Mermaid Marine customer support for MP range Chinese made engines

[oldengine]

I'm just wondering if anyone has had problems getting Mermaid Marine to honour their commitment to these engines?

Mermaid's 2012 brochure for the MP range says:

"Compliance with emissions legislation, coupled with the Mermaid’s unrivalled customer support gives peace of mind that it can satisfy the demands of vessel, operator and market for years to come."​

I know of one instance where one of these engines smoked badly from day 1 and shed its complete oil filter assembly, with disastrous results, just after the rather short warranty expired.
In order to get operational again without delay, the owners of the boat had the engine rebuilt at their own (very considerable) expense, fully expecting a firm with Mermaid's history to come good in due course.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that parts stockists had oil filter assemblies they had been instructed not to sell, which pretty much confirms that a manufacturing or design fault had been identified.
Mermaid Marine's long standing history and reputation was a substantial factor in the original purchase of this engine. However, my understanding is that Mermaid Marine have denied the existence of any fault in the engine, either in respect of its disastrous failure or the non compliance with emissions legislation. The engine, both in its original and subsequently rebuilt state, has always smoked very badly, even when lightly loaded (battery charging in neutral).
While not accepting any responsibility, I believe Mermaid Marine have offered a rather paltry sum by way of compensation. The owners will need to go to court, with all the implications that entails, to get anything approaching realistic compensation and they still have an engine that does not comply with emission standards.
I would be very interested to know of any other MP range owner having:
a) a problem with the oil filter assembly or indeed a Manufacturer's Recall to replace it
b) a persistently smoky exhaust
c) unrivalled (in a good way) customer support from Mermaid Marine
d) unrivalled (not in a good way) customer support from Mermaid Marine, similar to my acquaintances' experience, or even...
e) an MP range engine that really is clean running and reliable.
I would also be interested to know if anyone actually enforces emission legislation in any way by taking action against suppliers of non compliant engines?

Personally, I am an enthusiast for traditional British built marine diesels, slow revving, with huge flywheels and shed loads of torque and my 44 year old, direct injection, twin produces less smoke than the above mentioned MP engine.
However, I can also see the attraction of engines such as these, given their clever marketing and claims of emission compliance, economy and reliability, especially under the banner of long established, reputable companies.

Quote

The Mermaid Power ‘MP’ range brings traditional design and simplicity along with the pedigree of high quality you would expect from a hand finished, purpose built marine diesel from Mermaid."​

As a casual observer, it has been interesting to see a number of established 'western' engine marinisation companies take on Chinese made base engines, only to abandon them after a few years.

 

[rafiki_]

Bump, as this is a first post, it takes a while to get into the system, so a bump will get it to the top of the page.

 

[michael_w]

You pays your money and takes your choice...

 

[longjohnsilver]

I had 2 boats with Mermaid engines and the customer support used to be excellent. Now it's pretty abysmal, although someone from Mermaid sometimes posts here to reassure us things are changing for the better but have seen no evidence to support their claims.

 

[omega2]

They died when the dorset went.

 

[Tranona]

The current Mermaid operation is not the same as the company that built the engines with that name. Neither are they now connected with the Chinese engines, although they were a dealer at one time and presumably sold the troublesome engines.

 

[Mermaid-Jon]

All,

In respect of the engine that is referred to by 'oldengine' I am well aware of this unit and as stated in the post it is now the subject of a legal case so I cannot comment further.

I can also confirm that we no longer sell the Chinese range of engines due to a difference of opinion between ourselves and the importer 'Marine Power Solutions'. The engines are still readily available as far as I am aware from Andrew Knight at Marine Power Solutions should you wish to buy one and the range has expanded somewhat since we dealt with them.
In terms of the Chinese engines that we sold under the 'MP' banner, we are still supplying parts and service support to all / any units that we sold as and when we are called upon to do so, but we are not the sole source for parts for these engines and so people may choose to use other parties to provide parts and service.

I have commented several times on this forum that if anyone has any problems with the level of service that Mermaid are offering then by all means raise it with me personally and I will look into it. We can't please all of the people all of the time, but we will always try to help wherever possible. We continually strive to do better and we are making progress. Small steps in the right direction are better than none.

As always, if you have a problem with us - speak to me - my identity is not hidden.

Best regards
Jon Townley

 

[oldengine]

All,

In respect of the engine that is referred to by 'oldengine' I am well aware of this unit and as stated in the post it is now the subject of a legal case so I cannot comment further.

I can also confirm that we no longer sell the Chinese range of engines due to a difference of opinion between ourselves and the importer 'Marine Power Solutions'. The engines are still readily available as far as I am aware from Andrew Knight at Marine Power Solutions should you wish to buy one and the range has expanded somewhat since we dealt with them.
In terms of the Chinese engines that we sold under the 'MP' banner, we are still supplying parts and service support to all / any units that we sold as and when we are called upon to do so, but we are not the sole source for parts for these engines and so people may choose to use other parties to provide parts and service.

I have commented several times on this forum that if anyone has any problems with the level of service that Mermaid are offering then by all means raise it with me personally and I will look into it. We can't please all of the people all of the time, but we will always try to help wherever possible. We continually strive to do better and we are making progress. Small steps in the right direction are better than none.

As always, if you have a problem with us - speak to me - my identity is not hidden.

Best regards
Jon Townley

Jon,
Thank you for your post.
A couple of things have become clear from your post and some of the others.
Firstly, that you only intend to provide "Mermaid’s unrivalled customer support" to the customer in question if forced to do so by the courts.
Secondly, that your marketing claims such as "Compliance with emissions legislation, coupled with the Mermaid’s unrivalled customer support......." or "the pedigree of high quality you would expect from a hand finished, purpose built marine diesel from Mermaid" are pretty bogus. Essentially, you bought the company name and logo and are ruthlessly exploiting the reputation of a company that no longer exists.
I notice that you have made no mention of the fact that a supposedly 'Emission Compliant' engine has in fact produced excessive smoke both in its original and rebuilt states. Even if you believe your customer will be unable to prove your liability for the catastrophic failure of the first engine, surely you should be resolving the current non emission-compliant state of the rebuilt unit. I can only assume you are convinced that no enforcement of EC/RCD emission controls/compliance currently exists: perhaps you are correct!
I don't know why my acquaintances chose to buy their engine from Mermaid, especially when there are so many high quality, competitively priced, engines available, but I suspect that they were fooled by your abuse of a trusted company name and probably had no idea they were buying an inferior product imported from China, or that they would be left to sort any issues with it at their own expense.
Regards,
oldengine

 

[KINGFISHER 9]

I suspect, as is usual with these posts, we're getting a couple of half stories.

 

[rubberduck]

It would however be good to know if legal action is indeed required, or if Mermaid would like to have another honest look at the whole case with a sympathetic eye. In all cases like this, once it goes legal the only winners will be legal profession, so it really would be in both parties interest to get together, for a number of reasons, & if either side was to refuse then I for one would regard them with some degree of caution going forward.

 

[Lloydroberts]

I suspect, as is usual with these posts, we're getting a couple of half stories.

The op seems to know a hell of a lot about this considering he/she is an acquaintance.

I suspect it's a way of airing his/her grievances prior the court case?

 

[oldengine]

The op seems to know a hell of a lot about this considering he/she is an acquaintance.

I suspect it's a way of airing his/her grievances prior the court case?

I was a member of the share-boat syndicate in its early years, during which time we had a very capable Thornycroft/Mitsubishi engine. I am dismayed by their choice of replacement and deeply saddened by their current situation, due entirely to the catastrophic failure of their 'new' engine and the continued smoke problem from an engine that is supposed to be fully compliant with EC/RCD emission regulations.
I sold my share long before the 80D (apparently) became uneconomic to repair/overhaul so I was not involved in the choice of replacement engine, nor in any subsequent discussions/negotiations with the installers/suppliers.
I have no personal grievances but see this as a pretty shameful state of affairs. My view is that customers are entitled to be misguided and naive but are still entitled to fair treatment by tradespeople and suppliers.

oldengine

 

[oldengine]

Re. engine failure:
I have checked my information and find that I had slightly misunderstood the cause of the engine failure so I need to make a correction. In fact it was the oil filter that fell off, not the 'entire oil filter assembly' as I previously stated. Apologies for my error.
That of course will suggest to most that the service was not done properly and the filter not tightened adequately. However, the reality is that the spigot the filter screws on to came loose and is not only a loose fit on the threads in the housing but also on the filter itself.
They are still using the original spigot, which can be unscrewed using nothing more than thumb and forefinger, and are checking the filter security on a daily basis.
It sounds to me as though the engine was either assembled with the wrong spigot or the spigot was machined wrongly.

 

[Latestarter1]

The op seems to know a hell of a lot about this considering he/she is an acquaintance.

I suspect it's a way of airing his/her grievances prior the court case?

Personally I have a dislike of trial by internet, particularly when when undata-based comments initiated by a third party.

I have been called upon to arbitrate in this type of case and I have to say that in the vast majority of instances replacement engine issues were created by totally brainless engine installations, so called marine 'engineers' simply fail to read installation guidelines and or exhibit a grain of common sense.

I have come across a few of these engines lately, yes they are somewhat crude clones of nice small Japanese motors, however they seem to work just fine, certainly better than the old BMC/Perkins/V.P that they have replaced. Smoke levels from engines have always been acceptable.

On the subject of smoke cannot get my head around OP's constant referral to smoke and emissions. IMO 1 and RCD1 emissions are pretty lax and are heavily Nox biased test levels. Nox is an odourless, colorless gas

On the other side of the coin many engines claim to RCD 'COMPLIANT' which is quite different from 'CERTIFIED'. I have never seen any documentation which would enable me to make a judgement.

Without a detailed explination of what has gone on, and absence of data we have at best a rather sad saga which will end up costing both parties.

Ho mum

 

[oldengine]

Personally I have a dislike of trial by internet, particularly when when undata-based comments initiated by a third party.

I have been called upon to arbitrate in this type of case and I have to say that in the vast majority of instances replacement engine issues were created by totally brainless engine installations, so called marine 'engineers' simply fail to read installation guidelines and or exhibit a grain of common sense.

I have come across a few of these engines lately, yes they are somewhat crude clones of nice small Japanese motors, however they seem to work just fine, certainly better than the old BMC/Perkins/V.P that they have replaced. Smoke levels from engines have always been acceptable.

On the subject of smoke cannot get my head around OP's constant referral to smoke and emissions. IMO 1 and RCD1 emissions are pretty lax and are heavily Nox biased test levels. Nox is an odourless, colorless gas

On the other side of the coin many engines claim to RCD 'COMPLIANT' which is quite different from 'CERTIFIED'. I have never seen any documentation which would enable me to make a judgement.

Without a detailed explination of what has gone on, and absence of data we have at best a rather sad saga which will end up costing both parties.

Ho mum

Thanks for your insight Latestarter1 though I am puzzled by your suggestion that this discussion represents a 'trial by internet' since nothing stated here can in any way affect the actual court proceedings next month.
I certainly agree with the sentiment that it is a 'rather sad saga', which prompted me to make the original post. I hope it doesn't cost the boat owners even more than the huge amount they have already spent on the installation and subsequent rebuild, but you may well be correct: time will tell.
I am pleased to hear that some MP engine owners are not having to cope with poor build quality and excessive smoke output. Perhaps even in China there is such a thing as a 'Friday afternoon job', though I'm not sure if they get the whole weekend off?
I agree that some 'so called marine engineers' on the inland waterways have low levels of competence compared to other areas of industry. However, I imagine that the oil filter assembly, and the original filter, will have been factory fitted in China (or possibly during marinisation in the UK if they are imported as a 'base' engine). The installer could perhaps have done something to cause the excessive smoke but I believe the owners have had other specialists trying, and so far failing, to resolve it. Hopefully they would have identified any cock-up made during installation.
I have no technical knowledge of what 'RCD Compliant' actually means but have understood that new engines sold after 2005 ish must comply and in my naivety have assumed that they need to operate without making excessive smoke, visible and otherwise. My assumption was that it couldn't possibly be compliant while producing clouds of visible smoke, even under light load conditions.
Thanks again Latestarter1 for your valued contribution.
oldengine

 

[Latestarter1]

Oldengine,

Thank you for your slightly pompous reply.

Contributors normally post here for guidance, advice or news both personal or of mutual interest. Using the forum to have a rather one sided pop at a supplier does not rest easily with me.

If I was uncharitable one could conclude that you joined this forum simply to stir matters up and coerce Mermaid into a settlement.

If you were to take the trouble to read history of my posts you would see that I have crossed swords with John Townley and NEW Mermaid Marine on more than one occasion and I believe that my observations are impartial. Re reading your original post I immediately smelled 'politics' in the air as it appears that the choice of replacement for the Mitsubishi Thornycroft was not to your liking. Why the Thornycroft failed could prove useful.

As I mentioned this post is woefully short on facts, just some one sided broad brush strokes.

Just a few facts which appear to be missing.............

No mention of the MP engine model or the vessel installation, no dates nothing.

Much mention is made of smoke however you have not mentioned colour, on re-reading I realised that you are referring to dark/black smoke not white/grey, so engine was installed and I assumed it black smoked under load right from new engine initial sea trails?

Did engine make WOT plus around 10%?

Assuming engine made WOT but black smoked what was response from Mermaid?

Did Mermaid confirm that engine was installed 100% in accordance with their guidelines?

Exactly what steps were taken in attempt the correct the above condition?

How long was the new engine warranty?

The oil filter failure required analysis by a competent party who was the third party? In addition why was engine operated when potential for failure was already known???

Too many bald sttements, too few facts for me.

 

[oldengine]

Thanks again Latestarter1,
I'm sorry if I came across as slightly pompous: I was trying to address your remarks as carefully and accurately as I could. I'll attempt to do that again, with as little pomposity as I can.
You will have seen from my original post that I was asking questions about other people's experiences with these engines and with Mermaid Marine and I provided background information on this particular situation to explain the purpose of my enquiry. Many of my questions remain unanswered, though I now do know that some owners have clean running, reliable MP range engines.
At that stage, like the unfortunate buyers, I had no idea that Mermaid Marine were not the long established company that their marketing information implies: I only learnt that through this forum.
The boat's owners were apparently advised that the original Thornycroft engine was worn out and would not be economic to refurbish/maintain in the long term. In the belief they were buying from a reputable company they chose the Mermaid engine as their replacement. No politics as far as I am aware: I imagine someone did some research, presented information/alternatives and a democratic decision was made.
I have no information about the sources of their advice and as stated on a previous post I had no involvement in any discussions about it.
I have rather limited information about the whole affair, most of which I have already shared in the several posts I have made, but I will try to fill those few gaps I can.

The engine initially supplied in March 2012 was an MP-332 with a 1 year warranty and the boat a 50ft John Pinder narrowboat built in 1990.
As far as I am aware, the only disappointment with the original MP-332 was the smoke level, which they were told would clear once things bedded in. The smoke did not get any better but I don't think they had any reason to foresee a potential for catastrophic failure and assumed that the smoke issue would get sorted in due course.
The failure occurred shortly after the expiry of the one year warranty and the engine was re-built as an MP-327 in June 2013, because parts such as engine block were not readily available for an MP-332 and the syndicate owners would have all lost their holidays for the 2013 season.
I believe the discovery that the oil filter spigot is insecure in the assembly may have been made more recently during a routine oil change so it is only now that any 'potential for failure' has been realised.

I too wish I had answers to some of your well chosen questions but the owners preparing for the court case have enough to think about without me pestering them any further.
As always, it is easy with the benefit of hindsight, to see mistakes, poor choices, etc. but the people involved have limited expertise and relied on what may have been poor advice, possibly based on vested interest and profit?

Thanks again Latestarter1 for your interest and your observations. I hope the tone of my reply is a little more acceptable.
oldengine

 

[oldengine]

Latestarter1, sorry, I think I have just realised what you meant about 'politics'.

For this particular boat, I personally would have chosen one of those 'nice small Japanese motors' that you referred to in your first post, even though I have a very traditional British engine in my own 'heritage' style boat. However, had I been one of the share owners presented with information/options/costings back in 2011 I could easily have believed this to be one of those, who knows?
Having seen New Holland and E.P.Barrus flirt briefly with Chinese copies, perhaps I would have asked more searching questions about origins but I may have been convinced by reputation and clever marketing and not looked any further.
Either way, it was not my decision to make or influence so my opinion is of no bearing or relevance and I regret that it was apparent in one of my posts. Some of us are better at impartiality than others and as I alluded to before, wisdom after the facts is a doddle: most of us at least believe we have 20:20 vision in hindsight.

oldengine

 

[Latestarter1]

Latestarter1, sorry, I think I have just realised what you meant about 'politics'.

For this particular boat, I personally would have chosen one of those 'nice small Japanese motors' that you referred to in your first post, even though I have a very traditional British engine in my own 'heritage' style boat. However, had I been one of the share owners presented with information/options/costings back in 2011 I could easily have believed this to be one of those, who knows?
Having seen New Holland and E.P.Barrus flirt briefly with Chinese copies, perhaps I would have asked more searching questions about origins but I may have been convinced by reputation and clever marketing and not looked any further.
Either way, it was not my decision to make or influence so my opinion is of no bearing or relevance and I regret that it was apparent in one of my posts. Some of us are better at impartiality than others and as I alluded to before, wisdom after the facts is a doddle: most of us at least believe we have 20:20 vision in hindsight.

oldengine

Thank you for very direct reply.

The numpty who wrote off the Mitsubishi as 'worn out' should have been shot! I have used many of these engines marinised by Vetus in the past in generator applications, good for 10/15000 hours without breaking into a sweat. The Mitsubishi CAN become a bit of an oil burner if run light load and in many cases hiring a load bank and a days torture beds the rings in again. In some extreme cases engines have needed a stiff run on the dyno at 80% load but wear one out in a fresh water narrow boat application nuts!

To continue to ignore the smoke issue from first installation on the basis that engine will 'bed in' was at best naive.

As to the lube filter issue did nobody think of obtaining a drawing of the filter and checking the head and spigot against the drawing, rather than just living with it?

 

[oldengine]

Thank you for very direct reply.

The numpty who wrote off the Mitsubishi as 'worn out' should have been shot! I have used many of these engines marinised by Vetus in the past in generator applications, good for 10/15000 hours without breaking into a sweat. The Mitsubishi CAN become a bit of an oil burner if run light load and in many cases hiring a load bank and a days torture beds the rings in again. In some extreme cases engines have needed a stiff run on the dyno at 80% load but wear one out in a fresh water narrow boat application nuts!

To continue to ignore the smoke issue from first installation on the basis that engine will 'bed in' was at best naive.

As to the lube filter issue did nobody think of obtaining a drawing of the filter and checking the head and spigot against the drawing, rather than just living with it?

Thanks Latestarter1 for your continued interest and insight.
You have confirmed my opinion about the Mitsubishi engine and I suspect the original unit was sold on for a very handsome profit by the people who took it out (note my earlier reference to 'vested interest and profit').
I agree with you about the smoke issue but once again many people have to rely on the advice they are given and don't know who to trust or who to ignore. I understand that Mermaid were aware of the smoke issues from early on but I don't have any more details.
I don't think the issue with the spigot was picked up, even by the so-called engineers who re-built the engine. It was noticed by an amateur while carrying out a recent oil change and 'living with it' is a VERY recent situation. They are currently trying to decide who to send for an engineer's report.