Gear ratio 1:5:1 vs 1:36
#14
Registered
It's just math as whether the 1:36 or 1:50 is better for longevity & dependability HP = RPM x T / 5252. As I raise the RPM of the output shaft on the drive the torque goes down. Since the shaft dia and bearing are all equal in size there is less load on it now, higher RPM will increase wear as every bearing has X number of revolutions in it, you now reach that number sooner for the same hours of running. That's the theory and math.
With the diesels we always ran very high shaft rpm's and smaller props. Many of the diesel boats you see people trying to go fast with today have prop issues, they break blades. It was amazing how compared to today props the props of yesteryear were junk yet could run Cowes Torquay Cowes at 100mph and not loose a blade?
I'm just a big fan of smaller and faster than bigger and slower?
With the diesels we always ran very high shaft rpm's and smaller props. Many of the diesel boats you see people trying to go fast with today have prop issues, they break blades. It was amazing how compared to today props the props of yesteryear were junk yet could run Cowes Torquay Cowes at 100mph and not loose a blade?
I'm just a big fan of smaller and faster than bigger and slower?
#15
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the 1.36 gear there is more surface material compared to the 1.50 making it stronger. Before xr drives were introduced the 1.36 gear was used in big hp applications and more often with Blower motors. This was also seen in the alpha generation as well. With bravo failures all around us and with the cost of new drives continally rising I would think most want every angle they can get. Heat and tourgue kills bravo drives. More rpm and less pitch hooked up to drive gauges will steer you in the right direction.
#17
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Probably not worth the money unless you run out of prop pitch options. Although bblades has mentioned that the 34 bravo is a different animal (whatever that means?) and does not perform as well as the 32. It is my opinion that in a high x dimention situation (single engine) that high gear and lower prop pitch can reduce crabbing...i have no data on this.
#18
Registered
Probably not worth the money unless you run out of prop pitch options. Although bblades has mentioned that the 34 bravo is a different animal (whatever that means?) and does not perform as well as the 32. It is my opinion that in a high x dimention situation (single engine) that high gear and lower prop pitch can reduce crabbing...i have no data on this.
Last edited by mcprodesign; 05-31-2014 at 09:25 AM.
#19
Registered
I had both 1.50 and 1.36 on my T/S Gun. The 1.36 gears seemed to hold up better. Also seemed to like the lab'ed 30 Bravos A lot better with the 1.36 Vs the 1.50 and 32's.
That was with both stock 575s and after rebuild with about 650 hp. Now I am over 725 and need to try some 34's
All around the 1.36 worked the best for me.
That was with both stock 575s and after rebuild with about 650 hp. Now I am over 725 and need to try some 34's
All around the 1.36 worked the best for me.
#20
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gaylord, Mi
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr.pete, the boat was running 1:5:1 with 4 blade bravo 1 -32s with stock 575s, the motors were rebuilt- and Dynoed at 683hp @5600, they re geared the drives to 1:36 and spinning the same wheels but 30 pitch- boat GPSs at 96 mph- twin step, so it's set up right I believe, I was just concerned with longevity and dependability of the 1:36 gear ratio?