TRS question...
03-31-2005, 10:24 PM
#31
Registered
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH / Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 5,870
Received 365 Likes
on
209 Posts
Re: TRS question...
I would not buy a 90 to 95 boat that had bravos, they = junk
i fixed to many of them in that year range. especialy ones that have not been apart aka. time bomb
As for Trs
Just check the Lower pinion for pitting and case hardening wear every two years and enjoy reliability!
i fixed to many of them in that year range. especialy ones that have not been apart aka. time bomb
As for Trs
Just check the Lower pinion for pitting and case hardening wear every two years and enjoy reliability!
03-31-2005, 11:08 PM
#32
Registered
VIP Member
Re: TRS question...
Come on you guys, TRS is yesterday's news. Any more than 525 HP and you're on borrowed time. Put on a pair of 4 blade Bravo 1 props and you'll wear out the TRS gears in short order.
That smooth shift comes with too high a price. A very heavy hydraulic transmission that steals 25 HP from the prop AND pushes the two heaviest things in the boat forward 18 inches! Even a Top Gun with TRS is a MF to work on. Where do you stand? Ever change a bilge pump or float switch?
The Bravo drive has much better hydro dynamics and is lighter in weight. If you have one that shifts too hard, you probably need a shift cable adjustment. If you MUST have a sissy shift, then install the Power Shifters available.
Of course the early Bravos were worse than they are now. Testing them for five years in Lake X was a waste of time. Test those puppies out in the ocean where they belong. I can make an Alpha live forever in Lake X!!
That smooth shift comes with too high a price. A very heavy hydraulic transmission that steals 25 HP from the prop AND pushes the two heaviest things in the boat forward 18 inches! Even a Top Gun with TRS is a MF to work on. Where do you stand? Ever change a bilge pump or float switch?
The Bravo drive has much better hydro dynamics and is lighter in weight. If you have one that shifts too hard, you probably need a shift cable adjustment. If you MUST have a sissy shift, then install the Power Shifters available.
Of course the early Bravos were worse than they are now. Testing them for five years in Lake X was a waste of time. Test those puppies out in the ocean where they belong. I can make an Alpha live forever in Lake X!!
Last edited by Edward R. Cozzi; 03-31-2005 at 11:10 PM. Reason: misspelled word
04-01-2005, 07:52 PM
#33
Registered
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH / Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 5,870
Received 365 Likes
on
209 Posts
Re: TRS question...
"Of course the early Bravos were worse than they are now. Testing them for five years in Lake X was a waste of time. Test those puppies out in the ocean where they belong. I can make an Alpha live forever in Lake X!!"
TOTALY AGREE WITH U, THATS THE BEST WAY IT WAS EVER PUT
if i was buying a new boat with hp up to 525hp, i would definately go with bravos. Otherwise speedmasters.
I do agree bravos = faster and lighter but, on lake erie a heavier boat = into smoother ride in the rough. Thats more important to us than top speed. Second, i have passed many new boats with hp 500 w/ bravos on the lake in the rough. our old mistress takes the rough like a tank. Infact the rougher ther better. I atrribute this to the weight of the boat plus the trs and transmission since it moves the CG forward wich keeps the bow down. if i was looking for a early 90's boat i wouldnt rule out going with trs's.
TOTALY AGREE WITH U, THATS THE BEST WAY IT WAS EVER PUT
if i was buying a new boat with hp up to 525hp, i would definately go with bravos. Otherwise speedmasters.
I do agree bravos = faster and lighter but, on lake erie a heavier boat = into smoother ride in the rough. Thats more important to us than top speed. Second, i have passed many new boats with hp 500 w/ bravos on the lake in the rough. our old mistress takes the rough like a tank. Infact the rougher ther better. I atrribute this to the weight of the boat plus the trs and transmission since it moves the CG forward wich keeps the bow down. if i was looking for a early 90's boat i wouldnt rule out going with trs's.
04-01-2005, 10:43 PM
#35
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Severna Park Md.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: TRS question...
I say get the boat before the wife changes her mind !!! As for the TRS drive, do not run more than a 3 blade prop and they will out last the Bravo x 5 !!! I have seen as many as 600 Hrs. with 550 Hp. a side on my 30 Velocity in the 18 years I have owned it !!!! The boat will be better balanced than a Bravo boat as well !!!
04-02-2005, 03:34 PM
#36
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Villanova
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: TRS question...
Originally Posted by J-Bonz
"
I do agree bravos = faster and lighter but, on lake erie a heavier boat = into smoother ride in the rough. Thats more important to us than top speed. Second, i have passed many new boats with hp 500 w/ bravos on the lake in the rough. our old mistress takes the rough like a tank. Infact the rougher ther better. I atrribute this to the weight of the boat plus the trs and transmission since it moves the CG forward wich keeps the bow down. if i was looking for a early 90's boat i wouldnt rule out going with trs's.
I do agree bravos = faster and lighter but, on lake erie a heavier boat = into smoother ride in the rough. Thats more important to us than top speed. Second, i have passed many new boats with hp 500 w/ bravos on the lake in the rough. our old mistress takes the rough like a tank. Infact the rougher ther better. I atrribute this to the weight of the boat plus the trs and transmission since it moves the CG forward wich keeps the bow down. if i was looking for a early 90's boat i wouldnt rule out going with trs's.
