New caterpillar 6.4l engine

[bekasi]

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).

 

[Firefly625]

something being manufactured in the UK...!!! I hope it finds a place on every UK boat builders shopping lists.

 

[volvopaul]

I am sure latestarter1 will be along sometime to give us his view on this new motor.

504hp from 6.4 litres seems stressed to me, as volvos d9 is 500 and 575hp from 9 litres.

 

[Divemaster1]

I am sure latestarter1 will be along sometime to give us his view on this new motor.

504hp from 6.4 litres seems stressed to me, as volvos d9 is 500 and 575hp from 9 litres.

Yup ... a bit more stressed than a 435 D6 ...

422 @ 5.5L = 77 Hp per litre
505 @ 6.4L = 78 Hp per litre

So same ballpark figure....

 

[Latestarter1]

I am sure latestarter1 will be along sometime to give us his view on this new motor.

504hp from 6.4 litres seems stressed to me, as volvos d9 is 500 and 575hp from 9 litres.

MMMMMMM. Not qute ready to pee myself with excitement yet.

It is not actually a CAT engine but a badge engineered Navistar Maxxforce 7 motor. Navistar V8's have a pretty colourful history. When Ford engineers fist saw the drawings for the engine they referred to it as the Maxxfarce continued with their multi million $ lawsuit regarding Navistar quality issues, then went off and designed their own V8 in house.

The UK manufacturing bit is good to see, the Perkins Sabre guys have had a tough time since the Perkins Sabre 1100 6.6 litre debacle, however I suspect that the term 'manufacturing' is a little loose. Block and heads come from Brazil as Navistar had to close their own Huntsville foundry following the bust up with Ford. Base engine assembly is I suspect still at Navistar in the US with the long blocks coming to Wimborne for marinisation and final upfit.

I have already asked a key question; Block is CGI (compacted graphite iron) light and very strong but requires special machining techniques. It is a parent bore motor no issue with that, however a parent bore CGI motor would suggest there is no salvage procedure in the event of bore damage caused by piston pick up. No reply to my question yet, but I just hope we do not have yet another throw away marine engine.

As to Volvopauls comments regarding high specific outputs I am pretty relaxed and rarely use just the measure of the fresh air inside a motor when considering specific outputs. Let me explain, for example Volvo D9 Vs D11 both the same configuation, D11 grew up out of D9 by swinging some more stroke so crank pin overlap was reduced. The D11 bock structure had to beefed up by a material switch to CGI. From a purely technical standpoint D11 is a weaker engine in the crank area than D9 due to the loss of overlap. I am not suggesting that D11 crank is compromised but just a measure of base engine capability.

Volvo are testing D6 at 500 hp at new Tier III emission levels and reports have been darn good, this motor could also have CGI bock so I suspect hot rodding has a way to go yet.

 

[Latestarter1]

Just a correction, CGI blocks are sourced from Cifunsa foundry in Mexico not Brazil.

Noise levels are quoted as being very low, attributed in part to very rigid block design.

 

[capsco]

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.

 

[volvopaul]

The Navistar never caught on from what ive seen, what was mercruisers disasterous V8 7.4 litre unit, I thought it was born from the navistar truck motor? I am very surprised Cat have gone down this route, in my opinion V configuration motors in boats make for a nightmare servicing when there so close together, inline motors are for boats, unless of course your in the big league when engine space and central mounted fuel tanks are the norm.

 

[Latestarter1]

Yup ... a bit more stressed than a 435 D6 ...

422 @ 5.5L = 77 Hp per litre
505 @ 6.4L = 78 Hp per litre

So same ballpark figure....

At Tier III 82 MHp/litre will not be uncommon and other engines pretty much there.

Cummins QSB 480 5.9L = 81 MHp/litre

Iveco FPT 560 6.7L = 79 MHp/litre after you have to waded though spec sheet ISO 3046 BS!

Yanmar 6LYA3 480 5.8L = 82.7 MHp/litre

Volvo D6 435 435 5.5L = 79 MHp/Litre........ Alf, sorry to be spec sheet anorak.

Cummins QSB is manufactured Darlington UK however more popular with Eurpean builders than Brit ones???

 

[Divemaster1]

............. Alf, sorry to be spec sheet anorak.

Cummins QSB is manufactured Darlington UK however more popular with Eurpean builders than Brit ones???

... just seemed to remember seing the D6 435 listed as 422 Hp somewhere.. also would like to commend you on very informative posts !!

Thanks !!

 

[Latestarter1]

... just seemed to remember seing the D6 435 listed as 422 Hp somewhere.. also would like to commend you on very informative posts !!

Thanks !!

Alf,

You were not mistaken Volvo quote 435 MHp at the flywheel and 422 at the shaft using standard upfit ZF gearbox. I always prefer to use fywheel power in kW rather than get involved in SAE Vs MHp and weed ot those using Micky Mouse ISO 3046 25C test fuel ratings still used by Iveco FPT much to their shame.

CAT spec sheets are some of the best in the industry.

 

[bekasi]

Thanks Latestarter1,message received loud & clear!! Very pinpoint & informative indeed!!

 

[oldgit]

So what !

Huh,my 6 Littre M135 Perkins puts our nearly 1350 hp ....err sorry thats my bad eyesight,should be 135 hp.

 

[ulyden]

Well difference is that you can use yours! Modern engines only last if average power is below 50%. I’m not sure if he is right?

Volvo penta have been in 80hp/liter range for a while. KAD300 from 2001 had 286hp from 3.6liter having a specific consumption of 235g/kwh at full load

Don’t like the litre power to compare engines. I use BMEP multiplied by piston speed. Comparing larger engines litre power is decreasing. You don’t see
a engine in 2l/cyl class with 100hp/litre? MTU 2000 has 70hp pr litre in 94rating


But now there is hope for all old engines. Put on a common rail and run the EPA/IMO cycle and you have a marine engine. Nobody seams to care about performance, maintenance cost, block salvation or lifecycle cost.

 

[Latestarter1]

Huh,my 6 Littre M135 Perkins puts our nearly 1350 hp ....err sorry thats my bad eyesight,should be 135 hp.

Either way another victim of Mickey Mouse data sheet weasel words. More ISO 3046 stuff, your engines are barely 125 Mhp.

CAT spec sheet for same motor, 3056 paints a more honest picture.

 

[oldgit]

"Either way another victim of Mickey Mouse data sheet weasel words. More ISO 3046 stuff, your engines are barely 125 Mhp."


O no ,the shame,shall start searching for those missing 10 slightly lame horses immediately.

 

[Latestarter1]

"Either way another victim of Mickey Mouse data sheet weasel words. More ISO 3046 stuff, your engines are barely 125 Mhp."


O no ,the shame,shall start searching for those missing 10 slightly lame horses immediately.

When new engines are priced in $$ per Hp subject is worthy of more than flippancy.

Do not worry about looking for the non existant ones the other hundred or so are pretty lame. Dirty old low Bmep motors are a pain.

 

[jfm]

swinging some more stroke so crank pin overlap was reduced.

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

 

[oldgit]

" Dirty old low Bmep motors are a pain."

Is this code for a low power reliable piece of equipment that will function in just about any environment,without expensive constant attention every few hundred hours by very expensive people in white coats with canbus readers.Which can be repaired by your local repair shop without complicated test equipment.Will run any anything which could be roughly described as "diesel" without requiring a new set of injectors and pump to go with a shiney new set of valves and pistons.Will still function when there is a light dew in the area and the fancy engine ECU on that advanced rocket engine goes into limp home mode.
Plus of course dirty old low Bmep motors can be self serviced and maintained by a mere mortal.

 

[ulyden]

" Dirty old low Bmep motors are a pain."

Is this code for a low power reliable piece of equipment that will function in just about any environment,without expensive constant attention every few hundred hours by very expensive people in white coats with canbus readers.Which can be repaired by your local repair shop without complicated test equipment.Will run any anything which could be roughly described as "diesel" without requiring a new set of injectors and pump to go with a shiney new set of valves and pistons.Will still function when there is a light dew in the area and the fancy engine ECU on that advanced rocket engine goes into limp home mode.
Plus of course dirty old low Bmep motors can be self serviced and maintained by a mere mortal.

Probably yes! NA engines normally don't smoke, don't use expensive fuel/turbo/cooler parts and dont generate money for the supplier. High BMEP engines are often different! Put on non-replaceable/ irreparable cylinder liners, digital fuel control, and you have a real money machine.

They end up like this: http://www.finn.no/finn/boat/motor/object?finnkode=26878265

3 D6 for £5000 each