Just curious how folks here would rank Diesel Engine Manufacturers

[ancora]

I don't know about "best", but I do know about the happiest dealers in the world. Whenever I call Volvo for parts, they break into fits of hilarious laughter.

 

[mvweebles]

Apparently you didn't read my whole post:

1-Komatsu entered an agreement with Cummins to provide their electronic engine/fuel system controls as a "black box solution" that made it expensive for Komatsu to do any aftermarket tuning on their industrial certified engines to allow for higher power marine ratings as had been done in the past. In the end, the cost to continue with the product dramatically outweighed the profit of the business (10%GM/10% of company sales revenue).

I worked for the company as VP/GM when this went down, hopefully that makes me qualified to know what has happened...

I did read your whole post - it was not clear to me. To my eyes, the following strongly implied Lugger ceased propulsion because of an issue with JD. I only pointed out that Lugger also used Komatsu.

2-John Deere decided not to offer NL/Lugger their T-3 Industrial engine to allow Lugger marinization, instead offering the JD marinized engine which again restricted the opportunity for adding value. Sad end as they were well regarded in the boutique marinization market.​

Next time you bark-out that someone didn't read your post, you may want to take 30-seconds and ask yourself if perhaps you weren't clear. For example, you mentioned you were a VP for the company - you mentioned six different companies. I have no idea which one, though I must confess, it's of little concern.

Peter

 

[pacopico]

What I have heard (and not really in the loop) is that Cummins and Bosch (supplier of fuel systems to Cummins) did a lot of work together to develop tech to meet the various tiers. And a good number of patents. Cat developed a different approach that did not work out so well. Once the successful tech was protected as IP, Cat seemed to lose interest in the highway and marine markets. The Euro engines they are selling are Bosch equipped. Before that, Cat made all their own fuel systems (I think).

Cummins, Volvo, MAN, MTU all use Bosch at least on some of their engines.

You are right on target WRT the patents and locking up any other developments.

Cat's ACERT technology with miller cycle didn't work so well on-highway and thankfully never made it to off-highway/marine as the tier requirements aren't in-time with each other and off highway is still immune from Tier IV under 600kW-mechanical in marine today. Above it's changing but I don't really deal with pleasurecraft in that range so I don't follow it as its' enough to try and keep ahead of the rules where I must.

As well, BOSCH does sell fuel system components for CAT/EMD, MTU, as well as many others, but the controls/certification are still in the hands of the engine OEM.

Others as you have identified with Cummins made a more complete integration with BOSCH and therefore have that as an external constraint towards "boutique" modifications.

In reality this has been coming a long time with ever stricter emissions as the flexibility available in the past had relatively little costs when the fuel and control systems were simple (mechanical) and emissions certifications were easy to attain and comply with.

Having started in the commercial Diesel world in 1995, you could still buy a Cat/Cummins/Detroit in most any commercial truck: Freightliner, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Western Star, etc. With the decreasing emissions and changes to application requirements the truck manufacturers were economically pressured to lessen their options and focus their engineering costs to apply "one" new engine -vs- several new engines to their trucks as time progressed. As well, then came the drive to consolidate engines throughout the truck manufacturers' lines, which led to further vertical integration of truck manufacturing as was already seen in Europe.

The same forces have been there for construction and ag equipment, same results as noted in the on-highway truck market.

To me, the key to this is that Marine is so small a market that we are the tail of the dog of these bigger markets that determine the hardware we can start with to have modified and certified for marine duty.

 

[pacopico]

Next time you bark-out that someone didn't read your post, you may want to take 30-seconds and ask yourself if perhaps you weren't clear. For example, you mentioned you were a VP for the company - you mentioned six different companies. I have no idea which one, though I must confess, it's of little concern.

Peter

I wasn't trying to argue with you, It just appeared to me that you had missed my first point.

As well, it wasn't meant as a "bark-out" my apologies if my response was an offence.

I do agree, upon review in retrospect, I did not take much time to create a fully conceived and thoroughly proof-read response. Again my apologies.

For clarity sake so as not to misrepresent, I worked at NL at the time of this emissions/product transition, in a position where I had direct knowledge...i.e. not just the floor sweeper, though I did sweep the floor at times.

At the end of the day, I realize I am just another nobody, and the comments are worth every penny one pays to receive them!!!

 

[sunchaser]

Disappointing to hear a Cat is painting other maker engines. Their reputation is at stake.

Anything less than 200 HP has been largely farmed out by Cat for over 20 years. Engines for backhoes, gensets and skid steer equipment are normally built under alliance with the major small engine builders. All these farmed out engines still have Cat warranties and parts support. Cat bought Perkins in the late '90s, smart move as it provides a ready supply of smaller engines.

 

[mvweebles]

I wasn't trying to argue with you, It just appeared to me that you had missed my first point.

As well, it wasn't meant as a "bark-out" my apologies if my response was an offence.

I do agree, upon review in retrospect, I did not take much time to create a fully conceived and thoroughly proof-read response. Again my apologies.

For clarity sake so as not to misrepresent, I worked at NL at the time of this emissions/product transition, in a position where I had direct knowledge...i.e. not just the floor sweeper, though I did sweep the floor at times.

At the end of the day, I realize I am just another nobody, and the comments are worth every penny one pays to receive them!!!

I too apologize - I could have been a bit more polished.

Since you were with ADE/NL, I have a question, especially given your observation with JD. I see NL advertises Yanmar propulsion engines via their website and ADE/Anchorage website. Seems like an odd marriage, especially given the obvious connection with JD. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Peter

 

[ancora]

My son's ship has a MaK diesel engine. He tells me it is now Caterpillar-MaK.

 

[pacopico]

I too apologize - I could have been a bit more polished.

Since you were with ADE/NL, I have a question, especially given your observation with JD. I see NL advertises Yanmar propulsion engines via their website and ADE/Anchorage website. Seems like an odd marriage, especially given the obvious connection with JD. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Peter

So, just before I left Yanmar wanted to work with a NL on a path to market on their 6-AY engine that is a close competitor to a discontinued Komatsu engine that was popular in the NW commercial fishing fleet.

NL agreed to take the product on, and it is a very nice/robust (though a bit expensive) engine, that meets T-3 with mechanical injection.

It comes in at +/- 20L displacement, 600kW Mechanical at 1900 RPM so more of a competitor to QSK-19 than anything that JD produces.

Personally, what I find more interesting is that they are a Kohler Dealer in Alaska for Industrial Generators...a direct competitor to NL on the marine side of the market

 

[pacopico]

Anything less than 200 HP has been largely farmed out by Cat for over 20 years. Engines for backhoes, gensets and skid steer equipment are normally built under alliance with the major small engine builders. All these farmed out engines still have Cat warranties and parts support. Cat bought Perkins in the late '90s, smart move as it provides a ready supply of smaller engines.

And CAT recently purchased Shibaura that was producing engines "branded" as Perkins for the Perk-a-Pillar group.

More consolidation.

 

[pacopico]

My son's ship has a MaK diesel engine. He tells me it is now Caterpillar-MaK.

The world of CAT marine (pre-Shibaura)

 

[Portage_Bay]

pacopico's calculations are damned close. For a short while I ran an 85 ft with twin MTU V16. She'd do 40 kts burning 256 GPH. The 700 gal "day tank" was good for 2.7 hrs at that speed.

Interesting article on marine Diesels, up to 2600 hp MTUs. Mostly in the mid hp range.

https://www.marlinmag.com/top-diesel-fishing-boat-engines/

Considering a 350hp outboard can cost upwards of $40k, I have to wonder how much a 5000 lb V16 diesel in a Viking 72 sportfisher would cost. I wonder how much fuel she burns at 40-kts?

Considering that They list the Viking 72 as being equipped with a pair of 2,635-horsepower MTU V16-M96L, I'll go with your 5,000 total shaft HP for:

BSFC= .350 lb/HP/hr
HP= 5000
Total LB= 1750Lb/Hr.
Diesel= 7.1Lb/Gal

Total= 246.5 Gal/Hr.

It's only money...

 

[socalrider]

256 gph?!? Man... good argument for a carbon tax.

What about my FL120s? Parts are cheap, no electronics, good efficiency, no Ph.D required for repair.

 

[BandB]

As to the fuel usage being given on the MTU 2600 hp engines. We own a boat with large MTU engines and have one ordered with triple MTU 2600 hp. Here is our fuel consumption:

At 1000 RPM, 11 knots, 27 gph.
At 1500 RPM, 17 knots, 81 gph.
At 1750 RPM, 21 knots, 135 gph.
At 2150 RPM, 26 knots, 220 gph.

Now the Viking mentioned would be faster, but those are accurate fuel numbers for MTU's in those size ranges. So cut back on the 256 gph to 135 gph at cruise and less the way they're often run, but still bad.

As to the damage to the environment, Tier III IMO (which is Tier 2 EPA) cut down on emissions significantly but nothing like Tier IV IMO (Tier 3 EPA) is going to do and after a long delay it is finally going into effect. This will impact these engines considerably and will impact all large commercial craft which are far greater in the market than are recreational users of such engines. Viking and Hatteras are whining and saying they won't be able to sell and build large boats anymore. Manufacturers have done that since the first catalytic converters. They delay and then say impossible and then they do it and it works. I know the challenges but do support the move to Tier IV. We can make it work. I just imagine how our large cities would be today without catalytic converters and other improvements. So, admittedly we are villains on large fuel consumption but we also fully support paying the price for reduction on emissions. The big engine makers moved slowly but when they finally realized they had to do it, they've found a way. The initial cost is high but it will come down.

 

[mvweebles]

As to the fuel usage being given on the MTU 2600 hp engines. We own a boat with large MTU engines and have one ordered with triple MTU 2600 hp. Here is our fuel consumption:

At 1000 RPM, 11 knots, 27 gph.
At 1500 RPM, 17 knots, 81 gph.
At 1750 RPM, 21 knots, 135 gph.
At 2150 RPM, 26 knots, 220 gph.

Now the Viking mentioned would be faster, but those are accurate fuel numbers for MTU's in those size ranges. So cut back on the 256 gph to 135 gph at cruise and less the way they're often run, but still bad.

As to the damage to the environment, Tier III IMO (which is Tier 2 EPA) cut down on emissions significantly but nothing like Tier IV IMO (Tier 3 EPA) is going to do and after a long delay it is finally going into effect. This will impact these engines considerably and will impact all large commercial craft which are far greater in the market than are recreational users of such engines. Viking and Hatteras are whining and saying they won't be able to sell and build large boats anymore. Manufacturers have done that since the first catalytic converters. They delay and then say impossible and then they do it and it works. I know the challenges but do support the move to Tier IV. We can make it work. I just imagine how our large cities would be today without catalytic converters and other improvements. So, admittedly we are villains on large fuel consumption but we also fully support paying the price for reduction on emissions. The big engine makers moved slowly but when they finally realized they had to do it, they've found a way. The initial cost is high but it will come down.

I am amazed at how boat-itis can warp my sensibilities. You know the syndrome - after a long time at looking at boats, somehow $300k seems reasonable, perhaps a bargain.

21-kts @ 135 gph (roughly 6 gpm) certainly starts to sound economical.

BandB - to paraphrase Quint - sounds like you've got a bigger boat. But you're gonna need a bigger set of wrenches I'm afraid.

Peter

 

[Mako]

From the responses here it would seem that most members are in North America.

I’ve spent a good part of my life in the Middle East, Asia and SE Asia. Have come to respect Doosan, Leyland and Weichai diesels.

Funny thing is that here at work I’m working on a 650kW Cat generator from Ring Power that is powered by an awesome Mitsubishi engine. No it’s not yellow either, just plain grey.

 

[Madhatter53]

Detroit

 

[O C Diver]

For displacement hull boats in the USA, my preferences would be:

1. Deere
2 Cummins

Beyond that Yanmar, kabota and others come into play.

Ted

 

[Northern Spy]

Perhaps try Swedish YouTube channels.

Been watching Vietnamese on Youtbe, rebuilding marine engines and installing new marine engines. Daewoo, Mistubishi, Hino, Cummins, Cats, Yanmar, and others...but never Volvos. Perhaps they know something?

 

[PaulGel]

Both our small NLs had Shibaura motors from memory and they were little jewels. Simple but reliable.

Isuzu makes some very good heavy duty marine diesels in the mid range HPs but no real high speed ones. They just don’t seem to market them much in the US for recreational use. Just about every cruise ship tender uses FPT/Ivecos and they have to be tough to put up with what they go through.

 

[Ski in NC]

BandB- Kudos on ordering a boat with triple MTU 2600hp engines. You are clearly doing well financially!

But you are reading too much into the tier 3 and tier 4. The complex tier 4 system reduces two pollutants: NOx and particulates. Neither of those pollutants are much of a concern outside urban areas, especially in open ocean. If you are logging hours in downtown LA, they would be concern, but operating a boat there at power is not really possible.

Tier 4 controls do nothing to reduce the emission of CO2, in fact they likely increase it, for a few technical reasons. And that vessel at power will emit a grotesque amount of CO2.

 

[sunchaser]

Tier 4 controls do nothing to reduce the emission of CO2, in fact they likely increase it, for a few technical reasons. And that vessel at power will emit a grotesque amount of CO2.

Well Ski, given your knowledge and background, a small onboard nuclear power plant would be just the ticket. CO2 zilch.

In a more serious note the new builds of very large +100' sailboats to compete with mega power yachts is gaining momentum. With a pair of 400 HP diesels to drive at hull speed of course.

 

[Begorrah]

Had my 1987 32 Bayliner with (2)135 Hino diesels in it. Not 1 problem with it. When I sold it last year it had 3100 hours on the engines. I never heard of a problem with them. Somewhat familier with the 175 hinos. Only problem I herd about on the 175"s was the manicoller. Easy to fix

 

[Marlinmike]

Nothing runs like a Deere....

OK has nothing to do with anything other then its catchy!

Great info as usual by others.

 

[John98103]

Lugger

Lot's of Nordhavns come equipped with Lugger power plants. Not sure who makes Lugger but they seem to have a great reputation.

Luggers were mildly tweaked John Deere's - John Deere now makes marine engines itself and Lugger is no more. Far as I know.

 

[alfamike]

Marine Diesel Engines In Full Displacement Hull's

I can say, having many decades direct experience with John Deere based marine engines in Both the Lugger format & the John Deere O.E. marinized engines in full displacement hulls, that they have been absolutely bullet proof in my experience for me as long as they were properly maintained. No problems like Ford Lehman's with cyl.# 6, etc.

I am a 100 Ton master captain & have delivered & worked on many other boats in the past decades with all different engines. So, I have, at one time or another, worked on them all, in one way or the other.

In my experience, I would put the John Deere 6068 engine in M-1 or M-2 format up there side by side with the Gardner Engine for reliability & fuel economy.

It started 60 years ago when my grand father introduced me to the John Deere engine line & he told me when I was a kid, & I used to ride on his tractor with him as a kid, on his mid-west farm that he recommended only John Deere equipment & engines when the job was tough. He said, they were tops in reliability, parts were way more reasonable to obtain than Cat or Cummings, had world wide parts availability & even after sitting out in the field or barn all winter in the snow, it always fired right up come spring thaw first time.

The engines lasted over 20,000 + hours & more, of hard use & when it did come to over haul time, they were a wet liner design, so can be refreshed in the frame of the tractor. Factory manuals are all available so you can work on them & do it all yourself, & were readily available - UNLIKE CAT -, so you could work on them yourself.

I like the John Deere 6068 engine so much, I put my money where my mouth was. I took out a perfectly good running 4,000 hour O.E. Ford Lehman out of my Kadey Krogen 42 & sold it to a TF buddy, who had a Grand Banks with a Ford Lehman that was giving him issues.

All so I could install a new John Deere 6068 - inline 6 cylinder diesel engine in to my boat & have the piece of mind that the swap gave to me.

Your mileage & experience may vary, but I have been a happy camper with the John Deere engines, plus do all my own maintenance my self. Never had a issue with reliability of the J.D. power plant.

I never regretted it & would do it again.

Good luck in your eventual engine choices.

Alfa Mike

 

[menzies]

Good to hear that Mike.

I have two of the Lugger 6068s (turbo'd) in my ER. 174 HP.

They are at around 6000 hours and ticking along nicely.

 

[PNW Drifter]

This thread will get us through winter.

 

[Positive-Waves]

Actually

Well Ski, given your knowledge and background, a small onboard nuclear power plant would be just the ticket. CO2 zilch.

In a more serious note the new builds of very large +100' sailboats to compete with mega power yachts is gaining momentum. With a pair of 400 HP diesels to drive at hull speed of course.

Actually not really far fetched
A pebble reactor which would be about the size of a Genset would last 100 years or more and produce enough heat and power to run pretty much anything.
they are simple and pretty much fool proof.

 

[Salish Nomad]

My first, and favorite was a 6 cylinder Atlas. Wish I still owned it.

 

[Simi 60]

In my experience, I would put the John Deere 6068 engine in M-1 or M-2 format up there side by side with the Gardner Engine for reliability & fuel economy.

Its a lot small than a Gardner
6.8 litre vs 10.45 litre