Nautique 200 prop suggestions

ScottPetersonScottPeterson Posts: 7 Baller
Does anyone have suggestions on the best prop to use on my 2010 Nautique 200 with PCM 343 engine at high elevation? Our elevation is 4500'


  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,446 Mega Baller
    What prop is on the boat now?
    There really is no magic propeller on a small block 200 at elevation. At 4,500' you are loosing around 13% of your HP. Provided you started out with 343 HP at 4500' you are down to 298. now factor the 10% rated estimate of stated hp and if you are on the low side with 308 HP at 4500' your hp will be around 267hp.

    An 1868 ACME might help or the three blade jump prop, keep the boat light and the bottom clean..
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.

  • ScottPetersonScottPeterson Posts: 7 Baller
    Hi Jody, it has an 1868 ACME prop on it. When pulling me @34.2mph the boat runs at approx. 4200 - 4300 rpm I'm just not sure if that's normal.
  • goodmanrailmastergoodmanrailmaster Posts: 1 New Baller
    The 3 blade prop from Acme 1458 should help
  • scotchipmanscotchipman Posts: 4,051 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited June 2016
    I ski with @ScottPeterson and would love to get his RPM's down, would think the 3 blade ACME might be the ticket.
    - President of the Utah Water Ski Club
    - Owner at Still Water Lake Estates
  • bigtex2011bigtex2011 Posts: 412 Crazy Baller
    How long is your lake
  • jpwhitjpwhit Posts: 56 Baller
    I'll start by saying I have no first hand experience with the 200 and the effects of altitude other than understanding that there is a reduction in power. I do have experience with the 200 and 5.7L engine combo with some different prop configurations at lower altitudes.

    It's also a slightly unclear to me if the main concern is the high RPMs of the earlier 1868 5.7L setup or the power loss due to altitude. I guess in the end, it's pretty simple, you want to find what works best for your situation.

    My 2012 5.7 200 with the original 1868 prop in pristine shape would turn 4100rpm in the course with a skier at 34.

    This may or may not be relevant to your situation. I had to have my original 1868 rebuilt due to some damage. After the rebuild it turned 4200rpm in the course, the boat noticeably lack power, and generally never worked anywhere near as well as the pristine 1868. I think it's pretty difficult for a rebuilt prop to even achieve the same efficiency as a pristine CNCed prop. I mention this because your RPMs do seem a little high and could indicate you have a lemon 1868 prop. If that's the case, in the past it was pretty easy to pick up a pristine 1868 prop because of folks switching to the 654. At altitude I could see a really good sample of the 1868 prop being the best choice.

    When Nautique had the 200 5.7L re-certified with the 654 prop, and started shipping it with that prop, I switched mine to the 654. I don't remember exact RPM numbers but it dropped below 4000 RPMs in the course with a skier at 34. Personally, I greatly preferred that setup. Any drop in power was slight and certainly didn't impact my situation. The boat was much more pleasant to use in the lower RPM range, seemed to use a slightly less fuel, and some folks felt it skied a little better. What I can't really help with is answering if it'll give you the power you need at that altitude.

    I also played with a 422 briefly, which lowers the RPMs even further. And I know a few folks that like that setup, but the power loss is pretty noticeable and I didn't think the boat skied well with the 422.

    I've never played with any 3-blade props.
  • scotchipmanscotchipman Posts: 4,051 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    The ACME prop list The 654 4 blade and the 1458 three blade both look intriguing @ScottPeterson.
    - President of the Utah Water Ski Club
    - Owner at Still Water Lake Estates
  • jimskijimski Posts: 266 Baller
    The 654 will work great at sea level
    We ran a 2010 200 at about that same altitude with the 1868 and had the same problems couldn't even pull a skier at 36 jump was even worse the 654 will lower your RPM about 400 but may not give you the power you need
    I'd try the 1458
  • skinutskinut Posts: 372 Baller
    @scotchipman I just ordered a 1442 with 135 cup. I'm just up the road from you in Idaho. Our elevation is 4,500 and I'm running a 6.0 200. I've been running the 422 which worked for 34 mph in the course but struggled at 36 mph with a short setup.
  • skierjpskierjp Posts: 629 Crazy Baller
  • Bruce_ButterfieldBruce_Butterfield Posts: 1,341 Mega Baller
    @ob1 are you nuts? If I had a 196 6l, I would be hard pressed to trade it for anything out there.
    If it was easy, they would call it wakeboarding.
  • scotchipmanscotchipman Posts: 4,051 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited October 2016
    @skinut, How is the 1442 working out in Idaho on your 6.0? My friend @ScottPeterson is still running his rebuilt ACME 1868 on his 5.7 which is struggling a little at 34mph in Utah at 4225' feet, the lake (Still Water Lake Estates) is plenty long at 2250' with turn islands. I would like to try the ACME 1458 or other on his boat.
    - President of the Utah Water Ski Club
    - Owner at Still Water Lake Estates
  • skinutskinut Posts: 372 Baller
    @scotchipman the prop works very well. Noticibly more power than the 422. Hole shot is quicker. We have a 2000 foot lake and the boat would not be up to speed by the 55's on the 422. With the Acme 1442 that is not a problem. The wake even skis better. It is a three blade and has more vibration and the rpms are higher. Over all I would recommend the change for high elevation.
  • scotchipmanscotchipman Posts: 4,051 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Thanks @skinut, did you ever try the 3 blade 1458 (13" x 14" 0.135 cup)?
    - President of the Utah Water Ski Club
    - Owner at Still Water Lake Estates
  • skinutskinut Posts: 372 Baller
    @scotchipman no I never did. When I spoke with Acme they recommended 1442 so I never tried another prop.
  • JuanJJuanJ Posts: 12 Baller
    Hi everyone
    Our lake is at 6800 ft and we just changed to a 2010 200 on with the pcm 343. I changed the original 654 to a 1868 recommended by acme but could barely reach 35.5 mph with a skier, an observer and a driver, no Bimini.

    I had one 1598 available from a friend to try and it seems it reaches almost 38 mph with driver and 2 additional guys on the boat (no skier).

    Do you think it’s possible to ski at 36 with this boat/engine at this altitude or I should start looking for a 6.0 liter nautique?

    Is there anyone running 343 at high altitude at 36?
    Is there any way to increase the hp of this engines?

    Thanks for your help.

  • Alberto SoaresAlberto Soares Posts: 285 Baller
    edited December 2017
    I am at 4500 and have 2 boats, a 200/409hp and a Malibu LXI/343hp.

    The 200 works perfectly with a 422 (12.5x15.5), it came with the 654 (12.5x15), the 422 lowered about 200 rpm's, I am now around 3900 at 34mph.

    The Malibu 343 came with a 13x11.5, 34mph @ 3600, it is a lot harder to ski on it than on the 200. I tried a 13x10.5 in order to drive the engine RPM's to a greater torque range but it became even harder to ski, got back to the 13x11.5.

    I think you will have a hard time to ski at 36 with your 200/343 at 6800, even with the 1598 (13x14) but if the propeller is available, why not try it?

    It is expensive to raise the hp's on an aspirated engine but it is possible, but as someone said here before, "Love, money and horsepower, the more the better"
  • HighAltitudeHighAltitude Posts: 108 Baller
    Did you ever ski with the 1598 or did you just run the boat up and down the lake to get the speed info? I live/ski at 7000' and continue to search for the best prop. I'm convinced a three blade is the way to go but not sure between the 1442,1458 or 1598. I have a 6 liter so I know we are not comparing apples-to-apples but it would be interesting to hear how the prop felt behind the boat. -Marc
  • JuanJJuanJ Posts: 12 Baller

    Thanks everyone for the feed back.

    I skied yesterday with the 1598 and I reach 36 but getting into the course it slows down to 35-36.
    The times were 16.28 secs with only a light driver. The boat was reaching 4650 rpms and could not go above that while skiing.
  • HighAltitudeHighAltitude Posts: 108 Baller
    How was the holeshot on the 1598 compared to the 1868? I like the holeshot of the 1868 but don't like the feel of the wake when it's turning those high rpms.

    As for a 343 at 6800, I'm just not sure you have enough engine. A 422 will get you to speed but it will be a pig out of the hole. Do you have a long lake? I've run a 668 on my 6 liter to see just how much of a pig it is. I asked my 220 lb neighbor to be the guinea "pig". He got up... but just barely. I'm 150 lbs and it's actually fine for me but it can only get to 34 if we start going towards the island instead of directly into the course.
  • JuanJJuanJ Posts: 12 Baller
    The hole shot was ok. We have a very long lake, when you finish the course on one side you could free slalom for a long way 10 or more slalom courses long....on the other side I think I could start 100 feet longer
    My friend skied at 34 and the boat was turning 4300 rpms -4200 rpms with enough power to correct the pulls, but at 36 no chance 4600 rpms not more...
    The engine specs says it can reach 5000 rpms so maybe a smaller prop could work?

    Do you think the 422 could reach the speed and maintain with the slalom pulls?

    Don’t known the feeling at the wake... I think I’m used to our other boat with a not perfect wake...
  • Alberto SoaresAlberto Soares Posts: 285 Baller
    @junj - No the 422 will not work for you, as I told on my post, the 422 (12.5x15.5) lowered my rpm's

    check the specs
  • Alberto SoaresAlberto Soares Posts: 285 Baller
    @junj - as my LIMITED experience, each 1" you go down on the propeller pitch you raise about 300/400 rpm's, I guess you would need something like a 13 x 12 (540 or 542)

    Call DELTA PROPELLERS they helped me a lot before and also have a good price.
  • HighAltitudeHighAltitude Posts: 108 Baller
    I have called Delta and have talked to the extremely knowledgeable folks at ACME numerous times. They have zero expertise when it comes to propping a 200 at 6800 ft. They will give you a guess as to what prop will max your rpms. That's the standard answer. The only way to increase speed is to reduce the rpms, A 540 or 542 will turn more rpms than a 1598, thus you will get a better holeshot but reduce your top speed. A 422 will reduce your rpms and give you a higher top speed and a reduced holeshot. With that said, even with a 422 it might not be able to hold 36 consistently enough for you. Where do you live? I have a 654 that I had a little extra cup added in. I would be willing to let you borrow it to see if it works.
    Alberto Soares
  • Alberto SoaresAlberto Soares Posts: 285 Baller
    @HighAltitude - I understand, guess there is no miracle, my LIMITED experience goes to the tests I made with my boats at 4500.

    Just for reference, my 200/6.0 with the 422 runs about 4200 rpm @ 36mph and reaches 47mph @ 5500 rpm´s.
  • JuanJJuanJ Posts: 12 Baller
    @HighAltitude thanks del your support I live in Puebla, Mexico. So I would need to check the logistics to bring the prop here and then send it back. I’ll send you a direct message.

    From what I understand I need a prop that could allow the engine reach the top rpm/torq while running in the 36-38 mph speed.... the one I have right now reaches 4800 with out a skier so maybe reving up will help.

    Anyone with experience in tuning up this engines maybe with 20 or 30 more hp it would reach the speed...

    Or how complicated is swapping the engine for a 6 liter? Maybe someone need a 343 with low hours (350 hours)....
    Thanks for your help
  • brettmainerbrettmainer Posts: 221 Crazy Baller
    I don’t think props will fix the problem. A 200 with a 5.7L will not be able to pull 34 or 36mph slalom at 6800’, let alone a top jumper. A 6L 200 could probably handle pulling slalom, but 6800’ is pretty high and the 200 is a wet hull. I think a 6L Carbon Pro would be the best answer. If money is not an issue, then a new(ish) 200 with the 6.2L would be great as well.
  • JuanJJuanJ Posts: 12 Baller
    Money is always a issue... we just changed the boat from a 176 and we would not want to spend a lot more...
    We would only be pulling slalom at 34-36 so jumping is not a requirement for us...
    Thanks everyone for your support.
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 477 Crazy Baller
    As a last resort you could always run in jump/trick mode on the hydrogate to add two to three mph to your top end. It should get you to a solid 36 with room for ZeroOff to work properly, but the wake would be a little more firm, but not terrible at shortline.
  • HighAltitudeHighAltitude Posts: 108 Baller
    Damn, never thought of that! That is a good idea to squeak a bit more out of the boat.

    Probably the ideal boat is a later model 196, 6.0L with ZeroOff. I had a 1999 196 with the 310 hp GT-40 and it would do 36 with no problem at 7000 ft. I hate to say it since you just bought the boat, but the 200 with 5.7 is not a great match for the altitude. I did a bunch of research before upgrading and came to the conclusion that a 6L was an absolute must if I bought the 200. I happened to get a great deal on a 2014 6L promo boat only 30 minutes away. Despite the 196 being a better fit for altitude, I must admit I just wanted a 200.

    Selling a 5.7L 200 would seem to get you the money for a 2008/09 196. You wouldn't need the 6L but too much power is never a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.