Best prop for 2001 196 SN

east tx skier wrote: Was the stock prop in 98 a 13x16 or a 14x16 OJ? Going to a 12" diameter prop might make for a slightly smaller prop column couldn't it. I know we're only talking inches, but on my old MC, the Acme 541 did flatten out the wake a touch, too.

It would have been 13x16. Its worth noting that the 13x16 OJ Legend turns very similar numbers (speed vs. RPM) to the Acme 422 (12.5x15.5). That leads me to believe that theyre very close dimensionally- until Acme came along, the dimensions of most ski boat props were rounded off to the nearest inch.

Id guess any differences between the wakes that the 2 props produce would be attributed to other aspects of the design (rake, blade surface area, etc).

HI guys,

Well I went with the Acme 470 and it did improve the longline wake, the bump at 22 off is still there and not great. I have been told (I am not this good yet) that the wake from 28 off and shorter is non-existant!!!!

A local national skier has begged me to bring the boat back to his lake after he skied behind it.

The biggest thing we noticed is how smooth the boat feels now and it improved the steering at both low speeds and through the corse.

I know this thread is a bit old at this point, but I feel compelled to chime in. When I got my 98 SN, the longline bump was a little more noticeable than I had anticipated (although by no means was it bad). I had my first outing last weekend since installing the Acme 422 and all I can say is that (from a wake perspective), it was a world of difference. I pulled toward the wake expecting that bump I'd experienced in previous outings and it just wasn't there. Felt similar to what I remember from my sets behind the TSC2 hull, i.e., no bump. I was even more pleased when my wife told me that, because it was rough, we were only running about 30 mph.

When I ordered the prop, I asked Bill Weeks if anyone had reported softer wakes from the change over from the stock OJ and he said probably not. But little changed other than the prop. We were even running a full tank of gas. Acme used to offer a money back guarantee on the props, so I'd say the 422 is definitely worth a shot.

Of course, given the age of this post, you've probably been running something else for a while now (and at 5,000 feet, the 422 may not be what you need).

gotta love the e36 m or not{mines not} just a 325 vert

slider79sc wrote: what prop are you running?

Not that it should matter, as M3 has run both the OJ Legend 4-blade and the 422 on his TSC1, but what prop are you running? It should say the brand/model right on it.

Thanks M3Fan, we do love our new SN. Those updated pics will help me figure out what is going on with our 01's wake. I can tell you that our rooster tail is larger than that, what prop are you running?

And you are talking MPH in each picture description correct?

Is your signiture (M3Fan) hinting at the M3 BMW?

With the stock Federal prop on my 79 Tique we will get a big rooster tail when we are pulling a heavy skier. The tail goes down with a lighter skier or with a newer prop. This has always suprised me, and I'm not imagining this as a few different skiers have noticed the difference as well. Could skier weight be a factor with your wake difference? Is your prop a good match for your hull or is your prop dammaged?

Thanks Hollywood, I really hope that I am..... but it sure looks bigger than the one in the above photo.

M3fan,

What prop do you run on your 2000 SN?

so is your screen name related to the car?

I took your picture and changed the contrast on it to get a better look at the wake and yours is much smaller than ours???

Well ours has a much larger tail than the first picture, so I am really confused now.

Ok I get it, the last boat we had was a Malibu Sportster LX.

We live in Colorado, that Powell pic was taken 3 days after I drove all the way to Gary IN and back to get the boat ( the owner of NECC brought it to me there) and then drove straight out to lake Powell the next day. Needless to say I got sick mid week from being exhausted... dang....

You can see by the grafics on the side of the boat in this picture where our boat sits in relation to the water line in the morning at Lake Powell. And yes I know that the Bimini cover is too far forward, we had it tilted to keep the sun off the dash while parked.

I got an extensive amount of feedback from him. My biggest problem is not staying open and counter-rotated on the off-side turn. Rather than keeping my chest slightly pointed toward the shore in the pre-turn and turn, I close the shoulder and muscle through the turn. I rip the handle down to the waist rather than letting it come to me, resulting in crappy off-side positioning. I can get away with it at 30, but at 32 and up the boat wins on the off side. *The wake cross is completely dependant on the entire turn.* By the end of the pre turn, you're doomed for the wake cross no matter what if you don't stay open and countered.

Pictures corrected.

I have a back seat. It's in the rafters of the garage. It doesn't really weigh anything. Nothing like that old 100 pound 1990 seat!

M3Fan wrote: The main disappointment I have with the wake is that it is not a huge improvement over the previous 90-96 hull. Not at 15 off at least- maybe at 22/28. CC just got it right, early on. I was expecting a world of difference, but it's not that dramatic.

I have to disagree. While the 90-96 has a pretty decent slalom wake, the TSC1 is obviously improved. The wake is smaller in general, and CC started knocking down the rooster tail a bit. Its a softer and smaller wake at 22-28 off. CC went even further with the TSC2- although the wake size is comparable to the TSC1, the rooster tail is even less defined.

TSC2 (2003 196)
15 off @ ~30-32 MPH
IIRC, 1 driver + 2 observers, no idea how much gas: