How Old is Your Engine?

"Actually I do not think the posting was intended to sound in any way offensive."





It was not offensive per se but merely reflects a problem that needs to be addressed regarding what "technologists" want to give us and what the customer actually wants.
There may be a few on here with the funds simply not to care about makes their boat move,but suspect the majority are more than capable(and probably do) climb down and do stuff ranging from merely changing an oil filter/impellor up to moving engines completely stripping out two outdrives and putting the whole thing back together.
Recent conversations down my boat club,consisting mainly of large planing motorboats,revealed many of them have over the years undertaken major rebuilds and repairs on their engines,simply because it was possible to do the job economicaly using local services and their own labour.
The trend towards greater electronic control systems,while being fine for the guy who is climbing aboard his brand new boat,will be problem for ordinary mortals further down the food chain.
A new £2K ECU a couple of years into ownership will be worth doing on a 250K boat,but when the boat is worth a fraction of that and the unit is probably more likely to fail,there will be no scruffy engineering shop "round the corner" to fix it at a sensible price.
The constant background drip drip drip on this forum of expensive electronic parts failing and being "Dealer fixable only" has made many " ordinary " boaters very suspicious of buying anything with electronic primary engine controls connecting the skipper to the boat.
Poo Poo us luddites if you wish but my boat may not be the most economical or quietest on the river but at least when it does go wrong a local man in a blue pair of overalls will be fixing it at real world prices as opposed to a man in white coat clutching a canbus reader in one hand and a credit card machine in the other from a main dealer 100 miles away.:)
 
Elektronics are good for engine protection. To monitor temperatures and pressure and protect the engine is ok. Saves you and dealer for a lot of trouble. I have to do this my selves watching boost pressure and temperatures. I have no doubt that elektronic monitored engines have less claims.

But I dont whant an engine that is contolled by elektronicks. I like the simplicity in a diesel engine. As long as it get fuel it runs.

I only use my boat 20 times on a season. The wether is bad where i live.
I dont want a engine thats needs to go to a spesialist every time a sensor fails or a nozzle leaks. Just dont want to be dependent of a workshop that cost 100p every hour and you have to wait for 2 weeks for a repair when the sun is shining.

I'm reading about i guy with a new 2.0 mercruiser diesel. After first trouble shoot they replaced the ECU. When that didnt work they changed the sensors and still the engine dont start. Problem is skills of the workshops.
Very often people are pure mecanicks or pure data nerds.

Well the reason for this adwansed engines is not the emissions but the source if these engines. They are taken from automotive industri that have totaly different needs dealing with emissions 10 times lower than marine engines.

Piezo nozzles and multiple injections is nessesary dealing with 40% EGR and 0.7gNOx. But for 7g NOx everything works.

But most of us have to buy this engines but some of us can avoid it.
I'm one of the lucky ones!
 
The problem that boat electronics will go through is already surfacing in cars of a certain vintage.Many of the engine and gearbox ECUs now failing in cars only 5/10 years old are also causing mechanical damage to the item they control.This results not only in needing a new ECU but replacement or repair of the damaged parts.Automatics are the worst offenders
Look on Ebay for the large number of second ECU units for sale,great when 50,000 cars like yours were imported but not when SeaPriline only built 150.
The business next door to mine gets involved with this stuff and the number of owners who walk away or scrap perfectly good cars less than ten years old because the parts from main dealer plus repairs cost far more than the value of the cars.
Yes,there are companies that will repair this stuff but they will not refund your money if the uint will still not work in your car afterwards ,so you could fork out £250 for nothing.
Ps.if you are trying to source a second hand ecu its vital that the indent number exactly matches your old unit a single letter or number out and it is now good at all.
 
Last edited:
oldgit said:
It was not offensive per se but merely reflects a problem that needs to be addressed regarding what "technologists" want to give us and what the customer actually wants.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm cynical but I suspect it's not so much what the technologists want to give the customer as what the beancounters and shareholders want to give the customers. As long ago as the 80's I noticed a tendency to reduce the "repairability" of the kit the Air Force was getting. It wasn't any less reliable - it just hadn't been designed with same thought into being able to remove or refit any component. This wasn't even to allow cheaper production as the volumes and the costs meant any saving due to manufacturing efficiencies would be negligible.

These days it's got to the stage where I suspect the designers and engineers don't even consider replacements or repair of non-consumables a lot of time. I couldn't agree more with Latestarter about pretty engines either. Why do manufacturers insist on shoving a soulless lump of plastic over the top of some lovely engineering? Is it to hide all those nasty complicated things that they wouldn't understand from the customer?
 
Oldgit:

I was merely commenting on what i know as fact, bourne out by considerable research, and the fact that myself and Latestarter clearly understand the why's and wherefore's of this issue. I refrained from commenting on anyone else as i do not know their abilities, and my comment was aimed at the general public as a whole, not solely the boating community. It certainly was not aimed as a sermon from the mount, and i welcome anyone wishing to increase their understanding of engineering generally.

As Latestarter clearly states, modern electronically controlled engines are much more reliable then older engines, again bourne out by facts, and if more people studied the electronic aspects a little more they can make drastic savings by not spending money on unnecessary parts. You have clearly highlighted the problem i described.

I do not see you as a luddite, merely someone with a different view to mine, and your synopsis of new inventions is broadly similar to mine. Technologists do create products nobody wants, then create a market for the product, its called profit and capitalism unfortunately, the most profit from the cheapest creation.

I also agree that designers and alleged technicians do not repair things, engineers do, so i have a little issue with your terminology, a technicial will diagnose and replace, a true engineer will diagnose and repair.

With any market force you will get something cheaper as demand or a market grows, this applies equally to engine electronics, there are many good ECU repairers around who will repair an ECU for peanuts. Often an ECU is prone to a common problem, and Ford industrial engines earlier ECU's are a prime example, a diode costing £1 per 1000 used to blow, replacement cost less than 1p and the labour rate.
 
stuhaynes said:
About 60 years old. Coventry Godiva commissioned in 1951. 30HP 4 cylinder diesel also used as an auxillary pump engine on some of the old Green Goddess fire engines. Smokes a bit on starting but runs as sweet as a nut.
Click to expand...

The fire pump engines were petrol and 4 cyl. overhead cam, coventry climax engines. AFAIK.
 
Assassin said:
Oldgit:

I was merely commenting on what i know as fact, bourne out by considerable research, and the fact that myself and Latestarter clearly understand the why's and wherefore's of this issue. I refrained from commenting on anyone else as i do not know their abilities, and my comment was aimed at the general public as a whole, not solely the boating community. It certainly was not aimed as a sermon from the mount, and i welcome anyone wishing to increase their understanding of engineering generally.

As Latestarter clearly states, modern electronically controlled engines are much more reliable then older engines, again bourne out by facts, and if more people studied the electronic aspects a little more they can make drastic savings by not spending money on unnecessary parts. You have clearly highlighted the problem i described.

I do not see you as a luddite, merely someone with a different view to mine, and your synopsis of new inventions is broadly similar to mine. Technologists do create products nobody wants, then create a market for the product, its called profit and capitalism unfortunately, the most profit from the cheapest creation.

I also agree that designers and alleged technicians do not repair things, engineers do, so i have a little issue with your terminology, a technicial will diagnose and replace, a true engineer will diagnose and repair.

With any market force you will get something cheaper as demand or a market grows, this applies equally to engine electronics, there are many good ECU repairers around who will repair an ECU for peanuts. Often an ECU is prone to a common problem, and Ford industrial engines earlier ECU's are a prime example, a diode costing £1 per 1000 used to blow, replacement cost less than 1p and the labour rate.
Click to expand...

Well I believe you. Modern electronics engines are far more reliable than older mechanical engines.

I really feel sorry for all boaters dealing with diesel engines in 40-80hp class.

They must be dying out there. All the small fishing boats sail boats struggling with unreliable
Yanmar Volvo and Perkins engines. No electronics at all.

Somebody have to make a 60hp commonrail engine for them. Poor people!
 
ulyden said:
Well I believe you. Modern electronics engines are far more reliable than older mechanical engines.

I really feel sorry for all boaters dealing with diesel engines in 40-80hp class.

They must be dying out there. All the small fishing boats sail boats struggling with unreliable
Yanmar Volvo and Perkins engines. No electronics at all.

Somebody have to make a 60hp commonrail engine for them. Poor people!
Click to expand...

Common thread with little puddle jumpers that you mention is that they originate in Japan!

On a serious note,emissions regs are structured with lowest displacement/cyl motors first, why because by comparison with larger displacement they are real nuts easy, however it is coming. Consider the little Komatsu 3.3, sold by Cummins as the B3.3 although no relation to the B Series. Was simple mechanical motor, now developed by Cummins Komatsu IPA (International Power Alliance) with Bosch common rail to meet Tier IV emissions. Smaller engines are being considered more and more for hybrid drive applications, you cannot do this without electronic control (watch this space).

The fairground operators are some of the conservative people around, operating Gardner engines up until just a few years ago. Take a look at some of the newer fairground rides, now with AC motors with huge transient power requirement which electronic governing handles with ease. Take a look at the picture, ERF truck of around 1991, one of my field trials units with one of the first electronically controlled diesel engines in Europe. Using a little 10 liter motor for this type of operation seemed like madness at the time. Imagine my surprise when I recognised the truck at a local fun fair recently, met the operator who tilted the cab and showed me the engine, electronic control modue still had my tag on it twenty years on!

Electronics have made quantum improvements since those days, one electronic controls guys told me that whilst ECM/ECU's can in rare circumstances suffer early life failure once mature life is pretty much infinite, and it has been pointed out ECM/ECU repairs if required are now pretty inexpensive.

By comparison many old mechanical fuel pumps CAV DPA with hydraulic governing are no longer viable to repair.

Have the sceptics with old engines actually experienced the benifits of electronically controlled engines? No visible smoke, far lower noise levels, and so responsive that they make mechanical engines feel akin to horse and cart.
 
Last edited:
"Have the sceptics with old engines actually experienced the benifits of electronically controlled engines? No visible smoke, far lower noise levels, and so responsive that they make mechanical engines feel akin to horse and cart."

Yup we drive them every day and very good they are to.

90% of users on here will be running a boat where the engine option was choosen by the first owner.Going to guess that at least a fair majority have a boat capable of less than 10-15 knots.
The benefits of an engine with hair trigger response times is perhaps not the prime reason that most folks chose a particular boat nor at 7/8 knots is noise likely to be deal breaker.
One visit from the Volvo Penta man certainly could.
Most boaters do not inhabit a world where neck snapping acceleration or the ability to hold a sotto voiced conversation at 30 knots is relevant.
A cheap to run and cheap and simple to fix engine is,bearing in mind the average leisure boat does 50 hours a year,doubt that the fuel savings from electronics out weigh the possible expence when things do go wrong.
 
Oldgit:

I don't think you're quite grasping the concept, particularly of Latestarters post.

The issue is not one of fuel consumption, nor one specific or particular factor, it is a combination of many factors which are dictated by legislation, and legislation alone; and manufacturers have to comply. The current major factors are environmental, and include specific levels on emissions of all types, and yes there is legislation on start up emissions, smoke emissions, and improved fuel economy. In fact some of the legislation is so in depth, and in my mind, unnecessary and contradictory, that manufacturers have no choice other than compliance. This is the primary reason for electronics, without them most of the environmental regulations cannot be complied with unless massive amounts of money are spent on an engine programme to manufacture engines without electronics which comply.

One research project did just this, they provided 5 prototype engines which complied with all legislation, but had no elecronic controls at all, and the cost??? around 35 times the cost of a similar electronically controlled engine. Who would be prepared to pay such an exhorbitant price for an engine? certainly not many commercial or industrial users, and certainly no boat manufacturer or repower specialist.
This is the dilema.

There are a good many boats around with mechanical engines which would be very old, but why? because the good, well maintained engines survived as they do very few hours compared to an industrial engine working for its living. To put this into context, if someone hires a generator to provide power 24 hours a day on a project and thay have it for 10 weeks, we can see what work it does, 24 hours a day, 168 hours per week, 10 weeks is 1680 hours work. How many boat engines work such hours per year, not many, assuming our hired generator works this amount of time and is on hire for 40 weeks per year we have 6720 hours per annum which is a lot of hours. This is where the high wear rates and regular replacements of engines occur in industrial engines, and the reason they are replaced regularly, apply this to a boat and its the reason we still have so many mechanical controlled engines in boats. Basically many are more likely to corrode into obscurity rather than wear out.
 
What emissions level are you talking about? EU inland waterway Vessels?

CO 5g/kwh NOx+THC 7.5g/kwh PM 0.4g/kwh? or IMO NOx? (From 130kw)

This level should be possible easily. Spesially with after treatment like DPF and SCR.
 
"I don't think you're quite grasping the concept, particularly of Latestarters post."

Understand completely the need for electronic control being the way to meet present and future legislation.

Just suspect the devil will ice skate to work,before it makes any deep inroads into the average boaters world.:)
 
Twin diesels commissioned in 1978 with 1550 hours in all. Still sing a very good tune with no oil consumption between annual oil and filter change. Slight loss of revs on the starboard engine at maximum but they still push my (rather heavy) Princess 33 along at 12-13 knots when they have to - providing of course all is in favour, Otherwise averages around 7-8 knots at sea. Just about to order a new starter motor but apart from that - they're absolutely fine. Twin mermaid 80's
 
???
By comparison many old mechanical fuel pumps CAV DPA with hydraulic governing are no longer viable to repair.
>>>
Tell me about it! I have a good 'un and one that is suspect, but >£500 quoted to look at it and recalibrate if that's all it takes. Can, maybe, get a mechanical equivalent for less than that, but doubt its a viable replacement part on a drop in basis!

But there is also no (as far as I am aware) alternative and engine replacement is uneconomic. Despite the undoubted advantages of modern electronics there is no backwards compatibility, quite understandablly so, and therefore those with older engines will keep them soldiering on as best they can, happy in the knowledge that most trouble can be solved, or at least alleviated, with a spanner and a bit of knowledge.

In passing, why does it not seem possible to have the engine diagnostics feed to a screen that translates codes to language of choice and allows some form of user override? Limp home is OK for some situations, but mid Channel with a faulty sensor and the weather turning sounds like a lifeboat call when an "Ignore" button might have some equal validity, unless in warranty ofc:-)
 
This is entirely possible Andrew, but expensive, you will need either a laptop or diagnostic scanner and the appropriate software and you can bypass the major components and set a default or differing value.

This is generally not done due to the lack of knowledge of individuals and the potential to damage the engine by setting parameters outside the programmed operating range of individual components, which can cause greater damage.

This is done for a reason, many Governments, especially EU members, have signed up to the various environmental measures and as such have decided this is the best way to phase out older engines in favour of environmentally friendlier alternatives. Much the same has happened in automotive and other industries, now, and for a number of years, manufacturers have been forced by the same legislation to change over to electronic engine and other controls, and cars have a much shorter life then boats.
 
>>>
This is done for a reason, many Governments, especially EU members, have signed up to the various environmental measures and as such have decided this is the best way to phase out older engines in favour of environmentally friendlier alternatives
>>>
Usual slightly short sighted/manufacturer driven disregard for functional existing equipment not in need of replacing for any especial reason:-) The point of the ovveride was for the skipper/chief engineer to take responsibility in a judgement situation. The ECU programmer is not, in the end, out at sea stuck in limp mode...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

O
“The Dog that Didn’t Bark:” Yanmar. 4L HASTE.
Replies
2
Views
255
oldgit
O

Share this page

Top