YSE8 Mount Problem

J

johnjfrake

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 Oct 2010
Messages
97
Location
Reading
Visit site
I have just bought a used (coculd hardly be anything else) YSE8 for my Folksong 25 that has never had an engine installed before. Looking at the mounts on the YSE8 the rear mounts are considerably 2" or so higher than the front ones, is there a sensible reason for this or is it just to make building engine bearers as awkward as possible? Is there any reason I should not make a couple of mounts that would place the rear at the same level as the front and save a considerable amount of trouble? Has anyone any experience of this that could share with me??

Thanks & Regards
 
My 1974 Tomahawk had a factory fitted YSE8, on which I fitted new mounts at one stage. . The bearers consisted of 2 lengths of angle-iron bolted fore and aft to the inner moulding, with each pair of mounts sitting on these angles, so they were in-line.
AFAIK, the engine brackets were standard. Has yours been modified to give the 2" difference I wonder?
 
johnjfrake said:
I have just bought a used (coculd hardly be anything else) YSE8 for my Folksong 25 that has never had an engine installed before. Looking at the mounts on the YSE8 the rear mounts are considerably 2" or so higher than the front ones, is there a sensible reason for this or is it just to make building engine bearers as awkward as possible? Is there any reason I should not make a couple of mounts that would place the rear at the same level as the front and save a considerable amount of trouble? Has anyone any experience of this that could share with me??

Thanks & Regards
Click to expand...

are you doing the right thin installing an engine that spares are like rocking horse poo.
i had a YSE 12 in my Co 32, a very good & simple engine BUT its very old
 
Thanks for the replies chaps!

The front and rear mount points on the block are definitely standard according to the parts catalogue anyway. I tried turning the rear bracket assembly upside down to make the height of the mounts more equal but there is a little interference between bracket and some bolts at the front of the block!. It would be little trouble to file a bit of it away to enable the fit I just wondered if there was a reason I should not do so? It also occurs to me that maybe some of the YSE8s were closer to their stationary engine forebears than others.

As to the wisdom of fitting an ancient engine, my constraints are budgetary, I got the engine, controls and stern gear for a good price, a new engine would be out of the question. So long as it gives me 3-4 seasons and doesn't let me down I'll be happy. They may be crude and heavy but they are reliable and you can get most speares if you look around. I intend to look at it very carefully before fitting the beast anyway.
 
Further research (looking for pictures on the web) shows that the engines seem to have been mounted on long lengths of angle iron but you can only see the front mounts not the rear ones. Irritating or what!
 
More bother that it's worth, you will need to cut a hole for the shaft, fit a stern tube, fit bearers, fit fuel tank, match up a prop etc . In a boat that size I would stick a 4 stroke o/b on the back and off you go. Use the space the i/b would take up for storage. Apart from the spares problem have you been on a boat with one of these engines? They are noisy, vibrate like hell and shake eveything on the boat to bits. Make sure your fillings are well fixed in :rolleyes:
One good point is they run for ever on a gallon of diesel.
 
Yet more useful info. My engine has a non-standard stainless steel exhaust thast should overcome the water problem. I bought most of the bits with the engine including stern tube, shaft prop controls panel.

The reason for not having an outboard is that I want WV self steering and there ain't room on the stern for both.

Did consider buying one of newer small twin diesels, they are about 40KG lighter and considerably quieter but they are just too expensive. I dont anticipate this being an easy job but am hoping toget a working deisel for a quarter the price of a new installation. We'll see!
 
here is a photo of the mounts, side view, I intend to fabricate alternative rear mount is stainless steel to bring them down to the same height as the front ones!

j
 
Seeing your photo reminds me how horrible those engine were. However, less horrible than the Stuart Turners which were standard wear before these came along!

Appreciate you need to keep costs down, but suspect that even if you manage to get it in and working you will wish you had not first time you run it. The 1GM is far superior - half the weight, smaller, more powerful, smoother, single lever controls etc etc. Worth spending the extra rather than wasting time and effort putting in something that will never be satisfactory. Went through this 20 years ago replacing an ST. 1GM did me pround until a couple of years ago when I could afford to buy a new Nanni. Sold the 1GM for what I paid for it all those years ago.
 
Difficult one this, you're not the first to have made that remark but a new engine is £3k dearer. If I grow to hate the yse8 then at least the stern gear, mounts and seacoks etc.will all be re-usable.

John
 
johnjfrake said:
Difficult one this, you're not the first to have made that remark but a new engine is £3k dearer. If I grow to hate the yse8 then at least the stern gear, mounts and seacoks etc.will all be re-usable.

John
Click to expand...

Yes, a new engine would be expensive. I sold my 1GM for £1200 with all the bits and it is doing sterling sevice in a GK24. None of the ancilliary equipment from the YSE8 will be re-usable. the prop turns the other way, the exhaust is different size, it does not have single lever controls and the mounts are much wider so you will need new beds if you do change. So you can see why its perhaps not such a good idea. The engine will have a value as it might be suitable either for a replacement for somebody who has the same engine or for a work boat.
 
That remind's me. Do you have the twin lever controls for throttle and gears?. A single lever morse is no use on this engine.
 
Looking at the photo, is it possible that these rear mounts have been swapped over and turned upside down? i.e. port to starboard and vice versa.
 
I have the dual controls, they in good order though the chrome could do with a bit of attention if I was fussy.

And the upside down mounts was my first thought but when I tried reversing them they interfere with some larger bolts that are presnet on the rear of the block. Thanks for the thought though!

John
 
johnjfrake said:
here is a photo of the mounts, side view, I intend to fabricate alternative rear mount is stainless steel to bring them down to the same height as the front ones!

j
Click to expand...

I had one of these in a boat some years ago and the mounts were very similar - the engine had to be at that angle for the drive shaft to go out the back of the boat lower than the transom and for the propellor to be under the water.

Are you sure that your drive shaft doesn't need to be angled down and can go out horizontally, will the engine be mounted that far below the waterline?
 
The problem with the mounts as they are is that if I installed the engine onto a flat bed the prop shaft would be pointing up through the transom at the sky. The rear mount plates are 9.5 cms higher than the fron ones, very puzzling. I can't see what benefit there is to it unless the large range of thread on the mount stud is necessary for some reason!!

john
 
Sorry have just looked again, they would be pointing down through the bottom of the keel, in any case the downward angle would be more than the 15 degrees permitted for the YSE8. I am taking the prop shaft to the boat tomorrow and am going to do some fidling to see before taking any action with the mounts.

john
 
johnjfrake said:
The problem with the mounts as they are is that if I installed the engine onto a flat bed the prop shaft would be pointing up through the transom at the sky. The rear mount plates are 9.5 cms higher than the fron ones, very puzzling. I can't see what benefit there is to it unless the large range of thread on the mount stud is necessary for some reason!!

john
Click to expand...

To me the raised rear engine plates look very familiar, as I have similar on my own engine. The reason is likely that the engine has been sitting in a boat which has a narrow end under water (or if you like, the engine has been pushed far back towards the stern).
I am fairly certain that the boat had the aft engine bearers raised too. Have you taken measurments to assure that the engine would fit with straight engine bearers?
 
The correct mounting point for the engine on a folksong is under the hatchway, fairly far forward. I am taking the proshaft to the boat to rough out the placing and dimensions of the bearers. I intend to build a jig/model of the engine to do some test fits and make templates before I do any more to it. I had a fair idea it would be a messy business when I started. We willl see where it leads.
Thanks for the inputs!

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Refueler
Change Solar panel - Old is NAPS 27962 55W flexi
Replies
19
Views
410
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top