How Old is Your Engine?

[rafiki_]

New RNLI Shannon Class lifeboats under development....CAT C9's, many problems encountered during the long and intensive development phase of this vessel, engine issues, NONE! Two engines required regardless of being mechanical or electronic, classification societies do not differentiate, SOLAS have some batty outdated rules which are being re-drawn, twin engines in a rescue vessel just plain common sense...

I have made my view clear before that the use of of LDA (Light Duty Automove) engines operating a levels far cleaner than off road limits have no place in marine applications. Once again problems facing repairers of LDA diesel engines is:

#1 Our colleges turning out young people with inadequate skill levels, for years now they have been paid grants based on the numbers turned out, not the quality. Inability to understand the most basic mathematics is commonplace. The few good people become overloaded, whilst the numpties change filters and lubes.
#2 Major manufacturers have reduced the SRT (Standard Repair Times) to a level which makes the job of the workshop co-ordinator a complete nightmare.
#3 Take MAF sensors which do not/should not figure on marine engines, failure is in 99% cases caused by overfilling with lube oil, caused by the numpties in note #1 or stupid owners, another case of RTFM! High lube oil level causes oil carryover which in turn coats the MAF sensor reducing it's sensitivity.
#4 Fear of electronics due to ill educated and trained technicians (They are not engineers) means that they often start out on the wrong path. Typical example is low power complaint with hours spent trying to diagnose the problem with electronic diagnostic tools, as soon a a clear thinking tec went back to basics, ignored the electronic tools and put the gauges on, RTFM Simple restriction in fuel line due to disposable plastic glove ending up in the fuel tank, pieces eventually found their way into the fuel line.

Becoming paranoid by reading manufacturers fault code listing and making any judgement based on fault codes requiring replacement of ECM/ECU is plain nonsense. I currently have 18 new Volvo D12 ECU's which came along with a large batch of new old staock engine parts. Contacted Volvo dealer who checked useage, annually they sell a MAXIMUM of two into a truck market of many thousands.

Having warm cozy thoughts about a Perkins 4.108 is at best bizarre, when they were new they were always a poor substitute for a Mercedes OM636. As to being a taxi appication, yes they were approved retrofit to Fiat 124's for use in taxi conversions, never used in this country.

Sums up where this thread started, I can assure the poster that his modern Kubota based Nanni will still be running sweetly long after the 4.108 has cracked it's cylinder head for the n'th time. All based on a perception that old, crude and heavy is good, modern is bad. Not true.

Well said sir. In many cases ECU's are changed because it is easy, and looks like you have done something substantial, same in the auto industry. New ECU gets the engine going, while fault codes log up until it won't run anymore like the previous ECU. In cars, Ford was changing so many ECU's and finding no fault found when investigagted, so they made the ECU's extremely hard to get at and replace. Strangely the replacement numbers reduced, and the real faults were dealt with.

Modern engines, when used within their duty cycle envelope, and installed correctly, are very reliable. However, boat volumes are comparatively small, so manufacturers just don't do the verification on the installation, and the early buyers do the fault finding, relying on a good dealer to rectify.

Also, as LS states above, Graduate Engineers these days do not have either tha Maths capability of us old fellers, not the practical experience of keeping an old car going. We have to train our Masters Grads for 2 years before we let them loose!! At Ricardeo, we used to buy an old Mini, get them to strip down every nut and bolt, rebuild, and do and run to Italy and back. They soon learned mechanical empathy.

 

[oldgit]

"I can assure the poster that his modern Kubota based Nanni will still be running sweetly long after the 4.108 has cracked it's cylinder head for the n'th time. "


That olde Perkins has 50 years of real world proveable provenance,the above is purely prophecy.?

 

[Latestarter1]

"I can assure the poster that his modern Kubota based Nanni will still be running sweetly long after the 4.108 has cracked it's cylinder head for the n'th time. "


That olde Perkins has 50 years of real world proveable provenance,the above is purely prophecy.?

Kubota has actually started producing diesel engines about the same time as Frank Perkins and their small engines have a superior provenance, quietly starting and running reliabily and are small engine benchmark for duarability.

Perkins were always burdened with half assed penny pinching management who used the cash cows such as 3.152 and 4.236 to sqander money on small V engines and instead of investing properly in the 6.354 they used old P6 tooling paid for by Government. Development of 6.354.4 replacement, the Phaser/1000 Series was a weak half hearted affair which led to them pulling out of automotive market, and coming close to exiting the marine market.

4.108 was big volume seller to likes of Themo King and other makers of refrigeration units, however superior reliability and durability offered by another Japanese motor, Yanmar killed the engine off. 4.108 was popular in the 60/70's because only competition was the OM636 and BMC 1.5/1.8 and it was cheaper than either of them. Perkins sensibly dropped the 4.108 and built the little Japanese Shibura engine a Kubota, Yanmar styled clone under licence.

Perkins produced some of the finest diesel engineers of the 60/70's however they went off to other companies in sheer frustration. CAT rescued the company after Rodger Rice had come close to wrecking them, just as he had done to Lucas.

It must be that Dunkirk thing, Brits think of abject failure with affection.

 

[Assassin]

I am very interested as to why auto and marine engines arguments apparently do not stack up!!! and in my opinion it is a very illogical argument as many modern engines are derived from a universal base engine. Many manufacturers almost exclusively design and produce such units, they may be used in trucks, marine, or generators by simply reconfiguring them using their electronics to suit each application. Therefore it is relevant.

I cannot also understand the argument of retro fitting modern electronics to a very old engine, appears a way of justifying a point rather than being objective, and relevant to the debate. Retro fitting elecronics to an old engine is not viable as modern engines are designed purely for electronics, older engines were not. This comes back to an original design, the modern design calls for electronic controls, and everything is designed as an integrated unit to harmonise ALL design elements, including electronic control.

My concensus, based on reading many of the posts is simple, the lack of any real understanding or ignorance of many people regarding electronics, how they work, and their emphasis on old wives tales of engine electronics generally. This is not a slur on anyone, just an observation, and one echoed throughout all engines in all sectors; and the spreading of these misconceptions and their portrayal as fact.

Perhaps the moon is made of cheese.

 

[ian38_39]

While I do not pretend to be an engineer my fear is prompted purely on personal experience from diesel cars, where I rely on Main dealers etc. to tell me what the latest fault is and I drive round with an almost permanent yellow light on the dashboard that I have long since stopped acknowledging, it only goes off for a couple of days after it has been for its garage fix.

Maybe it is the case that the engines would be fine if anyone knew how to look after them but if they don't what is the point of having them?

 

[moonraker 36]

KAD 44 EDC PROLEM.

must be one of them reliable electrical fault's that modern electronic's don't get.

 

[Latestarter1]

KAD 44 EDC PROLEM.

must be one of them reliable electrical fault's that modern electronic's don't get.

KAD 44EDC!

Not a full authority electronic engine whatsoever. Just the kind of half assed concept which is pretty much designed to fail........Dumb pump half smart electronics absolutely hopeless in both design and execution. Plus the fact that any decent air handling engineer will tell you that using both a supercharger AND a turbocharger is a fundamentally flawed and over complex and therefore unreliable concept.

Do not use this as a benchmark as modern engine, cos it aint!

 

[Kawasaki]

27 year old Volvo TAMD30
Past its sell by
Been throwing money and bits at it for the last 5 years
Would like to bin it really!
Fine now
But we have had a few arguments over the years
Bit like me an swmbo really
Would like to bin it really
Oops
She just came in
Tarra!!!

 

[ian38_39]

KAD 44EDC!

Not a full authority electronic engine whatsoever. Just the kind of half assed concept which is pretty much designed to fail........Dumb pump half smart electronics absolutely hopeless in both design and execution. Plus the fact that any decent air handling engineer will tell you that using both a supercharger AND a turbocharger is a fundamentally flawed and over complex and therefore unreliable concept.

Do not use this as a benchmark as modern engine, cos it aint!

May be doomed to failure but if it is the EDC at fault then what is the difference between this one and one on a fully electronic engine? as far as I can see it is still an EDC Fault which will still be a fault on the more modern engine.

 

[AdeOlly]

KAD 44EDC!

Not a full authority electronic engine whatsoever. Just the kind of half assed concept which is pretty much designed to fail........Dumb pump half smart electronics absolutely hopeless in both design and execution. Plus the fact that any decent air handling engineer will tell you that using both a supercharger AND a turbocharger is a fundamentally flawed and over complex and therefore unreliable concept.

Do not use this as a benchmark as modern engine, cos it aint!

Hmmm going to view a Jeanneau on Sunday with........ KAD300s An evolution of the same half assed concept I do believe. can't wait

Oh, current lumps are 14 yr old AD31Ps. Never given a problem in 5 yrs and over 3000nm, use no oil.

 

[ulyden]

May be doomed to failure but if it is the EDC at fault then what is the difference between this one and one on a fully electronic engine? as far as I can see it is still an EDC Fault which will still be a fault on the more modern engine.

Its hardly any difference. Instead of an analogue signal to fuel pump the fuel demand is converted to a pulse output signal.Up to 80V DC This signal is synchronised with engine crank and camshaft coming from MPU or hall sensors. On common rail engines the cpu calculates ms pulse duration based on speed demand(or torque) rail pressure. The principles of smoke limiting and injection angles is the same. The KAD engine has probably a needle lift sensor to be able to compensate wear in fuel pump and gear train.

Big difference KAD engines don’t need to know crank and cam position its done mechanical. The fuelling of cylinders is all done with the same plunger.

Diagnostics and possibility to show parameters like fuel consumption boost pressure and other things are the same. Main drive is the possibility to derate power to improve durability.

KAD engines are counted as several times more reliable than newer D3 series.

Some owners have had 5 engines installed in 2 years. Even volvo admit they are bad.

I think us that have been working every day in 20 years with these different system are not that on/of enthusiastic.

Some cases electronic control is an advantage some no difference. Forget fuel consumtion. Combustion don’t care unless you over fuel(black smoke) Electronic smoke control depends on correct signal. If mass flow meter, map or rail pressure sensor fails, or the nozzles drifts off you can have smoke problems on electronic engines. (Meet a Ford Fokus constant giving black smoke this evening)

Running an engine against a fixed propeller at 80% speed is no challenge. No need for extreme flexibility. Engines running at constant speed and torque don’t need a lot of adjustments to operate vel. Thats why i have removed it on my engine.

Common rail have advantages when running high EGR rates and NOx levels below 2g/kwh. My engine don't do that. Clean air and 10-12g NOx pr kWh. Most newer boat engines are in range 7-9g/kwh

Improvements in diesel combustion not done by electronics. Improvements mainly in smaller nozzle holes and increased pressure are purely mechanical things. Materials, calculations and machining.
‘
Better understanding and control of swirl and squish also improve combustion. Power density and torque is due to better materials and calculations. Maximum firing pressure is also due to improved materials and calculations.of piston and liner.

Bearings are improved and lube oils as vel. Friction is reduced by increasing specific loads. Turbochargers have less mass of inertia and improved efficiency.

So to say that engine performance is improved by electronic control is nonsense. That’s why you can’t put electronics on an old engine and expect big improvements! Its all about what happends in combustion chamber.

 

[deadfish]

engine

BMC 1500 diesel, removed from an old J4 van and fitted in the boat 40 years ago. Not started for about 15 years, changed oil and filters, new glow plugs and battery, started first time and runs great.

 

[scottie]

Is it the case that many engine repair people fall into three camps

A the long serving person who has a long experience of finding the the fault stripping and rebuilding using experience and skill but is wary of the black boxes partially as it is not apparent how they work without specialized interrogation .

B the young fearless read the diagnostic screen and change the box till you get the right one
person

C the rare person with actual ability to use both experiences to actually rectify problems

I would suggest that until both engine producers and repairers are actually honest with each other in admitting their limitations a lot of the problems that users have will continue.

 

[Latestarter1]

There are good older engines and plain bad older engines.

Time has weeded out most of the poor engines. Bosch EDC was halfway house concept dating back over 20 years, used by many manufacturers as a stop gap until proper full authority electronic diesel engines were developed. The system relied on too many electro mechanical interfaces (injector needle lift sensor) was a prime example. Scania was one of the first engine builders to employ EDC along with Mack. Warrantly levels have always been higher on EDC motors as well as system being plagued with phantom fault codes. Add to this the highly inefficient and over complex supercharger/turbocharger hardware and you end up with an unreliable system.

The EDC equipped VM engine was also dogged with reliability issues, Volvo did not corner the market in this regard.

You only have to compare the simplicity of the 300 Hp 4.16 liter Yanmar 6LPA with the 285 Hp 3.6 liter KAD 300. Yanmar wins hands down in terms of performance, simplicity and reliability, in a smaller lighter package. You cannot compare cranky old EDC motor with modern full authority common rail/unit injector engine, if it an apples for apples old KAD 300 Vs modern D4 comparison the newer engine it is a no contest.

 

[moonraker 36]

i would say their is a place in this world.
for good old engine's and good new modern engine's.
just don't like the idea of righting off old engine's.
because of some small imperfection's.

 

[ulyden]

There are good older engines and plain bad older engines.

You cannot compare cranky old EDC motor with modern full authority common rail/unit injector engine, if it an apples for apples old KAD 300 Vs modern D4 comparison the newer engine it is a no contest.

Well sombody have!:

http://www.windy.no/downloads/25_MIRAGE_KAD_300_EDC_ DP_G_gear_ratio_1_68_1.pdf

http://www.windy.no/downloads/W25M-VPD4-260-070509.pdf

The Norwegian magasine Båtmagasinet have tested CR egines against Bosh VE pumps.

D4 210 have been tested against 200hp Mercruiser 2.8 with boch VE37pump
Fuel consumtion the same. D3 160hp against VW 2.5 150hp litre fuel consumtion the same.

Test is in Norwegian. Google have to translate

http://www.batmagasinet.no/baatweb/...D5FDEB82A1C6A981C12576180048224E?OpenDocument

http://www.batmagasinet.no/baatweb/...208DF88478AD8FD9C1257618004822A0?OpenDocument

Anyway even a 10% reduction for me crusing maximum 1000nm pr year have zero impact compared to repair cost of a CR engine.

One nozzle on the D4 cost 6 times mor than a 10% fuel consumtion reduction. For me avoiding expensive parts that gives me nothing back is logical.

By the way. I have one car with VE pump. BMW 5 series diesel. Nearly gets 1000miles between fuelings. Never run the tank dry. If I get 1100miles with CR rail i will be amased. BMW mounted CR on this engine in 2002. Fuel consumption? The same!

 

[jonoR]

I have read all of the posts on this thread from people who obviously know what they are talking about , some of which goes right over the top of my head, and was wondering why you could not all get together and design a diesel engine that would be suited for marine purposes. I don't mind you using my boat as a guinea pig. You seem to all have years of experience in the engineering especially Latestarter and Mr Ulyden whose posts are always informative.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

An interesting idea but to make the unit price attractive (indeed viable) it would need to be an automotive engine that could be marinised and operated at minimal additional espense. A 2l marine diesel can cost more that a new 2l car!

I'm still very much in favour of the idea that the installation needs a proper readout that tells the operator, in reasonably plain language of choice, what is wrong if something records an out of parameters error and suggests a course of action simply because you are very much more likely to be remote form any help apart from your own ingenuity.

 

[Latestarter1]

Let me just make some apples for apples comparisons to clarify matters.

I hate having to constantly refer to Green engines, however due to strangle hold on our market they are easily understood.

Old Volvo TAMD 122 EDC 603 Hp (Metric) fuel consumption 235 g/kW/hr Uncertified
Replacement Volvo D12 615 Hp (Metric) fuel consumption 212 g/kW/hr Tier 1 Certified.

This comparison is now over ten years old, the old 122 engine were smokey, noisey and I think had hours based injector change out as part of service shedule, also like other EDC engines were not easy to troubleshoot.

The slightly newer D12 met Tier I emissions, has zero start up smoke and is quiet as a pussycat purring when put next to the old 122. Fuel consumption comparison also shows how bad the old quasi electronic engine was, however we are only talking Tier I. No injector change out as part of service regieme.

Big improvements in noise and eliminination of smoke appear to be ignored by those who have not experienced newer engines.

Unlike TD122 full authority electronic D12 has established reputation as pretty much a fit and forget motor which no recreational boater will explore durability limits. As to performance it is rocket ship Vs street sweeper.

Ulyden your comparisons are all apples oranges and pears, unregulated Vs TierI or Tier II not to mention your vehicle comparisons and as to boat to boat comparisons they NEVER make any sense as no two boats are ever the same.

At least boat tests in U.S. journals generally list noise pressure as various locations.

As to Bosch VP37 and VP 44 fuel pumps not products which covered themselves in glory, have a nasty habit of consuming their internals requiring complete replacement at over £1K a pop, if the lift pump output becomes low. (Ford Transit, Dodge Ram).

Make no mistake as we head towards Tier III engine fuel consumption will increase, it is only the use of clever electronics which go some way to mitigating the impact.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
Make no mistake as we head towards Tier III engine fuel consumption will increase, it is only the use of clever electronics which go some way to mitigating the impact.
>>>

Why so? I've found this whole thread fascinating and illuminating. I'd have thought, as a layman, that reduction in emissions linked to reduction in consumption, or more efficient use of the same energy input allowing increased output for the same emissions.