Yet another engine question - Perkaterpillar 3056/M215

[MapisM]

I'd be interested in views/experiences on an engine which actually, as I understand, has never been sold for leisure applications.
In fact, Caterpillar used to offer it only as the entry level of their commercial range.
Introduced in 2002, the Cat 3056 was an inline 6 litres turbocharged block, capable of 205hp.
To put that in perspective, in the same timeframe Cat offered also the 3116, which in its leisure version delivered a much more substantial 350hp @ 2800rpm, out of a just slightly bigger block (6.6 litres).

Now, after searching a bit, I realised that the 3056 was simply the Cat version of the Perkins Sabre M215.
But for reasons only known to God (and possibly to some forumites!), the PS was rated at 215hp/2500rpm, as opposed to 205/2500 declared by Cat...
...Which makes me wonder why all builders don't paint their engines in blue, if that is enough to achieve a 5% power increase!

Anyway, I would appreciate any views/experiences on either of these engines - particularly on durability, maintenance, etc.
Whether the block was actually capable to deliver 215 or 205, or possibly even less ponies, that's not much of an issue anyway, because that's neither here nor there for the (displacement) boat involved.
Btw, I understand that also the PS M225 should be a very comparable engine, being just the version that PS sold for the leisure market, and identical on paper to the M215, aside from 10 additional ponies which look a bit like coming out of the blue, so to speak...

Thanks in advance!

 

[omega2]

One day the truth will dawn, non of them produce the horses claimed.

 

[Latestarter1]

I'd be interested in views/experiences on an engine which actually, as I understand, has never been sold for leisure applications.
In fact, Caterpillar used to offer it only as the entry level of their commercial range.
Introduced in 2002, the Cat 3056 was an inline 6 litres turbocharged block, capable of 205hp.
To put that in perspective, in the same timeframe Cat offered also the 3116, which in its leisure version delivered a much more substantial 350hp @ 2800rpm, out of a just slightly bigger block (6.6 litres).

Now, after searching a bit, I realised that the 3056 was simply the Cat version of the Perkins Sabre M215.
But for reasons only known to God (and possibly to some forumites!), the PS was rated at 215hp/2500rpm, as opposed to 205/2500 declared by Cat...
...Which makes me wonder why all builders don't paint their engines in blue, if that is enough to achieve a 5% power increase!

Anyway, I would appreciate any views/experiences on either of these engines - particularly on durability, maintenance, etc.
Whether the block was actually capable to deliver 215 or 205, or possibly even less ponies, that's not much of an issue anyway, because that's neither here nor there for the (displacement) boat involved.
Btw, I understand that also the PS M225 should be a very comparable engine, being just the version that PS sold for the leisure market, and identical on paper to the M215, aside from 10 additional ponies which look a bit like coming out of the blue, so to speak...

Thanks in advance!

Apologies for not answering you email, my mail box is always brimming.

CAT were horrified when they purchased Perkins as they operate an 'Honest John' policy on HP as customers buy marine engines based on $ per HP.

Major issue with Perkins Sabre 225 based on Perkins Phaser automotive engine was the model of Bosch VE injector pump which had a maximum of capability of 24.6 kW per cylinder, therefore six cylinders. Doing the sums means that engine has max potential power of 147.6 kW or 197 HP. CAT had to break their own golden rule of only selling marine engines making nominal or plus 5% for the 3056 by adopting plus minus 5% tolerance giving them a maximum potential output of 206.85 HP keeping marketing folks happy.

Perkins Sabre 225 exactly the same engine except the colour, however if one adopts Metric HP (PS) 25 Degree C test fuel and plus minus 7% tolerance, marketing people can print their glossy advertising the engine as M225Ti.

Shortly after launch of the 225 and a few re-powers later there was a more than a bit of grumbling when smoky Ford Dover Sabre 212's were replaced with new Perkins Sabre 225's and boats went slower.....In fact healthy Sabre 180's can often equal 225's.

Plus side is that engines have always been smoke free and inexpensive to maintain and capable of 10/15,000 hours in commercial applications.

Do not compare Perkins Phaser base engine with CAT 3116, Phaser used old 6.354 crankshaft dimensions, compared with 3116 it looks like a paperclip.

 

[volvopaul]

Apologies for not answering you email, my mail box is always brimming.

CAT were horrified when they purchased Perkins as they operate an 'Honest John' policy on HP as customers buy marine engines based on $ per HP.

Major issue with Perkins Sabre 225 based on Perkins Phaser automotive engine was the model of Bosch VE injector pump which had a maximum of capability of 24.6 kW per cylinder, therefore six cylinders. Doing the sums means that engine has max potential power of 147.6 kW or 197 HP. CAT had to break their own golden rule of only selling marine engines making nominal or plus 5% for the 3056 by adopting plus minus 5% tolerance giving them a maximum potential output of 206.85 HP keeping marketing folks happy.

Perkins Sabre 225 exactly the same engine except the colour, however if one adopts Metric HP (PS) 25 Degree C test fuel and plus minus 7% tolerance, marketing people can print their glossy advertising the engine as M225Ti.

Shortly after launch of the 225 and a few re-powers later there was a more than a bit of grumbling when smoky Ford Dover Sabre 212's were replaced with new Perkins Sabre 225's and boats went slower.....In fact healthy Sabre 180's can often equal 225's.

Plus side is that engines have always been smoke free and inexpensive to maintain and capable of 10/15,000 hours in commercial applications.

Do not compare Perkins Phaser base engine with CAT 3116, Phaser used old 6.354 crankshaft dimensions, compared with 3116 it looks like a paperclip.

Come on Paul, I remember your comment on the 6354 crank was a "bent paperclip"

And the coolers on the MTI are on the small side too.

 

[MapisM]

Apologies for not answering you email, my mail box is always brimming.

No worries P, I wasn't hoping in any better feedback than this one you just gave me anyway, many thanks for your attention!
Interesting to hear that the crankshaft is based on the 6.354, wasn't that a 120hp or so engine?!?
Regardless, yep, I only mentioned the 3116 (which I know much better, having a couple of them in my e/r) because of their similar displacement, but I'm well aware by now that they are completely different animals.

Anyway, as I understand, the only drawback of this Cat/PS thing is its shabby power in comparison to weight/size, correct?
I mean, not that it's a trivial point for marine engines normally, but my understanding of this boat which a friend of mine asked me to have a look at is that her 3056 would probably spin at 15 hundreds rpm or so 99% of the time... Not the kind of vessel that is going to suffer for lack of power, anyway!
Otoh, smoke free, inexpensive to maintain and durable are all points he's going to appreciate, I'm sure.
I would guess it must be also easy to service, lacking all the modern electronic gizmos, or am I mistaken?
Last but not least, I suppose that your funny comment on the paperclip-alike crankshaft D) actually is no big deal, but just one of the reasons, together with the pump limits, why the engine could have never delivered more than a couple of hundreds hp. Is that correct?
If the crankshaft is actually prone to fall apart even in this rather sedate engine, THAT would be good to know, of course.

Cheers, and thanks again.

 

[MapisM]

And the coolers on the MTI are on the small side too.

To the point of potentially creating troubles also when actually used for delivering nowhere near half of its rated power?

 

[jfm]

To the point of potentially creating troubles also when actually used for delivering nowhere near half of its rated power?

Remember MM that (I guess) the boat you are looking at will be in seawater 15 degrees warmer than VolvoPaul is more used to.

 

[MapisM]

Remember MM that (I guess) the boat you are looking at will be in seawater 15 degrees warmer than VolvoPaul is more used to.

Yep, a Med boat she is, and yours is a good point.
But still, we're talking of an engine that's going to spend his whole life delivering (according to Cat prop demand curves) 50 or so of its 200hp...
I'd rather guess that VP came across that engine in some commercial boats - in fact, Cat only included it in their commercial range, where the typical usage is pedal to the metal most of the time - and also in the PS blue flavour, it's not a popular choice for leisure boats either.
Glad to stand corrected anyway!

 

[MeaCulpa]

Apologies [...]paperclip.

Latestart, your input and knowledge is truly amazing, in a class of its own on this forum and almost unique on the Internet. I'm honestly in awe.

 

[Latestarter1]

Mapis,

Please do not misunderstand me. Crankshaft dimensions of of Phaser base engines are not inadequate, simply limit engines potential when you make comparison of swept volume of CAT 3116. Phaser is not prone to crankshaft issues at all, just one of the limiting factors of the envelope.

Decades ago Government had funded the Perkins P6 crankshaft line which carried over to 6.354 in turn was governing factor in Phaser design, not bad value for money as line only closed down in the last 6 months.

Perkins/Cat did develop the engine for Tier 2 with common rail injection with output of around 350 hp, told that they even got as far at conducting sea trials however old bogey of 6.354 head gasket integrity reared its head together with limitation of rotational speed led to development being abandoned which is a shame as I as development people claimed it was a particularly sweet engine.

 

[MapisM]

Please do not misunderstand me. Crankshaft dimensions of of Phaser base engines are not inadequate, simply limit engines potential when you make comparison of swept volume of CAT 3116. Phaser is not prone to crankshaft issues at all, just one of the limiting factors of the envelope.

Great to hear that LS, no misunderstanding at all, that's exactly what I envisaged based on your previous reply - just thought to ask to double check. Thanks again! :encouragement:

 

[volvopaul]

Yep, a Med boat she is, and yours is a good point.
But still, we're talking of an engine that's going to spend his whole life delivering (according to Cat prop demand curves) 50 or so of its 200hp...
I'd rather guess that VP came across that engine in some commercial boats - in fact, Cat only included it in their commercial range, where the typical usage is pedal to the metal most of the time - and also in the PS blue flavour, it's not a popular choice for leisure boats either.
Glad to stand corrected anyway!

First came across engine from my Perkins dealer days then in Broom 41 and 36 pleasure boats, a great big lump of metal for given HP , compared to a green engine.

 

[MapisM]

Thanks VP, the low output of these engines (compared to just about any other probably, not just the green ones! ) is fully understood by now.
Otoh, even if in pleasure rather than commercial boats, is my guess correct that your comment on tiny coolers is somewhat linked to a high rpm/load usage?
I would think that there's a sort of vicious circle going on, when these engines are used for anything else than pure displacement boats.
I mean, probably those Brooms were underpowered with the Perkins, and the users had to push them even harder than normal as a result...
But feel free to correct me if you think that the coolers are a problem waiting to happen regardless of the engine use!