New caterpillar 6.4l engine

[oldgit]

A luddites view

"Probably yes!"

The majority boat owners out here in the real world and probably on here in the forum will be running some sort of diesel which appears to be described as a pain.They power most of the leisure craft produced over the last 50 years.Down where we live the 4108 is still being used to power many small craft and a thriving industry exists to rebuild and keep them going.The sporty old 6.354 is still going strong.

 

[Latestarter1]

Latestarter thanks from me too for the informative posts.

Scuse my ig but what is crank pin "overlap"? I can see that by increasing the stroke to get 11 litres iso 9, the radius of the crank arms on the crankshaft is increased. Are you saying that, to fit it in the block, they reduce the crank pin dia? Or do they reduce the width of the mating faces of the big ends? Or which exact dimension is reduced?

Also, is the D13 basically a stroked out/bored out D12, or totally new motor?

Thanks

How much time have you or perhaps have I got………??

Crank overlap; steal a pair of compasses from kids geometry set. Draw a circle 130 mm that is your notional main bearing journal diameter. Now set the compasses to 100mm, pick the centre of 130 circle and measure off 138 mm, Volvo D9 stroke, using this point now draw your 100 mm circle. The area where the two circles overlap is your crank……………overlap.

Repeat the exercise however now measure off 152 mm D11 stroke before drawing second circle, see how much the overlap area has been reduced?

As soon as you reduce crank overlap the torsional chacteristics of the engine crankshaft changes completely. Remember that crankshafts generally have at least two torsional periods, one in the operating range where you do not want to stay for long and another outside the operating envelope which you do not want to explore. A kind of engineers ‘black hole’. The amount of overlap has dramatic effect on torsional characteristics of a crankshaft.

Changing high volume componets such as big end shells and the parts and manufacturing people will normally try to destroy your career if you try this stuff. However it is not unknown.

For example Iveco do a whacko thing to add displacement to the basic Cummins/NEF 5.9, they cannot swing more stroke as crank is real close to the cam so they reduce the big end journal diameter, then offset grind the crank pin to gain more stroke going from 120 mm to 132 mm, gaining bigger 6.7 litre displacement however weakening engine in the process.

D12 Vs D13 where do we start. D12 is derivate of the old TD122, early blocks up to about 1998 still had the cam gallery from the pushrod 122. Then in 1998 Volvo gave D12 block a major makeover and I think the redundant cam gallery was dispensed with at this point. Volvo needed some more displacement out of the block and gave it a major makeover moving the timing gear from the front of the engine to the rear to help with emissions capability. Let’s say D13 is a relative of D12 making clever and cost effective use of the existing investment in machine tooling.

Set me going and I can go on an on and on..........

 

[[2068]]

Set me going and I can go on an on and on..........

What we really want to know is if a given engine is going to go "bang" under normal leisure marine usage in the first 1500hrs or not, assuming correct prop loading, maintenance, and good fuel.

(owner of 2*KAD32 / DP-E's with 600+hrs on the clock - seem reliable so far)

 

[jfm]

How much time have you or perhaps have I got………??
Set me going and I can go on an on and on..........

I have loads of time to read your posts! Thanks for all that info

 

[Latestarter1]

New Cat 6.4 V8 marine engine.........

Remember this post, Navistar V8 to be mainised by Sabre Engines in Poole, and marketed as a Cat marine engine, new jobs to be created etc etc.

Visited Seawork yesterday, met with Perkins guy who said whole project has been canned, finis.

 

[volvopaul]

New Cat 6.4 V8 marine engine.........

Remember this post, Navistar V8 to be mainised by Sabre Engines in Poole, and marketed as a Cat marine engine, new jobs to be created etc etc.

Visited Seawork yesterday, met with Perkins guy who said whole project has been canned, finis.

I'm not surprised,

A , this climate.

B , I thought the power output a bit optimistic. Versus reliability and longevity.

Then again do the words longevity and marine ever go together??

 

[David of Essex]

I really enjoy your posts Latestarter, some of it goes over my head but mostly very informative and lacking in drivel that some posts seem to thrive on, please keep it up.

+1 MMMMMMM. Not qute ready to pee myself with excitement yet.
David

 

[Latestarter1]

I'm not surprised,

A , this climate.

B , I thought the power output a bit optimistic. Versus reliability and longevity.

Then again do the words longevity and marine ever go together??

Poor old Perkins guy was almost suicidal. The Phaser based M225 finishes next year along with cranky old NA ratings, the M265 amd M300 already gone as Bosch were no longer prepared to supply pumps and thet were not even IMO compliant. The new electronic 1100 M250/300 has been been a monumental flop, less than 20 sold in 18 months. Too little, too late too expensive.

The Cat 6.4 was going to save/create a number of jobs in Poole.........

I have no issue with ratings out of 6.4 liter displacement, whilst a V8 will always have lower cylinder pressure capability than an IL6 this engine has GGI block so established rule book on cylinder pressure go out the window.

Cat engineering people are real conservative, when you sign off a new engine rating you are always aware that just one mistake, which may have effect on shareholder value will leave you looking for a fresh employer!

Suspect politics between Navistar and Cat was somewhere at the root of this, too many mouths in the food chain.

 

[ulyden]

Poor old Perkins guy was almost suicidal. The Phaser based M225 finishes next year along with cranky old NA ratings, the M265 amd M300 already gone as Bosch were no longer prepared to supply pumps and thet were not even IMO compliant. The new electronic 1100 M250/300 has been been a monumental flop, less than 20 sold in 18 months. Too little, too late too expensive.

I'm not suprised. Selling this type of engine without any pakage solution is not easy. For the professonal marked it's not easy to sell cr engines either. Its like saying you need SCR for Tier 2 imo. They just go to another. Lots of engine suppliers have TIER 2 mecanical engines and they are selling well.

CR have to high life cycle cost when the fuel components have to be changed regulary. And on a IMO engine buying this on e-bay is no option.
All nox relevant components have to be marked by OEM.

 

[Latestarter1]

I'm not suprised. Selling this type of engine without any pakage solution is not easy. For the professonal marked it's not easy to sell cr engines either. Its like saying you need SCR for Tier 2 imo. They just go to another. Lots of engine suppliers have TIER 2 mecanical engines and they are selling well.

CR have to high life cycle cost when the fuel components have to be changed regulary. And on a IMO engine buying this on e-bay is no option.
All nox relevant components have to be marked by OEM.

Cannot think of any engine suppliers of Tier II mechanical engines in the 1 liter per cylinder displacement node off the top of my head??

Your common rail obsession is never far away. The Perkins Sabre 1100 has flopped because it was almost five years late, rated power output way too low for displacement/weight (300 Hp). The field test program had to be cancelled when the 425 rated motors showed up the age old weakness in the Perkins base design, they could not keep a head gasket on it. Word is in Poole that the field trial vessel was re-powered with your favorite engine the Volvo D6 at Sabre's dime. When program was re-started they settled for a PCP which only allowed a max of 300 Hp, however engine price was pegged at previous 425/450 level resulting in a 250/300 engine coming in at just over 18K. Simple economics have screwed them, nothing wrong with the fuel system technology.

'CR have to high life cycle cost when the fuel components have to be changed regulary?.

There are literally thousands of Cummins QSB/QSC/QSL common rail engines knocking on the door of 10,000 hours with zero failures and a bunch of QSB 230's in tour boats which make well over 12,000 hours before insurer demands rebuild even though engines not exhibiting any signs of blow-by. Occasional turbo and fuel lift pump failure, zero Bosch CP3 pump or injector problems.

Your new employer is dumping HUEI as fast as it can, C9 has already switched to CR and C7 CR is not far off.

 

[markcw]

Caterpillar Announces the Development of New High Performance Diesel Engine for the Pleasure Craft Industry
New Cat® C6.4 Marine Engine Features Compact Design for Powerful Performance
Caterpillar Marine Power Systems is pleased to announce the development of the Cat® C6.4, a new marine diesel engine platform for the pleasure craft industry. The C6.4 will provide industry-leading performance in the power range of 335 mhp to 505 mhp with the latest innovations in high technology, including common rail fuel injection. Designed specifically for the pleasure craft industry, the new engine is a compact, powerful and user-friendly solution for customers seeking maximum performance with decreased engine noise and reduced emissions. Featuring a 3400 rpm rated engine speed, the C6.4 is a vee-configuration, 8-cylinder, 4-stroke engine with 98.2 mm bore and 105 mm stroke displacing 6.4 total liters. The C6.4 offers four "E" level ratings, including the highest rating, which is 505 mhp at 3400 rpm. Additional ratings available include 450 mhp at 3400 rpm, 380 mhp at 3400 mhp and 335 mhp at 3400 rpm. Production is targeted for the first half of 2012.
C6.4 - Marine Diesel Propulsion Engine for the Pleasure Craft Segment
"We're pleased to introduce a segment-specific marine engine for our pleasure craft customers," said David Shannon, Caterpillar Marine Power Systems Pleasure Craft Global Sales Manager. "The new C6.4 is designed from the ground up to be reliable with clean, quiet operation and require less maintenance. We've taken extra measures to offer a new product capable of pleasing even the most discerning marine customer."

The C6.4 meets current exhaust emission regulations including U.S. EPA Tier II marine recreational craft limitations, the EU 94/25/EC recreational craft directive and is IMO II compliant. The engine is also capable of meeting future U.S. EPA Tier III marine exhaust emissions requirements. Reduced engine noise is achieved through innovative design in the two-piece CGI cylinder block, combining the bed plate and block casting to provide additional stiffness and subsequently lower operating noise. The High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel system also provides quieter performance through the pilot injection of fuel and integration of Piezo technology to eliminate electro-mechanical control solenoids.

"Vessel owners will immediately notice the quieter performance of the C6.4 due to significant reductions in gear train and valve noise as well as the addition of the HPCR fuel system," noted Tony Pattle, Marine Products Engineering Manager. Tom Withers, Chief Engineer for the C6.4 project added, "A great deal of focus has been put on incorporating Caterpillar's many years of pleasure craft marine experience into the overall package design of this product resulting in a very compact design in the always exciting V8 configuration." Extensive laboratory testing has been completed and will continue along with on the water testing, which has already begun.

The new engine model will be manufactured in the Wimborne Marine Power Center, located in Wimborne, United Kingdom. Standard equipment on the C6.4 includes a built-in oil cooler, centrifugal water pump, self-priming sea water pump, low profile oil pan, top access to service oil level and oil fill locations as well as a single Cat heavy-duty spin-on high efficiency oil filter. The engine is equipped with an automatic fuel priming pump, 12V DC electric accessories and a solid-mounted Cat 70-pin electric plug-in connector for yacht control harness. The new C6.4 is fully compatible with the Cat Multi-Station Control System (MSCS) and MSCS II components for shift and throttle integration and Cat helm displays, including the Color Marine Power Display (CMPD).

Blimey Don't think that lot was written on a i phone, and the longest written thread award goes to Bekasi

 

[ulyden]

Cannot think of any engine suppliers of Tier II mechanical engines in the 1 liter per cylinder displacement node off the top of my head??

Your common rail obsession is never far away. The Perkins Sabre 1100 has flopped because it was almost five years late, rated power output way too low for displacement/weight (300 Hp). The field test program had to be cancelled when the 425 rated motors showed up the age old weakness in the Perkins base design, they could not keep a head gasket on it. Word is in Poole that the field trial vessel was re-powered with your favorite engine the Volvo D6 at Sabre's dime. When program was re-started they settled for a PCP which only allowed a max of 300 Hp, however engine price was pegged at previous 425/450 level resulting in a 250/300 engine coming in at just over 18K. Simple economics have screwed them, nothing wrong with the fuel system technology.

'CR have to high life cycle cost when the fuel components have to be changed regulary?.

There are literally thousands of Cummins QSB/QSC/QSL common rail engines knocking on the door of 10,000 hours with zero failures and a bunch of QSB 230's in tour boats which make well over 12,000 hours before insurer demands rebuild even though engines not exhibiting any signs of blow-by. Occasional turbo and fuel lift pump failure, zero Bosch CP3 pump or injector problems.

Your new employer is dumping HUEI as fast as it can, C9 has already switched to CR and C7 CR is not far off.

Well i'm just referring to whats delivered to Norwegian workboat owners.
I'm reading the paper presenting all new deliverd boats to Norwegian owners.
If I don't know the engine type I check it up.

I can se that some speed resque boats have CR engines but most of the engines are not CR.

This perkins engine might have been in 1 litre class but high power engines of this type are competeing with larger less stressed engines in this class.
If perkins were releasing 500hp and field test showed a maximum of 300hp this i understand the choice of CR. I'm sure they know what they did!

In a ship the litres/ cylinder is not a big issue. Its power and preferable inline engines. In this class 300 to 500hp its a lot of mecanical engines with and without elektronic speed controll.


From last year these engines have been videly used. Some are in 6.7litre class.

MAN 2866 , John Deere 6068 ,Iveco N67
Volvo Penta D7,Deutz BF6M1013, Scania D12

All this are widely used by Norwegian proffesional users. All in the 300-500hp power range. I'm just observing not judging. But this might be different in other areas.

12000h is not much for some marine aplications. My company deliverd som spark ignited engines for a Norwegian ferry company in 2007. Theese engines has been runnig 30 -40 000 hours by now. Propably close to 60-70 000h within the 10 year contract.