Anyone familiar with the Volvo D3-110?

This is their new fancy "modern" technology diesel. I see it is OEM for new Halberg-Rassey and Swans.

It's a compact, 5 cylinder, 80-ish HP, relatively low revs (3000 rpm cruise). My guess it is a really smooth, quiet, low vibration engine. Can anyone confirm that?

It is turbocharged.

I am still going back and forth on engines. Seems like it is hard to get a "new" marine engine greater than 60hp that isnt turbocharged. Westerbeke and Perkins seem to be the only "mainstream" manufacturer of naturally aspirated engines in that range.

[Alan Wheeler]

Will a Westerbeke or Perkins fit??
What about a Yanmar
Personally, I would go for one of those over a Volvo anyday.

Any one of those are candidates at this point as it will be a couple years before I am ready for it. But, I have to wonder where diesels are going over the next couple years. What with stricter EPA requirements I am thinking naturally aspirated will be a thing of the past. That, I suspect, is why they are so scarce now.

I just noticed this Volvo is already in production on the big name production boats and some mechanics in the yard have raved about it. So I thought I would troll for some data

[never monday]

The Volvo is an option on HR as is a Yanmar. 80hp is hard to acheive normaly aspirated. In a reasonably sized unit. Most engine builders are going turbo because its more efficient, smaller and lighter. On that W42 I'd lean tword the Yanmar 4JH3(4)-TE. 75hp. The fourth generation of this engine is due later this year and will be EPA compliant thru 2011 according to prerelease scuttlebutt. The future of diesels I believe will be Common Rail Injection and redlines around that of V8's. 2L engines making 200hp and 300+ ft/lb's of torque
Do more research, including dealer availability and parts cost analysis before purchasing ANY engine.


Pat

[Alan Wheeler]

Yeah PAts right ont he money there. Emission control has nothing to do witht he turbo. Turbos are about getting more power from the same engine. But you have to look at power/torque curves to see at which point your power becomes available. Most engines, it is not till you have the revs on that you get the boost in power. This is not always the best when it comes to sailboat engines. Motor boats yes, but Sailboats not so much.
It's the common rail computer controlled systems that have the best emmision control. It can also be considered to be very new technology in the Deisel realm. If you are still a year or two away, I would not worry too much about what engine, till you are a month or two away. A lot is going to change over the next year.

[CaptainK]

Alan Wheeler once whispered in the wind.

It can also be considered to be very new technology in the Deisel realm

Sorry Wheels.

Rail computer technology has been around a bit more than a few years.

Try about a decade, or a little more. I have been trained in diesel technology. And was taught all about the the rail systems. And the older diesels.

But the enhancements in this technology is getting even better with each year. Especially since alot of countries are trying to cut back on exhaust emissions on diesels!!

[Alan Wheeler]

I am meaning in Marine applications and in the common household size boat motor. As far as I know, (could be wrong so correct me if I am) Volvo are the first to bring it to the world or the smaller sailboat motor.

[CaptainK]

Maybe in smaller applications.

I only know of is the real big machines!! Vaarrooommm!!!

[never monday]

Guy's technicly Common Rail technology had been around since the late 60's early 70's in gas applications.

[Jentine]

The main reason for producing lighter, more powerful engines is to ensure a market for replacement engines. The manufacturers are not stupid. If they produce only heavy, lumbering engines that last forever, they will reduce their income. Just remember it is all about the bottom line.
The typical truck engine (which, by the way endures many more rigors than a marine engine) runs for 500,000 mile before an overhaul. The difference is that they are heavy, low rpm and expensive engines. Can a cruising sailboat handle the extra weight? Obviously. Does the manufacturer and the customer want to give up the space for that engine? Yes and no. In terms of longevity, yes; in terms of space, no.
There is the quandry.

[never monday]

Jim,
I have to disagree with you on the point of designed replacement. From what I've been told at manuf schools these marine engines are designed for a life span of 10,000 hours. That's 600,000 miles at 60mph. That's well beyond the life span of any human who will own it and on par with a Cat or Cummins truck engine.
The equasion is simple reduced weight = reduced work = less fuel burn. The sub 100hp market in marine diesel engines is the most hotly contested market, margins on product are paper thin. Development is always on going.
In furtherence to turbo applications. I like it in a sailboat of large displacement. In practicality you have two engines, on boost and off boost. On boost you have enogh power to do what ever you need to. Off bost you have a small displacement putter to ease handeling and minimize fuel burn.
Remember it doesn't take as much hp to keep a boat moving as it does to start it moving.

[BC Mike]

My Yanmar is 26 years old and runs as good as the day it was new. I can say that because I owned it the day it was new.
Last time apart I put in new rings and ground the valves. In about 20 years it will need rings again and valve seats. The injectors need servicing now and then. The Yanmar dealer refers to my engine as a real diesel. It weighs 320 pounds, is 663cc and produces 15 hp. That is very little hp for that size engine. The newer Yanmars are lighter and smoother running, they are not as rugged as my older motor but will still likley run for many years.
What could cause problems for the average boat owner is electronic controlled systems, that are required for better efficiency and cleaner burning.
Michael

[NoTies]

We had a saying when I was a ship's engineer. "Do you want it to be reliable or do you want to use electronics?" Advances in electronic systems have been great but I have yet to see them supported by engineering systems that will ensure their reliability. I once replaced an auto filling system on a purifier tank. Tank was filled using capacitance probes, relays, solenoids yadda yadda. Replacement cost after burn out was around $4500. ballcock from hardware store was $19.95. Worked perfectly well and the chief thought I was great.

[Alan Wheeler]

Yes common rail has been around, but I mean computer cont.....arrr what the heck

Good point about the economy Pat.

Here's just some general info for anyone interested.
Horse Power!!!!!?! It's a measurment term used commonly in the industry. But is it a correct term to use? HP is not the only part of the equation to consider, when looking at the work ability of an engine, torque should also be coupled into the equation. Torque is infact, the more important figure. It represents the "turning force" of the engine. After it all, it's the turning force that drives your propellor.
Another figure that is not of essential importance, but certainly seldom ever shown in figures, is the SHP. This is the real true HP you see at you propellor. And it is often a much lower figure than the BHP figure shown at your engine. So when you look at facts and figures with engines when you are shopping, compare ALL the notes. Brand X engine may supply a figure of 50HP. Brand Y engine may supply a figure of 45HP. Brand Y engine may infact be more powerful than Brand X.

[BC Mike]

What wheels said.
Most of the modern engines get their extra horsepower by increasing the maximum revs. Consider a formula one car. They are buzzing at about 18,000 revs.
Most production cars are turning more revs than what race cars used to do. Red line 6000 was a movie in the sixties.
The new Kawasaki Ninja 600 and other go fast bikes in that class, make about 80 to 100 hp. It runs about 12000 revs to do that. If you have not been next to an engine at that speed it is screaming. Think about riding this thing around town. More practical would be the Suzuki 650 twin making 70 hp, but with much better bottom end power. Some engines can be limited by the distance the piston has to travel, with the maximum about 7600 feet per minute. That is why the stroke is reduced on the higher reving engines. At 85 hp and 7500 revs my 750 Norton engine would last a maximum of about two years before the crank broke. I am real pleased the Japanese started making better engines. Sorry to wander.
Michael