Jump to content

Diesel engines (again)


Guest 000

Recommended Posts

Thanks to my research and also in no small way to the appreciated advice received from forum members on my previous engine post, we are starting to get quite comfortable with the idea of owning a vessel propelled exclusively by the dreaded infernal combustion engine.

We are even accepting of an engine with higher hours, especially when I consider that I confidently expect my heart to deliver around 2.5 billion trouble free contractions, so wanting to make 5- 8000 hours on an engine is not so much.

It's still a bit confusing, though.

For a variety of reasons we would like to limit our intended canal boat to 80 - 100 HP. The boats that we have looked at (online) within this HP rating seem equally split between 4 and 6 cylinder units. One would think it cheaper to maintain a 4cyl engine, so what would be the benefits of a 6cyl, and would they be cost effective?

And, we think we have finally solved the riddle of why so many European boats get re-engined. We have quotes from a large well regarded supplier in the Netherlands to re-engine with a re-manufactured 80hp diesel, any of the main brands, complete and with a new engine guarantee of around €4700 - €5200. Seems pretty reasonable and well worth it to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a silly question,but are there canal boats with petrol engines??why I am asking is it seems petrol is quite happy idling over or running at reduced revs compared to diesel,most small diesils need to run at 3/4 throttle so probably answering my own question now,6 cylinder diesils  may not wear as much as 4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not seen any petrol powered canal boats.

My opinion based on not really knowing what I'm talking about is that for every rotation of the crankshaft 4 pistons travel up and down, and 6 pistons on a 6 cylinder engine. Since a 6 cylinder engine rotation infers that the pistons are more evenly spread over the crankshaft rotation because there's more of them ( sorry, I'm not explaining this theory very well) but the end result may be that a 6 cyl is a smoother running engine. If that's the only benefit then the extra costs involved in servicing 6 injectors, fuel pump etc over a 4 cyl does not really seem worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how rarely injectors need work, & that a 4 cylinder diesel still needs an injector pump anyway, albeit slightly simpler, I wouldn't have thought the running costs much different?

Could be wrong though,

4 extra valves, more fuel lines, more bushes, bearings and other wear surfaces, presumably a longer engine, bigger oil capacity...

I'm not against 6 cylinders, as a proponent of the KISS system, I would just like to know what benefits (or otherwise) there are in choosing an 80hp 6 cyl over an 80hp 4 cyl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Running costs will be similar, given that you run either engine near the peak torque setting rather than rely on revs.. more revs = more fuel. Maintenance will be negligeable ( apart from the usual filters, oil etc.) if the motor you start with is in good nick. I doubt that you would ever have to do the injectors. My preference would be 6 cyl, better balance, less vibe = happier engine mounts etc. As I have already said normally aspirated is less prone to fuel issues against common rail engines. Have a look at Lancing marine in the UK, they do a lot of engine stuff, you can get an idea and compare prices on line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very simply, the more cylinders, the more CC's and thus the more power. So usually a 4cyl will have less power than a 6cyl. More power means more fuel. Diesels, if the load is correctly balanced to the engine size, use a pretty good rule of thumb measure of Fuel /Hp/RPM.
The weight difference is not usually a biggy in a Displacement Hull. Longevity is where the big difference comes in. A 6 cyl will run far higher hrs than a 4. Simply because they tend to rev much slower. Yes they are much smoother running with a lot more torque, due to 2 extra pistons firing within the rotation sequence. This also results in less heat per pot and thus less combustion wear, so hence the higher hrs before rebuild.
A 6 will usually have a much larger Sump capacity and often have twin oil filters, or a single much larger one than the 4. Also a much larger Starter, so larger Engine start Battery. A larger heat output, so larger Heat exchanger. The engine is much heavier, so removal needs heavier lifting equipment. Some smaller 4's can be manhandled in and out. You won't do that with a 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff. Thank you.

Dutch built canal boats of around 10-12 m are all very similar, like modern cars. Their dimensions are governed by the environment they operate in and in providing the most efficient and comfortable use of internal space, means that they all end up looking the same.

So the only thing to choose between then is presentation, what goodies they come with and of course, the engine.

So, from your replies, if the engine is low in hours we will accept a 4 or 6 cyl with a bias perhaps towards the 6. If it's an engine with higher hours then a definite preference for the 6.

Thanks for your input - now the wife would like me to pack my bags and go look at a couple of boats she's selected. -6° in Rotterdam last time I looked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An 80 horse 4 cyl is probably turbocharged , which I have myself but would prefer not. It pushes a 45 ft yacht at about 6.5 to 7 at 2.7 lph. Mostly running low at say 2200 or so and using about 50 of the available hp. Euro canals speed limits are about that? British canals were much lower... I forget but seem to recall around 3 or 4 mph.Anyway ... 80 or 100 hp seems a lot for a canal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought an English marinised motor for my boat. Some of the motors I saw in the factory in England while I was there were set up for the canal boats same block but beautyfull painted and polished brass fittings , some steel parts dipped and polished on brass or bronze I was told they were for canal boats

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the juggling act. We are looking at boats 10-12 metres , around 10 tons with preferably not more than 80hp. That HP is really too much for the french canals where the speed limit is around 6km/hr. The problem is that in order to get from one canal system to another you are obliged to travel for quite some distance on the Rhone where the current is 2-3 knots and often up to 5knots if it's been raining. The Rhone valley is also subject to the mistral so you may find yourself punching into 40+knots of headwind. The juggling act is trying to get an engine that will cope with both scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, a 100 horse motor would be fine, and give you the power to push a current. Personally I'd prefer a non turbo version as then there is no turbo vane to carbon up when running for long periods at reduced power. 1/2 throttle is fine. Just remember that it's good to use more when you can.

Think about these diesel motors in their designed role - automotive. They don't normally do long periods with the throttle wide open, just a few seconds or minutes hauling a load up a hill now and then.

Also, a canal boat is no yacht - much harder harder hull shape to push through the water.

So my 2c worth is don't get too hung up on the power, and a 6 is better than a 4. (lower revving, more torque, longer life, smoother, less likely to be turbocharged).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks IT,

The top contender at the moment is an 11m boat with a 6cyl 90hp Ford Lehman in it and marinized by someone called Mermaid Marine in the UK. Supposedly with 1500hrs on it which is a bit hard to believe.

I am to be dispatched to Holland shortly to see for myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IT, you've said a couple of times now not to overthink the engine thing, or words to that effect. In retrospect I am convinced that is good advice. So whatever vessel we choose will ultimately be decided by a good survey report on hull, systems and machinery, and we will be content with whatever engine powers it. With the probable exception of a Chinese knockoff.

Through many decades of ownership, our mantra has always been, Never spend more on a boat than you can afford to lose.

Same applies now, and if we can't find a sound, suitable vessel within our strict budget constrants then we won't be buying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...