Useful life of an engine?

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Here is the serial plate from a MAN engine which seems to state that the useful life of the engine is 5000hrs/10yrs

First time I've seen anything like this. Anyone care to guess what it actually means? Is it 5000hrs or 10yrs or 5000hrs and 10yrs (the latter perhaps being more understandable I suppose)

 

[julians]

I think it means the useful life of the emissions certification is 5000 hours or 10 years,and after that the engine cannot be guaranteed to meet its certified emissions.

I dont think it means the engine itself is not expected to last longer than 5000 hours or 10 years

 

[kashurst]

I had something similar on my D9s. I believe the "useful life" refers to the time/hours that the manufacturer expects the engine to still comply with the relevant emissions regulation. After that time/hours if it was retested it may not pass the relevant emissions test.
Interesting its 5000 hours on the MAN. It was 1000 hours on the volvo.

 

[Divemaster1]

I think it means the useful life of the emissions certification is 5000 hours or 10 years,and after that the engine cannot be guaranteed to meet its certified emissions...............

Let us add....

"unless re-built to factory spec",......... in which case you will have another expected 5K hours ...

 

[Whitelighter]

Eek,

23 years and 2,000 hours.

 

[Portofino]

Page 9 —- here , not a tier 2 variant btw
https://marinedieselbasics.com/wp-c...D2866-LE-401-402-403-405-D2876-LE-301-403.pdf

I,am not sure , look @ your owners hand book it should have an explanation what each number is on the makers plate .
Obviously like to think it’s reffering to the tier 2 stuff , not the thing in its entirety .
But ambiguity seems to run through En MAN. Literature .

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I think it means the useful life of the emissions certification is 5000 hours or 10 years,and after that the engine cannot be guaranteed to meet its certified emissions.

Thanks. Didnt know that and its not something I've seen on industrial diesel engines. However not being able to meet emissions standards implies that the engine has deteriorated so what sort of deterioration are we talking about? Piston rings? Injectors? Fuel pump? Or worse?

 

[oldgit]

Seem to recall reading somewhere 10,000. hours on a Perkins M135.

 

[julians]

Im no expert,but im guessing its something to do with this below, and i think the useful life period is decided by the us government based on some sort of average use of the engine. It might well have no actual bearing on the wear of the engine at all.

This below seems to relate to road going engines,but i guess the principle is the same for marine stuff.

http://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-heavy-duty-emissions/

Id guess its in the manufacturers interest to try and get as low a useful life figure as possible.

 

[ulyden]

This is epa. It should be complient for this number of hours. Next step is 10 or 20 000 h. Epa demand a endurance test to document the emissions deviation a sertain persentage of useful life. So the engine maker needs to run an engine and measure emissions to see the drift. On a common rail it must be a nightmare. At least im told so by people doing this tests.

 

[omega2]

Insurers will cover most engines providing they are under 7 years old after that you are on your own. Unless you insure against mechanical break down yourself?

 

[MapisM]

Thanks. Didnt know that and its not something I've seen on industrial diesel engines. However not being able to meet emissions standards implies that the engine has deteriorated so what sort of deterioration are we talking about? Piston rings? Injectors? Fuel pump? Or worse?

No idea, M.
But you might be interested to hear that the maintenance echelon of the MTU 183 series (which is the last MTU engine essentially built upon the same block as our MANs) was even more restrictive - and I'm sure that this was valid regardless of any emission regulations.
I found out the following while speaking with an engineer of MTU IT in La Spezia, when I was evaluating the F175 and F165, powered by the 12V and the 8V versions of the same engine respectively.
MTU had 6 steps/levels, from W1 (daily operational checks) to W6 (which - I quote - "requires complete engine disassembly for repair/overhaul of all relevant parts, or the installation of an overhauled engine").
And echelon W6 frequency was depending on the engine ratings:
1A - continuous unrestricted
1B - high load factor
1DS - low load factors
3A - power generation/continuous
Now, for 1DS engines (the version used in pleasure boats), W6 maintenance was scheduled every 6000 hours OR 8 years, whatever reached first. Fwiw, at the opposite extreme, W6 maintenance for 3A engines was scheduled every 24000 hours or 18 years.
Otoh - again fwiw - that MTU engineer told me that he has some clients with 1DS engines installed in fast boats used for daily touristic trips, 20 years old, with 15+ k hours clocked (and counting), which were yet to be overhauled...

 

[ulyden]

I think that the 183 vas a pure mecanical engine based on mercedes truck engines. I was working in a mtu workshop 25 years ago. We overhauled a lot of 396 engines but only know there was 183 operating out there. The 396 is now counting as a very good engine by mtu people. The 183 must have been a outstanding engine if still operating. But this was long time ago when diesel egines was simple reliable and had a good fuel consumtion.

 

[MapisM]

The 183 must have been a outstanding engine if still operating.

Precisely what I was told.
In fact, MAN continued to develop the same Mercedes block well after MTU abandoned it, eventually doubling its power for both V8 and V12 versions.
But what is funny (sort of) is that MTU marinization of the same engine was far superior, back in the late 80s/early 90s.
Titanium plates heat exchanger, bronze intercooler, bronze raw water pump impeller...
I would happily give up the 100kW higher power of my 8V MAN just for those features of the old MTU 8V 183 TE92.
It's a pity that they abandoned the development of that block after the semi-electronic TE93 version - which anyway wasn't as reliable as the TE92, according to MTU themselves...

 

[markc]

Precisely what I was told.
In fact, MAN continued to develop the same Mercedes block well after MTU abandoned it, eventually doubling its power for both V8 and V12 versions.
But what is funny (sort of) is that MTU marinization of the same engine was far superior, back in the late 80s/early 90s.
Titanium plates heat exchanger, bronze intercooler, bronze raw water pump impeller...
I would happily give up the 100kW higher power of my 8V MAN just for those features of the old MTU 8V 183 TE92.
It's a pity that they abandoned the development of that block after the semi-electronic TE93 version - which anyway wasn't as reliable as the TE92, according to MTU themselves...

I hope this bodes well for my ongoing relationship with my 183s!

 

[rafiki_]

Thanks. Didnt know that and its not something I've seen on industrial diesel engines. However not being able to meet emissions standards implies that the engine has deteriorated so what sort of deterioration are we talking about? Piston rings? Injectors? Fuel pump? Or worse?

Mike, this should be based on empirical test data, with a pretty large confidence margin, at least 30%. EPA (USA Environmental Protection Agency) sets the limits, and engine manufacturers have to demonstrate compliance, and a tolerance to give confidence for manufacturing variations. Clearly any oil intake will dramatically change the exhaust emissions. This does not necessarily mean the engine is nearing its life, but with gradual wear and tear around rings and valve stems, oil intake is inevitable over time, hence we check the dipstick regularly. I don't think this label is there to cause you concern, it is just part of the compliance process.

 

[MapisM]

I hope this bodes well for my ongoing relationship with my 183s!

As I recall, yours are the latest (TE93) development of the V8.
FYI, what I was told by an MTU engineer ref. the unsurpassed reliability of the TE92 was only related to two facts:
1) with the TE93, they increased the output by 100hp from the same block (756 vs. 657), and at 2400 rather than 2300 rpm.
2) the massive bronze intercooler was replaced with an alu one.

But just to put this in perspective, in the latest MAN development of that V8 block (with all sort of electronic gadgets - common rail, sequential 2-stage turbocharger, etc.) they are squeezing 1200hp out of it...!
Besides, MAN never used anything else than alu for their intercoolers and heat exchangers - not to mention the MTU bronze raw water pump vs. the MAN rubber impeller.

If given a choice between your MTU engines and the MAN I've got on my DP, I would have gone for the former, hands down. :encouragement:

 

[markc]

As I recall, yours are the latest (TE93) development of the V8.
FYI, what I was told by an MTU engineer ref. the unsurpassed reliability of the TE92 was only related to two facts:
1) with the TE93, they increased the output by 100hp from the same block (756 vs. 657), and at 2400 rather than 2300 rpm.
2) the massive bronze intercooler was replaced with an alu one.

But just to put this in perspective, in the latest MAN development of that V8 block (with all sort of electronic gadgets - common rail, sequential 2-stage turbocharger, etc.) they are squeezing 1200hp out of it...!
Besides, MAN never used anything else than alu for their intercoolers and heat exchangers - not to mention the MTU bronze raw water pump vs. the MAN rubber impeller.

If given a choice between your MTU engines and the MAN I've got on my DP, I would have gone for the former, hands down. :encouragement:

Yes, you're right mine are TE93.

I didn't know about the bronze raw water impeller, but last time I was at the boat checking through all the spares, I wondered why there were just impellers for the generator and none for the engines - they were on my list to check & get sorted for next season.

 

[MapisM]

Yup, I can't be 100% positive, but I'm almost sure that also the 93 has the same bronze-only raw water pump of the 92 - which means one less thing to worry about. :encouragement:

 

[Portofino]

Came across this rule of thumb for marine diesels

Diesel engines are capable of having a long life when the power to displacement ratio is low. But when they start jacking up the power, beyond what the manufacturer originally intended, that benefit disappears. There is a very simple formula you can apply to estimate service life: simply multiply the cubic inch displacement of the engine times one.
The result is the maximum amount of horse power you can have and still expect a reasonable service life. A 6V92 engine is 552 CID; at powers greater than 550, these engines don't last. At 450, they'll go 10 - 15 years easily.

Detroit Diesels rated at 325 hp that hadn't been overhauled since new 1981. Now, an 8V71 has a 568 cubic inch displacement; the fact that these engines have a 0.56:1 power/displacement ratio explains why they could run so long.

Conversely, divide the CID by the horse power, and the greater the result UNDER the factor of one (1), the longer engine life you can expect. If you have an engine with an 0.70 CID/HP ratio, then you can expect 3000 hours engine life.

I,l leave you all to your own personal maths
CID. = Cubic Inch Displacement

1L is 61 CID

So for me 12.8 = 780 , I,am at 700 actually 690 so under 1 phew !

JFM ,s 32 L = 1953 so sweet dreams aboard too with 1662 — under 1 — if it’s got any credibility ^^^ ? :encouragement:

KAD 300 —- 3.7 = 226 Hp whoops not so good as was 285 thus over 1 -

D6 5.5 L works out @ 335 ,so the 310 and 330 are the winners ? —— 350/370 hmmm !! Bit stressed ,wrong side of 1 !