Solving the Lake Powell BF130 /150 Problem

P

Pat Anderson

New member
It seems that every CD25 with a BF130 / 150 experiences the same problem on Lake Powell - terrible performance, the CD25 becomes a 7 knot trawler (not necessarily a bad thing on Lake Powell!). If you put the hammer down, you might get up to 12 or 14 knots burning 12 or 14 gallons per hour! The BF40 / 50 / 90s seem to be little affected or not affected at all. So it makes it real hard for the CD25s to run with the CD22s.

I propped down to my original Honda prop, a SS 14.5 x 15, which spins up way too many RPMs and goes nowhere at sea level, which worked way better than my regular sea level prop, a Quicksilver 15.5 x 15, which is a wonderful performer at sea level. Still way too much pitch for Lake Powell I guess.

This year, Ken on Woodduck apparently solved the Lake Powell dilemma - with a 15 x 13.5 prop. He reported being able to achieve 20 knots with normal fuel consumption. I looked online and I can get an aluminum prop, either 14 x 13 or 16 x 13, for about $140 - $160, I am thinking the 16 x 13 might be the one...thoughts?

Another potential solution per Russ on Traveler might be that certain BF150s (serial number dependent) might benefit from a different ECM (electonic control module) - Traveler was really affected, so he checked by phone with his certified Honda tech back in Chinook, WA, and found out there was a bulletin on this from Honda. So I will check into this as well.

If anybody has any other thoughts on how to maximize high altitude performance on the BF 130 / 150s, I am sure several of us would be anxious to here them!

 
I guess that would mean just finding the right prop so you can get to WOT and maybe there are some after market chips for the ECM. I bought a SS for my 22 and after I ran it found that there wasn't much difference between SS and Aluminum on the 22. Some of the prop shops around here will rent props so you can try a few. Maybe a smaller diameter with the same pitch or a four blade. Maybe someone with a 25 and the honda 130 will chime in with just the right combination for 3700 feet altitude.
 
Pat-

Surprised you haven't gotten more responses on this.

Bob (Thataway) should be able to give you some good advice, since he's been there several times, the last one at least with his 25 Frequent Sea just before he turned it over to the new owners.

You're fighting a couple of problems on Lake Powell, the elevation (3700') for one, and heavy loading for a long cruise, for another.

The available oxygen in the air drops with the density of the air, which is about 3% per 1000 feet. The first 1000 isn't too noticeable, but one definitely sees the 3% loss in power each 1000 feet after that. At 3700 feet, there should be at least an 8% loss from the elevation change above the first 1000 feet.

Compounding the problem is the heavy loading. Faced with an over-proped situation, the motor can't begin to get into it's most efficient operating range.

The EFI/ECM should make at least some adjustment for the drop in atmospheric pressure and lean out the mixture, but the engine is lugged down so much with the over-pitched prop that it can't really make up the differences and adjust.

Dropping from a 15 inch pitch prop to a 13 would indeed seem like the first and most logical choice. 13/15 =.866 or 86.7%, which would accommodate the 8% loss in power due to elevation, and 5% more due to over loading.

The only question would be is if this is enough adjustment, considering all the people, food, gear, fuel, and gas on board. (?)

Unfortunately, the props seem to come mostly in 2 inch increments, so going down to an 11 inch pitch would be only logical if someone else was already making it work, or if the 13 wasn't enough.

Instead, I'd stay with a drop to a 13, and keep the diameter limited, and see if the slip allowed by the standard diameter would also help to accommodate the situation. (Slip is always around, and can be your friend, in many situations, with a prop.)

Also, keep in mind the boat gets lighter as the days progress, and you have to accommodate a range of loads, and you may also want to use this same prop at even higher elevations, maybe even twice or more as high in elevation.

I wouldn't bother to mess with the ECM, either with a different chip or re-programming it. 3700 feet isn't that big a difference, and changing the ECM control would be a very easy way to have engine problems that cost a lot of $$$, and wouldn't be viewed kindly by the folks at Honda, should they become involved.

If I were you, I'd just buy a moderate sized (diameter) 13 inch pitched three-blade aluminum prop and give it a go and see what happens.

See you and Patty in January at the Boat Show and C-Brat Shindig!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Thanks for your thoughts, Joe. What are your thoughts on the diameter? Current props are 15.5 (Quicksilver) and 14.5 (Honda) diameter, and all the improvement of the Honda over the Quicksilver at Lake Powell must come from the 1" drop in diamter, since the pitch is the same. Choices for 13 pitch that I could find are 14 or 16 diameter. How significant is that, and on which side of 15 should I land for the new 13 pitch prop?

As to responses, people are interested in what they are interested in I guess. I am also amazed that there has been no post for so long in the Lake Powell thread itself. And check out this year's pix! Anyway, I find myself less and less interested daily in many of the topics, so I skip any number of threads. Perhaps I shouldn't, because a lot of the most interesting discussion is when some mundane thread gets highjacked! Maybe we should work on highjacking more threads!
 
I run a 15.5 x 13 on my 25. Works out well. You need the larger diameter to push a heavy load.
Just completed a 1131 mile trip on the Yukon River in Western Alaska dealing with rough water, sand bars and fuel availabilty, among other things....... so no I'm not particularly interersted in a Lake Powell thread.
 
Pat Anderson":2uag0g9m said:
Thanks for your thoughts, Joe. What are your thoughts on the diameter? Current props are 15.5 (Quicksilver) and 14.5 (Honda) diameter, and all the improvement of the Honda over the Quicksilver at Lake Powell must come from the 1" drop in diamter, since the pitch is the same. Choices for 13 pitch that I could find are 14 or 16 diameter. How significant is that, and on which side of 15 should I land for the new 13 pitch prop?

As to responses, people are interested in what they are interested in I guess. I am also amazed that there has been no post for so long in the Lake Powell thread itself. And check out this year's pix! Anyway, I find myself less and less interested daily in many of the topics, so I skip any number of threads. Perhaps I shouldn't, because a lot of the most interesting discussion is when some mundane thread gets highjacked! Maybe we should work on highjacking more threads!
Click to expand...

#1 Answer:

I'd get/use the smaller one, as I tried to say above in the previous post, so that would be the 14" diameter, 13" pitch.

#2 Answer:

You're right, just too much to read, and a lot of it is repetitive or just social chat, and even the newer threads seem to go on forever even after the answers are given.


****************************************

I guess I'm just burning out on some of this, after over 5,000 posts, probably a normal occurrence under the circumstances. (You, too?)

Too bad the completed threads are not organized well enough that they make it easy for newcomers to read through easily, then ask questions about what wasn't already answered. (With a little effort, this can be done, anyway!)

Many folks want to get their questions answered from scratch, without reading up on them first. If I had a free year to do it, I'd take everything technical and process it into competed reports on each topic possible, so we could start from those summaries and add new information and discussion, instead of doing just another re-hash, but I suppose that would kill all the fun for the new folks wanting to get into the social mix and discuss each topic they encounter, one by one, in relation to their own new boat.

We're also getting a great number of travel/cruise threads, which are interesting and fun, but they're a little too numerous to follow all of them, so I only read the most entertaining ones about places I'm interested about.

I'm not trying to be negative here, just report on how it feels to be at this juncture after 5-8 years or more on a sequence of four sequential C-Dory owner's groups. I'm sure you have some of the same feelings and observations.

About the high-jacking of threads: Maybe we should establish a protocol for doing so, like making all the off-topic discussion in a pre-determined color, so it could be ignored by those not wanting to read it now or later, or suggest that off-topic ideas be summarily footnoted and linked on the thread, but continue to be discussed on another ongoing HighJacker's Ramblings thread, where any topic could be pursued at will, without worrying about preserving any specific continuity. This would allow us to get the related idea up and discussed, but not interrupt the thread so much. Ideas that got really interesting and detailed, could be pulled out of that thread and give their own, independent, status.

Hey, did I ever answer your original questions?

Joe. :teeth :thup (MASTER HIGHJACKER, EMERITUS)
 
A website like this is an organic entity, which grows toward the food (activity) and does not respond well to management (pruning). I see it as part of the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy here.

When I first joined Bill and I discussed a C-Brats FAQ but nothing ever came of it. Maybe now is the time for a group effort to develop one?

One of the reasons there are so many new threads covering old topics is that the search facility of the phpBB software is pretty sucky. But another reason is that many of the topics we search for use words that have multiple uses, all of which produce hits.

Just some random, off topic :mrgreen: thoughts.

Warren
 
Wefings":200k9fje said:
Pat is a word with multiple uses ...........
Marc
Click to expand...

Cute.... :lol:

Standing pat, pat me down, pat me up, pat on the back, Pat the Brewmeister, Pat the Byrdman, etc. etc. :thup

(oops, hijacked thread again.... :wink )
 
Joe - not far behind, 4,981 (well, actually this one makes 4,982...). Shall I stay up all night and post about 20 more to crack the magic 5,000?

So, anyway, yes, a thread on highjacking protocol would be good.
 
We had what I would consider marginal performance at our first trip to Powell. The second trip we had added the Permatrim, and it made all of the difference. We were able to run at our "normal cruising speed" of 17 mph (This is with the 130 --the 135/150 engines are a bit more powerful)
The boat was pretty well loaded, with full water, fuel, extra water, air conditioner and generator, as well as much of our cruising gear. The dinghy was left off on the last trip.

I think that we had kept the same SS prop on, but obtained a 3 blade aluminum prop which was slightly lower pitch.
 
Pat,
We had this discussion during the Lake Powell trip. It seems to me that your problems may not be the prop. Most of the 22's reported little or no change in performance. I got exactly the same speed and rpm's I get at sea level or home at 2400 feet elevation. If there were any differences it was very minor. If this is true for a 22, logically I can't imagine why it would change for a 25. Maybe the computer controlled fuel injected engines are not compensating for the altitude correctly? Mystery to me.
 
I can't remember the numbers, but for our 22 (always loaded for cruising) with a 90hp Yamaha we had three different props: one for sea level, one for Lake Powell (3,700 feet), and yet another with even flatter pitch for Flaming Gorge (6,000 feet) and Yellowstone Lake.

They were all the same diameter. The two we used the most (sea level and Lake Powell) were stainless - more efficient due to thinner blades. We experimented a lot, and found that having the right prop for those three very different elevations made tons of difference.
 
CAVU":3vl6va44 said:
Pat,
We had this discussion during the Lake Powell trip. It seems to me that your problems may not be the prop. Most of the 22's reported little or no change in performance. I got exactly the same speed and rpm's I get at sea level or home at 2400 feet elevation. If there were any differences it was very minor. If this is true for a 22, logically I can't imagine why it would change for a 25. Maybe the computer controlled fuel injected engines are not compensating for the altitude correctly? Mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Ken, unfortunately, I did not have the same performance as at sea level. The best I could get out of my CD 22 with Honda BF90 (carbs) was 4400 RPM and 16-17 MPH. My prop is a 13 1/4 x 15 stainless Honda prop. I am thinking about picking up a 13 3/4 x 13 aluminum prop for the next trip. I may also remove my kicker and put an electric on the transom for a backup.

For the CD 22 crowd with single engines, what props are you using at altitude?

Steve
 
My CD22 with a Suzuki DF115 EFI 5500 RPMS 28 MPH with a Solas SS 13-7/8 X 17 pitch. It drops 22 MPH when I'm towing the Mokai. WOT is 6000 RPM.
 
I also agree that Powell affects the 22's, but not as much. Apparently the 22's as most people have them set up have a little more margin above minimum planing power than the 25's do.

My 22 with the EFI Honda 90 drops about 500 rpm and probably over 5 mph, but I didn't really check that. I just cruised along at 4400 rpm and 17 to 18 mph and got 3.3 mpg. I have the Honda 15 dia x 13.5 pitch prop. I'd like to buy a spare, but can't decide what to get. Perhaps a little less pitch in case I go to Lake Tahoe or someplace else really high?

My boat was heavy for a single person boat. Kayak, fishing junk, too much food and water, firewood, etc. Plus I have the kicker with power tilt/trim. It's heavy.

3700 ft means a lot less oxygen than sea level. You're going to lose power, no way around it. The question is whether it will be just a drop in top end speed but still good planing performance, in which case you'll say "I really didn't notice it much", or a drop below planing speed, which is another matter entirely.

So, this is a sort-of-hijacked thread. At least we're on a closely related topic. I'm going to go searching for Lake Tahoe prop information, now that I've thought of it.

Jeff
 
Jeff do you maybe have the diameter and pitch switched?

If I take just my hull weight and divide it by my HP I see some interesting results.

22 with 90 21.3 lbs per HP
22 with 115 16.7 lbs per HP
25 with 130 27.7 lbs per HP
25 with 150 24.0 lbs per HP
25 with 175 20.5 lbs per HP
25 with 200 18.0 lbs per HP

The CD25 with a 130 is probably under powered at 3700 feet. The best you could do is go down in pitch till you get to as close to WOT as you can get.

I read out on the web that it was illegal for the manufactures to make changes to there motors because of emission standards. My comment earlier about changing the chip in the ECM was because I know Polaris had a racing chip that you could get for there PWC, but you had to sign a paper stating that you were going to race with it. If you were to lose 10 percent of your HP at 3700 feet then the chip, if there was one available would just get you back to full HP. I don't know if one exists. Did they stop racing boats? I don't follow that. I know they do make chips for the Honda Civic which is where the motor comes from. Don't know if they changed it for the marine market.


Pat if you sell the 130 HP and buy a 200 HP the pounds per HP is 18.0
Is the 130 and 150 the same motor. Like Suzukis DF90 and DF115 (old not new) If they are can you change the chip. Just a few question to throw out there.
 
Those are interesting numbers: #/HP. And for the 25, they're probably even worse, because the hull weight is so low. I don't know exactly what weight you used, but add the motor, refridge and all the cruising gear and I'll bet the #/HP is even worse, with a bigger increase than for a loaded 22.

I figure I cruise with ~7000# which gives a #/HP ratio of 47. Try that for economy and speed. That includes full water and fuel, stuff for 3 mos, additional batteries, etc, etc.

The 130 is not the same engine as the 135/150. For example the 150 is actually lighter, has a different gear ratio, etc. The factory recommended the 135, glad I got the 150. A bigger Honda would go from a 4 to a V-6.

Boris
 
Back
Top