Any members here with Perkins 6.354's??

Paul - we need to see the picture of the upside down turbo!

The guy looks in on this forum and I think he would die of embarrasment, anyway he was advised by people who SHOULD have known better. At least we solved his oil sheen problem!

Mmmmmm Fairey boats just had me thinking, a Dutchman who owns a matched pair of very fast Huntsmen with 6.354's out and 6Lp's in. And what on the face of it not something I would have dreamed of, but a Swordsman with a pair of little 4Lh motors which replaced a pair of Perkins. Swordsman is owned by a couple who spend all summer on the boat, anywhere from the Isle of Man to the Solent and the French coast doing zillions of hours and boat was no slouch when running against a Sabre 212 powered Swordsman.

I am not condemning old engines which are running sweetly at all. However I have a good friend who had just retired and had been restoring a Cox & Haswell Rapier as a retirement present to himself, had just spent £3,500 on having HT6.354 overhauled.

All set for the season, first trip out when manifold went on the good motor, fixed that, then a month lated the scavenge pump went on the reconditioned engine. Demoralised had Rapier lifted out and put up for sale.

Andrew, it is not ALL DPA pumps, just the versions with hydraulic governor. Actually pump was a Stanadyne design sold to Lucas CAV. The later mechanically governed DPA from 1970's was an all Lucas CAV pump design which has no parts availability issues.
 
Last edited:
I think most of us still running 'Pinky and Perky' are in the same boat (Sorry).

The bit we need to get right is spotting when the cost of repairs becomes less viable than a re-power.

I've got a spare manifold in the shed, if I can squeeze a couple more years out of mine with out any significant expenditure then I'll have run them for a decade. I wont mind by that time if I need to re-power.
 
http://www.moonraker.dk/eng_index.htm

try this rob.. but i aint no tecno wizz..

if you go into service.drawing/plan's you get info on the exhaust manifold..
and hand book give's you a workshop manual for the engine's..


Got it, thanks.... That exhaust manifold is for the turbo 6.354....but its always nice to have different types of information at hand!!
 
I've done a post on this before and I still do not know the answer, I cannot obtain a reading on the dipstick on the starboard HT6354. Oil pressure is good as both engines run at 40-50 lbs when hot at 1500RPM. A last resort is to do an oil change and replace with 13 lt. of oil. Does anyone know if this amount includes the filter? The manual says 9.4 lt in the sump and 13.1 lt total, but I cannot believe the filter holds nearly 4 lt. But what else is left after the 9.4 lt in the sump? There is nothing in the Lubricating system section that refers. HELP!!!! (please).
 
I've done a post on this before and I still do not know the answer, I cannot obtain a reading on the dipstick on the starboard HT6354. Oil pressure is good as both engines run at 40-50 lbs when hot at 1500RPM. A last resort is to do an oil change and replace with 13 lt. of oil. Does anyone know if this amount includes the filter? The manual says 9.4 lt in the sump and 13.1 lt total, but I cannot believe the filter holds nearly 4 lt. But what else is left after the 9.4 lt in the sump? There is nothing in the Lubricating system section that refers. HELP!!!! (please).

Are you checking the oil level while the engine is on tickover? - (you should let it idle for two minutes then check before turning the engine off.) - and also make sure the tickover is at least 650rpm - I slowed mine to 500rpm and it exhibited the same issue - upped it to 650rpm and it is fine now.
 
Are you checking the oil level while the engine is on tickover? - (you should let it idle for two minutes then check before turning the engine off.) - and also make sure the tickover is at least 650rpm - I slowed mine to 500rpm and it exhibited the same issue - upped it to 650rpm and it is fine now.

At the risk of asking a very stupid question..... Are you advising that I check my oil level in my engines while the engines are idling @ 650 rpm (assuming that is what you mean by "tickover")?? If so, should the oil level then be at the "max" point on the dipstick??

I have always checked mine with engines "quiet" and after 2 or 3 minutes of settling time....
 
At the risk of asking a very stupid question..... Are you advising that I check my oil level in my engines while the engines are idling @ 650 rpm (assuming that is what you mean by "tickover")?? If so, should the oil level then be at the "max" point on the dipstick??

I have always checked mine with engines "quiet" and after 2 or 3 minutes of settling time....

Sorry, yes, terminology differences....
they should be checked at idle - and after being at idle for two minutes.
the idle speed should be about 650rpm - as I said, when I lowered mine to 500rpm I got the same symptoms you are experiencing and ended up over filling the sump.
I only realised when I pumped out the oil for a service.
Since increasing the idle speed to 650rpm the oil has not gone down at all, and remains at the top mark on the dipstick where it should be.

snippet from manual.....
oillevel.jpg
 
Last edited:
At the risk of asking a very stupid question..... Are you advising that I check my oil level in my engines while the engines are idling @ 650 rpm (assuming that is what you mean by "tickover")?? If so, should the oil level then be at the "max" point on the dipstick??

I have always checked mine with engines "quiet" and after 2 or 3 minutes of settling time....

Rob, you must excuse us Brits, you are correct, everywhere in the English speaking world the correct term is high or low idle.

The term "tickover" is a purely a quirky non technical term which pervades in this little bit of Europe which ain't actually Europe at all.
 
Hmmmm, I must admit I check the levels at "normal" tickover speeds i.e. approx 500 rpm, so I will try upping to 650 rpm, but I'm sure something is not right as the port engine reads "full" on the dipstick at 500 rpm. Perhaps I am the dipstick!!!!!!!!
 
I have a similar problem with one of my engines, oil level may well be too high thereby, but its due for a change soon.

I recall being told years ago that the expression "tickover" came from an engine turning slowly enough that the sound you heard from it was a ticking sound from the valves clicking as opposed to induction roar or exhaust noise.
 
The 6.354.0 and .4 naturals can be updated with a Bowman exhaust manifold / heat exchanger as used on the later .4 naturals. It isn't a simple manifold swap; the intake manifold, thermostat housing and several hoses and smaller parts also have to be changed out. The Bowman has an integral heat exchanger and tank and is very easy and cost effective to maintain in serviceable condition. It is cooled by engine coolant - raw water only comes in contact with the heat exchanger bundle. The Bowman and all Bowman components are currently in production and widely available. This is the best manifold / heat exchanger / tank setup for all 6.354 naturals including the manicooler natural, 16 bolt cast iron manifold and aluminum side port manifold. Unfortunately it cannot be made to work with the turbos which require more cooling capacity. Individual parts or the entire kit (with installation video I believe) are available from Trans Atlantic Diesels in Virginia.
 
Last edited:
Rob,

Mark at MESA is 100% good guy and ships to Europe.

My pals at Perkins agreed that back in the late 50's engineers at Peterborough must have been on drugs when they adopted raw water cooling for the exhaust manifold.

#1 On turbocharged versions of the engine vital heat energy was robbed from the turbo by low seawater ambients.
#2 Running seawater though hot exhaust manifold resulted in a major component with a finite life. I have original Royal Navy approval tests on file, engine passed with flying colours, but even back then the raw manifold attacted adverse comment. When the guys had a chance to give the 6.354. Dot 4 a total redesign the used a far more common sense manifold in the engine coolant curcuit, except they came up with poision pill of the Manicooler!
#3 You can re-plumb the T6.354 to a more sensible configuration by putting manifold in the coolant flow, however turbo engines tend to overheat due to lack of heat exchanger capacity. Does little to save manifold as corrosion is usually well advanced. Mark at MESA has got it taped with his fabricated stainless versions. MESA once did some custom Cummins manifolds for me which did 1,147.6 knots. Fastest marine manifolds ever!
Owner was Concorde captain who brought them back as hand luggage!

As to lubes, posters here would probably not understand U.S. obsession with single weight lubricants. You would be far better served with modern 15W40 additive pack which is far kinder to Perkins mushroom tappets. Synthetic lubes do squat all for you.
I know its been a while but how did the re-plumbing to fresh water manicooler work out Just about to do mine !
 
With regard to these engines, they were designed on a multi use platform and fitted in automotive, marine, industrial and agricultural applications and many had specific uses.

For marine applications you ned a good 15/40 or 15/50 engine oil and this can be pure mineral or semi synthetic; never use full synthetics as the bore clearances are too large for the thin film synthetics to fill and this will give bore scraping. Regular oil and filter changes are a must for these engines and you can use agricultural oils such as Shell Rotella or similar if you wish to bulk buy.
 
Top