Opinions on 90's 280/300 weekender

[LennyD]

I am once again looking at another purchase, and one of the models I am considering is the 300 weekender. I prefer the 95 model for aesthetics (tired of the dark colors like on my 89) but otherwise any year is fine.

Much as the 80's model seems to be a preferred one by many I am really finding the 28ft 300 may better suit my needs.

So what do you think of them?

Any preference between the i/0 or v drives?

Any problems with the v drives? Typically how many hours between reubilds or major service on them?

I have never owned a inboard or v drive boat so any info in this area is welcome.

Not a real fan of the alpha drive or the idea of mounting the raw water pump in them, but have had enough of them in the past that I do know what to expect etc.

So comparison between the two drives is also very much needed.

Some specific questions are is the hull cored, are there any known popular problems with the stringers and limber holes like in the older model, how is close quarters maneuverability with the v drives (being so close and having pockets etc), how is rough water handling, any access problems below deck, and how do this model compare with the older 27AJ, and newer 29AJ?

I would like to say that I was also considering the 280ss but since it is basically just a redo on my current boat I decided against it, and was also looking at Formulas 280SS and 330SS (really like the 330 but) and would love to entertain the idea of 31 Tiara open, but it is not looking like the budget will allow these at this time. Still any comments on comparison to these is welcome.

Just want to get an idea what I may need to think about or look at with the 300, and also to just hear from others who find the increased cockpit area a big plus over cabin space like in the DA etc.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:
I've tried to post a lengthy response twice and either did something wrong or ?? so I'll try the condensed answer.
We've owned a 1994 300 weekender for about 3 years and absolutely love it. The huge cockpit is great. We hardly ever overnight but the flexibility of the v-berth, "U" loung and dinette table on the weekender means you can configure it for whatever you want. We had a 1987 270 sundancer before this and a friend had a late 80's amberjack for a long time so I'm very familiar with them.
This is my first inboard powered boat and handling is just fine at the dock with the prop pockets. I don't have anything else to judge it against but I have no problems with slow speed manuvering. It is a little slower that the 270. At 3200 rpm I'm right at 22 knots (clean bottom/props and 1/2 to 3/4 fuel).
The stringers are fine, the limber holes are at the stern and a little high. We had a bad stuffing box leak and enough water accumulated between the stringers that the bottom of the transmission was about to get wet. Had to pump it out by hand -- water problem solved with dripless shaft seals.
The boat is just about perfect for us -- to the point that I can't think of anything (within reason) that I would trade it for.
Let me know of any specific questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
Mike H.....

 

[LennyD]

Lenny:
I've tried to post a lengthy response twice and either did something wrong or ?? so I'll try the condensed answer.
We've owned a 1994 300 weekender for about 3 years and absolutely love it. The huge cockpit is great. We hardly ever overnight but the flexibility of the v-berth, "U" loung and dinette table on the weekender means you can configure it for whatever you want. We had a 1987 270 sundancer before this and a friend had a late 80's amberjack for a long time so I'm very familiar with them.



Can you compare acceleration, running attitude, handling, fuel consumption etc with your 270DA?


Real interested in top speed, min plane speed, time to plane etc. Not that my 260 is a speed boat and especially with the sgl 7.4 but I am trying not to go too far backwards performace wise. I just have never been on one, but have been on a 29AJ with 300mag v drives and it seemed a little like a wet log. I did later find out that it had some exhaust blockage issues and other stuff so I can not even really use this experience for much. The captain wasa also a little anal bout running too fast for some reason too.



This is my first inboard powered boat and handling is just fine at the dock with the prop pockets. I don't have anything else to judge it against but I have no problems with slow speed manuvering. It is a little slower that the 270. At 3200 rpm I'm right at 22 knots (clean bottom/props and 1/2 to 3/4 fuel).


Would be my first as well and thats the cause for me concern. I can understand that there would be differences to get used too like the fact a stern drive can change the direction of the thrust from the prop etc, but when I have checked out other inboard boats w/pockets spaced closely (I really like the 31 Tiara, but guess this one may often be compared to much higher end boats like bertram etc due to it being much more costly. Plus the cost may be my only real issue with it lol) i have seen lots of negatives on close qtr handling. I do like the idea of getting away from the maint and expense of outdrives, but still find the various performance advantages hard to ignore as well.




The stringers are fine, the limber holes are at the stern and a little high. We had a bad stuffing box leak and enough water accumulated between the stringers that the bottom of the transmission was about to get wet. Had to pump it out by hand -- water problem solved with dripless shaft seals.


By dripless do you mean cutlass type seals? It was interesting to see the problems a guy in TX went through with his 24' when replacing everything below deck and the transom after just by chance I had epoxied up the limber holes in the bilge area on mine during the last engine rebuild. It jist did not seem right for these to be left as open as they were, and thankfully there was no damage I could find, but it would seem that this cost cutting method would not mix well with high bilge or other water that is common among owners who neglect maint etc. and this along with some others done at the SR factory just scare the heck out of me.


The boat is just about perfect for us -- to the point that I can't think of anything (within reason) that I would trade it for.
Let me know of any specific questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
Mike H.....

I suspect the cabin layout will work fine for me as well, and the larger, flat, un cluttered cockpit is perfect since that is where we (and many others) spend most of our time. Sure the extra storage space of a DA would be welcome, but not at the cost of a tight cockpit, tons of cabin space that would never be used, and incresed CG.

It also addresses the two main issues I have with my current boat. It has a enclosed head even if not the largest, has basic overnight capabilities for 2 or 3 from the larger berth, sink, stove, and fridge. Plus many have a gen and ac/heat.

Since I live on the water I am only looking for a few trips a year this layout should work well, and avoid the added initial costs of a larger vessel along with the extra maint, and added fuel costs from runnin twin big blocks with a 12-13' beam and flatter dead rise like the SR 33 and 31wkndr Tiara 31, and even the old Trojans I seem so drawn to.

So I am really looking at total costs down the road as well. I also lnow these are priced all over the place and I have seen neglected ones under 10k, and really nice fresh water examples near 50k.

This is why I am concerned with typical problems so I can make sure I check for them etc.

Plus I still have to decide between IO or v drv, and if I should maybe just leave it to chance and see what I can find in the condition I find acceptable at a price I am comfortable with.

Hope thats not too many q's at once

 

[LennyD]

sorry for the confusing way my post was partially within the quote, but I am using my cell and it wont let me fix it

Thanks for your input

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny
Our 1987 270 sundancer had twin 350 alpha ones with merc aluminum 4 blade props. Before that we had a 1995 250 sundancer with a 7.4 bravo 2. Both of them absolutely jumped on plane. The weekender is just a bit slower from 0 to 10mph or so. We test drove new 260 and 280 sundancers right before we bought the weekender 3 years ago and I believe the weekender is faster to plane.
The weekender rides with a bit more bow-up angle than the 270 did. I normally don’t use tabs – however they bring the nose down quickly. It is only a couple of degrees higher – not an issue with visibility, even if I’m driving sitting down.
The one area where the weekender definitely feels like an inboard boat is with regards to high speed maneuverability. The 270 could turn much quicker than the weekender (kind of like the zero versus the wildcat in WW2).
I don’t have a floscan so I’m not sure of mpg or gph, but the weekender is probably 10% or so less efficient due to the inboards --- but I find that I don’t have to adjust the throttles as much for changing conditions or wakes so that probably helps efficiency a bit with less slowing and getting back on plane.
Top speed with the 270 was a bit over 40mph. Top speed with the weekender is 31 knots. I checked minimum planning speed today and was surprised and impressed. With tabs it stayed on plane down to 14 or 15 knots and 2550 rpm. I didn’t time to plane but with a couple of people and half fuel if I firewall the throttles it can’t be more than 3 or 4 seconds to plane. It gets on plane at about 2800rpm. Your less than satisfactory experience in the amberjack may also have been attributable to the amberjack weighing over 2000 lbs more than a weekender (all the extra interior amenities like the dinette and mid cabin add up). We took the weekender to a fireworks display last year and had, if I recall correctly, full tanks, multiple coolers with enough food for a month, 6 adults and 5 grandkids, and I could definately feel the difference.
I was pretty spoiled docking the 270 with thrust vectoring from the outdrives and twin engines. After a couple of practices with the weekender I was as comfortable with the inboards as I was the I/Os. You have more precise control with the inboards and things seem to happen a bit slower. Hard to explain but I think the weekender with inboards is easier to dock than the 270 with I/Os. I haven't compared them to similar boats but I don't think the engines are unusually close together - and again, the prop pockets have not posed a problem at all.
When we bought the boat it was lightly used and lightly equipped. It had the original stuffing boxes with the packing material and they leaked from the beginning. After 2 years of screwing with them I replaced them with PSS dripless shaft seals and everything has been good.
One thing I did not mention – which is, after the cockpit, probably the second best aspect of the weekender is access to the mechanical equipment. The first hatch after the cabin entrance is for what I call the mechanical room. I have a funky arthritis condition that means my lower back doesn’t bend much at all. I can step down into this compartment and sit on top of the cover over the water tank and the battery charger is to my left, a couple of feet in front of the charger is the hot water heater. Directly in front of me is the ac/heat unit. The holding tank is to my left. Everything and all sea cocks are easily accessible for maintenance, repairs or winterization. After replacing the hot water heater in the 270 and having to lie on the deck and then look/work upside down and having to disassemble the water heater to get the old one out and the new one in – because they wouldn’t clear the exhaust manifold – I am in heaven with access to everything in the weekender. One other item – because we don’t have a generator there is even enough room for me to get down in the engine compartment and access the front (rear) of the engines, transmissions and stuffing boxes (because for a while I had to tighten one stuffing box every time I used the boat.
I would venture a guess that the fuel burn on the weekender is close to half of the other options you mentioned (33 Sea Rays, 31 tiaras or old Trojans). They are also much different and bigger and in many respects nicer boats. For example, the fit, finish and accomodations of a 31 Tiara are much nicer that a weekender. But the boat costs twice as much and machinery access is much, much, much better with the weekender. Because the weekender is less popular it means the price of admission is less. The 260 in the slip next to me has depreciated enough in the three years we’ve owned the weekender (the 260 is 4 years old) to pay for our weekender. I like the fact that the weekender didn’t cost much more than a single outboard can cost these days. With regards to the weekenders available and the price spread – the 50K offerings are crazy. I don’t care what the condition is – they aren’t worth anything near that and my recollection is that they were in the high 60’s new back in 1994 (I have an old price list somewhere in my office). You also don’t want something that hasn’t been taken care of and will cost a fortune to get to the standard that you want. The great thing about the easy access to everything (including fuel tanks) is that if you are interested in a 90’s weekender you can probably in an hour or two poke around in so many places that you will have a real good idea as to whether you are serious enough about the boat to pay a surveyor.
Hope this helps – let me know of any other questions and I’ll do my best to help.
Mike H…………

 

[LennyD]

First want to let you know that your taking the time to produce such great information is truly appreciated.

I have to admit I had mistaken your 270 to be the newer 250/270 of the early 90's, and had not thought of the 80's model which is much larger and heavier etc.

Actually almost purchased a similar boat in the past, but ended up passing due to it having the 4cyl merc engines that I did not believe were enough.

Have to guess that this model is actually a little more similar to the 280/300 weekender than the model I thought you meant.

Your mention of the bow high attitude is deff one of my concerns since I have heard for years from owners of older boats that this is a Searay trademark (unproven, but still opinion), and also a confusing point as well since I have seen countless times examples of both high and level riding attitudes while out on the water, but am not able to decipher if it is driver ability and knowledge, or just the way that particular boat handles. Plus unless you close by and able to view from the stern it is hard to tell if it is a IB or IO.

The 29AJ I have been on did pretty much match your description of the way your 300WE handles in regards ride height etc. as it was not by any means flat but not so high that you were not comfortable with forward vision either.

I guess I am a bit concerned since my 260CC rides pretty much flat while at speed, and seems to handle more towards what my previous Baja ES was like than what the 290AJ was like, if I may use those as the different ends of this spectrum to compare with.

Now I have not done the math in a while, but I think 40mph is a bit faster than 31kts, but I honestly am thinking were looking at about 7mph faster here. Would that seem correct?

Though topping out at approx 33mph is not inspiring it may be an acceptable compromise between the much higher purchase price of the other models I am considering and the overall costs of higher speeds (larger engines etc).

One thing that I have not been able to determine yet is the difference in performance and handling between the IB and IO models, and how this relates to efficiency (GPH etc).

Thanks for your info on the PSS seals as that seems like the right way to go from a short search I did.

I do have more q's, but am going to have to get my thoughts together and post again soon. Maybe in the mean time someone with an IO will chime in as well.

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:

I'll double check the top end. There is no way it is a 7 mph difference between the sundancer and the weekender. I don't know if I'll get home early eough to take it for a spin during the week (damn commute) but I"ll check the gps to see if it saves top speeds -- if not, worse case is I'll air it out on Saturday and let you know. If it felt like a 33 mph boat I wouldn't have bought it. Let me know of anything else I can answer.
There was a member (I remember from asking questions when I bought the weekender) who I believe had a weekender with I/Os. My recollection is that he sold the weekender and bought a silverton -- you might want to try a search for weekender and silverton and see if he pops up.
I'll let you know when I confirm the top end.
Mike H

 

[LennyD]

in regards to price I agree that this is one of the strong attractions to this model. And compared to similar year Tiara 31's it is a bargain, but like you already pointed out the Tiara is a much nicer boat, and IMHO a much better made one as well.

So the cauae for the attraction to the Tiara is obvious (design, gelcoat, integrity of the hull, fully and properly encapsulated stringers and the like) but it also is not without flaws either. I think you hinted at how it does not have the most accessable engine and systems access, and there are some others as well, but I am not sure these are really comparable and the asking/selling prices seem to support that as well.

I guess I am firmly in the initial decision stage as I am considering a few very different models (my short list has come down to the 300we, 280ss, 310/330WE, tiara31, formula 280 & 330ss) and still have to work out which characteristics will best suit my use, and also budget.

At least all but three seem to fit firmly into the cruiser catagory, and the Formula's which seem closer to performance, and the sr280ss (which is the slightly fatter/wider, heavier and twin eng replacement to my current model) which seems to split the middle.

I think the reason for this apparant confusion on my part is do to what I have owned previously (everthing from sm bow riders to walk around fishing to 70mph performance) and my somehow seeming to try and keep a bit of what I liked about all those very different boats.

There is nothing like hitting the throttles and reaching white knuckle speeds in seconds, but most boats with this ability do not perform as well when it comes to a nice quite cruise with 10 pob, nor does the typical fish boat enjoy the niceness in amenities like a cruiser does, and so on.

There is a very well equiped and in what appears to be well maintained condition early 90's 310 WE or express with T7.4's fwc locally @ 22k ask. I know it is a much larger boat with lots more space, but not much more or even as much cockpit area.

I bring this up because though on my list and being it is a really nice boat and all it just seems to be too much in many areas compared to the 300we. First it is more in initial cost, then more to fuel and maintain, and even so it still is hard to remove from my short list

The three SS models still stand out due to performance and speed, and I am really liking the Formula 330ss because it is not only a superior product that is vey well made and designed etc, but also combines the performance I would like with a good sized cabin and plenty of cockpit even though it fills much of it with seating which kills the fishing trips, the head room in the cabin is tight, and a nice one is at the extreme end of prices I am looking at etc.

Seems everything is a compromise, and the 300we seems to really address all my needs really well, and the last things I need to figure out before moving forward are the performance diffs from IO to IB (who knows maybe better to let the luck of which style I can find that is offering the best value make this decision) then confirm these do not have any of the rotten wood problems I have seen with other SR models (why cant these guys just properly encapsulate any wood used in their boats grrrrrr) and if so what are the popular areas for it. At least I wont have to worry about cutting up floors and replacing plastic fuel tanks like one of the other brands I am looking at.

I just want to have more confidence that I will enjoy the way the boat performs, rides, and how it feels overall.

I know I still have my work cut out finding the right one, and much as I have learned much more about boat dessign, engines, repairing both and more during my previous multi season and rebuild repower fiasco than I ever wanted to I am hopefully armed with enough ability, experience and know how to avoid getting into a problem boat.

Then again I have gotten pretty good at prepping an engine for removal and installation abd might be better finding a mechanical basket case in need of repowering for pocket change, but this is a whole other story.

So as I am seeming to be closer to settling on this model I guess it is time to get some real performance info, and create a pro/cons list between the IO and IB.

One last thought is if anyone can offer info on just what a almost new 1989 SR 260CC w/newly rblt 7.4 B1 with all new acc's including exh, coupler, belts, starter, alt, water pumps, and more is actually worth? I know the market stinks right now but suspect I can make up for it on the buy end.

Just hope I can find a 300we nearly as nice

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:

A belated update. wide open today was 36.5mph (I went ahead and switched the gps back to mph). This was 4550rpm on one engine and 4500 on the other. The bottom and props are clean and I had the bimini and side curtains up -- the panel between the windshield and top and the rear curtain were off.
Mike H...

 

[LennyD]

mike, thanks so much for the update!

Wow was waiting on that info like a kid at xmas, but I think we both were hoping for a higher number

Not that 37mph is bad, or outside my expectations etc, but just is below what I really wanted. Still since most do not cruise at WOT the speeds at normal cruise RPM are more important anyway.

Thanks again
Lenny

 

[LennyD]

I did not have any luck searching for the thread you mentioned so let me know if you can dig out a link to it.

It seems that from your direct findings the 80's 270DA is actually faster than the 90's 280/300WE. Thats interesting since the prior always seemed to be a larger heavier boat to me.

Could it be the outdrives?

I did find an interesting comparison between IB & IO models online. I think it was 2000 32 DA used, and I will post a link when I get to my PC, but the performance numbers were too close to show me any advantage that would be worth spending more on up front. Sort of a wash, and I would think where there was small advantages to the IO in top speed and mpg at some RPM's it would be evened out from the decrease in maint on the IB.

Maybe let me know what speeds your seeing around normal cruise RPM's. Say like 3000, 3500, 4000 etc. Doesnt have to be those exactly, but where it feels like it is in a groove or sweet spot.

I am not going to pass on this model for 37mph though I did hope it could pass 40mph, but also am going to need to figure out what the IO models do.

So if any has an IO model please post your results!

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:
Let me think it through and I'll post the numbers at various rpm's.

The person who used to own an I/O weekender's name on this board is Kameroo (or something close).

The weekender is larger and heavier (half a foot wider, a foot or two longer and about 1000 to 1500 lbs heavier) than an 80's 270.

The slightly higher top speed for the 270 is probably due to the outdrives. Also, my recollection is that the weekender has a slightly deeper deadrise, 21 degrees versus 19, which also may have helped the 270. I knew the weekender wouldn't do 40 because a few years ago I restored a 17 Mako with a 115 yamaha and that would do exactly 40 wot. One time I was pacing it in the weekender and the Mako had just a few mph on it.

I can't remember the year or the month -- but probably the best guide as to the differences in speed and efficiency between inboards and outdrives in a similar boat -- would be a Boating magazine of 3 or 4 years ago where they compared identical 290 Amberjacks with V-drives and outdrives. I'll see if I can find it for you.
I'll try to post the cruise numbers later tonight or tomorrow evening.
Mike H...

 

[LennyD]

Mike thanks again

Sorry for the delay in my reply, but been away a few days without access to the net. Was sort of nice in way though lol

Anyhow much as I did hope we would get more replies from owners of both drive types so that I could get more info on this model it is looking like we are going to have use the comparisons on similar models or what is actually available. Not a big deal and if I can get access to the one on the 29AJ that would be pretty close.

I am not expecting the 300WE to be a speed demon etc so again everything is a compromise.

Also I guess I was looking to learn the differences and what to expect as much as gaining knowledge on the many things you have already addressed, and since there is a lot of these out there with fairly high hours there is a good chance that many would not have the same performance as if they were newer either.

One other thought I have is even though I have learned the hard way how much fun and expensive re-powering can be it is very possible this may be a part of my future with buying an older boat, but this also would allow to up the ante some in the power department. Even top end rebuild could easily increase hp 10-20% so that is always an option as well. I do not really want to have to do this again, and with twins it will be twice as much fun so hopefully I can find one that has been done already or that will not need to be done for a long while.

Do let me know if you track down the location of any of the info you mentioned online or share what you can.

 

[LennyD]

Lenny:

A belated update. wide open today was 36.5mph (I went ahead and switched the gps back to mph). This was 4550rpm on one engine and 4500 on the other. The bottom and props are clean and I had the bimini and side curtains up -- the panel between the windshield and top and the rear curtain were off.
Mike H...

Mike I managed to find the Boating comparison using the AJ model. I know it is not apples to apples to the 300we, and the stern drives tested were an advantage for this type of boat being they use the bravo 3 with the dual props (can we call those duo props lol).

So even though we can not really compare the performance numbers of the stern drive directly due to the vast differences etc at least this is a start.

http://www.boatingmag.com/v-or-not-v

To V Or Not To V

Now that’s a question. Are you better off with a stern drive or a V-drive?
By Eric Colby


email
print
share


related tags:review | Sea Ray | test | V-Drives | Engines



0%
or 0%

To V Or Not To V
Enlarge Photo
Related Galleries

• To V Or Not To V

Lately, there's been a tricky choice facing anyone buying a fishboat or cruiser in the 28' to 34' range - a choice that stumps even the pros. With so many boats being offered with the new-generation V-drives, is there any reason to still consider an I/O?
You hear that stern drives are faster. But how can they be with more gears eating up power? Also, aren't stern drives less durable in salt water? And what about fuel consumption, which directly affects range - something of more importance to a cruiser or offshore fisherman than pure speed.
Like you, we've had the same questions, but no clear-cut answers. That is, until Sea Ray gave us the chance to uncover the truth. The company recently added a V-drive option to its 290 Amberjack, a versatile boat that can be set up for both cruising and fishing. Originally offered only with stern drives, the V-drive model gave us the perfect opportunity to put the two propulsion systems to a head-to-head test.
We ran three 290 Amberjacks on the same day at the Sea Ray facilities in Knoxville, Tennessee, to ensure similar conditions. The stern drive boat was powered with twin 260-hp Mer-Cruiser 5.7L EFI Bravo Threes, which Sea Ray tells us is one of its more popular I/O packages. To match the stern drive's power, the second boat had twin 260-hp MerCruiser 5.7L (carbureted) engines coupled with ZF 63-IV V-drives. The third boat, with a pair of 300-hp 350 MerCruiser MAG MPI Horizons and ZF 63-IV V-drives, was there in case it turned out that stern drives are faster than V-drives for the same horsepower.
GEAR HEADS
V-drives still get a bad rap for what they used to be - gear-mashing consumers of power. Older designs consisted of a transmission attached to an engine's bell housing by a short shaft. This shaft was fitted with a universal joint that connected it to the input shaft of the V-drive. This meshed with the output gear on the end of the propshaft. The design was highly inefficient. But today's integrated V-drive units, such as the ZF units on our Amberjacks, have the transmission and gears in the same housing and let a lot more power reach the prop.
Theoretically, a stern drive, which redirects the power through two right angles, should be less efficient than a V-drive, which reroutes the power only once. A stern drive connects to the engine's flywheel with a short splined shaft that has a universal joint at its end. This lets you raise or lower the drive. Within the drive there is an upper horizontal shaft that has gears linked with those on a vertical shaft. Then the gears at the bottom of the vertical shaft connect to the horizontal propeller shaft. A stern drive loses about 13 percent of its power compared to 8 percent for the V-drive, according to Daniel Clarkston, director of product engineering at Mercury Marine's MerCruiser division. So we wondered if the V-drives might do pretty well in terms of speed and fuel consumption.
<!--pagebreak-->
NUMBER RUNNER
We had to settle it right from the start. Everyone wanted to know if stern drives are faster. And, for once, the boatyard rumors were right - stern drives fly. The 260-hp stern drive boat ran 47.1 mph at 4600 rpm, while the 260-hp V-drive hit only 34.5 mph. No one expected that much of a difference. The 300-hp V-drive did a little better at 38.2 mph.
CERTIFIED TEST RESULTS: 260-hp V-drive. Advertised fuel capacity 230 gallons. Range based on 90 percent of that figure. Performance measured with two persons aboard, half fuel, no water. Sound levels measured at helm, in dB-A.
TEST POWER: Twin 260-hp MerCruiser 5.7L V-8 gasoline inboards with 350 cid, 4.00" bore x 3.48" stroke, swinging
PRICE: $124,080 Of more real-world importance on a boat like the 290 Amberjack is fuel consumption. At wide open throttle it was about the same for all three boats. But when comparing fuel consumption at the same speeds, the stern drives again had a decided advantage. The stern drive ran 34.7 mph at 3500 rpm, pretty much the same as the 260-hp V-drive's 34.5-mph top speed. In terms of fuel consumption, the stern drives burned only 22.8 gph at 3500 rpm versus the V-drive's 40 gph at WOT. At 4000 rpm the stern drive boat hit 39.4 mph and consumed 25.2 gph - about 1 mph faster than the 300-hp V-drive's top end, which ate 40.6 gph at the same rpm. Those numbers equal big advantages in speed and economy. And the advantage goes to the stern drive.
During our planing tests, however, the 300-hp 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-drives came through - the boat planed in 5 seconds flat whether we used trim tabs or not. The 260-hp stern drives got the boat on plane in 6 seconds with the tabs down and in 6.5 seconds with them up. Not far behind were the 260-hp V-drives, which took 6.8 seconds tabs down, and 7.2 tabs up.
CERTIFIED TEST RESULTS: 300-hp V-drive. Advertised fuel capacity 230 gallons. Range based on 90 percent of that figure. Performance measured with two persons aboard, half fuel, no water. Sound levels measured at helm, in dB-A.
TEST POWER: Twin 300-hp MerCruiser 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-8 gasoline inboards with 350 cid, 4.00" bore x 3.48" stroke, swinging 17" x 15" three-bladed Nibral props through ZF 63-IV V-drives with 1.5:1 reductions.
PRICE: $131,247
The added grunt of the 300-hp V-drives helped make up for the stern drive's ability to match its trim to the boat's speed. From 3500 rpm to top end, the 300-hp V-drive boat ran at the same angle as the stern drive boat when trimmed for optimum efficiency. By comparison, the 260-hp V-drive boat rode with a more bow-high attitude.
<!--pagebreak-->
Of more real-world importance on a boat like the 290 Amberjack is fuel consumption. At wide open throttle it was about the same for all three boats. But when comparing fuel consumption at the same speeds, the stern drives again had a decided advantage. The stern drive ran 34.7 mph at 3500 rpm, pretty much the same as the 260-hp V-drive's 34.5-mph top speed. In terms of fuel consumption, the stern drives burned only 22.8 gph at 3500 rpm versus the V-drive's 40 gph at WOT. At 4000 rpm the stern drive boat hit 39.4 mph and consumed 25.2 gph-about 1 mph faster than the 300-hp V-drive's top end, which ate 40.6 gph at the same rpm. Those numbers equal big advantages in speed and economy. And the advantage goes to the stern drive.
CERTIFIED TEST RESULTS: 260-hp Stern Drive. Advertised fuel capacity 230 gallons. Range based on 90 percent of that figure. Performance measured with two persons aboard, half fuel, no water. Sound levels measured at helm, in dB-A.
TEST POWER: Twin 260-hp MerCruiser 5.7L EFI Bravo Three V-8 gasoline stern drives with 350 cid, 4.00" bore x 3.48" stroke, swinging 15 3/4" x 22" and 14 1/4" x 22" three-bladed ss props through 2:1 reductions.
PRICE: $125,347 During our planing tests, however, the 300-hp 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-drives came through-the boat planed in 5 seconds flat whether we used trim tabs or not. The 260-hp stern drives got the boat on plane in 6 seconds with the tabs down and in 6.5 seconds with them up. Not far behind were the 260-hp V-drives, which took 6.8 seconds tabs down, and 7.2 tabs up. The added grunt of the 300-hp V-drives helped make up for the stern drive's ability to match its trim to the boat's speed. From 3500 rpm to top end, the 300-hp V-drive boat ran at the same angle as the stern drive boat when trimmed for optimum efficiency. By comparison, the 260-hp V-drive boat rode with a more bow-high attitude.
WHAT A DRAG
So there we were with these unexpected numbers. The V-drives had the same or more horsepower, sported larger props, and should have been less affected by a loss of power from internal gearing. The 260-hp 5.7L V-drive is lighter than the 5.7L stern drive, 880 pounds versus 994. What happened? Why were the V-drive boats slower and less fuel efficient?
LOA.....29'0" Beam.....10'6" Draft.....2'10" Displacement (lbs., approx) ........11,300 Transom deadrise...21° Bridge clearance...7'2" Minimum cockpit depth.......2'1" Max. cabin headroom..6'4" Fuel capacity (gal.)...230 Water capacity (gal.)...........30 Price (w/standard power) ........$118,430 STANDARD POWER: Twin 240-hp MerCruiser 5.0L Bravo Two V-8 gasoline stern drives.
In a word: Drag. V-drive boats are inboards, which means they have two shafts, two struts, two props, and two rudders beneath the boat, all creating more drag than an I/O's sleek lower unit. Although the ZF 63-IV drives produce a relatively shallow 12-degree shaft angle, they can't be as efficient as a stern drive, which has no fixed shaft angle and can direct all of its thrust in the desired direction - forward. At high speeds, stern drives can be trimmed up. This lifts the bow slightly, taking some of the boat out of the water, which further reduces drag.
<!--pagebreak-->
Not only did the V-drive's submerged hardware slow us down, it made things noisier in the cockpit. The stern drive boat peaked at 86 dB-A; the 260-hp V-drive at 90 dB-A; and the 300-hp V-drive at 94 dB-A. It should be noted that the 300-hp boat didn't have the sound-deadening cockpit carpet in place; the other two boats did. We could feel the water coming off the V-drive's props. As the water hit the hull, it caused a slight vibration beneath our feet.
Handling for each was also different. At cruising speeds the stern drive could carve a tighter turn, easily making a 180 within the confines of a 1/8-mile-wide river. The only way to make the same turn with a V-drive was by lowering the outboard trim tab to lay the boat more on its side, letting the strakes and chines get a better bite.
In slow-speed maneuvers, such as docking, the V-drive holds an edge because the props are farther apart by 2". This may not sound like much, but the difference is obvious to anyone pivoting in a wind. V-drives also have more torque to help push the boat around using short bursts of throttle.
ACCOMMODATING DIFFERENCES
The 290 Amberjack has three strakes per side, 4"-wide chines that are turned down slightly, and 21 degrees of deadrise at the transom. The only difference in the bottoms among our three competitors was that the V-drive models had two recessed prop pockets. There's also some downward "hook" incorporated into the bottom aft of the props that helped keep the bow down and the ride level. Also, since Sea Ray assumes the V-drives will be used in salt water, V-drive boats leave the plant with bottom paint, which cuts about 1 mph from the top-end speed.
The engines in a V-drive configuration are installed facing aft with the tail end of the motors and the transmissions accessible directly under the hatch. One of the biggest space eaters in this installation is the 4"-diameter mufflers that exit through the bottom of the boat and relief ports out the topsides. They block access to the batteries and other accessories mounted outboard of the motors, while the same areas are wide open on the stern drive boats. To Sea Ray's credit, the sea strainers for the V-drive engines are easy to get to on the engine compartment bulkhead.
The stern drive's motors are closer to the stern, leaving plenty of space between the front of the motors and the engine compartment bulkhead, compared to the tight squeeze on the V-drive installation. This makes maintenance easier, as does the fact that the drives themselves are mounted externally and easy to get at. But, then again, those same drives will likely need more servicing.
<!--pagebreak-->
DOLLARS AND SALTS
So far the V-drives weren't coming off as well, but they took the edge in terms of initial price. With the 260-hp 5.7L EFI Bravo Three stern drives, and no options, the 290 Amberjack retails for $125,347. With the 260-hp 5.7 L V-drives, the 290 comes in at $124,080 - a $1,267 savings. The 300-hp 350 MAG MPI V-drives bring it back up to $131,247. But also remember that the stern drive is more economical to run.
So why would anyone opt for the V-drives? The primary reason, and the one motivating Sea Ray to offer them on the 290 Amberjack, is corrosion. Assuming that routine maintenance guidelines are followed, the stainless-steel shafts and Nibral (short for nickel-bronze-aluminum alloy) propellers and rudders will outlive the painted-aluminum stern drive in salt water.
On the other hand, you could keep your boat on a lift such as a Hydro-Hoist and flush religiously after each run. You'd defeat the ravages of salt water while still getting the performance edge of a stern drive. But it will cost you about $10,000.
So which system should you buy? If you're planning to run primarily in fresh water and need to make good time getting to your lakefront home or favorite faraway fishing spot, or if you boat in salt water and have a lift, go with the stern drive. If your boat is going to remain in metal-eating brine and you want to have hassle-free recreation, the V-drive is likely the better choice.
For more information, contact: Sea Ray Boats, Dept B, 2600 Sea Ray Blvd., Knoxville, TN 37914, 800/772-6287, www.searay.com.

 

[LennyD]

One area I immediately saw that threw up red flags for me was that it looked like they may have tested the v-drive boats with bottom paint, and the stern drive model without.

They also claimed a 1mph difference between the two, and I know from direct experience this is not completely true. I have seen much larger numbers in loss of top speed when bottom painted, and though the actual amount of MPH reduction from the paint at slower speeds has been a smaller number (eg. a 5mph loss at 65mph, but only 3mph loss at 35mph etc).

Since most of the models I was able to gain this info from were in the high performance area the losses at the higher speeds should be higher numbers than those seen at the slower speeds just based on percentage of loss due to the additional friction etc, but still I would be very certain that the model used in this test would see more than a 1mph loss in top speed if bottom painted.

All that said it is still amazing at just how well the bravo 3 can perform on some models, and even if when compared with a bottom painted hull this one would be 4mph or so slower that is still some serious difference, and I suspect the added thrust from the counter rotating props would be a big boost at lower speeds as well (this drive type surprised me the first time I drove a boat with the Volvo duo prop so much it gained instant respect for the design).

Only problem I can see is how much all the issues with the B3 could cost an owner over time

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:

my speeds at various rpm's are the following (again, with bimini and side curtains and about 1/4 fuel):

3200 24.6 mph

3350 26.3

3600 28.75

3700 30

These sppeds are in mph (sorry for jumping back between knots and mph).

Back to your initial question/issue. Having dealt with twin alphas on the 270 sundancer, I would not have those outdrives again on a boat that was wet slipped. Too much of a headache and cost to have it hauled for any maintenance or issues. My first choice would be to replace the alphas with bravo 2's. I had one on a 250 sundancer and that thing handled and jumped on plane like a jetski. They swing huge props, have the water pump inside the boat and don't have the bravo 3 issues.
I still think that if I was looking for another 300 weekender - without a doubt I'd go the v-drive route again.
Let me know of any questions and I'll try to answer.
Mike H....

 

[LennyD]

Mike thanks once again

I have to agree that the maint and other issues of the Alpha drive are ridiculous, and I do not miss that one a bit.

Even the Bravo1 drives that have been on the last so many boats I have owned though much better than the Alpha (well except for the design of the way they get the cooling water into the boat through the drive and transom that I am waiting on hauling the boat so I can be fixing it that ultimately may end up with a inboard through hull anyway lol) and eliminate the in the drive water pump seem to have there share of troubles.

The speeds your getting are not really all that bad, and like everything else there must be trade offs etc. Actually if those numbers were 5-7mph higher I do not think there would even be anything to discuss, and cruising speeds around 30mph seem just fine for a boat of this type.

I am itching to get out on the water for a long day of observation of as many 300we models as I can so maybe I can find some info that way until someone posts their experience on the IO model.

One last thought is that how much change do you think one could expect in speed with small improvements to the engines to increase performance? I do not mean of the true HP type things you would do to a race boat or anything, but just little stuff (things that may be wearing or corroding anyhow) like intake, carb, and tweaking the props?

I remember years ago when I had a Baja that I got an extra 300rpm after changing to fully synthetic engine oil, and much earlier than that getting very strong "seat of the pants" results from just freshening up the top end in a 350GM with a new cam, hi rise dual plane manifold, carb, and hi output ignition system.

Obviously the needs of being on the water differ greatly from that of the street, but I am pretty certain there must be ways to wake up these de-tuned 260hp marine versions without major investment.

Still no matter how I seem to try going about this I seem to be liking the v-drive more and more. The reduced maintenance and chance for being stranded by a outdrive failure alone seem to be pretty strong points alone.

Just to be clear are your numbers from the GPS or dash gauge? I think you mention GPS previously but want to be sure.

Lenny

 

[Mike HHH]

Lenny:

The speeds are all from the GPS.

Without a doubt, the first place to look to pickup a few mph would be the props. Other than cleaning and painting them, I haven't messed with these props since I bought the boat 3 years ago. I believe they are the standard issue 16 x 15 3 blade nibrals. They show no damage or dings or anything -- but who knows what their actual measurements are. I've looked off and on (unsuccessfully) for a used set that I would send off and have fine tuned. I spoke with a prop shop at a boatshow in Virginia last year and right off the bat, when I described the boat and the prop pockets, they described how the props needed a certain cup near the tip due to the pockets. Each off season I've been too busy or screwed the budget on other off season items like manifolds and the dripless shaft seals to send off these props to get tweaked.
Hope this helps
Mike H.....

 

[LennyD]

I ran across another stern drive I/O v/s v-drive comparison. The models are once again Sea Rays and are the slightly larger 310 DA.

http://www.boatingmag.com/drive-train-boogie

Drive Train Boogie

Stern Drive VS. V-Drive: Which is right for you?
By Kevin Falvey

Drive Train Boogie
Enlarge Photo
Related Galleries

• Drive Train Boogie

Stern drives are the overwhelming choice of propulsion for owners of small express cruisers; yet there exists a small group of boaters who prefer inboards. Is there a hard-and-fast rule as to which one is better? To find out we headed to the world headquarters of Sea Ray Boats in Knoxville, Tennessee. There, tied to the several hundred feet of company dock jutting into the French Broad River, was an identical pair of 310 Sundancers with the same power, equipment, fuel, and water that Sea Ray had provided. They were identical in every way except one: the drive train. Although both boats hid twin 300-hp MerCruiser 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-8 gasoline engines beneath their hatches, one turned its props through Bravo Three stern drives while the other used V-drive gears and shafts. We ran them, maneuvered them, and crawled through each boat's innards inspecting every limber hole, motor mount, and tiewrap. We found the distinct differences propulsion choices make possible. Now, all you have to do is figure out which one works better for you. Here's what you need to know. The 310 Sundancer is one of the most popular express cruisers. It provides sleek styling and crisp decor with expansive exterior seating and the ability to sleep six. I particularly like the foldaway transom bench that provides aft-facing seating, a covered sink and stove in the galley that help gain more counter space, and a cockpit wetbar large enough to accommodate an optional barbecue. I also like the choice it offers. The 310 Sundancer is the only express cruiser of its size that's available with either inboards or stern drives.
The choice of power has no effect on living space. You get an identical accommodation plan either way. But there is a difference in engine room space. The engines for the stern drives are mounted up against the transom. The drives' transom plate serves as a rear motor mount and the drive train is all outside the boat. That's why when you push the button to raise the electric hatch there's about 4' separating the engines and the forward bulkhead. This gives you plenty of room to climb in without fear that you'll step on something you shouldn't. And once you're down there, access to the engines is great. Since you're looking at the front, or "belt," side of the engines, servicing the water pump and alternator is easy.
Open the hatch on the V-drive installation and the view is dramatically different. The engines are farther forward. There's only about 2' of space between them and bulkhead, and that space is occupied by the V-drive's transmissions. As you step in, the only secure place to put your foot is on the diamond-plate pedestal over the port transmission. From there you have to pick your footing with care.
The V-drive engines have internal raw-water strainers and an underwater exhaust system, items that are built into a stern drive. These are excellent features, but they consume more space. Things are tight down here. Then, too, V-drive installations require engines to be installed backward. The drive shaft is at the forward end, and the belt side is aft with its water pump and alternator, which are even harder to get at because of the exhaust and mufflers. Most service checks will have to be performed while you're lying on the cockpit sole alongside the opening - if not atop the engines themselves - while reaching down. And some repairs will force you to disassemble one system to get to another.
Point: This stern drive boat offers a lot more room to work around the engines than its V-drive cousin.


Drive Time
The stern drive boat was appreciably faster, both at top end and out of the hole, where it also showed less bow rise. In addition, our tests showed that, on average, the stern drive accelerated 20 percent faster from 0 to 30 mph. And it responded more quickly at following sea speeds - where you accelerate to the crest of a wave, then throttle back on its face - of 15 to 25 mph.
The stern drive's fuel efficiency mirrored its speed advantage. At a cruising speed of 24 mph, the stern drive consumed 19 gph, compared to the V-drive's 21 gph, a 10 percent difference. In fact, the stern drive had to be pushed to nearly 32 mph before burning 21 gph. That's a 33 percent increase in speed for a 0 percent increase in fuel consumption.
The faster you go, the greater the stern drive's efficiency. That's because drag increases with the square of speed. And the V-drive is dragging more underwater gear - its shaft, strut, and rudder - than the smaller and more streamlined stern drive. The ability to trim the stern drive means you can set its shaft to line up with the boat's direction. All its thrust is forward. The fixed 12-degree angle of the inboard's prop shafts means a component of forward thrust is lost to upward thrust. Dual-prop stern drives, such as the Bravo Three on our Sea Ray, provide a large efficient blade area within a small diameter. This means you get a lot of thrust with minimal drag. Yes, props cause drag, and it's another reason for the stern drive's efficiency. Overall, the stern drive boat felt more powerful and sporty to run. Although the two boats have an equally tight turning radius, the stern drive boat recovered from hardover turns more smoothly, with less squatting and loss of speed. But don't write off the V-drive, which has a lot going for it as well. It draws slightly less water, and while maneuvering at slow speeds, such as when docking, our V-drive boat handled with more precision and spun more confidently. This is primarily because when you put one engine forward and the other in reverse, the combined turning force is centered closer to the boat's ideal pivot point than with stern drives. It feels as if the boat is standing still and rotating under you, something you don't get with stern drives. Furthermore, boats with engines mounted closer to their center of gravity - as they are in the 310's V-drives - ride better in waves and swells because they pitch less than boats where the engines' weight is farther aft.
Point: Does the V-drive's sea-kindly feel, more comfortable ride, and better slow-speed handling outweigh the speed, efficiency, and extra range of the stern drive? Only you know the answer to this one.

POWER OF THE DOLLAR
F or most boaters, annual maintenance includes engine winterization. A survey of boatyards in various parts of the country confirms that it costs about $350 to winterize a stern drive and about $270 to do a V-drive. Why the difference? There are more parts and thus more labor involved with a stern drive: The drive needs to be removed; the U-joint and gimbal bearing must be inspected and greased; and the bellows gasket and O-rings should be replaced. Of course, annual maintenance doesn't include repairs. For instance, if you kiss the bottom in your V-drive, you may bend a shaft or rudder. Do the same with a stern drive and the lower unit kicks up on impact to minimize the damage. Bend a stern drive's prop - or propset in this case - and you can replace it in the water. But when an inboard prop needs changing, you either have to hire a diver or pay for a haul.
For most of us, the cost of fuel has become a pressing concern. As you can see by the charts on the previous page, the stern drive is more efficient than the V-drive. However, this may not be as damning as it seems. The average boater puts only 50 hours a year on his engines, with 40 percent of that time at idle and one-quarter at a slow cruising speed. Given this, after five years the differences wouldn't be much.
Long term, the stern drive is more tolerant of shaft misalignment should your engine mounts move a bit - and they all do. The longer shaft on a V-drive multiplies any error by the time it gets to the prop. On the other hand, if you run your boat in saltwater, an inboard's stainless-steel and bronze underwater gear can tolerate corrosion much better than a stern drive's aluminum gear.
Point: In the short term, although both boats cost about the same, the cost of ownership is higher for the V-drive boat due to its greater fuel burn. But, in the long term, the stern drive's maintenance issues will make it more costly to live with.

THE ANSWER
The 310 Sundancer is a first-rate express cruiser, worthy of topping anyone's list, particularly because it offers you that rare choice: stern drive or V-drive. So which drive train do we think is better suited to this boat? Depending on where and how you go boating, a case can be made for each. But given that most boaters will use an express cruiser for day trips and overnights on calm freshwater, and the serviceability and efficiency afforded by the stern drive, we think that for most skippers the I/O is the way to go.



Sea Ray 310 Sundancer/V-Drive speed efficiency operation rpm knots mph gph naut. mpg stat. mpg n.mi. range s.mi. range run angle sound level 1000 4.6 5.3 2.6 1.8 2.0 319 367 0 65 1500 6.7 7.7 4.3 1.6 1.8 280 322 1 72 2000 8.0 9.2 7.4 1.1 1.2 194 224 4 75 2500 9.6 11.0 12.4 0.8 0.9 139 160 6 81 3000 13.8 15.9 18.1 0.8 0.9 137 158 8 80 3500 20.9 24.1 21.2 1.0 1.1 178 205 6 81 4000 24.8 28.5 26.3 0.9 1.1 170 195 5 84 4500 28.9 33.3 33.4 0.9 1.0 156 179 5 84 4900 31.6 36.4 43.5 0.7 0.8 131 151 4 84 Advertised fuel capacity 200 gallons. Range based on 90 percent of that *figure. Performance measured with two persons aboard, half fuel, full water. Sound levels taken at helm, in dB-A.

• LOA 33'4"
• Beam 10'5"
• Draft2'11"
• Displacement (lbs., approx.)14,000
• Price (w/test power) $184,650

Test boat power Twin 300-hp MerCruiser 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-8 gasoline V-drive inboards with 350 cid, swinging 18" x 19" three-bladed Nibral props through 2:1 reductions. Sea Ray 310 Sundancer/Stern Drive speed efficiency operation rpm knots mph gph naut. mpg stat. mpg n. mi. range s. mi. range run angle sound Level 1000 5.0 5.7 2.8 1.8 2.0 318 366 0 70 1500 6.7 7.7 4.6 1.5 1.7 262 301 1 76 2000 8.3 9.5 7.7 1.1 1.2 193 222 3 77 2500 9.8 11.3 12.2 0.8 0.9 145 167 5 83 3000 14.2 16.3 17.1 0.8 1.0 149 172 7 84 3500 21.4 24.6 19.4 1.1 1.3 198 228 6 85 4000 27.5 31.7 23.0 1.2 1.4 216 248 5 85 4500 33.0 38.0 28.3 1.2 1.3 210 242 4 87 5000 36.6 42.1 36.0 1.0 1.2 183 211 4 88 5300 38.9 44.8 45.2 0.9 1.0 155 178 3 90 Advertised fuel capacity 200 gallons. Range based on 90 percent of that *figure. Performance measured with two persons aboard, half fuel, full water. Sound levels taken at helm, in dB-A.

• LOA 33'4"
• Beam 10'5"
• Draft 3'3"
• Displacement (lbs., approx.)14,000
• Price (w/test power) $184,150

Test boat power Twin 300-hp MerCruiser 350 MAG MPI Horizon V-8 gasoline stern drives with 350 cid, swinging 22"-pitch Bravo Three ss propsets through 2.2:1 reductions. Same Power, Different Results
Beyond the stern drive's obvious speed advantage, it also accelerates harder. Compare the V-drive's easy straight-line rise in speed to the stern drive's more aggressive arc.

 

[LennyD]

One thing I wanted to point out for anyone reading this in the future to try and make a similar decision as mine etc is that some of the maint. costs quoted in both these articles are not inline with what I have seen in the NJ/NY market. So plan on higher costs.

I have not owned a inboard or v-drive so I can not comment on this designs maint cost, but I know very well that anyone except the very rare lucky owner who sees extended service intervals from u-joint and exhaust boots, gimbal bearings, and the many o-rings and seals used in a sterndrive will see much higher bills than the example of $350 to winterize etc.

I do most of my own work on my current boat, and also use a modified maint schedule, but even with aftermarket parts which can reduce the costs greatly it still gets a bit expensive come winter time (remember all the things needed for a proper winterizing).

I also have friends etc that have everything done by the local marina or dealer etc, and I do not know one who would not jump for joy if their bill was that low

Plus though not a true winterizing expense and really a maint cost many will perform other maint repairs at this time which will add to the bill. Things like all those rubber boots and seals that keep water out of your drive and boat as well as the oil in the drive can add up when they are replaced. I have seen as much as $200 just for a u-joint bellows before labor, and if you gamble on their service life and lose you can add another $100+ for the gimbal bearing, $350 for the u-joints, and whatever your local shop feels they can get away with on labor costs.

This does not include the recommended 2yr replacement of drive oil, and various pressure testing and other tasks that normally become part of either winterizing or spring launch costs.

This number is a real guestimate, but I honestly think you can add another $200-400 to your annual costs if you average in all those extra costs, and this is per engine/drive. There are just more things to be done every so many hours/years than just changing out engine oil, flushing out the engine, adding some anti-corrosion to the cyl's, and protecting with antifreeze.

Of course mileage will vary, and I know more than one boat owner who does not change their engine oil during winterizing, and others who typically find a bill around $1000 by the time a haul out, block up, shrink wrap, systems winterizing, and other normal things are completed.

So be prepared to be paying a little more than $350 for that stern drive when winter time comes around unless your prepared to get dirty, buy some tools, and learn how to do it yourself.

Sorry I am not familiar with the costs of the same on a v-drive, but you can obviously remove all the stern drive related costs which should out weigh any required annual servicing of the v-drive unit by a good margin. If I am missing something on the v-drive please let me know.