A mint example of a Bertram 42 (47) aft cabin on eBay now

Bertramdriver said:
Why the Cummins? I read some of your earlier threads where you trashed some of the Cummins. Is your interest engine model specific?
Click to expand...

Cummins or Cat and sometimes Scania are my preference and certainly engine model specific and not color blind if engines have issues.

Cummins 8.25 liter C Series has been around for many years and is #1 DD re-power choice in the 450hp node. Although no longer in production as engine does not meet Tier II emissions legislation so not legal to sell in U.S. Cummins came up with plan to meet continued demand by building motors in reconditioning plant in Mexico using 100% new parts fulfilling demand for a simple mechanical 2,600 rpm engine at a competitive price with exactly the same warranty package as a new engine.

Lets turn the problem on its head, what would you use to replace 450 hp DD?
 
Hypothetical question unless you can re-engine humans.The DD's I have will probably see me out but if I had the cash I'd be re-engineering just for the fun of it. Probable first choice before your answers would have been one of the mid range cats. Trouble is I like simple engines. No common rail, no ECM, JUST SIMPLE slashburnpush
 
Latestarter1 said:
........

Lets turn the problem on its head, what would you use to replace 450 hp DD?
Click to expand...

As you know I have also looked at this, but it does not make financial sense really ..., so will have to be for other reasons... and pending what use the boat has and in which region you are using the boat in... to ensure you have service and parts availability...

The DD's are big, heavy and high torque (compared HP, size and weight with modern engines), so if you wish to select high torque and minimise the changes (ie current running gear), you will have to look at a 2500/600 RPM engine, in the bracket around 8L. Other things I would look for is to go for a re-buildable engine (not a throw away block), and something with reputation of reliability....

I'd consider selective models of V ... such as D9 @500 hp, Cummins 8.3C 430 / 450 or perhaps the newer one at 500... Not sure about Cat in this range, but would consider looking at IVECO perhaps...
 
Thanks for that! The earlier M107, 108, 109, sellf propelled guns and howitzers had the DD's super and turbo charged, used to work on those, interesting would be my description and after working on leyland L60 engines in chieftains, a pleasure!
 
Divemaster1 said:
As you know I have also looked at this, but it does not make financial sense really ..., so will have to be for other reasons... and pending what use the boat has and in which region you are using the boat in... to ensure you have service and parts availability...

The DD's are big, heavy and high torque (compared HP, size and weight with modern engines), so if you wish to select high torque and minimise the changes (ie current running gear), you will have to look at a 2500/600 RPM engine, in the bracket around 8L. Other things I would look for is to go for a re-buildable engine (not a throw away block), and something with reputation of reliability....

I'd consider selective models of V ... such as D9 @500 hp, Cummins 8.3C 430 / 450 or perhaps the newer one at 500... Not sure about Cat in this range, but would consider looking at IVECO perhaps...
Click to expand...

Alf,

Reason that the Cummins C comes out top of my list for repowers in this power node is due to several factors.
#1. Whilst I am total convert to electronic engines I recognise that many owners, certainly those involved in re-powers have a real fear of electronics and are very keen on DIY maintenance.

#2. Cummins has most flexible warranty package, after installation sign off you get your two year bumper to bumper warranty and the ability to have maintenance performed by your favored tec or do it yourself as C requires no special tooling without effecting warranty coverage. Consumables such as filters cheapest in the industry.

#3. The ReCon C package comes complete with VDO instruments, Barry controls mounts (The very best) and a choice of 12 or 24 rotating electrics, once again good quality Delco alternators and Bosch or Delco starter dependent on spec. Only wiring loom extension if required is extra.

All the competition is electronic.

Cat dropped the ball after 3208 with mid-range engines, 3126/C7 has at best a colorful history and does not meet your wet liner criteria Alf, C9 is far better however, more cost effective above 500 and above so slightly higher than our power node. After sign off you can perform your own maintenance and retain two year warranty but special and very expensive tooling required for servicing and Cat ID electronic tooling is a closed shop.

Volvo D9 is also higher than our power node. Totally unfriendly approach to re-powers, initial pricing, and installation sign off steers you to toward expensive dealer input. VP warranty is dealer servicing dependent. VP electronic tooling is a closed shop. D9 overall is a poor package, very bulky for power output, and expensive consumables. Base engine has seen a few unexplained catastrophic failures in both automotive and marine applications. Rebuild of this engine is feasible but rarely economic.

Iveco/FPT The 8.7 C90 common rail engine has ratings which undershoot and overshoot our power node. Bang up to date engine which Cat are using at Tier III to replace C7/C9. However dealers will try and sell you a 6.7 Tector motor if you are asking for 450hp quote and this engine totally wrong character to replace DD, plus the fact that this is SAE 2 flywheel housing territory and Tector is SAE 3. Tector does not fit the Alf criteria as it is parent bore whereas C90 has wet liners the Achilles heel is the block head interface, if head gasket fails which usually causes slight torching of block face motor is scrap, unlike Detroit Series 60 there is no compensation in the drive to OHC gear drive to accept re-facing of head/block and consequential tolerance change.
I have always struggled with Iveco/FPT technical back up and once again electronic tooling a closed shop. However when it comes to pricing dealers have very sharp pencils.

Cummins QSC 8.25 lowest rating is 500 hp and upper at 600 hp, therefore above our node, common rail engine hugely popular in U.S. but seen far less in Europe. Certainly a DIY motor with no special tooling required and electronic tooling in the form of ‘Insite Lite’ is available to customers with far less expensive Quickcheck as option. Downside is that Cummins Distribution Europe seem to have lost the plot with pricing at the top of the spectrum. Dealing with U.S. far more simple.
 
Last edited:
PowerYachtBlog said:
This post is very interesting. Latestarter what about Yanmar and Deere? Many US use these as much for re-builds.... See video posted here of the Hatteras 53.
Click to expand...

Yes I looked at the re-power of the Hat53 with interest...Yanmar have gone from hero to zero in my book. In the 400 to 500 node they have 6LY3 at 440 and 480 ratings however 3,300 rpm 5.8 liter parent bore engine with no oversize or repair sleeve, SAE3 flywheel housing. Production line in US now closed down as engine is Tier II and will no longer be legal in new boats in U.S. come Jan1 2014. Despite being Tier II smoked like the Flying Scotsman on start up and a unique fuel system which cost zillions if required servicing. The 6CX is a 7.4 liter with just one rating, 530 @2,900 rpm used in the Hat 53 re-power, linered engine, SAE2 flywheel housing. Uses real nice Denso common rail fuel system, however Yanmar need three cylinder start up to cut smoke, give us a break, talk about advertising your lack of combustion technology in bright lights. Late into market at Tier II now another dead duck come Jan 1. No sign of Tier III replacement yet which is surprising considering the capable Denso fuel system.

Deere in U.S wall to wall B.S. Europe, just look at the distributor...........Impossible!
 
All very interesting reading, but just for the hell of it I'll throw this one in - has anyone considered the AGCO / SISU / Valmet 84CTIM engine?

It may appear a bit light on power at 410hp, but this is a heavy commercial rating so will go all day every day.

They have a solid agricultural base engine design that is well proven over many years and is available either as electronic or mechanical governing - although mechanical doesn't meet latest emissions.
Roughly the same physical size and weight as the Cummins 450C, no onerous warranty conditions, available on reasonably short lead times and the last time I priced one was very well priced compared to FPT Cursor.

Parts available from the AGCO network - Massey Fergusson, Valtra, Fendt, Challenger etc. worldwide.

I have to be honest that it's probably the only engine in the AGCO range that is competitively priced, but they are all good solid engines in my opinion. It was certainly the engine of choice for a ferry boat application we have just supplied - 3 vessels with twin installations.

I would be interested to get anyone's thoughts - especially Latestarter with your experience of other engines out there in this power band.

Thanks
Jon
 
Mermaid-Jon said:
All very interesting reading, but just for the hell of it I'll throw this one in - has anyone considered the AGCO / SISU / Valmet 84CTIM engine?

It may appear a bit light on power at 410hp, but this is a heavy commercial rating so will go all day every day.

They have a solid agricultural base engine design that is well proven over many years and is available either as electronic or mechanical governing - although mechanical doesn't meet latest emissions.
Roughly the same physical size and weight as the Cummins 450C, no onerous warranty conditions, available on reasonably short lead times and the last time I priced one was very well priced compared to FPT Cursor.

Parts available from the AGCO network - Massey Fergusson, Valtra, Fendt, Challenger etc. worldwide.

I have to be honest that it's probably the only engine in the AGCO range that is competitively priced, but they are all good solid engines in my opinion. It was certainly the engine of choice for a ferry boat application we have just supplied - 3 vessels with twin installations.

I would be interested to get anyone's thoughts - especially Latestarter with your experience of other engines out there in this power band.

Thanks
Jon
Click to expand...

Sisu/Valmet are not well known here, however excellent engines.

I was not aware that Sisu still offered mechanical versions of this this engine, hence my reasoning behind choice of Cummins 450C.

Sisu is making good progress on U.S.East Coast in downeast boats, traditionally favoring Deere, Sisu have carved out a niche for themselves, rock solid reliable, durable motors without the Deere B.S.

Long time since I looked at a Sisu/Valmet spec sheet, but at one time only engine offering flywheel housings to SAE1,2 and 3.

If pricing is in the Cursor 8.7 ballpark then I know where my vote is.
 
Latestarter1 said:
Alf,

Reason that the Cummins C comes out top of my list for repowers in this power node is due to several factors.
#1. Whilst I am total convert to electronic engines I recognise that many owners, certainly those involved in re-powers have a real fear of electronics and are very keen on DIY maintenance.

#2. Cummins has most flexible warranty package, after installation sign off you get your two year bumper to bumper warranty and the ability to have maintenance performed by your favored tec or do it yourself as C requires no special tooling without effecting warranty coverage. Consumables such as filters cheapest in the industry.

#3. The ReCon C package comes complete with VDO instruments, Barry controls mounts (The very best) and a choice of 12 or 24 rotating electrics, once again good quality Delco alternators and Bosch or Delco starter dependent on spec. Only wiring loom extension if required is extra.

All the competition is electronic.

Cat dropped the ball after 3208 with mid-range engines, 3126/C7 has at best a colorful history and does not meet your wet liner criteria Alf, C9 is far better however, more cost effective above 500 and above so slightly higher than our power node. After sign off you can perform your own maintenance and retain two year warranty but special and very expensive tooling required for servicing and Cat ID electronic tooling is a closed shop.

Volvo D9 is also higher than our power node. Totally unfriendly approach to re-powers, initial pricing, and installation sign off steers you to toward expensive dealer input. VP warranty is dealer servicing dependent. VP electronic tooling is a closed shop. D9 overall is a poor package, very bulky for power output, and expensive consumables. Base engine has seen a few unexplained catastrophic failures in both automotive and marine applications. Rebuild of this engine is feasible but rarely economic.

Iveco/FPT The 8.7 C90 common rail engine has ratings which undershoot and overshoot our power node. Bang up to date engine which Cat are using at Tier III to replace C7/C9. However dealers will try and sell you a 6.7 Tector motor if you are asking for 450hp quote and this engine totally wrong character to replace DD, plus the fact that this is SAE 2 flywheel housing territory and Tector is SAE 3. Tector does not fit the Alf criteria as it is parent bore whereas C90 has wet liners the Achilles heel is the block head interface, if head gasket fails which usually causes slight torching of block face motor is scrap, unlike Detroit Series 60 there is no compensation in the drive to OHC gear drive to accept re-facing of head/block and consequential tolerance change.
I have always struggled with Iveco/FPT technical back up and once again electronic tooling a closed shop. However when it comes to pricing dealers have very sharp pencils.

Cummins QSC 8.25 lowest rating is 500 hp and upper at 600 hp, therefore above our node, common rail engine hugely popular in U.S. but seen far less in Europe. Certainly a DIY motor with no special tooling required and electronic tooling in the form of ‘Insite Lite’ is available to customers with far less expensive Quickcheck as option. Downside is that Cummins Distribution Europe seem to have lost the plot with pricing at the top of the spectrum. Dealing with U.S. far more simple.
Click to expand...



OK and if someone say he will not go fast anyway, so repower would be a smaller engine for displacement speed only.... ???
 
piratos said:
OK and if someone say he will not go fast anyway, so repower would be a smaller engine for displacement speed only.... ???
Click to expand...

Nowhere near as simple.

At 22 tonnes I suspect that neither Cummins or Detroit would give the quoted 20 knots at WOT.

If we look at the engine ratings, Alf can probably give DD equivalent duty cycles however old Cummins VTA903 was 451hp intermittent @ 2,600 rpm maximum of 400hs/year. Light duty engine rating is 380 hp at maximum of 400 to 2,000 hrs/year and maximum continuous rating of 321 hp.

Easy to overlook but two replacement Sisu or motors of similar weight together with ZF transmissions will reduce displacement by two tonnes. Sisu if we forget metric hp stuff is a smidge over 400 proper horsepower light duty rating so has 20 hp per engine in the bag over the VTA903, no clue what Sisu continuous rating is, but willing to bet it is AT LEAST 320 hp.

Once the dust has settled I would not mind betting WOT comes out a knot or two faster, as well as continuous cruise. Depends what are your targets, either way shoving 20/22 tonnes around at 20 knots is eyewateringly expensive whatever the engine color.
 
Latestarter1 said:
Nowhere near as simple.

At 22 tonnes I suspect that neither Cummins or Detroit would give the quoted 20 knots at WOT.

If we look at the engine ratings, Alf can probably give DD equivalent duty cycles however old Cummins VTA903 was 451hp intermittent @ 2,600 rpm maximum of 400hs/year. Light duty engine rating is 380 hp at maximum of 400 to 2,000 hrs/year and maximum continuous rating of 321 hp.

Easy to overlook but two replacement Sisu or motors of similar weight together with ZF transmissions will reduce displacement by two tonnes. Sisu if we forget metric hp stuff is a smidge over 400 proper horsepower light duty rating so has 20 hp per engine in the bag over the VTA903, no clue what Sisu continuous rating is, but willing to bet it is AT LEAST 320 hp.

Once the dust has settled I would not mind betting WOT comes out a knot or two faster, as well as continuous cruise. Depends what are your targets, either way shoving 20/22 tonnes around at 20 knots is eyewateringly expensive whatever the engine color.
Click to expand...

Hello again,

Think you misunderstood my question - take it the boat manage the 20 knots on the old engines, she should do something like 15-16 with e.g. two Cummins 230 (think 5.9 ?) - but even less should be sufficient to do pure displacement speed of 8-9 knots.
Is that feasable to take out the old lumps and go straight for the smaller engines - For this engines of 150 hp each should probably be sufficient.
???
 
piratos said:
Hello again,

Think you misunderstood my question - take it the boat manage the 20 knots on the old engines, she should do something like 15-16 with e.g. two Cummins 230 (think 5.9 ?) - but even less should be sufficient to do pure displacement speed of 8-9 knots.
Is that feasable to take out the old lumps and go straight for the smaller engines - For this engines of 150 hp each should probably be sufficient.
???
Click to expand...

OK I did misunderstand.

Is this your thought process, we take two QSB 225's at their heavy duty rating (Intended for continuous use in variable load applications where full power is limited to eight hours out of every ten hours of operation with reduced power at or below 200 rpm of the maximum rated rpm for applications operating at 5,000 hours per year or less.)

Using deep reduction boxes we could get away with close to original props with some tweaking. As engines are 8 hr WOT rated, using say 20 tonnes displacement vessel would be capable of 15.5 knots and at 200 rpm off the top we would still be getting around 14 knots. Figures not hugely less than current quoted cruise speeds. Is this the thrust of your argument??

I suspect downsizing engine power dramatically would impact on value however who am I to say, what does jury think?
 
Latestarter1 said:
OK I did misunderstand.

Is this your thought process, we take two QSB 225's at their heavy duty rating (Intended for continuous use in variable load applications where full power is limited to eight hours out of every ten hours of operation with reduced power at or below 200 rpm of the maximum rated rpm for applications operating at 5,000 hours per year or less.)

Using deep reduction boxes we could get away with close to original props with some tweaking. As engines are 8 hr WOT rated, using say 20 tonnes displacement vessel would be capable of 15.5 knots and at 200 rpm off the top we would still be getting around 14 knots. Figures not hugely less than current quoted cruise speeds. Is this the thrust of your argument??

I suspect downsizing engine power dramatically would impact on value however who am I to say, what does jury think?
Click to expand...

Hello,
Yes thats exactly what I mean - I agree those boats were built for cruising in high teens, but I am also sure that nowadays there are not many of them cruising that fast, and if you look at various cruising blogs, people are actually cruising at ard 8 knots. With for instance these QSB 225 the boat should be fine for this, and repowering is at total different cost (I presume). I am sure that many would find it hard to downsize enginepower, but if the alternative is to run big engines at very slow rpm...
 
Latestarter1 said:
Sisu/Valmet are not well known here, however excellent engines.

I was not aware that Sisu still offered mechanical versions of this this engine, hence my reasoning behind choice of Cummins 450C.

Sisu is making good progress on U.S.East Coast in downeast boats, traditionally favoring Deere, Sisu have carved out a niche for themselves, rock solid reliable, durable motors without the Deere B.S.

Long time since I looked at a Sisu/Valmet spec sheet, but at one time only engine offering flywheel housings to SAE1,2 and 3.

If pricing is in the Cursor 8.7 ballpark then I know where my vote is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your valued comments, Latestarter. Apologies for the delay in replying, but I've been out of the office.

Yes, the mechanical versions are all still available as new build units, but obviously not meeting current emissions legislation. They are also available with the option of either SAE 1, 2 or 3 depending on your preference and twin starter options are available too should they be required.

AGCO / Sisu also don't rate their engines for leisure type duties, they simply have one 'heavy duty' rating which is why they sometimes get overlooked (I believe) as people get awfully wound up in the top line A1 leisure rating despite its inherant reduced hours and throttle opening limits.

If you ever want any more tech info then just PM me and I'll get it sent over.

Thanks
Jon
 
A really interesting thread to someone who is bang in the middle of the debate. Driving a 20 tonne SD with 2x435 hp DDs these days is a debate between the bank manager and my therapist. Fuel cost / burn becomes an obsessive calculation before every trip with fuel at €1.50 per litre. So now I am learning to live with 8/9 knots on longer trips with a burst for 20% of the time at 18 knots to give the DDs a blow through. Somehow debates about re-engining down to displacement HPs has no appeal when being able to "turn on the tap" to get out of trouble (which I have three times in 5 years) is so important. So I guess I'll just potter along and throw some fishing lines over the back.
 
Latestarter, arent the little cumins 6 pot and the tector lump the same thing?, have to say they look very much the same mounted in the trucks i see.

Lynall
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top