How hard to run a Perkins Diesel?

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
on engine rpm`s, my volvo will turn up to 2400, rated pleasure, for commercial, it`s 2000 rpm...because i`m not in a hurry, always try to have the tide with us! like on johnston straits comming home, if the tide is slack @ 0900, turning to flood, i leave abt 0930, and run my volvo @ 1400 which gives us almost 7 knots, plus whatever the tide current is! plus stay in the current! ...clyde
 
Engines maintained should be fine running at specs.

Engines aren’t animals. They're just an assemblage of mostly metal parts. Anybody not thinking they should run their engine hard per specs and feels they need to “baby” it like an old person is just admitting they have fallen short on maintenance. And if that’s the case perhaps they should red-line at 40% load.

But engines are machines and don’t get weak w age.
 
FWIW on my Perkins T6.354M I've read either in the engine manual or somewhere max rpm is 2800 and max continuous cruise is 80 % of that. P.O. marked 2200 rpm max cruise on the tach. I don't believe anywhere in the manual it talks about running at anything else. I wouldn't run at idle all day but other than that..... YMMV.
 
Hey Solly,

As I mentioned earlier, from the linked manual, the numbers are 2800rpm and 2400rpm, which is ~85%, close to your 80% number.

But that 2400rpm number is only as good in practice as that 2800rpm number.

In practice, many of these boats are overpropped to reduce noise and/or to provide a more typical cruising speed in the higher torque/cycle range, or overloaded by weight and/or bottom condition, etc. The result is they won't get to 2800rpm WOT underway.

In a situation like that, continuous operation should be no more than (2400/2800)*RPMwot.

In other words, if one is reading 2600 WOT, they probably shouldn't cruise continuously over ~2200rpm.

And, I sure don't disagree with a wider margin, e.g. using 80% instead of 85%, etc.

Without knowing your WOT underway tach reading, it is hard to know if your prior owner's 2200rpm "redline" makes sense or not.
 
You have had a lot of good answers, so I will not repeat what has been said. I will just add that my boat has twin T6-354 Perkins that are at 6700 hours right now, and they start the first piston over. These are 5 piston rings per piston engine series with very little "chatter" so the cylinder wear is very low. My boat being 57,000 lbs and full displacement runs very nicely at 1750 RPM and 9.2 statute mph. You have a long way to go, and I expect my engines to outlive me.
 
gkesden said:
Hey Solly,


"Without knowing your WOT underway tach reading, it is hard to know if your prior owner's 2200rpm "redline" makes sense or not."

All very true.
Another thing nobody mentions is how accurate is the tach. Mines 35 years old.

I'm thinking you'd be pretty safe not running over 80-85 % of WOT shown. And I wouldn't idle all day either.

For the most part I run at what 'feels' comfortable that day. And it depends more on the sea conditions than anything. About 1800 rpm 'feels' good most days.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Solly,

Good point about the tach. Phototachs to check calibration are a great friend. But, still, somehow I find even new ones with new senders/pickups, can be off a bit.
 
Solly said:
FWIW on my Perkins T6.354M I've read either in the engine manual or somewhere max rpm is 2800 and max continuous cruise is 80 % of that. P.O. marked 2200 rpm max cruise on the tach. I don't believe anywhere in the manual it talks about running at anything else. I wouldn't run at idle all day but other than that..... YMMV.
Click to expand...


Max continuous depends heavily on prop loading. And beyond both go up and both go down % of rpm is too dependent on prop loading to be valid. With just 100rpm in opposite directions 10% of rpm could likely mean much much different engine loading ... and that’s the bottom line.

Also max rpm has nothing at all to do this.
It’s just load. And what’s needed is max throttle, max load and rated rpm to all come together. THEN you can assign a formula for continuous rpm. The engine specs spell it out. But they go to engine load. It’s all based on load. What you want is the load at 80% of rated rpm. That may be 80% of load or something different. If rpm changes 80% it dosn’t mean load will. But maybe 80% of rpm is 75% load.

And lastly there is a max rpm but it’s under no load at all. Gear shifter in neutral position. That’s the only “max rpm” there is. I’m sure you mean rated rpm. That’s where the engine develops it max power. But it’s not max rpm.

If you want to know the max continuous power look up the rpm recommended by the engine manufacturer. Prop your engine for rated max power rpm. Them you can (as far as I know) use that continuous rpm as a max continuous power setting. But all you can do about max load is to assume your engine manufacturer is right. I would do that.

Personally I know my 3000rpm engine (and I prop it for that or a bit more) is not at max continuous at 2500rpm and I never go over that continuously. So I don’t need to know. And you can assume if you run 500rpm down on a properly propped boat you will be below rated max rpm. Very unlikely I’m wrong but check.
 
Last edited:
Hey Eric,

You are, of course, totally right. But, given a boat in a particular configuration and a desire to run it safely, in practice, one needs some sort of rule of thumb for the limits. I don't think I've seen a 3D power curve for any engine in this class.

Is there guidance you have in mind as being better than 80-85% WOT rpm for continuous operation (assuming one is attentive to gauges, etc)?
 
Matt, I have the twin Perkins 4.236s which are the 4-cylinder versions of your inline 6's. I run at 7.5 Kts at 1800 RPM. It just 'feels' right as a balance between noise, vibes and fuel burn.
 
I have a question about another aspect of running low power

I've always wondered about the overall engine efficiency when a boat has more HP than needed to drive it.


I re-powered a 12,000 lb 32 ft trawler from a 60 hp Nissan to an 85 hp Perkins. The normal rules of thumb for need hp vs speed and fuel burn vs displacement are assuming an engine running some where around optimum torque. With the 85 hp engine producing ~30 hp i'll be pretty far off the optimum for torque so will my fuel consumption be much worse than if i had a closer matched engine. The original poster has the same issue in that he has engines unmatched to his load as he uses the boat.
 
I don't think the original poster has any problem, at all. As I recall the post they liked to run at 1200-1300rpm. Although this produces less than the max horsepower, it is actually at the top of the torque curve. See repost of the attached.

It is really hard for me to imagine that the engine is anything but happy and close to as fuel efficient as it can be, especially as compared to significantly more throttle and higher rpm.
 

Attachments

  • Perkins6.354PowerCurve.jpg
    Perkins6.354PowerCurve.jpg
    144.9 KB · Views: 19
Replying to gkesden,



I hadn't looked at the curves for the OPs engines but when i do i see peak torque around 1300 rpm so that's an efficient point and so you are right that he's good there. I'm also in the camp that engine life is rated in total pounds of fuel, spend it how you like, cooling system excepted.


My question then is more general, if his peak torque have been at 2000 rpm would he lose much efficiency running at 1300?


I can't find a torque curve for the 4.236 but i think peak torque is up around 1800 rpm and i'll be running at 1400 probably to get hull speed.


It's really a question of whether there's an efficiency penalty for having reserve power, i.e. an engine much larger than needed to reach hull speed.. Displacement hulls only obviously.
 
Torque has the ability to accelerate.
HP has the ability to do work.

Face it .. if you have an engine twice as big as it needs to be there’s no way you’re going to make it efficient. All you need to know is that the slower you run it the less fuel it will burn.
 
Esheuwfelt,

Others here may be better able to reason about this than me. I'd stay tuned to see if there are better replies.

I have a really hard time thinking about fuel efficiency from rpm alone. If an engine is propped more aggressively, the load on the engine will be higher at the same rpm than if less so. Think about it this way, would you expect your car to use more or less fuel at 2000rpm going up or down a steep hill? In one case the hill helps spin the engine, in the other it fights it. Then there is the space in between.

When it comes to moving a boat through water, just like moving a car through air, I suspect it is the air/water resistance that matters most.

In other words, even if an engine might, in isolation, be more energy efficient at a higher rpm, moving a boat at a faster speed seems less likely to be less efficient.

Tuning the gearing and prop to the desired cruise speed seems like it would help, but I can't say I have the data to do that on these engines. I usually just tune the props such that the engine performs sensibly across the full range of throttle (low vessel speed at idle speed, makes at least close to WOT rpms at WOT, doesn't make blacknorbdark smoke, except,possibly, very briefly on hard acceleration). Then I assume I am close to good.



If I really knew I'd never want more power, I might over prop a little to lower rpms at cruise to get cruise closer to that torque sweet spot. But, I just hate tovmess with things like that too much, personally.

Basically, I just try to make sure my engines start quickly, cruise no leaa than somewhere near peak on the rpm torque curve and run clean, in the normal temp range, and smooth with good oil pressure.

Again, there are others here with much more experience and intuition about these things than me.
 
Imagine a wrench on a bolt.

Torque is a measure of the force applied to the wrench to turn the bolt.

Work is how much effort goes into turning the wrench. The harder it is turned and the more it is turned the more work is done.

Horsepower is a unit of work. It is torque x rpm. How hard it is to turn the wrench multiplied by the number of times the wrench is turned per unit time.

Applied to engines, torque is how much force the engine can apply. At any rpm, the work the engine can do, e.g. it's hp, is its torque x rpm.

Turning a wrench with the engine and turning an engine with the wrench are basically the same thing, but with the force Police from opposing sides of the lever arm.

Needing to move less mass inside an engine is more efficient than needing to move more mass inside an engine.small friction surfaces are normally more efficient than larger ones. Smaller engines generally are more efficient than larger ones for what they can accomplish.

Having said that, that doesn't mean that those of us with big engines can't make sensible choices about how to run them and balance things like noise, time, fuel cost, and engine life as suits are own style and budget. And, understanding how a little bit about how a hull moves through the water and how an engine works and how a boat is actually performing can all help.

I think. At the least.
 
Here's a thread about engine efficiency that may interest others on this thread...

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s24/engine-efficiency-8496.html

In post 15, TF Member and Naval Architect Tad Roberts did a brief analysis using my numbers.

It's important to note in this discussion that this dates back to 2013 and at that time, my tach readings were off by +200 RPM at cruise so the references to my "2000" Rpm are actually 1800 RPM. I only discovered this error after changing alternators and purchasing a digital tach. One tach was wildly erratic and I was going by the other as my reference.

Tad also included this link to his article at http://www.tadroberts.ca/about/pdf/power-boat-design-form-and-function.pdf
 
Nomad Willy said:
Face it .. if you have an engine twice as big as it needs to be there’s no way you’re going to make it efficient. All you need to know is that the slower you run it the less fuel it will burn.
Click to expand...

Ummmm not necessarily all true and let me explain.
I had an original 1978 Mainship model 1 with the oem Perkins T6.354 diesel rated at 160 HP.
After owning it for close to 10 years I repowered it with a Cummins 6BTA at 270 HP.

It was way more efficient with the Cummins engine if I cruised at the same speed as I did with the Perkins, about 8 to 8.5 knots. That is going by nautical miles per gallon.
If I cruised at about 11.5 knots it got the same MPG as the Perkins did at 8 knots.
 
esheufelt,

I think you mentioned not having the curves for the 4.236. Here is what I have for that engine.
 

Attachments

  • Perkins4236Hp.pdf
    311.3 KB · Views: 16
  • Perkins4236Curve.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 23
  • Perkins4236Curve.jpg
    Perkins4236Curve.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 16
This is all great stuff, much thanks and appreciation to all, but now after reading Al's post above, i believe a digital tach may be in order:

FlyWright-
(It's important to note in this discussion that this dates back to 2013 and at that time, my tach readings were off by +200 RPM at cruise so the references to my "2000" Rpm are actually 1800 RPM. I only discovered this error after changing alternators and purchasing a digital tach. One tach was wildly erratic and I was going by the other as my reference.)

Although both the upper and lower helm readings on my tachometers seem to be close; I will check with a second person on board on our next trip on the Delta.
 
Mtcabsales said:
This is all great stuff, much thanks and appreciation to all, but now after reading Al's post above, i believe a digital tach may be in order:

FlyWright-
(It's important to note in this discussion that this dates back to 2013 and at that time, my tach readings were off by +200 RPM at cruise so the references to my "2000" Rpm are actually 1800 RPM. I only discovered this error after changing alternators and purchasing a digital tach. One tach was wildly erratic and I was going by the other as my reference.)

Although both the upper and lower helm readings on my tachometers seem to be close; I will check with a second person on board on our next trip on the Delta.
Click to expand...

Lemme know if you want to borrow my tach. It's sitting onboard in the Delta.
 
I wouldn't assume a digital tach would be more accurate. It reduces some error modes, but senders and pickups and electrical noise are also factors.
 
Just to throw another log on the fire.....
Here's a good article on Props, Engines and efficiency..

Controllable Pitch Propellers

He advocates controllable pitch propellers. Claims a fixed pitch prop is only most efficient at one point. Rpm, loading, etc.
Some other articles from on the home page are interesting too.
 
Running your Perkins

Purchased my PT35 in 2000 with 2100 hrs. Have run her at 1400-1750 rpm since now have 5400 Hrs. Do my own work on the engine. The mechanic from whom I purchased some parts said that the lobster fishermen on LI beat the crap out of them and do an upper end rebuild at about 12,000 hrs. Re low RPM use should be no problem. The engines were used as the base for the Allis-Chalmers tractors and are almost indestructible.
 
Solly that’s absolutely true.

BUT nobody wants them as they are very expensive, not as efficient (blade wise) and they are also troublesome. Some are not though. But mostly they are just too expensive.
 
RPM is only part of the story. He may have less prop pitch and even though he runs at higher rpm his load may be less. If he is pushing water and has the bow up he is probably running too hard.
In any event running at a speed that keeps the bow down will be a good fuel use speed and not overload the engines.
 
gkesden said:
I wouldn't assume a digital tach would be more accurate. It reduces some error modes, but senders and pickups and electrical noise are also factors.
Click to expand...

I included a link to this inexpensive laser digital tach above. It's less than $20 from Amazon and eliminates any wiring/sender/pickup errors. Just a piece of reflective tape on the flywheel.

71E4b%2BRiJ8L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
 
FlyWright said:
I included a link to this inexpensive laser digital tach above. It's less than $20 from Amazon and eliminates any wiring/sender/pickup errors. Just a piece of reflective tape on the flywheel.

71E4b%2BRiJ8L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought he was talking about a helm-mount tach gauge with digital display vs a handheld photo tach.

I have exactly that phototach. It isn't perfect, though. It gets fooled by shiny spots on pulleys , changes in ambient light, wear or dirt or curling of the reflective tape, etc.

I generally get very useful reads from it. It is a great way to double check my helm tachs. And, because I can move it from one engine to another, and also from main pulley to alternator to check it shows the right ratio, it is easier to verify and build confidence.

But, at least in my use, it gives more variation than my gauges unless I am super careful.
 
Perkins 6.354's naturally aspirated with reasonable oil changes and maintenance (follow old manual intervals) will last from 8,000 - 12,000 hours before a major rebuild.

Typically, 1,800 RPMs is standard with a Velvet Drive. Prop pitch and 3 vs. 4 blade can be adjusted for loaded vessel weight and desired speed. If you get better economy and a satisfactory speed, don't change a thing. The old diesels actually prefer lower RPMs, and last exponentially longer than modern high-RPM diesels. With that said, I have heard every 2-10 hours of low RPM use, it is advisable to run at 1,800 - 2,000 RPM for a few minutes to blow out any carbon buildup that may be developing on the upper edge of the cylinder wall where the piston ring stroke ends (read long-term engine life killer if you don't).

Regarding transmissions, everyone seems to differ on opinions, however, a Velvet Drive properly maintained, and always warmed up before heavy work, is a workhorse IMO.
 
"With that said, I have heard every 2-10 hours of low RPM use, it is advisable to run at 1,800 - 2,000 RPM for a few minutes to blow out any carbon buildup that may be developing on the upper edge of the cylinder wall where the piston ring stroke ends (read long-term engine life killer if you don't)."

I've heard that running them a little harder periodically is only relevant with turbo / Mani cooler engines and that natural Perkins are happy to just hum along like a tractor.

Let's face it, that's what they are...tractor engines modified successfully for the maritime market.

Ever hear of a farmer running his tractor at high RPM to 'blow out the carbon"? I always thought tractors had 3 speeds...ON SLOW and OFF. That's how I treat my Perkins twins. At 4000 hrs, they haven't complained yet.

YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Analysis of DD 6V53 oil samples
Replies
7
Views
560
tiltrider1
tiltrider1
T
Dual Station Wiring Diagram - Perkins 6.354
Replies
11
Views
885
Barking Sands
Barking Sands
LeoKa
Hydraulic backup on a Perkins generator?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
LeoKa
LeoKa
P
Help Identifying Part on Perkins 6.354 N/A
Replies
8
Views
393
PBJim
P
T
Balmar 60 Alternator replacement for a Perkins 6.354
Replies
4
Views
407
High Wire
High Wire

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom