Diesel Engines - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly?

[Baker]

sunchaser wrote:

Baker* My Perkins Sabres are the cleanest diesels you could ask for. Not one drop anywhere. Cat uses same engine painted yellow AKA as 3056. CCV system works perfectly.

Well, I was referring to the "classic" Perkins....the 4108...4236...6354...etc. *Which Brings up another issue. *Not all Perkins are the same. *I hardly classify Sabres as Perkins even though that is the name on them. *That also makes parts an issue since the service people don't know what to stock. *You end up almost always having to order the part after spending a good bit of time tracking it down. *I had a Sabre M20 in one of my sailboats....good little engine.

[Arctic Traveller]

Guess it depends on the boat and who owned it.* On a 44/46 OA, there are hatches in the*salon sole*that provide excellent access*to the outboard side of the engines.* No crawling around the front or back of the engine..just open the hatch, set a small step ladder on the flat surface next to the engine and step right down.* Easy Peasy.**At least*three feet between the engine and hull for a V8 and close to four*for a six.**However,*a Cummins equipped boat*places*the front end of the six cylinder engine about a foot behind the crosswise*genset...so access to the genset and the front of the starboard engine sux.**I recently looked at a 46 Grand*Banks with 3208s...every aspect of the engine room and engines were immaculate...both sides.* Again, it depends.*


I agree completely that different owners maintain their boats to different standards.* Adequate access simply makes it easier and less expensive to do.* Hatches providing access to the outboard side of the engines is an excellent idea, but there were none on the boats I looked at, and even if there were, the space between the engine and the fuel tanks was so limited it would not have helped (much).* The 46 G/B with the immaculate engine room would rate highly in my search if I were in the market.*

Still, all things being equal, adequate access will always make maintenance and troubleshooting easier and cheaper. By way of another example, the yacht I run has a generator placed such that even inspecting the outboard side is impossible.* Last summer it developed a serious oil leak.* The flywheel was throwing oil around the bell housing, and then it was leaking out the bottom.* Sounds a lot like a rear main seal doesn't it?* Sadly, after I replaced* said seal, the oil leak remained.* It turned out that the oil pressure sending unit located under the manifold and against the side of hull was leaking oil onto the starter, and then running into the bellhousing.* The only way to find this was to unbolt the entire generator and move it away from the side of the boat.* Only then did the leak become visible.* A painful lesson it was. .........



*

*

[koliver]

Wow, am I chastened!
Here I have always had a great respect for the original owner's choice to UPgrade from the builder's standard offering of Lehmans to Volvos, and with some 6500+ hours on the boat, full maint records, I know how much has been spent maintaining the engines.
in 30 years and all those hours, visits to the Volvo store have been few and far between. Sure the parts are costly, but I suspect not more so than for any other engine.
Such items that have gone in on this boat are: raw water pumps, starter, high pressure lines, rubber bits, and oh that's all, so if parts are expensive, there are so few times they are needed, that expense can be tolerated.
Yes, I did re-power, but not because there was any desperate need to do so. I sold the old engines for almost as much as I paid for the new ones, so that also shows others were prepared to buy, and pay a good price for pair of used up "deal breaker" engines.
At the risk of repetition, its not the brand so much as the age and condition that are important.

[Baker]

I had a small Volvo in one of my sailboats.....5 years of TOTALLY troublefree service......although an OEM oil filter was $35....15 years ago!!!!

-- Edited by Baker on Wednesday 20th of January 2010 12:43:52 PM

[Bendit]

My order of preference (reliability and maintenence but not, of course,*max peformance):

1) Naturally aspirated (e.g. Ford Lehman)
2) Turbocharged but not aftercooled (e.g. Cummins 5.9 6BT )
3) Turbocharged and jacket-water aftercooled - JWAC (e.g. Cat 3406B DITA - which is what I have)
4) Turbocharged and raw water aftercoooled (e.g. Cummins*6BTA 5.9). Note the 270 hp version is JWAC as was the old 250hp with rotary injection pump.

The seawater side is where about 75% of the maintenance issues arise - so the simpler the better.

Although turbocharged and aftercooled,*the raw water in the Cat goes through the heat exchanger only. After cooler and*gear cooler are both JWAC.
My 2 cents worth,

[Forkliftt]

Welcome aboard Captain Jeff. I read your bio and see you have had a lot of experience. It is good to see participation from all parts of the globe also.

[timjet]

Baker wrote:

My wife works at a yacht service company. SO when I consider boats, not only do I have to appeal to her girly touchy feely senses, she knows enough about engines that they have to pass muster with her as well. And Volvos are an instant NO-NO in her book. SO they are in mine by default.

I am sure there are many that I am leaving out but that is what pops into my head at this moment.

Why are Volvo's an instant no-no. Is it because of expensive parts, the cost to find a mechanic to repair, or are they just lousy engines? You must qualify your statement. I'm not trying to defend Volvo diesels, just trying to find out why some people don't like them and from what I've seen and heard it's the cost of parts not the engine itself.If the cost of parts is the issue then a well surveyed engine with oil samples taken that passes survey should not need a lot of parts and should make the argument against Volvo's mute.*

*

[Marin]

The people I've known with Volvos, from pleasure craft to commercial fishing boats, don't seem to have any more problems with them then with most other engine types. The issue seems to be parts and service.

[Baker]

Yes, it is mostly a parts issue. Like many have said, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with them.

[FF]

If the cost of parts is the issue then a well surveyed engine with oil samples taken that passes survey should not need a lot of parts and should make the argument against Volvo's mute.

Nice dream , but even the poorest boat maintainer will spring for a couple of gallons of oil when the boat is on the block.

Without loads of hours on the oil, the oil will not give a good reading.

A LOG BOOK , is much more informative of the owners respect for the machinery.

The long delays and high expense of Volvo parts are OK if you do your own wrenching.

I believe both Lugger and Deere* purchase the core engine from a Jap earth moving machinery builder.

And both simply marinize the units.


-- Edited by FF on Wednesday 27th of January 2010 10:02:51 AM

[Bendit]

Thanks Steve, I'll get some pics up in the next few days.

[Baker]

Lugger and Deere use a lot of Toyotas!

[FF]

Lugger and Deere use a lot of Toyotas!

Thats news to me, Yannmar used lots of Toyotas and now converts BMW diesels.

The Deere/Lugger seems to be Komatsu donors.

FF

[Baker]

BMW was Yanmar's solution to the pollution regs that went into effect in 2007(?). Instead of redesign the whole line from 100-300hp, they just contracted BMW. This is for their engines from 100-300hp....not all of them. And I will correct myself. It is Lugger that uses Toyotas....not exclusively. But they do use some. I don't think Lugger makes any of their own engines whereas Deere does. Anyway, PMM has done extensive pieces on both Lugger and Deere and that is where I got that info from if I remember correctly.

[JAT]

I'm new here...but I'll throw in my two cents...

Our trawler has a pair of 6-354 Perkins NA's... and I like these engines.* They are very fuel efficient, and we've had very little trouble with them....in fact in the two and a half years we've had this boat...the only actual engine issues have been maintaining the raw water side of it all.* Our sailboat had a Perkins 4-108 and it seemed "bullet proof".* Depending on the version of the engine...parts can be a bit of an issue...not so much the internal parts but the raw water side.... and the strangest thing is...I can buy the actual Perkins branded filters for less than what NAPA and other parts stores sell them for.....in generics.* BTW...these are engines built in 78/79 and have over 6500 hours on them.*


I also like Cummins engines...I have experience with them but not marine experience.* The turbo diesel in our Dodge Ram is a great engine....and their M-11/ISM's and ISX's are great engines.* But as far as their best engines....they were the straight mechanicals that were "pre-electronic" like the N-14....they were pretty much bulletproof like Perkins engines.

I have a friend with a pair of Volvo's in his trawler, and he seems to spend a lot of time in the engine room...and he does complain about parts cost... beyond that I don't know much about them....

Detroits are good engines...but I think often times they are too much power for the boat they are in, and they aren't terribly fuel efficient.* I know that some versions like the Series 60 blows a lot of oil.... Not sure about earlier versions.*

Caterpillars....not fond of them... but my only experience has been non-marine versions and those with more electronic nonsense on them than the law should allow.* A lot of grief with the C-15 twin turbos.

Another friend has Ford-Leymans....he likes them....has little problem with them.* I think they are 120's....

Another friend has a single John Deere in his trawler....he loves it.*

Bottom line... if its a well known diesel...and it was well maintained....there should be little concern one way or the other....

-- Edited by JAT on Friday 5th of February 2010 04:00:36 PM

-- Edited by JAT on Friday 5th of February 2010 04:20:22 PM

[sharppractice]

two v8 detroits no problem for two years just a split hose. the sound from the exhaust makes up for the fuel consumption any day..

[FF]

"two v8 detroits no problem for two years

And parts will be available for another 50 years.

For most boats under 50 ft the DD 3-71 will produce the 40 to 80 hp cont. required with minor effort.

If I were setting up a boat I would take all the parts to a "speed shop" machine service.

The pistons would be matched , the rods balanced end for end and the crank balanced for the cruiser RPM 1500 to 1800.

SMOOOTH !!! for a few hundred extra bucks.

With the proper injector and timing choice , and good maint , the engine would be a 20,000 hour runner , about 100 times what most power cruisers can wear out.

Best of all it would be under an hour to prepare the engine for time out of service ,
the effort NOT given to most cruisers engines , that causes early DEATH!

[Codger2]

FF wrote:
Lugger and Deere use a lot of Toyotas! Thats news to me,

*

[Nomad Willy]

This fish boat has had a 3-71 DD for 61years.

[bobc]

Marin wrote:

I don't favor 4-cylinder engines because of any inherent reliability problems.* I've had some vehicles with four-cylinder engines, including a 1973 Land Rover I bought new and still drive today, and have had no trouble with them.* But a 4-cylinder is inherently unbalanced and generates more vibration.* An in-line six is a very balanced and smooth cylinder arrangement--- about the only thing better is a V-12.


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 18th of January 2010 02:45:44 PM

*

I had the same bias about 4 vs 6, but I have to admit, the four-cylinder John Deere -- which is counterbalanced -- is smoother than the Lehman 120 it replaced.* It's also more powerful, and shorter in length (which gave me room to add a separate starter battery).