MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
Thanks - looking at it just as trim rather than being structural is certainly going to help find the right product.
The Ford to Cummins Conversion Thread
- Thread starter MYStargazer
- Start date
Thanks - looking at it just as trim rather than being structural is certainly going to help find the right product.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
Engines out!
At last…
There was no block and tackle to hand, and the crane driver was receiving instructions by Chinese whisper (well, shouting really), but, over about three hours, the engines came out.
The front engine mounts needed to be removed while the engines were hovering a foot in the air, otherwise they weren’t going to clear the cabin floor longitudinal beams.
10 Lessons learned:
1. Make sure all fluids are fully drained.
2. Make sure you’ve got every size of spanner to hand (we did – just)
3. Keep plenty of old t-shirts to hand for inevitable diesel spills.
4. Make sure the palettes on which the engines are going are strong enough.
5. Engine lifting eyes are convenient but not essential.
6. Your boat isn’t going to move as much as you’d expect.
7. If you’ve not got walkie-talkies to hand, learn the correct hand signals (for example, a thumbs-up means ‘raise boom’ – not that everything’s fine and dandy!).
8. Take it easy, don’t rush and don’t feel hassled by hourly rates or yard staff wanting to disappear off for lunch etc.
9. Order some nice weather!
10. It’s easy and well within the scope of the hands-on owner.
At last…
There was no block and tackle to hand, and the crane driver was receiving instructions by Chinese whisper (well, shouting really), but, over about three hours, the engines came out.
The front engine mounts needed to be removed while the engines were hovering a foot in the air, otherwise they weren’t going to clear the cabin floor longitudinal beams.
10 Lessons learned:
1. Make sure all fluids are fully drained.
2. Make sure you’ve got every size of spanner to hand (we did – just)
3. Keep plenty of old t-shirts to hand for inevitable diesel spills.
4. Make sure the palettes on which the engines are going are strong enough.
5. Engine lifting eyes are convenient but not essential.
6. Your boat isn’t going to move as much as you’d expect.
7. If you’ve not got walkie-talkies to hand, learn the correct hand signals (for example, a thumbs-up means ‘raise boom’ – not that everything’s fine and dandy!).
8. Take it easy, don’t rush and don’t feel hassled by hourly rates or yard staff wanting to disappear off for lunch etc.
9. Order some nice weather!
10. It’s easy and well within the scope of the hands-on owner.
rafiki_
Well-Known Member
Good job, well done.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I must say most of the hard work was done by the two guys pictured - who bought the engines - but they had at least done something like this before...
Robg71
Well-Known Member
good work 
penfold
Well-Known Member
Engine spaces are suddenly very roomy at this point! 
Time to get busy with the degreaser and some bilge paint.
Time to get busy with the degreaser and some bilge paint.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
Engine spaces are suddenly very roomy at this point!
I've removed two buckets' worth of coolant, cable ties, oil, diesel, rust, paint, more bloody cable ties, nuts and washers. They say the darkest hour is before the dawn...
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
That Soundproofing’s Going
The whole of the inside of the engine compartment, above the waterline, is covered in black foam/sheet-lead sandwich sound proofing.
Assuming it was installed during the build, and given that Halmatic don’t seem to have skimped on specifications elsewhere, it’s safe to assume that it was the dog’s knackers back in 1973.
I can’t believe nothing better has been developed in the past 40 years, and I simply don’t like it on aesthetic grounds. But that’s just my prejudice. What I needed to do was conduct some objective tests.
Firstly, is it fireproof? Well, no. I didn’t burst into flames when lit, but it did sustain a flame.
Secondly, does it absorb water? Yes – a lot. So it would absorb diesel, which combined with not being fireproof means it all has to go.
Looks like there are plenty of products to replace it. I’ll see how loud the new engines are first.
The whole of the inside of the engine compartment, above the waterline, is covered in black foam/sheet-lead sandwich sound proofing.
Assuming it was installed during the build, and given that Halmatic don’t seem to have skimped on specifications elsewhere, it’s safe to assume that it was the dog’s knackers back in 1973.
I can’t believe nothing better has been developed in the past 40 years, and I simply don’t like it on aesthetic grounds. But that’s just my prejudice. What I needed to do was conduct some objective tests.
Firstly, is it fireproof? Well, no. I didn’t burst into flames when lit, but it did sustain a flame.
Secondly, does it absorb water? Yes – a lot. So it would absorb diesel, which combined with not being fireproof means it all has to go.
Looks like there are plenty of products to replace it. I’ll see how loud the new engines are first.
penfold
Well-Known Member
Spare parts! Your 'come in handy' box will be overflowing.
I wouldn't advise that unless access round and about is very easy(and it doesn't look it); once the donks are in fitting sound insulation is that much harder. Although the basics remain the same(it's a sandwich of dense foam, squidgy mastic stuff and sometimes lead), the fire retardancy is better these days and the posher stuff with the laminated foil finish is dead easy to keep clean.
Last edited:
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
I hope the newer stuff doesn't also double as a car sponge!
Keith-i
Well-Known Member
It probably isn't combustible, it's just all the oil and diesel vapours it has absorbed! We replaced ours with the foil faced modern variety which also makes a huge difference to the brightness down below.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
This is what I'm hoping, especially with the LEDs we discussed a few pages back. The soundproofing is in the darkest areas, so to have these covered with a reflective surface will be a real bonus.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
What to do with the day tank?
Halmatic knew how to make a boat. More accurately, they knew how to make a boat using the thinking, technology and materials of the early 1970’s.
But I’m thinking of removing the day tank altogether. Any thoughts on this, chaps?
Here it is, clearly visible with the engine compartment floorboards now removed.
This 100-litre day tank is built into the space between the engine beds.
The two main tanks are both situated in the aft cabin, higher up, proving a 900-litre capacity between them. The deck fillers fill only the main tanks. These have vent pipes, and a single connecting pipe, in the middle of which is a t-junction leading down to the day tank. The engines both take their fuel from the day tank, and the fuel return runs into it. The day tank also has two vent pipes.
Here’s one of the main fuel tanks – in the aft cabin.
The day tank lies under engine compartment floorboards, which protect the vulnerable copper pipework. There are two aluminium inspection hatches on the top of the tank, which are secured by (rusty) mild steel bolts.
I’d like to make things a whole lot simpler, with each engine taking its fuel just from the main tank on its side and returning unused fuel to that same tank. The port and starboard engines would then each have a single, dedicated fuel tank, with its own fuel gauge (at the moment, just one of the main tanks has a stand-alone mechanical float-gauge. The day tank would be removed completely, leaving me with exactly this simple arrangement on each side (from Manley, Diesels Afloat p.69):
Here’s my thought process thus far.
The traditional advantages of, and reasons for, having a day tank are:
1. Cleaner fuel: The engines draw fuel from a small, continually-polished reservoir, and a coarse filter can be added between the main tanks and day tank.
2. Cleaner supply tank: It’s simpler to clean a single day tank regularly than a number of main tanks.
3. Positive pressure: A gravity-fed day tank will supply fuel under positive pressure, making bleeding and leak-finding easier and air being drawn in less likely.
4. Less pipework: The distance between engine and fuel supply is reduced, and the supply is simplified where a large number of main tanks are used.
5. Less mess: a fuel leak will lead to the loss of the fuel in the day tank, not the main tanks.
6. Ballast: the day tank provides some central, low-down ballast.
7. Fuel management: The day tank provides a day’s worth of fuel, making consumption easier to calculate and manage.
But I don’t think any of these apply to my boat (using same numbering):
1. Cleaner fuel: By returning the fuel only to the day tank, the fuel in the main tanks is never polished. Plus, there is no filter between the main tanks and day tank anyway as there is only a small drop and no pump to pull the fuel through any filter.
2. Cleaner supply tank: Cleaning the main tanks is easy as the inspection hatches are unencumbered by pipes. By contrast, removing the day tank inspection hatches means removing innumerable brazed copper pipes.
3. Positive pressure: Gravity is not much of an issue as the engines sit on about the same level as the main fuel tanks.
4. Less pipework: The engines are only about a metre away from the main fuel tanks. Plus there are only two main tanks – not a huge number of them.
5. Less mess: The design is such that, while there is any fuel in the main tanks, the day tank will always be full, and any day tank leaks would (if the main tank valves were left open) continue, fed by gravity, until both the main tanks had emptied. In fact, the day tank has always been a source of mess and smell. Maybe the inspection hatch aluminium is reacting with the ever-rusty steel bolts and/or brass fittings and/or copper pipes. Maybe the inspection hatch seals are shot. Who knows. And there’s also one less part of the hull which can be reached.
6. Ballast: the day tank provides only holds about 100 litres, so less than 100 kg.
7. Fuel management: This is isn’t relevant to me, as my gravity-fed day tank is kept constantly topped-up. Granted I could shut off the supply from the main tanks but risking a stoppage at sea seems an odd way to assess consumption. The main tanks are easily checked by eye even without a sender. The day tank isn’t, as it’s beneath both the cabin floor and engine compartment floorboards.
I’m going to have get stuck into the pipework anyway. The fuel exits the main tanks near the bottom of the tank, not through a pipe leading up to the top as is now accepted as being best practice. Further, the main tanks have rusty gate valves fitted, whereas I want to fit ball values so that I can immediately see whether the fuel supply is on or off.
So, chaps, should I keep using the day tank, disable it but keep it in place, or remove it altogether?
Halmatic knew how to make a boat. More accurately, they knew how to make a boat using the thinking, technology and materials of the early 1970’s.
But I’m thinking of removing the day tank altogether. Any thoughts on this, chaps?
Here it is, clearly visible with the engine compartment floorboards now removed.
This 100-litre day tank is built into the space between the engine beds.
The two main tanks are both situated in the aft cabin, higher up, proving a 900-litre capacity between them. The deck fillers fill only the main tanks. These have vent pipes, and a single connecting pipe, in the middle of which is a t-junction leading down to the day tank. The engines both take their fuel from the day tank, and the fuel return runs into it. The day tank also has two vent pipes.
Here’s one of the main fuel tanks – in the aft cabin.
The day tank lies under engine compartment floorboards, which protect the vulnerable copper pipework. There are two aluminium inspection hatches on the top of the tank, which are secured by (rusty) mild steel bolts.
I’d like to make things a whole lot simpler, with each engine taking its fuel just from the main tank on its side and returning unused fuel to that same tank. The port and starboard engines would then each have a single, dedicated fuel tank, with its own fuel gauge (at the moment, just one of the main tanks has a stand-alone mechanical float-gauge. The day tank would be removed completely, leaving me with exactly this simple arrangement on each side (from Manley, Diesels Afloat p.69):
Here’s my thought process thus far.
The traditional advantages of, and reasons for, having a day tank are:
1. Cleaner fuel: The engines draw fuel from a small, continually-polished reservoir, and a coarse filter can be added between the main tanks and day tank.
2. Cleaner supply tank: It’s simpler to clean a single day tank regularly than a number of main tanks.
3. Positive pressure: A gravity-fed day tank will supply fuel under positive pressure, making bleeding and leak-finding easier and air being drawn in less likely.
4. Less pipework: The distance between engine and fuel supply is reduced, and the supply is simplified where a large number of main tanks are used.
5. Less mess: a fuel leak will lead to the loss of the fuel in the day tank, not the main tanks.
6. Ballast: the day tank provides some central, low-down ballast.
7. Fuel management: The day tank provides a day’s worth of fuel, making consumption easier to calculate and manage.
But I don’t think any of these apply to my boat (using same numbering):
1. Cleaner fuel: By returning the fuel only to the day tank, the fuel in the main tanks is never polished. Plus, there is no filter between the main tanks and day tank anyway as there is only a small drop and no pump to pull the fuel through any filter.
2. Cleaner supply tank: Cleaning the main tanks is easy as the inspection hatches are unencumbered by pipes. By contrast, removing the day tank inspection hatches means removing innumerable brazed copper pipes.
3. Positive pressure: Gravity is not much of an issue as the engines sit on about the same level as the main fuel tanks.
4. Less pipework: The engines are only about a metre away from the main fuel tanks. Plus there are only two main tanks – not a huge number of them.
5. Less mess: The design is such that, while there is any fuel in the main tanks, the day tank will always be full, and any day tank leaks would (if the main tank valves were left open) continue, fed by gravity, until both the main tanks had emptied. In fact, the day tank has always been a source of mess and smell. Maybe the inspection hatch aluminium is reacting with the ever-rusty steel bolts and/or brass fittings and/or copper pipes. Maybe the inspection hatch seals are shot. Who knows. And there’s also one less part of the hull which can be reached.
6. Ballast: the day tank provides only holds about 100 litres, so less than 100 kg.
7. Fuel management: This is isn’t relevant to me, as my gravity-fed day tank is kept constantly topped-up. Granted I could shut off the supply from the main tanks but risking a stoppage at sea seems an odd way to assess consumption. The main tanks are easily checked by eye even without a sender. The day tank isn’t, as it’s beneath both the cabin floor and engine compartment floorboards.
I’m going to have get stuck into the pipework anyway. The fuel exits the main tanks near the bottom of the tank, not through a pipe leading up to the top as is now accepted as being best practice. Further, the main tanks have rusty gate valves fitted, whereas I want to fit ball values so that I can immediately see whether the fuel supply is on or off.
So, chaps, should I keep using the day tank, disable it but keep it in place, or remove it altogether?
penfold
Well-Known Member
Frankly, unless you're having separate day tanks for each donk(and that really would create a tangle of pipes if cross connected to allow both engines to run off either tank) it's a bit of a waste of time; decent filtration and fuel transfer pumps are so cheap now that you realistically polish the whole main tank, something that would have been prohibitively expensive in the 1970s. I'd still want the ability to run both donks off either tank though.
burgundyben
Well-Known Member
My set is exactly per the diagram, except I don't have a shut off cock, no need if your pulling from a pick up tube that goes in through the top.
Keep it very simple.
Do that. Twice.
Ditch the day tank and any cross over.
Two completely separate systems.
Keep it very simple.
Do that. Twice.
Ditch the day tank and any cross over.
Two completely separate systems.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
And there was I thinking I'd be shot down in flames for even suggesting it! Thanks, guys.
I'll turn the day tank inspection hatches into sliding plywood hatches and use the space for storing batteries.
I'll turn the day tank inspection hatches into sliding plywood hatches and use the space for storing batteries.
vas
Well-Known Member
F & B,
is there anything conceptually wrong in linking the two tanks and leveling the port /stbrd fluid levels?
Mine does so and I feel much happier drawing for both engines and genny from a maybe 4lt distribution "tank" (If I can call a 4lt pot a tank...)
cheers
V.
is there anything conceptually wrong in linking the two tanks and leveling the port /stbrd fluid levels?
Mine does so and I feel much happier drawing for both engines and genny from a maybe 4lt distribution "tank" (If I can call a 4lt pot a tank...)
cheers
V.
MYStargazer
Well-Known Member
Isn't this complicating things unnecessarily? Leveling will only be required if you're running off one engine - say on canals - in which case why not just use engines alternately?
Then again, you've got the genny.
vas
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if you DON'T have a genny, you have one engine charging domestics, and inevitably you'll end up using that more when on anchor to charge batteries
I guess you could simply use Ts exiting the tanks and just have a pipe connecting the two tanks on exit plus a isolationg valve to keep it separate and only open up if for some reason you feel/know there is a substantial difference in levels or if for some reason you want to use only one tank to run both engines (other tank leaking, listing due to other issues, etc)
cheers
V.
Mr Googler
Well-Known Member
I spent a very horrid few hours transferring fuel from one tank to another via a 12v pump mid Chanel due to an engine failure. A system for running from either tank is a good idea IMHO and is pretty simple to do as many filters allow 2 fuel lines in. A simple inline shut off valve between tank and filter and job done.
