Good Engine, Bad Engine

There's a lot of people out here in the real world that don't write books or spend a lot of their time promoting themselves on websites. That doesn't mean they aren't just as "expert" as the writers.

To say many or most modern diesels go bang at 600 hours...well let's just say that's ridiculous...

Here is one of his statements that should be in CAPs..

"....but you have to understand that the AVERAGE includes high performance diesels, as well as those folks who do not maintain their engines at all; the ones who run them until they stop."

Boy...I wish could make a living at stating the obvious...unfortunately I'm not such a great/prolific writer.

Touring engine shops for repair statistics is like touring hospitals for the healyhy vs sick...how about fitness centers instead?

I know a boatload of charter sportfishemen who would laugh at that 1100 hour average...they would be out of business if they planned for major rebuilds that often...so would most any commercial operator...and there may be the difference...the way engines are run and maintained...not who makes them or what rpm they are designed to run at.

Pascoe is an excellent resource for getting one point of view on a topic, be it a particular make or model of boat or an engine. And he makes a lot of points about boats that are worth heeding or at least being aware of.

But he is incredibly biased, incredibly opinionated, loves the sound of his own voice even more than I do, and plays favorites like you wouldn't believe. So it's best, I think, to take pretty much anything he says with a big grain of salt and treat it as a single data point to be added to whole bunch of other data points that you get from a whole bunch of credible other sources.

Since he's not here to tell us, it's hard to know the specifics of his claim of such short lives for modern diesel engines. Is he basing it on the repair records of specific engine makes and models? Is he basing it on warranty claims? Is he basing it on insurance claims? Is he basing it on the collected and verified records of diesel shops across the country? Is he basing on the fact that "he knows a guy" who's Yanmar blew up at 600 hours?

No way to know at this point.

Like psneeld I find it very hard to believe that a blanket claim of such short service lives for modern diesels is valid. If it was, you would think the boat manufacturers would be falling all over themselves NOT to use these kinds of engines in their boats.

Because any deficiency in the engine reflects on the boat even though the boat manufacturer had nothing to do with the design and manufacture of the engine. People don't say "My John Deere engine blew up." They say, "The engines in my two year old Grand Banks blew up," and the damage to GB's reputation is done.

Psneeld said that commercial operators would not accept engines with a TBO of 1100 hours. I don't think recreational boat buyers would, either. A Grand Banks 47 costs well in excess of $1 million. So does a Flemming 55. A big Eastbay is getting right up there toward $1 million bucks if not more. All of these are relatively fast boats with big, powerful engines and their owners tend to run them at speed because they can afford to.

I cannot conceive of a person able to afford this kind of boat who would plunk down that kind of money and expect to re-engine or re-build the engines at 1,100 hours.

I suspect that when Pacoe refers to "go fast" diesels, cranked up much higher than 1 HP per CID, he is thinking of the offshore racing or cigarette crowd that hangs out down in Florida. He refers to engines blowing up at 600 hours that have "never been maintained". That's not hard to imagine if you think of some guy draped in gold chains, trolling for women half his age, and speeding around in his "substitute". Yeah, why not just drop a couple of million to buy the boat, run it until it breaks, and then throw $40,000 fixing up the engine in order to get another couple of years until it croaks again.

It's very unusual for diesel engines to fail at 1000 hours, or 2000 hours. I've only had one diesel engine failure, at 3600 hours, and that was due to water ingestion into a cylinder rather than being physically worn out. In the typical pleasure boat application it can take 8-10 years to run up 1,000 hours. In my opinion, the jury is still out on the longevity of the newer, high-rev diesels compared to the older larger displacement mills. How many of the smaller engines have accumulated 2,000 or 3,000 hours, (in sporadic, pleasure boat service)? Enough to draw solid conclusions?

I have long subscribed to the displacement/HP ratio generally described by Pascoe at the end of his remarks. That's not an idea that's original with him. I've heard it from several old time diesel pros over the years. Doesn't make it right, just commonly believed.

Are you sure?
. My IH diesel truck engine has 1649 hours at 79000 miles and most consider it just broken in. No one would buy these trucks if they didnt go at least 3000 hours and i don't know of a single one that has needed rebuilding before that unless they had the hosepower jacked way up. 600 hour engines would be totally unacceptable to most consummers i would think. Now i am talking truck and farm diesel engines not marine and i always thought marine engines were made to last even longer.

Chuck said: In my opinion, the jury is still out on the longevity of the newer, high-rev diesels compared to the older larger displacement mills.

Click to expand...

Yes, the high-performance, racing-type engines excepted, it would be interesting to know definitively how the higher-speed, turbocharged diesels used in many "normal" boats today compare in longevity with the Ford Lehmans, Perkins, Detroits, etc. from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

There are a lot of opinions out there, most of which seem to come down on the "new stuff won't run as long as the old stuff" side of the fence. But so far as I know there has not been any factual study done with a lot of credible data to back it up.

The only numbers I have heard bandied about for the engines in our boat (FL120s) is that it is a "12,000 to 14,000 hour engine in recreational service assuming proper operation, servicing, and maintenance." I've heard those numbers from a wide range of sources.

I quote those numbers myself simply because I've heard them from so many sources. But I have absolutely no idea why---- or if---- they are actual, credible numbers based on something real.

They sound good, though.

I wonder if we've demoralized and depressed the original poster to the point of rejecting the thought of buying a boat entirely.

I don't know of any diesel marine engine that turns so fast that it is killing itself prematurely. Some run around 4000 rpm. I had one that made maximum steam at 3450 rpm (Yanmar) and it wasn't new and it performed very well cruising at 2750 rpm most of the time.

There's been lots of talk about twin engine trawlers having a very serious problem w lack of space in the engine compartment to do simple owner type maintenance. If the same boats had 4000 rpm turbocharged engines there would probably be much more (or plenty) of space for all activities normally encountered. AND the boat would be much lighter and thus higher performing. Perhaps significantly.

Having a big heavy old slow turning slugger of an engine is nonsense. Just because our boats go slow is no reason our engines should go slow. And now a turbocharged engine is no longer considered a high performance engine because it has a turbocharger. All an engine is doing is powering a boat. What engine speed it's done at is of no matter.

The boats i have been looking at are all older and most have 2-3500 hours on them which i am told is nothing for a perkins or FL. I would like to see some real numbers but havent found any. Seems to me the boats are wearing out before the engines in most cases. So with the new ones its diferent? humm....

dont you think those tiny turboed engines turning a kazillion rpms to make the boat move at displacement speed is making a bit of a racket? My experiance with those high revers has been they are very load and sound like they are ready to gernade at any time. Isnt the clatter of an old DI engine at maybe 15=1600 rpm but a murmur compared to the scream of the teeny turbo monster

Eric--- I think most of the boats that people in this discussion have in mind when they talk about twin-engine boats vs single engine boats are boats like mine. Old or old-ish, and made at a time when things like FL120s and FL135s were the accepted engines. Higher power engines were things like Cats and Deeres and Cummins, but they were still "old and slow" compared to the new lightweight, high speed diesels I think we're talking about here.

While I understand your own philosophy with regards to twin engine boats, the manufacturers who made single and twin engine models simply created a twin by putting two of the same engine they put in the single into the boat. Sure it was heavier, sure it perhaps resulted in more power than was necessary (unless the hull form was such that it could make use of the extra power like a GB). But this meant you just had to stock one kind of engine, one kind of mounts, one kind of transmission, etc. etc. etc.

The realities of the production world sometimes don't match up to the realities of the "scientific" world for want of a better term.

This production philosophy held on for a long time and perhaps even today. When my wife and I were chartering a GB36, we chartered a 1991 model with a single engine. The engine was a 210 hp Cummins. In that same year, Grand Banks also offered a twin engine GB36. Standard--- if not the only-- engines available for that boat were....... two 210 hp Cummins.

So it's been going on for a long time, in the case of GB since 1966 clear on up in the late 90s and, for some boats, until today.

So given that production philosophy, the engine space in a twin engine GB36 is a lot more cramped than the engine space in a single engine GB36.

Your notion of using one big powerful engine in place of the two less powerful ones to create, in essence, a single engine version of the twin engine boat is valid with respect to the power and space in the engine room.

BUT....... you still have a single-engine boat, and I refer you to the infinitely long single vs twin thread for the reasons why some people (like me) really want two engines.

I think everyone wants twin engines they just don't wish to pay for the initial cost of or the maintenence of the second engine system when its only really useful at the marina or for spare parts

bfloyd4445 said:

I think everyone wants twin engines they just don't wish to pay for the initial cost of or the maintenence of the second engine system when its only really useful at the marina or for spare parts

Click to expand...

Could be. I know from our brief experience with the chartered single engine GB36 (which had no generator, either) that getting around in the engine room to check things out was WAY easier than it is in our boat. Having only one engine also made more space for things like a proper diesel heating system, a good sized hot water heater, sufficient battery banks, and so on with still plenty of space left for crawling around.

Add in the weight benefit and the other factors you mentioned in your post, and I think single engine boats have a legitimate appeal even to people who could afford otherwise.

To turn this back into something the OP might be more interested in if he's still around is what would be the smarter buy in a used boat? One with "old generation" diesels like Lehmans, Perkins, older Cats, Deeres, Cummins, etc., or something fitted with one of the newer, lightweight, more efficient, high tech, higher speed diesels?

Which will give him the most value for the money? And not just purchase money but money spent over the time he owns the boat.

Floyd I can see your concern about the noise. And about that I really don't know. But I've had some thoughts on noise over the years. I think basically most any engine we would use could be made very acceptably quiet w what ever amount of sound insulation was required to do the job. I should address that issue myself. At my normal cruise of 2300 I consider my boat plenty quiet enough. But at 2500rpm for an hour or more I get a bit tired of the extra noise. My boat has little sound insulation and I'm sure lots of my noise is coming from the air intake. So I need to make an intake silencer like the cars of the late 40s had.

But just how much noisier a high rpm engine is ..... I just don't know. I do know though that the higher the engine speed and the more cylinders the engine has the less vibration. And vibration is a huge source of noise. Many more strokes of less force and energy produce much less vibration unless there is a significant part of the boat like a bulkhead that is resonant to the engine frequency. Soft engine mounts absorb low amplitude higher frequency vibration well.

The sound of a diesel engine is frequently not an indication of how "happy" it is. I think the engines are "happiest" at a relatively high rpm and normal load.

Marin said:

The Lehman drive coupler was designed by Bob Smith and he's the one who told me what I'm about to tell you...

The drive coupler is not a good design... and is the only Lehman component to have ever had a factory recall (according to Bob

So the real solution is to toss the whole thing, Lehman drive coupler and the Jabsco water pump, and replace them both with a brand new, one-piece Johnson pump that is a bolt-on replacement.

This is what we did on both our FL120s when the removal of one of the Jabsco pumps for overhaul revealed a failing tang on the drive coupler. So we had the couplers and pumps on both engine replaced with 1" Johnsons.

Click to expand...

Do you have a Johnson part number you can share with other FL owners, for the replacement pump?

No, I don't have it offhand. I might have it on the boat and our diesel shop obviously knows what it is. And if you join and post your question to the GB owners forum there are people there who probably have the number memorized. Or you can search for it in their archives--- it's been talked about plenty of times.

The pump normally recommended for the FL120 is the 3/4" pump. The pump recommended for the FL135 is the 1" pump.

However at the time we discovered our drive coupler problem Johnson was temporarily back ordered on the 3/4" pump and we had a cruise to do. So on the recommendation of both our diesel shop and Bob Smith at American Diesel, we had the 1" pump installed on each engine instead.

And this is actually beneficial because the 1" pump moves more water. While this does not change the engine temperatures due to the thermostat, it does drop the transmission temperatures down a very noticeable amount (by feel, I haven't measured it). And as far as I'm concerned, the cooler a transmission runs the better.

So the part number I would have if I have it is for the 1" pump. But this is a really common conversion for FL120s so I would think any diesel shop on the planet that has experience with these engines would know the pump and the part number. Or you could call the Smiths at American Diesel.

One thing to be aware of--- the Johnson pump is much shorter than the combined drive coupler and Jabsco pump. Also, the Johnson pump has the inlet and outlet on opposite sides of the pump body. This means the outlet comes out of the top of the pump so you need a 90 degree elbow right there to turn the flow aft. No problem, right?

Well, the position of the elbow puts it right underneath the drain plug for the Minnemec/CAV/Simms injection pump. You can get a wrench and fingers in there to remove the plug okay but there is precious little room below it. I've come up with a system using a split section of water hose to catch the oil and funnel it out to the bottle I use to catch it. You can also cant the pump inboard (rotate it counterclockwise a bit) to give you a bit more working room under the injection pump. I haven't bothered to do this since our system works fine.

If we're at the boat this weekend I'll try to remember to take a picture of the installation.

manyboats said:

....... At least 99% of us will never wear out the engine w the shortest engine life expectancy. Lots of engines get killed but not worn out......

Click to expand...

I agree.

The origional service for the engine must be considered .

The big truck or industrial based engines have little problem operating at or near their rating for long periods of time.

A Toyota or BMW (Yanmar) engine built for a passenger car may have a huge HP rating , but that is no where near a cont rating.

The old concept that it takes about 3 CI to make a hp, "forever" should be a guide .

Our boat has two Perkins 6.354's....they were built in 1977. So far as I can tell by the mound of paperwork that came with the boat...they have never been rebuilt, and have only had a few repairs...and regular maintenance.

They work well, they are fuel efficient, the parts for the most part are readily available, except that it appears that the fresh water pump for their "contra rotating" engine is difficult to find, though TAD can rebuild them...

If you look at a boat with Perkins...and it is a newer make...it is possible that the engines rotate the same, but the transmission turns the prop contra rotating....

Having experience with "new" diesel engines...with all of the electronic gadgets they have hung on them....I personally would avoid them at all cost. The cost of EGR valves and turbos is high....very high.

For instance....I owned a Dodge P'up with a Cummins 6 diesel...vintage 2004. I never had a bit of trouble with it...not even with the turbo. On the other hand...I talked to owners who had the newer versions of that engine...that included the EGR valve... and those have been a nightmare. And the ECM's.....fun times.

I prefer my old 6.354's that are 100% mechanical......

Several have asked if the OP was still here and yes I am... and learning a lot from many of the posts. The discussion has been very helpful and most of it was exactly what I was hoping for. The discussion between the "old slow" diesels vs the "new high rev" diesels is very interesting to me. I'm a mechanical engineer and that was the first thing that jumped out at me as I started looking at used trawlers. I've asked many of my boating friends about the pros and cons of each but most of them are not technically savy so I was hoping to get some insight into that subject in this thread. Philosophically I am leaning towards the lower reving engines with less "stuff" but i'd like to continue to listen to the experiences many of you have had with each of them. Thank you all so much for the info and i'm happy to continue to listening!

Marin said:

Most important point made here yet, I think.

As a point of information for the OP, the FL120 has the reputation of being a 12,000 to 14,000 hour engine in recreational boat service ASSUMING the engine is operated, serviced, and maintained properly.

This 1950s-designed engine is a little more maintenance-intense than other engines if for no other reason that the fuel injection pump has it's own oil sump as opposed to being lubed by the engine's lubrication system. And for a reason more detailed than is worth going into here, the lube oil in the pump should be changed every 50 hours. It's not hard, it only takes a few minutes, but it's something that should be done that most other engines do not require.

Click to expand...

I asked Bob Smith (American Diesel, former Lehman head) last year how long the 120 was good for and he said he knows of two that have passed 80,000hrs and have not been rebuilt yet!

I haven't heard the 80,000 hour figure. The one Bob told me a number of years ago was some 25,000 hours in service with the Washington State Ferry system. I assume running pumps or generators or something. And of course, they would have been run every day and gotten very close attention, service, and maintenance. So probably not really relevant to the engine's longevity in typical recreational service.

I remember when I was shopping for a re-power engine one of the runner ups was the Yanmar JH 55hp 4 cyl. At that time it was rated at 55hp at 3800rpm. Ads for Westerbeke engines implied that their engines were better because they made their power at only 3000rpm. After a few years while browsing in a brochure I saw the same 55hp Yanmar engine was listed as making 55hp at 3000rpm. It appeared Yanmar built the best engine they could but customers were clearly buying into Westerbeke's line about high rpm and suddenly their engine was a 3000rpm engine. The only thing that I could see was the fact that Yanmar listed the engine now at 3000rpm instead of 3800rpm. The only way I can see this happening is for Yanmar to have rated the engine at an engine speed (rpm) above the rpm where it made it's maximum power. So it made 55hp at two engine speeds. It may have happened that it also made 55hp at 3000rpm so they just changed the numbers on the specs. Not very likely but how else could this have come about?

Anybody know what really happened.?

manyboats said:

I remember when I was shopping for a re-power engine one of the runner ups was the Yanmar JH 55hp 4 cyl. At that time it was rated at 55hp at 3800rpm. Ads for Westerbeke engines implied that their engines were better because they made their power at only 3000rpm. After a few years while browsing in a brochure I saw the same 55hp Yanmar engine was listed as making 55hp at 3000rpm. It appeared Yanmar built the best engine they could but customers were clearly buying into Westerbeke's line about high rpm and suddenly their engine was a 3000rpm engine. The only thing that I could see was the fact that Yanmar listed the engine now at 3000rpm instead of 3800rpm. The only way I can see this happening is for Yanmar to have rated the engine at an engine speed (rpm) above the rpm where it made it's maximum power. So it made 55hp at two engine speeds. It may have happened that it also made 55hp at 3000rpm so they just changed the numbers on the specs. Not very likely but how else could this have come about?

Anybody know what really happened.?

Click to expand...

Eric,

I have the Yanmar 4JH3E in my boat which is rated at 56HP @ 3,800RPM. It is a 2.0L engine with an 84mm bore and 90mm stroke. The power curve increases pretty uniformly all the way to the maximum engine speed. The newer 4JH4E and 4JH5E diesels are rated at 55HP @ 3,000RPM. They are both slightly larger engines of 2.2L displacement with an 88mm bore and 90mm stroke. All of the power, torque and fuel consumption curves are similar in shape, but occur at lower engine speeds in the newer engines.

To summarize, the newer engines are 10% larger and operate at 20% lower engine speeds. I'm sure the fuel delivery, camshafts etc. are optimized for those lower engine speeds. Interestingly, the specific fuel consumption is very similar across all of the model years.

I am told the newer engines are 'quieter.' Hmmm, as if you could call any Yanmar direct injection diesel 'quiet', but as you know, they are reliable and you can get parts anywhere.

What engine did you choose for your boat?

Larry

Marin said:

So the part number I would have if I have it is for the 1" pump. But this is a really common conversion for FL120s so I would think any diesel shop on the planet that has experience with these engines would know the pump and the part number. Or you could call the Smiths at American Diesel.

If we're at the boat this weekend I'll try to remember to take a picture of the installation.

Click to expand...

Please do, I am interested in doing this upgrade. Thanks!

divebums said:

Several have asked if the OP was still here and yes I am... and learning a lot from many of the posts. The discussion has been very helpful and most of it was exactly what I was hoping for. The discussion between the "old slow" diesels vs the "new high rev" diesels is very interesting to me. I'm a mechanical engineer and that was the first thing that jumped out at me as I started looking at used trawlers. I've asked many of my boating friends about the pros and cons of each but most of them are not technically savy so I was hoping to get some insight into that subject in this thread. Philosophically I am leaning towards the lower reving engines with less "stuff" but i'd like to continue to listen to the experiences many of you have had with each of them. Thank you all so much for the info and i'm happy to continue to listening!

Click to expand...

Having the engine knowledge is very valuable for sure. But with that said you need to pick a boat that will suit your needs over a particular engine. What I mean is as you look around and settle on a particular boat you will find it only came with one or two different engine options unless it has been re powered. If boat X has only two options and you don't like either then you will be forced to go to boat Y.

But something to think about is in the end you buy boat Y, because you love the engine but boat X was more the type of boat that suited your needs. Boat Y will sit at the dock because you don't really like the boat. The actual boat is going to make the decision for you not the engine.

Example. You lust after a 43 Nordhavn. Love the boat, it is everything you want in a boat. Your engine choice is going to be? Lugger, Lugger or Lugger. Selene is your choice. Then it will be Cummins, Cummins or Cummins.

I really wanted the boat I have with the Cummins option. There were less than 10% (my guess) of the Mainship 34t's with that engine. In the end we ended up with the 6STP 370 Yanmar. The boat starts every time. It runs flawless every time I use it and we use the boat just as much as we would of if it had the Cummins. The only two (I looked at over 20 boats of this model) that were available at the time I bought my boat, with Cummins power, were both asking $20k more as a starting price. I didn't have that luxury nor did I see the value. I'm not sorry after over two years.

Just something to consider.

Larry M,
Finally settled on a Mitsubishi S4L2 marinized by Klassen.
http://klassenengine.com/PDF/MITSUBISHI INDUSTRIAL FOR WEB/mhi small engine brochure (2).pdf

The big 2 reasons I chose that engine was for the steel exhaust manifold and what I determined to be the best power loading for the boat (amount of hp re the boat). I still have a bit more power than I need but at the time I was afraid of getting too little. And that would be at least 10 times as bad as too much.
Seems to me it was only $6K too and I got all the features I wanted like a remote heat exchanger and a belt driven sea water pump. As a result I have no sea water on/in my engine and the SW pump is a snap to service. I can get impellers at a NAPA store in Alaska. Klassen is a Canadian company that sells almost all of their products to comercial users. Mostly the fishing fleet in Alaska. Their brand leader is Isuzu. The Mitsu S4L2 engine itself is a well known performer. 78 X 92mm. Pre-chambers and glow plug heaters. I've got a slightly modified BWVD w a 2.57-1 ratio. 18" x 14" Michigan MP prop.

Thank's for filling in the missing links on the JH. I was drawn to that engine but I felt it was too much power and didn't have the features and flexibility I got w the Klassen. There are at least one and perhaps 2 or 3 that have the JH in Willards in the Willard Group on Yahoo. Surely you are there. If not you should get there as the information on these boats is very extensive.

You have Doug's old boat I take it? We are boatmates of some sort here in a sea of monster trawlers. Now that we are "down south" in Washington State and the moorage is so high my interest in a bigger boat has 99% dried up.
Take care and contact me for anything you may want to talk about.

Marin said:

Could be. I know from our brief experience with the chartered single engine GB36 (which had no generator, either) that getting around in the engine room to check things out was WAY easier than it is in our boat. Having only one engine also made more space for things like a proper diesel heating system, a good sized hot water heater, sufficient battery banks, and so on with still plenty of space left for crawling around.

Add in the weight benefit and the other factors you mentioned in your post, and I think single engine boats have a legitimate appeal even to people who could afford otherwise.

To turn this back into something the OP might be more interested in if he's still around is what would be the smarter buy in a used boat? One with "old generation" diesels like Lehmans, Perkins, older Cats, Deeres, Cummins, etc., or something fitted with one of the newer, lightweight, more efficient, high tech, higher speed diesels?

Which will give him the most value for the money? And not just purchase money but money spent over the time he owns the boat.

Click to expand...

Good point. I am still shopping as well as you know. I made an 800 mile trip yesterday to look at a california built boat and it was built like a tank, glass decks, aluminum mast and tanks windows with out teak trim and no mildew or water damage anywhere. I plan to pay cash but yesterday i learned banks don't make loans on boats older then 1983 at present. I found this out because someone tried to buy this boat last week but couldnt get a loan cause its a 79.
Maybe i will start a thread as you suggested?

bfloyd4445 said:

I made an 800 mile trip yesterday to look at a california built boat and it was built like a tank, glass decks, aluminum mast and tanks windows with out teak trim and no mildew or water damage anywhere. I plan to pay cash but yesterday i learned banks don't make loans on boats older then 1983 at present. I found this out because someone tried to buy this boat last week but couldnt get a loan cause its a 79.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. More info on the boat please.
I`m sure you thought of this already, but if the boat can only go to a cash buyer (assuming buyers don`t use collateral other than the boat) that makes you the exact buyer they need, and gives you quite some power.

I've heard lots of good info on this thread regarding Perkins, Lehman, Cummins, Yanmar, etc. but I've not read anything on Lugger. Does anyone have any experiences to share regarding the Lugger engines?

divebums said:

Does anyone have any experiences to share regarding the Lugger engines?

Click to expand...

Most Luggers are in the larger boats (ie: Offshore, Alaskans, etc.) Those that I know who have them wouldn't have anything else.

I suggest you Google Lugger Marine Engines.