat/engine/altitude combination. My expectation is that because the goal of this prop was to lower engine RPMs, it will not perform as well at higher altitudes as other OJ (or ACME) props, simply because all else being equal, going to a higher altitude requires more engine speed to keep the boat speed the same.

Here is where I struggle wiht boats, to get an accurate idea of how an engine does you need the peak hp@rpm, but I can't find that on any of the engines. It would make decisions on props and everything else much easier

[AllatoonaPinkTuna]

I just put this prop on my 2010 Axis Vandall. Previously I was running the 1235. I'm running the p-n-p Mastercraft Xstar 850 lbs sacs on each side of the engine and the Axis p-n-p bow/walk-through sac under the front seats + wedge. I started out fully weighting the boat and I had 7 people sitting in the cockpit and 1 person approx. 190lbs wakeboarding. I'm telling you that we could not get on plane at all, I had to move 3 people to the bow before we could get above 12 or so mph. Once on plane the prop works great; lower rpm and better holding speed through double ups and turns. I do have to say that the 1235 hole shot out performs the tz-x5 at least on my boat which has the AR335. I think with a more powerful engine the prop may perform better out of the hole. I also have a 1000lbs bow sac that I add when I don't run as many people in the boat that takes care of the plane problems. I think the tz-x5 will be great for fuel economy as far as wakeboarding goes but will burn more fuel not weighted and just cruising around the lake. Now fully weighted (approx 4200lbs + wedge) i run about 3600rpm @ 23-24 mph with the TZ-X5 versus 4200rpm with the same set up on the 1235.

[JohnnyDefacto]

Use this site often because its such a good resource, new member just a few days ago and was pointed to this thread by another axis owner during our OJ cinch discussions. Here is the comparison I did on the OJ Cinco vs the OJ Core.

AXIS A22

335 w/ CAT

No Wedge

Full fuel tank

4 adults, 1 toddler

Air = 84 F

Water = 65 F

Water level range = 5’- 14’

OJ Core prop

No Ballast (600 lbs of lead)

0-23 mph = 8.6 seconds (average of 3)

23 mph RPM = 3150 (24 mph RPM = 3350)

Top Speed = 35.5 mph

Clean wake slowest speed = 18 mph

Full Ballast [4000 lbs (1900 rear, 1800 front, 250 center plus gear) no wedge]

0-23 mph = 18.4 seconds (average of 3)

23 mph RPM = 3550

Top Speed = 35.2

Clean wake slowest speed = 22 mph

OJ Cinco prop

No Ballast (600 lbs of lead) and rear hard tanks not completely empty +/-200 lbs

0-23 mph = 8.8 seconds (average of 2)

23 mph RPM = 2900

Top Speed = 40.5

Clean wake slowest speed = *19 mph

Full Ballast [4000 lbs (1900 rear, 1800 front, 250 center plus gear) no wedge]

0-23 mph = 20.9 seconds (average of 2)

23 mph RPM = 3300

Top Speed = 38

Clean wake slowest speed = 23 mph

* there was still some water in rear hard tanks, possibly 200-300 lbs. I believe if it would have been completely dry like when the Core prop was tested, the clean wake speed would have been the same as the Core prop.

Other Notes by observers:

Cinco prop is considerably quieter when throttle is wide open getting the boat to speed. At speed, in boat noise was also noticeably quiter. We could hear each other talk without yelling. The faint whining of the v-drive was present with the Cinco, but not with the Core. The engine exhaust noise could be heard with the Cinco but not the Core. The combination of the exhaust with the v-drive whine was a pleasant surprise.

There was absolutely no porpoising at any speed with either prop. the bow rise was considerably less with the Cinco. The Cinco “bit” harder during high speed sharp turns, felt smoother during small turns or adjustments, was smoother at every engine speed and boat speed, and was smoother during at-speed acceleration. Axis speed control had no problems holding speed with either prop. The Cinco produced a cleaner wake with less prop wash, noted by all observers. The Cinco did feel like it would cavitate for a few prop revolutions during hard acceleration from 0 mph.

The Cinco performed well getting the loaded A22 up to speed, but the Core will pull a little bit more weight.

It was a great experience and I am very happy with the results. I think that the Cinco prop met my expectations of an increase in performance and the reduction of noise. The Axis A22 with the OJ Cinco is the perfect combination, in my opinion.

A guy at www.axiswakeboardboats.com did a comparison between the 1235 and OJ Cinco... granted it was an axis and not malibu.

Also, had my boat out for 6 hours, engine on almost the whole time, helping out with a local wakeboard club pulling riders, beginners to semi pro. I still have half a tank of fuel... couldn't do that with the core.

[JohnnyDefacto]

Forgot to mention, after that learn to ride day, I put another 800 pound sack on the floor (4800 total plus 4 adults and 2 kids) and the cinco was able to get the boat up on plane, it wasn't pretty but it did it and the wake was the biggest I have ridden in a long time