Antifouling!
- Thread starter petem
- Start date
jfm
Well-Known Member
Props look fine to me. you have to assume builder tested plenty on hull #1. The trailing edge of rudders and non recessed P bracket feet look draggy on such a fast boat. I'd want them faired.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff. Would be nice to know whether they are the 1800/1925hp version and the hours logged/usage. Nothing is perfect it appears. To be fair, if you google c32 problems you find nothing other than this but it is food for thought. I tend to run mine taking about <1200hp out of each of them, if not pootling @ say 200hp, so I feel ok!
The last poster captJason is running the 1800s in a 90 foot sunseeker so they are worked hard. You might prefer anyway to discount his comments because he is clueless enough to think that the C32's separate rocker covers mean it has separate (>2) cylinder heads. It doesn't - there is one cyl head per side, as you can see at 0:28 in this nice little speeded up rebuild video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrrUQDYA8-U
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I did notice that comment, but I understood his sentence "cracks happening in 3 of the heads between the valves" as actually meaning "cracks happening between the valves, in 3 out of 4 heads in total (2 engines)"
jfm
Well-Known Member
Yes fair enough. I owe Cap Jason an apologetic beer
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yeh that’s how I read it in his sunny 90.
Plus he mentions two other boats ,but does not specify what they are .
The telling Q is the guy enquiring about the serial numbers —— presume to see they are near each other indicating a batch , which in my mind would be a better than a random distribution, in a Russian roulette / pot luck kinda way .
We don,t know the only common denominator is big sunny s .
Speculating as I think JFM infers maybe the 1900hp variant in a bigger and heavier boat its tending to be near the upper limit of its comfort zone , and easily gets abused - inadvertently of course.
Of course if 10 y old and thrashed for 3000 hrs then that’s different .
But I get the feeling that’s not the case ,as they seem to be acusing CAT of not recognising the issue .
A big 90 ft out and out planer is an awkward size in the leisure boat market ,
The magic 30 + knots needs to spring up in the sales blurb on one hand then on the other the old accommodation dilemma - pinching ER space so you can,t fit in MTU v16 2200/2400 - as well as extra £
I think JFM,s engines would have gone by now if affected .
I read somewhere CAT ,s run hot .There EGT,s are @ the upper end in normal running compared to others .
So,s there not as much headroom for anything that impairs the cooling .
Early last summer there was guy on here after a Porto53 in the SoF , I sat down in the SS dealers office and asked the broker “,which is least hassle as a used prospect “ - the D12 C12 ?
He said the MAN are the better ( limited upgrade spec ) then the D12 .
The fomulite and me enquired about the CAT version on brokerage , While sat in the office looking at the D12 version , floating out side .
Broker said the C12 ,s out with the owner ,
When’s it coming back I asked for viewing
Broker said — it’s got a cracked exhaust , stuck in Corsica.
Irony is SS we’re having to fund the repair as it was in there “ used approved guaranteed scheme “
Sorry for the thread drift Pete .
Keep the props clean :encouragement:
MrB
Well-Known Member
I know it's a fred drift but as we are talking engines on the exact topic and if an engine is at it's upper limit for a certain boat may i ask a quick question to the panel. I tried to ask on a different thread to PYB but he said just stick with bigger.
So question is, Would the MTU V10 2000 M94 (1622hp) be at the upper limits to push, say a Sunseeker 86, or would the MTU V12 2000 M96 (1950) be preferable ? Both quote very similar speeds and i think the 86 was designed with the M94 in mind but i have this nagging feeling the boat with the M94's would be harder to sell.
I hope i make sense.
So question is, Would the MTU V10 2000 M94 (1622hp) be at the upper limits to push, say a Sunseeker 86, or would the MTU V12 2000 M96 (1950) be preferable ? Both quote very similar speeds and i think the 86 was designed with the M94 in mind but i have this nagging feeling the boat with the M94's would be harder to sell.
I hope i make sense.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
They are not the same block as in the higher Hp v has a bigger bolt on turbo and some black box software rewrite .
So a different Q to say the CAT / MAN 1500 Hp to 18/1900 Hp lift .
Being modular MTU they just add more cylinders .
Brokers not the chap who flogged it to the 1 st punter allways plug the higher Hp variant ,
Just like my Q re the Porto 53 , we never asked or introduced the MAN 800 into the conversation , but the broker spontaneously went into autopilot and gave that ans to a Q of D12 or C12
Thanks !
My personal theory dispite mocking brokers
is sure given a choise if poss go for the larger engine option .
It’s been discussed here before , but kinda linked to AF and this thread is a term call Real World Speed .RWS
Fouling and cruising stores bring down RWS .
Another thing I see / feel reading boat tests is this WOT business ,
To cut to the chase ,
Run them within the manufacture s parameters ,so for me that’s 80% load .
I can see the load .
So I would assume if MTU are happy with 80% or what ever to set in a cruise. Then the bigger more powerful one will go a few knots faster .
When you look at the boat test charts some bigger stuff comes alive the other side of 2000 rpm say 2100 or 2200 ,
If WOTs say 2300 or abit more .eek !
Luckily I can happily do 1750 rpm all day and basically never go over 2000 .
But as a used prospect to hammer a big Sunny at 2100 rpm ,hmmm. Not sure .
I look at how fast @ 1800 rpm ie RWS with the charts in the boat mags .
Links in to having a no abligation sea trail debate .
So a different Q to say the CAT / MAN 1500 Hp to 18/1900 Hp lift .
Being modular MTU they just add more cylinders .
Brokers not the chap who flogged it to the 1 st punter allways plug the higher Hp variant ,
Just like my Q re the Porto 53 , we never asked or introduced the MAN 800 into the conversation , but the broker spontaneously went into autopilot and gave that ans to a Q of D12 or C12
Thanks !
My personal theory dispite mocking brokers
is sure given a choise if poss go for the larger engine option .It’s been discussed here before , but kinda linked to AF and this thread is a term call Real World Speed .RWS
Fouling and cruising stores bring down RWS .
Another thing I see / feel reading boat tests is this WOT business ,
To cut to the chase ,
Run them within the manufacture s parameters ,so for me that’s 80% load .
I can see the load .
So I would assume if MTU are happy with 80% or what ever to set in a cruise. Then the bigger more powerful one will go a few knots faster .
When you look at the boat test charts some bigger stuff comes alive the other side of 2000 rpm say 2100 or 2200 ,
If WOTs say 2300 or abit more .eek !
Luckily I can happily do 1750 rpm all day and basically never go over 2000 .
But as a used prospect to hammer a big Sunny at 2100 rpm ,hmmm. Not sure .
I look at how fast @ 1800 rpm ie RWS with the charts in the boat mags .
Links in to having a no abligation sea trail debate .
Last edited:
jfm
Well-Known Member
Remember the 80% load figure is a bit daft.
Say an engine comes in 1500hp and 1900hp versions. It cannot be logical to say the 1500er can be run all day at max 80% of 1500 = 1200hp, and the 1900er at max 80% x 1900 = 1520hp. Reason being that 80% x 1900 >100% x1500hp, and they are the same engine. It just makes no sense.
Say an engine comes in 1500hp and 1900hp versions. It cannot be logical to say the 1500er can be run all day at max 80% of 1500 = 1200hp, and the 1900er at max 80% x 1900 = 1520hp. Reason being that 80% x 1900 >100% x1500hp, and they are the same engine. It just makes no sense.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
In replying to MrB s Q in post #67 , they are different engines ones a 22 L v 10 other a 26 L v 12
I sort of thought in the few lines - I made the distinction of the point you have made a beefing up same block .
So 80% load ( if that’s ok with MTU ? Assunimg ) from the V 12 will be better than 80 % from the V 10 .in the same boat .
“Same engine “ not Mr B,s example - but sure that’s all some builders offers - same foot print tuned up jobbie ,and sometimes the lower variant Hp is superseded anyhow , as time goes by in the arms race
Like there’s no going back .But I said I may be wrong but approaching 2000 Hp in a planing boat I would be looking @ north of 30 odd litres and few more than 12 cylinders to keep it high speed .
As a matter of interest it seems CAT actually use a different block for the C32 cooking 1662hp and the ACC ERT 1900 Hp anyhow .
The displacement remains the same 32 L
http://www.yachtforums.com/threads/man-diesel-longevity-and-overhaul-cost.17818/page-4
Not quite “ googling “ just another forum I suspect you are familiar
I think the essence if poss to longevity is read the small print .
Eg I never “let rip “ and spool up the turbos until the water temp is over 60 — that’s what the manual says ,
I think the oil temp is not far behind - thinking warm oil needed to lub the finer spray jets under the piston skirts and proper lub of the turbo bearings + the rings have expanded enough to seal better rarther than dump a handful of throttles fuel into loose rings .— washing what little cold oil has managed to find its way to protect the bores off !
A lot of folks that end blowing them up I reckon “ abuse “ them .Of course a little engine Hp wise in a big heavy boat makes that easier than a bigger engine in a smaller boat .
So that leads us back to MrB,s Q and the in broker speak “ desirable larger engine option “ :encouragement:
Last edited:
MrB
Well-Known Member
Thanks porto, I had a feeling you would get megga technical but i get what you are saying and very informative for my tiny mind. But my question still stands and to keep it simple (for me), if you were to go for said boat what engine option would you go for taking into mind performance, servicing, re-sale etc. ? Is the M94 just as capable as the M96? I know they are different engines but would it make a huge difference with the above questions?
MrB
Well-Known Member
ok just re-read, bigger is better.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yes
MrB
Well-Known Member
MrB
Well-Known Member
On another fred drift, the new Ferrari Portofino looks nice lol :encouragement:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
If you're interested in an MTU M94/6 powered boat, you shouldn't ask: just buy the one whose interiors your wife likes better.
What can possibly go wrong?
MrB
Well-Known Member
If you're interested in an MTU M94/6 powered boat, you shouldn't ask: just buy the one whose interiors your wife likes better.
What can possibly go wrong?
I'm unnecessarily practical so need every bit of information available.My questions were hypothetical anyway
:encouragement:
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Although it’s not what you asked
Which one to avoid ? ( of those MTU )
V10 ,s are notoriously difficult balance . Given a choise in this case another reason to go for the V12
The MAN 820 Hp V10 from the 90,s was the one that the phase “ mangrenade “originated from .
Took them a while to shake that off .Revamped the crank damper s , they had a bit of bother with the V12 1050 Hp at the same time ,not as bad as the V10— BART of this parish knows a bit more .
V10 quietly dropped a few years back and in the rest of the range finally - crank dampers that work .
Don,t know how MTU damp there V10,s May be they have squared that circle ,but they used to share the same blocks as MAN - up to very recently cast in the same German factory
Nowadays one of them ( sorry forgot which ) - has spat the dummy out and gone off to source blocks else where .
They will be the same size and modular as each makes its own internals like cranks / pistons / con rods - etc , so the one that’s moved has to redo the blocks to same dims to fit the exsisting internals made in other plants .
Which one to avoid ? ( of those MTU )
V10 ,s are notoriously difficult balance . Given a choise in this case another reason to go for the V12
The MAN 820 Hp V10 from the 90,s was the one that the phase “ mangrenade “originated from .
Took them a while to shake that off .Revamped the crank damper s , they had a bit of bother with the V12 1050 Hp at the same time ,not as bad as the V10— BART of this parish knows a bit more .
V10 quietly dropped a few years back and in the rest of the range finally - crank dampers that work .
Don,t know how MTU damp there V10,s May be they have squared that circle ,but they used to share the same blocks as MAN - up to very recently cast in the same German factory
Nowadays one of them ( sorry forgot which ) - has spat the dummy out and gone off to source blocks else where .
They will be the same size and modular as each makes its own internals like cranks / pistons / con rods - etc , so the one that’s moved has to redo the blocks to same dims to fit the exsisting internals made in other plants .
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yes it does , they all look nice
Picked out this from skimming the blurb
“Ferrari’s engineers have designed a new one-piece exhaust manifold. “
They’ve got past form there .
When they went to fully honeycomb Ally Floor pan chassis in 1999 with the 360 , it was designed for a new V8 of 3.6 L .
A record ( still held I think ) of displacement/ L / Hp .
It had a 5 valve head and Uber light weight titanium internals red line is around 9000 rpm .
Critics rounded in on the pay off for all that F1 style super responsive revs ——- the lack of low down torque
Pararell to this for the Maserati line they knock up a 4.3 L V8 ( not the same block bored out ) , Cheaper internals lower revere etc more tractile , more torque lower down , more road friendly less F1 screamer back to a conventional 4 valve head .
It was a bit wider physically .Seen how wide Massers are ?
Any how in the 430 circa 2005 , they shoehorned this more tractile engine in .
Same floor pan wider engine - mid mounted —- hmm.
So to get the exhaust manifolds to fit they tightened up the bends —- result — cracked manifolds a common problem .
Huge redevelopment issues , initially a denial phase , then after market - Americans call them “ headers “
Eventually some time later a factory fix .btw £5 K a pair + labour
Next modal,in 2010 the 458; bigger engine this time sorted manifold kinda — they were too close to the inner wheel arches cos an even bigger engine fitted - result a spate of fires in the 2010 launch year .The glue somewhere under the linner exceeded its flash point .
488 is a mid engine and the engine was designed for this .Complety new smaller 3.9 twin turbo , to comply with the emission 8hit .Burns better/ cleaner with a turbo apparently.
So here we are shoe horning this with its red hot turbos into a front engined chassis , I had a look at the W , not that wide and remember it will have fat front wheels .
No wonder they have said
“Ferrari’s engineers have designed a new one-piece exhaust manifold.”:
Well good luck with that guys :encouragement:
Last edited:
petem
Well-Known Member
JFM, how was the M99? Worse or better than M77?
Also, will it be OK on top of the "Hempel Racing" that I have on at the moment (that was good but is now ineffective)?
Looks like it's only available in Black, Navy, Royal Blue or Red. No more white A/F for me!
Regarding Sterndrive A/F paint, what's the market leader these days?
