Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-10-2014, 11:39 AM   #61
Guru
 
City: Doha
Country: Qatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Good question Mako. But not one I care to debate on an open forum where the love for the old 2 strokers runs deep. I can tell you that on several continuos duty pumps, gensets and high hour engines I managed, once diesel broke $1 dollar per gallon the cost to operate them was prohibitive due to excessive fuel consumption. This is obviously not much of a factor for a low hour vessel.

In a similar vein just as people take out gas and put in diesels to extend the vessels range with given tank volume, the same holds true for swapping out 2 strokes and putting in four. Lest this turn into a single vs twin, anchor debate, why worry about clean air or over propping, my thoughts on 2 strokers will best go quiet.
What are the specific fuel consumptions of a 6-71 versus a comparable 4-stroker?
__________________
Advertisement

makobuilders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 12:09 PM   #62
Guru
 
City: Doha
Country: Qatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopArcher View Post
does anyone have experience with the Duetz diesel air cooled engines… But have only occasionally heard of them being installed in boats. Seems a good choice to me, less complications only requiring a wet exhaust if you do not want a dry exhaust.
PopArcher, I also investigated this previously for a small launch on mine. Fantastic engines (Listers and Deutz), but really not suited for boats. They require a huge volume of air for cooling which usually means power-fans to bring in enough cooling air. If you're thinking of using the hot air for heating the boat then there is the very real danger of CO poisoning in case of exhaust leak. Plus you lose out on having a wonderful source of heat for your hot water needs or pilothouse heat through an automotive heater core.

Just my two cents.
__________________

makobuilders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 01:04 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Rebel112r's Avatar
 
City: Birch bay wa
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Rogue
Vessel Model: North Pacific 42
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 396
Been around a lot of Deutz engines, running water pumps, vacuum pumps, generators(80 kw) and a pumper rig set up for building ice roads. The pumper rig was interesting in that engine oil ran thru a exchanger, like a regular water heater, provided heat for cab. It worked very well considering oil temps were running 160-180F. I was always surprised at how long oil stayed clean in these motors. Also most had interesting rods, with bolts accessible thru side plates on engine block. No need to remove pan, to do major engine work. Any leaks on motors were compounded by the fan which could make a small leak make a good sized mess. Never have been around any in boats. But I think they are great motors.
Rebel112r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 03:04 PM   #64
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
fuel comparison between dd4-53 and lugger engines

I got curious just how much difference in fuel economy there really is between the WW2 era battle ax DD3-53 and the new lugger engines.

So I went to Boat Diesel and found out. I looked at the data sheets and did some comparisons.

Each of the engines is rated between 100 and 115 HP.

I chose 60HP as the comparison HP. I had to pick something and 60HP sounded like a good realistic HP so here we go.

DD3-53 60 HP 1800 RPM 4.5GPH
corrected

DD3-53 60HP 2250 RPM 4.0 gph

Lugger 1064TI 60 hp 2150 RPM 2.9GPH

Lugger 1064A 60 HP 1750 RPM 3.5GPH

Just for grins I ran out the 315 HP engines in my boat as a comparison.

Cummins 6bta5.9-sw 60 hp at 1700 rpm 4.5 gph

So there you go
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 04:39 PM   #65
Guru
 
Insequent's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Insequent
Vessel Model: Ocean Alexander 50 Mk I
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
This thread is in two parts, one the obvious appreciating of a well made albeit older vessel and two, the desire to seriously upgrade the same vessel with money not necessarily the driving force. Let's be honest, if money were the holy grail none of us would have the vessels we do.

As retirement approached we set aside "play boat" money to do on the water what we are doing. We assumed we would get little of it back and moved on. The money we are pi$$ing away on the boat and journeys is buying lots of pleasure and emotional reward. Our financial threshold for this endeavor is less than some and more than others can and do choose to spend.

To some, money is to be carefully husbanded and to be spent only on OUR relevant things so it can be left to family, charities and the tax collectors. But what is relevant to one may not be to another. If one has the free capital to sink into a boat and the opportunity to take what is to many a very iconic vessel and bring it to the next level, why not do it? The JD 4045 or fully warrantied Cummins reman mechanical will be a marvelous addition. Don't forget to ballast for the weight loss.

There are many boat shoppers, me for one, that would relish the chance to purchase a good solid sea boat that has been seriously updated and not cored, not steel, not wood, solid bones, the ability to get me safely back to port and emotional joy.

For some, the love affair with a 2 stroke DD is never ending. Having been in the middle the commercial diesel world for almost half a century and watched non DDs perform on a tightly watched opex and reliability basis I am thrilled they are gone and have been for many decades to be quite honest.

So to the OP, bringing this great vessel up to the 21st century is a unique chance and opportunity. If you have the throw away money enjoy the journey the same as art lovers, rare book collectors, equestrians and house remodelers do. It will be every bit as good as a similar sized newer Selene, KK or Binatow. Don't get caught up on resale, enjoy the redo and let the future pleasure you will gain be yours to savor.

Last but not least, pick a refit yard wisely.
Nailed it. Or was that Kevin's fuel consumption comparison?

Although to me its all about the noise. Can we please have a curfew for DD's in quiet anchorages in the PNW?
__________________
Brian
Insequent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 07:17 PM   #66
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
I got curious just how much difference in fuel economy there really is between the WW2 era battle ax DD3-53 and the new lugger engines.

So I went to Boat Diesel and found out. I looked at the data sheets and did some comparisons.

Each of the engines is rated between 100 and 115 HP.

I chose 60HP as the comparison HP. I had to pick something and 60HP sounded like a good realistic HP so here we go.

DD3-53 60 HP 1800 RPM 4.5GPH

Lugger 1064TI 60 hp 2150 RPM 2.9GPH

Lugger 1064A 60 HP 1750 RPM 3.5GPH

Just for grins I ran out the 315 HP engines in my boat as a comparison.

Cummins 6bta5.9-sw 60 hp at 1700 rpm 4.5 gph

So there you go
Kevin, think there is something wrong with your numbers. In general terms, 20 HP per gallon is somewhere between rare and unobtainable in these size engines. Yet you have one with slightly better than 20 HP per gallon. Secondly, I'm really doubting that the Cummins is only generating 13.3 HP per gallon. At peak torque around 1,800 rpm depending on model, they are 17 or better HP per gallon.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 07:50 PM   #67
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
Kevin, think there is something wrong with your numbers. In general terms, 20 HP per gallon is somewhere between rare and unobtainable in these size engines. Yet you have one with slightly better than 20 HP per gallon. Secondly, I'm really doubting that the Cummins is only generating 13.3 HP per gallon. At peak torque around 1,800 rpm depending on model, they are 17 or better HP per gallon.

Ted
The data is there for the reading at boatdiesel.com.
All I did was bring up the manufacturers specification sheets, pick a HP and read the curves.

Perhaps you or someone else might look at the data sheets and double check my work.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 08:01 PM   #68
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
HTed I think his numbers are off and misleading. I looked into the DD fuel burn when I was looking at a boat w a 4-53. A summary of what I dug up brought the DDs much closer to a wash.

They do make more noise and consume a bit more fuel but to the OP that's got to be worth $35,000. The only possible reason I can see that would justify the OP buying a Deer is if he just desperately wants the bragging rights on the Ted I think his numbers are off and misleading. I looked into the DD fuel burn when I was looking at a boat w a 4-53. A summary of what I dug up brought the DDs much closer to a wash.

They do make more noise and consume a bit more fuel but to the OP that's got to be worth $35,000. The only possible reason I can see that would justify the OP buying a Deer is if he just desperately wants the bragging rights on the docks. That's a big motivation for many here. Ever heard of the expression "the right stuff"? Well "right" has little to do w objectivity. "Right" has all to
do w what's vogue and what boating gurus have and you know what they have ... they're proud of it and are prone to tell all what the've got.

expression "the right stuff"? Well "right" has little to do w objectivity. "Right" has all to do w what's vogue and what boating gurus have and you know what they have ... they're proud of it and are prone to tell all what the've got.

Also I would trade the higher fuel burn for the incredible smoothness of the Detroit Diesels any day. And a small amount of sound insulation should make the DD very comparable.

Kevin the fine art of making your point w statistics is to choose the appropriate numbers and other data to present.

BT-6 Cummins for $4900 in Sea area. I bookmarked it from Craig's List. PM me for info.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 08:36 PM   #69
Guru
 
gwkiwi's Avatar
 
City: Juno Beach, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Takes Two
Vessel Model: Defever 49 RPH
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 500
JD repower

My last boat was repowered with John Deere 4045TFM50's back in approx 2003.

The receipt that I saw showed $65,000 and the repower was performed in the Keys. The engines ran great and I loved them and it was a deciding factor when buying the boat, however the value increase in the boat over original engines was only about $10k.

It also helped when I sold the boat but given all you are deciding I would just refurb those detroits unless parts are no longer available and money is just burning a hole in your pocket.

The 48LRC is a very desirable cruiser and a friend of mine has just fully refurb one and it looks amazing.
gwkiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 09:16 PM   #70
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post

Kevin the fine art of making your point w statistics is to choose the appropriate numbers and other data to present.
Ok, could someone please go, and get the actual fuel burn data and post some contrasting data?

All I did was pull up the manufacturers engine data, and post it. I didn't make anything up.

If the numbers I posted are incorrect, which one and why?
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 09:58 PM   #71
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Kevin I'm sure you didn't post incorrect information.
Apples and oranges .. apples and apples ...
We're the details about under what conditions the burn measurements were measured exactly the same ... just for example. Seems to me several highly regarded people said the difference (DD to 4 stroke other) is more like 7 percent. But those recollections may have been only relative to engines like the FL and other older engines. And of course the OP is considering the old DD and the JD and the JD is a very efficient modern engine ... so says the chatter on TF.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 10:41 PM   #72
Member
 
City: Galveston
Country: USA
Vessel Name: YTBD
Vessel Model: YTBD
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 21
sunchaser,
Understand ER ventilation needs with air cooling, I have seen the engine cooling air exhausted thru a stack where the engine dry exhaust is also routed via (pipe with in a pipe) thus providing negative pressure ER ventilation via the cooling fan draw. The only parts we have had to go after is an exhaust manifold on a 1973 year model tractor that got hung up on a stump and caught the exhaust pipe/muffler. It was not an easy find, but several dealers thru the south and mid-west. Other wise bullet proof, the 42 hp tractors will run 10/12 hrs on 6 gals heavy mowing. The hour meters stopped at 3700+ about 20 some year ago, I could not tell you the total hours, but its a lot - one of the 42's is now showing some pretty good blow by, but starts everytime though...
If I was thinking about repowering I would give them serious consideration..Simplicity...
PopArcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 10:46 PM   #73
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Kevin I'm sure you didn't post incorrect information.
Apples and oranges .. apples and apples ...
We're the details about under what conditions the burn measurements were measured exactly the same ... just for example. Seems to me several highly regarded people said the difference (DD to 4 stroke other) is more like 7 percent. But those recollections may have been only relative to engines like the FL and other older engines. And of course the OP is considering the old DD and the JD and the JD is a very efficient modern engine ... so says the chatter on TF.
OK, Thanks I feel better now.

I was feeling like a shot messenger there for a minute.

I re-read the data and comparing the curves for the DD were a little difficult to interpret before. I zoomed in on them and have adjusted the DD's fuel consumption using the correct prop loading curves (like I did for the other engines)

DD3-53 60HP 2250 RPM 4.0 gph

I have also corrected my original post to reflect this.

I can tell you that the one for the Cummins diesels is close to the actual fuel burn in my boat. Not exact but close, but I also don't run at that exact rpm.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 11:01 PM   #74
Member
 
City: Galveston
Country: USA
Vessel Name: YTBD
Vessel Model: YTBD
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 21
Further Deutz data:
DEUTZ TCD Diesel Engine for Engineering Machinery

Engine Model Rated Power@Speed [kW(hp) @ rpm] Max Torque@Speed [N.m(lb-ft) @ rpm] Specific Fuel Consumption [g/kW.h(lb/hp.h)]
TCD914-L6 129.9(174.2) @ 2300 650(479.4) @ 1600 220(0.362)
TCD2012-L4(138HP) 103(138) @ 2400 520(384) @ 1600 215(0.35)
TCD2012-L6(208HP) 155(208) @ 2400 810(597) @ 1600 215(0.35)
TCD2012-L4(160.9HP) 120(160.9) @ 2100 699(516) @ 1500 205(0.34)
TCD2012-L6(252.1HP) 188(252.1)@ 2100 1134(836) @ 1500 200(0.33)
TCD2013-L4-2V 120 @ 2300 670 @ 1600 209
TCD2013-L6-2V 200 @ 2300 1050 @ 1500 205
TCD2013-L6-4V (243KW) 243 @ 2100 1310 @ 1450 195
TCD2013-L6-4V (261KW) 261(350) @ 2100 1498(1105) @ 1500 198(0.33)
TCD2015-V06 360(483) @ 1900-2100 2080(1534) @ 1300 202(0.332)
TCD2015-V08 500(670) @ 1900-2100 2890(2132) @ 1400 207(0.34)
TCD2015-V6 390(524) @ 2100 2130(1571) @ 1300 211(0.347)
TCD2015-V8 520(697) @ 2100 2890(2131.6) @ 1400 212(0.348)

Ok data table copyed a bit garbled but the key efficiency numbers are, .33-.36 lbfuel/Hp.H accross this line of diesel engines. 20-22 hp per gal./h
PopArcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2014, 08:56 AM   #75
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,890
Here's some prop curve data from Cummins performance sheets from Boatdiesel:

This is using a 2.7 exponent prop curve.

6bta 315:

1400rpm 2.8gph 48.5hp 17.3hp/gph
1600rpm 3.9gph 69.5hp 17.8hp/gph

6bt 220:

1400rpm 2.7gph 41.3hp 15.3hp/gph
1600rpm 3.5gph 59.3hp 16.9hp/gph

Puzzling that the 220 does worse than the 315!!!

Just for kicks I did the same for the 6cta 450 I have in my planing boat, but is very often run at trawler speed at 950-1050rpm:

1000rpm 1.9gph 34.1hp 17.9hp/gph
1200rpm 2.9gph 55.8hp 19.2hp/gph
1400rpm 4.2gph 85.6hp 20.3hp/gph

It beats both the b-motors around 60hp!!!

Makes me question the data a bit as this runs counter to most diesel thinking.

Regarding the 453 making 60hp at 2250 at 4gph, that rpm is way up there and it is no surprise that the parasitic losses are making it less efficient. Down around 1500 to 1800 at decent load is probably its sweet spot.

I don't have a good source 453 data along the prop curve. Wish I did.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2014, 09:50 AM   #76
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,883
Ski:

The numbers aren't that surprising. The sea water aftercooled 6BTA 315 hp engine benefits from having the charge air cooled to near sea water temps. The non aftercooled 6BT 210 hp engine probably does heat up the air a bit by the heat of compression from the turbo even at that low power loading. Lower charge air temps mean higher efficiency.

Your 6CTA is a little more surprising that it beats the B at 50 hp. The lower rpm required by the C to produce 50 hp (good) is offset by the heavier machinery that eats up parasitic hp (bad). I would have thought that the latter would outweigh the former effect and overall be bad. At least that is what the trend toward eco boost gasoline engines in cars and trucks is all about.

David
djmarchand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2014, 10:09 AM   #77
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Looks like the original poster is faced w the question of whether or not it's worth $35000 to not have to install more sound insulation (or hear more noise), pay a bit more for fuel, ...... what else except loose the status of cool dude w all the right stuff.

And I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about the extra cost of relocating engine mounts, exhaust hoses ect. Must be included in the $35000. That's what my boats worth ... probably no more than that. So it seems like a lot of money to me.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2014, 10:55 AM   #78
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,890
On a related note, I spent some time fixing things on a 48 or something LRC Hatt with 453. That thing was LOUD. Not engine noise in the house, but drone out the tailpipe. It is really tough getting exhaust on the 2-strokes quiet, especially ones without turbos, as they help too. The only thing that I have found to work on these is the water lift mufflers similar to what Vikings with two strokes used.

On this particular LRC, there was no practical way to fit lift mufflers in the ER, or fit improved axial lifts along the pipe run aft. The axial ones on other boats proved disappointing on the two strokes, at least in the few I consulted on.

Four strokes are much quieter out the tailpipe. A standard axial muffler does fine.

Owner on this LRC wore ear muffs on the bridge.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 09:51 PM   #79
Guru
 
City: Venice Louisiana
Country: United States
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,097
All of the 53 series have 2 lobe blowers, except the 8-53 which have 3 lobes. The 2 lobe blower is very noisey. It can be muffled. DDs are more efficient at there rated power output than any 4 stroke engine. Less so everywhere else.
kulas44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2014, 07:36 AM   #80
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
What are the specific fuel consumptions of a 6-71 versus a comparable 4-stroker?

Of course it depends on the load.

THe DD folks hope the engine would be selected to be used at at least 60% of its rated load . At 60% to 90% of rated load most DD will burn 1 gph for each 16HP produced.

Other engine folks claim better numbers , but the 2 strike DD is a 1936 design , and very few can match the DD reliability.

With 1-71 ,2-71, 3-71 , 4-71 ,6-71 ,8-71,12-71 and 16-71 putting out about 20 to 30 HP per cylinder it is easy enough to match the engine to the power needed.

Of course the 53 or 91 cylinder sizes allow for different needs.
__________________

FF 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 02:17 AM.


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