My engines are better than yours

I think the question is not so much which engine has the better design, but how easy it is to fix and maintain. I've known a couple of owners with Volvos who complain loudly that volvo never created an infrastructure in the US, so parts have to come from overseas - with long delays as a result. I've always been a fan of Cats, for the same reason mentioned above regarding Cummins - thousands on the roads, and I can walk into a Cat dealer at most any city of any size and get parts (as well as a computer record of the serial numbers of my engines).

John Baker,

Please forgive me. I really didn't mean to insult you but after reading my own post I can see how I did. Sorry mate.
I don't doubt your observation but I'm not interested enough in Yacht World to do research, however, on reflection I'll bet you may have*made the observation about Cummins just because there are soooo many of them out there. Also most all yacht engines don't last anywhere near thier expected lifespan because they sit idle so much and experience neglect and other misuse. I'll bet if you kept score long enough you'd find that about as many other makes with 2 - 3000 hrs had one engine rebuilt also. I drove a GMC Astro 95 w a 335hp Cummins for at least 8 years and I don't ever remember anything going wrong with it except a blown hose ( I saw the steam in the mirror ). When I say " ther'e all good engines " I'd like to be right for several reasons and/or I'd like to know if I'm wrong too. Lastly .. if they are really droping like flies I'd like to know why .. what is the weak link?

Eric Henning

No sweat Willy and no offense taken. The only reason for my short answer on my previous post was that I was posting via a PDA and it isn't all that fun doing that. So I had to leave out any tact and go straight to the point. My point was and FF I think has made it best, is that there is really no free lunch in the longevity of engines. That Cummins engine is a fairly "small" displacement engine. In it's NA form it produces 115hp. I LOVE THAT PARTICULAR ENGINE AND WISH IT WERE MORE POPULAR. That is an emotional statement because I do believe the Cummins 6BT to be a great engine in it's own right...I can only Imangine the NA version. But 5.9 liters all the way out to 450hp(most I have seen from this engine....maybe there are more powerful versions) and you are giveing up engine life...it really is as simple as that. If you have a powerful engine of the 6BT and you run the piss out of it, it will not last you very long. You take that same engine and go easy on it, it will likely provide more service life(in hours). I think the 210hp version ofthis engine will provide many many years of truoble free service. You start increasng te horsepower, and you start increasng the "trouble" and decreasing the longevity....nothing mysterious about that. That s my point. My opinion is formed by evey higher time Cummins boat I have seen has at least one rebuilt engine on it and likely 2 with the seller boasting that fact. Now take the 3208. It is 210hp in its NA version. That engine will last forever much like the Lehmans and Perkins. A popular version of the 3208T has 375hp. I have seen those engines well into the 4000 hour range and still providing good service. I would say the 375hp version of the Cat is synonomous to the 210hp version of the Cummins....both mildly turbocarged but not stretching it. When you force enough air and fuel to quadruple the power of the NA version, then I think you are asking for a shortened life span of that engine.

And as far as the reference to "normally aspirated" Detroits, I was just going with what the industry calls them and actually yuo made my whole point.....that I think they are "wierd" when you call an engine NA when it actually has a supercharger on it. It was a tremendous surprise to me when I learned that about 5 years ago. And my added point was that it is just one more thing to go wrong with it....and they don't look "normal" to me. But as we all know they are fine engines....and yes, I do engine the noise they make....the smoke....not so much.

It's all good brutha Willy!!!

John

Smoke from a DD is either a cold engine (white smoke) ,

a hugely high time or ignored engine with low compression (darker white , even at 180F coolant)

or black from an overloaded -or over fueled (wrong injectors for operating rpm) .

If the engine is pre 1950 era and has origonal H rather than later N injectors a bit of dark in the smoke at light loads is normal.

They may leak like oil wells if serviced by lousy ignorant "mechanics" ,

but should only smoke on initial start till the coolant is over 100F if in OK condition.

IF I were looking for a replacement engine for a small boat the International DT 466 would be first choice.

Mechanical injection , $750 rebuild kits (2x a year on sale) SAE bellhousing and an engine with closer to farm tractor build than heavy industrial build.

That means little problems from running a 200-300 rated engine at 3 GPH (50hp) for days on end.

Cheaper than most anythingat* the wreckers of equal size , and almost impossible to beat in hassle free service life in a boat.

-- Edited by FF at 04:59, 2009-01-17

Agreed on the 466.* It's the same basic engine that's in my F250 Ford.* It spends most of its time running at about 1400 RPM and 3 GPH @ 55 mph, plus many hours idling in traffic.* I'd guess it's got 4000 hours on it, doesn't use a drop of oil between changes, and doesn't smoke on startup.

Yes John,

This all seems related to the underloading issue. I think an engine should be worked fairly hard but not flogged. Iv'e heard numerous times about the 380 Fords, Lehmans, Perkins ect that had the basic 120 hp engine followed by numerous " hopped up " versions of more than double the output followed by bad reputations of short life and trouble. Like the Cummins talk .. I wish I knew the weak link. What kills engines that get overstressed and overworked? We know how underloading, misuse and neglect can kill engines but whats the weak link for overloading? Heat, pressure and weak parts come to mind but what are the specifics? Specifics such as " if you over work a Yanmar 6_ _ _ _ the valves will warp " or " the rings will stick and let too much heat into the piston skirt causing scoring of the piston and cylinder walls ". When I was a young dude we used to " throw a rod " assuming a rod got weak and broke. But it may have been a stuck piston causing extreem pressure on the rod causing breakage. The problem with our marine engines must be heat because most of the engine manuals say you can run an engine*at WOT for X # of min .. at X - _ for considerably longer and at X - _ _ _ indefinatly. It seems to be a time thing instead of a pressure or force issue. Does anybody know what the weak links are? There should be many as it brobably varies from engine to engine but I'm convinced there is a common base for all the trouble.
Now Marin should come forth with some guesses, ideas, fiction,fact followed by huge amounts of Boeing engineering and marketing stuff arriving who knows where .. Spot on, some truth to it but no cigar or what the dell is this guy talkin about. I think Marin just loves to think .. on paper.
Then comes FF. Here we'll have a 1200 word download of extreem stuff by some wako, or perhaps a very few sage words like " just use nylon " Then he may share with us what his fathers friend told him sittin on the fender of a 36 Hudson under a shade tree or what he heard in a bar accross the street from some shipyards. Or perhaps he shares with us a gem that he learned from all those years of serious boating and boat building experience. Or his sentence structure will fail and his use of liberal ( not political ) and obscure acronyms cloud the gems with cod knows what.
Oh yes .. theres Ricky, Crouching under a board by an old sailboat talling up any BS FF may sling at us dummies. The cat sometimes catches the mouse and FF does give Ricky plenty of opportunities to pounce. What did we do before we had Ricky .. go down many myesterious paths of falshoods, untruths and BS? I hope Rick gets tired, drops the name calling*and just gives us his version of the truth .. I'm all for the truth .. I'm a Sagitairian.

Eric Henning

-- Edited by nomadwilly at 15:02, 2009-01-17

nomadwilly wrote:Now Marin should come forth with some guesses, ideas, fiction,fact followed by huge amounts of Boeing engineering and marketing stuff arriving who knows where .. Spot on, some truth to it but no cigar or what the dell is this guy talkin about. I think Marin just loves to think .. on paper.

Click to expand...

I don't want to disappoint you, Eric, so here are my thoughts. All the things you said are probably true. Heat causes loss of lubrication, moving parts start to bind, and this puts stress on other parts and they break. I also believe that the high loadings from too-powerful combustion cycles puts stresses on parts that were not designed or built to take these loads over long periods of time and they eventually crack or catastrophically break.

But here is my real suggestion. With the exception of people who actually might be in the engine business, what you're going to get from this forum are educated or not-so-educated guesses as to the causes of engine failure. Or perhaps a parrotting of what someone has learned from a person who IS in the engine business.


Neither of these are insults, it's simply because the majority of us--- if not all of us--- don't work in the marine engine field.


So I would suggest that to get meaningful answers to your very legitimate question as to why engines actually fail, you contact someone who has to know this stuff to get a paycheck. Call or e-mail the engineering department at companies like Northern Lights/Lugger. Unlike Cat or Cummins, NL is small enough to perhaps answer a question from an individual like yourself. I have a good friend who has worked at NL for some 30 years or so, and I have always gotten precise answers from him when I have had specific questions about diesels in general or the specific engines in our boat. So I would say it's worth a try.

Also Bob Smith or his son Mike (I think that's the correct name) at American Diesel. Bob worked for Lehman Bros. and did much of the design work for Lehman's marinzation components for the FL120, FL135, etc. Based on conversations I've had with both Bob and his son, they could probably give you very specific reasons while old thumpers like the FL120 don't do so well when subjected to high power setting on a continuous basis.


You could also call or e-mail companies that rebuild marine diesels. Pat's Engines in Seattle comes to mind of the few companies I'm familiar with. The guys who rebuild failed or worn out engines for a living--- marine, aviation, or automotive--- have to tear them down first, and in the process they can see exactly what broke, and the ones I know have the experience to say why the part broke.

I have asked the exact same question you have to the chief mechanic at the air service I've been associated with for many years. And he gave me the exact kind of answers you are looking for. He described specifically what happened inside an engine or supercharger to make a particular component fail.
You would get the same degree of precise information about marine diesel failure if you pose your question to marine equivelent of my friend at the air service.

And if you do this, I hope you will be kind enough to share your information on this forum as a lot of us are as interested as you are about the truth of what breaks and why inside an engine under high rpm and/or loading.

Sorry for the aviation reference--- I am well aware how much you hate that--- but I felt it helped illustrate what I was trying to say.



-- Edited by Marin at 20:07, 2009-01-17

HeyEric-*That was some real nice comments you made about some of our seasoned board members. Lots of info and occasionally lots of passion on the board. I suspect any of the info posted here will get your engine running and your boat moving. Courtesy and respect are always a plus too!!


Steve

"Crouching under a board by an old sailboat talling up any BS FF may sling ... "

I don' do no stinkin' sailboats ... and my office isn't under a board in the swamp, it's*on the water at*one of the*big boat*marinas.

Playing "whack-a-mole" with FF's version of reality is just entertainment but sometimes it helps save someone from making some seriously dangerous or expensive mistakes.

-- Edited by RickB at 20:21, 2009-01-17

No, No Marin,

I don't " hate " your aviation stuff. I usually scan it and read very little of the marketing and frequently some or much of the engineering stuff. I've read some with a lot of interest. I don't think we've got an issue with space here so who cares if we don't read all this stuff. I go for periods of time when I don't read the " deep end " stuff at all but I read most everything else. Actually Marin I've enjoyed your posts considerably more lately.
Engines. I remember Norm Dibble at Doc's/Pats and Don ( I think ) at Gallery Marine but I feel people at the retail end are somewhat lacking in objectivity and knowlege but a bit overendowed with opnions and bias. Remember the guy at Northern Lights that said about the underloading issue " run'em like you hate'um "? This was'nt over the counter BS but published in an large magazine. The question for me is purely academic as I'm sure I run my engine hard enough ( 60 to 70% ) and I never run it over 80% for more than several minutes. Also my new engine is at the same performance level as your Lehmans ( approx 3 cu in per hp ). I don't know how I would contact Mitsubushi, Yanmar or Isuzu but I suppose I could try Cummins or Deere since they're in the states but what justification could I offer for taking thier time? I'm not in the market for anyones product and I don't need the infofmation. Maybe I should walk away from this question whith what I have.
Rick B,
I love your expression " whack a mole " and I agree. FF does come up with some trash but he has a good ( and bad ) sense of humor. Many on this site like him too. There was once a thread " what would FF do? " Nothing that flatering has come*to anyone else.*Sorry about the sailboat reference .. after all we have ENGINES.
Picture at Cow Bay in Prince Rupert BC Canada - it's me.

Eric Henning

The theoretical answer will always be heat. Heat is energy and that is what we are seeking. We turn up the heat, we get more power. You are also assuming a catastrophic failure. Some engines just wear out....smoke...troubles starting due to lack of compression,etc. In fact, I would say that this is most likely what happens to most. ANyway, you force more air and fuel into an engine, the combustion process is more violent....simple as that. And that puts stress on the engine parts associated with combustion.

Just for fun I went on Yatchworld to the "advanced search" section and typed in "Cummins" as a keyword and also limited it to the USA. Almost every boat that came up that is over 10 years old has been "repowered". Now that does not state what was in there before, but it is interesting. I couldn't find any boats over 20 years old(or even 15) that had CUmmins as "original power".

Now contrary to that, all Lehmans the come up are orignal power and most are well over 20 years old. SOme DD could be in this category as well.

As I said, this is likely because Cummins are put in boats that are meant to plane so they are working much harder.

Anyway, very unscuentific but something to think about.

Cummins did not enter the marine market "big time" until about 20 years ago. Since then they have grown into the dominant player with little sign of abatement.

sunchaser wrote:

Cummins did not enter the marine market "big time" until about 20 years ago. Since then they have grown into the dominant player with little sign of abatement.

Click to expand...

I do understand that.* I am not bagging on CUmmins.* Like I said, I am the consumate shopper on yachtworld and it always struck me.* I will put it in terms of hours.* You just don't see many 2000+ Cummins out there.* I do know hours and years are relevant.* Anyway, I think your post should read the 6BT*based engines were*not around until 20 years ago.* Cummins did make marine engines but the 6BT came on the scene about 20 years ago and was the beginning of the "domination" of the marine market by them.* Would I buy a boat with Cummins engines in them....absolutely.* WOuld I buy a planing boat with 2000+ hours Cummins engines in them....absolutely not.* Would I buy a slow boat with 2000+ hours CUmmins engines in it.....not really sure.* I would prefer Lehmans in that scenario....even Perkins.* Simply because they have proven themselves over and over.* IMO, Cummins has not.


-- Edited by Baker at 13:03, 2009-01-19

Baker:
.
You raise a good point - there are few +2000 hour Cummins engines out there in pleasure use "fast boats." Fast boats often die as weight is added and props*become overloaded. To keep costs down Sea Ray et al underpower and with added gear fuel etc early demise occurs. Even if propped right, at a pleasure craft level of 100 or so hours per year it is tough to get to 2000 fast boat hours before your engine has given up because of bolt on failures. Boat sitting time*can be more relevant than engine hours as HX crud up and other systems wear out just sitting there.

The best example of +2000 go fast hours would be the commercial sport fishermen who seldom sell their boats. Tony Athens would tell you that at 500 hours per year in SoCal and with good maintenance no problem getting 4000+ hours on a Cummins "fast boat."

On our trawlers, it is tough to wear out any engine at 1400 -1800 RPM assuming good maintenance and close to right propping. On a go fast diesel at 2600-3000 RPM, close to right propping is not good enough.

I posted the original question and thought I'd chime in.
The discussion has been very interesting albeit somewhat esoteric at times.
What I've distilled from it so far is as follows:
Lehmans: good (I concur based on my experience with Ford 2715E block)
Perkins: good
Volvos: not so much, expensive parts
Cummins: maybe in certain conditions
Yanmar: no comment
Mercedes: no comment
Detroit: I'm confused
Deere: no comment
Oops, forgot Cats: good (I think)
Probably forgot others.

-- Edited by surveyor1 at 18:05, 2009-01-19

You are a hard sell, John baker! Sunchaser is absolutely right with his comments. But to make a list that Cats don't even appear on is mind boggling! Lehmans over Cats? We are talking about engines you can still buy aren't we? I know there are a ton of guys out there that are driving Lehmans and love them, just as there are guys still driving 1965 Mustangs but come on, there are more Cummins going into new sport fishers than any other brand. Of course Lehmans are good engines! But let's talk about the last two decades at least!* <grin>

Cummins 330B Powered


-- Edited by SeaHorse II at 18:22, 2009-01-19

1st. Surveyor 1. We should start engine stuff under " Power Systems "
2nd. FF, Marin and others were ragin on me about Lehmans being tractor engines and could't take regular running at 75% power. Now Lehmans are " good " and Cummins are questionable just because Baker made a subjective observation. Most industrial engines are run by the book. The book says under what conditions an engine can be run. Iv'e seen many of these " books " and I don't recall any that stated thier engines can't be run at loads and speeds near maximum. I've never seen or heard of a manual saying that much longer engine life can be had by running at half throttle. However I've never seen a manual for a Yanmar that makes well over 1 hp per cu in or a 275 hp lehman ( w 380 Ford ). I took a 4-107 Perkins out of my Willard and installed a 2007 Mitsubishi S4L 2 . The old Perkins was a good engine but I was reading about it in 1960 when I was 20 years old. It probably was an old WWII tractor engine and the Lehman probably is too. If I'm being asked to belive that the old Lehman is better than the very modern and most popular marine deisel in recient times ? I agree with you John .. these HO engines must be making monster heat making more hp per cu in*than a 57 Corvete. Youv'e got a fast boat John, what power have you got .. HO Yanmar? How hard do you run it ?

Eric Henning

nomadwilly wrote:

If I'm being asked to belive that the old Lehman is better than the very modern and most popular marine deisel in recient times ?

Click to expand...

I, for one, would never suggest that. If they were, then nobody would have progressed beyond them. It's sort of like saying the 450hp Pratt & Whitney R985 Wasp Jr. (made before and during WWII) is the best aviation engine ever. These old engines can be extremely reliable and long-lived but only if you operate them in the spirit in which they were designed and made. Fairly conservatively. Use high power when you need it (in the case of the P&W you can use full power for one minute), but operate them conservatively most of the time.

The current generation of marine diesels make the old Lehmans and Perkins look pretty crude, not only in terms of technology but in performance. Their operating parameters are completely different from the old thumpers.

I would never build a new boat and put a Lehman 120 in it. If I wanted that sort of power and performance--- if you can consider an FL120 even HAS performance--- there are several brand new, modern techology engines that will deliver that with WAY less maintenance and MUCH longer service intervals than the FL120. I would choose one of them, not the old Lehman.

But since there are so many boats around with old Lehmans, Perkins, etc., the fact they have these old engines is no reason to dump the boat (or re-engine it). You just have to be willing to run the boat like it was 1955

-- Edited by Marin at 03:05, 2009-01-20

Ok Guys , I have been following this but not as close as I should have.
may be we Aussies & Kiwis are a bit backward but we still install old engines (recon units ) in new boats.
You would be suprised at the number of gardner 6LXs and 6 LXBs that are still being fitted to new build displacement cruisers down south of the equator.
It has something to do with their reliability, capacity, fuel economy and the fact they do not rely on IC cards and parts are readily available world wide.
Bit like the old Fords hard to give them up.
Benn
MV Tidahapah

I like the simplicity of my Lehman 135. No computer chips to corrode or get killed by a lightning strike, no "high tech" stuff hanging on it to fail, just a good old strong engine that will run forever if you take care of it.

I like the simplicity of my Lehman 135. No computer chips to corrode or get killed by a lightning strike, no "high tech" stuff hanging on it to fail, just a good old strong engine that will run forever if you take care of it.


All true enough , BUT most of these are run at 2 or 3gph 35 -45hp, not at 135 .

To gain efficiency a boat could simply use a modern 60hp rated engine and lower the fuel burn .

Probably longer life too, if maintained.

Weather a 3 gph fuel burn is WORTH improving , is probably only of interest to a replacement scenario.

FF

The problem is that a current 60HP engine would not be a simple engine. 30,000#'s + being pushed by 135 or 270 HP may not be the most efficient set-up but it is certainly not a bad set up. We are about to hit 4000 hours on our 135's and they are as strong as you could ever want. On a new build I would consider a fresh set of Lehmans. Or what about the American Diesel engines?*http://www.americandieselcorp.comThese should be as good as the Lehmans with plenty of support. That might be the best choice

Steve

Forkliftt wrote:
On a new build I would consider a fresh set of Lehmans. Or what about the American Diesel engines?*http://www.americandieselcorp.comThese should be as good as the Lehmans with plenty of support. That might be the best choice

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve:

I couldn't agree more.* A simple Lehman engine was one of the boat buying criteria for me.

In your photo of the engines, what is the small diameter black hose running (it appears) from the injection pump to under the coolant reservoir?* An oiler mod?

- Darrell

*

Darrell,The blue hose you are seeing with the triple clamps I believe to be the fuel return line. Notice it continues near the coolant recovery tank. The 135's don't require the oil change maintenance that the 120 has.
Steve

The problem--- not that it's anything major--- is that the old engines like Lehmans, etc. are not very efficient. Yes, at low power setting typically used in cruise the burn 2-3 gph. But as an engine they don't do as good a job of getting the most out of the fuel they use than a more modern engine.

They also pollute more, particularly when cold. I suspect everyone with an FL120 has seen the big sheen of unburned fuel that spreads out behind the boat after it's started and is warming up. Modern engine makers are not allowed to make engines that do this anymore, at least not in the US and Europe.

An FL120 has some design and technology drawbacks, too, which is to be expected with a design that is more than 40 years old. The injection pump that is fitted to most of them needs its oil changed every 50 hours. The Lehman-designed drive unit that powers the raw water pump is a crap design (told to me by the person who designed it). The fix for that particular problem is to get rid of the original drive/pump unit and replace it with a new Johnson pump, which we did the other year. But the fact is there are more efficient and easier-to-maintain engines than the FL120 today.

One of the most popular Lehman replacements, at least in the PNW, is a Lugger engine. Six cylinders, naturally aspirated, about 150 hp. Northern Lights/Lugger has put hundreds of these engines in Grand Banks and I assume other makes as well.

There is the engine supplied by American Diesel as a drop-in replacement for the FL120 although the engine it is based on is quite a bit different than the old Dorset engine Lehman Bros. used way back when. From what I have read on the GB owners forum, some people buy these if they have to replace a failed engine in a twin that was powered with FL120s or 135s. GB owners who are replacing both engines or the one engine in a single seem to go for engines from Lugger, John Deere, or Cummins.

I'll trade higher reliability for a little less "perfect" any time.

Keith wrote:

I'll trade higher reliability for a little less "perfect" any time.



I agree with that.* But I've not seen any evidence that today's generation of engines, particularly those that deliver similar power and performance as the older*"trawler-type"*engines, are any less reliable.*

There is a very large charter fleet of Grand Banks boats in our marina.* Some of the boats in their fleet have been there for the ten years we've owned our boat.* They are booked every summer and more recently a number of them have been used every year*in "Mother Goose" group charters up the Passage to SE Alaska, six or so weeks in Alaska, and then back down again.* So these boats are chalking up a lot of hours every year.* Some of them are powered with Cummins 210/220hp*engines, some with Cats,and some with John Deeres.* So far as I've heard from the people I know who work for the charter company, the engines in this boats are doing great.

Now the lightweight*high output engines that are used in larger planing-type boats I don't know about as*I don't know anyone with this type of boat.

I'm not knocking Lehmans and the like--- we have two FL120s in our boat and they have served us very well for the last ten years and I like them very much.* But if I was building a new boat, why not take advantage of what some--- probably not all--- of the new generation diesels provide in terms of efficiency, lower operating costs, and reliability?

There seems to be a belief here that new engines like Cummins, Cats, etc. are crapping out left and right with 18 hours on them.* From my observation, this is not true.* The diesel engine shop in Bellingham works on everything from Cats to Luggers to Deeres to Lehmans to Detroits.* And from conversations I've had with the owner, the failure rates of all the types of engines they work on, old or new,*is very similar (low), with the exception of the Detroits which they say pretty much run until the boat around them falls apart.

And, he said, most engine failures regardless of the type of engine, old or new,*or whether it has manual or electronic controls, are the result of operator error, either in the operation of the engines themselves or in poor or neglected maintenance.

Click to expand...

-- Edited by Marin at 14:51, 2009-01-20

Marin-*Sounds like the GB's have seen very good service out of the Cummins, Cats and Deeres. When those engines see 20-25 years of service, sometimes with a year or 2 of neglect and unuse, then I think we can compare them to the conditions that many older trawlers experience.*
Industrial IC lifttrucks have been slower than many other engine applications to be required to lower their emmissions (probably due to lower HP ratings) and both LP and diesel powered machines have*been very dependable in my experience. Tier II and Tier III EEC engines are now out. The problem is that when a problem occurs it is usually intermittant and electrical in nature. Self diagnostics and having the correct handset to access fault codes can sometimes be invaluable. But sometimes not.**
In real world boating conditions- where you leave the dock and the advice of your dock buddies- and put you and your loved ones safety in the hands of your skills, talents and decisions- the stakes get higher.*
With enough training and spare parts I am sure anyone could learn to TS a defective fuel pressure sensor or replace a defective speed potentiometer. But I would rather have to swap out a 10 micron Racor or rig an electric fuel pump to supply fuel to a mechanical injector pump any day. The marine environment is very hard on electrical connections as we all know. With EEC systems the amount of connections is many- so opportunity for failure is increased. Just my humble opinion. You can probably gueass that I am off this afternoon taking a sibling to the doc- thus the wordy opinion!!
Steve

Good discussion for sure. Willy, I quantified my statements over and over. I am not trying to convince anyone....I was only stating an OPINION based on my observations. I even admitted to being "emotional" about it.

I do Have a 213CID Yanmar(4LHA-STP) that produces 240hp!!!! It has 520 hours on it now and it runs like a top. I run the piss out of it(I mean that in a good way....I do use it...not abuse it). It is rated at 240hp at 3300RPMs with a one hour limitation. Max continuous is 190hp at 3100RPMS.....pretty steep power curve there at the end. My "default" RPM is 2800 which yields 15kts at a little over 4gph.....pretty damn efficient if you ask me! My wife works for a yacht service company who happens to be a Yanmar dealer and authorized service center. Her boss speaks very highly of this engine for whatever that is worth. Would I be suspicious of this engine at 2000 hours???....Quite possibly. It hasn't been around very long(the 240hp version of the 4LHA-xxx)....maybe 10 years. So it doesn't have much history. I can honestly say that I have never heard of a Yanmar failing....I am sure they have, but I have not heard of it.* They are relatively new to the higher horsepower market.Someone said no mention of Cats.....I did mention them as my choice for a fast planing boat....followed by Yanmar. Cat doesn't make any "small" engines. ANd I did overlook Lugger....which I think very highly of....quite possibly my first choice on a new build slow boat. If I am not mistaken, Lugger uses a lot of Deere platforms as well as Toyota....hard to go wrong there.* I think it was an article in PMM where they had a chart of all the different engines and what the underlying platform was.* It seems that Lugger is more of a "marinizer" of diesel engines rather than a builder.* That may have changed as times and technology has changed.* My wife's company is also a NL/Lugger dealer so I will ask.

And Willy, I do share your love of the Isuzus. One of the best (small)diesel engines made IMO. I remember riding the water taxi in Vancouver and asking the Captain what kind of engine he had....Isuzu.....said the operator gets 30,000+ hours out of those little engines. Obviously, they are well maintained and run all day every day.

-- Edited by Baker at 17:18, 2009-01-20