Beware new yanmars

[belizesailor]

Certainly something to consider if repowering. I would probably go w a Beta for this reason.

Similar situation w my old '89 Jeep. I drive it a lot in remote places, but I carry a spare ECU (you can just swap out the old Renix ones), a full set of spare sensors, and a scanner. At least these older control systems can be worked on, the newer ones are deliberately proprietary.

[malbert73]

Friend of mine is going to repower his boat. He almost bought a yanmar at boat show, but once he realized electronic, decided on beta.

Makes me pretty happy with my old 4jhe which runs great.

That said, my wife's VW TDI car is an electronically controlled common rail engine, and it's amazing. Quiet, smooth, and never smokes. You can't even smell diesel from the tailpipe. 70 K miles and like new. But not on my boat.l..


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[cpa]

Yikes! that is a little scary. I guess I am really happy about my choice to use Beta for the repower. I think maybe in a car all the electronic controls are OK, as all cars already have complicated electronics and ECUs. But on a boat in the salty and wet environment. I will take mechanical all day long.

[Island Time O25]

Funny but I also figured if I ever have to repower I'd go the Beta route. They must have have something all the others are missing.

[Finistere]

Had to look up ECU on Google, sort of dense that way, Wikipedia had some interesting information especially where to mount the ECU. Perhaps a boats engine room is not the best

"The ECU is usually located in the cab or in certain cases, in a suitable position in the engine bay where additional environmental conditions might require cooling of the ECU as well as a requirement for better dust, heat and vibrations insulation ."


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[belizesailor]

"ECU" is just a small computer. Like any electronic device, heat, vibration, moisture are not its friend. Definitely best to mount it outside the engine room.

My old Jeep ECU is mounted under the dash and is 25 years old. Impressive service life, but harsher conditions anywhere on a boat in the tropics.

Also if certain critical sensors fail the Jeep is DOA. I carry spares, but sure don't want that on my boat.

[oldcal46skipper]

I have an old Yanmar Genset in my Cal 46 with 6,600 hours. Note the word "OLD". It is powered by the T series, single cylinder, 13 HP, 84# flywheel. It is loud, vibrates, uses a little oil but I feel it wil easily go 10,000 hours if I continue the maintenance schedule.

I love my OLD Yanmar!

In my shop, we no longer will work on new Yanmars. IMHO they are not well designed or built, too high RPM's and the parts are too expensive and you must buy from a "Yanmar Dealer" in your area. I can order about any part I need for the Perkins 4.108's we specialize in rebuilding. Of course, Ma Perkins built over 500,000 4.108's - not all for marine use, but most interior parts are the same. A complete Re-manufacture kit costs around $750. Two pistons and a gasket set for a Yanmar will cost that much or more.

We sell and repair Kubota based marine engines as they are well built and many parts can be purchased from your local Kubota Tractor dealer at a great saving. We recently had a red painted genset that needed three glow plugs. The "Red" engine dealer wanted $59 each, Kubota charged $29 each.

Perkins Forever!

Your mileage may vary.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by rwidman

1. ...the EPA (in the USA) has pretty much dictatorial powers when it comes to things like engine emissions and the industry has to resort to more sophisticated engines to meet the requirements.

2. There's a good side of course just like there has been with cars. Better efficiency, longer life, smoother running and less smoke and soot.

3. If you're afraid of the new technology, the best plan would be to buy a rebuilt older engine. Just remember though, there will come a time when you can't get parts or service for that older engine.

1. More "sophisticated engines" could come in two "flavors": better engines or different engine controls. Perhaps both.

2. Laudable goal, but if the manufacturer decides that instead of improving his basic engine, he's gonna meet the EPA goals with more complicated controls bundled in NON-REPAIRABLE and in the cases cited here NON-REPLACEABLE (without reprogramming) devices, it simply doesn't meet the requirements of the intended marketplace, i.e., boats.

3. You note two choices. There is a third: a new engine without the new electronics, which, it seems are out there in the BETA engines.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I repowered in 2011 with a new Volvo D1-30. Although it is ECU controlled, the ECU box is plug-and-play, and Volvo was happy to sell me as many spares as I wanted at $400 each. For the record, it runs great -very smooth, quiet, and smoke free. Of course, the engine is a rebadged Perkins, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.

[FlightPlan]

I have researched this recently because I need to replace my Perkins 6.354M. I find that sailboats specifically fell in the donut hole of regulation. Most of us have relatively low HP engines and most of the older boats have naturally aspirated.


Now the choices are Turbo charged engines with higher HP's and ECU's which are not as efficient and require major mods to the boat. In my case it means 5" exhaust and a new hole in the back of the boat. The engine is also 35% higher in cost and labor goes with that at about double what it should be.


What EPA does not take into account is that we sail "pleasure craft" and probably use the motor less that 1500 hours per year. Our contribution to the pollution is so fractional to the proclaimed problem with CO2 emissions. In my situation also sailing offshore and having the engine limited to idle rpm due to some clogged or damaged sensor can be dangerous. Its not like you can call AAA and get a mechanic sent to the side of the interstate.


It sucks! My rebuild requires removing the engine to do the bottom end due to lack of space and dexterity. So I am looking at rebuilds with no common rail stuff. Not really my wish, but since I am a US documented vessel, the dealers can't sell me what they sell everywhere else in the world. To ship a naturally aspirated to the Bahamas was considered and have the work done there, put me into an additional cost of duty fees.


Anyway I chose not to go common rail

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius

I repowered in 2011 with a new Volvo D1-30. Although it is ECU controlled, the ECU box is plug-and-play, and Volvo was happy to sell me as many spares as I wanted at $400 each. For the record, it runs great -very smooth, quiet, and smoke free. Of course, the engine is a rebadged Perkins, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.

This is a bit different than the OP's problem. His is a common rail engine that by necessity needs computerized control to operate. It is more than just a response to environmental regulations - it is a true advance in engine design. There is a great benefit to common rail engines over the old ones, but the computerized control is one of the trade-offs.

The Volvo ECU is more along the lines of emissions requirements.

Mark

[Stu Jackson]

How about tractor engines? I'm pretty sure farmers would grumble big time if their new machines died out in the fields and they had to wait for Jimmie from town to come slap in or reprogram their electronics. Weren't tractor engines the genesis of our boat engines? Still are, too.

A few decades a ago, when the HVAC industry was switching from pneumatic/electric controls over to electronics, one national vendor thought he'd get the drop on the rest of the industry, and include controls right on his equipment.

So they went out and hired a boy-genius computer programmer right out of HVAC-school, who spent a year programming the new bits and bytes into the control boards. Of course, their mantra was: slap in replacements if the board goes down; save maintenance $$. Of course, their stuff was proprietary and didn't talk to anything else, but...

Turns out the boy-genius had NO experience in the real world of controls, and, of course, the seasoned engineers at the, then well-respected company, had NO CLUE about what he was doing. Or not doing.

After literally years of getting control bugs out of what used to be simple control sequences used since air conditioning had been invented 75 years earlier, they realized that maybe they shoulda checked on what boy-o had done. Not that they could...

It was only after those of us who had to design and use the damn equipment repeatedly told them they used the wrong defaults and that the defaults on their own unit A wouldn't talk or work with the defaults they used on their unit B (which we needed to work together - how quaint!) that they pretty much started over.

It was a huge business debacle and a lesson it seemed the auto industry learned. The car manufacturers certainly didn't want hordes of their customers stuck on the roads - would have been a pretty alarming and obvious failure reporting mode.

As designers, we both invited new concepts into the industry, but wanted them proved and didn't want any of our clients to be the guinea pigs for a company's Bright New Idea that hadn't been proven in Prime Time.

It appears that some of these "improvements," regardless of what the reason, need a LOT more real world testing.

KISS.

[Sailmonkey]

As far as I know anything with a Marinized Kubota or Mitsubishi block should still be mechanical......westerbeke, vetus, universal, beta, Phasor, nanni, etc.....or home brew using one of these blocks and one of the myriad of heat exchanger manufacturers.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

How about tractor engines? I'm pretty sure farmers would grumble big time if their new machines died out in the fields and they had to wait for Jimmie from town to come slap in or reprogram their electronics.

Sorry, the farmers got fancy common-rail engines in combines, harvesters, etc many years ago. Most larger recreational and commercial boats did also, as did automobiles. It is just the smaller engines on boats and small construction equipment that are now slowly adopting common-rail.

This stuff has been tested in some harsh environments for many years now. It is not new by any means. However, fortunately for combines, automobiles, etc, they don't get hit by lightning very often. Other than something as catastrophic as lightning, it should be expected that boat manufacturers or refit people provide a decent enough environment for these engines. It isn't difficult - keep large amounts of water off it and the temp below 50C or so.

It is only a matter of time before they all go this way. No one will be designing new models differently. Luckily, engine models for small boats and other equipment have long model lives - decades.

Mark

[Group9]

Originally Posted by rwidman

That's a pretty common view of old time mechanics who haven't kept up with changes in the industry. Unfortunately, the EPA (in the USA) has pretty much dictatorial powers when it comes to things like engine emissions and the industry has to resort to more sophisticated engines to meet the requirements.

There's a good side of course just like there has been with cars. Better efficiency, longer life, smoother running and less smoke and soot.

If you're afraid of the new technology, the best plan would be to buy a rebuilt older engine. Just remember though, there will come a time when you can't get parts or service for that older engine.

For a boat that's only used in population centers, with lots of service centers, not such a big deal. For one that might be out in the middle of nowhere when it breaks, a very big deal.