PDA

View Full Version : How Merc dropped the ball...or did they



CDMA
08-28-2002, 11:58 AM
Just some random thoughts to promote interesting discussion….

I have had sometime this summer to think about the state of the high performance boat market; principally the monopoly mercruiser has over basically all high performance powerboat propulsion packages.

What I really can not get over is how poor the product mercruiser produces actually is especially considering the money these parts command. Now don’t get me wrong I am incredibly pleased with the Bravo on my 18 but as I look into future power packages for the 14 and other possible projects I am frankly unhappy with almost all of the options Mercruiser offers.

Mercruiser started with their first outdrive that is basically the predecessor to the current Alpha drive. While there has been a lot of evolution over the last 30 years the same basic design is still made. This design uses the all too familiar dog clutches found in outboards. However this design has just not been shown to be able to hold up to the power produced by even smaller V-8s. In my opinion what mercruiser needs is a complete revamp of this entire design. A small drive similar in size to an Alpha one needs to be created using the Bravo design theory. A small cone clutch used in the supper gear housing and straight cut lower unit gears.

After this the Bravo should be the next drive on the food chain. While this drive is fundamentally a solid design modifications need to be made in terms of better integration of full hydraulic external steering.

Right now the most glaring gap in the mercruiser line is between the Bravo and the 6 drive. While there have been rumors for years there never has been a materialization of the drive promised to bridge this gap. As I see it a drive to fill this gab should be a modernized version of the TRS. The TRS while now older and larger was another good idea that I think with the 20 years of development it should have got could be the answer many are looking for. After rigging my boat with the Bravo one and looking the space available between the flywheel and transom I think the answer is some sort of drive system that utilizes the current engine location and mounting but has a new style merctrans type transmission mounted aft of the flywheel. This coupled to a non shifting straight cut gear drive really would be the answer many are looking for. The only issue with this would be if there was in fact the room needed to fit the clutchpack in behind the engine. Even if there was not enough room in the stock location the gimble housing for the new drive could be designed with a couple inch extension outside of the boat.

After giving all of this thought I have come to one conclusion. Merc is not a dumb company. Their success is based on being good business people. The only answer I can give for their apparent poor product is planned obsolescence. They have no compitition and as long as there is none they can continue to have high HP engines blowing weak drives. Every time this happens they get another customer saddling up for a $5000+++ hit for a new unit.

So sorry for my rambling

Don’t even get me started on the reintroduction of the Blackhawk…

Chris

blackhawk
08-28-2002, 12:10 PM
"The only answer I can give for their apparent poor product is planned obsolescence. They have no compitition and as long as there is none they can continue to have high HP engines blowing weak drives. Every time this happens they get another customer saddling up for a $5000+++ hit for a new unit."

You hit the nail on the head!!! The problem is it would cost way to much money for someone to give them any serious competition unless they had something REALLY REVOLUTIONARY. Otherwise, I think you will be losing money for quite a few years until you got some market share(if you could)

I was hoping that Volvo Penta was going to stick it out. I don't know much about the DPX drive but it sure looked like a slick package. A friend of mine has a DuoProp on a performance boat. The drive is 6 years old and he has not had one problem at all. And, he beats the HELL out of it. Hammers it from the hole almost everytime, launches some big air quite often, LONG wide open runs(over 20 minutes when I was with him once eek! ), and he has hit bottom a few times too.

Bottom line, Merc needs some competition!

EricG
08-28-2002, 12:46 PM
Great Topic Chris....I love these kinds of discussions.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with most of what you said...so I can't add any heated argument to the topic.

The one thing I will add though, is that I think competition will come....and I have a funny feeling where it will come from. If we look at recent vehicle history, it seems that it takes an outside force to create a niche for the competition, but once that happens it's a whole new ball game.

Example 1: How many "non-detroit" cars were sold before say 1972? Then we have the Gas crunch and new emmission standards. I don't know what the Detroit vs Japan vs Europe market share breakdown is now...but I think Detroit is losing.

Example 2: Outboards. I've grown up with Merc's and John-Rudes, just as everyone else has. How many Japanese outboards did we used to see on the water 10-15 years ago. Then the new emmission standards started to come into play, Yamaha, Honda, and the rest got involved. Now it's a rarity to see a new boat with a Merc on the back.

I can't believe that the Stearndrive market will not follow the same pattern. We already have a lot of talk of new emmission standards on I/O's. When that happens, I think we'll start seeing some new players, and I tend to think that they will introduce a new Stearndrive to match up with whatever new engine they produce. Sure, this will definitely start in the smaller "Alpha" class packages first....but when you consider how much of the Stearndrive market is the "Alpha" class I think Merc's dominiation will slowly start to erode.

EG
Disclaimer - I literally just made this up sitting at my desk waiting for an FTP to finish...It's definitely over simplistic thinking...but heck - what else do I have to do. :D

this is it
08-28-2002, 01:04 PM
Nice topic. Do you realize that ALL of the boating lines are owned by two companies. To have Japan participate in the outboard/waverunner market was a good thing. But, what we need is the European boating market make a presence in the US. Just a thought. Competition is good.

Woodsy
08-28-2002, 01:38 PM
Chris..

You hit the nail on the head, Mercruiser pretty much has a monoply on sterndrives. The reason you have not seen any new drives between the Bravo & the #6 drives is beacuse Mercury is pretty confident in the performance of the new XR drives...

What is truly ashame is that Arneson does not recognize & exploit this flaw in Mercury's thinking. They should be selling upgrade kits at alot cheaper price, get some market share & let word of mouth sell the unit. The reason very few OEM's offer Arneson as standard, is because they don't want to piss off Mercury. Mercury is thier only supplier of complete packages engine/tranny/sterndrive.

Of course, if they brought back the BlackHawk......

Woodsy :D :D

CDMA
08-28-2002, 01:51 PM
Unfortunately from what I hear on OSO even the XR’s just aren’t cutting it even with factory ( 500/575) power. I think they are fighting a losing battle. Two 90 degree turns are hard enough w/o throwing in the shifting issue.

In regards to the Arneson yes it is a shame. However the reality of it is that Twin Disc, the owner or arneson, really doesn’t care about the little ASD-6 and the ASD-8. The real bread and butter for them are the big commercial units that sell for tens of thousands of dollars. Actually I met a guy down in New Orleans this winter who was a twin disc factory rep on a new crew boat sea trial and he was telling me how the Arneson acquisition never really panned out for Twin disc like they wanted it to. He told me the only one he ever sold was to a guy with a house boat that wanted the ultra shoal draft ability…an Arneson houseboat…how messed up.

What has amazed me most since I have started at Webb is the realization that the pleasure boat industry is soooo much smaller compared to the commercial one. I never really realized the magnitude of the commercial marine market but after seeing what I have seen now the pleasure boat market is nothing more then a little pea-on.

Chris

EricG
08-28-2002, 02:08 PM
Great point on the Commercial vs. Pleasure boat markets.....I used to be a Marine Insurance Agent insuring primarily Alaska crabbers and Factory Trawlers. Just the amount of money this small niche paid for Insurance was mind blowing...then you consider what they are spending on the boats and equipment, it doesn't take long to realize how huge the Commercial Maritime industry must be.

I think that speaks a lot to what you are saying about Merc's missing drive between the Bravo and the 6. When you start to consider how small the pleasure boating industry is compared to other industry's, then you consider how TINY the performance market is compared to the other types of pleasureboats....it all starts to make sense.

I love topics like this.... :D

EG

MOP
08-28-2002, 03:13 PM
My 2c's Merc was super quick to jump in and use Volvos patented cone shifter when the patent ran out. You would think they have had brains enough to fit there drives with the oil pump that Volvo uses, but I guess that would put the drive shower guys out of Biz. Even the lowly OMC has had a drive circ pump for may years. My Merc guy calls the Merc drives and outboards Welfare units with planned obsolesence. Volvo and now OMC is climbing the ranks of very dependable drives. Soon to be released is a composit drive from Volvo which due to its hydro dynamic design gets a fair amout of speed above all other drives with comparable power. What little I have read about it they say it has much stronger housing. Another note at my new location we sell Merc and Yami's, at the very least 1/2 of the mercs come back with warentee work. And of about 30 units 3 blew gear cases under ten hours 5 bent the shafts on the starters and galled the fly wheels drives. We are statring to rate Force out boards higher.

Forrest
08-28-2002, 04:03 PM
It's too bad Volvo-Penta doesn't give more push in the market. From what I can see, the Volvo SX drive is head and shoulders better than the Alpha, and the DPx with is integrated dual-ram hydraulic steering is an overall better drive than the Bravo I. Come to think of it, I haven't heard anything about the DPx and the DPx/HP lately. I know the Volvo-Penta teamed up with Innovation Marine a few years back to build their 500 and 600 HP engines. I have to wonder if Volvo-Penta still building these units.

CDMA
08-28-2002, 05:10 PM
Forrest,

I could be wrong but I think the Volvo DPx high performance line was canned a year or so ago.

I too really liked that nice integrated external hydraulic steering.

Chris

Ralph Savarese
08-28-2002, 05:39 PM
How about a drive with no shifting using a compact planetary set gear between the engine and drive . Crank mounted water pump and an oil pump in the drive . Have to stick with heilical gears though stronger more compact and quiet.External hydraulic steering.
Ralph

JP BRESCIA
08-28-2002, 09:08 PM
When we start racing smaller craft without restriction is when we will see competition for Merc. Most new technology comes from a racing effort. We get plenty of new tech from auto racing such as Le Mans and WRC. Wouldn't it be fun to start a mid-size stearn drive racing trend. Kinda like the old gentlemans racers. The insurance issue would probably keep must gearheads on land though.
In my head, if you have one of something with a motor it's fun, if you have two of something with a motor, YOU GOT A RACE! eek! :D eek! :D

RH
08-31-2002, 08:40 AM
After reading all of the posts, I cannot disagree with the comments being made. I was reading in a boating mag a few months ago and saw the prototype of the Evinrude Drive that OMC was thinking about releasing before the bankruptcy a few years back. Then the new fiber drive by Volvo looks great as well. At least they are starting to think outside of the box. Maybe it is nostalgia, but I am hoping that someone like OMC or Volvo will step up an try to take on some market share with some solid servicable engineering ideas and attact the inherant weaknesses held by Merc.
It is funny to talk with mechanics that have been around the business for the last 30 plus years. I have yet to find one who has had anything bad to say about the Volvo drives and the durability issues verses the Mercruisers, yet you have some genius marketing at Merc that has really made them the big name in the sterndrive market.
(My .02 worth)
RH
RH

MOP
08-31-2002, 09:15 AM
Bravo RH ! I myself was on the wrenches for too many years. For many years the only unit I thought was worth its salt was Volvo. My traing also of many years was Johnson, OMC and Volvo both gas and diesel. Our next door neighbor was a Merc dealer a very good friend still to this day, we both knew we were keeping Anuities running. Both of us wondered why the big two could not make anything as reliable as the Volvo. Point in case! How many old NEVER taken apart Volvos have we all seen on even Hammered boats of all sizes. I absolutely Cringe when I read about someone converting a Donzi to Merc, I am a little less upset when they go to late OMC or Volvo. I had over quite a few years and beers made good buddies up at the schools. I had a gift of a Volvo 270 upper gear case from a drag boat reported to have had over a thousand horse power that supposedly Volvo at the time was testing lower hydrodynamics. Anyway my instructer said it had about 15 full throttle runs before it let go. I kept it on my window sill at work to show customers. The guy was a straight ace so I do belive the story no way could any other unit that size last that long. By the way I could not resist going out into the shop yesterday and counting puked drives 9 Mercs O others caviate OMC was just as bad till the late 80's. The only Volvo we worked on this year war one that had its anchor get loss at speed and wrapped the chain around the douprops we Press/Vac checked refilled and replaced the props. You boys who aquire older Donzis with Volvos should have the checked for wear and stick a nose cone on them and enjoy yourself don't switch to the Black Wellfare unit that gets expensive.

harbormaster
08-31-2002, 02:23 PM
MOP
I take exception to that. In the 2.5 months I have had my Alpha, I have spent only $450.00 on it! :D wink

Gearhead99
08-31-2002, 05:22 PM
When I had my last Donzi [18 w/351, w/NOS] Very healthy 351W, dyno'd at 375 hp. without the bottle. The bottle was a 175 hp hit. I use to "POUR" NOS through it. Had a 20lb tank. Used it for hole shots and top end runs. And long runs. Had a 270 Volvo w/nose cone. Also, had the prop shaft modified so could use Merc props.

Never, Never had a problem.

HyperDonzi
08-31-2002, 08:28 PM
alpha 1 gen 1, 8.99$ besides the maintenence in the last 5 years.

but then again it is attached to 190hp.

Moody Blu'
08-31-2002, 08:36 PM
I hope you didnt just jinx yourself harbor eek!

I am very weary of new boats BECAUSE of the bravo drive.
I may just bite the bullet and go arenson.

or perhaps, build a boat from the ground up and throw a pair of volvos in back of it.

that would ease my mind.......

tailwind
08-31-2002, 10:06 PM
Hi All:

Looking back at the history of the stern drive, there was perhaps a collaboration between the old OMC and VOLVO prior to Mercruisers acceptance.

There most certainly is a link prior, and will try to find it herewith. From previous recolections, A previous employee of Mercury developed the stern drive, and was not accepted by the higher ups, and here is when Volvo & OMC together completed the patent rights. There is a copy of the story here somewhere. Mercury had little faith in this idea until it indeed took off as we know it now.

CDMA , youre help here, realizing the difference between the "dog" clutch and the cone type (OMC) and (VOLVO), which are virtually the same, this is truly an improvement versus the others.

Bottom line, the OMC years, when in control, did place the highest quality for thier craft. As a 1991 Classic 18 owner, "the lowly omc years", lets put them together and see!

Best regards
Randy,

Rootsy
09-01-2002, 08:23 AM
ok chris... lets develop our own "bulletproof" design.. with Donzi.net's unlimited backing wink of us we should have NO issue with thorough R&D, testing, design, tooling, marketing and manufacturing... i mean, come on.. we knooow every donzi nut with donzitis would just HAVE TO HAVE one... :D

Boatless
09-02-2002, 01:35 PM
There are definitely some problems with the Bravo design; life span and cost are the major ones.

The cost of a Bravo has risen in recent years to a level that is nearly mind blowing. If one was to purchase a complete Bravo XR assembly, Not just the leg!, it would cost well over $10K alone.

Now if you want the external hydraulic steering, or in integrated gimbal steering you are looking at another couple thousand dollars.

If you say screw Mercury and buy an aftermarket (Bravo Style) outdrive and install it on you boat your still looking at cost above $10 to $12K + steering and no warranty.

Someone mentioned the Arneson ASD6, I searched the web and located their site. There is a Conversion kit or something to that effect. It gives you all you have asked for. A reliable outdrive, a shifting transmission and current engine (aka CG) placement for a price that seems in line for what Mercury and others is charging and the site says it has a warranty.

Someone says they should offer this at a cheap price. I am beginning to see why they ignore this market. Everyone wants something for nothing.

I believe that its true that boat manufacturers do want to keep under the good grace of Mercury so most would not touch this approach. But how much longer can they build a product that is un-reliable?

Volvo’s new plastic drive is not for performance; rather it was designed with the commercial applications in mind. I spoke with Volvo’s people at the Miami boat show and they said it is not for speed. So scratch that one.

Mercury is suppose to have a new Baby #6 coming out soon. Soon is a relative term. It yet remains to be seen if it shifts or not, and how badly it will damage your net worth.

Just another opinion

Steve,

BigGrizzly
09-02-2002, 03:03 PM
Working for a manufacturer, Pland obsolescence is BS, what they do is give it a life cycle. What this means is how long will it live. If it fits the criteria than it is used if notit is redesigned or canned. Now Chris you are right about the XR drives but for the wrong reason. The drive was designed years ago, when 500 HP was hard to come by. Now 600 HP is common and so are superchargers. Engine power is comming up faster than drive durability. Kind of like Compuers. PRograms are getting bigger and better now computers have to get better to use the programes. In engines the profitability is much more than in drives. IIIF it is the only drive its the one you use.
The TRS is stronger than the BravoI, However it used horse power back in the 1980s when HP was 330 and 400Hp sothe Alpha and Bravo took over. Now that 500 is common what are they doing just bandading the old drive. One more point Volvo isn't dead yet.

Randy, owner of Donzi since 1966

CDMA
09-02-2002, 03:11 PM
Well said Steve.

I agree completely with the Arneson observation regarding their kit. That being said I might be biased because that entire kit is sitting in my basement being rigged to go in my 22. However that being said the surface drive will never be a direct replacement for the Bravo for the majority of the performance boating world. Despite how much I like it most people will not put up with the a) lack of bow lift b) low speed cavitation, and c) poor low speed performance. There still is a need for a better generic style outdrive.

After my previous experience with a 270 Volvo on my 18, then an Alpha and now a Bravo I have to disagree that the Volvo is superior to the Bravo. In terms of out right strength I think they are similar.
Of course we hear of Bravo’s blowing all the time but when is the last time you heard of one go on a Small block Donzi? These guys are blowing the Bravo’s on heavy BBC equipped boats. And it is true you rarely hear of blown 270’s but when was the last time you saw a heavy BBC boat with Volvo’s on it? Sure there are some out their but very few. I think if you compare apples to apples the Volvo and the Bravo are similar in strength. The alpha is a whole nother ball of wax and should be relegated to 4cyls only.

I just think that the Bravo is the wrong drive for what is being done to it. I don’t see needing anything more for SBC’s and even the mild 496 and 454’s of the world. What I do see is a real need for a drive that can better take the 500+ hp market.

I was never unhappy with the actual volvo drive on my 18. The drive is w/o question strong reliable and dependable. However when I looked into what needed to be done to add power trim and power steering it quickly became apparent that it was cheaper to switch to mercruiser then to get involved in all the custom fabrication or expense of modernizing the older volvo. That and the far superiority of the Mercruiser gimble housing were the reasons I did the conversion. I do admit the alpha was a waste of time but that was more due to prop rotation issues with my LH helm boat then anything else. But in 1 season with that drive I quickly saw after blowing 1 and having constant shifting problems this just was not he answer I was looking for.

After one full season with the Bravo I can say it has satisfactorily answered all of my desires. I am however adding full hydraulic steering at the current moment. This is not due to my unhappiness with the merc steering and I would say for most applications it is sufficient. Just with the speeds I am running with my new engine I think the extra control and safety of hydraulic is worth it.

Just my $.02…well that makes $.04 now then….

Chris

Boatless
09-02-2002, 06:48 PM
I would not necessarily agree with your three points as they are symptoms of propellers, reduction and bottom design not outdrives. I forgot one, weight!!

Bow lift is dependant upon hull, CG and propeller rake. A properly setup boat really does not need a ton of bow lift. Sure there are boats that do need a lot of bow lift, but these are not great boats that go fast either.

Low speed performance is a propeller selection and reduction issue. Remember as someone pointed out in this thread, Arneson's are mostly on commercial application as pleasure yachts. These do not go that fast and they do cruise slowly.

Cavitation is also a propeller issue.

I see that Fountain is offering the Arneson's as standard equipment OEM now. Must mean that these issues have been addressed.

So you bought one of these conversions. Does it work or not?

Volvo's are speed regulated. I once spoke with Oke Mannerfelt(sp)aka Bat Boat Designer, and he stated that the Volvo's would simply stop going any faster after a certain speed regardless of hp added. There has always been an issue with blow out from the gear case since the inception of them. So, they have larger issues than power trim.

Like I stated before, Mercury is about to introduce a new outdrive. When and what is still to be seen.

I hear that GM has developed an outdrive also to team up with their Vortex engines. I really wonder what that looks like also.

Examples of toady vs. the past:

36’ Cigarette Flat Deck, mid 80’s vintage. With twin 500-hp/Bravo packages, these boats are running good at 68 mph.

New 36’ Cigarette twin step boat with same power can reach low 90’s in the consumer version.

The newer one does have a significantly higher X dimension. The older one will not even get on plane with the same X dimension.

Bow lift is not as large of a consideration with today’s Cigarettes but I did notice that the F2 Cigarette had some Arneson rocker plates.???

Gary S.
09-02-2002, 06:58 PM
I don't see where the commercial market gets much buisness from outdrive manufactures,or did I read this wrong? With my backgroung on charter boats I saw very few with I.O.'s,, and the one's that had them hated them. I to am puzzled by the lack of performance boats with Arneson's and Kaama's on the transom to me it's the only logical switch after pricing the Bravo and upgrading the 270 with hydraulic steering and power trim. I think I can go Asd-6 for about 5 grand,,,,,thats just a start on a Bravo.

blackhawk
09-02-2002, 07:59 PM
Boatless,

How can Volvo's be "speed regulated". I would think that there is a percentage of hp loss that may increase to such a degree that it's not worth the the money but I can't see how it could hit a "speed wall"?

CDMA
09-02-2002, 08:35 PM
Steve,

You are correct that all of those points are symptoms of propellers, reduction and bottom design but they are also to an extent symptoms of drive design.

Even if you have the best Rolla propeller available an Arneson surface drive will be poor around the docks. Due to the close proximity of the prop to the surface of the water reverse handling, low speed control, and “holeshot” are comprimised. As the prop rotates and a blade reaches TDC a surface drive when not being run in full surfacing mode ( slow speeds) has a tendency to catch air causing cavitiation. It really is not until the prop enters surfacing mode will the advantages be seen. You will commonly see on Merc 6 drives on race boats vertical hoses routed over the props which function to introduce air into the prop area as the boat is planeing off. This purposely allows the blade to surface earlier and run in it’s semi surfaced mode. The real problem with designing a surface drive propeller is that for any kind of top speed results you need to design it for full surfacing mode. This causes compromises in full submerged operational performance. So to sum it up you are right that prop design is what causes this low speed caviataion and poor handling. However to use a surface drive to it’s potential this is a necessary evil.

Also these commercail vessels using surface drives are not tankers. They are high speed ferries, megayachts and planing crew boats. Not slow boats.

Bow lift is also dependant on hull design and different boats require different amounts of bow lift then others. For example a Cat requires very little bow lift from the outdrive as the air forced between the hulls creates the needed lift. However heavier conventional V bottoms ( assuming a straight non rocker bottom) are dependant on some sort of lift from the drive. It is very difficult if not impossible to create significant bow lift from a surface drive. A surface drive has no downward leg to act as a lever and lift the bow. When you trim up a bravo you essentially are using it as a lever to lift the bow creating bow lift. By using a propeller in this application that creates more bow lift ( aka higher rake) causes the bow to be lifted even more. With an Arneson it is a whole different ball game. As you trim the drive up since there is no downward leg there is no lever arm to raise the bow. So what happens as you trim an Arneson is that you just lift the prop out of the water. So at neutral trim if you have 50 percent blade immersion and you trim it up to say 10degrees then there is say 40% blade immersion. You have not trimmed the boat up just essentially lifted the drive. While some bow lift can be created with prop design on an Arneson this is significantly less then is possible with a traditional surface drive where that lift created by the prop is multiplied by the lever arm.

To combat this it is common to see surface drive boats with either rocker, Arneson rocker plates, CG’s moved aft by external mounting of the transmission etc..

While I sure do not need convincing that a surface drive is a superior design I will admit its downfalls. The issue with surface drives is that you can’t just throw them onto any old boat and just expect them to work. Due to the drastically different characteristics of surface drives some boats need considerable modifications to function properly. For example the 22 I am rigging with the Arneson, which has not been run yet, has a shifted CG and rocker added to the bottom. So while a surface drive can be made to work it is generally in many cases more difficult then just a bolt on affair. So until manufacturers design hulls around surface drives I do not see a surface drive becoming the replacement drive for a Bravo. However there will still be people like me insisting on being difficult… wink

MOP
09-02-2002, 09:59 PM
Back when I did the Volvo tech schools they said the stock drives blew out at about 60. A nose cone brought them up to 70+. Little did they know how much horse power guys would hook to them. I am sure some go faster now. They showed us a Speed Master but we did not get to fool around with it.

Boatless
09-03-2002, 12:18 AM
Vent tubes, originally used on the Arneson's I believe, are there not to surface the propellers nor to cavitation them. They are there to aireate the propellers so that they can break loose and thus get the engines to spin up and get the boat on plane.

This is a common thing on boats that run large pitch/diameter propellers. Without them it can take forever to get on plane.

Every negative you listed can be said about a Bravo when it is placed in a surface mode. Or even a Speedmaster.

My point is that today's boats do not need as much bow lift as the older boats once did.

Also, high speed is a relative term. The 80' Baia at my local Marina does 45 knots. It does get on plane very well and it does cruise at very slow speeds as well a dock in an acceptable manner.

I read an article about the 80' Magnum weighing in at over 110,000 lbs. It got on plane in 15 seconds.

My point is that these boats are not just wide open or off plane. They have a fully functional operating range. This is a function of all the components of the boats combined.

I’ve also read the article on Fountain comparing the 42’ lighting, one with Arneson’s and Yanmars and the other with 500 efi/Bravo’s. (“Boating Magazine, August 2002 issue, Volume 75 No. 8 P. 85-91”)

The Arneson boat had better docking, slow speed cruise, top speed as well as better turning and maneuverability through its range.

It took like 2 seconds longer to get on plane, but that was more due to the fact that the Yanmars are turbo charged and they have turbo lag off the line. 5.3 sec. Gas vs. 8.9 Diesel.

The diesel boat was also 1,500 lbs heavier.

RedDog
09-03-2002, 02:00 PM
Here is another surfacing prop option I stumbled across - http://www.pulsedrive.net

The sparse information speaks of reverse performance but I don't see a transmission in the line drawing.

Gary S.
09-03-2002, 06:11 PM
My 2 cents for the slow speed handeling is it has to be better than the straight inboards I grew up running, I still cannot get used to the handeling of a "steerable" prop and hit the first dock riser faster than most people are comfy with, thats all you can do when your used to only backing down one way as with a single IB, and thats how I learned. Same as a lot of other folks out there.

doug hess
09-03-2002, 08:40 PM
Chris Allard's suggested business model for Merc is apparently the same one used by Teleflex on their Safe-T mechanical steering systems. Their helms have a poor design that wears quickly leading to progressively greater play.

A message die cast on the housing warns against disassembly (necessary to periodically lubricate) and says to replace the complete unit. Why should Teleflex promote good maintainence when rapid wear promotes replacement sales?

Open a Teleflex up and you find a simple mechanism, 2 gears and a shaft that periodic lubrication would extend the life of. I gave up on Teleflex altogether and use Ultraflex which has a 3 gear planitary system. Even that I opened new and added more grease to .

RH
09-03-2002, 09:58 PM
All are relatively good points to consider. I am a neophyte when it comes to Volvo as my 270 in the Hornet is the first that I have owned over the years. I have ownd a few Mercruiser Alphas with the 350 GM block and one 188 Hp 302 Ford. The rest have been v-drives and straight inboards. The one thing that I really like about the Volvo is how nice that it shifts at 30 years of age. Yes, it does not have trim, and that is a big bummer to me. I feel that with my 320 hp, trim would allow me to break the hull loose and get up and run faster. This is just my own hypothesis, so I look forward to comments from the Donzi afficianados out there. If I had trim, would it greatly increase speed at the risk of control? I am seeing 50 MPH on the speedo but that has not been verified with GPS. Any performance data on 19' sterndrive Hornets out there? I have thoughts of someday converting it to a Bravo or newer Volvo drive with trim when or if mine would blow out. Smart remarks are welcome!