Black Hawk out drive
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 23

Thread:
Black Hawk out drive

  1. #1
    Member danfornow1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Troy, IL
    Posts
    96

    Default Black Hawk out drive

    Looking at a 1994 24' Eliminator Daytona listed with the following; a 1997 Mercruiser 502 EFI, Mercury High Perfoormance Gimbal housing, Bravo shop Black Hawk out drive and 1:36 gears.
    I dont much of any thing about this style of out drive. Can some one edjucate me as far as what it is, reliability, availability, etc... prop compatibility. Is this something that is considered an "upgrade" or an "avoid"

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member GT Jets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Morgan Hill
    Posts
    2,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danfornow1 View Post
    Looking at a 1994 24' Eliminator Daytona listed with the following; a 1997 Mercruiser 502 EFI, Mercury High Perfoormance Gimbal housing, Bravo shop Black Hawk out drive and 1:36 gears.
    I dont much of any thing about this style of out drive. Can some one edjucate me as far as what it is, reliability, availability, etc... prop compatibility. Is this something that is considered an "upgrade" or an "avoid"

    Biggest problem IMHO, it is a discontinued unit...

    They work pretty well, but never really took off and never got really refined.

    being a surface piercing deal, they have some limitations, they also make a buttload of spray, not really a rooster tail, just a bizarre spray...

    Very fun to drive and look at, I have one in my shed, bought it because I wanted to build a little rocket ship, but never got there, the props are pretty hard to find too....
    GT


    Quote Originally Posted by Quickjet View Post
    Put a 300 on the back of it, Flywheel it and a nosecone. $15,000 later you'll have a 65 mph pile of shit......

  4. #3
    Member danfornow1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Troy, IL
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Did a search through the forums here and found some more info, looks like parts and props would be a real problem not sure its for me
    Looks like they were designed more for the 22 daytona, the 24' might be a little heavy.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    i had one on a 22 eliminator daytona. i will say that I eventually went to a bravo. there is a signifigant top speed difference, but the other trade off were not worth it imo. pm me for details

  7. #5
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danfornow1 View Post
    Did a search through the forums here and found some more info, looks like parts and props would be a real problem not sure its for me
    Looks like they were designed more for the 22 daytona, the 24' might be a little heavy.

    Depends if your boat was built with the blackhawk in mind. They incorporate a notch in the transom just for the blackhawk drive. This may require some mods if you switch to standard bravo in the future but it can work. Will have to play with the X dimension a little. I had a 22 with a blackhawk and thought it was a great set up but there are trade offs such as planing time and available parts.

  8. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    386

    Default

    For what it's worth, I'd avoid buying anything with a used Black Hawk. The concept was good, but the application turned out to be very limited, and now replacement parts and props are becoming increasingly scarce. On the plus side, the Black Hawk was more efficient (faster) on the top end than a stock Bravo, and delivered more stability thanks to the counter-rotating props on a single propshaft. It was very weak, however, when it came to shifting (most Black Hawk owners finally just left the drive in forward gear and never used neutral or reverse). It also had a very fast idle speed (800 to 1000 rpm was 10-15 mph) -- not good for marinas and no-wake zones. On plane acceleration was poor and you had to be very tender with the rpms in a turn otherwise the drive tended to break. Just wasn't a propulsion system that fit recreational boaters. Mercury finally put a bullet in the project after spending a large sum of money in its development.

  9. #7
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    I do agree with most of your points. The drive only worked on certain applications. I never had to leave mine in gear but would have to shift back and forth between neutral and forward a lot due to fast idle speed. If you did not have an EFI motor, the drive would stall with carbs. Planing time sucked unless you were running the smallest props which were 27". Mid range and top end was great but more important, was the fuel efficency with the drive. With only 60 pounds of drag in the water, my 22 got great fuel economy and I drove 80 plus everwhere in that little boat. I think a nice 550-600 EFI motor would be a good set up in a 22 to 25' Daytona with a blackhawk drive even given the trade offs you mentioned.

  10. #8
    Frozen Hoser Airpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aurora Ont.
    Posts
    118

    Default

    I would certainly argue the "weak" part about BH drives. I pounded 160 hrs on mine with 575 hp in a 25 Daytona and never broke it. Used to snap teeth of bravo x drives every 20 to 30 hrs in our big sloppy water.
    Planing in a heavier boat is very hard on the drive. That can be fixed by adding an airation system to the BH. The original design had the exhaust going thru the drive and spilling infront of the props to break them loose.
    After designing and fabricating an internal airation system, my 25 would plane out rather easily. It also slowed the idle speed to about 9mph which sure made loading and docking easier.
    As for the benefits, 8.3 bolt on mph, 15% better fuel economy, dead straight tracking.
    I only wish the drive was strong enough for my new blower motor because it would still be on my boat. I went up 325 hp and 300 lb ft but only gained 16mph because of drive drag with a scx / sc shortie combo.

    I even considered using two BH drives and a splitter box but too much stringer was in the way to put a drive in each sponson. Too bad, that would have been a hell of a package.

  11. #9
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Can you give us more details about this internal airation system you came up with? Sounds very interesting, I know with maximus props, you can pop out a few of those plastic caps which allows the prop to airate better and improves planing.

  12. #10
    Frozen Hoser Airpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aurora Ont.
    Posts
    118

    Default

    sure.
    I fabbed it up using an 18" piece of 1.5" diameter, thick walled aluminum tube, some 1" x 1/8" stainless flat bar and my drive shower cap.
    Under the rear cover of the BH drive is a long recessed area. Using epoxy
    putty to build a little wall at approximately the half way point from the rear of the recessed area, you subdivide the space in the recess. The new little wall needs to align with the crossways reinforcement rib on the underside of the rear cover. I drilled 16 1/2" holes thru the bottom of the newly formed rear section thru the cavitation plate to above the props. I cut a hole in the rear cover to accept the aluminum tube and welded it in place. Next was to use some good RTV and form a seal around the rear compartment and when dry, reinstall the rear cover with the aluminum tube mounted above all the holes. Using the ss flatbar, I fabbed up a long support bracket which attaches to the shower cap on the sides and wraps around the tube.It is secured to the aluminum tube with three ss bolts.
    A little jb weld where the tube is welded(from the bottom) to thetop side of the rear cover, some sanding to fair the JB weld, painting and polishing and you have a nice, strong and shiny airation tube. It allows the props to suck air thru the "cavitation plate" as per say.
    Makes a nice water fountain in reverse too

    ps, a blue plastic shipping cap for PVC pipe makes a good storage cover to keep debris out of the tube.

  13. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Man seems like alot of work just put some tunnel tabs on and call it a day!

  14. #12
    Frozen Hoser Airpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aurora Ont.
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riotact View Post
    Man seems like alot of work just put some tunnel tabs on and call it a day!
    Probably about three hours total time invested and 20 bucks in materials. The planing issue swinging 31,s is getting the engine above 3 grand to make some torque, not getting the cats azz out of the hole. You could firewall the thing and the prop load would hold the motor around 2500 for a long time until you built some foreward speed. With the airator, planing time was cut by 2/3 using alot less throttle. Well worth the investment.

  15. #13
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Wow, that is quite a concept you came up with. Is this similar to those airator systems (black tubes) sticking out of the #6 drives that some people use? Is that where you got your idea? Seems to have given you great results for a small dollar investment.

  16. #14
    Frozen Hoser Airpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aurora Ont.
    Posts
    118

    Default

    ya, pretty much. I fabbed some airators up for a friend with a 32 active cat. He had 800 N/A's and number 5 drives with really tall props. It was a major pig out of the hole. Took about 30 seconds to plane off. 20 bucks worth of stainless and hose and less than 10 seconds to roll over. I figured if it worked for him, it would work for me. I just wanted a finnished product that looked nice and not cobbled together. I prefer polished stainless and aluminum to rubber and hose clamps

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95