End of the road for CAT C9/C12 Marine

[Latestarter1]

About a year ago CAT suddenly pulled their Tier III C13 customer field trial boats, put the original C12's back in and went home. We were all head scratching, C9 was going through a major design tear up with HUEI being replaced with common rail system and new 4 valve head and looked ready to rock and roll at Tier III.

Since then silence has been deafening until this press release last Wednesday 30th January......http://www.cat.com/engines/marine

CAT have tied the knot with Iveco FPT instead of developing their own engines and will badge engineer Cursor engines as C8.7 and C12.9, bet this had people in corporate communications head scratching.

I can understand why planners at Preoria took such a brave step, they missed the Tier II deadline big time and it cost them dearly. C18 and C32 are out of the heat of real competition and make between 30 to 40% gross margin , smaller engines much less, therefore far more important to spend development $$ on these engines, HUEI was a busted flush and all the ACERT stuff just smoke and windows, C18/C32 needed some big budget spending and something had to give.

Nothing yet on C7 or Perkins marine product line however likely to be just as radical.

Wonder if this slipped below radar at IPC Towers??

 

[sarabande]

I don't know what sort of time scales they work on, but does this mean that jfm will have to make do with Mercury outboards clamped on the passerelle ?

 

[[2068]]

The uncharitable could say "You've got FIAT engines in there".
Being kinder, you could also say "They're in the same group as Ferrari"...

 

[Trundlebug]

Do Cummins have a comparable marine engine offering at Tier III? I'm curious as to whether they might be entering the fray to fill the gap...

 

[rafiki_]

The uncharitable could say "You've got FIAT engines in there".
Being kinder, you could also say "They're in the same group as Ferrari"...

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Fiat Powertrain (FPT), as they have been at the forefront of some good diesel innovation. IIRC they were the innovators of the common rail system.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I presume this has something to do with the difficulty in engineering the move from Tier 3A to 3B to Tier 4 in industrial engines. We know that engine manufacturers have already experienced some failures of new Tier 3B engines in our industry and apart from that, OEMs have had huge additional costs trying to shoehorn these monsters into their equipment, which must rebound back to engine manufacturers to some extent. Maybe Cat have just given up on Tier 3B altogether whilst they redesign their engine range completely for Tier 4 and are badge engineering Fiat engines for Tier 3B customers in the interim? I wouldn't have a problem buying equipment with a Cat-Fiat engine in it because I'd be confident that Cat would support the product to their usual standard.
As for Fiat engines, the very first machine my company sold in the UK was in 1983 and that had a Fiat Iveco engine. The customer concerned went on to buy many more machines from us with GM, Deutz, Cummins, Merc and Cat engines but they always said that the Fiat engine was the best they ever had. In fact, I heard the other day that that machine was still going strong somewhere in India on the original engine. I suspect it's done 50,000hrs+ now. Italian engineering, you can't beat it

 

[Latestarter1]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Fiat Powertrain (FPT), as they have been at the forefront of some good diesel innovation. IIRC they were the innovators of the common rail system.

That is exactly the type of BS they would like you to believe........

The fuel lubricated common rail fuel pump was founded in some blue sky work done by Ford tractor divison in Basildon right here in the UK. These guys were smart on high pressure pumps. Ford sold tractor division to Fiat Agriculture eventually becoming CNH Case New Holland and Fiat inherited the pump design which they passed to their Marrelli division. Marrelli shared the design with Bosch who realised it was far in advance of what they were doing, Bosch made Marrelli an offer and snapped up the pump calling it the Bosch CP3.

I have huge respect for Cat, however there is always a sting in the tail with FPT, cheap engines up front but parts can be eyewatering and technical back up unlike Cat is lousy. Bit like Iveco trucks, cheap to purchase, expensive to own.

In addition these deals rarely run smooth, Cummins fell out big time with FPT they are not straight shooters. Yanmar did a deal to market Scania marine engines world wide, that has all ended in tears, too may mouths in the food chain.

Suspect this will dilute the Cat 'brand'.

 

[rafiki_]

That is exactly the type of BS they would like you to believe........

The fuel lubricated common rail fuel pump was founded in some blue sky work done by Ford tractor divison in Basildon right here in the UK. These guys were smart on high pressure pumps. Ford sold tractor division to Fiat Agriculture eventually becoming CNH Case New Holland and Fiat inherited the pump design which they passed to their Marrelli division. Marrelli shared the design with Bosch who realised it was far in advance of what they were doing, Bosch made Marrelli an offer and snapped up the pump calling it the Bosch CP3.

I have huge respect for Cat, however there is always a sting in the tail with FPT, cheap engines up front but parts can be eyewatering and technical back up unlike Cat is lousy. Bit like Iveco trucks, cheap to purchase, expensive to own.

In addition these deals rarely run smooth, Cummins fell out big time with FPT they are not straight shooters. Yanmar did a deal to market Scania marine engines world wide, that has all ended in tears, too may mouths in the food chain.

Suspect this will dilute the Cat 'brand'.

LS, I was at Ricardo at the time when we were working with FPT, and Mag Marelli. There wasn't much of the Henry stuff found its way into the Fiat diesels. There was some surprisingly good capability in Turin.

 

[MapisM]

Suspect this will dilute the Cat 'brand'.

Maybe, or maybe not. Time will tell, I guess.
For the moment, Cat can only regret not to have closed the deal earlier, and put some yellow paint on the FPT engines which established the new NY-Bermuda record just a few months ago.
And with a (relatively) heavy patrol boat, with unsinkable hull and military rated engines. Not with racing stuff.
Btw, the previous record - now ridiculised - was achieved with MerCummins propulsion...

 

[Latestarter1]

Well it appears I am completely wrong...In my book Cat has gone from hero to zero, others have a different view.

For many years I have held Cat engineering in some regard, and their long term product support is second to none. Iveco approach has always been flog em a box stuff, to heck with the future. Cursor product has changed somewhat since I looked at some service training notes and it jumped right out at me that there was zero machining tolerance between head and block, throw away motors is not/was not the Cat way. Any major work on Cursor so complex completely outside normal dealer capability.

Looks like boating community is more interested in glitz than long term substance and that Cat brand is not what I thought it was.

CumminsMercruiser record was with a VW chainsaw motor, Cummins only did the CPE work on that one..

Rafki, my old pals at Ford never saw it that way............However why did Marelli never bring the product to market, rather than flog it to Bosch?

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

The mistake Fiat did with selling its Common Rail system was also on Italian news. I always say someone had made a good deal inside the company for this to happen.

Fiat developed 90% of the direct injection common rail system and sold it to Bosch, with the only item on contract to be available first of Fiat cars. First Diesel with Di was the Alfa 156.

Anyways some friends have Iveco (80s and 90s) engines on there boats and they are pretty reliable and parts are also cheap. I do not know much of the new FPTs though.

 

[MapisM]

However why did Marelli never bring the product to market, rather than flog it to Bosch?

I can answer that LS, because at that time I heard about the story from an "insider" friend of mine who worked there.
The reason is simply that they needed the fair amount of money Bosch was offering.
In fact, you couldn't be more far from truth when you said "That is exactly the type of BS they would like you to believe" with regard to the common rail affaire.
Bosch asked that a NDA agreement was included in the deal, because THEY would have wanted us to believe that it was THEIR German technology.
Eventually, the truth leaked anyway, but before it did, the seller never said a word about that.

 

[rafiki_]

Rafki, my old pals at Ford never saw it that way............However why did Marelli never bring the product to market, rather than flog it to Bosch?

LS, I doubt if any of us here are questioning your knowledge and understanding, and I for one hugely value your input and common sense, and I know others do to.
On the Mag Mar v Bosch thingy, who knows why Mag did not exploit this. Again, my view is that the Italians can be very parochial, and miss the big picture. Bosch very seldom misses a commercial opportunity. Which is the most profitable Auto business in the world? Our old friends Robert Bosch. Much of the auto world they hold by the short and curlies, as they own the IPR.

 

[MapisM]

On the Mag Mar v Bosch thingy, who knows why Mag did not exploit this. Again, my view is that the Italians can be very parochial, and miss the big picture.

Trust me, 'twas just a financial matter, nothing to see with the lack of vision. Not in this case, anyway.
Bosch was indeed smart, though, no doubt about that.

 

[Latestarter1]

LS, I doubt if any of us here are questioning your knowledge and understanding, and I for one hugely value your input and common sense, and I know others do to.
On the Mag Mar v Bosch thingy, who knows why Mag did not exploit this. Again, my view is that the Italians can be very parochial, and miss the big picture. Bosch very seldom misses a commercial opportunity. Which is the most profitable Auto business in the world? Our old friends Robert Bosch. Much of the auto world they hold by the short and curlies, as they own the IPR.

Fiat were far from dumb...There was some sort of restrictive covenant in the Marelli/Bosch deal which prevented Bosch from selling CP3 to just anybody. For example Renault RVI division were out in the cold and had to use nasty Bosch CP2 pump. Cummins was more than willing to sign up to the JV which created the ISB/QSB Tector/NEF engines as they had to have access to this pump technology.

In 1997 CP3 maximum flow output was good enough for just under 350 hp and projected durability was far less than a Bosch VE rotary fuel pump, with very few changes system is now good for over 560 hp and durability matches rotary fuel pumps.

 

[ulyden]

Fiat were far from dumb...There was some sort of restrictive covenant in the Marelli/Bosch deal which prevented Bosch from selling CP3 to just anybody. For example Renault RVI division were out in the cold and had to use nasty Bosch CP2 pump. Cummins was more than willing to sign up to the JV which created the ISB/QSB Tector/NEF engines as they had to have access to this pump technology.

In 1997 CP3 maximum flow output was good enough for just under 350 hp and projected durability was far less than a Bosch VE rotary fuel pump, with very few changes system is now good for over 560 hp and durability matches rotary fuel pumps.

I think denso had a cr system in 1995 on a hino engine but bosch history i dont know.

My company met cat on larger gas fuled engines. 35 and36 series. When emisson limits went down they pulled out. They mowed to areas with higher limits like africa and asia.

seams to be pure economics that controlls development of engines.