Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-27-2023, 02:53 PM   #1
Member
 
City: Shelburne
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 17
Power ratings and a new engine decision: Need some help

Hello...I am posting this question as I am soon to launch a new build for a full displacement trawler and am struggling to find 'layman's' explanations or much of anything around the 2 questions posed below on ower ratings and JD and Cummins. I am hoping that this crew which is very experienced in boats and engine option decisions would be willing to share your thoughts and do a little educating. So please excuse the lack of diesel know how and bear with me... the boat is a 65' LOA trawler with a 18' foot beam and roughly 120,000lb displacement, 5' 8" draft. JD6090 was the quoted engine but after some research I have changed this to the following: JD6138AFM85 with the M2 rating @ 425 (bhp) - primarily from feedback about the advantage of the water cooled jacket approach. My first question is M1 vs M2 rating. My understanding is both these are Continuous use ratings the difference being full power rating of the M2 of 16 to or 24 hrs and then 80% power for the other 8hrs vs M1 continuous full power. My thought being the extra horsepower would be valuable in a pinch to up the top end by a knot or so - I understand that comes with a high fuel cost so please do not beat me up on that one as I appreciate that but still feel the extra power could be worth it for local cruising or emergency situations and 80% of that power might drop this boat to 7 knots or so still very respectable if running all day or night. I understand that the hull speed is a little over 10 knots and cruise is 7-8.5 likely with both engines but at full throttle I could get more out of the M2 rating and then as required pull the RPM's back for the required period and still travel at the cruise speed of the M1. Here are the numbers:

Performance Rating Power KW (bhp) Rated Speed (rpm) Rated fuel consumption L/hr(gal/hr)
M1 272 ( 365 ) 1800 76.7 ( 20.3 )
M2 317 ( 425 ) 1900 86.2 ( 22.8 )
M1 - Typical annual usage (hr) Unrestricted
M1 - Typical full-power operation (hr) Uninterrupted
M1 - Typical load factor >65%
M2 - Typical annual usage (hr) 000-5
M2 - Typical full-power operation (hr) 16 of each 24 hr
M2 - Typical load factor <=65%

I would appreciate others thinking on this one as I can pick either engine rating at this point. The last question is a little different but related. I was in a version of the boat that had a Cummins QSM11 and I loved the smaller size of that engine for ease of maintenance and the extra space it delivers over the larger JD. Cummins also has an equivalent type rating of Heavy Duty vs continues use that creates the same question as above. Any thoughts on Cummins vs JD would be welcome as well for this purpose.

Pardon the long explanation. Any experiences and input/information would be so helpful! Thanks...
Garpow2026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2023, 04:41 PM   #2
Guru
 
Jeff F's Avatar
 
City: Guelph
Vessel Name: Escapade
Vessel Model: 50` US Navy Utility trawler conversion
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,432
I've studied the JD ratings carefully.

The load factor is essentially average load, so if you ran the M2 at 80 - 100% load for most of the time you could exceed that threshold and an M1 would be more appropriate. But in practice recreational trawlers spend lots of time under low loads, so don't have trouble staying well under that load factor. That would be average gph of under 2/3 of maximum rated.

I'd choose the M2.
Jeff F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2023, 08:06 PM   #3
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Vermont
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,029
Great questions. I think M2 is fine for a trawler, even one that is heavily used. Time spent at higher loads just wonít be very often.

Iím a bit confused by the jacketed bs non-jacketed comment comparing the 6099 to the 6135. It is a 6135, not 6138, right? I believe both have jacketed exhaust manifolds and turbos. And I think the AFM models are both coolant cooled after we coolers (thatís a mouthful, isnít it), not seawater cooled. The SFM would be seawater cooled, if Iím remembering all this correctly.

Will the engine be heat exchanger cooled, or keel cooled?

As for Deere vs Cummins, wars have been fought over that question. I would pick whichever fits your application better. I went through this about 5 years ago and wrote a blog article called ďmirror mirror in the wall, which is the fairest engine of allĒ that might help sort through whatís a best fit for you. Itís on MVTanglewood.com. I donít think you can go wrong with either.
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2023, 09:36 PM   #4
Member
 
City: Shelburne
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 17
Thanks for insights and I think they both make sense and I was leaning towards to M2 rating. My understanding was the 6135AFM85 is jacket' cooled and this results in easier maintenance and better reliability then the model originally quoted which was a 6090SFM85...so I may very well of misspoken on the 'water' aspect and appreciate you clarifying. I will hit your blog as well and read up and I do also get the 'wars have been fought' comment over the engines - never simple answers I know and big fans for all the brands. It is a learning experience! Thanks again for your thoughts.
Garpow2026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 05:09 AM   #5
Moderator Emeritus
 
Comodave's Avatar
 
City: Au Gres, MI
Vessel Name: Black Dog
Vessel Model: Formula 41PC
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 21,048
JD and Cummins are both excellent engines. I would look to which brand has better support in your intended cruising area and go with that engine.
__________________
Boat Nut:
If you are one there is no explanation necessary.
If you arenít one, there is no explanation possible.
Comodave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 06:06 AM   #6
Guru
 
cafesport's Avatar
 
City: Miami
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 799
They havenít published the data yet but I have it on good authority Lugger is back in the propulsion game with engines of those power and ratings again. Should be seeing something at the Miami show. I would give them a call and see what they would recommend for your build. I would also go with their generators on a new build.
__________________
Via iOS.
cafesport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 09:09 AM   #7
Member
 
City: Shelburne
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
Great questions. I think M2 is fine for a trawler, even one that is heavily used. Time spent at higher loads just wonít be very often.

Iím a bit confused by the jacketed bs non-jacketed comment comparing the 6099 to the 6135. It is a 6135, not 6138, right? I believe both have jacketed exhaust manifolds and turbos. And I think the AFM models are both coolant cooled after we coolers (thatís a mouthful, isnít it), not seawater cooled. The SFM would be seawater cooled, if Iím remembering all this correctly.

Will the engine be heat exchanger cooled, or keel cooled?

As for Deere vs Cummins, wars have been fought over that question. I would pick whichever fits your application better. I went through this about 5 years ago and wrote a blog article called ďmirror mirror in the wall, which is the fairest engine of allĒ that might help sort through whatís a best fit for you. Itís on MVTanglewood.com. I donít think you can go wrong with either.
Thanks again and I did list your website. Great information and so well written. I am learning a lot. I am interested in the comments on Victron and Maretron issues. Is the issue with NMEA compatibility with those two companies or is it they interfaces specifically between Maretron and Victron. I am planning effectively the same system for my boat with Lithium battery bank, solar panels etc and would hate to note end up with the monitoring I am hoping for. By chance, did you entertain Boening? I know they are well used on Flemings. Anyways, you have a new follower and appreciate your level of detail and thought processes around your boat (you clearly learned a ton from your previous boats). I am actually going to reach out to my builder on the PH window concept and see if I can reduce window panes and improve visibility. Thanks! Oh..I see Vermont in your profile! I live in Shelburne!
Garpow2026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 09:10 AM   #8
Member
 
City: Shelburne
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by cafesport View Post
They havenít published the data yet but I have it on good authority Lugger is back in the propulsion game with engines of those power and ratings again. Should be seeing something at the Miami show. I would give them a call and see what they would recommend for your build. I would also go with their generators on a new build.
Thanks as I know Lugger has many followers. I will do some research.
Garpow2026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 09:11 AM   #9
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,160
Garpow
Props move boats according to Tony Athens. That said, to efficiently use the M2 vs the M1 rating on the JD's, your vessel would require different props as the power vs RPM rating is different at each M rating.

Some years ago when looking at a new build Nordhavn in the 120,000 + lb range the JD 6090 was perfectly adequate at the M2 rating. There are over 60 N55/60s equipped with the JD 6081s or 6090s and I've not heard they are underpowered. A detailed eyes on look at the Nordhavns in this size range may be helpful.

The JD6135 is about 1,000 lbs heavier than the 6090 and with a larger footprint. The exhaust run diameter would be larger as would be cooling lines. During long low RPM passage runs where fuel economy is critical, the larger engine may well run too slow for the hull design thus being less fuel efficient (brake mean specific HP) and not achieving proper internal temperatures.

Who is the builder? They're knowledge and expertise for the hull and props hopefully included a good NA who should have ready answers for the HP question. Will the vessel have a get home engine? If so, the main engine dimensions and shaft layout will be a factor.

Lastly, the Cummins vs JD question is with lots of info on Boatdiesel and Seaboard. In this era, engine electronics are a major consideration especially when it comes to design, diagnostics and lightning protection. Good luck with your decision making, there are no bad choices.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 10:46 AM   #10
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Vermont
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,029
Lugger is definitely back and showed engines at FLIBS and METS. Datasheets should be available.


I see now that it's the 6090SFM, which I believe is a sea water cooled aftercooler, so that's probably what people are talking about. Just be aware that there is (or was) a 6090AFM with coolant cooled aftercooler just like the 6135AFM. I had on in my N60.


I think the devil will be in the details. To meet emmissions, right around when I built (2018-2020) some engines were emerging with split circuits for engine and aftercooler cooling, I believe to allow the aftercooler to run cooler. That mean two keel coolers for a keel cooled boat. I don't recall which engines had which, nor whether it's changed since then, but it was getting more and more complicated.


I actually wouldn't worry about a seawater aftercooler. If you aren't maintaining that, you will be maintaining a keel cooler. No matter how you slice it there is maintenance involved, and having owned both keel cooled and sea water cooled engines, I'm convinced the grass isn't greener on either side of the fence. You might have some slight personal preferences, as I did, that pushed me towards sea water cooling, but they really are just personal preferences, not something that makes one system "better" than the other.



And I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up Scania as an option. I remain very pleased with mine.


Let's take up Victron+Maretron+NMEA is a separate thread dedicated to that topic.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 10:48 AM   #11
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
I actually wouldn't worry about a seawater aftercooler. If you aren't maintaining that, you will be maintaining a keel cooler. No matter how you slice it there is maintenance involved, and having owned both keel cooled and sea water cooled engines, I'm convinced the grass isn't greener on either side of the fence. You might have some slight personal preferences, as I did, that pushed me towards sea water cooling, but they really are just personal preferences, not something that makes one system "better" than the other.

Not necessarily. You can have an engine with a seawater pump, heat exchanger, and wet exhaust, but a coolant loop aftercooler. Or the aftercooler can be in the seawater side of the loop (better cooling but more maintenance).
rslifkin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 10:54 AM   #12
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Vermont
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by rslifkin View Post
Not necessarily. You can have an engine with a seawater pump, heat exchanger, and wet exhaust, but a coolant loop aftercooler. Or the aftercooler can be in the seawater side of the loop (better cooling but more maintenance).

Yes, agreed. And sea water heat exchanger, yet dry exhaust, etc. The combinations are seemingly endless.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 11:07 AM   #13
Guru
 
guy with a boat's Avatar
 
City: SoCal and Vancouver Island
Vessel Name: Tortuga
Vessel Model: Nordhavn 63
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 740
We have a Deere 6090AFM75 (325hp) in our N63 which is 68’ OA and 140,000+ lbs. I can tell you as one data point that I wouldn’t have any use for additional power in this boat, and it would only make it more difficult to keep it reasonably loaded. The only time it sees 80% or higher load is when I run it up to exercise it. Then engine has an M2 rating and, again, I’ve not come close to needing the higher rating. We are at right around 4,000hrs and 26,000 miles in our 2015 boat, so it gets used a bit. No complaints from here.
guy with a boat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 12:01 PM   #14
Member
 
City: Shelburne
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Garpow
Props move boats according to Tony Athens. That said, to efficiently use the M2 vs the M1 rating on the JD's, your vessel would require different props as the power vs RPM rating is different at each M rating.

Some years ago when looking at a new build Nordhavn in the 120,000 + lb range the JD 6090 was perfectly adequate at the M2 rating. There are over 60 N55/60s equipped with the JD 6081s or 6090s and I've not heard they are underpowered. A detailed eyes on look at the Nordhavns in this size range may be helpful.

The JD6135 is about 1,000 lbs heavier than the 6090 and with a larger footprint. The exhaust run diameter would be larger as would be cooling lines. During long low RPM passage runs where fuel economy is critical, the larger engine may well run too slow for the hull design thus being less fuel efficient (brake mean specific HP) and not achieving proper internal temperatures.

Who is the builder? They're knowledge and expertise for the hull and props hopefully included a good NA who should have ready answers for the HP question. Will the vessel have a get home engine? If so, the main engine dimensions and shaft layout will be a factor.

Lastly, the Cummins vs JD question is with lots of info on Boatdiesel and Seaboard. In this era, engine electronics are a major consideration especially when it comes to design, diagnostics and lightning protection. Good luck with your decision making, there are no bad choices.
Lots of great information. I missed the size difference on the 6135 and the 6090 so great heads up. The size difference was one of the reasons I was considering the Cummins QSM11 over the JD. I am 6'3" (won't mention the other number!) and access in the engine room always an important concern and one that the smaller engine makes a noticeable difference. I have seen the boat - Selene 60- with both engines. I need to push JTM (the builder) on their preferred approach. The prop being sized and appropriately linked with the engine is on my list as well. Thanks for the input.
Garpow2026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 12:33 PM   #15
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garpow2026 View Post
Lots of great information. I missed the size difference on the 6135 and the 6090 so great heads up. The size difference was one of the reasons I was considering the Cummins QSM11 over the JD. I am 6'3" (won't mention the other number!) and access in the engine room always an important concern and one that the smaller engine makes a noticeable difference. I have seen the boat - Selene 60- with both engines. I need to push JTM (the builder) on their preferred approach. The prop being sized and appropriately linked with the engine is on my list as well. Thanks for the input.
Iíve spent time in the ER in a S60 with Cummins power. Space and access is precious so the JD 6135 would not improve things.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 12:52 PM   #16
Guru
 
Jeff F's Avatar
 
City: Guelph
Vessel Name: Escapade
Vessel Model: 50` US Navy Utility trawler conversion
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Props move boats according to Tony Athens. That said, to efficiently use the M2 vs the M1 rating on the JD's, your vessel would require different props as the power vs RPM rating is different at each M rating.
I generally agree, but in this case they bump max rpm between the M1 and M2. You can overlay prop demand curves for the two and IIRC they're pretty much identical until M1 max rpm.
Jeff F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 03:45 PM   #17
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff F View Post
I generally agree, but in this case they bump max rpm between the M1 and M2. You can overlay prop demand curves for the two and IIRC they're pretty much identical until M1 max rpm.
The difference between the M1 vs M2 is 100 RPM and 52 HP. Me, I'd definitely prop the vessel differently to take full advantage of the 15% greater HP of the M2.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 04:00 PM   #18
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
The difference between the M1 vs M2 is 100 RPM and 52 HP. Me, I'd definitely prop the vessel differently to take full advantage of the 15% greater HP of the M2.

Prop load grows exponentially with increased RPM, so you wouldn't necessarily need more prop to use the extra power.

At one point I was looking at propping for a Cummins QSB. It turned out the 380hp version actually would need 2 inches *less* prop pitch to reach governed RPM than the 355hp version if you geared them the same, as the 380hp version revs 200 rpm higher than the 355 (3000 rated, governed to 3070 vs 2800 rated, governed to 2870). Turning the extra RPM with the same prop would have needed significantly more than an extra 25hp. The 425hp version turns the same RPM as the 380 and would want the same pitch prop as the 355. In this example, props were assumed to be 22" diameter, 1.77:1 gear ratio, boat speed at WOT of 27, 28, or 30 kts depending on engine choice. The 355 and 425 wanted a 26 pitch prop, the 380 would only want 24 pitch.

I ran similar numbers for a JD6090SFM85 at the M1 rating (325hp at 2100 RPM) vs the M2 rating (375hp at 2200 RPM). Assuming a 10 kt boat speed at WOT for M1, 10.5 kts at WOT for M2, 4 blade prop, and a 2.5:1 gear ratio, the calculator says the M1 would want a 37x24 prop. M2 would calculates as wanting the same prop. So the extra 50hp is just enough to turn the extra RPM with a small increase in boat speed accounted for.
rslifkin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 05:09 PM   #19
Guru
 
City: NC
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,327
Not sure there is a right or wrong answer for M1 vs M2.

Many people choose an M2 rating for full displacement trawlers. The reason I seem to see most of the time for picking M2 is in case one needs the extra HP.

My issue with that reasoning is that there is not that often that much HP difference between M1 and M2. In the JD engine case listed it is only 60 HP. 60 HP is not going to buy much extra speed as one get up towards hull speed.

On the other hand, if one was fighting current to get somewhere, is the extra HP which is only going to gain a bit of speed, more important than having the M1 rating and just running WOT? Will the time allowed to run WOT on M2 be enough to get where one needs to go? Which is more important, the extra HP or the time allowed to run WOT?

If one really needs the extra HP to deal with wind, wave, and/or current at sea, is one really going to use that HP? For instance jogging into a storm vs running down wind with a series drogue or putting out a parachute anchor an laying too?

These are really specific use cases and how often will one really run into them?

Flip side, if one needs to run at some given engine load, having the extra HP in the M2 engine means one is burning more fuel than one would with the M1 engine. This would something one would have to do all of the time vs the previous scenarios which may never happen at all....

So my thinking is that the M1 engine is a "better" choice than an M2 for a full displacement hull for the boats and engine combinations I have considered. Having said that, either M1 or M2 works.

For the HP being discussed, Scania makes some interesting engines that are EPA Tier III rated.

Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2023, 06:19 PM   #20
Guru
 
Jeff F's Avatar
 
City: Guelph
Vessel Name: Escapade
Vessel Model: 50` US Navy Utility trawler conversion
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannc View Post
Flip side, if one needs to run at some given engine load, having the extra HP in the M2 engine means one is burning more fuel than one would with the M1 engine.
In this case they're identical engines with identical props. One is allowed to run a bit faster at WOT. They're going to have the same fuel usage at less than WOT.

There really is no downside.
Jeff F is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012