Are Yanmar 230hp engines 6 cylinders?

[Nick2]

...and are they better bet than say KAD43s etc?

Just wondering

Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://arweb.co.uk/argallery/Nick2> Our boaty pictures</A>

 

[Col]

Yanmar engines are OK. You won't save any money on parts though, and not as many dealers as Volvo.
Volvo Kad43's are fine, not so keen on 44's and 300's as EDC can be problematical.

Have you ever seen how much smoke those Yanmars produce???
I'm surprised you are even considering them./forums/images/icons/wink.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[Nick2]

Ummn that was next question

Are you winding me up Mr Col???

If not this evenings next boat dream is shattered.....

Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://arweb.co.uk/argallery/Nick2> Our boaty pictures</A>

 

[Col]

Those 230's are like fog machines.......You won't be able to see across the marina!
.......And the soot factor!! Well. What can I say?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[Col]

.................Then Again........?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[makkers]

I believe that the clue is in the model number, if your model number starts with 6 I.e 6LP-DTZP then it is a 6 cyliner, or if it is a 4LHA-xxx then it is a 4 cylinder.

Dont believe what they say about Yanmars being a bit smokey, there good solid dependible (granted pricey parts ) motors you wont see much bad press about them on this forum unlike Volvo engines. I see a small parallel betwen Volvo Car drivers and Volvo marine engine owners!

There......that should agitate a response or two


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DepSol]

Oi thats not fair, they cant be as bad as those AD41s /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Dom

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.soltron.co.uk>the website</A>
MMS - Discount Chandlery

 

[duncan]

can't help feeling Col's fishing for me to respond......
(1) the smoke behind Phaeton is burning sausages on the barbie not the Yanmar..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif
(2) as said the designation is straight forward re 4 & 6 cylinders - at 240 (now) you have the 4LHA - 4 pot/3.54l/turbo/intercooler/mechanical injection
(3) I like the engine as it is all mechanical
(4) I like the KAD43 as it is 6 cylinder smmmooth; the 44 and 300 are edc efficient - but all those electronics :0( .
(5) Yanmar is compact; which should equate to more space to get around it and mounting service items well - some installations can prove difficult for the raw water impellor change (600 hrs) but not all apparantly.
(6) mechanical injection combined with the turbo settings etc can result in a black cloud (brief) when under load but before the turbo delivers the air to burn all that fuel - I have seen a lot worse!

I like the engine - but then I have got one so I would say that wouldn't I?

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[miket]

I have 2 in my Nimbus (4 cylinder) although little use in anger since purchase.

On sea trial off Lymington very little smoke on start up and none whilst inderway. They ran smoothly and quite quietly, but they are definitely 4's, and this is quite apparent in comparison to 6's.

Since being on the river the smoke on start up is quite noticable but not excessive and again disappears once warm and/ or on the move. This may be aided by the underwater exhausts.

I am told that in the Nimbus it is not uncommon to see 2 mpg (combined 2 engines) against nearer 1 mpg for small 6. Part of the reason I bought the boat.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

I am told that in the Nimbus it is not uncommon to see 2 mpg (combined 2 engines) against nearer 1 mpg for small 6. Part of the reason I bought the boat.

<hr></blockquote>


Seems curious. I thought the accepted wisdom was that a single had less drag (less sterngear) and hence was more efficient than twins. Thoughts, anyone?

<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

 

[duncan]

I would agree - think that is as much the fact that he has 460 working nicely against 300 from a single six working it's balls off! Also a semi displacement keeled hull aren't they? The drag only really kicks around 20knots and exponentially from there up - or something like that.

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Col]

Me fishing??
Might be fishing I spose, but have I caught him yet??


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[miket]

Re: Confusion

My apologies.
To clarify. I was referring to twin installations in both instances. Twin Yanmars in my Nimbus and twin 6 cylinders elsewhere.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Confusion

no need to apologise

I am somewhat surprised at the difference if they are accross similar models (and therefore hulls) and at the scale you indicate as well. Some hulls are particully efficient at certain speed; which can combine with specific engine charateristics too but generally the actual fuel consumption per hp is broadly similar between say a KAD43 and a Yanmar 4LHA - with the Yanmar having a v slight edge!

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif