Is t the statment that the volvo penta d3 diesel 190 hp a ''disposable engine '' fair

Back to the top
What truth , in if any is these to the proposition :

volvo penta d3 diesel 190 hp a ''disposable engine ''
​
Why dd Volvo cars stop building d3 s ?
And did they just terminate the production line ?
Were any cars / vehicles recalled for in-built faults .?
 
george unthank said:
Back to the top
What truth , in if any is these to the proposition :

volvo penta d3 diesel 190 hp a ''disposable engine ''
​
Why dd Volvo cars stop building d3 s ?
And did they just terminate the production line ?
Were any cars / vehicles recalled for in-built faults .?
Click to expand...

The Volvo car engine was a D5 ( diesel, 5 cylinder), Volvo Penta chose to call their marine versions of the D5 a D3 because their next biggest engine in the range, the D4 was only 4 cylinders
I had an early D5 in a 2004 car; cracking engine but the wiring in the car let it down ( water ingress).

Volvo apparently made modifications for improvement to the design, as all engine suppliers do, resulting in the new D5 ( new VP D3). Not necessarily due to defects in the original design.

VP make their EVC system which is mandated on their D series engines, that EVC systems hardware and electronics was not as well developed before release or reliable / fail safe as it should have been. it still doesn't seem well understood by their service agents either.
 
I want to say how refreshing it is to see contributors dealing in facts or commenting with the benefit of first hand experience, not just on this thread but across the whole forum. I find too many comments are based on assumptions, conjecture and hearsay.
How many commentators "know" the D3 "is crap", but have never owned/run one? And what "bits" are they referring to anyway? Is the crankcase crap? Or maybe it's the cylinder head? Pistons maybe.......................................etc? Or perhaps it's the EVC !

OK, that's off my chest so, George, try keying your engine serial number into the attached link. That should tell you all you need to know.
http://www.volvopenta.com/volvopent..._engines/Pages/out_of_production_engines.aspx

Plan was to run for 2.5 hours, anchor and switch off for an hour (that's me as well as the engines), then a further 1.5 hours to our destination. First two parts went to plan but second leg took an extra hour as wind got up a bit, and hence wave height, plus I had underestimated the size of the swell along that particular stretch of coast between. Essentially across the Bay of Morlaix, which I thought was going to be more protected from the Atlantic swell than it actually was.

OK, as for comparing speeds. Bit impossible really, not least because no two hulls will be the same, other than if they are the same make/model of course. So, comparing say two SC29s, one with a single D190 (which was never an option, but I'll come to that in a minute) and one with twins. It's about power to weight ratio. A twin engined boat will be substantially heavier than a single, but has twice the power. I'm no engineer so I can't tell you how this ultimately impacts speed, but in the case of the SC29, a single D190 simply wouldn't have the power to accelerate the boat up onto the plane or indeed keep it there (probably) if it did plane.

A big/powerful single engine is the solution as plenty of power but with less additional weight than a second engine. However, we brits prefer twin engines as you've always got a spare if one shuts down. The rest of the world mostly seem content with single engine set ups.
 
Please bear with me, only just out of hospital and due to medication I have the attention span of a gnat!

In the old days we had parent bore, dry liner and wet liner engines. Dry liner engines have become a thing of the past as the pressing in of a dry liner always involves a degree distortion leading to potential lube oil consumption. In service dry liners have the potential to draw crankcase oil vapour between the liner sleeve and the block which in time this condensate creates a high spot on the liner. I worked on liner ‘high spot’ syndrome when at Ford R&D, owners of Ford Dover Dorset engines will be aware that a rock solid running engine with zero blow by picks up a piston for no apparent reason.

Parent bore allows the engine designer to eliminate all the shortcomings of the dry liner creating a perfectly true cylinder bore during manufacture by simulating head clamping stress when machining the cylinder. Cylinder spacing, heat transfer get all the boxes ticked. In modern lean manufacturing building sufficient meat for re-building tolerances in a Light Duty Automotive engine simply does not exist. Nor do oversize piston kits exist even if there was a rebore tolerance Pick a marine engine based BMW Yanmar BY, FNM Fiat, Hyundai Seasall, Mercruiser VW, Volvo Penta D3 yer pays yer money…………

Non LDA engines, Volvo D4/6 was designed not to be easily rebuild able, for what reason I have no clue, Yanmar took the decision to take a life out of the LY bore in the interests of more swept volume/power making it effectively a throw away engine.

I regarding the use of VG (Variable geometry) particularly swing vane turbomachinery on marine engines is a nonsense. VG turbochargers love to provide low smoke transient response however if you look at a typical marine engine duty cycle it is is steady state, open the taps and the engine responds to the propeller demand. Even on the motorway in cruise control an automotive diesel engine is constantly responding to road/load conditions.

A simple waste-gate turbocharger without any electronic control provides all the boost requirements of the most demanding steady state application.

To understand the problem if we take a typical modern four cylinder Euro 5, 2 or 2.2 litre automotive LDA engine capable of around 200 hp with CP3 Common rail, swing vane Garret VG turbomachinery should have a sunk production cost including rotating electrics of between 1,000 to 1,200 Euro. The CP3 fuel system probably accounts to around 40% of the total cost. Being 5 cylinder an automotive Volvo probably costs say 1,400 Euro.

Now the trouble starts, in order to make an automotive base engine into a suitable marine engine base the electronic calibration needs to be made ‘dirty’ as well as eliminating items such as EGR valves all this can easily cost another 1,000 Euro to the base engine and even greater cost if simple VG turbo substituted, until costs become unrealistic. For example there is one LDA engine out there which still has a vacuum pump on the back of the alternator with the pipes capped off, far cheaper for manufacturer to leave it on.

Only Fiat FNM took the brave step of substituting a WG turbo for VG when adapting their base motor.

These engines are potent little powerhouses however they have zero margin for abuse in marine applications and are not repairable.
 
latestarter
Thank you for this ' I will cut to the chase here and confess that I am quite flummoxed now
I am only picking isolated fragments of all of this . but are you essentially suggesting that the Volvo d3 does mot have the capacity to be re- bored in order to make for a tighter piston / piston chamber alignment ? In other words it is not possible to reconstruct the ]seal which contains the propulsive force once it starts to wear down
Ok the question is naïve probably and unworthy of such a erudite commentary as yours . but that was in essence what I asked of this community in the first instance .
So would our potent little powerhouses such as the d 3 be capable of delivering 5000 hours motoring before the changes yoyo predict come about ?
Think you
g
 
Didn't Ford experiment with brazen in steel liners in the 1970s for the 1600 crossflow cast iron block ? ; giving something like a safe 1840? Are modern "parent bore" engines basically an aluminum block/ bore with no liner ? I know BMW had those in the 1980/ early 1990s , their 6 cylinder engines had bores with a special surface treatment, problems in the UK were blamed on UK fuel sulphur content. Engine replacement under warranty on the "quiet" so as not to tarnish their reputation.
 
george unthank said:
latestarter
Thank you for this ' I will cut to the chase here and confess that I am quite flummoxed now
I am only picking isolated fragments of all of this . but are you essentially suggesting that the Volvo d3 does mot have the capacity to be re- bored in order to make for a tighter piston / piston chamber alignment ? In other words it is not possible to reconstruct the ]seal which contains the propulsive force once it starts to wear down
Ok the question is naïve probably and unworthy of such a erudite commentary as yours . but that was in essence what I asked of this community in the first instance .
So would our potent little powerhouses such as the d 3 be capable of delivering 5000 hours motoring before the changes yoyo predict come about ?
Think you
g
Click to expand...

Simple answer to your question is that you are quite correct no capacity in base design to rebuild the engine.

Reasons:

1. Base engine production cost so low, what is the point. Other the lack of oversize pistons last time I looked at tear down reports on different LDA engines none had tangs on bearing shells requiring very critical production torque procedure to prevent bearings spinning, I suspect there is no oversize bearing availability for D3 however up to others to check.

2. Emissions conformity, engines have to still meet certified emissions up to 10 years after date in service, if engine rebuilt during this time and for any reason it fails subsequent certification check this is manufacturers liability, nothing to do with owner so no incentive for manufacturer to encourage a standard repair procedure.

3. Returning to your original question, durability of these engines is such that in PLEASURE applications they will give around 20 years useful life 5,000 hours possibley much more with no rebuild intervention, however leave a sea-cock shut or suffer cooling system failure and you are into a new long motor, hence the statement 'disposable engine'.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Thank you laterstarter
This makes sound sense even if it does reflect on the engines fundamental ''durability''
However if we got to 5000 hours with a relatively sound combustion chamber I don't think too many would complain too much .
Since I've been using motor boats -30 odd years I have been told that diesel engines pack up more from underuse that anything else - they point to a farmers tractor or a bus engine both of which infinitely more hours and seem to offer much more trouble free periods between breakdowns and argue that inadequate usage of our boat engines is the main reason for this quandary . I could understand this if it was aimed at specific components such as the turbo charger ( which is an ''add -on'') , but not as an argument for wear out of the internal combustion system per se

But a farmers tractor and the bus are both on terra forma , which I'm sure contributes to their longer life somehow
 
george unthank said:
Thank you laterstarter
This makes sound sense even if it does reflect on the engines fundamental ''durability''
However if we got to 5000 hours with a relatively sound combustion chamber I don't think too many would complain too much .
Since I've been using motor boats -30 odd years I have been told that diesel engines pack up more from underuse that anything else - they point to a farmers tractor or a bus engine both of which infinitely more hours and seem to offer much more trouble free periods between breakdowns and argue that inadequate usage of our boat engines is the main reason for this quandary . I could understand this if it was aimed at specific components such as the turbo charger ( which is an ''add -on'') , but not as an argument for wear out of the internal combustion system per se

But a farmers tractor and the bus are both on terra forma , which I'm sure contributes to their longer life somehow
Click to expand...

Turbomachinery should last the life of the base engine as to tractors and buses................Farmers have zero comprehension of clean fuel as as for bus companies they appear to be on a mission to destroy diesel engines just ask Tinkicker who looks in here. Not uncommon for bus companies to run buses for 12 hour daily duty cycles on bi annual lube oil drains, I am afraid bus companies can wreck the very best of engines.
 
Two great posts LS and straight to the point comparing the old days to present . In my years doing this job 35 and counting I've lost count how many rebuilds I've done on various makes of engine . The Dover comment brought back many rebuild memories especially the chrome bean can liners I could pop out with my favourite shaped ground screwdriver , making for a totally uncomplicated rebuild with little or no machine or special tools req. Boy have those days gone, the last 250 sabre I did had new dry liners made and is still going strong today in a ranger 36. I've just come across a real interesting Volvo engine of 6 pot variety that had a full rebuild and did11 hours before the same massive blow by , breathing as I've always called it reoccurring, now stripped again with no theory as to why it's happened again . I've looked after the boat for previous two owners while it was services and used it was a floating caravan for the first owner , second owner used it which kept me busy as all the standing time gremlins opened up blocked coolers and leaking seals . Thread drift I know away from the D3 base unit . What I will agree is that automotive based units cannot compare or compete against pure derived marine units and never will , the D 3 fails on exactly the reasons LS states , it has a Variable vane turbo , which doesn't like being idle , seizes up and straight away throws the whole engine management out to fault mode, it's not eve water cooled which in a boats confined space in this day and age is unforgivable, to be fair I've not yet seen the cooling side fail like the D4/6 does, it also has a cam belt which requires extra service cost. For what it is its a very smooth engine just about right for an SC 29 but in my view that's where it ends .
 
GrahamHR said:
The Volvo car engine was a D5 ( diesel, 5 cylinder), Volvo Penta chose to call their marine versions of the D5 a D3 because their next biggest engine in the range, the D4 was only 4 cylinders
Click to expand...

Volvo Cars name their engines according to number of cylinder but Volvo Penta name their engines according to cylinder volume. They use the volume in liters and round up or down as appropriate. D9 is a 9.4L block, D6 just over 5.5L and D4 has a volume of 3.7L. Using the number of cylinders wont work anyway because the majority of their larger engines all are 6 cylinders. It is worth noting that their D1 is actually 3 engines with different volume, two 3-cylinder and one 4-cylinder just above 1 liter. And D2 is IRRC also two different engines, the biggest above 2 liters.

D3 is actually an exception to a rather stringent naming system. Volvo has chosen to round the volume of 2.4L up rather than down!.... probably because they didn't want users to confuse their high powered 2.4L with the low powered engines hiding under the D2 label. And the D3 label was not used, so it makes sense.

BTW, Volvo Cars are currently phasing out the 2.4L; introducing a smaller 2.0L 4-cyl with up to 250hp as replacement. This means the 5-cylinder's mass production days are numbered. It will be interesting to see what Volvo Penta will offer the circa 200hp market a few years down the road as the supply of 5-cylinder blocks dries up.
 
Last edited:
hello,
i have a D 3 ,160 with 1200 hours without big pbs except to change the turbo once at 700 hours around!
 
My Volvo Penta D3-160 from 2005 has been running perfect with no issues at all. Engine hours 825.
It's a light, compact, smooth running, low consumption engine.
I know that turbo has caused problems for some owners. These variable turbo's needs to work hard from time to time. The turbo machanics can get stucked if running only at low revs. Every time I'm on the water, I run the engine 15 minutters at 3/4 throttle below WOT.
The "turbo get stucked" issue is known from other brands like VW, Yanmar using variable turbo's , it's not related the VP's only.
 
You might be better off starting a new thread for that question, but as the owner of a d4 id be interested in people experiences
 
Twin D4-260s here, built in 2005. They now have close to 1400 hours.

Notable issues :
- 2011, 2017 : raw water coolers cleaning: lots of salt and other concretions. A bit pricey down there but inevitable every 4-5 years
- 2017 : when last servicing the coolers, it was found that the oil filter housings were badly corroded. Another housing linked to the exchanger needed replacing as well. At bit less that 4k€, parts and labour, for both engines. Another reason not to wait for too long before servicing the coolers, it seems.
- 2015 : injectors + turbo, both engines: 5k€

The DPH sterndrives were also capricious (one was dying because of a water ingress, and was replaced before I bought the boat) but that's not specifically a D4 issue.
 
What was wrong with the injectors?

I've had to replace the various pulleys, new end caps for heat exchanger, had a stuck turbo last year but managed to free it up so expecting trouble there soon. Plus i think the power steering pump is on the way out.

Thats on a 12 year old ( 2006 d4) with ~500 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Stampede
Volvo Penta DP-H steering hydraulic Hose Replacement
Replies
8
Views
322
Stampede
Stampede
O
“The Dog that Didn’t Bark:” Yanmar. 4L HASTE.
Replies
2
Views
284
oldgit
O
boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
232
Bouba
Bouba
I
Alternator upgrade on Volvo TMD41A
Replies
7
Views
225
boatmike
boatmike

Share this page

Top