Lehman Replacement

Marin said:

I was told by my friend with Alaska Diesel Electric (today's Northern Lights/Lugger) that it can. I've also been told that by our diesel shop. However they both said it will require considerably less labor to pull the engine and overhaul it in the shop so an in-situ overhaul is not cost-effective. But if it's the only way it can be done in a particular situation, I'm told it can be.

Much easier in a single than in a twin obviously.

Click to expand...

Many time to get a big engine out big holes have to be cut the boat. Much rather pay for in frame/place rebuild and would probable be cheaper. Doing in place/frame rebuild was a must be able to due when looking at boats. That was one of the first questions, and also parts and service availability. No sense buying a boat/engine that parts and service is hard to get. Especially with a 3 to 4 month boating season.

Either Cummins or Deer are in most new trawlers. Deer seems to be the favority. That is one thing I will be asking about at Trawler Fest.

Replacement part availibilty could be an issue with IVECO. Do they have the same policy as VOLVO, i.e., once the product is no longer made you are SOL for parts?

Phil Fill said:

Many time to get a big engine out big holes have to be cut the boat. Much rather pay for in frame/place rebuild and would probable be cheaper. Doing in place/frame rebuild was a must be able to due when looking at boats. .

Click to expand...

Of course the ability to remove the engines is different on all boats.

On ours it took two separate fork lifts with special engine picking booms attached, four guys all of one day to remove both engines. No holes cut, no doors or windows removed.

Seeing a professional ship yard do it right makes me smile when I see amatures try it for the first time.

manyboats said:

To my way of thinking a new engine is light years ahead of any typical rebuild. And w a rebuild you get absolutely NONE of the improvements the new engines have.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Eric but for one thing -----

For our low speed recreational trawlers and speaking from experience, the newer engines have a very big negative, but one they cannot get easily get around to meet Tier III/IV regs and power output at the same time - salt water cooled AFTER COOLERS. The real world gains in economy and emissions require a high degree of attention and money be spent on keeping the after coolers functioning properly and from leaking water into the engine.

For this reason alone, if I were replacing an older marine engine I would strongly consider a remanufactured non after cooler equipped or naturally aspirated factory rebuilt Cummins or Cat - with the fully backed factory warranty. The 10% or so loss in economy would be more than offset by not having the maintenance costs of keeping an after cooler in top shape.

If I wanted to go fast like Marin or KSanders and pay for the higher fuel burn, after coolers are pretty well a must on any marine engine. My after cooler maintenance costs average about $400 per engine per year or one could throw them away every 8 to 10 years at about $4000 per engine for new after coolers, installed.

sunchaser said:

For this reason alone, if I were replacing an older marine engine I would strongly consider a remanufactured non after cooler equipped or naturally aspirated factory rebuilt Cummins or Cat - with the fully backed factory warranty. The 10% or so loss in economy would be more than offset by not having the maintenance costs of keeping an after cooler in top shape.

If I wanted to go fast like Marin or KSanders and pay for the higher fuel burn, after coolers are pretty well a must on any marine engine. My after cooler maintenance costs average about $400 per engine per year or one could throw them away every 8 to 10 years at about $4000 per engine for new after coolers, installed.

Click to expand...

Aftercooler maintenance was one of the issues I debated when I repowered my boat.

I seriously considered going with the Cummins 220HP non aftercoold engines. One of the only reasons I chose the 330HP seawater aftercoold engines was resale.

ksanders said:

Aftercooler maintenance was one of the issues I debated when I repowered my boat.

I seriously considered going with the Cummins 220HP non aftercoold engines. One of the only reasons I chose the 330HP seawater aftercoold engines was resale.

Click to expand...

My thoughts precisely Ken - resale, which is why I did the after cooler replacement last year. I could have bypassed ( I did bypass the failed one for about 5 weeks of cruising) the after coolers losing the top 25% of the HP which I never use anyway, but indeed replaced both with new.

Phil Fill said:

Many time to get a big engine out big holes have to be cut the boat.

Click to expand...

This is true. But in a GB like ours the standard engine removal process is to remove all the ancilliary engine comonents--- raw water system and exhaust manifold primarily--- and the starboard forward main cabin window, the one just behind the cabin door. A lift boom off a tractor is extended through the window and the core engine is lifted straight up out of the engine room and then removed though the window opening. I've watched this done once in the yard in our marina. Once everything was set--- window removed, engine unmounted and suspended from the lift arm, the actual removal process took less than ten minutes to when the engine was sitting in a cradle in the diesel shop's pickup.

If one has a GB woodie or an early glass GB like ours, there is a hatch in the main cabin overhead that can be removed to lift an engine out. However this actually requires a lot more work than simply removing the cabin window so I don't know of anyone with a wood or early glass GB that has used the overhead hatch during an engine removal or replacement.

Our yard did something similar removing our Lehman, except they used a forklift through the port cabin door, it was tight but the engine got through . Had to take off the port SS railing though.

That could work well on a later GB that has the port cabin door. That doorway has unrestricted access from inside the boat. Access to the foreward starboard door is blocked by the helm station/console. Our GB is old enough not to have the port door. This became a standard feature on the GB36 when they started using new (and slightly larger) molds in 1988.

My repower was done w a long extension on a fork lift. The engines went through the aft salon door.

But however it's done the smaller the engine is the easier it is to do. Another plus for twins.

That is on the the plus of the DD as they can be rebuilt in place frame at 2 grand per hole.

I hope you get a kiss with the work, the parts kit , cylinders pistons and all the rest is about $1100 bucks.

Cylinder head is usually sent out, under a grand .

The engine still must be lifted to get the rods out and replace the crank bearings.

On yachts I have mostly seen engines killed ,destroyed rather than worn out.

Snow birding from ME to FL will be about 500 hours a year , so 5000-6000 hours takes a long time.

Use the engine as a gen set , charging batts and making refrigeration , no load, and the rebuild is far closer.

If one rebuilds an old Ford Lehman one gets all it dated features like simple dependable mechanics BUT .....

You get,

Excess noise and vibration.
Ex fuel consumption.
Ex weight.
Ex maint. You even get to change oil in the fuel pump.
Oil sheen on the water at startup.
Parts are somewhat hard to find.
And you can't get more than 80hp out of them for fear of over heating.

Why would anyone want to rebuild one? Especially when the cost of a new and modern engine w none of the features of the old Ford listed above is only slightly more money or even the same amount.

manyboats said:

If one rebuilds an old Ford Lehman one gets all it dated features like simple dependable mechanics BUT .....

You get,

Excess noise and vibration.
Ex fuel consumption.
Ex weight.
Ex maint. You even get to change oil in the fuel pump.
Oil sheen on the water at startup.
Parts are somewhat hard to find.
And you can't get more than 80hp out of them for fear of over heating.

Why would anyone want to rebuild one? Especially when the cost of a new and modern engine w none of the features of the old Ford listed above is only slightly more money or even the same amount.

Click to expand...

I bought the Eagle as a singe because of the DD 671 being a proven reliable engine for decades and parts and service are available. Besides the 671 will probable out live me. I don’t want anything removed, hole cut to remove the 671 as its about in the middle of the boat, and there is no hatch. Our DD 671 is quieter than the gen set as we installed custom muffler system and the engine room is insulted. My diesel truck makes more noise.


Well, the 2 grand is estimate. Probable when the time comes I will prepare and strip down the engine, and be right there when it’s done. So I have an idea of the time spend and cost. My mechanic constant bills me for less than what I estimated and willing to pay, and I have to remind him to send me an invocie.

manyboats said:

If one rebuilds an old Ford Lehman one gets all it dated features like simple dependable mechanics BUT .....

You get,

Excess noise and vibration.
I'm not sure so sure. A low rpm FL six vs a high rev 4 cylinder?

Ex fuel consumption.
It would take a long time to get the pay back on our fuel consumption.

Ex weight.
Since we are full displacement, I would consider adding ballast to make up for the weight loss of 600 lbs.

Ex maint. You even get to change oil in the fuel pump.
Ok yes on the FL120 but not on the SP135

Oil sheen on the water at start-up.
A little smoke but no sheen on start up.

Parts are somewhat hard to find.
Haven't found that to be an issue.

And you can't get more than 80hp out of them for fear of over heating.
The over heating is a potential on the FL120 but not the SP135. We are only using 60 or so hp anyway.

Why would anyone to rebuild one? Especially when the cost of a new and modern engine w none of the features of the old Ford listed above is only slightly more money or even the same amount.

Click to expand...

Eric: You hit my hot button on this one! The engine Iveco you referenced is rated at 175.5 hp. To much hp for most FL replacements.

If we were to re-power, I would probably go with a Deere or a Lugger for proven reliability in marine applications, support, resale and reputation.

The sheen on the water at cold startup is NOT oil for the 500th time. It is unburned fuel because of the incomplete combustion in the cold cylinders. All diesels of this generation do it to some degree. It may be very obvious, it might not be. It took electronic fuel monitoring and other technologies to stop it according to my friends in the engineering department at Northern Lights/Lugger.

The fuel sheen put out by old Lehmans, Perkins, etc will go away in a few minutes as the combustion chambers come up to temperature. If it doesn't there is a problem with the engine.

Eric: You hit my hot button on this one! The engine Iveco you referenced is rated at 175.5 hp. To much hp for most FL replacements.

Larry, this engine is available as a 230hp, 173hp and 115hp. For a near exact power replacement just choose the 115hp engine.

If we were to re-power, I would probably go with a Deere or a Lugger for proven reliability in marine applications, support, resale and reputation.

Sure they are very good but how much do you pay for that and the biggest question is will you ever need it. Also you may be assuming Iveco is an unknown but worldwide they may be better established than Deere or Lugger. One of lugger's engines is made by toyota and one could be made by Iveco. Probably not though but it's a world market now.


Excess noise and vibration.
I'm not sure so sure. A low rpm FL six vs a high rev 4 cylinder?

More power strokes per revolution = less torsional vibration and rubber engine mounts are better at isolating higher frequency vibrations that low. All other things being equal smaller engines vibrate less. This engine is only 180 cu in. Less weight of reciprocating parts and computer controlled fuel injection timing v/s fixed = less vibes too. [/I]

Ex fuel consumption.
It would take a long time to get the pay back on our fuel consumption.

Of course ... I'll give you that.

Ex weight.
Since we are full displacement, I would consider adding ballast to make up for the weight loss of 600 lbs.

Yes to that too but for you and I and only a few more. Most are semi-planing on this forum and any weight reduction for SD is golden. Think of how much better a GB36 would be if it had one of these Iveco engines instead of two Lehmans. That would be not far from a two ton reduction in weight.

Ex maint. You even get to change oil in the fuel pump.
Ok yes on the FL120 but not on the SP135

Ture.

Oil sheen on the water at start-up.
A little smoke but no sheen on start up.

Dirty smoke though .. visable and loaded w stinky "stuff". And the clean burning is wonderful compared to the old oil engines of the past (Lehman).

Parts are somewhat hard to find.
Haven't found that to be an issue.

Read it over and over. Many use tractor supply sources for parts.
I'll call it a mixed bag.

And you can't get more than 80hp out of them for fear of over heating.
The over heating is a potential on the FL120 but not the SP135. We are only using 60 or so hp anyway.

I consider this to be a very serious design flaw. I can see running such a flawed engine untill it needs to be replaced but to rebuild it is nuts. So you've got an engine twice as big as you need and you think that's fine??? Underloading is undesirable but it would be a lot better if you wern't basically forced to do it. I'd be looking for a 65hp engine for your boat.

A boat chugging at 3GPH is at best!!! using 60HP.More likely 45 or so.

The little Deere IS RATED 80 HP so would be a fine setup.

EWven tho the Deere is a tractor engine its an industrial rating , not a lawn equipment dream 10 min rating.

Even better as the Deere tractor folks sell factory rebuilt engines with NO!!! core required a ,couple of times a year.

Add a rebuilt Twin Disc , and your off cruising at 1/5 the Marine folks "good deal".

FF
How does the Deere 80 compare w the Iveco?

The 115hp Iveco is rated for WOT operation for 25% of it's "use period".

On the graph/chart it looks like the 115 develops it's 115hp (max) at 2600rpm.

Ivecio is really Italian Fiat , will they survive the Euro mess?

Deere is probably a Japan made block marinized by Deere.

Who will have parts on the shelf in 20 years , your guess is as good as mine.

FF said:

Ivecio is really Italian Fiat , will they survive the Euro mess?
Sure. I don't think Europe is going to fail but much hardship is probably yet to be experienced. And here in the US we may be no better off if one is to realistically and objectively consider our very deep debt. We either are going to crash in a day (more likely) or suffer like Europe (quite likely worse) when or IF we address the debt. Our present "sequester" is fly stuff and a "band aid" move in the direction of a solution to our debt. If we really have to pay all that money back we're in deep do do.

Deere is probably a Japan made block marinized by Deere.
I have no idea but would be interesting to know. There was a Lugger that I could have used in Willy that was manufactured in Japan. And in view of what the Japanese have given us in mechanical hardware would I be out of line in saying that Deere being Japanese would be a good thing? Probably not but I know nothing to indicate that the majority of engines w the Deere name on them are designed and manufactured in the US. The Deere has a fine name wherever it comes from. Today it's a world market.

Who will have parts on the shelf in 20 years , your guess is as good as mine.

Click to expand...

Do you want me to guess? It's a volatile world now and I'd be a fool to guess. Japan is in trouble. The US is in trouble. Europe is in trouble. China and India have serious troubles. Who dosn't have troubles or isn't seriously threatened? That could be a good question. Hints could be forthcoming on the TV program GPS on Sundays.

"If we really have to pay all that money back we're in deep do do."

Payback will be really quite easy to do once we are permitted by our DC Masters to tap the energy in the USA.

WE have the tech to convert coal into diesel , or gas or jet fuel , competitive at $30 a BBL. But are not permitted to do so.

We have the ability to change natural gas into liquid fuel at a slightly higher price.

As we are the energy equal of the mid east (with permission from our masters) selling a natural resource does make money. Ask the mid east, if they are cash starved.

I would like to think a buck a gallon diesel is on the way , after we change rulers.

CLEAN SWEEP is real change.

Interesting response but ......



YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT ?????

Eric

You are allso ingoring the cost of fitting the engine from a different maker to the salt water in, exhaust lines, controls, etc.
I had a client do a swap from a pair of Iveco 4 cyl to a pair of Cat 6 cyl. He had to change engine mounts, relocate the shafts, exhaust lines, stringer spacing, hatch opening, etc, to the tune of $60k in 2004 dollars. That was over and above the cost of the engines, which, at $40k for the pair, he got a very good deal on.

koliver said:

Eric

You are allso ingoring the cost of fitting the engine from a different maker to the salt water in, exhaust lines, controls, etc.

Click to expand...

That was the beauty of American Diesel's 150hp replacement engine for the FL120. It was an exact replacement in every way. No need to modify engine stringers or mounts and the engine bolted up to the existing marine gear with nothing but an alignment adjustment required. I believe, but could be wrong, that even the exhaust aligned with the FL120's exhaust so the existing system of elbow, lift muffler and hoses could be used.

In contrast a friend had the failed original engine to his boat (Sabre) replaced with a new Cat diesel. Same cylinder configuration-- straight six-- but that was the only similarity. The cost of modifying the engine stringers and engine mounts, fabricating an all-new new exhaust system, reworking the raw water intake system, routing and installing new wiring and controls, and of course labor, greatly exceeded the purchase cost of the new Cat engine itself.

This has been the primary reason for our indecision so far to repower our own boat. The cost of the new engines is not the concern. It's the effort-- and cost-- of the extensive rework required in the engine room that questions the value of the project.

I repowered my old Mainship from a Perkins T6.354 to a Cummins and the engine fit the beds perfectly. I had to do some re plumbing, etc., but those costs and efforts were not really very much.
So it's not always prohibitive. You just need to do all your homework up front.

koliver said:

Eric

You are allso ingoring the cost of fitting the engine from a different maker to the salt water in, exhaust lines, controls, etc.
I had a client do a swap from a pair of Iveco 4 cyl to a pair of Cat 6 cyl. He had to change engine mounts, relocate the shafts, exhaust lines, stringer spacing, hatch opening, etc, to the tune of $60k in 2004 dollars. That was over and above the cost of the engines, which, at $40k for the pair, he got a very good deal on.

Click to expand...

Keith,
Good point. Perhaps I should have mentioned it but I thought everybody was a grown up here and would have the sense to do a lot of measuring, thinking and evaluating and otherwise considering the differences in the engines prior to jumping in.

One of the engines I was considering for Willy required cutting the engine beds or going to a different type of gear to raise the engine. And of course w the engine I did choose there was the changing of the mounts and other lesser details but overall the engine change from an adaptation standpoint was w very little pain.

And if the Iveco required so much change that the cost of the installation was high enough to make getting the engine too expensive then of course the idea should be scuttled. But since the Iveco is so small it's unlikely many would find it too troublesome to do. And of course if the cost was the same as the cost for a rebuild of the old engine the new engine would be far more desirable.
One fellow on the Willard Group had his crankshaft (Perkins) break in Chatham Strait (Alaska) and it's hard to say it's breaking was not age related. He has a new Beta engine now.

Many newer , if more modern, engines will actually have a smaller footprint.

Taking out a tiny engine and sticking in an industrial rated diesel will require loads more work that a modern transplant.

With the fuel burn per hour known a transplant can be better sized for the boat .

Diesels need to work HARD to be efficient ,

tho at 3GPH a 33% improvement to 2 GPH would take many decades to be worth the effort if the swop was done at a marine $hop.

FF said:

Diesels need to work HARD to be efficient ,

Click to expand...

Get over the "efficiency" thing ... if an engine burns 7 gph at its most efficient point but that point is nowhere near what you want or need then a less "efficient" engine or the same engine burning 3 gph while doing what you need or want is a no brainer in my book.

FF said:

I would like to think a buck a gallon diesel is on the way , after we change rulers.

CLEAN SWEEP is real change.

Click to expand...

That cracks me up... dollar a gallon diesel ISN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN

Keep dreaming..
HOLLYWOOD