force prop

Shifflett115

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Thread starter
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
191
whats up guys, will a 1989 force thruhub exaust prop work on a 1985 nonthruhub exaust motor ,they are the same splines but will it work?,thanks for your help
 

Frank Acampora

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
12,004
Re: force prop

Yup! They will both be interchangeable. Splines and hub length are the same. If the Force thru-hub has a flared hub, you will not be able to use your Black plastic flare washer. There is however a special, thick, splined washer to take its place.

If it is not a true thru-hub but a prop with a space between the rubber hub and outside hub---tapered like a regular Force hub, then you will still be able to use the black flare washer and tail-cone. That is if you have the extended shaft for a tail-cone. Some did, some did not.
 

Texasmark

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
15,068
Re: force prop

Frank,

Usually not on this site but I have wondered about this for a long time.

Chrysler had no thru exhaust hub. Force takes over and I noticed that in later versions, they did redirect the exhaust gases from the tail cone thing to the hub.

In answering the question about props, back when I had an 85 chrysler, it had a long conical hub to streamline the water flow from the end of the propshaft and reduce drag.

How do you reduce drag on a thru hub prop connected to a non thru hub lower unit? Also, once they did go to thru hub and got rid of the tailcone, what happened to performance given apples and apples with the engines?

Thanks,

Mark
 

Frank Acampora

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
12,004
Re: force prop

Mark: Early Force and Late Chrysler used the solid tapered hub prop. It was usually mounted with a large black plastic flared washer about 4 inches diameter and 1 1/2 inches thick which Chrysler called an "Anticavitation Washer." Then the tailcone went on behind it and was held on with the same type screw that holds the shift yoke in the case -- same head, same length, same amount threaded. -- same part!

Later on, Force developed the dual exhaust midleg and lower unit. Part of the exhaust vented through the hollow prop hub. Now, since it would not fit the flared hub of the hollow hub prop, the flared washer and tailcone assembly was dropped. Since it was no longer needed, the prop shaft extension that held the tailcone was removed from the manufacturing process--every machining step costs money. Similarly, Why keep two different props in manufacturing inventory when the same prop will work on both dual exhaust and single exhaust engines? --Inventory also costs money.

I have tried solid hub props in all variations--with tailcone, without--etc.
while there may be a slight difference in drag between variations and the flared hollow hub prop, it was not noticeable to me under operating conditions. I even tried a flared hollow hub prop on an older lower unit and installed a tailcone--no difference.

I do not, however, like the black flared hollow hubbed props. When I buy an engine with one, I sell the prop. Call it predjudice or gut feeling, but they just don't seem to perform as well as the older solid hub props--no actual figures that I can quote though. At least that's my take on it.
 

Matthew A.

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
232
Re: force prop

I copied this info regarding the patent design for thru-hub flared props.

To improve engine and boat performance, it is known in the prior art to provide a diffuser ring at the trailing end of the outer hub. In Cleary U.S. Pat. No. 5,158,433, incorporated herein by reference, the outer hub has an integral aft skirt portion flared outwardly to a trailing end to provide a diffuser ring. The diffuser ring assists in exhaust gas flow and provides a pressure barrier that helps prevent exhaust gases from feeding back into the propeller blades. This enhances engine and boat performance.

In one aspect of the present invention, structural design improvements are provided enhancing the forming operation of the flare, and reducing cracking and fatigue.

In another aspect of the invention, structural design improvements are provided further enhancing engine and boat performance by preventing exhaust in the exhaust passage from seeking the negative pressure backside surfaces of the propeller blades.
 
Top