Building a Performance Marine Engines

I have built many pulling tractor motors. From 500 hp all the way up to 3500 hp. Single turbos to multistage 4 turbos. I have worked on the truck motors. You could build any of the blocks, Cummins, Dmax, IH, JD, Cat. What ever you want to be durable for what you want to do. Each take their own certian thing that they need, and each have their own expense associated with them. What I see as the hardess challenge is fuel mileage, and fuel mileage will take tuning, and I think you will have a hard time doing that with a static system.

"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." ---Nikola Tesla

Lots and lots of math can be done but you will need to experiment to get the results you desire, meaning you need to build the motor that will allow you to do that.
 
EricStaab said:
I have built many pulling tractor motors. From 500 hp all the way up to 3500 hp. Single turbos to multistage 4 turbos. I have worked on the truck motors. You could build any of the blocks, Cummins, Dmax, IH, JD, Cat. What ever you want to be durable for what you want to do. Each take their own certian thing that they need, and each have their own expense associated with them. What I see as the hardess challenge is fuel mileage, and fuel mileage will take tuning, and I think you will have a hard time doing that with a static system.

"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." ---Nikola Tesla

Lots and lots of math can be done but you will need to experiment to get the results you desire, meaning you need to build the motor that will allow you to do that.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, with the fuel consumption he is looking to achieve, he may have to go to a larger power plant, and also spin it slower than he wants.

Higher compression can help...18:1 possibly 19:1.

Even with HPCR, diesel fuel can still only burn so fast, and in the smaller volume combustion chamber of a 5.9, there is a LOT of fuel to burn in a short time while making the projected 800 HP...800 is doable, but doing it with decent fuel consumption and getting the engine to hold together for "continuous use" is going to be the issue.
 
Last edited:
EricStaab said:
...You could build any of the blocks, Cummins, Dmax, IH, JD, Cat. What ever you want to be durable for what you want to do. ... What I see as the hardess challenge is fuel mileage, and fuel mileage will take tuning, and I think you will have a hard time doing that with a static system.

Lots and lots of math can be done but you will need to experiment to get the results you desire, meaning you need to build the motor that will allow you to do that.
Click to expand...

Indeed. What started out a year ago as a realisation that my kids were growing and that I was rapidly approaching a point where I could take a working retirement and, yanno, enjoy some guy-things: good gundogs & Italian shotguns ... go-fast boat.

Then the Venture Cup idea came up, and TWO world records were set within a month of each other, going from NYC-Bermuda, 750nm. World Record, huh? hmmmm ... (enter ego and testosterone) ... 'What would it take to not only break Buzzi's 17hr record, but shatter it? Put it out of reach for years? Let people look & drool?'

So the de-ignorantising and 'clean sheet' stuff began. Yes, lots of erasers. Honest analysis is kinda like that.

Pretty quickly, I came to the same conclusion you stated in many fewer words: you can make anything last a 1000 before you put a wrench to it, now, what is light enough and efficient enough to do it, in a 40' hull?

Europe has a lot of diesels, both on the road and in the water.

The IVECO 6L-ish engine has a LONG track record and will do the job: is there somethig better? and/or can the basic IVECO/FPT/CUMMINS be improved/upgraded b/c it is a little underpowered for what I want to do?

Yeah, cut down on life-expectancy and add some more power. Europe ain't hot-rodders, America is. From that point is was a matter of asking, processing, asking, processing ... rinse/repeat. Research is fun in it's own way.

Since the boat will have a number on it's side, I don't have to pay attention to noise and smoke hand-wringing, and that, by itself, opened some options not available to a factory-build.

I am not married to Cummins/IVECO, but so far, I have studied all the major players, and several new kids, and have not seen anything to match the (blended & compromised) package of reliability/hp/weight/footprint/fuel consumption that will work.

"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." ---Nikola Tesla
Click to expand...

Guaranteed ... see: Isuzu/GM Duramax and their fanbois

Thanks, Eric for distilling things even clearer.
 
95-12valve said:
I love how Wade and Greg come in here trying to measure their peckers and get owned, multiple times, by the new guy and then they just faaaaade away out of the thread...

Epic win my friend, if I ever meet you, drinks on me!
Click to expand...

and I will absolutely, proudly accept.

thanks!
 
I honestly see no reason to not look deep into a DT466. If budget isn't really an issue, I see no reason it cannot be made lightweight. I don't think a 6.7 or 5.9 cummins will live through 800 hp at 80ish percent duty. At least not with some wrenches and extra parts on the boat. However as soon as you got airborn and come back down I think you will have some issues, with any turbo'd diesel. Maybe a turbo over a supercharger? One large supercharger maybe? I am seeing turbos scattering and prop pieces flying in my mind, carnage is not good on land, I can't imagine the sinking gut feeling when no land is in sight.
 
Diesel Freak said:
unfortunately, with the fuel consumption he is looking to achieve, he may have to go to a larger power plant, and also spin it slower than he wants.

Higher compression can help...18:1 possibly 19:1.

Even with HPCR, diesel fuel can still only burn so fast, and in the smaller volume combustion chamber of a 5.9, there is a LOT of fuel to burn in a short time while making the projected 800 HP...800 is doable, but doing it with decent fuel consumption and getting the engine to hold together for "continuous use" is going to be the issue.
Click to expand...

Engine makers are conservative and for just cause, but, invariably, and because of various manufacturing considerations, rules, regulations and customer expectations their products are, invariably de-tuned/de-rated, and you can't blame them.

When you can remove the various manufacturing & environmental impediments to performance, you can get to the 'natural' hp pretty quickly. The trade off is, of course, it's a see-saw: you want more hp? you take less longevity.

Diesels operate by wind, and heat is the enemy of iron, so if you want to de-rate a diesel and make it live forever, the easiest way to do that is by choking, starving and limiting.

Remove that plenum intake from a B Cummins, and instantly you have found 100+ hp with no huge, immediate downside.

I am willing to buy premium parts & building techniques to enhance performance, and I am also accepting more, earlier, more costly fiddling with 'Maintenance Items.' :: shrug ::

HPCR is NOT what people think it is. see: see-saw, above. HPCR makes diesels more lovable. It is quieter and cleaner. It also uses more fuel, and cannot be fiddled b/c everything is to electrically intertwined, hence the popularity of all the several aggressively-named ECM-override&substitute boxes.

I have no idea what my final compression ratio will be, nor whether I will have 12 or 13mm injectors, but I'm satisfied I'll have 800 horses under harness, and the hay-bill will be reasonable. There is a substantial track record of IVECO/FPT/CUMMINS 6 & 8L engines in European offshore racing and in Military use, everywhere. Even hotted-up, they only drink gas - they don't guzzle it.

Just don't conflate mfr. 'Rating' and 'natural' hp/tq.
 
If you want to know, ask joefarmer about the zeus standalone ecm for the Cummins. No Bosch limitations there.

The biggest problem any B Cummins has is port size. Hence the need for high pressure in the intake.

Also look up turbolvr or his sponsor forum Crazy Carls Turbo. He has a well built supercharger/turbo setup. Instant pressurized intake might be helpful.
 
5.9 Cummins Fan said:
I honestly see no reason to not look deep into a DT466. If budget isn't really an issue, I see no reason it cannot be made lightweight. I don't think a 6.7 or 5.9 cummins will live through 800 hp at 80ish percent duty. At least not with some wrenches and extra parts on the boat. However as soon as you got airborn and come back down I think you will have some issues, with any turbo'd diesel. Maybe a turbo over a supercharger? One large supercharger maybe? I am seeing turbos scattering and prop pieces flying in my mind, carnage is not good on land, I can't imagine the sinking gut feeling when no land is in sight.
Click to expand...

I am looking into the 466, and waiting callbacks.

My (projected) build is full & pure mechanical and pretty-much bulletproof. Hopefully NO belts, and spares will be of the swap-out variety: injectors, emergency hp rubber jumper lines, spare P7100, water and fuel pumps, couple of Crescent wrenches :) ...

The throttleman's job is to pull back when airborne, and he will ALWAYS have blisters on the heel of his hand if seas are running. The right governor/rpm limiter helps, and I'm not there, yet. That will be solved in conjunction with the turbos. If I can carry 3-4-500 residual torque, even when turns are dropped, there won't be the big, breaking, bite, <shudder>

Superchargers are (basically) not allowed on diesels, and carry a pretty high class penalty on gas. Dunno why, but as the sun gets higher, UIM gets goofier on rules.
 
5.9 Cummins Fan said:
... If budget isn't really an issue, I see no reason it cannot be made lightweight. I don't think a 6.7 or 5.9 cummins will live through 800 hp at 80ish percent duty. ..
Click to expand...

Budget is always there, but, the check that hurts the very worst to write is the SECOND one to solve the same problem.

There are thousands of IVECO/FPT/Cummins in 24/7 balls-to-the-wall military applications, with few exceptions, incorrect TBO is not an issue.

Mine is a pretty conservative build, and there are a lot fewer things to go wrong. (besides, blowing BOTH engines is, truly, 'bad luck.')
 
dt466 or dt360 would make a stellar engine for this.

At such a high engine output, I think maybe a 2nd freshwater cooler for the oil would be essential, instead of the onboard engine oil cooler.
Maybe if you also run a coolant like evans, and run a much cooler thermostat.

Also, have you looked at any air cooled engines?
 
parkland said:
dt466 or dt360 would make a stellar engine for this.

At such a high engine output, I think maybe a 2nd freshwater cooler for the oil would be essential, instead of the onboard engine oil cooler.
Maybe if you also run a coolant like evans, and run a much cooler thermostat.

Also, have you looked at any air cooled engines?
Click to expand...

I think I would lean towards no thermostat.
 
parkland said:
dt466 or dt360 would make a stellar engine for this.

At such a high engine output, I think maybe a 2nd freshwater cooler for the oil would be essential, instead of the onboard engine oil cooler.
Maybe if you also run a coolant like evans, and run a much cooler thermostat.

Also, have you looked at any air cooled engines?
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. I have been reading abt IH and talking to builders and getting less ignorant as the sun got higher. The 466 is a sure 'possible.' The 360, not-so-much, it's a 5.9. & the only real (presumptive) advantage the DT466 has over a B Cummins is 7.3L v. 6.7L.

Building a 3000rpm 800-1000hp DT466 is absolutely more costly than a B Cummins, about 2x+. Cost is A factor, but is not THE factor.

A DT would be raw-water cooled, and no thermostat. HIGH exhaust water temp might be 140º-ish; oil temp is similarly related, that big cast iron crankcase is gone. Oil will be dry-sumped and run through a cold sea-water exchanger.

While marine demand is brutal on the one hand, OTOH it is a lot cooler.

Air-cooled diesels are small, and are not especially heavy-demand. STEYR makes an excellent one, but not for this. The Russians have a good one, used in some of their tanks, but parts are an issue (among other things).

I'm still trying to get the DT466 frames figured out across versions & iterations. I think I got it, but I am not real sure: basically there are three, yes? Small cam, Big cam and Roller cam?

The DT IS very subject to a Weight Watcher program, with both front and back covers replaceable with alloy, and I still cannot get over a CAST IRON crankcase.

Dunno. It is still part of the process.

I really wish Buck could get over his funding hurdles and have some production. Buck Marine Diesel SWEET idea - holes are 2L@, pick the number of holes you need. Oranutan-Proof.

Buck Diesel - 6 Cylinder - Single Cylinder Replaced - Under 8 Minutes - YouTube
 
dvst8r said:
That buck diesel is built like a small locomotive engine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I asked him if he got his spurs at Burlington Northern.

The single thing he does that most impresses me is that common-rail, gravity-operated cooling system. I'm pretty sure that is one of his patents, but it still makes me wonder why it took HIM to figure out something so elegantly simple.
 
9724VF350 said:
At that point look at a 40 series Detoit. 530 inch DT based engine.
Click to expand...

You are an incorrigibly sensible tout ... You and Eric Staab and Weston Merril.

Today Eric gave me an absolute EUREKA moment.

He opined that I had no brand-name loyalty (nor much knowledge of differences), that all I wanted was a non-breakable generic diesel that would run hard for several hundred hours and need no maintenance. ummm YEAH

Is that DDA-40 a re-badged DT530 8.7L, just a long-stroke 466; lower compression, shorter pistons and connrods an inch longer?

What (still) makes more sense to me than any named engine I have looked at yet, is that "Cummins B, 6.25L" ... 6.7 steel pistons on a 5.9 crank and rods. Build that into a disposable LSM Alloy block ... 1000 hp, 1000lbs, 2000hrs.

I HAVE to be missing something, somewhere. Why isn't this a crate engine?

{sigh}
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top