Original ad says 80. Wonder what prop sets are on it.

Guys,

When we had our Rinker 236SC, with a warmed over 454 and Bravo One, we had friends with a Formula 232 with a stock 454MAG and a Bravo 3. We had more HP and a lighter boat, but we ran the same speed; neck and neck.

I'm sure this boat could run faster with different drives.... And more HP. I don't think the Bravo 3 is a parasitic loss of HP. Just a limitation to how much HP can be put through the transom. I'd wager this boat runs just as fast with this HP than the same boat with B1s. It just planes faster and behaves better around the docks.

One dick's opinion....

Thanks. Brad.

Bravo 3s are not anywhere near as fast as bravo 1s once going over 65 or so. Im sure this is a nice package (better be quick on the sticks in rough water tho).
Think of it like this. Adding blades is like making a tire wider on a car. If it doesnt hook up well, youll go faster. If it already hooks up fine, its more resistance. Same idea with 3 blade vs 4 so on and so forth. On boats with slip issues, bravo3s are great and no doubt lovely around the docks and planning. This boat would run just fine with bone stock Bravo 1 props. A little faster with the diffuser ring cut. Faster yet with -2 sporties and some tweaker Maximus. You get my point.
The formula was likely just a little bit faster hull than your rinker, plus id bet neither were running near 70. 38 twin step gun and a 232 bird arent a great comparison...
Just some real world experience talking

Saris,

I get it, and I wasn't comparing the 232 to a stepped Gun, but rather two similar boats with different drives. We were both running 61, BTW. I have no doubt the Formula was a faster hull, but it's also heavier. Plus, the Rinker 236SC is a 70MPH boat with a 502 (seen it), so the hull is not incapable.

As I understand it, the B3 is a more efficient drive that has HP limitations, not being designed for performance and all. A ribbed Roots blower is also more resistance than non-ribbed. They both make investments in the form of loss of HP, but return gains greater than they consume. No?

What was the point of the Blackhawk drive, then? I know of a flat-ish bottom boat (can't remember the make off hand), originally designed for jet drive, with Blackhawk and a blown SBC that runs 134GPS. Are there just not high enough pitched props available for the B3 to make them run faster with sufficient HP? I've honestly never looked.

Thanks. Brad.

BH is drive is considerably shorter and had very specific props. It worked great on some stuff nd was deadly on others. If it was a win win, theyd still make it lol
When talking about a B3 being more efficient are you talking about how it puts the power down or how easy it is to to turn? There aren't a lot of differences between a Bravo 3 upper and a Bravo 1. There isnt sh!t for speed loss between a Bravo 1 and a full XR. B3 is way more efficient getting on plane in the mid range if you're only talking about slip and only compared to something with a lot of slip. A good hull doesnt have slip issues. My kryptonite is around 10% with a pretty stock 4 blade. If you're talking about the HP loss in physically turning the drive, I wouldnt know, but it isnt much if at all better than any other Bravo based drive.
I guess my point is, when comparing the "speed of drives" there are a million factors to take into consideration that I dont think you were in your first post. X Dimension, prop choice, cavitation, gear case size, how the hull reacts to different props, so on and so forth. Mercury would tell you the B3 isnt designed for any boat running over 70. The B2 even slower.
Sure feels like December in here!

Johnny,

I'm not arguing. I'm asking for answers.

Efficiency only has one definition: Work over energy. A single prop loses a lot of thrust by rotating the water instead of pushing it backwards. The counter rotating prop capitalizes on that rotation and turns it into thrust. The end result is more thrust per unit of fuel spent. Or, at least, it should be.

Understood that there are a blue million factors involved in how a particular drive/prop/boat are going to work together. My presumption is that Cig optimized as much of this as they could, given the directives of the original buyer. It's obvious that top speed wasn't high on the list of priorities (or maybe in the budget), or there would be a couple of boosted engines of some sort.

My question is, I guess, is "Is this boat slower because of the B3s, or are they just a limit to how fast the boat will go?" It's a given that B3s wouldn't survive behind a couple of strong-ish blower motors, but are they actually robbing from the 525s?

Thanks. Brad.

2008 Formula 400SS with 525s top was 60 cruised nice at 50

The B3's on the back of this boat are of the XR variety. Even with the mild power, you can expect those drives to surface at speed when (if) wave hopping. The XR gearset helps with the heft of the boat and potential lack of throttle control. Again, pretty bullet proof for someone who wants to "look" fast but with tons of convenience as well.

So some thought went into configuring the build to make it a wake zone cruiser. I would bet money that the engine hours on that boat are 95% at idle or more.

I know you arent arguing, I was trying to get at what you specifically were asking.
To answer your above question, YES. It is both slower with the B3s and limited. As stated above, they are B3X's so theyll take more power than you think. Dragging two props through the water is never going to be the ticket for high speed unless you have a very high x dimension. Boost or not, if the owner cared about how fast it went it would have XRs.

I actually learn alot from these winter conversations.