O.K. 260 people, Bravo 2 drive on this boat Help!!!

[medic3538]

I am 7 days away from closing on a 05 260 and just found out it has a Bravo 2 drive, single prop, no counter rotating props. I am concerned.

Please everyone weigh in!!!

 

[Presentation]

What is your concern over the BII?

 

[Nehalennia]

The Bravo II is a solid drive.

 

[Presentation]

BII advantages of the Alpha I
- Much stronger
- Much better low end power, less time to plane.

BII advantages over the BIII
- Much less history of corrosion issues
- Much less complex internal parts
- Props cost a lot less

BII disadvantages
- Not good for high speed performance applications. 55 MPH is the limit here. The 260 Sundancer is not a 55 MPH boat so no worries here.
- Polar momentum means it’s more difficult to back up as you turn to port then the BIII. This will cause the boat to want to crab (move sideways) a bit to the left. With experience you learn to use one technique to back and turn to port and another when you back and turn starboard. Actually, this same situation occurs with the Alpha 1 but due to the smaller prop of the Alpha 1 it’s not as profound.

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/inboards/sterndrives/bravotwo.php

The BII is a reliable, strong, proven drive. Its not got the ‘gee-wiz’ factor of the BIII. This is the reason its less popular.

For most applications, the BII is better then the BIII. Only marketing can explain the popularity of the BIII.

If I could swap my BIII’s for BII’s at $0 I would do it.

 

[keokie]

Presentation,

Respectfully, I disagree. The Bravo II is not a good match for the 260. It is the least efficient of all the sterndrives by a good chunk. It was never really meant for planing boats. It was designed primarily for houseboats and workboats.

Also, the 260 has a narrow beam and high center of gravity. The Bravo II creates a lot of rotational torque. This almost always provides some terrible handling quirks.

The Bravo II is much better with corrosion issues IF it is equipped with an inefficient aluminum prop. With a steel prop, it is almost as challenging as a Bravo III.

In the end, the Bravo II is a very strong drive that is quite effective at moving heavy loads at low speed (under 20mph), but a Bravo I (and in the case of the 260 a Bravo III) will provide much better all around performance.

 

[Quint4]

I am happy with my Bravo II on my planing boat.

 

[dbric36]

I have a 7.4L - B2 on my boat and it works great. My top speed is 42mph and I get 2.3 mpg at 3200rpm's. I can plane at 2800rpm's with full tabs.

 

[comsnark]

Well. . .I would probably take a Bravo II over my Alpha as well, BUT I have twin engines. Having twins, I already have Contra rotating props, so I have no need for Bravo III's. (I say probably because I do not understand the differences between the BI and BII)

I presume this is paired to a 350mag? The 350mag and Bravo II was the "standard" power package for this boat, if I read the SeaRay archives correctly.

 

[Nehalennia]

Presentation,

Respectfully, I disagree. The Bravo II is not a good match for the 260. It is the least efficient of all the sterndrives by a good chunk. It was never really meant for planing boats. It was designed primarily for houseboats and workboats.

Also, the 260 has a narrow beam and high center of gravity. The Bravo II creates a lot of rotational torque. This almost always provides some terrible handling quirks.

The Bravo II is much better with corrosion issues IF it is equipped with an inefficient aluminum prop. With a steel prop, it is almost as challenging as a Bravo III.

In the end, the Bravo II is a very strong drive that is quite effective at moving heavy loads at low speed (under 20mph), but a Bravo I (and in the case of the 260 a Bravo III) will provide much better all around performance.

I respectfully disagree with this statement.

The Bravo II was designed for heavier "planing" boats.
Bravo II on Merc's Site

 

[Daniel P Thomas]

"""It was never really meant for planing boats. It was designed primarily for houseboats and workboats."""

Boy I don't know about that statement!
If you look at my signature pictures I have neither!
Of course, I also have twins.

But Sea Ray Literature states, for my 350 EB:

330 HP Barvo 2 17.5 x 23 Blades 40-44 WOT 4600 RPM

I have GPS'd with clean bottom, half fuel & water, calm seas 42.5 mph at 4400 rpm
Boat will run all day at 3100 rpm 29-30 mph 1.75 gpm
Fast out of the hole and virtually no bow rise.

Seems like the Bravo 2 were mated to this 37'10" LOA boat pretty well!
Just my $0.02 worth
Dan

 

[Dave S]

Sea Ray offered the Bravo 2 drive for 2005 and 2006 on the newer style 260DA. As far as I know, this was not a choice on the 2007 and 2008 models and they all came with B3s.

As to how it compares with the Bravo 3, I don't know if anyone here could really tell you unless they have ridden on both boats. But if I were in your shoes, I would ask for a demo ride and look for certain things like how does it come up on plane, what is the cruising RPM once on plane, and what is the top speed?

My Bravo 3 equipped 260DA comes on plane pretty slowly so I am not sure what you will find with the Bravo 2. I can plane at about 3600 RPM but any slower than that and she falls off plane. My top speed is about 37mph at roughly 4900 rpm. See how this compares to the boat you are looking at when you test it out.

As far as handling around the dock goes, the Bravo 3 may be slightly better but there are many single engine pocket cruisers out there with single blade props so it will probably be just fine.

Keep us posted on what you finally decide.

Dave

 

[comsnark]

Based on Dave's statements above (regarding both availability of B2's on newer boats and the general performance), I would be hesitant to have this combination unless you

(a) do as Dave suggests and drive the boat and
(b) ensure that the boat is suitably discounted.

When you test drive the boat, make sure it is full of people and fuel.

 

[At Ease]

If you have a concern about the drive, there are plenty of boats on the market. Wait and get what makes you comfortable. I have the BIII and like the counter rotating props. I have never been on the same boat with BII so I cannot comment on the performance.

 

[medic3538]

O.K., interesting stuff. The B-II is paired with a 350 mag MPI. I don't really care about going as fast as the boat CAN go, but I do care about getting on plane when I want to make some time u on the water if you know what I am saying.

I guess it's going to be up to the test drive or I'll try for a different boat.

I'll have more for everyone later.

 

[medic3538]

I guess performance issues and backing. I have been on a 252 Crownline many times as my boating buddy has this boat and the boat digs in and rolls out with authority. The last 260 we were going to buy had the B III and I just figured this was a normal pairing for the 260 dancer. Seeing that drive (B II) on the pics that were sent to us today sort of freaked me out as I have been thinking the B III was standard issue with the 05 and newer Sundancers. I have been taking everyones advice and not settling for any boat. This has caused our search to be long. I thought I just found the perfect boat for us and made an offer , etc.,etc., then the pic.s showed up and I guess I freaked out and immediately went to the forum looking for some answers. I am in Charleston and the boat is in Alabama and I don't really want to roll all the way out there if I don't believe the boat has the correct drive. Just seeing if anyone has had one on a 260 Dancer.

 

[Shining]

I'm on plane with full load+ in under 6 secs.
In the words of my merc mechanic," damn, that thing pushes a lot of water!"
Mine's steel..no corrosion here!
I'm very happy with my BII :grin:

 

[dpvandy01]

I'm on plane with full load+ in under 6 secs.
In the words of my merc mechanic," damn, that thing pushes a lot of water!"
Mine's steel..no corrosion here!
I'm very happy with my BII :grin:

2001 240 dry weight 5500lbs
2005 260 dry weight 7500lbs

not the same boat by a long shot

 

[Nehalennia]

O.K., interesting stuff. The B-II is paired with a 350 mag MPI. I don't really care about going as fast as the boat CAN go, but I do care about getting on plane when I want to make some time u on the water if you know what I am saying.

I guess it's going to be up to the test drive or I'll try for a different boat.

I'll have more for everyone later.

2001 240 dry weight 5500lbs
2005 260 dry weight 7500lbs

not the same boat by a long shot

I think it will be fine. You're right, quite a difference in weight but that BII should move that boat just fine. My guess is that it will see similar performance to DaveS' #'s but maybe less speed at the same RPMs

 

[Shining]

2001 240 dry weight 5500lbs
2005 260 dry weight 7500lbs

not the same boat by a long shot

Umm...I know....I'm talking "outdrive"!

and to make a long story short..I know of a few 260's at my marina w/ 350mags and BIII
that can't plane for "you-know-what"! Yup...it's a heavy boat!

My advise to original question: don't worry about maneuvering around docks, you'll get it!
You want to be up out of the water fast? That BII will do it for you.

Good luck!

 

[keokie]

The BII was in fact developed for workboats and houseboats. I got this right from the source while it was still in development. It does work on planing boats, but is less effficient. I would be concerned about that and the effects of the rotational torque on that hull.

I have been in a ton of boats with different motors and outdrives. I am quite certain the Bravo III will outperform the Bravo II on that boat in just about every aspect. Two exceptions would be corrosion resistance where the BII should have a slight advantage with a steel wheel and a significant advantage with an aluminum one. The other exception would be planing and acceleration where they should be about equal, maybe a slight edge to the BII. Handling, speed and fuel efficiency... the BIII will do better.

Edit... The BII has a more robust lower unit that is easier and cheaper to repair.