Re engine 16M trawler yacht

[westernman]

I am also interested, hence bumping this thread back up to stop it 'dropping off' the bottom of the Forum.

Here is a link to the 6068AFM - http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US...ulsion_certified/6068_series/6068AFM75_A.page

And a link to the 6068TFM50 - http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US...on_non_certified/6068_series/6068TFM50_C.page

Sorry to be persistent. I really would like to know why you pciked the engines you did.
Please do enlighten us all.

Or just me privately, if the reason is too embarassing.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Sorry to be persistent. I really would like to know why you pciked the engines you did.
Please do enlighten us all.

Or just me privately, if the reason is too embarassing.

Post #38 answers your question.

 

[MapisM]

Sorry to be persistent. I really would like to know why you pciked the engines you did.
Please do enlighten us all.

Or just me privately, if the reason is too embarassing.

Even leaving aside the explanations SD already gave in the post linked by JTB, I hope you don't mind if I ask why you seem to not understand (or possibly disagree with, reading between the lines?) SD choice at all.
To the point of envisaging some "embarassing" reasons...?!?
The engines he picked are maybe not so well known this side of the Pond, but they are widely recognised among the best in class, if not THE best in class, by most trawler builders and owners.
Now, I'm not pretending to be reading SD mind of course, but don't you think that this alone is a good enough reason to choose them?

 

[westernman]

Even leaving aside the explanations SD already gave in the post linked by JTB, I hope you don't mind if I ask why you seem to not understand (or possibly disagree with, reading between the lines?) SD choice at all.
To the point of envisaging some "embarassing" reasons...?!?
The engines he picked are maybe not so well known this side of the Pond, but they are widely recognised among the best in class, if not THE best in class, by most trawler builders and owners.
Now, I'm not pretending to be reading SD mind of course, but don't you think that this alone is a good enough reason to choose them?

I don;t disagree with anything which was said - I am just interested in learning a bit more as to what went into the decision process. The only reason which he seemed to evoke in his post that they were the price of a Ford Mondeo cheaper than one of the alternatives he was considering. I would have like to have learned more about what he saw as the other pros/cons which went into the choice.

The Deeres are relatively big and heavy engines for their power output and compared to some others. They also have electronic management, which presumably (in the relatively unlikely event) that packs up, then the engine won't run at all. How do they compare to Cummins, Iveco, MAN etc which are also usually considered? Also almost every European built boat has a Volvo in it. Again, interested in opinions/facts pros/cons.

Thanks.

 

[tinkicker0]

Don't diss Deere man. American iron, simple and strong.

 

[Latestarter1]

I don;t disagree with anything which was said - I am just interested in learning a bit more as to what went into the decision process. The only reason which he seemed to evoke in his post that they were the price of a Ford Mondeo cheaper than one of the alternatives he was considering. I would have like to have learned more about what he saw as the other pros/cons which went into the choice.

The Deeres are relatively big and heavy engines for their power output and compared to some others. They also have electronic management, which presumably (in the relatively unlikely event) that packs up, then the engine won't run at all. How do they compare to Cummins, Iveco, MAN etc which are also usually considered? Also almost every European built boat has a Volvo in it. Again, interested in opinions/facts pros/cons.

Thanks.

Deere is a very good engine commonly used in long distance yachts, much of it due good marketing as well a bit of folk law. In terms of durability reliability no better or worse than the completion, however pricing is very competitive.

If you take a look at power node.

Deere 6068 106 x 127 - 6.8 liters 776kg with typical rating in this power node 300 hp @ 2,500 rpm

Cummins QSB 6.7 107 x 124 - 6.7 liters 631kg with typical rating of 305 @ 2,600 rpm
Cummins QSL 9 114 x 145 - 8.9 liters 907kg with typical rating of 281 @ 1,800 rpm

Volvo do not use the D6 in this power engine displacement node instead offer the Volvo D7C which is 108 x 130 - 7.1 liters 760kg with highest rating of 265 hp @ 2,300 rpm. However the D7C is actually a Deutz engine painted green, good motor however too many mouths in food chain to be price competitive.

MAN had the R6 108 x 125 - 6.87 liters 900 kg however engine withdrawn from the marine market due to serious technical issues with higher ratings.

Volvo have far less penetration in the commercial marine applications than the pleasure market.

I think OP made a good call in terms of cost/benefit, my only reservation is specification of PRM gearbox.

 

[westernman]

What does the M1, M2, M3, M4 rating really change on the JD engines?

If you have a M4 rating and just back off the throttle 300/400rpm to the same max RPM as the M1, do you have the same as you would have had with the M1 rating? Or is there something much more subtle going on?

 

[Latestarter1]

What does the M1, M2, M3, M4 rating really change on the JD engines?

If you have a M4 rating and just back off the throttle 300/400rpm to the same max RPM as the M1, do you have the same as you would have had with the M1 rating? Or is there something much more subtle going on?

Nothing particularly subtle just impact of different duty cycle at different rated speeds. M5 to M3 typical leisure applications. M1 and 2 are commercial applications.

M5 is 300 hp @ 2,600 rpm, pleasure application for propulsion applications that utilise full power up to 30 minutes in each 6-hour period of operation. These applications typically operate at full power only 8 percent of the time, and accumulate up to 300 hours per year.


M4 is 267hp @ 2,500 rpm pleasure propulsion applications that may utilise full power up to 1 out of each 12 hours of operation. These applications typically operate at full power up to 15 percent of the time and accumulate as many as 800 hours/year.

M3 is 236hp @ 2,400 rpm for light duty propulsion applications that may utilise full power no more than 4 out of each 12 hours of operation. These applications typically operate at full power up to 35 percent of the time and accumulate as many as 2,000 hours/year.

 

[westernman]

Nothing particularly subtle just impact of different duty cycle at different rated speeds. M5 to M3 typical leisure applications. M1 and 2 are commercial applications.

M5 is 300 hp @ 2,500 rpm, pleasure application for propulsion applications that utilise full power up to 30 minutes in each 6-hour period of operation. These applications typically operate at full power only 8 percent of the time, and accumulate up to 300 hours per year.


M4 is 267hp @ 2,500 rpm pleasure propulsion applications that may utilise full power up to 1 out of each 12 hours of operation. These applications typically operate at full power up to 15 percent of the time and accumulate as many as 800 hours/year.

M3 is 236hp @ 2,400 rpm for light duty propulsion applications that may utilise full power no more than 4 out of each 12 hours of operation. These applications typically operate at full power up to 35 percent of the time and accumulate as many as 2,000 hours/year.

Yes I have read all that, but it does not answer my question.

If I have an M5 engine, but I arrange things (prop pitch, throttle setting), such that I do not excede 2,400 rpm, and never take more than 236 hp out of the engine, do I effectively have the same thing as an M3 engine?

I.e. is the difference between M1..M5 just a programmed max fuel rate and max rpm limitations? Or is it more subtle than that?

 

[Latestarter1]

If I have an M5 engine, but I arrange things (prop pitch, throttle setting), such that I do not excede 2,400 rpm, and never take more than 236 hp out of the engine, do I effectively have the same thing as an M3 engine?/QUOTE]

Yes everything the same except M5 still limited to maximum of 300 hrs/year for M5 still applies under terms of standard two year base warranty or optional extended warranty..................

I have to say that Deere M5 rating is pretty restrictive.

 

[Bajansailor]

Many moons ago (about 16 years) I worked in a little boatyard here that sold John Deeres, and they were very popular with the commercial fishing boat owners (and pretty much all of them are still in service, still without any major overhauls being needed).
I remember that we sold a lot of 6068TFM engines, but we did sell a few of the (then) 6068DFM engines (which were non turbo charged) to fishing boat owners who were passionately against having turbochargers, and their reasoning re extra complexity seemed very valid, especially as engine weight was not an issue.

So I was wondering why the choice for Silver Dee was between two different turbocharged versions of the 6068, rather than (say) a non turbocharged version - until I went on the John Deere site and found that they do not appear to build a 6068DFM anymore.
They still have a 4045 DFM, but none of the larger engines seem to be available without turbos.
Is this simply a case of the market is too limited, and everybody wants as much power as possible nowadays for a given engine block size?

 

[MapisM]

If I have an M5 engine, but I arrange things (prop pitch, throttle setting), such that I do not excede 2,400 rpm, and never take more than 236 hp out of the engine, do I effectively have the same thing as an M3 engine?

Yes everything the same except M5 still limited to maximum of 300 hrs/year for M5 still applies under terms of standard two year base warranty or optional extended warranty..................

LS, I'm a bit surprised to hear your confirmation of what michaelchapman suggested.
I've recently checked the Lugger L6108 specs, and the curves of the 3 available versions (high output, medium and continuous duty) are very different.
I mean, you don't get the same power/torque out of them, at any given rpm. Even the specific consumption is not the same.
I would have thought that there must be also some "hardware" difference between them (Injectors? Turbos?), and that this should be true for most de-rated engines vs. their higher power version.
If you could tell us more, I for one am all ears, thanks in advance.

 

[jfm]

I saw SD today and he's been busy but will come back and reply to the questions asap.

In brief this is one of those things you can debate for ages but ultimately he had to make a choice. The JDs are good engines, have an even better reputation and therefore will be more value accretive on the boat than say Volvo. They were also very easy to buy in UK through trade dealers, unlike some others that were a bit harder to get. The 6068 AFM 85 vs TFM50 variant (same block) was because he wanted electronic monitoring and just fancied the higher spec engine despite the higher cost. The M2 vs M4 warranty thing wasn't a big concern because he will likely meet the M2 usage conditions and tbh SD takes the same view as I do about warranties (which is, stuff 'em). I can't remember the differences between the PRM and ZF gearboxes and the reasons for that choice. He will report more asap

Bajansailor I don't think he would want non turbo diesels in this day and age. Turbos are these days very reliable and the efficiency gain by extracting all that energy from the exhaust rather than wasting it kind of makes turbo charging a something of a no brainer when buying a new diesel engine

 

[Latestarter1]

LS, I'm a bit surprised to hear your confirmation of what michaelchapman suggested.
I've recently checked the Lugger L6108 specs, and the curves of the 3 available versions (high output, medium and continuous duty) are very different.
I mean, you don't get the same power/torque out of them, at any given rpm. Even the specific consumption is not the same.
I would have thought that there must be also some "hardware" difference between them (Injectors? Turbos?), and that this should be true for most de-rated engines vs. their higher power version.
If you could tell us more, I for one am all ears, thanks in advance.

Not sure why life should appear so complicated.

There are zero hardware differences between the ratings quite simply a matter that engines are sold on the basis of $$ per hp, there is a cost delta between ratings.

Certification of diesel engines costs a fortune, you can certify a 'family' of ratings with a single hardware set, however change a SINGLE performance part, injector, turbo and you have to re-certify whole engine which makes no commercial sense whatsoever. Remember under IMO legislation vessel should carry a technical file on the engine which lists performance parts by manufacturers part #. You can easily change shape of power curve with electronic engine if one needs to without changes to performance parts.

Pretty sure Lugger L6108 has been out of production for years and certainly no longer certified, not sure what relevance is this to discussion. Little bit like reference to misguided thinking behind naturally aspirated 6068 already pointed out as no longer in production. NA engines run hotter in the valve seat area than turbocharged engines, in THEORY they are less reliable than turbocharged versions of the same engines. I was involved with re-powers of first batch of London Routemaster buses the old London Transport engineering people were insistent on use of NA engines, in later batches the dinosaurs had retired, enabling us to put a far better turbocharged engine spec together. In addition from a more up to date emissions perspective NA engines are very difficult to certify which is why most have been dropped from production.

My issue with the choice of PRM gearbox was not a technical one, quite simply that PRM gearboxes have no rear mounting pads. If I have a choice I ALWAYS mount rear of engine/transmission off the gearbox and not off the flywheel housing, overall resulting in superior installation NVH. PRM boxes deny me the option of my preferred mounting. In addition ZF did not even come up on the radar for this specific vessel, sounds off the wall but I simply love Korean D-I marine transmissions which are based on old Twin Disc designs, 1,000% reliable and durable, quieter than PRM with great European back up from Watamota all at a competitive price.

As I said in earlier post JD was a good choice, no clue why people so Green Engine obsessed.

 

[MapisM]

LOL, nope, not trying to complicate life LS, just to exploit your immense knowledge on this matter to improve my understanding.

In this respect, ....

You can easily change shape of power curve with electronic engine if one needs to without changes to performance parts.

Sure, but in turn, doesn't this imply that what MC suggested (using an M5 engine at no more than the M3 max rpm), is NOT actually the same thing, because even at the lower rpm, the M5 output (hence also fuel burn, and general wear) is higher?
Btw, I had a quick look at the specs of the AFM85 version which SD choose: M5 rating actually is not available, and power/rpm figures for M3 and M4 are different from those of your post #148.
Not that it matters a lot in this context, anyway.

Pretty sure Lugger L6108 has been out of production for years and certainly no longer certified, not sure what relevance is this to discussion.

Agreed, not much, as I said I just happened to have recently looked at its specs.
By chance, do you know when exactly it was dismissed? The boat for which I was checking it out is a 100+ feet yacht built in 2004, so not exactly vintage stuff....

If I have a choice I ALWAYS mount rear of engine/transmission off the gearbox and not off the flywheel housing, overall resulting in superior installation NVH.

Interesting.
I was once told by a Cat engineer that also the type of shaft coupling can affect such choice.
According to him, with modern stuffing box systems where the prop load is taken by the hull rather than the gearbox/engine, thus allowing softer mounts to be used, the NVH is actually lower using the block mounting pads, even if the gearbox can take its own.
Are you saying that this is BS (something I can't rule out, even if that chap has a pretty decent reputation in the industry), or does your statement apply to traditional installations where the load is taken by the gearbox?
Mind, I have no clue about which type of shaft/stuffing box SD has - just saying...

 

[Latestarter1]

LOL, nope, not trying to complicate life LS, just to exploit your immense knowledge on this matter to improve my understanding.

In this respect, ....


Sure, but in turn, doesn't this imply that what MC suggested (using an M5 engine at no more than the M3 max rpm), is NOT actually the same thing, because even at the lower rpm, the M5 output (hence also fuel burn, and general wear) is higher?
Btw, I had a quick look at the specs of the AFM85 version which SD choose: M5 rating actually is not available, and power/rpm figures for M3 and M4 are different from those of your post #148.
Not that it matters a lot in this context, anyway.


Agreed, not much, as I said I just happened to have recently looked at its specs.
By chance, do you know when exactly it was dismissed? The boat for which I was checking it out is a 100+ feet yacht built in 2004, so not exactly vintage stuff....


Interesting.
I was once told by a Cat engineer that also the type of shaft coupling can affect such choice.
According to him, with modern stuffing box systems where the prop load is taken by the hull rather than the gearbox/engine, thus allowing softer mounts to be used, the NVH is actually lower using the block mounting pads, even if the gearbox can take its own.
Are you saying that this is BS (something I can't rule out, even if that chap has a pretty decent reputation in the industry), or does your statement apply to traditional installations where the load is taken by the gearbox?
Mind, I have no clue about which type of shaft/stuffing box SD has - just saying...

I gave what I thought was a data based reply to MC in an effort to correct his misconception that Deere motors were heavier and had lower rated speeds than the competition. I failed, because all that happened was a bunch of people going off like a Catherine Wheel with the pin pin pulled out over engine ratings.

#1 I have little doubt that the selling dealer has provided the correct engine rating for the OP's vessel, so let's put all that to bed.

One reason why Deere have been successful in long distance cruisers is that they are particularly careful to ensure that their engines are correctly applied rather than any specific magic.

Although all engine manufacturers aim to supply engines which result in a successful long term relationship they have various ways of going about it. Selling marine and installing engines for long term customer satisfaction can be a tough call hence myriad of rating definitions explaining the proper operation of these engines. You have a variety of terms used to describe the output ratings of these engines "high output or HO",--"A, B, C, D, E",-- "M-1 M-2, M-3,M-4, M-5" -- all very confusing, however the aim is simply to ensure purchaser has a good product experience and manufacturer builds their market share whilst enjoying decent margins. Poorly applied engines damage reputations and place pressure on warranty and policy accruals.

Warranty packages are also a key element in helping to ensure engines are properly applied. Engines are sold as I mentioned earlier on the basis of $$ per hp and particularly in U.S vessels specified for leisure use can end up in a very grey area when used for angling seeing very high load factors totally unsuited to leisure rated engines.

To sum up, a correctly specified marine engine correctly installed is good business, making it all happen is not always easy.

As to mounting rear end of a marine engine off the flywheel housing, the European way, or off the gearbox, the U.S. way is a matter of personal preference and can end up as a bit of a 'what way does water swirl going down the plug hole' argument. However in my personal experience rear mounting off gearbox has produced best results, I was once having in depth discussion on merits of both arrangements when designer said 'I get it, just like watching a good boxer, he keeps his feet well apart for stability'. I am currently involved in a re-power using Aquadrives which eliminate prop-shaft thrust from engine/transmission and employ soft mounts, however I have still specified rear mounting off the gearbox. MapisM no clue what relevance comments made by CAT application engineer have to this discussion, simply seems yet another case of us talking past each other.

 

[MapisM]

Can't understand the reason for your conclusion, when the first thing I said in my previous post was that I was interested to learn from your experience...

Besides, this time (as opposed to my question on the Lugger, admittedly, but I already explained that) there was also some relevance to this discussion, at least potentially.
You disagreed with SD choice of the PRM gearbox because that doesn't allow rear engine mount off it.
But IF what I was told from that Cat engineer would have been correct, and IF the shafts on SD would have been Aquadrive (or another type, but still with the same logic), then the PRM choice could have been better justified.
Now you're saying that you prefer rear engine mount off the gearbox no matter what.
Which is fine, but why do you see my question as a "case of talking past each other"...

 

[Latestarter1]

Think I must be missing something............'If I have a choice I ALWAYS mount rear of engine/transmission off the gearbox and not off the flywheel housing, overall resulting in superior installation NVH'. What has changed?

Lugger Vs Deere with totally different rating guidelines and annual usage, whats to compare?

'Can't understand the reason for your conclusion, when the first thing I said in my previous post was that I was interested to learn from your experience...' D-I transmissions based on old Twin Disc design have proved super durable as they incorporate the old Twin Disc rubber peg drive which lasts forever, quiet and cost effective, mount it anyway you desire, brilliant gearbox, that is my experience, plain and simple.

 

[MapisM]

Yeah I know, you did say always, in capital.
Otoh, I happened to have heard another chap recommending the same, but with one exception, so I thought to ask.
Can't see what's wrong with that...?

 

[silverdee]

Just a quick reply. refit going slow due to my busy work and John Deere muppetry. Ordered engines + gboxes 22 January £61.5k delivery latest was to be 7th May-- there was a v real indication from Barrus the importers that would be much sooner etc. After much chasing and solicitors involvement one engine arrives 11 july and one 25 july ---grrrr. Distinct feeling Barrus knew engines would take ages but as i wouldn`t have ordered in those circs sold me a story. This means refit will go on outside in Scotland into the winter weather and God knows when I will be able to chug to Southampton to load on a ship.
Also bought 7 year lease on berth in Antibes for circa £170k (plus service charges) and boat is sitting in Troon costing car park fees there double grrr.Neither John Deere nor Barrus prepared to offer so much as a John Deere baseball cap in compo- so beware delays if using these companies. Lets hope spares and if needed warranty work happens faster.
In answer to other posts earlier I went for Deeres based on their reputation for reliability and the fact that the rather excellent West Coast marine who are doing the refit are agents for them. I went for the prm gearboxes as they were a couple of grand cheaper than the ZFs-- if I had seen the subsequent posts maybe I would have swayed to the ZFs in the end you have to decide and move on- I got the bigger of 2 choices so hopefully they will work.
Have now bought new Besenzoni p1369 ss passerelle, lovely ss Whittal crane, Lewmar c3 capstan and sidepowers remote system for thrusters from the v professional and knowledgeable Mike Ingram at Osmotech . Ordered the flybridge (and for- deck which is now treadmaster) done in tec dek and awaiting new radar arch-- probably with hardtop-- i need to see quote for that.
Been up to boat with carpentry gang and made a single berth in aft cabin into a higher snug double to fit 10kg washer and separate tumbler under.
Agreed layout of flybridge table and much changed seating incorporating beer fridge-- table in build.
New bathing platform and a thousand other things to do
now just need to put it all together-- simples.
Will post photos after next get a chance to go and see her.