Powertrain choices

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
AusCan said:
Grantm -
If you are open to a smaller boat, this little beauty really catches my eye.
Arvor Weekender 700 by Arvor Boats Australia

They really pack a lot into a small boat.

It has a single Cummins 150hp diesel shaft drive, does 22 knots, and they are trailerable. They are quite popular with fisherman in SA and seem to handle rough water very well.

They've only been around for a few years, but a few used ones are starting to come on the market. If I was after a newer boat, I'd certainly consider one.
Click to expand...

Yes a nice boat but not 'my cup of tea' as they say. I still like the older styles.
 
Why do you suppose almost no other motorcycle manufacturer made boxer bikes? Not a very good design.

Smooth with excellent cooling and simple construction
The BMW was copied by the Russians and made for over 50 years , and in WWII even Harley D had to copy the BMW motor to have bikes for desert use.

EVERY engine has different RPM areas where they will shake from the engine harmonics , regaredles of configuration.The only shake on a flat BMW is from one con rod being seperiated by a main bearing from the other.This can in theory cause a twisting motion for the crank.

From 1964 to 2009 , I was never able to notice it.

Using a single throw crank and having both rods on one bearing (Harley D), or a master con rod and slave rod as on a round motor might cure this in theory twisting , but at the expense of repairability.

The ART of engine building is to place the shake at an RPM that is seldom used.

If the engine idles at 600 , shake of any sort at 450-500 is where the mfg will place it, red line at 2100 , shake at 2300 would be fine engineering.

3 cylinders or multiples of 3 seem to be the easiest to get smooth .

Most trucks , donor engines for large boats have accepted this and an inline 6 is the norm for 200-700 HP diesels
 
Last edited:
Twin 165 HP Pentas may be as economical to use as a single 330 HP. The key is to look at the fuel burn at the cruise RPM/HP. Usually the published curve is in gms of fuel/kW and typically is a shallow curve higher at the ends. The sweet spot is where you're getting the most HP for the fuel used. This is usuAlly in the mid-range RPMs.

You may find that the pair of Pentas use no more fuel/HP than the larger single? Of course a modern, computer controlled diesel will be more efficient that older technology. But maybe not at the HP where you're going to be using her.

Plus, with twins you have better maneuvering and take home power in the event of an engine failure.
 
FF the BMW AC twins are excellent motorcycles .. no doubt. But the're not ideal .. kinda like a stern engined boat.
Three cylinder engines in general aren't as smooth as a four. I avoided the 3s when I repowered Willy. But the K75 3 cyl BMW IS incredibly smooth. Smoother than any four. But the K75s crankshaft dos'nt rotate in the same direction as the flywheel.

rjtrane,
With the dual prop feature that could easily be true. I agree.
 
I had a 500cc BMW motor bike back in 1962 - as I recall, she was quite civilized - smooth and quiet with loads of torque.

I also had an Easthope single cylinder in one of my Mud Hens - it was funky and slow enough to count the rpms visually.

Or how about a one cylinder Sea Gull outboard - rattled my teeth on my Bolger "Black Skimmer" which acted as a sound box for the Sea Gull (later replaced with a sculling oar).
 
"I had a 500cc BMW motor bike back in 196"

Probably the best BMW ever made.

I had a Velocette in 62 in SanDeigo. Even better than the BMW.
 
Twin 165 HP Pentas may be as economical to use as a single 330 HP

Not really possible as the fuel bill to simply operate the 2 nd engine , run 2 fuel pumps , two cooling pumps and all the mechanical friction of 2X as many (smaller ) cylinders exists.

Plus 2 stuffing boxes , two trannys , two sets of bearings and probably with smaller diameter props are going to require more diesel energy.
 
FF - you're missing the point - absolute fuel flow is just that - absolute. If in fact the twins burn the same fuel delivering the same HP as the single, then, assuming the boat is properly propped, it will get the same MPG. The fuel flow/HP curve already takes into account the work the motor needs to create the HP. It does, as you point out, take into account the additional drag after the motor - 2x the bearings plus some additional drag of the additional propeller and rudder. Yes, there is additional energy required after the rear-end of the diesel, but those losses are most likely negligible in a year's worth of cruising.

If, however, the twins need to run well off their optimum speed (where gms/kw are minimum), the twins may use more fuel. Likewise, the larger single engine, may also need to run off its optimum speed, and end up less efficient.

This is actually a good exercise that very few undertake to see if really there is an additional fuel cost in twins vs. singles. There is a lot of prejudice in this area - and I am not trying to convince true believers (whether their religion is single or twin or gas or diesel or wood-burning steam), but instead using published fuel flow figures to make the comparison in order to make an informed decision.

If the fuel cost turns out to be similar, then one can make the twin/single decision based on other criteria - engine room space - redundancy - maneuverability - maintenance - etc.
 
rjtrane said:
FF - you're missing the point - absolute fuel flow is just that - absolute. If in fact the twins burn the same fuel delivering the same HP as the single, then, assuming the boat is properly propped, it will get the same MPG. The fuel flow/HP curve already takes into account the work the motor needs to create the HP. It does, as you point out, take into account the additional drag after the motor - 2x the bearings plus some additional drag of the additional propeller and rudder. Yes, there is additional energy required after the rear-end of the diesel, but those losses are most likely negligible in a year's worth of cruising.

If, however, the twins need to run well off their optimum speed (where gms/kw are minimum), the twins may use more fuel. Likewise, the larger single engine, may also need to run off its optimum speed, and end up less efficient.

This is actually a good exercise that very few undertake to see if really there is an additional fuel cost in twins vs. singles. There is a lot of prejudice in this area - and I am not trying to convince true believers (whether their religion is single or twin or gas or diesel or wood-burning steam), but instead using published fuel flow figures to make the comparison in order to make an informed decision.

If the fuel cost turns out to be similar, then one can make the twin/single decision based on other criteria - engine room space - redundancy - maneuverability - maintenance - etc.
Click to expand...

Not a mech or engineer here..but I have ALWAYS heard everything else equal...the losses in friction, drag, etc are enough in twins of equal power to a single will require as much as 15% more fuel/output....depending on the setup...it's always more...just a question of how much.
 
I can't see what psneeld posted but FF you're not taking into consideration that all those extra parts from the second engine. Transmissions, stuffing boxes, water pumps, oil pumps ect ect are basically half the size and hence half the drag or/and friction so that argument holds no water at all. It's just not part of the comparison. Marin made that mistake for years.

And w twins the rudder dosn't need to be partly deployed to compensate for prop walk causing some extra drag.

But here twins v/s singles is only considered when the twins have twice as much displacement (760 cu in) and twice as much power and their engines at half load re the twins. So of course they are much less efficient. Would be nice to find a boat w twins and singles both having the same power. I submit that they would have the same fuel consumption.
 
manyboats said:
Marin made that mistake for years.
Click to expand...

Careful. He might start posting again!

I did some sea trials running with just one engine, in the 5 to 8 knot range. The result was that for any given speed, fuel used with just one engine equalled fuel used when running both engines. When running on just one engine I needed higher rpm to get to the speed point. I also needed 7 deg rudder to go straight with just one engine, and there was drag from the idle prop etc.

In my case any efficiency gain of just one engine was not measurable compared to the hull drag. You need x HP for y speed. And x HP requires z gph diesel. So with engines like JD, which have amazing low-midrange rpm fuel efficiency, nothing is gained by running just one.

I suspect that unless you had a very slippery full displacement hull this is quite normal.
 
Insequent said:
Careful. He might start posting again!

I did some sea trials running with just one engine, in the 5 to 8 knot range. The result was that for any given speed, fuel used with just one engine equalled fuel used when running both engines. When running on just one engine I needed higher rpm to get to the speed point. I also needed 7 deg rudder to go straight with just one engine, and there was drag from the idle prop etc.

In my case any efficiency gain of just one engine was not measurable compared to the hull drag. You need x HP for y speed. And x HP requires z gph diesel. So with engines like JD, which have amazing low-midrange rpm fuel efficiency, nothing is gained by running just one.

I suspect that unless you had a very slippery full displacement hull this is quite normal.
Click to expand...

And there are some on this forum that have tried, documented and posted quite considerable gains running on just one.

I find it hard to believe that many people think just one way or the other.

Each boat model may have similarities between hulls...but to say one boat model has gains therefore all should ...just isn't realistic.

In a totally equal world where 2 identical boats with the same horsepower, one twin and one single...it would be ludicrous to think that the single wouldn't be more efficient...but again...depending the efficiency, it may be in the 1% or the 15+% range.

you just cant drag that many moving parts around and underwater items and think "equal" is gonna happen.
 
Sounds like sound stuff Insequent.

Don't see how anybody could argue w that.

Insequent wrote "Careful. He might start posting again! re Marin.
No I think he's actually gone. Missed him a few times lately .. actually.


Twins are better of course but if you're going to not run all your engines I think a triple would be even better. It's so obvious I don't even think it's good for 10 posts.
 
Last edited:
psneeld said:
you just cant drag that many moving parts around and underwater items and think "equal" is gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Not think, measured. In my case.

Apart from hull efficiency, it will depend on the efficiency of the engines installed. Old fuel hungry dinosaurs probably will give a different outcome to what I measured. My point is, dont assume running on one engine will be more efficient. The benefit may quite small or negligable. Do your own tests. Share some results.
 
Last edited:
psneeld why would some commercial boats take of a prop to go all the way up the coast to Alaska to save feul?
Someone talked about that here on TF awhile back.
I remember it varies a lot depending on the boat. Lots of variables.
But it apparently saves considerable fuel on most boats.
 
Grantm said:
Hello all !



Gents, what are your thoughts on the following, based on say a thirty foot cruiser of some kind

Petrol engine vs diesel
Twin engine vs single engine
Stern drive vs shaft

There are so many options I'd just love to hear the pros and cons !

Thanks !
Click to expand...

I think most TF members agree that diesel shaft drives are the way to go. Twin vs single is a personal choice. If you are saying you want the ability to cruise at 10 or 14 knots, then a semi-displacement hull with a 140-300 hp diesel would be needed.
In Australia there aren't too many choices for 30 foot semi-displacement cruisers.

Most of the Grand Banks 32's, Island Gypsy's, and other typical trawlers are displacement speeds although the GB's with twins may have a bit more speed.

There are a few Lobster type boats such as this: Used Mdi 32 Lobster Boat for Sale | Boats For Sale | Yachthub which would cruise in the mid teens.

A Mariner 31 is another option. They often have twin 135 hp diesels Used 31 Mariner Flybridge Cruiser for Sale | Boats For Sale | Yachthub. Good value but it won't handle the rough water as well as the lobster boat.

You can also go to a planing hull such as a Cresta 32 or a Bertram 31 with twin diesels, excellent in rough seas, if you can find one in good shape.
 
AusCan said:
I think most TF members agree that diesel shaft drives are the way to go.
A Mariner 31 is another option. They often have twin 135 hp diesels Used 31 Mariner Flybridge Cruiser for Sale | Boats For Sale | Yachthub. Good value but it won't handle the rough water as well as the lobster boat.

You can also go to a planing hull such as a Cresta 32 or a Bertram 31 with twin diesels, excellent in rough seas, if you can find one in good shape.
Click to expand...
The 135hp Volvo engines usually seen in Mariner 31s are called "165" models, which can mislead as to hp, Auscan has it right. They are advertised from 55K up, a good entry level twin.
The Savage 33 and Cresta 32 used the same hull, I think. They are one of several boats favored to refit for offshore fishing; another,the Masters 34, usually with a single, looks unfashionable but has an excellent seaboat and build reputation.
 
BruceK said:
The 135hp Volvo engines usually seen in Mariner 31s are called "165" models, which can mislead as to hp, Auscan has it right. They are advertised from 55K up, a good entry level twin.
The Savage 33 and Cresta 32 used the same hull, I think. They are one of several boats favored to refit for offshore fishing; another,the Masters 34, usually with a single, looks unfashionable but has an excellent seaboat and build reputation.
Click to expand...

Bruce I did not know that either. I have seen a number of volvo 165s and some 135 hp and assumed they were different.

I'm finding that the Mariner 31 with the twin shaft diesels are hard to find if you want a decent one and that a decent one is perhaps out of my price range.

I am looking at a Riviera 30 this weekend as I really just want to start getting on some boats. Yes it's a stern drive but aside for that its got everything I'm after. Ill see how it goes...
 
AusCan said:
I think most TF members agree that diesel shaft drives are the way to go. Twin vs single is a personal choice.
Click to expand...




I think I'd like to investigate a single diesel with azipod drive (Volvo IPS, Cummins Zeus, engine plus ZF, whatever)...

Possibly with some semblance of keel, possibly even with protecting skeg/shoe (although I have no knowledge of whether any of that could be made to be compatible).

I'm thinking this partly so the engine can be moved further aft, to perhaps provide better service access, to make more space available for hotel spaces, etc.

Don't know of anyone who's tried it for a cruising boat... but I think there's a small company in FL who has successfully made a center console with this set-up...

(Another version of same could be a diesel electric system, perhaps with two generators, sometime run singly, sometimes in parallel.)

-Chris
 
Eric wrote, " the Uniflite was designed such that it would carry a lot of weight aft unlike the Tolly. The Uniflite had a "warped" bottom . . ."

Eric, the 28 Uniflite that I ran for several years had a wonderful ride in any kind of head sea. The deep, sharp forefoot cut the water and rode like on shock absorbers. Very much better that the Bertram. With its reverse chines it was much drier than the Bertrams. In a following sea the deep vee of the Bertram was much better. To keep the Uniflite stable in a following sea I would take all tabs off and run with the bow high. That deep forefoot, if it caught coming off the face of a wave, would cause the boat to shear. Hard to get back around.
 
I can relate directly to all of that Don. The Uniflites were/are very nice riding boats but take a lot of power to move. Like a deep V but w more stability and carrying capacity. The ride and stability was/is considerably better than the Tolly's but the Tolly's I'm sure are considerably more efficient with their lighter weight and narrower hulls (at the chine) not to mention being a bit more graceful attop of a following sea.

The Tolly is definitely better looking than the slightly commercial looking Uniflite's. In the old PNW days of Bayliners and Reinells or bigger inbds Tollys and Uniflites the Bayliners and Rienells were so much the same it really didn't make much difference which way you went. But w the Uniflites and Tollys the differences were large enough that it was easy for most to make the choice. Most people probably made the choice relative to what their friends liked or had.

Oh .. Don was that the 28 "Mega"? The older and narrower 27 was my favorite. Had any experience w them?
 
Last edited:
I used to refer to our 1973 31' Uniflite FB convertible as my "Water Borne Go Cart". Cause... with low hour powerful CC twins her handling ability was swift and agile. WOT hit well into the early 30 knot range; cruise all day in low to mid 20’s. Had no trouble in sea conditions encountered (although I never went into really bad seas with her - I'm confident she would have done fine). :thumb:

I am (we are) addicted to Tollycraft... for many reasons. But, I still keep my eyes open in case a real nice (pre 1974) Uni were to pop up for sale. Then we could have our Tolly 100 miles away in SF Delta fresh swimming water and a Uni just 8 miles away in SF Bay cruising saltwater... What Fun!! Then I could be aboard a boat nearly any time I want! :dance:

We’ll spend some of the few couple days available in 2013 for this weekend on our Tolly; be there Friday afternoon. :D Gotta come home Sun Eve. :( Health problems for our beloved 90 yr Matriarch has kept us pretty much grounded to the home front since beginning of year (spent morning with her). This will be only our third (maybe 4th??) time aboard in 2013... I’m jonesing... hardly can wait! :popcorn: :speed boat:
 
manyboats said:
Oh .. Don was that the 28 "Mega"? The older and narrower 27 was my favorite. Had any experience w them?
Click to expand...

Flybridge Sedan/sportfish

Notice we were flying a fish flag off the outrigger
 

Attachments

  • Sundancer with Fish Flag.jpg
    Sundancer with Fish Flag.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 61
Chris.

Pod drives come in twins, triples and quads. Except for a prototype ZF with integrated bow thruster (not in the pod but interfaced). I have driven this single - the joystick handling is not as good as an IPS or Zeus. Cost is high - not a value.

If you're looking to match the performance of pod drives with a single, a dual-prop I/O has similar performance and economy of operation. If you cruise a lot, fuel savings will pay for additional maintenance.

Counter rotating props perpendicular to the waterline will always outperformed slant shafts.
 
rjtrane said:
Chris.

Pod drives come in twins, triples and quads. Except for a prototype ZF with integrated bow thruster (not in the pod but interfaced). I have driven this single - the joystick handling is not as good as an IPS or Zeus. Cost is high - not a value.

If you're looking to match the performance of pod drives with a single, a dual-prop I/O has similar performance and economy of operation. If you cruise a lot, fuel savings will pay for additional maintenance.

Counter rotating props perpendicular to the waterline will always outperformed slant shafts.
Click to expand...

Reuben - Perpendicular props stemming from Pod or OD or even OB have to battle gear-unit encasement drag and turbulence. Props at end of slant shaft have less drag/turbulence to overcome. Also, hull engineering can relieve a lot of slant shaft thrust loss. Is it an engineered / blind-test proven fact that in real life Pod or OD perpendicular props outperform slant shaft props? Or, is it paper engineering that does not account for encasement drag/turbulence?
 
Art. With all due respect, you are incorrect. Pods and I /Os have significantly less drag than that of a shaft, strut and rudder. Add the efficiency of counter-rotating props and the difference becomes more dramatic.

IPS pods with forward-facing props and exhaust through the hub demonstrate the biggest increase in performance filled by Zeus and I /Os.

This is not my opinion. Different sea trials have been performed comparing the different pods with slant shafts on the same hull model. As I recall boat test.com has performed and reported on sea trials.

Differences in performance are greatest at the higher speeds - typically 20+ knots. At displacement speeds, performance is closer to traditional slant shafts.
 
I agree w rjtrane Art. Another thing that could enter into this is that the prop on the straight inbd drive is under the hull and may have some advantages from that. But I'm sure the horizontal drive shaft systems are considerably more efficient if their propellers are big enough.

And I'm guessing the prop behind the gear unit is probably best. Would be interesting to compare airplane technology in this regard. Lots of "tractors" and "pushers" to evaluate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Wet or Dry Exhaust
Replies
27
Views
3K
Daveo
Daveo
M
Ford Lehman exhaust system
Replies
2
Views
424
Malmquist
M
G
Power ratings and a new engine decision: Need some help
Replies
26
Views
3K
OldDan1943
OldDan1943
T
Balmar 60 Alternator replacement for a Perkins 6.354
Replies
4
Views
302
High Wire
High Wire
S
Serpentine belt driven high-output alternator on Ford Lehman SP135
Replies
15
Views
2K
Choices
C

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom