rich201283
Well-Known Member
how reliable are the Volvo 2003T engines?
Are they very quiet?
Are they very quiet?
Volvo 2003T engine?
- Thread starter rich201283
- Start date
pvb
Well-Known Member
My boat has a 2003T, it's about 19 years old and I've owned it for the last 13. It's got about 2300hrs on it. It starts and runs without any problems, although it does smoke a bit (like most 2000-series engines).
In terms of maintenance/repairs, I think I've had the injectors out once for overhaul, otherwise I just change the oil regularly. As it's a turbo, I use synthetic oil, and I always let it idle for a few minutes to cool down before turning it off. The one turbo-related problem I've had was an oil leak from the external steel pipe which supplies oil to the turbo. This pipe runs along the starboard side of the engine, behind the alternator, and can be prone to rust. It's definitely worth checking!
I wouldn't say it's especially noisy.
There's an issue with the associated gearbox, in which spline wear can cause loss of drive. The problem is well-documented. I fitted the VP upgrade fix which "cushions" the spline connection. Seems OK.
The 2000-series isn't one of Volvo Penta's most-loved efforts, but with regular care it's a reliable workhorse. People grumble about the price of VP spares, but they tend to forget that there's a global spares support system, with most bits available off the shelf, and there's a price to pay for that benefit.
In terms of maintenance/repairs, I think I've had the injectors out once for overhaul, otherwise I just change the oil regularly. As it's a turbo, I use synthetic oil, and I always let it idle for a few minutes to cool down before turning it off. The one turbo-related problem I've had was an oil leak from the external steel pipe which supplies oil to the turbo. This pipe runs along the starboard side of the engine, behind the alternator, and can be prone to rust. It's definitely worth checking!
I wouldn't say it's especially noisy.
There's an issue with the associated gearbox, in which spline wear can cause loss of drive. The problem is well-documented. I fitted the VP upgrade fix which "cushions" the spline connection. Seems OK.
The 2000-series isn't one of Volvo Penta's most-loved efforts, but with regular care it's a reliable workhorse. People grumble about the price of VP spares, but they tend to forget that there's a global spares support system, with most bits available off the shelf, and there's a price to pay for that benefit.
aluijten
Well-Known Member
I have the VP2003 myself (without turbo). I would say quiet is not the word that comes to mind when operating this engine /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
It's a reliable engine, it's very fuel efficient, it's relatively easy to maintain, but quiet no.
The reason for this is it's because it's a direct injected Diesel. The last generations are all indirect. That makes them more quiet, but also less fuel efficient.
From what I've heard the Turbo version is a bit sensitive to poor maintenance. Some say that for sailboat engines you should never go for a turbo. I tend to agree with that. It's too much to go wrong. Reality is that none of the current engines in the 10-50 HP range uses turbo.
In short. If the engine looks good, has a good history and not too much hours, it's an OK engine, but a tired example can be a real money-pit
Arno
It's a reliable engine, it's very fuel efficient, it's relatively easy to maintain, but quiet no.
The reason for this is it's because it's a direct injected Diesel. The last generations are all indirect. That makes them more quiet, but also less fuel efficient.
From what I've heard the Turbo version is a bit sensitive to poor maintenance. Some say that for sailboat engines you should never go for a turbo. I tend to agree with that. It's too much to go wrong. Reality is that none of the current engines in the 10-50 HP range uses turbo.
In short. If the engine looks good, has a good history and not too much hours, it's an OK engine, but a tired example can be a real money-pit
Arno
pvb
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
From what I've heard the Turbo version is a bit sensitive to poor maintenance.
[/ QUOTE ]The value of hearsay is of course debatable. In fact, the 2003 Operators Manual makes no mention of any specific maintenance requirement for the turbocharger. I've never touched mine.
From what I've heard the Turbo version is a bit sensitive to poor maintenance.
[/ QUOTE ]The value of hearsay is of course debatable. In fact, the 2003 Operators Manual makes no mention of any specific maintenance requirement for the turbocharger. I've never touched mine.
Pete7
Well-Known Member
Like Aluijten we have the 2003 (non turbo). Ours is quiet because we have good sound proofing around the engine box thanks to a good build quality by Moody. There is a knack needed to start it from cold but once warmed up it's fine. Servicing is simple enough with fan belt oil and fuel filters accessed from the front. Ours is raw water cooled but supplies enough heat for hot water after about 30 mins motoring. Cheap to run we average about 1.5 lph. Its now an old design but if it works okay it wouldn't put me off buying a yacht and since there are so many of them out there still working well there is plenty of knowledge about them and spares if needed.
What we did notice was the previous owner used the engine very gently and it was difficult to start. However after we had motored back across the channel last year at speed for 14 hours the engine was much easier to start for the rest of the summer. Looks like it just need a bit of hard work to blow the cobwebs out and stop the bores glazing up. At 19 years we are hoping ours will continue for some years yet and have no plans to change it, it just works.
Pete
What we did notice was the previous owner used the engine very gently and it was difficult to start. However after we had motored back across the channel last year at speed for 14 hours the engine was much easier to start for the rest of the summer. Looks like it just need a bit of hard work to blow the cobwebs out and stop the bores glazing up. At 19 years we are hoping ours will continue for some years yet and have no plans to change it, it just works.
Pete
aluijten
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The value of hearsay is of course debatable
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly the reason why I wrote it in the way I did.
It's good to hear you have no trouble with your turbo. Point is that even the VP dealer I go to for parts has told me they get a lot of turbo repairs.
I do think many of those can be led back to poor maintenance of abusive usage, but that is hard to discover when buying a boat.
In short, when buying a 2nd hand boat, this engine would not be on the list of advantages for me, unless some conditions were met (like history or overhaul). I do agree with proper care (like you described) it's a fine engine, however it's more sensitive to abuse.
Arno
The value of hearsay is of course debatable
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly the reason why I wrote it in the way I did.
It's good to hear you have no trouble with your turbo. Point is that even the VP dealer I go to for parts has told me they get a lot of turbo repairs.
I do think many of those can be led back to poor maintenance of abusive usage, but that is hard to discover when buying a boat.
In short, when buying a 2nd hand boat, this engine would not be on the list of advantages for me, unless some conditions were met (like history or overhaul). I do agree with proper care (like you described) it's a fine engine, however it's more sensitive to abuse.
Arno
matelot
Well-Known Member
Like the normally aspirated 2003, the engine can have problems with the injector sleeves and oil leaks from the rear main oil seal. Not particularly quiet or smooth - its an older design and a true marine engine. Bit more solidly made than the latest light weight engines. Smokes like a good un on first starting but mine consumes no engine oil at all after 18 years.
To be realistic it is now an old engine and likely to be well worn. Engines dont go on for ever
To be realistic it is now an old engine and likely to be well worn. Engines dont go on for ever
philip_stevens
Well-Known Member
Our 2003 is now in the process of its first major overhaul in its 24 years of service.
(I say major, as it cannot be removed from the boat without a bit of hatch cutting to make space for it to come out. There has been no hatch cutting previously.)
The only thing the engineer has found wrong, is that the bores are glazed, and the rings are worn - not surprising after 24 years. The valve seats are a bit pitted, but instead of grinding them in, they are going to be replaced along with the valves.
The injectors were tested 3 years ago, but did not make any difference to the difficulty in starting. This has now been put down to the bores/rings and valves - lack of compression until the engine has been running for a while. No problems in restarting afterwards.
As already been said, not quiet, but at the same time, not really as noisy as some engines, and ours is well sound-proofed. It used no oil, and a trip across the Channel, in bad weather, for 25 hours used 50ltrs of fuel. It was working hard.
The cost of spares is not cheap, but considering that the engine has not been major serviced in 24 years....no complaint. I would not think of replacing it.
(I say major, as it cannot be removed from the boat without a bit of hatch cutting to make space for it to come out. There has been no hatch cutting previously.)
The only thing the engineer has found wrong, is that the bores are glazed, and the rings are worn - not surprising after 24 years. The valve seats are a bit pitted, but instead of grinding them in, they are going to be replaced along with the valves.
The injectors were tested 3 years ago, but did not make any difference to the difficulty in starting. This has now been put down to the bores/rings and valves - lack of compression until the engine has been running for a while. No problems in restarting afterwards.
As already been said, not quiet, but at the same time, not really as noisy as some engines, and ours is well sound-proofed. It used no oil, and a trip across the Channel, in bad weather, for 25 hours used 50ltrs of fuel. It was working hard.
The cost of spares is not cheap, but considering that the engine has not been major serviced in 24 years....no complaint. I would not think of replacing it.
oldsaltoz
Well-Known Member
Twin VP2003's raw water cooled non turbo to 120S saildrives. Installed when built in the USA. Sailed across the pond and on to Australia.
Engines removed mid 80's and overhauled including balancing. Converted Port side coupling shaft spline to square drive and leg overhaul a couple of years ago, just replaced all bearings as it was available, most bearings from standard bearing supplier much cheaper than VP. Both engines get their raw water via individual thru hull take up's and strainers rather than via the leg.
Each engine is contained in it's own section of the hull (Catamaran) with access via deck hatch, loads of room to walk right around each engine and bulkheads fore and aft ensure no engine or fuel fumes inside at all.
Hull and deck are composite (solid glass below waterline) and deck hatch soundproofed, very very quiet and very little vibration, 3 blade stainless steel props.
These engines work at around 1,800 RPM most of the time and use about 1.5 Litres and hour, the boat is out most weekends and often during the week for a twilight sail and fish; as well as a planned trips up and down the east coast every year.
The VP can be very expensive when buying parts, but as others have advised, look after them and the need for repairs is few and far between.
I must admit I was a bit concerned when I first discovered she had twin VP's but can assure you they have cost a lot less time and trouble than other engines we have had in past boats.
I would not be put off buying a another boat with VP but would need to look at the history first. Like any purchase no history is no sale or a very low offer.
Avagoodweekend......
Engines removed mid 80's and overhauled including balancing. Converted Port side coupling shaft spline to square drive and leg overhaul a couple of years ago, just replaced all bearings as it was available, most bearings from standard bearing supplier much cheaper than VP. Both engines get their raw water via individual thru hull take up's and strainers rather than via the leg.
Each engine is contained in it's own section of the hull (Catamaran) with access via deck hatch, loads of room to walk right around each engine and bulkheads fore and aft ensure no engine or fuel fumes inside at all.
Hull and deck are composite (solid glass below waterline) and deck hatch soundproofed, very very quiet and very little vibration, 3 blade stainless steel props.
These engines work at around 1,800 RPM most of the time and use about 1.5 Litres and hour, the boat is out most weekends and often during the week for a twilight sail and fish; as well as a planned trips up and down the east coast every year.
The VP can be very expensive when buying parts, but as others have advised, look after them and the need for repairs is few and far between.
I must admit I was a bit concerned when I first discovered she had twin VP's but can assure you they have cost a lot less time and trouble than other engines we have had in past boats.
I would not be put off buying a another boat with VP but would need to look at the history first. Like any purchase no history is no sale or a very low offer.
Avagoodweekend......
