Volvo Penta Folding Propeller

A

andyberesford

New Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
9
Visit site
Hi,

I have a 17*14 2 blade Volvo folding prop on my 2007 Dufour 425 GL, running a d2-40 engine with saildrive
I need to replace the prop, but Volvo do not do this size any longer.

They do an 18*12.

I am wondering if the 18*12 is the same as the 17*14 - using the rule of thumb that says increase diameter by 1 inch = reduce pitch by 2.

I have tried various prop calculators around the web and they all give different answers.

Thanks in advance.
 
What boat speed and engine revs do you get at the moment ?
Are the hubs and blades available seperately?
What do other prop suppliers offer?
 
andyberesford said:
Hi,

I have a 17*14 2 blade Volvo folding prop on my 2007 Dufour 425 GL, running a d2-40 engine with saildrive
I need to replace the prop, but Volvo do not do this size any longer.

They do an 18*12.

I am wondering if the 18*12 is the same as the 17*14 - using the rule of thumb that says increase diameter by 1 inch = reduce pitch by 2.

I have tried various prop calculators around the web and they all give different answers.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You should be glad Volvo can't supply you one of their rather poorly performing props (I have one!). There are a lot better performing and cheaper props available than the Volvo. I suggest you do a lot of reading on back threads on here to form an opinion.
 
Replace it with a FlexoFold. Much superior prop. Darglow Engineering will ensure you get the correct size for your boat.
 
I have recently replaced the Volvo folding prop with a Flex o fold, very pleased although Flex o Fold may have given me a slightly oversized prop. I had long had suspicions about the performance of the Volvo but the fairly well known comparative test by YM did not include a Volvo prop ( The test is included on the Flex o fold website )
This link is to a German magasine test https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykvnzacblzdceo2/Segeln 10 08 Schleppen.pdf?dl=0 kindly forwarded to me by a Forum member.
Although all in German the telling table shows the Flex o fold giving 30% more bollard (static) pull than the Volvo.

Edit, Link no longer working and the PDF apparently too big to attach on this site. If you would like a copy PM me with an address to email it to.
 
Last edited:
andy,

I had a boat with a Volvo saildrive & 2 blade folder.

On drying her out for selling her I discovered a crack in the boss of the prop.

I took the boss to BAe Kingston where there were at least 6 specialist welding departments, but the conclusion was ' can't do anything with it, ' s****y nasty zinc alloy '.

A new boss was £480 in 1989, a figure seared into my mind...

I did once meet someone with a worse folding prop, that was on a Greek made Carter 33 where the blades didn't have meshing cogs, so he regularly got just one blade out with very little drive but lots of vibration.

A better newer design than the Volvo sounds a spiffing idea to me.
 
Some of us are just luckier than others I guess, my Volvo folding props, two and three blades, always seemed to serve me well, in contrast poor ole Seajet has had a life of calamitys, or perhaps I have always been just far too easy to please.
Not that I have always been pleased with Volvo but the props. did their job and I never realized I was 30% down on power, it seems a lot, surely one would have noticed?
Is there a possibility that some sort of prejudice exists in places, despite it the company is still trading so they might be doing something almost right?
 
Quandary said:
Some of us are just luckier than others I guess, my Volvo folding props, two and three blades, always seemed to serve me well, in contrast poor ole Seajet has had a life of calamitys, or perhaps I have always been just far too easy to please.
Not that I have always been pleased with Volvo but the props. did their job and I never realized I was 30% down on power, it seems a lot, surely one would have noticed?
Is there a possibility that some sort of prejudice exists in places, despite it the company is still trading so they might be doing something almost right?
Click to expand...

You need to remember that Seajet is probably in a different world from the rest of us and his tales are from the last century!

Anyway, the Volvo prop does not enjoy a good reputation. It is seriously prone to corrosion - hence the ring of little anodes - and consequent wear of the pins. Bollard pull can be misleading and does not necessarily translate into lower speed. Equally using "power" as a measure of efficiency is also misleading. Your boat (like mine with the same engine) has more than enough HP to achieve maximum hull speed with the correct prop even if the prop itself is less efficient than others.

Can assure you it is not prejudice, but the reputation might indeed vary from place to place depending on how many people in a given location have suffered problems! Certainly plenty of people on here over the years have expressed dissatisfaction with the life of the product, if not so much with the performance.
 
Had a 2 bladed folding Volvo on my last boat with saildrive which worked well enough in both directions but with new boat have moved to a J prop which was recommended and might be worth a look One consideration if you have one fitted is whether your ropecutter will fit whatever new prop you select for your saildrive as a thought which was why I ended up staying with Volvo on last boat after the fixed prop hub started to unglue hence replacement
 
Quandary said:
I never realized I was 30% down on power, it seems a lot, surely one would have noticed?
Is there a possibility that some sort of prejudice exists in places, despite it the company is still trading so they might be doing something almost right?
Click to expand...
I think that the 30% difference between the Volvo and Flex o fold found in the Segeln test is merely on static or bollard pull.
In my case with a slightly underpowered boat heading into a strong head wind and a chop the boat occasionally came to almost a stop with the prop losing almost all its push, I had to come off the wind and get going again before resuming our heading. I considered that situation similar to the bollard pull, most grunt at low knots.
There is much less difference in normal top speeds available although the Flex 0 fold achieves max speed at lower revs, perhaps they tend to specify a slightly overpropped size?
I have now found a link to a translation of the test.
http://www.propelspecialisten.dk/download/segeln_magazine_test_2008.pdf

Needed a good German translator . The English translation shows the reverse of the results I have been quoting for the original article? The link given on Flex o Folds page now goes to a correction. The values for Bollard pull are about half those originally given. What is the correction saying? http://www.flexofold.com/upload_dir/docs/Test_segeln.pdf

All I can say is that my new prop achieves greater speed and "push " at lower revs than the Volvo ever did. But perhaps it is just because it is bigger than the old not necessarily better.
 
Last edited:
johnphilip said:
I think that the 30% difference between the Volvo and Flex o fold found in the Segeln test is merely on static or bollard pull.
In my case with a slightly underpowered boat heading into a strong head wind and a chop the boat occasionally came to almost a stop with the prop losing almost all its push, I had to come off the wind and get going again before resuming our heading. I considered that situation similar to the bollard pull, most grunt at low knots.
There is much less difference in normal top speeds available although the Flex 0 fold achieves max speed at lower revs, perhaps they tend to specify a slightly overpropped size?
I have now found a link to a translation of the test.
http://www.propelspecialisten.dk/download/segeln_magazine_test_2008.pdf

Needed a good German translator . The English translation shows the reverse of the results I have been quoting for the original article? The link given on Flex o Folds page now goes to a correction. The values for Bollard pull are about half those originally given. What is the correction saying? http://www.flexofold.com/upload_dir/docs/Test_segeln.pdf

All I can say is that my new prop achieves greater speed and "push " at lower revs than the Volvo ever did. But perhaps it is just because it is bigger than the old not necessarily better.
Click to expand...

Sprechen Sie Deutsch bitte?
 
We have 3 bladed Volvo folding props. We have no complaints with regard to performance, they are better than the 2 bladed folders they replaced. They are inordinately expensive, but so are some other props. They are are hardly complex but an awful lot of components, at least 20, when you take them on and off - so you need to take them on an off in the dry. The little segmented anodes on the prop itself do not last long, though this was the same for the 2 bladed.

Volvo's prices are extortionate but they do hold stock, if you need it (usually) they've got it (I assume holding stock costs money). If you can wait - there are lots of cheap options. The engines appear to last for ever. Your engine is meant to be auxiliary :)

Thread drift: One thing I do not understand - the aluminium sail drive leg cannot be treated with copper based AF (and neither thus can the prop) and is a rate determining item dictating slipping schedule - why cannot the saildrive leg be made from a composite? - we could then paint the whole lot with coper AF making our yachts more efficient (or efficient for longer). It would be environmentally friendly.

Jonathan
 
Many thanks for all the comments.
I have ordered a flexofold 2 blade from darglow, whom i found extremely helpful.
Not a cheap prop though at a grand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top