Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:24 PM   #1
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Smile New Member w/ Re-power Question

Hello everyone; yes I'm another newbie, although, I've read many of your posts over the years, when I was shopping for my current love, a 1981 34', down galley, single screw.
So, I'll now get right to the point.
I would love hear from any of you regarding the idea to replace my Cat 3208NA with a Cat 3208TA 375HP. I have the opportunity to purchase a 1992 with ridiculously low hours (100), as it's been stored on it's boat in dry dock since the late 90's. Obviously, my biggest concern is whether that is too much horse power for the prop shaft, strut, bearings, etc.? Let me also say, that as far as I know my boat was built with exactly half the drive train as one with a Cat 3208NA twin set-up.
Any insight you all may have will be much appreciated.
Thank you all in advance!
__________________
Advertisement

Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 12:57 PM   #2
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,882
Well, my main concern would be having too much hp for that boat. But if you say that the hull was built for two Cat 3208NAs then I guess not as that is 440 hp.


You will need to change the prop and since the new prop will absorb more hp and torque you will probably need a new prop shaft and strut (if a larger cutlass bearing won't fit the existing one).


Think about this: The Cat 375 hp 3208TA should probably not be cruised at much more hp than your current NA engine puts out at wot; at best a knot or so more than where your current engine will push you. So if that is what you want, ok.


David
__________________

djmarchand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 01:11 PM   #3
Guru
 
Scary's Avatar
 
City: Walnut Grove Ca
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cary'D Away
Vessel Model: Hatteras 48 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
Why, way more work than you think. Unless the current engine is in bad shape, why.
Scary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 01:19 PM   #4
Guru
 
City: gulf coast
Country: pinellas
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,199
Why would you want to spend so much for so little. Enjoy what it is.
bayview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 01:32 PM   #5
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,889
Need to know what kind of hull. Some hulls can not put the added hp to good use, the 375 might just make it plow harder and faster with little benefit. If it can plane out, then ok.
Ski in NC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 01:50 PM   #6
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks David & Scary for your replys;your right that the new engine should not be cruised at more than the old's WOT, however, at that speed (2000 rpm or so) the boat is now up on plane; something that it's not currently able to do, and the fuel consumption per mile drops considerably, not to mention elapsed time.
Scary, the existing engine is original, and not well cared for. I'm concerned about long range trips down the Baja coast, and the ability to out run weather. The boat currently cruises at 8.9 knots at 2000 rpm, but is not capable of but another knot at WOT.
This I've concluded is because it is already well exceeding hull speed, but not planing.
Initially, I didn't care about achieving a plane, until I read a boat test showing markedly better mpg at greater hull plane speeds.
Do you think I'm on the right track?
Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 02:13 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
ddalme's Avatar
 
City: LAFAYETTE,LA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Relenti
Vessel Model: Atlantic 30, 1983
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 406
What hull do you have?
ddalme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 02:25 PM   #8
Guru
 
City: Venice Louisiana
Country: United States
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,097
Generally speaking, a power package is designed for a specific purpose and boat. A builder would not usually install shafts, struts, etc to cover the full spectrum of engine options. You need to know your shaft size and rating befor pulling the trigger on an engine with a lot more HP. On the other hand, derating the 3208 is fairly straight forward. The 375 hp is a great engine, if you can utilize the power. If the shaft is not big/strong enough you may be able to use a different gear ratio to lessen the shaft torque. Another thing to be aware of is exhaust sizing, the 375 is going to need much larger. Personally, I wouldnt pull out a 3208 and go back with another. A Cat 3126 or even better, a Cummins C series would be a much better choice. Even a Cummins B at 330 hp would be better.
kulas44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 02:58 PM   #9
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywayn View Post
Scary, the existing engine is original, and not well cared for. I'm concerned about long range trips down the Baja coast, and the ability to out run weather. The boat currently cruises at 8.9 knots at 2000 rpm, but is not capable of but another knot at WOT.

Do you think I'm on the right track?

Presumably another option is to simply tune or rebuild the engine you have?

Depends on what "not well cared for" might mean, but in the grand scheme of things... comparing rebuild costs to replace costs might be a useful exercise.

Especially if it means you might only need a valve job and replacing some (all?) of the bolt-ons...

Although fresh paint is nice, too.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 03:58 PM   #10
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,882
At best you can cruise at 12 kts. If you can get there while producing 220 hp it will be at about 1 NM/gal. That is what my Mainship 34T did with its single 370 hp Yanmar.


But I am a little puzzled. You say that the existing engine will only push the boat to 9 kts and it is not on plane then. You are expecting then that the new 375 hp engine's additional torque will get you up on plane, and then you can back down to near the hp that the NA puts out at wot and will be going faster than 9 kts. Am I on the right track?

If so it is possible that more hp and torque will get you up on plane where the NA won't, but I think that you are overestimating the fuel mileage benefits of being there.

I have been a subscriber to boattests.com for many years. Everything I have seen indicates that their tests are on the up and up. Rarely do I see a speed vs mpg curve that increases significantly once the boat gets up on plane. I have seen a few where the mpg drops significantly while "getting over the hump". That is because the boat is very inefficient while pushing that bow wave until it gets up on top.

Planning hulls are the type that is most likely to see a big change in mpg when they get over the hump, principally because they finally get up on top and can cleanly plane.

But semi-displacement hulls like yours never cleanly plane. They sort of mush forward.

Go to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...y/yanmar2.html
to see the data for my 34T. It is optimistic by about 10% since their test boat was near empty. It settles at 1.2 mpg between 10 and 18 mph and drops to 1.0 mpg at wot.


David
djmarchand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:18 PM   #11
Guru
 
Edelweiss's Avatar
 
City: PNW
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 1976 Californian Tricabin LRC
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,834
Yes, the 34's can plane given enough HP. There are a couple guys on this forum with the twin 3208's in the 34' and they say they run at speeds around 15 - 20 knots. I don't know if they're still active, but you may want to PM them directly. I'm thinking Capn Craig was one, but check with Flywrite. He knows everything about the 34's (although his top speed is somewhat less!).

Personal opinion: You're going to put a lot of money into your boat for little return. If you really want that kind of speed, probably best to buy a 34' with the twin Cats.
__________________
Larry B
Careful . . .I Have a Generator and I'm not afraid to use it !
Edelweiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:26 PM   #12
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,889
You can cruise a 375 3208 at 250hp long term. Would not want to cruise much over that. The big question is what this boat does with the 210 on the pins with light boat, does it break free and scoot? That would help figure what it does loaded with 250hp at cruise condition.
Ski in NC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:33 PM   #13
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Click image for larger version

Name:	BoatTest4.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	171.1 KB
ID:	48728
David: I'm attaching the performance specs from that test. Admittedly the test boat was running twin 200Hp Perkins, but I still think it is comparable. You see how the running angle changes dramatically after 1750 rpm indicating that it is up on plane, and the mpg improves dramatically. I hope you can read this poor copy.

ddalme; the Californian 34 has a semi-displacement hull, if I understand your question.

kulas44; the main reason I was sticking to the 3208 series is because of engine mounting, known clearances, same transmission, and a healthy respect for them. My 3208NA has impressed my immensely, and I read similar reports about the 375 version, as it is still not too taxing on the design. My engine however, returns poor oil analysis reports, and as the P.O. allowed the hobbs meter to quit, I really don't know much about it.
Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:41 PM   #14
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Country: Bumpkin?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,996
Greetings,
Welcome aboard. Allow me to first apologize for being so blunt but I'll also get right to the point. It will most probably cost you far, far more to retrofit your current vessel than to sell it and buy what you really should have bought in the first place.

As has been mentioned, boat manufacturers size engines and associated gear to specific models and while you may get a good deal on a larger engine the "nickel and dime" bits and pieces will soon eat any savings. "Restoring" an engine that has been sitting idle for some 15 years isn't going to be inexpensive either.

Your mention of better mpg ($$ savings) doesn't jive with the $$ it could cost to change over.

So, either rebuild what you already have and keep a better eye on the weather or start looking again. Sorry...Just my opinion.
__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:44 PM   #15
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks Edelweiss, but I'm thinking half the moving parts, and similar performance.
Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 05:47 PM   #16
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,882
I see what you are saying: there is quite a hump at 9 kts and 1750 rpm where the mpg drops significantly and then increases 250 rpm later at 15 kts. Much more of a hump effect than on my 34T.


So maybe you can cruise at 15 kts while pulling no more than 250 hp as Ski recommends.


David
djmarchand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 06:10 PM   #17
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
I see what you are saying: there is quite a hump at 9 kts and 1750 rpm where the mpg drops significantly and then increases 250 rpm later at 15 kts. Much more of a hump effect than on my 34T.


So maybe you can cruise at 15 kts while pulling no more than 250 hp as Ski recommends.


David
Thanks David; I think it's very possible, however it brings me back to my original concern, and that is, can my existing hardware take it?
Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 06:25 PM   #18
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
I see what you are saying: there is quite a hump at 9 kts and 1750 rpm where the mpg drops significantly and then increases 250 rpm later at 15 kts. Much more of a hump effect than on my 34T.


So maybe you can cruise at 15 kts while pulling no more than 250 hp as Ski recommends.


David
I have seen performance tests like this. It's not so much what it does beyond 1750 rpm, but that 1750 rpm is the worst efficiency for that engine and boat combination. I've seen many that have the drop right at the point before planing. Then once beyond that point the mpg flattens. While the Mainship curve is more common, your curve is not unseen. Now, typically it reflects some form of pairing of engine and boat and fuel and water and other weight and propeller that just really struggles to plane the boat so finds itself in the neverland mid range for a while. Where you see this regularly is with surface drives.

One of the first places I would look is at the props. What rpm are you reaching at WOT and what is the expected maximum rpm? How does the boat plane if everyone moves forward for the start? I'm not suggesting you start shifting weight around but I'm betting if you had more weight forward and less back you'd plane much better.

Your time to plane can't be good. The fact it doesn't plane really until about 2000 rpm is bothersome. I agree with part of your premise that it's underpowered for a planing boat, but based on those test numbers, I don't think the CAT 375 hp would necessarily solve your problem, plus it might not be necessary for your desired use.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 06:42 PM   #19
Guru
 
City: Venice Louisiana
Country: United States
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,097
Still,,, shaft size and exhaust size will dictate if this change will be possible. Changing shaft size to larger will not be cheap, or easy. Same for exhaust.
kulas44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 07:04 PM   #20
Member
 
City: Prescott
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kai Malino
Vessel Model: Californian 34
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kulas44 View Post
Still,,, shaft size and exhaust size will dictate if this change will be possible. Changing shaft size to larger will not be cheap, or easy. Same for exhaust.
So, any thoughts on what my 1 1/2" shaft can effectively handle? Here's a shot of the hardware in question. I'm not too worried about the exhaust unless I'm missing something, because my boat has two 5" exhaust ports, and I don't see why I couldn't take the single exhaust from the 3208TA and divide it into the two current mufflers, and out the two ports.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Prop shot.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	98.1 KB
ID:	48734  
__________________

Haywayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012