Are new XR drives more reliable now?
03-27-2016, 03:18 PM
#11
I have seen various posts about XR drives having reliability issues. Have found other posts on this topic, but they seemed to wander off and didnt get to any specific facts. Does anyone know (specifically) if Mercury Racing done anything in recent years to further strengthen the XR's or address any confirmed weaknesses?
I recently had a new Hustler Talon 25 built with a 565, XR sportmaster w/ITS..... So when I see these posts about XRs breaking, it gives me heartburn.
I recently had a new Hustler Talon 25 built with a 565, XR sportmaster w/ITS..... So when I see these posts about XRs breaking, it gives me heartburn.
03-27-2016, 06:42 PM
#14
Gold Member
Gold Member
03-28-2016, 07:35 AM
#15
VIP Member
VIP Member
As I read through this I see the same people bashing XR's... one thing to keep in mind is, Mercury doesn't manufacture boats they make propulsion systems. I happen to think that Xrs have done well based upon the numbers versus failures. When you take a static part and marry it to many different hulls where the setup is key to the forces that are exerted on any given part, The xrs stand up well. Boat manufacturers are the ones who set up X dims as well as the hull which drive and power. I can think of certain manufacturers that set x dims so high in order to brag about top speed that the drives are working out of their parameters. only option was to go to a surfacing drive, which guess what, one is offered by merc. if merc didn't know the parameters why would they set hp and rated TQ numbers. Take any engine or drive or anything mechanical and run it to its extreme and there will be failures. I ran my Xrs close to their top hp and peak torque for years and never had issues, when I did my upgrades I knew I was going to exceed them so I went with a stronger drive rated for the HP. I think too many want to curse the darkness rather than light a candle and realize that any hull manufacturer shares equally the responsibility of the set up.
03-28-2016, 10:02 AM
#16
Registered
iTrader: (5)
As I read through this I see the same people bashing XR's... one thing to keep in mind is, Mercury doesn't manufacture boats they make propulsion systems. I happen to think that Xrs have done well based upon the numbers versus failures. When you take a static part and marry it to many different hulls where the setup is key to the forces that are exerted on any given part, The xrs stand up well. Boat manufacturers are the ones who set up X dims as well as the hull which drive and power. I can think of certain manufacturers that set x dims so high in order to brag about top speed that the drives are working out of their parameters. only option was to go to a surfacing drive, which guess what, one is offered by merc. if merc didn't know the parameters why would they set hp and rated TQ numbers. Take any engine or drive or anything mechanical and run it to its extreme and there will be failures. I ran my Xrs close to their top hp and peak torque for years and never had issues, when I did my upgrades I knew I was going to exceed them so I went with a stronger drive rated for the HP. I think too many want to curse the darkness rather than light a candle and realize that any hull manufacturer shares equally the responsibility of the set up.
They also wouldn't design the Maximus prop which specifically is designed for semi surfacing bravo style drives
The facts are there, bravo based drives prematurely fail more often then they should, the aftermarket support is proof of thier Inferior design
03-28-2016, 01:07 PM
#17
VIP Member
VIP Member
As I read through this I see the same people bashing XR's... one thing to keep in mind is, Mercury doesn't manufacture boats they make propulsion systems. I happen to think that Xrs have done well based upon the numbers versus failures. When you take a static part and marry it to many different hulls where the setup is key to the forces that are exerted on any given part, The xrs stand up well. Boat manufacturers are the ones who set up X dims as well as the hull which drive and power. I can think of certain manufacturers that set x dims so high in order to brag about top speed that the drives are working out of their parameters. only option was to go to a surfacing drive, which guess what, one is offered by merc. if merc didn't know the parameters why would they set hp and rated TQ numbers. Take any engine or drive or anything mechanical and run it to its extreme and there will be failures. I ran my Xrs close to their top hp and peak torque for years and never had issues, when I did my upgrades I knew I was going to exceed them so I went with a stronger drive rated for the HP. I think too many want to curse the darkness rather than light a candle and realize that any hull manufacturer shares equally the responsibility of the set up.
03-28-2016, 01:18 PM
#18
Registered
Upgrade the upper to an SCX and use an imco -2 lower or the sportmaster lower. You may loose a few mph but its way faster on the water than the trailer!
I had a 25 eliminator Daytona with an ILMOR 625 v-10. I never hurt the drive in over 400 hours. So you may have good luck with your setup.
I had a 25 eliminator Daytona with an ILMOR 625 v-10. I never hurt the drive in over 400 hours. So you may have good luck with your setup.
03-28-2016, 01:50 PM
#20
Registered
400 hours on my XRs pushing a heavier boat with a high X dimension either in the ocean or on Lake Michigan...and they didn't fail. Granted...EVERYTHING was worn when I pulled them apart this fall...bearings, gears, clutches...I mean EVERYTHING...but I'm pretty impressed that they lasted that long with only routine lube changes....
Don't sweat it...go boating.
Don't sweat it...go boating.
