Florida Boat Guy Episode 7: Sharrow Propeller Review Follow-up, Dolphins love Sharrow Propellers!

[@JC-td4gg]

Remember to check out the just out, new Sharrow MX-A, starting at $1995.00 for more available models!

[@aaronlbuchanan9861]

Great follow-up, wouldn't mind seeing a long term review someday. Thanks for sharing.

[@floridaboatguy]

Sure thing!

[@donaldmott5816]

I placed an order with Sharrow for two of these propellers through one of their sales people for my new boat to be sent to the manufacturer for installation and testing. However, things changed when their engineering team learned that the props would be tested by the boat’s manufacturer. They said 87 days wasn’t enough time to produce the props although prior to me placing the order it was. I reached out to Greg Sharrow and he had someone else respond saying “Our manufacturing process is complex and currently takes about 100-130 days. It includes engineering, casting, and precision finishing to ensure the highest-quality product. I guess it is possible that it takes them 130 days to make a propeller but I think it is more likely that they just aren’t comfortable with an independent test of their product by a manufacturer. Seems like their published tests are cherry picked on older boats, Independent tests like these don't show the significant gains they claim.

[@davidpegler6774]

Unbiased, pragmatic feedback thank you.

[@joelstanley993]

When people said they were expensive I was expecting $1k-$1500… not $5k 🤯

[@markbildsten5539]

Don’t feel bad I had the same issues. They sure do look good on the back of the boat

[@Jassman3536]

Great info and follow up review. Thanks

[@HouseboatRenovations]

I just put my new sharrow on. I'm saving 15% in fuel cost and it should pay for itself in 8 -9 years if I don't hit anything or sell the boat or lose it in the hurricane

[@camojoe83]

I mean, running 4k at 22 knots is massive for fuel economy, idk why everyone judges these at WOT and then determines they're no better. Everyone just glazes over that mid high speed efficiency bump without even mention, it's weird. They're horribly expensive tho. On small boats like this it's not worth it, but if you have something that takes up serious dock space then it's a worthy consideration, assuming they get it right the first time or will correct it later if they didn't. It is a very limited band of enhancement, but it is quite noticable.

[@ARU-wm8xm]

Good review, I’m still on the fence. Thanks for sharing.

[@floridaboatguy]

No problem 👍

[@RStout59]

😂 He has an Aggie shirt on. That explains it. He mounted the prop backwards. 😅

[@floridaboatguy]

🤣I’ve been waiting for this comment! Was wondering why I had to drive in reverse lol

[@RStout59]

@floridaboatguy Interesting data that you posted. Saw the shirt and I had to toss it out there, being an LSU man.😁

[@jacktyler7599]

Chris, thanks again for choosing to let us in on your learning experience and taking the time to document the results. And congrats on sticking with it until certain results were achieved. I'd put your sweet spot at 4500-4550: Almost the same efficiency and a couple more mph. Would love to hear from you again after you've used it in some 'big water'. Take care.

[@escoson555]

Your sweet spot at 4000rpm's is very impressive!

[@tonyg1958]

Great feedback. It makes sense that with such a radical new prop design there would be a learning curve for how to maximize performance. I know you said this would be your last video on the Sharrow, but it would be interesting over time to get updates, such as if there is a difference in how the boat handles in rough seas, etc.

[@floridaboatguy]

Absolutely will definitely do!

[@DonFarmer-hq5sw]

Sharrow must have freaked out 😮. I hope they compensated him for his new video 😊

[@EddieWeeks]

After Quick calculation.. you would have to drive 3700 miles to pay for the $4500 prop difference..

[@bearman975]

Thank you for taking your time to let the world know about your experiences with this new prop, it is the first non sponsored video I have seen of a Sharrow prop. I am not a fanboy of Sharrow props because of their price. Even if their claims of 35% were true (I don’t believe they use real world numbers) It would take 20 years for me to recoup the cost in gas saved (I have twin outboards). That being said, your efficiency comparisons are way off. It is incorrect to compare MPGs at different speeds, which is what you are doing (in this case) when comparing MPGs at the same RPM. Since the MPGs are derived from speed and fuel burn, the only correct comparisons are “MPGs to fuel burn” or “MPGs to speed”. So comparing your 29.1 MPH Sharrow to your 29.2 MPH old prop comes out to 3.8% MPG increase with the Sharrow. I did a linear extrapolation (between27.6MPH& 24.3MPH) of your old prop for 26.9MPH and got 2.81GPH fuel burn, so the Sharrow prop has a 24% MPG increase at 26.9MPH. Since this is the best MPG (on plane) of the Sharrow, it is probably the best that it will be. This is way better than what you got, but it is also uses extrapolated fuel burn, not “real” fuel burn. This extrapolation is just a “best answer I can do with the data I have”, so to really compare the efficiencies of these props you need to get the data for the old prop at the same speeds of the Sharrow data you already have. Of course same day, same conditions would be best, but actual fuel burn at same speeds is best way to compare. As far as trim tabs are concerned, I would not be worried about them being the same position for each prop. I would run them where I already know I like them for the old props, and get my data for each 5mph change (or 2 or whatever you want) starting at 15. Then I would find out where I like the tabs with the Sharrow props and get the data for those. So same speed at same comfort level sounds like apples to apples for me. My opinion is that below 15 mph doesn’t matter to me because I don’t spend much time there, but when in really snotty conditions I do wind up going 15 to 20 to be more comfortable, but wind up burning way more gas. But when I am going 15 to 20 and trying not to fall completely of the plane, having the grunt to maintain that speed matters more than economy. I keep up with how much gas I burn and how many miles I go in a season (aren’t modern electronic great) and I have averaged about 1.5MPG every year for the last 6 years. I think at the end of the season with the new prop you will be able to give us a more comprehensive review of your fuel burn and everything else. I look forward to watching it.

[@peteh8077]

All these graphs really show you is the range you should stay out of for most cost effective cruising. Dont buy a 5000$ prop within a narrow rpm window of better efficiency. Just stay out of that window and save 5k.

[@hobbs2ronald]

You mentioned that you were retracting your trim tabs from your old normal running attitude, so did you try doing the same thing with your old prop first, because in general pulling up the trim tabs does improve fuel economy, less drag, with any prop. Did you try to dial in the old prop for fuel efficiency, before you tried to dial in the sharrow? Is this apples to apples like before, or is this now apple tabs to orange tabs? (Which IMO could easily account for the fuel efficiency difference)... Also, I'd love to see details on the wetted surface area of both props... Above ~9 mph The major factors impeding forward motion are air resistance and water resistance against the hull, and lower unit (drag). Rpm ahould not be the points of comparison, ground speed and water speed (load), relative to fuel consumption are. So did the prop provide an increase or was it just the change in the running attitude with less drag from the trim tabs?

[@hobbs2ronald]

As a point of comparison, winglets on commercial planes only reduce fuel consumption by about 5% and they also reduce noise signature by about 5%... For commercial vehicles operating over long distances, continuously,, that adds up over time, but so too does flying the plane more slowly... Rpms should have nothing to do with the conversation about these props. Speed, load, and fuel consumption, as well as decibels, are the only things that should matter.

[@floridaboatguy]

Excellent comment - it is somewhat of an apple to oranges comparison. The problem is the standard propeller required trim tabs to keep it on plane whereas the Sharrow does not. Additionally, my original propeller would start to porpoise when trimmed higher while the Sharrow does not. So yes, you bring up a very good point, but due to the drastically different handling characteristics I cannot get an exact comparison. The Sharrow just grips the water so much better.

[@floridaboatguy]

Thank you for the comment, yes I do agree. Also the decibel reduction is worth mentioning as a benefit

[@RStout59]

Seriously, if you look at the data at 4250, the increase is massive. Also, the comparison should be made at the same rpm. I've seen lots of sharrow prop reviews. Above a certain point the advantage starts to shrink until it is a wash. 5k is a lot no doubt. Nice job for an Aggie!😊

[@ardisowens3486]

You hit the nail on the head…. People keep talking about RPMs and trying to judge like for like… the old props require 4400 to make 24mph… that Sharrow hit 25 it at 4250.

[@spaRTan3246]

I‘d compare the Sharrow to a bigger standard prop - because that‘s where its lead at certain RPM comes from… 😉

[@longpointfishmaster]

look at your chart 4000 rpm 1..96MPG vs 3.32MPG that over 33% better. at same rpm old prop your boat wasnt even on plane. at this rpm your 4250 is your sweet spot. 10mph faster so you run the boat for 40 min to go 15 miles vs 60 mins for 15 miles. thats 2.5 gals less fuel to do the same 15 mile trip. thats like 35% less fuel for that trip. Most of the efficiency gains aren't in your fuel usage. (some people may save a little in prop slip, but your old prop was probably perfect for your motor / boat combo and had minimal slip so no gains there for you) Most of the gains are based on the fact you can drop 500 to 1000 rpm to get the same speed. that's where you save. motors typically burn that same fuel at same rpm more or less, especially with water as a constant load reguarless of prop, unless you have alot of slip. For example Suzuki Cruise at 30 mph takes 3500rpm, burns 3.3 GPH new sharrow prop to cruise at 30 mph now takes 3000rpm motor at 3000 rpm uses 2.5 GPH that like 30% less fuel to do the same speed. so you can save fuel if you usually drive in the low to mid rpm ranges and continue to do so with the new prop. this is also why there is next no gains in most test at 5000 and 5500 rpm because there is only 1 mph speed difference at top speeds between props so motors are running same rpm to achieve basically the same rpm.

[@FishinMagik]

Sharrow hates honest reviews, always has! They are quick to CYA because they spend a ton of money on paid reviews. Why, because anyone with a lick of common sense would laugh in their face, $5k for maybe 10-15% better performance over a narrow rpm range. It’s a joke, a fad, nothing more. They want one thing, to position the company for sale, that’s all. It’s PR lipstick on a pig, that’s it. Good on you for listening to them and running it again only to confirm your previous data, total waste of money.

[@floridaboatguy]

Time will tell! You may be right, I think it is an excellent product but worth the premium? The market will decide

[@darthkek1953]

Did you even look at the data?

[@kirkdass-vn5by]

Facts.

[@freethinker3279]

With what they are charging for the props they should send out an engineer with each full set to zero in the boat so you can take advantage of its design.

[@josepuig2514]

With the Sharrow, at 5050 RPM you are doing much better than the calculated 2.5 MPG, you are actually at 2.88 MPG.

[@kirkdass-vn5by]

Wonder how easy it is to repair when you hit that rock.

[@floridaboatguy]

I’ll try to avoid rocks! 🤣

[@vadgl2450]

How much horsepower does the Suzuki have? 200 or 250hp outboard

[@floridaboatguy]

New motor is a 200

[@MrSdemino]

One good hit and you have to replace a $5,000 prop. In addition a repair will have you laid up for awhile since Sharrow is the only repair shop.

[@henryoppermann134]

FOR 5000 $? WHERE IS THE PAYBACK?

[@darthkek1953]

4250 rpm, that's where.

[@1FishinAddict]

And the next 10yrs of usage 😂

[@peteh8077]

Maybe 10 years 😂

[@henryoppermann134]

That’s per prop….

[@calebacosta959]

Well I don’t think it’s about money as much as increasing range. Decreasing fuel consumption by 20% on a 95 gallon tank is probably worth it to many people. Often time you go out and fish until you reach a certain amount of fuel and head back. I know guys why keep 75 gallons of extra fuel on their boat. If you’re loaded it could be worth it to you. To most of us, no way. You’d think the price would’ve dropped by now.

[@andrewiida3802]

How much did they pay you?

[@floridaboatguy]

Haha I wish!

[@paulvlug-zu4tz]

Change the standard prop to less pitch, and bigger diameter maybe a four blade and you should get much closer to the sharrow for less $$.

[@SolarBurrito]

Sharrow should give you your money back

[@kirkdass-vn5by]

Bro sounds like they threatened you. Blink twice if you need help.

[@floridaboatguy]

Blink blink 🤣

[@jamesoosterbaan556]

Sharrow. Big waste of money.