Cummins/Mercruiser engine advice please

[Latestarter1]

Been a mercruiser agent for manymany years and not aware of the warranty.

Yes on yanmar 2 year warranty and 5 years on major parts but not on Mercruiser unless the factory that installed it had an installation approved contract with mercruiser. What i mean by this is that engine installers at boat builders go on a course to install and those boats engines gain extra warranty coverage. Builders that dont send their guys on the approval course get a standard 2 year warranty.

As for diagnostic comms. Many an engine will store fault codes and some even hold those codes even if the faulty sensor was replaced and will run at 89%power. Meaning sometimes a `bimbo` tool is required. Without fail we always when servicing an efi, D-series or d-tronic install "Rinda" or "Vodia" just to make sure all is running as it should and clear any fault codes that may be present.

Unless you have the manual for a D4/6 the testing on sensors and wiring is 200 pages of tests depending on what your fault/faults maybe. A bimbo tool speeds this up very quickly aiming us techies to get it put right quicker.

But some dealerships have untrained guys running round with these boxes of tricks that dont know how to use or diagnose hence why they charge loads for changing parts that were not needed.

Latestarter. You share my sentiments on CMD swanwick......dont want to name names but a complete shower of the brown stuff they are! Drives and engine parts are stooopid prices!

Daka can you send me the warranty info just like to read it myself out of interest please

Gingie,

CMD warranty applies once any installation has been signed off by CMD so DAKA is quite correct in stating engines carry twenty four month 1,000 hour base warranty and 72 month major component warranty. CMD will not supply engines to OEM's unless initial installation has been signed off, so same warranty applies to production vessels.

In addition you can purchase base warranty extension before expiry of twenty four month base warranty taking full coverage out to five years. As stated earlier there are no dealer servicing caviats, just proof that engine serviced within correct guidelines.

QSD (VM) provisions are a little different.

 

[ulyden]

Uliden I have total respect your technical competence, however you need to get up to date..
.

I'm no insider. I'm just reading the Cummins internet pages. If them are not updated i'm not updated. Going into the VW technical I find old engines. The smaller VM's are gone.(A neighbour is struggling a lit with his QSB 150hp version. Its very hard to start 2year old)

I don't think VW are offering any PD(Pumpedyse) engines as marine engines. It's common rail or distributor pumps. The VW common rail Tier 2 engines have a terrible fuel consumption( 255g/kwh 3l V6 260hp )at full load. Lets hope the Tier 3 will be better. The nox/thc reduction is fro 7.2 to 5.8g/kwh and partikles down fro 0.3 to 0.12g/kwh. Is that hard?

I know VW have all common rail now. People buying new Audi's are complaining about high fuel consumption compared to old PD engines.

http://www.cmdmarine.com/Product2/2.5L/assets/BC9530, BC9531.pdf

http://www.cmdmarine.com/Product2/3.0L/assets/BC9520, BC9521.pdf

 

[DAKA]

I'm no insider. I'm just reading the Cummins internet pages. If them are not updated i'm not updated. Going into the VW technical I find old engines. The smaller VM's are gone.(A neighbour is struggling a lit with his QSB 150hp version. Its very hard to start 2year old)

I don't think VW are offering any PD(Pumpedyse) engines as marine engines. It's common rail or distributor pumps. The VW common rail Tier 2 engines have a terrible fuel consumption( 255g/kwh 3l V6 260hp )at full load. Lets hope the Tier 3 will be better. The nox/thc reduction is fro 7.2 to 5.8g/kwh and partikles down fro 0.3 to 0.12g/kwh. Is that hard?

I know VW have all common rail now. People buying new Audi's are complaining about high fuel consumption compared to old PD engines.

http://www.cmdmarine.com/Product2/2.5L/assets/BC9530, BC9531.pdf

http://www.cmdmarine.com/Product2/3.0L/assets/BC9520, BC9521.pdf

VW marine have recently wiped off all the details and just include a link to CMD, this is all I could find about fuel curves

 

[ulyden]

Tanks! in the CMD its stated 61.2litre/h at full power.

Compared to VP D4 260hp 52.6l/h Even KAD44 had lower consumtion 57.5l/h at 260hp. Yanmar By 260 seems to have 55l/h and steyr 256hp 60-64l/h

The KAD300 had 58.6l/h produsing 286hp. But it was a tier 1 engine i guess!
The latest 4.2 270CR engine used 60.6l.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Total thread drift but how does making an engine less polluting make it less efficient? I'd have thought it would have be even more efficient as more of the fuel in each charge to the cylinder is being burnt?

 

[Latestarter1]

Total thread drift but how does making an engine less polluting make it less efficient? I'd have thought it would have be even more efficient as more of the fuel in each charge to the cylinder is being burnt?

Easy,

It is HOW the charge is being burned is the issue. Problem is going after two major pollutants Nox and particulates at the same time. Nox production relates directly to combustion temperature, you try to solve this by retarding injection timing and or breaking down injection into a number of very short and well controlled events. When you retard injection you increase particulates all a fine balance. Either way making an engine cleaner from an emissions stand point makes it, in simple terms less energy efficient.

Meeting legislation is price of enty to the market place and somthing for us spec sheet anoraks prod over. I become very weary of Scania and Volvo green stuff, in truth legislation makes for even playing field. The reality is that the end user cares squat all, the real trick is making an engine which 'meets the customer needs' meeting regulatory requirements should almost be a side issue. End user should barely feel the bump.

The point I made regarding MY view of CMD's change of dancing partner in terms of small engines was set against a background of having done due dilligence on VM many years ago and a pretty good feel for what VW are capable of. Therefore MY view is that whilst both VM and VW can both do Tier III marine, VW have the technology to do it in way which better meets the customer needs. And that is coming from somebody who hates ANY form of LDA (Light Duty Automotive) engine in marine applications.

Poor old Ulyden seems to have taken this simple statement as an excuse to go off like a Catherine Wheel with the pin pulled out!

 

[Jegs]

It would seem to this dimwit that in order to reduce NOX & particulate emissions you are actually burning more fuel & thereby increasing output of CO2.
Am I wrong again?

John g

 

[Spi D]

Consumption in practise relates to work performed by an engine. This is to be understood as the energy used for internal operation and the energy supplied at the crankshaft.

Buzzword is 'Brake Specific Fuel Consumption' (BSFC).

Fuel contains a certain amount of energi which is turned into useable power by the engine combustion (or burn).
Due to varying technologies' efficiency the amount of power derived from fuel can be slightly less or more, but diesels efficency are in the range 40 to 47%.

Wikipedia offers this explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
including the 40-47% figure.

 

[DAKA]

Easy,

It is HOW the charge is being burned is the issue. Problem is going after two major pollutants Nox and particulates at the same time. Nox production relates directly to combustion temperature, you try to solve this by retarding injection timing and or breaking down injection into a number of very short and well controlled events. When you retard injection you increase particulates all a fine balance. Either way making an engine cleaner from an emissions stand point makes it, in simple terms less energy efficient.

Meeting legislation is price of enty to the market place and somthing for us spec sheet anoraks prod over. I become very weary of Scania and Volvo green stuff, in truth legislation makes for even playing field. The reality is that the end user cares squat all, the real trick is making an engine which 'meets the customer needs' meeting regulatory requirements should almost be a side issue. End user should barely feel the bump.

The point I made regarding MY view of CMD's change of dancing partner in terms of small engines was set against a background of having done due dilligence on VM many years ago and a pretty good feel for what VW are capable of. Therefore MY view is that whilst both VM and VW can both do Tier III marine, VW have the technology to do it in way which better meets the customer needs. And that is coming from somebody who hates ANY form of LDA (Light Duty Automotive) engine in marine applications.

trying to get my head around this, in a simplistic laymens terms are we talking about deliberately sabotaging an engines torque curve map in order to save a few milegrams a year in leisure boat pollutants at the expense of consumer fuel and possibly reliability issues.

When the car motor manufacturers came across this didnt they fiddle the figures (used pure oxygen, tested at -20'c etc, then got caught out as all the cars failed their MOTs 3 years later)

If thats the case then boats dont have MOTs to worry about and the after market tuning black boxes that claim to boost power and save fuel consumption are going to be very popular.

 

[Latestarter1]

trying to get my head around this, in a simplistic laymens terms are we talking about deliberately sabotaging an engines torque curve map in order to save a few milegrams a year in leisure boat pollutants at the expense of consumer fuel and possibly reliability issues.

When the car motor manufacturers came across this didnt they fiddle the figures (used pure oxygen, tested at -20'c etc, then got caught out as all the cars failed their MOTs 3 years later)

If thats the case then boats dont have MOTs to worry about and the after market tuning black boxes that claim to boost power and save fuel consumption are going to be very popular.

When Detroit were first to go full authority electronic with the Series 60 we were sceptical, that was until the penny dropped that they were using electronics for cycle beating. So CAT, Cummins, Navistar, Mack and Volvo all followed, every year Detroit came out with another sneaky feature, the competition ran the traps on the Series 60 found the hidden algorithims and came out with their own versions. That was until Detroit became so blatant that it was standing joke in the industry, people claimed that only time a Series 60 was emissions compliant was when the ignition switch was on but motor was not running.

However it all ended in tears when EPA nailed everybody and issued a Consent Decree costing engine makers hundreds of millions, this was the point at which Penskie had to sell remaining shareholding out to Mercedes as the fines had brought company to its knees.

All US manufacturers now have ethics training, almost to the point that merely discussing cycle beating can end up with dismissal. Volvo have engineering ethics committee to make sure engineers are complying with not just the legislation, but the spirit of the legislation.

There are still some European truck engines which can tell if they are being tested on emissions control rig, so they run on the 'clean' timing table. The moment they are back on the road they run dirty.

Use of the correct technology goes a long way to mitigate potential performance penalties.

 

[ulyden]

Easy,



Poor old Ulyden seems to have taken this simple statement as an excuse to go off like a Catherine Wheel with the pin pulled out!

Well I'm old and stupid. I'm working with boat engines and stationary power plants. In our world there has been a continues development in fuel consumption. When i started NOx emissions were about 40% higher than today.
Tier 1 made it necessary to reduce 20% Tier 2 20% more. But still there have been a decrease in fuel consumption. Engines have been careful developed by stronger materials, less friction, optimised valves timing,better turbocharging, swirl optimisation, optimised combustion chamber, stratified cooling,higher compression ration, shorter injection duration and so on. All these improvements have done engines so much better that even with 40% reduced NOx the fuel consumption is better.

If we had taken the engine we had 20 years ago and just retarded the timing the fuel consumption and particles emissions would have increased. But i my world customers cares about fuel consumption an buy the one with the lowest consumption.

If you don't improve the basic engine and meet new emissions levels by remapping the old engines to give less nox and particles you get increased fuel consumption. This is a ceap way to "improve" engines without doing anything with the basic engine. In pleasure business nobody reads the specifications and are pleased.When Volvo or Qummins says the new engine is 10% better then the old mechanical engine most people believe it.

 

[ulyden]

Consumption in practise relates to work performed by an engine. This is to be understood as the energy used for internal operation and the energy supplied at the crankshaft.

Buzzword is 'Brake Specific Fuel Consumption' (BSFC).

Fuel contains a certain amount of energi which is turned into useable power by the engine combustion (or burn).
Due to varying technologies' efficiency the amount of power derived from fuel can be slightly less or more, but diesels efficency are in the range 40 to 47%.

Wikipedia offers this explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
including the 40-47% figure.

Its all correct. We always use specific fuel consumption. Even specific energy Consumption In your languish its btu/kwh in my its kJ/kWh. Its common in energy power plants. You can also use kWh/kWh or efficiency.

If you burn 1 kg diesel fuel or 1.19 litre or 1000g it emits 3230g CO2. So If your engine have a specific fuel consumption of 220g/kwh its specific CO2 emission is 0.222kg/kwh * 3230g CO2/kg = 716g/kwh CO2

A newer engine that burns 250g/kwh have a specific emission of 807g/kwh. The efficiency is 3600KJ/h/( 0,250kg/kWh *42700 KJ/kg/)= 33.7%

A good engine uses 210g/kwh 678g CO2/kwh. Efficiency is 40.1%

A ship engine (large one )are using approximate 165g/kwh That is 51% efficiency. Just remember that heavy fuel have a higher CO2 faktor 3300g/kg depending of how long carbon chains are. But they are around 550g CO2/KWH

New spark ignited otto engines in 1-10MW class can achieve below 450g CO2/kWh

Also remember that most engine fuel consumption is 5% more than in technical data's.

 

[david_bagshaw]

It would seem to this dimwit that in order to reduce NOX & particulate emissions you are actually burning more fuel & thereby increasing output of CO2.
Am I wrong again?

John g

well that is the case in the truck world. There was a truism,higher compression ratio , lower consumption. Unfortunately higher compression ratio burns hotter,which leads to greater amounts of Nox.

euro 1 engines were more fuel efficient than euro4 which are more efficient than euro 5

god help us for euro 6 ,egr (exhaust gas re circulation) and scr (stratified catalyitic reduction,the addition of adblue to the exhaust gas + a catalyst box and 2 Nox sensor) together and another 10k added to the price of a tractor unit,and another 4-7 % fuel penalty.

Incidently those nox sensors cost 350 + fitting to replace.

 

[Latestarter1]

Well I'm old and stupid. I'm working with boat engines and stationary power plants. In our world there has been a continues development in fuel consumption. When i started NOx emissions were about 40% higher than today.
Tier 1 made it necessary to reduce 20% Tier 2 20% more. But still there have been a decrease in fuel consumption. Engines have been careful developed by stronger materials, less friction, optimised valves timing,better turbocharging, swirl optimisation, optimised combustion chamber, stratified cooling,higher compression ration, shorter injection duration and so on. All these improvements have done engines so much better that even with 40% reduced NOx the fuel consumption is better.

If we had taken the engine we had 20 years ago and just retarded the timing the fuel consumption and particles emissions would have increased. But i my world customers cares about fuel consumption an buy the one with the lowest consumption.

If you don't improve the basic engine and meet new emissions levels by remapping the old engines to give less nox and particles you get increased fuel consumption. This is a ceap way to "improve" engines without doing anything with the basic engine. In pleasure business nobody reads the specifications and are pleased.When Volvo or Qummins says the new engine is 10% better then the old mechanical engine most people believe it.

Uliden I KNOW D6 takes a substantial hit on Bsfc at Tier III plain and simple. If the new D6 400 rating was awash Tier II Vs Tier III they would have launched the new engine as Tier III and gone gung ho about being green, instead they decided to stand the significant cost of developing a Tier II interim calibration for what is obviously Tier III hardware.

Suggest that if you have so many answers in terms of development of high speed engines that you give your CV to ANY of the major manufacturers as CPE engineer, everybody is looking for the holy grail, name your salary, CAT will bite your hand off!

 

[ulyden]

Suggest that if you have so many answers in terms of development of high speed engines that you give your CV to ANY of the major manufacturers as CPE engineer, everybody is looking for the holy grail, name your salary, CAT will bite your hand off!

To late!

 

[Resnica]

I am somewhat surprised at the negative comments regarding CMD , my experience has been outstanding.

I am currently in my 7th season with twin CMD 4.2L D300

They have been a pleasure to own , smoke free on start up and no black soot all over the stern/tender.

That said my engines dont sit in the marina year round and there have been issues but please bear in mind this is over 7 seasons and I believe they have been very reliable .

year 2
petty oil leak seal (2x drip of oil every 40 nm), cummins sorted it with in one week following a phone call.

year 2
Rev counter failed, cummins sent me a new one to self fit following a phone call, took less than 10 days to arrive .

year 6
a bit fell off after 5 years and 9 months, * took a few phone calls and a few emails but they were reasonably quick to organise repairs.

Year 7
Bosch starter relay failed, now out of warranty so I had to cough up, all of £6 !
(Part delivered over night and available from almost any motorist shop or Ebay)

* Note CMD warranty is 72 months (six years), you could buy your 5 year old boat and benefit from a years remaining warranty, its a no brainer !

As to complaints about CMD customer service , I have been amazed at the outstanding service provided.
But then I dont rant and rave like a headless chicken, I find out what the problem is, explain the issue and they sort it. 10 out of 10

Hi Daka. I’m having trouble finding a shop in my area that has the diagnostic tools to troubleshoot a potential injector problem on my QSD 4.2 350. Could you help me out with the name of any shop you’re aware of in the USA that has the know how and tools to troubleshoot this engine? Thanks!

 

[Clash]

Hi Daka. I’m having trouble finding a shop in my area that has the diagnostic tools to troubleshoot a potential injector problem on my QSD 4.2 350. Could you help me out with the name of any shop you’re aware of in the USA that has the know how and tools to troubleshoot this engine? Thanks!

Good luck getting a response from a 14 year old thread.

 

[DAKA]

Hi Daka. I’m having trouble finding a shop in my area that has the diagnostic tools to troubleshoot a potential injector problem on my QSD 4.2 350. Could you help me out with the name of any shop you’re aware of in the USA that has the know how and tools to troubleshoot this engine? Thanks!

Hi Resnica,

I still have the same boat and engines , I have now owned the boat for over 20 years and they are still amazingly reliable .
I have not needed to use a diagnostic tool in all that time .

I believe you have two options but Latestarter will be best to answer , you might be best to start a new thread for a wider audience.

My engines are 4.2L D300 , I think your QSD 4.2 350 are the same block and came out the same factory but I'm not sure about the electronics.

Mercruiser had a Rinda Tool which occasionally crop up used on ebay for £150
you might find that this fits yours TechMate Pro marine diagnostic tool, marine code reader they are in Chicago USA

If your electronics are basic blink then you can search on youtube to find out how to make your own diagnostic tool for under £10
PP9 volt battery , paper clip and an LED , you simply count the blinks like morse code and look the code up in the manual .

If you start a new thread and detail your problem you might find someone else has had the same issue



Best of luck
DAKA



PS, come on Clash and Davy , whats with the negative vibs ?

 

[Clash]

PS, come on Clash and Davy , whats with the negative vibs ?

I wished him luck. What's negative about that?

 

[Resnica]

Hi Resnica,

I still have the same boat and engines , I have now owned the boat for over 20 years and they are still amazingly reliable .
I have not needed to use a diagnostic tool in all that time .

I believe you have two options but Latestarter will be best to answer , you might be best to start a new thread for a wider audience.

My engines are 4.2L D300 , I think your QSD 4.2 350 are the same block and came out the same factory but I'm not sure about the electronics.

Mercruiser had a Rinda Tool which occasionally crop up used on ebay for £150
you might find that this fits yours TechMate Pro marine diagnostic tool, marine code reader they are in Chicago USA

If your electronics are basic blink then you can search on youtube to find out how to make your own diagnostic tool for under £10
PP9 volt battery , paper clip and an LED , you simply count the blinks like morse code and look the code up in the manual .

If you start a new thread and detail your problem you might find someone else has had the same issue



Best of luck
DAKA



PS, come on Clash and Davy , whats with the negative vibs ?

Thanks Daka. I appreciate all of the information you provided… very useful and more context than I’ve been able to get elsewhere. Thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful response.

And to the others who commented, yes, I know the thread is old. I knew also that Daka is still very active and that he’d probably get an alert about activity on the thread, and this was the most relevant thread I could find. So in the end, a kind and generous person helped me out, and I greatly appreciate it.