How Old is Your Engine?

[ian38_39]

It does seem an intriguing proposition that the more efficient engines become the more fuel they use.

Correct me if I am wrong but Fuel burn = emissions the only way to reduce those emissions is to increase the distance that can be traveled on the same amount of fuel (efficiency).

Other than that surely you are just scrubbing the emissions and I don't understand where the electronics come into this?

A turbo uses waste emissions to produce power without the need for more fuel, I can understand this but I thought electronics were supposed to provide a better spray pattern, better control of the timing of the release of this spray pattern and as such less wasted fuel and hence greater efficiency and with this a greater amount of energy claimed from the fuel burned resulting in a greater distance traveled.

Am I just being too simplistic?

 

[ulyden]

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.

The engines i compared were all IMO Tier1 (After 2000 this was the limit)

The boat performance test was made by volvo and all had IMO emission limits.

The hulls were the same and boat weight listed. Remember D4 170kg heavier than KAD 300 with drive.

D4 also have a compressor. Is this ok combined with common rail ecu?

You asked for a KAD300 vs D4.

The engines you are comparing don’t have Common rail as far as i know.

Don’t find the newer engine in volvos marine list.

But I understand that you believe that fuel consumption will go down from 235 to 212g/kwg by adding electronic unit injectors.

The 12 litre volvo engine is used in most busses where I live. smoke have never been a problem

Newer engines that you are comparing with might have urea scr cat. That’s common in trucks. Then the engine can be adjusted dirty and have a descent fuel consumption. Guess you know.

For larger engines fuel consumption have gone down lately. All due to miller and turbo technology. Common rail is only considered as a way to reduce low load smoke not a fuel consumption reduction issue.

When car industry remove the shaft between steering wheel and front wheel and replace it by potentiometer behind the steering wheel and el actuators on the front wheel then I will consider it.

Think of all possibilities. steering sensivity a software matter, different simulated gear rations, flexibility in position and space and much more. Its coming I know.

 

[Latestarter1]

It does seem an intriguing proposition that the more efficient engines become the more fuel they use.

Correct me if I am wrong but Fuel burn = emissions the only way to reduce those emissions is to increase the distance that can be traveled on the same amount of fuel (efficiency).

Other than that surely you are just scrubbing the emissions and I don't understand where the electronics come into this?

A turbo uses waste emissions to produce power without the need for more fuel, I can understand this but I thought electronics were supposed to provide a better spray pattern, better control of the timing of the release of this spray pattern and as such less wasted fuel and hence greater efficiency and with this a greater amount of energy claimed from the fuel burned resulting in a greater distance traveled.

Am I just being too simplistic?

Yep fraid so!

Whilst we strive for 100% complete combustion you can never quite get there.

For every 1kg of fuel burnt, there is about 1.1kg of water (as vapour/steam) and 3.2kg of carbon dioxide produced. As I said we do not have 100% combustion so there is also a small amount of products of incomplete combustion, carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (vaporised fuel) and soot, smoke or particulates whatever you want to call it, (actually just unburned hydrocarbons in a different form). In addition, the high temperatures that occur in the combustion chamber promote an unwanted reaction between nitrogen and oxygen from the air. This results in various oxides of nitrogen, (NOx).

Industrial/off road emissions are becoming heavily Nox focussed, we go after Nox by reducing combustion temperature, one key way of reducing combustion temperature is by retarding the timing, retarding the timing increases both fuel consumption and partciulates. I used to use a long party balloon in lectures, blow it up write Nox in felt tip on one end and PM (particulate matter) on the other. Put the baloon under one arm and squeeze the Nox down real small, then turn around and you see the PM end is now far larger. CPE (Combustion Performance Emissions) engineers are real clever, common rail injection gave them some extra levers to pull, standards are getting tighter and we have fewer levers to pull!

Remember the old TD122 @ 235 g/kW/hr and the Tier I D12 at 212. Current Tier II D12 650 has dropped back to 217 g/kW/hr, gone backwards a bit but still far better than the old non emissions compliantTD122 of 15 years ago.

 

[ulyden]

I think we come from two different standpoints. I'm not doing big speeches. I compare technology by measuring differences. The results I make are used in deciding what to use in line production engines. If we had seen any big advantages by using electronic control we had the technology 20 years ago.

More precise injection? The main problem with these systems are opposite. They all relay on some servo system that drifts off. On big supplier are trying to forecast this drift and adapt to it. Modern injectors are so unlike each other that the flow characteristic has to be programmed into the engine control.

But common rail does the injection more flexible and you can run the engine with less air before you get smoke. But differences are marginal. In car industry idling behaviour is a important measure. Pre injections are good in that way. Post is good removing soot. Speed control is also good with electronic control.

Point is it helps a lot on things that is not an issue on a marine engine operating at 80% load.

In some markets advanced technology sells. In tradition marine marced it don’t. Customers are operating engines that run’s 24h a day. They don’t want to stop during fishing, pulling, dredging, or cruising at the coast in rough wether. When you are at sea between Island and Newfoundland the service engineer need a fast boat or a air drop to bee there quick.

When workshops on shore don’t handle it on cars the skill level the engine people need onboard a ship is big. On the few larger ships there have been a man from the supplier first year on advanced engines.

Reducing error possibilities is a key. Easy trouble shuting another.

Lots of these customers have electronic auxially engines like Cummings and Caterpillar . So they have the experience but don’t want this for propulsion. Most larger engine suppliers’ have offered electronic engines for above 10 years now. Mainly on cruise ship burning heavy fuel they are popular. Always 6 – 8 engines giving redundancy.

Well about the comparing to Volvo engines. I think there are more differences then only fuel equipment. Think you are comparing 4 valves on each cylinder with 2. Newer Volvos have a mechanical devise that opends the exhaust valve during air intake causing hot EGR reducing the nox. Clever system but has nothing to do with fuel injection. Try to upload the M13 engine and it has also miller timing that increase the efficiency. But no CR!

The mercruiser 4.2 liter engine was converted to common rail in 2007. The performance don’t indicate big improvements. Both IMO engines. The last EPA 2 that correspond to IMO tier 1 as far as I know. Try to add a picture.

 

[Assassin]

Ian:

A turbocharger does not give any more power, it pumps more air into the engine which allows more fuel to be injected for more power, and to a degree you are being slightly simplistic but reasonably objective.

All engines follow phases, once it was simply make any diesel engine run, then make it efficient, then Ricardo combustion systems, now we have turbochargers and electronics, its merely evolution. Early electro mechanical systems have been covered, and its simply a case of electronics replacing electrically or electro-mechanically controlled applications. Electronics and technology advance, look at computers as an example, modern electronic controls are considerable more powerful then the early computers as an example.

This evolution faces its current trend of environmental issues as many European politicians setting such legislation are so reliant on environmental issues to keep there well paid (taxpayer funded) jobs, so heres the first issue. They have no regard for the issues and problems facing engine designers, they are thinking of themselves, and their well paid jobs in the longer term, and engine designers and manufacturers have to comply with the legislation. They self promote by claiming they have helped the planet, and hope to win their seats again at election time.

The second issue is how to design and build an engine as a base engine which can be a universal base engine, an engine which can be used in industrial, heavy automotive, and marine applications. An engine which can be built down to a cost, reliable, need the least amount of components when the base engine is ordered in a specific configuration, and the lowest price for each conversion to its application.

As an example they may choose one turbocharger supplier, they may specify an electronically controlled variable vane turbocharger for truck applications, but a fixed vane turbocharger for marine or industrial applications, but why? In a truck application the truck will have to operate in world conditions, hot and cold climates, at very differing altitudes, and able to haul very light to very heavy cargo loads at varying speeds around the world. The cheapest, most reliable, and cost effective way to do this is with a variable vane electronically controlled turbo, it only requires the VVT to be fitted, and modifications to programming the software. This is the cheapest and easiest way.

In a marine or industrial application the loads and operating parameters are much smaller, the boat weight or load is much more constant, so a fixed vane turbo is the easiest and much cheaper option. Its simple and delivers the goods, and no additional electronic programming is required, a cost saving. Converting engines to marine specifications are expensive, using cheaper options such as fixed vane turbo's are a way of saving money and offsetting the higher cost of their conversion, meaning more attractive prices to OE specified engines, and all while maintaining profitibility.

If you were a boat builder and had the option of three engines, all with the same output, and one had legal but slightly higher emissions, but cost £2000 less than its competitors, which would you choose? the cheapest. Any cost savings to all the suppliers and boat manufacturers means better value and more profit, or the ability to cut their sale prices while maintaining the same level of profitibility. Ultimately it all comes down to pounds, shillings, and pence.

 

[ian38_39]

So where we have got back to now is that the more modern the engine gets, the less efficient it gets, thanks to the ability to electronically control emissions that are not an issue in the first place with marine applications, we are also adding in a whole host of expensive swappable parts that will be swapped on fault diagnosis by the chap who does not know what he is doing but is a far better option than the mechanic who does not understand what he is doing.

In the rest of the commercial world advantages of micro chips are obvious everywhere. A new 20" TV is probably cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. almost all other domestic appliances are in real terms cheaper than they were 20 years ago and some of them even have a lower price.

I have seen these benefits for myself. The washing machine we had had for 18 years packed up a couple of years ago and that was a real dinosaur when compared to the same brands offerings today. delighted with the service we had received from the old machine we bought another top of the range job from the same manufacture. Had the usual sales **** for warranty insurance but didn't waste the money as washing machines go on for 18 years.

Not anymore they don't. and why? because the cheap to make and originally fit electronics, that control everything, break after 13 months and as an after market product suddenly become horrendously expensive, requiring technicians with 100 factory training courses under their belt to change them, commanding £100000000 an hour.
Thought we were unlucky the first time and as the machine was so cheap in the first place just threw it away and got another one. Turns out we were unlucky the first time, the second one lasted 15 months.

So why is it, given that technology makes everything cheaper, that boat engines in real terms are getting more expensive?

 

[Assassin]

So where we have got back to now is that the more modern the engine gets, the less efficient it gets, thanks to the ability to electronically control emissions that are not an issue in the first place with marine applications, we are also adding in a whole host of expensive swappable parts that will be swapped on fault diagnosis by the chap who does not know what he is doing but is a far better option than the mechanic who does not understand what he is doing.

In the rest of the commercial world advantages of micro chips are obvious everywhere. A new 20" TV is probably cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. almost all other domestic appliances are in real terms cheaper than they were 20 years ago and some of them even have a lower price.

I have seen these benefits for myself. The washing machine we had had for 18 years packed up a couple of years ago and that was a real dinosaur when compared to the same brands offerings today. delighted with the service we had received from the old machine we bought another top of the range job from the same manufacture. Had the usual sales **** for warranty insurance but didn't waste the money as washing machines go on for 18 years.

Not anymore they don't. and why? because the cheap to make and originally fit electronics, that control everything, break after 13 months and as an after market product suddenly become horrendously expensive, requiring technicians with 100 factory training courses under their belt to change them, commanding £100000000 an hour.
Thought we were unlucky the first time and as the machine was so cheap in the first place just threw it away and got another one. Turns out we were unlucky the first time, the second one lasted 15 months.

So why is it, given that technology makes everything cheaper, that boat engines in real terms are getting more expensive?

No, you have got back to the more modern an engine is, the less efficient it is, and most others have seen the more modern engines as more efficient as they have proven to be more efficient, the facts bear this out.
What you have apparently failed to understand is thet engines follow phases dictated mainly by politicians, and the current trend is environmentally friendlyness, it is this which dictates or heavily influences engine design. This compliance is what makes engines more expensive than they really need to be, its that simple.

Its already been stated many times, that there are good and bad engines, and the bad are well known due to their continual bad publicity, the better engines are not as commonly known as they do not make the same headlines.

An interesting quote: someone who does not know what he is doing, and someone who does not understand what he is doing, this assumes nobody knows what they are doing, again this is untrue and totally false.
Many good marine engineers exist, some have more knowledge then others on electronics, and most reputable companies update their skills on a regular basis, to keep up with technology and technology used on their products. Perhaps you need to apologise to all the good marine engineers out there.

Washing machines are hardly a reasonable comparison, they have become a disposable commodity and boats have not, apples and pears springs to mind.

 

[Latestarter1]

So why is it, given that technology makes everything cheaper, that boat engines in real terms are getting more expensive?

Ian,

Not a true statement at all. Let me give you some real numbers

CMD 480 C 353 kW 8.3 liter 858 kg Certification IMO, EPA Tier I, RCD up to 300 hr/year recreational rating.

CMD QSB 480 353 kW 5.9 liter 612 kg Certification EPA Tier II, RCD up to 500 hr/year recreational rating.

The full authority electronic QSB 480 is lighter, far quiter, less expensive to install, more fuel efficient, all at a lower price than the 480C. Where is the catch, there is none. Just all down to technical advances.

All diagnostic codes are incorporated in instruments, or for the more independently minded or perhaps paranoid, you can purchase your own diagnostic tool for less than $700. https://store.cummins.com/store/cat...category_id=4&subcategory_id=18&product_id=89

Or for a Green engine comparison:

Volvo TAMD 75P EDC 353 kW 7.3 liter 860 kg Certification Tier I, RCD. Up to 300 hr/yr recreational rating. (Power to ISO 3046, over generous 25 Degree C Fuel temperature actual power circa 348 kW). DTC diagnostic codes on instruments.

 

[ian38_39]

Interesting that you refer to the Cummins fully electronic engines as an example, would those use the same sort of Electronic control as MBM's Jeanneau Prestige 38S used in their boat?

From MBM April 2011.

Engine Issues

Blue Fin was fitted with a pair of Cummins Mercruiser Diesel (CMD) QSB 4.2s and the Axius Joystick system (instead of a bow thruster).

"Unfortunately we suffered almost continual problems with the engine electronics".

"It took CMD engineers three visits to rectify the fault"

Fuel Use

"Economy wise we were a little surprised by how much fuel the 38S used"

If a show case boat suffers from these issues and cummins own, and I would think best given the situation, engineers can't diagnose a fault then what chance have you got with a standard outlet?

I am sure there are a lot of very good marine engineers around and my comment was not aimed at them, if my comment caused offence I apologise as this was not my intention.

My point was the complexity of the systems is moving the ability to work through a problem away from all but the highest of qualified people and all this is being done to chase emissions that are not required in marine regulations.

 

[ulyden]

My point was the complexity of the systems is moving the ability to work through a problem away from all but the highest of qualified people and all this is being done to chase emissions that are not required in marine regulations.

IMO ruels are changing in 2016 Then the NOx levels have to be down 80%.

To cope with that I don’t think common rail can reduce nox that much without adds on technique (About 2g/kwh). Maybe latestarter know?Exhausts gas recirculation and or selective catalyst will be needed. Humidified air or white diesel might be options but most are looking at scr system with urea. This has a high cost to install, but doesn’t affect the diesel engine. Exhausts recirculation is a challenge due to sulphur in marine diesel oil.

SCR needs a certain temperature to work. Idling might be a problem.

EGR might be a challenge. My sisters mondeo have been smoking and have had an uneven running without any fault detected. Her husband have been several times to Ford dealer and a Bosch garage. Main suspect were nozzles but these were expensive.

I told him to remove the air inlet manifold. Could be carbon build up removing the swirl in the channels. He did last week. First cylinder was full of soot. He removed nearly 0.5litre. Now the engine is fine. But most amazing. He gave his Ford workshop a call and asked for a cure to avoid this problem. O yes they had a kit.60£ later he got a stainless coin to put in before EGR valve to block the exhausts coming into the manifold. Well the smoke is away but nox might be worse! Strange policy!

 

[Latestarter1]

Interesting that you refer to the Cummins fully electronic engines as an example, would those use the same sort of Electronic control as MBM's Jeanneau Prestige 38S used in their boat?

From MBM April 2011.

Engine Issues

Blue Fin was fitted with a pair of Cummins Mercruiser Diesel (CMD) QSB 4.2s and the Axius Joystick system (instead of a bow thruster).

"Unfortunately we suffered almost continual problems with the engine electronics".

"It took CMD engineers three visits to rectify the fault"

Fuel Use

"Economy wise we were a little surprised by how much fuel the 38S used"

If a show case boat suffers from these issues and cummins own, and I would think best given the situation, engineers can't diagnose a fault then what chance have you got with a standard outlet?

I am sure there are a lot of very good marine engineers around and my comment was not aimed at them, if my comment caused offence I apologise as this was not my intention.

My point was the complexity of the systems is moving the ability to work through a problem away from all but the highest of qualified people and all this is being done to chase emissions that are not required in marine regulations.

Pretty much confirms my ranting over the competence of yard numpties who install new engines. I never read anything to do with outdrives as the the whole concept is alien to me me.

My scant understanding is that the issues encountered were likely related to builders installation and set up of the Axius system could merely be a case of failure to RTFM. As I said at the beginning may be similar to issue I was told about where due to incorrect initial set up, driver askes to a drive trim level which the system thinks will damage the drive leg at speed and limits the the engine to 1,500 rpm. Appears to be an engine issue, actually a system problem. Sorting out somebody elses screw up can be a pain to diagnose.

Submitting an unsorted/ill prepared vessel for press test is unprofessional or plain nuts choice is yours.

Problems like this are neither reliability or durability related. Issues would be sorted under warranty and if a RTFM issue, bill sent to builder. I would HOPE that this type of problem would be sorted out long before owner or potential owner clapped eyes on vessel, but in the marine industry?

As to fuel consumption could have been due do drive set up, 'propellers move boats not engines' therefore fuel consumption is vessel related or testers failure to understand simple failure the simple factor of 1.20094...........who knows?

 

[Latestarter1]

IMO ruels are changing in 2016 Then the NOx levels have to be down 80%.

To cope with that I don’t think common rail can reduce nox that much without adds on technique (About 2g/kwh). Maybe latestarter know?Exhausts gas recirculation and or selective catalyst will be needed. Humidified air or white diesel might be options but most are looking at scr system with urea. This has a high cost to install, but doesn’t affect the diesel engine. Exhausts recirculation is a challenge due to sulphur in marine diesel oil.

SCR needs a certain temperature to work. Idling might be a problem.

EGR might be a challenge. My sisters mondeo have been smoking and have had an uneven running without any fault detected. Her husband have been several times to Ford dealer and a Bosch garage. Main suspect were nozzles but these were expensive.

I told him to remove the air inlet manifold. Could be carbon build up removing the swirl in the channels. He did last week. First cylinder was full of soot. He removed nearly 0.5litre. Now the engine is fine. But most amazing. He gave his Ford workshop a call and asked for a cure to avoid this problem. O yes they had a kit.60£ later he got a stainless coin to put in before EGR valve to block the exhausts coming into the manifold. Well the smoke is away but nox might be worse! Strange policy!

Ulyden,

Yes 80% reduction in Nox is a tough call and SCR appears the most viable for marine market.

We have no issue with sulphur in our marine fuel, like the rest of Europe we adopted the EC NRMM Directive from January this year and our fuel is virtually sulphur free, in preparation for aftertreatment emission solutions. SCR boosts fuel economy back to earlier levels at a price. Ten years ago we were told urea was a waste product from the chemical industry and of little value. Since road transport is now 80% SCR on new vehicles the price of Addblue (Commercial name for urea) has shot up, surprise surprise. Boaters may be tempted to just pee in the Addblue tank after a heavy night ashore.

EGR is no solution for marine market, fuel injection shops make £££ replacing injectors on Ford Duratorque when it just fouled EGR, when did you last hear a Bosch shop say 'no fault found' it will never happen.

I am curious regarding earlier post you said buses in Norway have Volvo TD12 mechanical engines. #1 Volvo stopped using old mechanical TD12 engines in bus chassis near 20 years ago and their coach chassis went over to horizontal electronic D12 about 15 years ago. I thought our buses were old!

Major engine suppliers in our bus market are Cummins, MAN, Scania and Volvo with nothing larger than 9 liters. In fact the new London double decker bus has Cummins engine of just 4.5 liters using hybrid drive. Using 12 liter monster motors in buses appears very odd.

 

[ian38_39]

Can accept that engines have moved on a long way, My early cars going back into the dark ages of the the early 80's so 1970's technology, were lucky to start and even luckier to get to the end of the road, in those days 100k mileage really was the exception.

Fuel injection was probably the greatest advance to hit the internal combustion engine and with it the ability to introduce a degree of electronic control but even then I remember taking an 18 month old Opal Manta GTE to the main Vauxhall dealer for a service and mentioning to them that there was a slight misfire above 4000 revs. When it came back it had moved to 3000 revs and on return again it was at 2000 rpm, the 4th attempt rendered the car almost undrivable and brought the news it needed a new ecu, or brain as it was described then, at a cost of £450.

The whole lot was sorted when I sent the car to a fuel injection specialist who spent £40 sorting out what Vauxhall had put wrong using their state of the art diagnostic equipment.

No there was nothing wrong with the ECU and I am sure of those changed probably 95% of them have nothing wrong with them either but if the infrastructure does not exist to support the technology, then the technology is at best inconvenient and at worst damn right dangerous.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

If we got rid of the politicans...

...aux lanternes!

More sensibly, I presume that most of the rules and regs are affecting marine installations because the engines themselvs are primarily designed for road vehicles and marinisation is, perhaps, not usually high on the list of design requirements?

 

[Latestarter1]

If we got rid of the politicans...

...aux lanternes!

More sensibly, I presume that most of the rules and regs are affecting marine installations because the engines themselves are primarily designed for road vehicles and marinisation is, perhaps, not usually high on the list of design requirements?

We elected the politicians and apart from very limited markets such as Africa compliance with emissions regulations is price of entry to the market, not just some nice to have thing.

No politicians will turn their back on the envionment because thats what the public in general want. Even Boris Johnson backed the London LEZ created by Ken, and now it will become even tighter come next January.

I agree that fewer and fewer manufacturers find marine market attactive investment. However no engine builder/mariniser is ever tempted to do anything other than the full monte and properly optimise products when it comes to marine engines, slim margins and constant management eye on shareholder value keeps engineers well tuned.

Take the six pot 5.5/6.7 engine displacement node, there are now just two and a half real players now. Cummins QSB and Volvo D6 are ahead of current Yanmar LYA3. I say two and a half as Yanmar appear not have the finances or technology to make proper job of the LYA3, so only counts as half.

QSB and D6 are so far ahead my only fear is one of people becoming complacent.

 

[ulyden]

Ulyden,

Yes 80% reduction in Nox is a tough call and SCR appears the most viable for marine market.

We have no issue with sulphur in our marine fuel, like the rest of Europe we adopted the EC NRMM Directive from January this year and our fuel is virtually sulphur free, in preparation for aftertreatment emission solutions. SCR boosts fuel economy back to earlier levels at a price. Ten years ago we were told urea was a waste product from the chemical industry and of little value. Since road transport is now 80% SCR on new vehicles the price of Addblue (Commercial name for urea) has shot up, surprise surprise. Boaters may be tempted to just pee in the Addblue tank after a heavy night ashore.

EGR is no solution for marine market, fuel injection shops make £££ replacing injectors on Ford Duratorque when it just fouled EGR, when did you last hear a Bosch shop say 'no fault found' it will never happen.

I am curious regarding earlier post you said buses in Norway have Volvo TD12 mechanical engines. #1 Volvo stopped using old mechanical TD12 engines in bus chassis near 20 years ago and their coach chassis went over to horizontal electronic D12 about 15 years ago. I thought our buses were old!

Major engine suppliers in our bus market are Cummins, MAN, Scania and Volvo with nothing larger than 9 liters. In fact the new London double decker bus has Cummins engine of just 4.5 liters using hybrid drive. Using 12 liter monster motors in buses appears very odd.

Well I was travelling by bus 15 years every day when I went to scool. From 1975 to 1990. I was interested in engines at that time to. Most busses used 9.6lite engines but due to lots of mountains the 12 litre were used for long distance to be able to keep up speed. 11litre scania were also used. (In 1983 the spesifik fuel consumtion at 1500rpm were as low as 208g/kwh on this engine) The largest engines were the MB 303 busses with a NA V8 OM422 280hp 14.8litre. Maybe also OM402 were used in smaller busses.

In the 70s some busses named B57 (TD70) and B58 were used. The B57 were 210hp and vertical. The B58 had a horizontal 9.6litre I think. Remembered they had no intercooler and no torque below 1500revs. One of the B57 were smoking a bit. Then the mananger told me that this bus had been the slowest. When the fuel pump had been overhauled he asked the guy calibrating it: Give it the maximum tolerance. Then this bus shifted to be the fastest. But it gave a little black smoke when akselerating

Point is: Most busses had B10M on the back. Some had B12M. Can’t remember any smoke issues. In Norway you have to stop when busses are acceleration out from bus stop if the speed limit is below 70km/h. If they smoke we see it. Most busses today have a DPF filter.Where I live we also have a lot of old natural gas busses. Think they have a converted Volvo 9.6engine. My uncle use to work on a workshop maintaining this busses all his working life.

What they are using today in busses i'm not updated on. But I remember working with Volvo in a ship repair worksjop 20 years ago. Replacing a huge 1960 320hp NA Mercedes with a Volvo D12 320hp engine. Only the valve cover were visible in engine rom. I was on the sea trial. Funny sound The boat was small a car ferry. When manauvering it sounded like a bus with automatic gear.
The maximum speed were maintained. No smoke!

The only thing norwegian atomotive diesel engines don't can do is smoking. They are all tested every 2 years agains its ovn mass of interia.

Think MTU ar launching a EGR engine meeting 2016 emission levels. There was a Simac paper on it last year.The diesel we use at work contanins 300ppm sulfur. Think we can get 10ppm to a higher price.

 

[Assassin]

Andrew:

Most engines are not designed for road use, most are currently designed as multi purpose base units which can be used across many applications, road, rail, marine, industrial, etc. This is where the issues arise, differing operating conditions with the smallest amount of modifications possible to meet that market. Ultimately it comes down to cost, if the base engines are correctly designed, properly manufactured, and most importantly, correctly rated for various applications there are no problems.

Here is the real issue, designing a base unit to fulfil all these applications, and at a price which is profitable, and one which meets all the criteria in each application such as emissions.
Many companies actually spend the money on the base engines, the software for each application, then skimp on the various accesories for each application with the exception of road usage applications. The next problem is the overuse of theoretical design and assumption that if it is designed on a computer, it must be correct. Much of this is caused by programmes such as CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and the real lack of any actual understanding of it and its use, particularly its parameters and pitfalls. CFD is a very complex subject, but one if which is understood can be tremendously beneficial, but if not properly understood, disasterous.

Despite this engine designers use ot for all design applications relating to flow, fuel, air, water for cooling, and even the pumping of fluids such as lubricant, it designs the perfect engine, then try manufacturing that perfect design. Its impossible.

 

[ian38_39]

Does that not come back to exactly the concerns voiced through the rest of this thread?

The technology may be sound but if those using it do not understand it then it is all going to end in tears.

 

[Assassin]

No it does not come back to that, it merely means each derivitave of the base engine is tested considerably longer in each guise, it means they are continually redesigned until they are right.

 

[Latestarter1]

I am off for a few days on a Beneteau Swift Trawler 34.

Whisper quiet, zero smoke, great on fuel, but am I taking my life in my hands? Power is a single Cummins QSB 425 electronic engine, am I concerned, am I nuts.