Volvo 2003 vs Volvo 2003T

[Bajansailor]

We have (had.....) a Volvo 2003T in our Challenger 35, but it 'blew up' recently...... (something happened, and a con rod went through the block).
We have considered getting a new engine like a Beta (they do seem to be very nice), but that then means a new propeller as well (opposite rotation), perhaps a new shaft and modifying the engine beds, not to mention the cost.
Hence have now come to the conclusion that maybe a refurbished Volvo 2003 would be the way to go - I have found a firm in England who are selling a couple of 2003 engines that they claim have been completely overhauled and bench run.
And then ideally, we will still have lots of spare parts left over from the old one..... perhaps this is being too optimistic?
I am not too keen though on getting another turbocharged engine - the 2003T is 41 hp and we never needed that much power - hence why I am thinking of the non turbo 2003 (approx 29 hp).
Are there (m)any fundamental differences between the two engines (assuming that both are fresh water cooled), eg in terms of fuel injectors, heat exchanger, and SW water pump?

 

[michael_w]

I had a similar problem. A knackered 2003 and running short of refurbishment funds. Ah! I thought, a recon is the answer. Easy to fit and will save me a shed load of cash too.

I tracked down a "reconditioned" 2003T at a fair price. I fitted the new engine, but it would'nt start. No compression was the diagnosis. I think the rebuilders forgot about the internal sleeve in the exhaust elbow, which allowed water to rust the valve seats. Much discussion ensued and I ended up getting my money back, but lost about 3 months of sailing.

The main differences between the two models are a much larger raw water pump and a larger 4 pass heat exchanger on the turbo. As a result it's marginally wider and heavier than its normally aspirated brother.

I bit the bullet and bought a shiny new Westerbeke 35D Three coupled to a PRM 150 gearbox.

The Westerbeke aka Mitsubishi, gives more grunt at lower revs compared to the Beta/Nanni Kubota based alternative. The use of a PRM 150 box ensured that I could retain the LH prop rotation, essential as my boat's got an offset P bracket.

Modifications to get the new engine to fit were simple. I had to build up the beds aft with a steel packing block and invert the forward bracket to ensure alignment. There is no space for a CV joint between the stern gland and the engine. A new shaft was required as the old one had severe crevice corrosion and was badly worn where it passed through the stern gland.

If you are interested, PM me and I'll take a few pics of the installation for you.

 

[Skylark]

Don't understand from your comments as to why you don't want another turbo engine? Within automotive, diesel engines didn't "come of age" until they had turbos help with the gas exchange process.

The 2003 and 2003T engines are likely to be very similar but with subtle and important differences. The turbo engine will probably have slightly lower compression ratio (but higher BMEP). Higher power means that it requires more fuel and rejects more heat. Hence fuel, oil and water, flow and cooling, are potentially different between the two engines.

The block and basic installation dimensions should be pretty similar, although, of course, the exhaust routing is likely to be different.

David

 

[Bajansailor]

Thank you Michael and David for your replies above.
Michael, I have PM'ed you re the photos of your Westerbeke installation, and have written to the Trinidad agents for Westerbeke in the Caribbean, to see what they come up with.

David, yes, it probably would be more sensible to try and find another 2003T engine if we do go down the reconditioned route, and then we will have a SW pump in good condition as spare, along with other useful bits like starter motor and probably injectors.
So I shall also pursue this option.

 

[Pete7]

I think you were right with the posts on the "wanted Forum" and to stick to the 2003 version rather than the more complicated turbo version especially given your location. The 2003 is very simple raw water cooled engine although provides ample hot water after half an hour of motoring.

You are probably a tonne over our weight but we never use more than 2200 revs which gives 5.5 knots (2500 gives 6.5 knots). So you probably don't need the extra power of the turbo and the extra risk, afterall it is extracting a lot more horses and as David points out that is heat which needs dealing with. Temperature of the channel last week was 18 degrees, temperature in Barbados, probably 28 degrees. I just wonder if the 2003T was running bit hot in those conditions.

However RK Marine in Southampton have a 2003T partially stripped if it helps although I would take the one offered to you on the wanted forum.

http://www.rkmarine.co.uk/engine_st...USE&categoryname=Used Engines (Needing Repair)

Pete