We all know the bravo 1 and probably some the X`s, but what about the Bravo 1 Performance? What was the differences between these drives?

I had a Bravo 1 Performance Drive for a few years. I never had a problem. But, I only had a stock 454 magnum for power. As far as I know, the only differences between the 2 drives are that the performance drive has a slight bullet and low water pick-ups. I am almost certain that all the internals are the same.

Quote:"...has a slight bullet ...". I am sorry but my english is not that good, could you explain?

I think he means a longer gear case.. In 89 or 90 they went to a longer gear case. The gears in the HP were suppose to be better. Same thing as the regular bravo, but they were better? They used those gears in drives behind the diesel motors, hence they called them diesel gears. But they still broke the floors out if over powered..

hope that helps

Dick

If I remember right, the bravos beginning with serial #om had better gears. I have one with dual water pickups

I believe the OM drives have the X gears which are much better.. The HP series was before the OM arrived..

Reviving and old thread, I have Bravo 1 Performance drives ( OL serial#'s) on my 99 Formula 353 Fastech HP500 (bigger now since repower) on boxes with the Lathem ext steering top caps and have not had any problems in the 6 years i've owned the boat. I don't log alot of hours each year but am I lucky or were these a good run of drives? Several people I have spoken to denied these drives existed but obviously they did. I do not have low water pickups and to me the bullets look the normal shape but I neved had bravos before to compare to. Any info on these drives would be appreciated.

They are just the standard Bravo drives unless someone upgraded the internals.

The gears used back then do seem to have had a better quality of alloy.

So the OM series has the X gears but not the steel tower insert? Is that correct? But the OL gears had thinner floors but perhaps made of better materials?

I'm pretty sure that is correct.