Building a Performance Marine Engines
- Thread starter goatskin
- Start date
I'd find a couple dt360 running cores...
Dis-assemble , clean, and rebuild.
The cores you should be able to find for around 500-1500$ all depending.
The rebuild kits are about 1400-1700$ depending.
I'd send the pistons, heads, and valves away to someone like swain coatings : Swain Tech Coatings | Industrial Coatings | High Performance Racing Coatings | Technical coatings to solve problems of heat, wear, corrosion, and friction and I'd get the ceramic barrier on the valves, pistons, and heads. They also can coat exhuast manifolds too. They also have some type of coating for the piston skirts, to reduce friction. It's actually not very expensive.
I think the bottom end of the engine should be fine stock, for what you want.
The top end, maybe some different springs, so you could run 4000 + RPM's. Maybe some magic with the cam shaft. Stock is 2700 RPM Redline, so I don't think you need a whole pile of parts.
The stock heads and stock bolts can handle a crap load of boost.
So basically, I'd just re-build the engines stock, but with ceramic coatings, and a few cheap goodies to enable it to spin 4000+ RPM's if needed.
I'd try to aim for a power level that will deliver you're wanted 800 HP at around 3400 RPM, and red line around 4000 RPM hitting around 1000 HP.
The real money would be spend on the fuel pump, and injectors. I bet that will cost more than the rest of the engine. You won't want dirty shower head truck pulling injectors, you'll want something that will burn clean, and not waste fuel.
Also, have you considered ditching the transmissions all together, and using a small outboard for manuvering and docking?
A small outboard would likely weigh less than 2 reliable transmissions that can hold that power, and plus you'd gain some power and effeciency, while also eliminating possible failures.
A good marine transmission loses 5-10% friction mechanical losses, even more for an automotive gear box, and especially with overdrive.
If you can "pitch" the drives right out of the water, you could eliminate a whole bunch of equipment, weight, and increase fuel economy, reliability, and power.
I imagine a 10 HP outboard could move that boat in and out of the marina at a few miles per hour.
Dis-assemble , clean, and rebuild.
The cores you should be able to find for around 500-1500$ all depending.
The rebuild kits are about 1400-1700$ depending.
I'd send the pistons, heads, and valves away to someone like swain coatings : Swain Tech Coatings | Industrial Coatings | High Performance Racing Coatings | Technical coatings to solve problems of heat, wear, corrosion, and friction and I'd get the ceramic barrier on the valves, pistons, and heads. They also can coat exhuast manifolds too. They also have some type of coating for the piston skirts, to reduce friction. It's actually not very expensive.
I think the bottom end of the engine should be fine stock, for what you want.
The top end, maybe some different springs, so you could run 4000 + RPM's. Maybe some magic with the cam shaft. Stock is 2700 RPM Redline, so I don't think you need a whole pile of parts.
The stock heads and stock bolts can handle a crap load of boost.
So basically, I'd just re-build the engines stock, but with ceramic coatings, and a few cheap goodies to enable it to spin 4000+ RPM's if needed.
I'd try to aim for a power level that will deliver you're wanted 800 HP at around 3400 RPM, and red line around 4000 RPM hitting around 1000 HP.
The real money would be spend on the fuel pump, and injectors. I bet that will cost more than the rest of the engine. You won't want dirty shower head truck pulling injectors, you'll want something that will burn clean, and not waste fuel.
Also, have you considered ditching the transmissions all together, and using a small outboard for manuvering and docking?
A small outboard would likely weigh less than 2 reliable transmissions that can hold that power, and plus you'd gain some power and effeciency, while also eliminating possible failures.
A good marine transmission loses 5-10% friction mechanical losses, even more for an automotive gear box, and especially with overdrive.
If you can "pitch" the drives right out of the water, you could eliminate a whole bunch of equipment, weight, and increase fuel economy, reliability, and power.
I imagine a 10 HP outboard could move that boat in and out of the marina at a few miles per hour.
Also,
What about a "hacked up" VVT turbo; what if...
What if, you had a sequential turbocharger system, the smaller being a VVT turbo, and "what if" the adjustment arm, was even just adjustable from the cockpit... And "what if", you could find an actuating pressure actuator; and connected it to the exhuast back pressure; so that, when the boat launches in the air, the engine starts de-fueling, back pressure drecreases, thus the actuator pushes the VVT turbo to engage harder, attempting to spin the turbo faster, so that when you hit the water again, you have full power, and the engine doesn't have to spool the turbochargers up again each time you hit a wave.
Basically what I'm saying, is if you could manually adjust the turbochargers, that way you could adjust them to get best fuel economy, and also, they would change on their own, based on engine loading. But the reverse of what usually get's done; on a truck, when you punch the gas, they try hard to spool up, but what I'M saying, is that they could try hard to build boost when the engine is DECELERATING, so that when you hit a wave, and jump over it, the turbo starts building boost in anticipation of the prop hitting the next wave.
What about a "hacked up" VVT turbo; what if...
What if, you had a sequential turbocharger system, the smaller being a VVT turbo, and "what if" the adjustment arm, was even just adjustable from the cockpit... And "what if", you could find an actuating pressure actuator; and connected it to the exhuast back pressure; so that, when the boat launches in the air, the engine starts de-fueling, back pressure drecreases, thus the actuator pushes the VVT turbo to engage harder, attempting to spin the turbo faster, so that when you hit the water again, you have full power, and the engine doesn't have to spool the turbochargers up again each time you hit a wave.
Basically what I'm saying, is if you could manually adjust the turbochargers, that way you could adjust them to get best fuel economy, and also, they would change on their own, based on engine loading. But the reverse of what usually get's done; on a truck, when you punch the gas, they try hard to spool up, but what I'M saying, is that they could try hard to build boost when the engine is DECELERATING, so that when you hit a wave, and jump over it, the turbo starts building boost in anticipation of the prop hitting the next wave.
Last edited:
"The Numbers" (are rounded, and include fall-offs)
'big bore'
DT466/530/DD40e 7.6 & 8.7L: ± 45x29x41, 1425lbs
Cummins QSB (marine) 6.7: 42x36x35, 1398lbs (nominal hp:550, practical 600)
Cummins QSC (marine) 8.3: 46x33x39, 1975lbs (nominal hp: 610, practical 700-ish)
'small'
DT360 5.9: 44x29x36, 1265lbs
Cummins QSB 5.9 (marine) 41x33x35, 992lbs
LSE Alloy 5.9, same dims, 850lbs
The (Bold) number is length, and while shorter is better, 3-4" longer is manageable.
All of these will make 800hp pretty easily, and without a significant longevity penalty, as heat will be controlled, and heat is the enemy of iron. All are perfectly acceptable options.
Costs are where the separation gets stark.
- a Cummins 5.9 cast-iron block, punched out to 4.25 & sleeved (making, essentially, a 6.25L); Hamilton head, P7100, steel pistons, dry sump, raw water ... ±$45
- the LSM Alloy block same 6.25L, same, same, but closed cooling ... 70-ish
- DT466s, according to Eric Staab, "to do it right" ... 80-90
None of those include serious dyno time, nor spending 72-96hrs under load.
The funnel is working. This is getting better as the sun gets higher.
Thanks, guys!
'big bore'
DT466/530/DD40e 7.6 & 8.7L: ± 45x29x41, 1425lbs
Cummins QSB (marine) 6.7: 42x36x35, 1398lbs (nominal hp:550, practical 600)
Cummins QSC (marine) 8.3: 46x33x39, 1975lbs (nominal hp: 610, practical 700-ish)
'small'
DT360 5.9: 44x29x36, 1265lbs
Cummins QSB 5.9 (marine) 41x33x35, 992lbs
LSE Alloy 5.9, same dims, 850lbs
The (Bold) number is length, and while shorter is better, 3-4" longer is manageable.
All of these will make 800hp pretty easily, and without a significant longevity penalty, as heat will be controlled, and heat is the enemy of iron. All are perfectly acceptable options.
Costs are where the separation gets stark.
- a Cummins 5.9 cast-iron block, punched out to 4.25 & sleeved (making, essentially, a 6.25L); Hamilton head, P7100, steel pistons, dry sump, raw water ... ±$45
- the LSM Alloy block same 6.25L, same, same, but closed cooling ... 70-ish
- DT466s, according to Eric Staab, "to do it right" ... 80-90
None of those include serious dyno time, nor spending 72-96hrs under load.
The funnel is working. This is getting better as the sun gets higher.
Thanks, guys!
Last edited:
For a 1000 HP dt360 or 466, I can't imagine how you'd spend 90k$ unless you gold plated it.
Building a dt466 to around 1000 HP should cost around 10 -15k$, and thats with hypermax parts.
I'm confident it could cost a LOT less, sourcing different parts from affordable places.
And don't forget; yes, the dt360 is only 5.9 liter displacement, but it is a way tougher engine than a 5.9 cummins. The replacable liners come pre-honed. a cummins 5.9 is a parent bore engine, dt360 is wet sleeve.
It seems like you're "drawn" to the larger displacement engines?
My advice is, you need to talk to some guys that know more about the dt360 and 466, I believe they are an awesome option. Especially the dt360.
Just find the right guys, it will never cost 80-90k$ unless you shoot to the moon for power goals. You're goals are modest.
It seems like you're "drawn" to the larger displacement engines?
My advice is, you need to talk to some guys that know more about the dt360 and 466, I believe they are an awesome option. Especially the dt360.
Just find the right guys, it will never cost 80-90k$ unless you shoot to the moon for power goals. You're goals are modest.
IH aftermarket parts are pretty expensive, due to non-ubiquity and scarcity of competent builders.
I want 'Good" - not 'good-nuff' so a lot of the uplift is on my shoulders.
Aftermarket head, seats, springs, cam .. and like you said, fuel system will take some bucks. Turbos are tba, and Eric was making sure his tookus was well covered.
Alloy front & back plates, crank spun, ARP fasteners, 6stg dry sump ... it adds up.
I'm used to this. Marine, generally, is high expectations, limited number of suppliers and everything is made out of different grades of unobtanium.
And there are ways to control overall costs, too. There is a new 40e p.pump someplace in IL for $11, and there are three in FL on Kohler gensets for half-that.
Transmissions:
I have a lot of options, depending on (mainly) running rpm with the principal limiting factor being the size & capabilities of my prop (read: torque converter), and performance props are designed for narrow upper-end.
The MOST flexibility I'd have is with a 4sp OD tranny http://weismann.net/offshore.html but it's large, heavy and subject to maintenance.
Weismann and SCS (and prolly several others) make shiftable crash boxes, and that is the bulletproof solution.
Reverse? What's that? I don't need no steenkin' reverse. On a go-fast boat, manoevering is a kinda-sorta proposition, regardless of the solution. Because of such big bites the prop takes, the usual is shift engines in & out of gear, one of which is in R.
One solution that *works* is to rig a trim-pump to your thrust bearings and do low-speed manoevering by trim-switches.
Generally, you hang a lot of fenders and hope a couple of friendly hands are hanging around the fuel dock to catch mooring lines and pull you (gently but quickly) where you need to go.
For multi-stage races, b/c of how I'll be set up with excess fuel capacity (and I can only go so fast, heavy or light, in seas or chop), I'll just carry 500gal and avoid 2-3 fuel stops.
I have a lot of options, depending on (mainly) running rpm with the principal limiting factor being the size & capabilities of my prop (read: torque converter), and performance props are designed for narrow upper-end.
The MOST flexibility I'd have is with a 4sp OD tranny http://weismann.net/offshore.html but it's large, heavy and subject to maintenance.
Weismann and SCS (and prolly several others) make shiftable crash boxes, and that is the bulletproof solution.
Reverse? What's that? I don't need no steenkin' reverse. On a go-fast boat, manoevering is a kinda-sorta proposition, regardless of the solution. Because of such big bites the prop takes, the usual is shift engines in & out of gear, one of which is in R.
One solution that *works* is to rig a trim-pump to your thrust bearings and do low-speed manoevering by trim-switches.
Generally, you hang a lot of fenders and hope a couple of friendly hands are hanging around the fuel dock to catch mooring lines and pull you (gently but quickly) where you need to go.
For multi-stage races, b/c of how I'll be set up with excess fuel capacity (and I can only go so fast, heavy or light, in seas or chop), I'll just carry 500gal and avoid 2-3 fuel stops.
Last edited:
Yes & no, but I'm building an overall performance race-boat, not just a planing trawler.
There are a lot of A-B and multi-stage races we want to run, but the occasions where fuel-economy will really matter are only 2? 3?
-NYC-Bermuda, The Bermuda Challenge, It is 759 nautical miles, across the Gulf Stream and a World Record can only be (realistically) set in 3' seas or flatter (most of the way), and those conditions are scarcer than chicken lips, plus, we want to re-fuel, and go right back, setting three WR: going, coming and round trip.
- KW-Cancun-KW, it is an 800mi roundrip, and if you have to, you can re-fuel in Cancun.
- Montecarlo-Venice. 1140n.mi. There almost has to be a refueling in the boot, but ... if the seas are good, and the winds calm - it's doable. The current record is not quite 50mph.
The shorter runs: Round Long Island, San Francisco-Long Beach, Miami-Bimini ... put the sticks DOWN.
High speed and rough seas eats gas in big gulps. The boat will be built to manage seas but fuel economy is only really significant in a couple of situations.
The ONLY way to keep consumption reasonable for -l-o-n-g- runs, even with 800-1000gal is to have good seas, drive smoothly and stay below 65-70kts, even if you can run faster.
Every single thing I'm doing is a conscious trade-off, but, generally, size matters, and if the larger engines are within the size/mass/volume parameters, I am biased.
You did perfectly and succinctly describe what I'm wanting to do: run a conservative, low-stress 800hp 60-70kts (mostly) in any seas, and still have the option to tune for blue smoke when the seas are friendly and the finish line beckons.
Once an engine meets the conservative-yet-demanding threshold: 2000hp for 6000lbs (total: complete, including fall-offs, fluids, controls & batteries), completely reliable for known, scheduled maintenance intervals for a 2000hr horizon, I am ambivalent as to brand, or even volume. Exceeding maintenance program 'cause it's just.that.good, or lasting forever b/c it is tougher, carry no particular bonus points.
I am NOT discounting the DT360, at all. I have a couple of queries out already to two breakers who say they have multiple running take-outs. Easy 800, easy 1000, cheap, breaks whale backs, lasts forever and sips fuel ... what's not to like?
And plated? you betcha. I was thinking PolyDyne, but the place you suggested does the same things. Thermally efficient, manages friction, scavenges a few 'free' hp.
Speaking of (somewhat) is there any place whose business is to boil and chemically clean, magnaflux, measure & blueprint?
we agree, and if you have some thoughts of some 'right guys' I would be most appreciative of the referrals.
Try asking the sled pulling guys in the sled pulling section maybe?
Just remember; if they have 5000 dyno HP, you are always going to need to deal with more issues than them, as you are making big power for a long time. 5000 HP for 5 minutes is hardly the same as 8 hours.
You might find some great ideas and sources for parts though; I know there is pulloff.com, but there must be others as well.
You are on you're own; I'm not aware of any commercial engine that puts down the power you want, you are going to half to build a hot rod engine.
There is the Cummins KTA19, which is used in lots of quick boats, but it's 4000 lbs, and only puts down 700 HP.
You say you want "good", and not "good enough", but I think you need to loosen you're expectations, as some experimenting will need to be done.
First of all, you are planning on running the engine far below the designed temperature; I think a sleeved engine will be needed, as the deformation will be lower for the block.
Second, we're talking about thousands of hours of serive before rebuild.... I don't think you will attain that with ANY engine, putting down those kinds of numbers, running cold, WOT the whole time.
It is very common to see marine engines needing rebuilds withing a few thousand hours, and those aren't even hopped up.
Stay away from disposable engines; like the 5.9 cummins, duramax, fords, etc.. ( there are actually marine 7.3's)... and go with an industrial engine, something that is not mass produced junk.
The 5.9 cummins, DMAX, and INTL truck engines, will all crack heads, chip exhaust valves, boil the coolant out, etc, if you try to make the power you want.
You need something beefy; dt360, dt466, cummins 8.3L, etc.
Sure, there are a ton of guys that can put out 1000 HP out of a 5.9 cummins on a dyno, I bet they'd melt into a puddle about 60 seconds past the peak output, if they held it to the floor.
You are going to have to sacrifice somewhere; You can put steel marine pistons in the cummins, but the thrown rod weight will be higher. It will fall apart long before the RPM's you talk of.
You are needing an engine that will run at 80-100% duty cycle, that is typically rated much lower than peak; so if you get you'r hands on an engine, you should be expecting very low hours out of it, relatively, to a general use application.
The DT engines, along with various truck and agricultural engines, will handle far more abuse that a truck style engine.
HAve you really done that math and figured out "Big engine, lower boost VS smaller engine, higher boost"?
How many pounds of fuel will the boat carry? What is the thresh hold? If a larger engine is more fuel effecient, it might end up being the answer?!
malibu795
2wd numb nut
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,731
read your whoel thread.. i like it..
just about any V-8 is more package friendly over I-6 due to lenght and hieght. plus allow you to move more weight rearward being that the V-8 of similar displacement are ~10" shorter then same displacement of I-6 engines..
turbos mentioned that main worry begin what happens when the engine goes form 100% duty to less then 25% (air born) if sized right nothing will get damaged...
two examples
personal water crafts(jet skies) have been run turbo charged engines for a while now... they have been know to leave the waters surface a time or two...
i ran small boats in the US Navy.. (7m ones we had they go upwards of 15m) rigid inflatable haul boats ((RIHBs) they are either aluminum or fiberglass hauled) weighed about 5,000lb ran any thing form 5.9 180HP non intercooled single stern drive to twin 500hp engine
BTW the royal navy brought about the RHIB
here is spec on an US Navy spec ops RHIB, i have friends that worked on these boats..
The US Navy -- Fact File: Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats - RHIB
General Characteristics, 11 meter Naval Special Warfare RHIB
Propulsion: Dual Caterpillar 3126 DITA, 6 in-line cylinder diesel, turbocharged, aftercooled.
Length: 35 feet 11 inches (11 meters) (Overall, inflated tube).
Beam: 10 feet 7 inches (3.2 meters) (sponson inflated); 8 feet 9 inches (2.6 meters) (deflated).
Displacement: 17,400 lbs, (7,892 kilograms).
Draft: 2 feet 11 inches (0.9 meters).
Speed: 40+ knots (nautical miles per hour) (64 kilometers/hour).
Range: 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers
another thing pushin 2.5-3hp+ per ci is extremely pushing it for a 75%+ duty cycle for longevityie 6+ hours IMO
i completely understand the better have and not need then need and not have principle...
360*2.7 is ~1000hp
403*2.5 is ~1000hp
460*2.2 is ~1000hp
i know you have stated you rather have mechanical fuel system then electronic system.. while both system have prove to make 1,000+hp the HPCR system has prove to do so more effciently with better handeling habits and can give wider power bands as well..
while you dont have to deal with any competitor shooting at you (per the millitary versions) vibration become the biggest enemy to any wireing harness..
:Cheer:
just about any V-8 is more package friendly over I-6 due to lenght and hieght. plus allow you to move more weight rearward being that the V-8 of similar displacement are ~10" shorter then same displacement of I-6 engines..
turbos mentioned that main worry begin what happens when the engine goes form 100% duty to less then 25% (air born) if sized right nothing will get damaged...
two examples
personal water crafts(jet skies) have been run turbo charged engines for a while now... they have been know to leave the waters surface a time or two...
i ran small boats in the US Navy.. (7m ones we had they go upwards of 15m) rigid inflatable haul boats ((RIHBs) they are either aluminum or fiberglass hauled) weighed about 5,000lb ran any thing form 5.9 180HP non intercooled single stern drive to twin 500hp engine
BTW the royal navy brought about the RHIB
here is spec on an US Navy spec ops RHIB, i have friends that worked on these boats..
The US Navy -- Fact File: Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats - RHIB
General Characteristics, 11 meter Naval Special Warfare RHIB
Propulsion: Dual Caterpillar 3126 DITA, 6 in-line cylinder diesel, turbocharged, aftercooled.
Length: 35 feet 11 inches (11 meters) (Overall, inflated tube).
Beam: 10 feet 7 inches (3.2 meters) (sponson inflated); 8 feet 9 inches (2.6 meters) (deflated).
Displacement: 17,400 lbs, (7,892 kilograms).
Draft: 2 feet 11 inches (0.9 meters).
Speed: 40+ knots (nautical miles per hour) (64 kilometers/hour).
Range: 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers
another thing pushin 2.5-3hp+ per ci is extremely pushing it for a 75%+ duty cycle for longevityie 6+ hours IMO
i completely understand the better have and not need then need and not have principle...
360*2.7 is ~1000hp
403*2.5 is ~1000hp
460*2.2 is ~1000hp
i know you have stated you rather have mechanical fuel system then electronic system.. while both system have prove to make 1,000+hp the HPCR system has prove to do so more effciently with better handeling habits and can give wider power bands as well..
while you dont have to deal with any competitor shooting at you (per the millitary versions) vibration become the biggest enemy to any wireing harness..
:Cheer:
Excellent points.
But, keep in mind, at WOT, the CR engine is likely spraying 1 long shot of fuel, and in a boat type engine load, the mechanical engine can likely be honed it the same way.
If this was one of those jet boats that rips around obstacle courses, I'd say that a CR engine, with VVT would be the ONLY way to go, but since 90% of the time will just be WOT, doesn't seem like much could be gained as long as it gets up to speed.
Looking to the above posts, what if you took the fleece turbocharger controller, and somehow connected a variable resistor knob at the controls; and a 2nd one, somehow mounted on a "flapper" off the rear of the boat, so as soon as it leaves the water, it starts spooling...
Usually, 1 HP per ci of engine displacement was considered reliable, as a general rule of thumb.
All the engines brought up so far, are way past that ratio.
As I said above; this is going to be a custom engine, nothing is going to come with a guarqantee at these power levels.
"360*2.7 is ~1000hp
403*2.5 is ~1000hp
460*2.2 is ~1000hp"
But remember, since RPM's are likely to get scary high, the smaller engines might just outlast the larger, just from possibly being more stable.
At work, we have a 1000 HP Caterpillar, it is massive, v16( or maybe v12?), and about the size of a nice sized camper. Runs 1000 RPM at red line, and probably 30 years old. Hell of an engine, only 1 problem, it probably weighs 20,000 lbs lol.
I'm thinking; if dt360's can be run hard enough to hold 3000 HP, that should be an excellent platform to use for a power plant; wet sleeve, rebuildable, cheap to aquire....
To me, I can't see a benefit of going with a larger engine, that weighs more.
5.9 Cummins Fan
Gearhead
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 444
A big bore will do virtually everything a small bore can but better. Less boost, easier on chargers, and longer life at a certain HP. (Assuming its designed well such as in ag apps)
FWIW DT 530=1.88 hp /ci @ 1000.....DT 570=1.75 HP/ci @ 1000
Many big block pullers out there in the 600 ci range as well. If good builders like Haisley can get pulling engines like Shane Kellogg's to stay together with relatively no problems for a full season at well over 1500ish HP, I don't see any problem getting a bigger/more robust engine to live longer at less hp. (Yes I realize a sled pull is not a whole lot like WOT for hours in a boat, heat is the enemy, but the ocean is a big heat sink)
FWIW DT 530=1.88 hp /ci @ 1000.....DT 570=1.75 HP/ci @ 1000
Many big block pullers out there in the 600 ci range as well. If good builders like Haisley can get pulling engines like Shane Kellogg's to stay together with relatively no problems for a full season at well over 1500ish HP, I don't see any problem getting a bigger/more robust engine to live longer at less hp. (Yes I realize a sled pull is not a whole lot like WOT for hours in a boat, heat is the enemy, but the ocean is a big heat sink)
nope. good idea, tho, and an IH dealer or two, also. I agree with you abt the additional capabilities of industrial v. consumer engines.
yep, light duty wimps.
yes, and no. When you read the factory duty-ratings of engines, and THEN read their warranty statements, it is an education in itself.
The short form is that the engines are detuned, on purpose, some is for 'slotting' but also for reputation. This is everybody, not just IH (which is plainly obvious), Isotta Frascini told me, point blank they would not sell me any engines, including old mechanical cores, b/c I was racing them, and when they break, people would say, "See, don't buy IFM engines." I appreciated their honesty.
IVECO/Cummins/CAT/.../.../... ALL are capable reliable power in excess of their ratings. There are some trade-offs, of course, but they can be factored in.
ahhh, I didn't give all of the contex. I don't want to re-use parts, New rebuild, using premium parts. Of course there will be tuning, adjusting, tinkering involved, but when the engine is running at it's 'natural' power, it will be pretty close.
Nah. In point of fact, Water temp is only part of endothermic heat, and 140ºF is not too cool, regardless. Engines like cool; Turbos like Hot. Oil Temp is more critical for running, and there are simple ways to raise water temp if you need to.
We agree about sleeves. How strange is that? And we agree that wet over dry is a winner. And we certainly agree that Industrial is preferable to consumer.
Nope. Scheduled & Preventive maintenance. Injectors are consumables. We'll have a box on the boat, and the whole set will be changed at 100hrs. Turbos? depending ... 300hrs, gone. Change head at 1000hrs. I would be as shocked as you if the babbit on the main bearings showed ANY polishing at 2000hrs, but that's the EOL for the bottom end.
<laughing> The thread you started on Boatbuilder last November? Truck diesels - Boat Design Forums answered that chapter & verse. The biggest friend to diesels is being run. Hard. The biggest enemy is letting them sit. Proper maintence (and use) makes those kind of failures nigh impossible.
Would a metallic, Mercedes Midnight Grey be as sexy as black, do you suppose?
This boat would be put on a transporter after every run, run a few minutes on fresh water, and exhaust manifolds flushed, too. Stored inside, with dehumidifiers.
Yes and no. I'd melt a sled engine before I got on plane, but all barnyard animals are not the same.
In both racing, and especially Mil, worldwide, the consumer de-tuning/de-rating 'issues' are addressed up front, and in different ways. Buzzi's FPT N-67 run at +750hp and his C-90 at +900. Innovation Marine's 'Cummins 5.9' is governed at 600hp for USNavy, but the Marines run it at 750, as does the HK Navy. Innovation says they'd need some electronic fidding, but they have over 700hrs on a WOT 900+hp testbed. There are no issues with reliability in any of them, and all of those are higher-maintence electronic engines (albeit, Buzzi's electronics are 'don't think; respond to throttle.')
CAT (who has run 2-part monotherms in it's C-series marine engines since inception), and Mahle disagree. So does IH, for that matter, as they are standard on the MaxxForce10, and as an option on the MaxxForce9. I'm not sure if a Ceramic coated head might not be as good, but I'll bet the sled guys can tell us. My rpms will only be a little immodest, 3000-3300, 4k redline, but I am assuming billet, heat treated rods, regardless.
.
absolutely. yep and indeed. I have no interest in getting 'diesel life.'
The design for the fuel capacity is 3½ tons, 1000gal, plus ballast tanks that can carry more fuel, if needed. 20-2200lbs fully wet? no problem.
Modeled the engines? Yes and no. Eyeballed mostly at this point, but I have access to the modelling software, and will use it. Boost, Torque and compression are both: my friend and my enemy. If I can't control boost while in the air, things get broken and we're dead.
My suspicion is (based on little data and fewer facts, admittedly) that it is about a wash on power and fuel economy running a 360 at 3300 on 3Bar & 18:1 and an 8.7 at 3000, 15-16:1 and 1½-2Bar. If that is the case (and since TBO reliability of either pump engine is not an issue), the lighter-weight choice would usually carry a slight preference, but then, again a 12ga can do anything a 20ga can do, and do it better. In the IH realm, there is just not that much weight difference between a DT360 5.9L and a DT530 8.7L ... #500, the pair?
I'm not there yet, but because of you and others, I am a lot less ignorant.
Thanks!
Last edited:
estrada5.9
New member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,955
Nothing to add but the information in this thread is nothing short of amazing and educational.
Thank you.
Thank you.