Formula with TRS
 

A friend wants me to look at a 1992 30ft formula he is considering. this boat has trs drives and 330hp engines. Is this common?????

doesnt seem like it, sure its not a 82? 92 is quite new for trs, seems like they were done in 89

Trs was used till 94, most Formulas after 88 or so have Bravo, but maybe they ordered that one with TRS, sure it is TRS?

Verify the last digits of the Hull ID, this will be the year. I don't believe Formula was still installing the TRS's in 92'. My 91' 292 was built with Bravo's, and if you check Formaula's website and look at the 92 brochure in PDF form, I believe it will list the Bravo's.

cig. used trs drives until atleast 93....but they were around the last company to embrace the new technology...

What did Formula use on '92 336s with 525SCs?

I like everyone else have my doubts on this one, my 89 272 SR! came with bravo I drives, and if I'm not mistaken, behind big blocks 87 was the last year that used TRS drives unless they still used them behind the old original 420's, but along about then the 420's were done away with and they came out with the first generation 500 hp's which I know for a fact came with Bravos.

My friends 88 311 with 330 had TRS.

I am betting that if it is a newer boat with TRS and it was not somehow ordered that way, it was rerigged in the past by someone who wanted TRS, it would not be unheard of..

Bravo's

No wonder they only made 5. :D

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.

:D
:ernaehrung004:

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. :D

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. :ernaehrung004:

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. :D
. 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.

I think if you ask around in the Cig forums you will find that the Top Guns with the TRS set up run with a lot less porposing then the ones with Bravos. Moving the engines 18 or so inches forward is a HUGE deal. We are talking about 1000 pounds in the motor. Take 5 of your friends and have them stand close together then have them move 18" forward and you will see a large difference in the way the boat sits in the water.

The same has been said about my boat. I have never rode in a Bravo 311. one of the reasons i went to crossovers is if i ever had to change a water pump on my motors you would have to pull the motor to do it:eek: Hell the crossover hits the trim pump when i put the motors in last year.

Really? when my buddy sold his TRS 311 we took off the crossovers and put pumps back on, no problem! we even changed cams once without pulling engines... thatw as fun!

Ahh remember i have the Twin Disc MG502 tranny i think it is about 8-9 inches longer than a TRS tranny;)