wasnotwas
Well-Known Member
Been told yanmar is a quieter engine with less vibration than the volvo any truth in this?
Volvo vs yanmar ??
- Thread starter wasnotwas
- Start date
Kipper
Well-Known Member
I think that might be a subjective observation and it would depend on which engine models and it what type on installation.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Volvo Vs Yanmar
Bit of an open question without knowing which 'apples' are the engine comparisons.
However If we are talking current generation Volvo D4/6 Vs Yanmar 6LP/6LY engines. Noise, vibration and general sociability i.e. smoke Volvo wins hands down.
I had a tour of the Yanmar plant last year and they openly admit to being in the tank with their Tier II engines, engineering cells were flat out benchmarking Cummins QSB and Volvo D4/D6.
Yanmar have lost zillions of $$ with product recalls on the smaller BY engines, which to their credit are very sociable. Current 6LP Tier II is interim product whilst awaiting release of common rail Toyota V8 to Yanmar for marinisation. 6LYA3 is plagued with smoke problems and has a hyper expensive fuel system, Denso common rail equipped replacement under development.
Sadly the lovely 4JH was dropped in favor of the troublesome BY motors.
Bit of an open question without knowing which 'apples' are the engine comparisons.
However If we are talking current generation Volvo D4/6 Vs Yanmar 6LP/6LY engines. Noise, vibration and general sociability i.e. smoke Volvo wins hands down.
I had a tour of the Yanmar plant last year and they openly admit to being in the tank with their Tier II engines, engineering cells were flat out benchmarking Cummins QSB and Volvo D4/D6.
Yanmar have lost zillions of $$ with product recalls on the smaller BY engines, which to their credit are very sociable. Current 6LP Tier II is interim product whilst awaiting release of common rail Toyota V8 to Yanmar for marinisation. 6LYA3 is plagued with smoke problems and has a hyper expensive fuel system, Denso common rail equipped replacement under development.
Sadly the lovely 4JH was dropped in favor of the troublesome BY motors.
crazy4557
Well-Known Member
My Sealine that I sold recently had a pair of 6LP's and that particular boat/engine installation was not quiet but they certainly were less smoky than any Volvo I've had before, although the most recent was the KAD 44. I know that later common rail engines were less smokey.
I did sell the boat to a chap who wanted the boat for cruising up the Thames and he chose my boat over a Volvo engined one due to the less smoke when on low revs. Also, gear operation was silky smooth compared to the Volvo clunker's!
I did sell the boat to a chap who wanted the boat for cruising up the Thames and he chose my boat over a Volvo engined one due to the less smoke when on low revs. Also, gear operation was silky smooth compared to the Volvo clunker's!
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Volvo Vs Yanmar
Yep I agree,
Now we are apples for apples, if we are talking old KAD 44 Vs Tier I 6LP Yanmar wins hands down on pretty much every count.
Common rail engines are not just less smoky, pretty much zero smoke.
I think it a little odd that boat tests in the UK make no mention of start up ambients and socialbility, generally journals in US and Aus pay far more attention to accuracy of technical details.
Yep I agree,
Now we are apples for apples, if we are talking old KAD 44 Vs Tier I 6LP Yanmar wins hands down on pretty much every count.
Common rail engines are not just less smoky, pretty much zero smoke.
I think it a little odd that boat tests in the UK make no mention of start up ambients and socialbility, generally journals in US and Aus pay far more attention to accuracy of technical details.
Last edited:
wasnotwas
Well-Known Member
The engine in question is the 260hp d4 and its yanmar counterpart
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Volvo Vs Yanmar
Volvo D4 Vs Yanmar 6BY2......We now have some apples.
If in a new vessel I would suggest very little to choose between them with similar fuel systems. However I think the BY is now on Piezio injectors.
Second hand vessel tread with care! Make 100% sure engine is a 6BY2, the number 2 is vital!
BMW, not Yanmar chose the mariniser in Europe which was not a good move. All 4/6BY's have been subject to two major campaigns.
#1 required complete wiring loom replacement.
#2 This was a FAR bigger deal, the original jacketed 'dry' exhaust manifold was designed to fail, flywheel housings cracked, reapeat turbocharger failures, the list is a mile long. Yanmar recall required complete engine upgrade to the 4/6BY2 spec with new water cooled manifold, new turbo, new flywheel housing as well as other items.
In my book BY2 has a reputation to rebuild. My other concern is that the marine markets elsewhere in the world have been made well aware of the BY campaign, never seen any evidence of it in the UK. Yanmar by the way was totally ethical in their steps to look after customers, however the free BY to BY2 upgrade programme has now expired, therfore if you end up with non updated BY you are in the can.
In Australia Yanmar was giving additional extended coverage FOC if customer was really pissed.
If I was getting the hard Yanmar sell quoting benifits that no longer exist, I would have good reason to be afraid very afraid.
I do have copies of the Yanmar bulletin on the BY.
One last comment, Yanmar 6BY is extremely smooth, 4 cylinder Volvo not quite as sweet, however much depends on the installation.
Volvo D4 Vs Yanmar 6BY2......We now have some apples.
If in a new vessel I would suggest very little to choose between them with similar fuel systems. However I think the BY is now on Piezio injectors.
Second hand vessel tread with care! Make 100% sure engine is a 6BY2, the number 2 is vital!
BMW, not Yanmar chose the mariniser in Europe which was not a good move. All 4/6BY's have been subject to two major campaigns.
#1 required complete wiring loom replacement.
#2 This was a FAR bigger deal, the original jacketed 'dry' exhaust manifold was designed to fail, flywheel housings cracked, reapeat turbocharger failures, the list is a mile long. Yanmar recall required complete engine upgrade to the 4/6BY2 spec with new water cooled manifold, new turbo, new flywheel housing as well as other items.
In my book BY2 has a reputation to rebuild. My other concern is that the marine markets elsewhere in the world have been made well aware of the BY campaign, never seen any evidence of it in the UK. Yanmar by the way was totally ethical in their steps to look after customers, however the free BY to BY2 upgrade programme has now expired, therfore if you end up with non updated BY you are in the can.
In Australia Yanmar was giving additional extended coverage FOC if customer was really pissed.
If I was getting the hard Yanmar sell quoting benifits that no longer exist, I would have good reason to be afraid very afraid.
I do have copies of the Yanmar bulletin on the BY.
One last comment, Yanmar 6BY is extremely smooth, 4 cylinder Volvo not quite as sweet, however much depends on the installation.
Last edited:
Ripster
Well-Known Member
Had a Yanmar in the last boat and now have twin volvo KAMDs. The yanny was noisier definitely but produced less smoke. The Volvos rev more freely and seem to start easier too. Having said that, the Yanmar was very reliable and always started. I think it was a 4HLP Yanmar - 240hp
TBH both Volvo or Yanmar engines should give you good service if they have been and are maintained properly. I would be more conncerned about the state and maintenance records than which make it was - just my view.
TBH both Volvo or Yanmar engines should give you good service if they have been and are maintained properly. I would be more conncerned about the state and maintenance records than which make it was - just my view.
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
I have a Yanmar 4LHA-STE 230hp in my 2001 Hardy (apparently they produce 240hp at the flywheel which is where Volvo rate their engines), but I asked Volvopaul what he thought of it...he said it was a great engine... 
I sleep happy,
..... well I would if Volvopaul didn't still have my ZF Hurth gearbox in his workshop.... (honestly not chasing at all)
wow, latestarter1, you are a bit of a Yanmar expert...
I sleep happy,
..... well I would if Volvopaul didn't still have my ZF Hurth gearbox in his workshop.... (honestly not chasing at all)
wow, latestarter1, you are a bit of a Yanmar expert...
Last edited:
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Yanmar 4LHA
Alas 4LHA a genuine and great Yanmar engine and has gone.
However where does all this power speak come from??
All engine power is measured at the flywheel, cannot measure it aywhere else.
We have two standards;
ISO 3046 using 25C test fuel
ISO 8665 using 40C test fuel
Volvo started a silly game years ago using ISO 3046 and then metricated horsepower to inflate brochure power outputs.
Most other manufacturers followed without shame. Remember ALL engine manufacturers sell £'s per hosepower.
Then Volvo developed a reputation for selling selling 'soft' ratings and they went back to more realistic ISO 8665 ratings on their new generation motors. This left Yanmar floundering for example the LYA 420 had become 440 using ISO 3046 as well as some funny fuel density #'s.
Yes 4LHA was a great 230Hp(Metric) engine using ISO 8665 and just as good a 240Hp(Metric) engine using ISO 3046.
In Europe Yanmar is a little screwed up, for example Barrus are stlill selling old RCD compliant 6LYA2, for example at the ISO 3046 440 rating as well as 6LYA3 Tier II engine but now a genuine 440 ISO 8665 engine, well, just about genuine, it takes a brochure anorak to check out fuel density #'s
As to funny numbers regarding manufacturing tolerance, another subject again!
Returnig to subject in hand Volvo 260 Vs Yanmar 260, yes they are a true apples for apples comparison as both to ISO 8665!
Alas 4LHA a genuine and great Yanmar engine and has gone.
However where does all this power speak come from??
All engine power is measured at the flywheel, cannot measure it aywhere else.
We have two standards;
ISO 3046 using 25C test fuel
ISO 8665 using 40C test fuel
Volvo started a silly game years ago using ISO 3046 and then metricated horsepower to inflate brochure power outputs.
Most other manufacturers followed without shame. Remember ALL engine manufacturers sell £'s per hosepower.
Then Volvo developed a reputation for selling selling 'soft' ratings and they went back to more realistic ISO 8665 ratings on their new generation motors. This left Yanmar floundering for example the LYA 420 had become 440 using ISO 3046 as well as some funny fuel density #'s.
Yes 4LHA was a great 230Hp(Metric) engine using ISO 8665 and just as good a 240Hp(Metric) engine using ISO 3046.
In Europe Yanmar is a little screwed up, for example Barrus are stlill selling old RCD compliant 6LYA2, for example at the ISO 3046 440 rating as well as 6LYA3 Tier II engine but now a genuine 440 ISO 8665 engine, well, just about genuine, it takes a brochure anorak to check out fuel density #'s
As to funny numbers regarding manufacturing tolerance, another subject again!
Returnig to subject in hand Volvo 260 Vs Yanmar 260, yes they are a true apples for apples comparison as both to ISO 8665!
Last edited:
Drifter
New Member
I have a 2009 Beneteau with the Yanmar 4BY150 power unit and whilst the engine is lively and economic it tends to vibrate loose the engine cover bolts unless they are torqued a tad higher than the handbook criteria. The basic spares such as pencil anodes, fuel filters etc are eyewateringly expensive and difficult to get your hands on. I currently cannot get a secondary fuel filter despite going direct to the main UK agent (Barruss) and two other uk approved marine suppliers which is worrying when you are getting close to the service hours and do not want to invalidate the Yanmar warranty.
The oil pressure as displayed on the gauge is at least a bar below the handbook minimum criteria because the engine block sender unit and dashboard gauge are mis-matched but Yanmar UK (Barruss) dont seem disposed to acknowledge the problem.
In addition to the vibration, unless you are prepared to pay £42 each for the two pencil anodes and £75 each for the two basic fuel filters, I would think twice about the Yanmar BY range.
The oil pressure as displayed on the gauge is at least a bar below the handbook minimum criteria because the engine block sender unit and dashboard gauge are mis-matched but Yanmar UK (Barruss) dont seem disposed to acknowledge the problem.
In addition to the vibration, unless you are prepared to pay £42 each for the two pencil anodes and £75 each for the two basic fuel filters, I would think twice about the Yanmar BY range.
tcm
...
wow latestarter, impressive, i've been to zillions of diesel fixers, agents etc and i don't think many if any could reel off that sort of info!
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
.... nice to hear
...
indeed it it... what a fool...
... Ah, I knew there was something about it producing 240hp somewhere! ....just not quite what I was thinking.
...again Latestarter1, very impressed with your technical knowledge...
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Yanmar Vs Volvo
I just have no wish to see anybody screwed!!
I just have no wish to see anybody screwed!!
ulyden
Well-Known Member
Some comments!
Iso 3046 and 8665 make up small differences. Volvo provides performance for both temperatures of its mechanical engines often is the difference of less than 3%
Then I thought that the new common rail engines that require a 10% speed reduction at cruising speed is a bigger thef! Old mechanical engines required usually 5% speed reduction!
If you are using an exponent of 2.5 this is a reduction from 88% to 77% continuous power! Exponent is often higher too but in any case, this amounts to a significantly greater reduction than the 2.8% of the fuel temperature!
In Norway, there is great focus on the D3, D4 and D6 problems. Lots of trouble with nozzles, seawater filter, bad filters, turbochargers, leaking charge air cooler, sensor error, the total casualties (D4 and D6) and died Controls.
Yanmar, we have heard little about! Heard of a turbo failure, but the owner had been crusing at 3800rpm for several hours. Surprisingly little is my opinion! BY series have many more error sources than the old ones!
Although I would have chosen Yanmar because it is based on a mass-produced car engine that is able to provide alternative parts! Fail a cylinder in a D4 to the entire block be replaced! On a Yanmar, one can probably use a used car engine!
It is also possible that parts as crankshaft, piston, top, valves and camshaft with car engines! Perhaps nozzles and high pressure pump, too!
But anyway a single common rail engine is not suited in a pleasure boat. Only advantage is a bit less smoke and lower building cost! For the user its much more complicated, less reliable, and the maintains is more expensive!
The unit injector is better suited for these applications. Gives higher injection pressure better performance no common parts and can be mechanical operated (Like steyr) Volvo uses unit injector in their own engines!
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Volvo Vs Yanmar
My insight into green engines is limited, however I think you are referring to fuel temperature compensation, give me a while to get my head around your comments...remember I am now getting old and stupid!
When I was first introduced to the Bosch CP3 common rail pump, which was during the due diligence process that Bosch was going though when they acquired the design rights from Fiat (New Holland), in other words a long time ago, I was skeptical. A fuel lubed pump with a maximum capability (at the time) of 250 kW, with a 1 million Km plus service life, these guys are on drugs.
Having been close to the CP3 common rail pump since those early days I have been proved wrong time and time again. Pump has proved extremely durable other than a spate of gear pump shaft failures a year or so back the CP3 has proved well able to surpass the 1 million Km durability benchmark. I was not the only one in doubt; friends at VW were firmly on the unit injector (PD) page. Now Volkswagen admit their error and have abandoned the use of unit injectors on future engine designs and see the way forward using intensified common rail. IVECO have also started the process of changing heavy duty engine designs from unit injector to common rail. As to Steyr, an engine design to nowhere, injectors which are just as sensitive to dirty fuel as any other system and at one time cost $8,000 at set, count me out on that one!
We learned years ago ultimate injection pressure was not the magic bullet, the trick was the ability to rate shape with the bonus of reduction in diesel combustion noise. Delpi do a unit injector with the ability provide up to five different injection events on versions of the Volvo D12 in the US, however not successful and they switched back to Bosch unit injectors. An combustion engineer once looked me in the eye and said 'trying to design a quiet diesel engine is like attempting to design a quiet hand grenade, and common rail gives me some real useful levers to pull'.
However moving on, like you I detest the trend toward 'throw away engines'. I first came across this when Yanmar increased the cylinder bore of the LY to 110 mm when they went to the 420 rating and very sad to see Volvo go the same way with D4/6. My understanding is that the BMW base engine used by Yanmar is not repairable either; however I have no specific data. Only the CAT C7 and Cummins QSB buck this trend, with availability of oversize pistons for service.
As I promised I have found recall topic for BY owners. PM me and I will send you a copy.
My insight into green engines is limited, however I think you are referring to fuel temperature compensation, give me a while to get my head around your comments...remember I am now getting old and stupid!
When I was first introduced to the Bosch CP3 common rail pump, which was during the due diligence process that Bosch was going though when they acquired the design rights from Fiat (New Holland), in other words a long time ago, I was skeptical. A fuel lubed pump with a maximum capability (at the time) of 250 kW, with a 1 million Km plus service life, these guys are on drugs.
Having been close to the CP3 common rail pump since those early days I have been proved wrong time and time again. Pump has proved extremely durable other than a spate of gear pump shaft failures a year or so back the CP3 has proved well able to surpass the 1 million Km durability benchmark. I was not the only one in doubt; friends at VW were firmly on the unit injector (PD) page. Now Volkswagen admit their error and have abandoned the use of unit injectors on future engine designs and see the way forward using intensified common rail. IVECO have also started the process of changing heavy duty engine designs from unit injector to common rail. As to Steyr, an engine design to nowhere, injectors which are just as sensitive to dirty fuel as any other system and at one time cost $8,000 at set, count me out on that one!
We learned years ago ultimate injection pressure was not the magic bullet, the trick was the ability to rate shape with the bonus of reduction in diesel combustion noise. Delpi do a unit injector with the ability provide up to five different injection events on versions of the Volvo D12 in the US, however not successful and they switched back to Bosch unit injectors. An combustion engineer once looked me in the eye and said 'trying to design a quiet diesel engine is like attempting to design a quiet hand grenade, and common rail gives me some real useful levers to pull'.
However moving on, like you I detest the trend toward 'throw away engines'. I first came across this when Yanmar increased the cylinder bore of the LY to 110 mm when they went to the 420 rating and very sad to see Volvo go the same way with D4/6. My understanding is that the BMW base engine used by Yanmar is not repairable either; however I have no specific data. Only the CAT C7 and Cummins QSB buck this trend, with availability of oversize pistons for service.
As I promised I have found recall topic for BY owners. PM me and I will send you a copy.
Last edited:
oceanfroggie
Well-Known Member
Well that's a little simplistic, but from our own direct experience "our" personal answer is YES.
The yanmar is significantly quieter, less vibration BUT here's the most important point - a FRACTION of the COST to service and maintain due to low cost of parts. Yanmar engines are used in millions of 4x4s so parts are cheap as chips relatively - unlike so called "specialised" (marketing myth) marine diesels. Yanmar also use 6cyl for small to mid sized motors whereas vendors like volvo favour 4cyl, hence the smoother running of the yanmars.
But in fairness, one need to compare like with like. Yanmar 310/315hp some years ago had a reputation for over cooling causing smoke at tick over and low speeds unlike their 250/260, 350 and 440hp motors that have proven popular with owners.
Last edited:
Kipper
Well-Known Member
Great knowledgable insight from latestarter. I was told by Barrus that the 4lha ztps were 230hp at the prop and 240 at the flywheel. Whatever very smooth but pretty noisy lumps when the turbo's were on full chat.
I also fount pretty good fuel economy compared to the Kad powered boats of a simular size.
And they give me what was for a long time one of the fastest deisel boats in the marina.
It had Mitsubishi labeled delts but who made the engine block, Mitsubishi or Toyota?
I also fount pretty good fuel economy compared to the Kad powered boats of a simular size.
And they give me what was for a long time one of the fastest deisel boats in the marina.
It had Mitsubishi labeled delts but who made the engine block, Mitsubishi or Toyota?
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Yanmar
4LH was a true blue, well actually grey all Yanmar engine.
Sold in huge numbers around the world as package that was designed to replace V8 gasoline small block motors. Pretty much a zero issue engine.
As to Barrus and technical competence I refrain from comment. The two ISO conditions were clearly shown in product literature.
Never made EPA Tier II, however it was claimed to meet stupid EC RCD from 2006. Loss of large US volume led to withdrawl, a sad loss.
4LH was a true blue, well actually grey all Yanmar engine.
Sold in huge numbers around the world as package that was designed to replace V8 gasoline small block motors. Pretty much a zero issue engine.
As to Barrus and technical competence I refrain from comment. The two ISO conditions were clearly shown in product literature.
Never made EPA Tier II, however it was claimed to meet stupid EC RCD from 2006. Loss of large US volume led to withdrawl, a sad loss.
dieselboy
Member
Looking ahead to the next round of emissions legislation, I dread to think what type of engines you will get next... its getting like the car engine, you will not be able to work on your own motors any more, unless you can get a pc attached to it to solve the fault codes that appear on your displays... and where's the fun in that???
