Single engine?

Greg2

Greg2

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 Jun 2002
Messages
4,651
Visit site
Currently looking around for our next boat and a Broom 39kl or 42 cl may be an option. Thing is that some come with a single engine, typically a Volvo D6 370hp. Now we were also considering an Elling E3 and as these have a single engine logically a Broom 42 with a single should also be worth considering.

The attraction is lower maintenance costs, more room around the engine and probably lower running costs (fuel). The flip side of the coin are the obvious benefits of twins i.e. manouvreability and safety inasmuch as there is still an engine running if one breaks down.

Now I know that the twin v single debate comes up every now and then so I am fairly familiar with the pros and cons of each but I have specific concerns about a single engine such as a D6 (common rail, electronic) and instinctively I am thinking that with a single engine a good old fashioned non-electronic engine would be a better option. Am I right in thinking this or would a D6 be just as reliable?

I am also wondering about re-sale. Is a single in a Broom such as the 42CL an issue when selling?

Intended use is inland and coastal and comfortable that a single wouldn't be setting any speed records.
 
I will always expel the virtues of single engine, although probably my next boat will be twin as what I am looking at they never built single. Just seeing what you are looking at, you obviously know the brand well but Paul Sallis of this forum bought a brand new Broom 370 with a single engine, that was a VP D6. Now he has changed it & I think it is still for sale with eby but was a very lovely boat, just in case you wanted to chat to someone with a bit of experience with a similar boat although a tad smaller.

There was a brand new Broom 370 next to us in Mercury last year with Thames boat sales, it was the week the Poole boat show was on. It had twin D6's and apparently a rocket ship when it went, however two VP guys spent 2 days on board and couldn't get either engine to fire up due to electronic issues so it missed the show. So the fact you got twins does not necessarily mean better reliability....;)
 
I am afraid there are a lot of people who would not have a single engined boat and a good few of those are river based .
My first boat had a single engine but I changed to a twin in 2014 . I realised that boat handling with twins is relatively easy. Given the river use there is perhaps more frequent boat handling involved, such as going through locks etc .
However in principle a single engine is the wiser choice . People will more probably make sure a single engine is very well serviced as they rely on it absolutely . I never felt unsafe having a single engine.
 
The one big plus for a single engine on inland waterways and inshore waters is the protection the keel / skeg will give the prop. Also as the avg. trip will be at lower speeds and may be for longer periods the single engine will give you less noise and probably a lower min speed also. For me its about suitability - the aspects above, which are desirable for inland waterways, are not as desirable for offshore. This in turn should drive desirability at resale time, however I think a Broom will always be in demand in the UK / Ireland.

There are a number of the 35, 39 and 42cl's on the Shannon navigation which seem to be mostly single engined and, all things considered, I cannot imagine a better suited setup for that application.

Ellings can be fitted with a wing engine, but how suited are these to inland use? the freeboard looks bit high to me for frequent hopping on/off.
 
Having had both single and twin brooms a few thoughts:

  • A single engine Broom 39kl or 42cl will obviously be limited to displacement speeds. This may or may not be an issue depending on your preferred cruising areas.
  • Many broom 42cl's were fitted with Yanmar engines which have less electronics to go wrong and proved highly reliable as well as very economical to maintain and service.
  • Yes on resale you will be limited to a smaller market, those more interested in inland cruising.
  • One well maintained engine can be better than two unreliable ones, we've done coastal cruising on a single but at displacement speeds. Reason we went with twin, was the total distance of our coastal cruises grew over the years and we wanted to be able to complete longer passages in a single day. Inland at displacement speeds the fuel economy is not much different between twin and single.
  • Single engine may limit the length of a passage that can be completed in one day.
  • From experience a single shaft drive engine with a good bow thruster is as manoeuvrable as a twin, different technique, but as easy. (i.e. barn door size rudders on most singles)
  • Inland a single has advantages as you can probe and explore shallow waters with far less risk of damage to stern gear because single shaft, prob and rudder often protected by a skeg that runs straight off the keel. An accidental gentle grounding would be a non-event, unlike twin shafts and rudders that are exposed.

PS: Single engine Brooms are popular on the north and mid Shannon navigations over in Ireland. Down south with sea access twins are more popular over there.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys, some helpful comments. I think Martyn's comments about the 370 with twin D6 reinforces my concerns about relying on a single electronic engine. Would be helpful to hear Paul's view on his 370 with a single.
 
This argument about engines rages in the aircraft world too. I flew across the Irish sea in a single for a number of years and in that time quite a lot of pilots were drowned because of engine failure ; virtually all singles.

Taking a cold objective look at the pertinent facts:
If you encounter failure with an onshore breeze, you are going to end up on the lee shore rocks.

Offshore with engine failure you will probably get blow out to sea, and never be found again.

If rough weather blows up you will end up beam too the breaking waves without an engine, a life threatening situation.

There are thousands of lobster pot ropes, lost nets and other nasty debris that could wind itself around your prop; in choppy conditions you will not be able to cut it away .

I'd go for twins if you are considering going offshore .
 
rustybarge said:
This argument about engines rages in the aircraft world too. I flew across the Irish sea in a single for a number of years and in that time quite a lot of pilots were drowned because of engine failure ; virtually all singles.

Taking a cold objective look at the pertinent facts:
If you encounter failure with an onshore breeze, you are going to end up on the lee shore rocks.

Offshore with engine failure you will probably get blow out to sea, and never be found again.

If rough weather blows up you will end up beam too the breaking waves without an engine, a life threatening situation.

There are thousands of lobster pot ropes, lost nets and other nasty debris that could wind itself around your prop; in choppy conditions you will not be able to cut it away .

I'd go for twins if you are considering going offshore .
Click to expand...

Not sure we will go offshore again having read that! :) :) :)
 
In response to 'rustybarge's comments, the majority of fishing boats plying their trade in the waters he describes are single engine, and you don't hear of many losses of such fishing boats solely due to engine failure.

Personally, I have no problem with a single engine boat, and this is exactly what my previous Nimbus 320 had.
 
Bouba said:
I thought the OP's question was would you choose a boat with a single Volvo
Click to expand...

I guess it was really. Is putting trust in a common rail electronically controlled single engine more risky than a traditional engine? Instinctively I think it is but is my distrust of modern engines misplaced?

Second question was about values and re-sale. I think that currently the market prefers twins generally but this my change as fuel becomes more expensive.
 
AllanG said:
In response to 'rustybarge's comments, the majority of fishing boats plying their trade in the waters he describes are single engine, and you don't hear of many losses of such fishing boats solely due to engine failure.

Personally, I have no problem with a single engine boat, and this is exactly what my previous Nimbus 320 had.
Click to expand...

This is true, but remember most mfv go out together and look after each other in the case of engine failure. I believe some vessels leave their engines running for weeks at a time, so they are designed for continuous duty unlike leisure boat engines with their cheap bolt on accessories .

Would you fly across the Atlantic in a single engine aircraft?
 
Perhaps twin smaller engines ?
A friend has a Westwood A34 (I think) . The interior is very well executed - in fact I like it much better than the Broom owned by another friend.
The Westwood has twin 150HP engines. Very sensible . It has more than adequate power on the river and I am assured it consumes little fuel. It could do coastal but obviously not a fast boat .

By the way the Broom style of boats are not my favourite so am completely unbiased on the subject ,
 
What happened to the saying that if a twin engine plane loses one engine the second engine will take you to the crash site
 
I visited Paul's boat just before he acquired his current new boat, and it was a lovely example, so well worth a look. If it is being sold by EBY it may also have a warranty from a trade seller.
 
Greg2 said:
Not sure we will go offshore again having read that! :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry. :) Decades ago I also regularly flew single engine over water at night, and never had a problem (by the book and never took chances). Also cruised offshore in single engine boat. Remember when your tucked up in bed some night during winter storms the entire fishing fleet is out there running single engined trawlers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

E
Nimbus 305 or Marex 330
Replies
19
Views
813
Time Out
T

Share this page

Top