The 311 was a rather heavy boat for the size. Personally, I'd rather have TRS than Bravo's on that boat, the TRS behind a 330 would be almost unbreakable and shift much nicer.

I agree, the COG is better on a TRS boat, they do ride better as far as I am concerned because of it and the extra weight.
we had 600 HP and TRS in a friends 311 that went 80 gps, never hurt a drive.

The TRS drive/transmission setup moved the engines forward in the boat and killed cockpit space, but the boats planed and handled better than the later Bravo boats,,,I was told that 87 was the last "official" year of TRS behind the 330's and 365's,, a few holdovers as early 88's as mfg's used up inventory.
Not gospel, but from what I can remember that was pretty accurate.

Cockpit space is the same, you just have more room in front of the engines on a Bravo boat, less in TRS. but the cockpit is the same.

I really don't mean to pick a fight, but how much different can the COG be considering trans and heavier TRS drives? Can't leave out up to 1000lbs of fuel sitting forward of COG also. The reason the TRS boats are perceived to ride better is because they weigh more. And yes, the 311 was "designed around" the TRS because that's all they had when it was designed. It sure was nice stretching out in my Bravo-equipped '91 311's engine bay when I did my service. And my Bravos shifted perfectly.

I have no proof of the COG thing but all from what I have read and heard, that makes a differnece.

Kind of lowering a car for road race, 2 inches lower makes a huge difference on handling, by lowering the COG, works the same on a boat in engine placement

Since we never heard back exactly which boat we're hijacking, hope nobody minds.

I'm not usually a ball buster like this, but there's another flaw in the lowering analogy. "Most" often when a car is lowered, it's by changing the springs. The new springs aren't just shorter, they're a higher rate (stiffer). The increase in handling comes from springs rates, not COG change by lowering.

Apologies for may appear to be ball busting, it's not.

They used bravos on Bullets in 88 but..The big boats{TGs} ate them up

I guess it depended on the boat,,I had an 88 Mach I 23 Condor and when I bought it, they had an 87 leftover for one hell of a deal and the wife at the time didn't want it because the rear seat was moved farther forward and took up cockpit space(and they had no space in front of the engines on either one come time to work on them.

[QUOTE=handfulz28;2786176]Since we never heard back exactly which boat we're hijacking, hope nobody minds.
. The new springs aren't just shorter, they're a higher rate (stiffer). The increase in handling comes from springs rates, not COG change by lowering.

Both things assist in handling, the lowering of the COG and the stiffness of the springs, but lowering a care with a stock spring rate will still handle better,,,stock height with stiffer springs will give better steering response, but will handle like a snow plow, I own an alignment/suspension shop I deal with it every day with the kids and their ricers.