Twin Mercruiser 5.7 / Bravo 3 Thru Hull Engine Water inlets. Sea Strainer Debate?

Jetav8r

Cadet
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
14
Hi All -

Located in Annapolis, MD on Chesapeake Bay.

Have a 2001 Monterrey 322 with Twin Mercruiser 5.7 / Bravo 3 setup. Several years ago port motor would slowly overheat and it became apparent raw water hose thru transom is most likely crushed by corrosion. This is a common ailment for Merc and not easily solved. Boat spent early years in Tampa Bay (so, real salt water).

Rather than fix what I considered to be a poor design anyway we installed standard thru hull intakes and "T"'d-them into the current plumbing. Yes, Merc actually has a service manual and kit to block off the thru transom setup for folks wanting thru hull intakes. But, again, did not want to risk breaking something else unfixable AND what water does flow thru the drive will help cool it.

Have run this setup for 2 years now with NO issues.

Now, the main question.

Sea Strainers .... or not.

We did not install Sea Strainer in line with the thru-hulls for these reasons:

- The drive water does not go thru a sea-strainer. It simply passes thru the mesh intake on the bottom lower unit.

- Have the standard clam shell strainers on bottom of boat for each intake.

- Feel like strainers are one more way to sink your boat if they fail.

- Current strainers on boat for genset and air conditioning have never been openned, and have never had anything in them.

- The water here in Chesapeake is silt/sand bottom, no grass.... no natural debris. About the only concern would be the yearly nettles which show in later part of summer.


Now the DILEMMA:

I have sold the boat and have a sea trial shortly and I'm sure this will be a topic for discussion.

Thoughts?
 

Don S

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
62,321
Re: Twin Mercruiser 5.7 / Bravo 3 Thru Hull Engine Water inlets. Sea Strainer Debate

- The drive water does not go thru a sea-strainer. It simply passes thru the mesh intake on the bottom lower unit.

That's the strainer.

- Have the standard clam shell strainers on bottom of boat for each intake.

Not even close to the small openings in the drive strainer. The thru-hulls are 3 big slots for keeping small fish out.

- Feel like strainers are one more way to sink your boat if they fail.

That is why seacocks are recommended, not just a fitting.

- Current strainers on boat for genset and air conditioning have never been openned, and have never had anything in them.

- The water here in Chesapeake is silt/sand bottom, no grass.... no natural debris. About the only concern would be the yearly nettles which show in later part of summer.

Then you probably didn't need the strainers in the drive either.
 

Jetav8r

Cadet
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
14
Re: Twin Mercruiser 5.7 / Bravo 3 Thru Hull Engine Water inlets. Sea Strainer Debate

Thanks for quick reply.

Yes, the intakes were installed as ABYC as I understood it to include (obviously) the seacocks.

I guess my nagging question to any Merc tech would be, if the raw water pump inlet side uses a 1 1/4 inch hose, then why is the water hose coming from the Bravo drive smaller (1 inch)? It switches in size at the water hose adapter plate on the transom inside. That never seemed to make sense to me.
 

Don S

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
62,321
Re: Twin Mercruiser 5.7 / Bravo 3 Thru Hull Engine Water inlets. Sea Strainer Debate

I guess my nagging question to any Merc tech would be, if the raw water pump inlet side uses a 1 1/4 inch hose, then why is the water hose coming from the Bravo drive smaller (1 inch)? It switches in size at the water hose adapter plate on the transom inside. That never seemed to make sense to me.

That pump was used on other engines that required larger intake. Your 5.7 Doesn't need that much.
 
Top