Difference between an HP transom assembly and a Std Bravo
 

I've been reading all the previous threads i could find and it seems every thread staets something different EXCEPT all agree on diff hinge pins. I was under impression that the HP assembly had stainless pins n the std did NOT, and also the the overall gimbal itself was a beefier piece.

WHAT are the real diffs??? Now you can order an HP assembly wither with out without trim senders also.

Yea, I believe the gimbal ring and the bell are heavy duty and that's about it.

There are a few companies that make stainless gimbal rings like Hill manufacturing. They might be the strongest and priced the same as Merc. I was told the bell was no different. I thought you couldnt get trim senders on an HP? Somebody please chime in, I am in the same process as berns29scarab

Here are the HP transom assembly part numbers

Without senders 6-6511002NZ
With Senders 6-6511102NZ

http://www.mercruiserparts.com/Show_...ages/COMMON/NO IMAGE&inbr=11406&bnbr=40&bdesc=Transom+Assembly+Ch art

6-6511002NZ TRANSOM ASSEMBLY, Hi Performance Without Sender $3,456.17 $2,976.80 1

- 6-6511102NZ TRANSOM ASSEMBLY, Hi Performance With Sender $3,456.17 $2,976.80 1

Call Ron Bender at JR Marine and see what he has to say about the differences, he may even have the parts your looking for. He saved me a lot of money last spring.

Dave knows what I have done (or should I say gone thru) to have a beefy Bravo gimbal assembly. The stainless gimbal ring is a Max Worx part.
http://maxmachineworx.com/accSstGimbal.htm

One nice piece but still needed a little TLC with the grinder to clearance the Merc HP Bell Housing.
Yes, you can still use the trim senders. The link that was previously provided shows the parts required.
NOTE: You do need to purchase the Merc Module #884359T1
for your trim gauges. My understanding from Merc is this is required regardless of whether Smartcraft or analog use.

Special Note: If you were thinking of using IMCO parts, be very careful. Only specific parts that are designed for Merc use will work. The good IMCO rings and bells only fit into IMCO mating parts. A call to IMCO for part compatibility is highly recommended. I did, after the below happened.

This knowledge of IMCO drive parts comes from a painful and costly f***ing from an OSO Marine Supplier. Thank you.

I don't know but my TA's have the bigger (about 1 inch diameter) SS pins that are pounded in and removed with a slide hammer. They do not have a place for the trim senders so you have to get the ones that mount to the side of the trim rams.

About a grand :)

ttt

As stated, the hinge pins are different. The gimbal ring is beefier on the hp. The bell housings are the same on both. That is the only difference in the two.
Eddie

So, if you are going HP, wouldnt it be better to use the IMCO or Hill stainless gimble? The merc HP gimble doesnt look that much beefier. If you are going HP you must be doing it for a reason and the stock bravo to merc HP doesnt look that much stronger.

On another note. Can I just leave the senders off? Will the ecu alarm out?

Yes and No. Having this recent exposure, I will fill in the blanks.

1) Yes, the Hinge Pins are the main difference.
10-86801 Screw, Hinge Pin for the std. Bravo ring/bell
8219971 Pin, Hinge for the HP and ITS Bravo ring/bell
The hinge pins make the difference between what
components mate with each other.
2) Yes, the ring is a little beefier on the HP.
822374A4 and A14 for the std. Bravo gimbal ring
Note: Only (2) machine screw holes on each side at the
hinge area.
822374A7 and A17 for the HP Bravo gimbal ring
Note: (4) machine screw holes on each side at the
hinge area.
Further: The hinge ID is smaller on the std. ring vs. the
HP ring.
3)No, the bell housing are different.
41646A9 for the std. Bravo bell housing
This bell has the ID threaded at the hinge area.
41646A11 for the HP Bravo bell housing
This bell has a larger machined smooth ID at the hinge.

The hinge pin on the std. Bravo is held (secured) in the bell housing. The hinge pin on the HP/ITS is held (secured) on the gimbal ring via four machine screws.

Hope I have explained this correct and simple.

Now for the IMCO vs. Merc on the gimbal ring and bell housings.

1) The IMCO bell housing is really a beefy unit. Keep in mind that this fine piece will only work with an IMCO gimbal ring.

Why? Look closely at the lower interior ring area. The merc has what I call "support wings" in their casting. IMCO does not. Now look at the lower portion of a Merc bell housing. See the recess area. That is clearanced for the "support wings" on the gimbel ring.

The IMCO bell housing does not have the same recess area and in fact (that is what drew my attention to the IMCO part) has more material then the Merc counterpart.

Simply, try to mount an IMCO bell into a Merc ring. Yeah, the hinge pins will fit. But, now try and swing the bell within the ring (simulating the trim movement) and BAM, clearance issues. Been there, done that.

So, back to #1. If you have a pair of IMCO gimbal rings, I have a beautiful pair of new IMCO bell housing custom painted in two part color/clear billet aluminum for you.

Thanks
 

Thanks to all for answering the question and varifiing differences in product and cost for those who didnt know and may be shopping for something but not sure what. Thanks again.

I neglected to mention that the bell housings are in fact 2 different pieces, since one is threaded and the other uses a slip fit on the hinge pin. What I was mainly trying to point out is that the hp bell housing is no beefier than the std. bell housing.
Eddie

ok and thank you for your explanations....now ! ive got a 4700 lb v bottom with a 500 efi with ALOT of play in the upper verticle pin and was going to purchase a complete HP assembly...whats your opinion on that VS this http://www.offshoreonly.com/classifi...o37483-en.html

can get a complete HP assembly including rams for about $200 more ...heres the part number 6-6511002NZ TRANSOM ASSEMBLY, Hi Performance Without Sender

ttt