View Single Post
Old 08-07-2012, 10:24 PM   #92
Marin
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Wannabe View Post
Bill Naugle, Senior Application Engineer at Caterpillar, had another persuasive argument. "A fuel-related problem that kills one engine will probably kill both engines, so reliability isn't equated to redundancy. The redundancy reason just isn't valid."
Here's the big problem I have with statements like this. The statement itself is true, but it's misleading. Over the years I've known, met, or heard about a number of people with power and sailboats, inlcuding us, who have had to shut an engine down or had one shut down on them. And NONE of them had this problem due to a problem related to the fuel itself.

Most of them, including us, had problems with cooling systems that forced a precautionary shutdown. Some of them had fuel system problems on one of or the only engine, like a failed injection pump, cracked injection pipe, failed lift pump, etc. Some had transmission failures. Some had debris get into and bend or break a driveline component--- shaft, prop, strut. This has been as much the case with singles as with twins although the risk is lower with a single. And some people have simply run out of fuel.

But I don't know or haven't heard of anyone who had an engine shut down here due to bad fuel. So I think the argument that a fuel problem that will shut down one engine will shut down both engines is valid, but it's simply not reflected in the real world and it's not a statement that we would consider were we having to make a decision between a single and a twin engine boat. There are a lot of other things we'd consider, but the fuel itself shutting an engine down isn't one of them.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote