Perkins 154 raw water pump ON CRANKSHAFT?

TQA

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Feb 2005
Messages
6,815
Location
Carribbean currently Grenada
sailingonelephantschild.blogspot.com
I am looking at a boat fitted with a Perkins 154. The raw water pump is fitted to the nose of the crankshaft and the only thing that holds the body from spinning round is the hoses.

pic here http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/YgOAC6tm1dX_MtqcGmdv5A?feat=directlink


Has anybody seen anything like this before? Was this normal practice in 1978?

My inclination is to fit a belt driven pump but if there are thousands of old 154s chuggin away with this setup I guess I can live with it.
 
I have seen a similar setup, but driven from the freshwater pump pulley on an old BMC diesel of similar vintage.
I would bin it- imagine the consequences of a weakened rubber hose at high speed!
 
Perkins 4.154

Now you are digging into the memory bank!

I do not think that Perkins ever did an "official" 4.154 marinisation. Bowman did a conversion manifold/heat exchanger which opened the door to aftermarket conversions, for example Lancing Marine. The crank mounted Jabsco pump is pure Mike Bellamy. Mike always did the KISS approach, not super stressed by the arrangement, however I have always liked the idiea of a stabiliser rod. On a positive note there is no drive belt to break.
 
Perkins 4.154

Mike Bellamy IS Lancing Marine, apologies I thought that was pretty much common knowledge among boaters.

My Perkins USA publication 601 SER 1076/1024 on the 4.154 shows only automotive agricultural and industrial applications.

Not saying that your motor IS a conversion, however unlikely that Perkins engineering would use your style of Jabsco pump drive, it would have more likely been a belt as the 4.154 has no SAE aux aperture. If your motor has cooled exhaust manifold and separate header tank heat exchanger then more likely to be out of Perkins, if it has combined Bowman unit more likely to be aftermarket conversion as the head of engineering at Peterborough during the 70's was never keen on combined manifolds.

Whilst real ugly in engineering terms it has lasted for 31 years without sinking the boat, who can argue with that!

As a personal view I would view any vessel with a a 31 year old motor a potential repower project. Throwing money at old motors never stacks up. These days there are plenty of far more sociable and reliable motors out there in the 60 hp node.
 
It's a very similar idea to what Volvo Penta have been using on their petrol engines since ca 1998 or 1999. They use a stabiliser to stop the pump body spinning; early ones are a hefty steel part locating between the pump inlet and outlet stubs (with a rubber insert), later ones are a bent rod which fits in a lug/ rubber bush on the pump body. They work fine. (and it means the raw water pump continues to run , feeding water to the exhaust manifolds/ risers if the belt fails so the rubber exhaust hoses don't start to burn!)
 
The motor starts easily and does not smoke or produce any odd knocking noises. I sail rather than motor so will not run up the hours much so am quite happy with the basic unit and a repower with a Yanmar will be £12000 +.

Other similar boats had a more conventional belt driven pump so I think this was a retrofit. However it gives my engineering sensibilities the screaming ab-dabs.
 
I have a Ford XLD1600, marinised with mostly Lancing bits, and the pump on that is bolted onto the front pulley. It does, however, have a strap to stop it rotating.
It's a Johnson pump, now ten years old, which needed a new seal after six years to stop it spewing salty water over the front of the engine. Before I noticed, all three vee-belt pulleys (crank, engine water pump, alternator) had rusted and three belts in turn wore out very quickly before they had cleaned up again.
Moral : just 'cos the engine works every time, doesn't mean it's ok.
 
Top