Volvo vs Yanmar
H.V. Broese van Groenou
I need to specify an engine for my new boat. A Volvo Penta MD22P is
suggested (57hp). I have heard that Yanmar has surpassed Volvo in quality
and an alternative would be a Yanmar 4JH2-TE (63hp). Any thoughts on the
brands in general or these engines specifically? Thanks for your help.
Leonard BVG
lbr...@xix.prestel.co.uk
Lee Mairs
Yanmar now has about 80% of the small diesel engine market. They support
their product with relatively inexpensive spares. Volvo spares are only
delivered via armored truck!
I have a Yanmar 4JH2, the naturally aspirated version of the alternative
you are considering. It has run flawlessly for 4 seasons now.
Lee Mairs
Security Marine Services
Its Mingo
I would have to agree with Lee. We had a Volvo 2002 in our Beneteau 325 which
ran flawlessly for the 7 years we had the boat. But I just cringed at the
thought of it ever needing parts or service as my experience with their $20 oil
filters taught me (I found the Fram equivalent after the first season). I
suspect parts and certified technicians are much more widely available for the
Yanmar.
However, our Volvo never so much as hiccupped and it was a pretty cool looking
key to have on your key chain. Also, a slip neighbor had a Yanmar that
mysteriously started running only at idle or full throttle and it took the
mechanic 2 months of time and material to not find the problem. I'll find out
this spring if they ever got it solved or not.
The above situation aside, my feeling is that as long as the Volvo doesn't
break, it's an awesome diesel. But if you're going to eventually need service,
the Yanmar is probably more readily and cost effectively serviced.
Beek
I've had both. In my experience the Yanmar is much more dependable and when
it does break, the parts are a lot less expensive.
Lynn Lodge
Beek wrote:
>
> I've had both. In my experience the Yanmar is much more dependable and when
> it does break, the parts are a lot less expensive.
We've had both - neither have broken. Found the Volvo slightly smoother
though
--
Lynn Lodge
http://www.marinestore.co.uk/marine
Tel: +44(0) 162 185 4280 - Fax: +44(0) 124 532 0073
Aerts
Well my experience with Volvo sure was an unpleasant experience. Aggravating
would be an understatement. Try $1700.00 for a fuel pump. Two months to
deliver the wrong parts ( I live in Canada..they had to get them from
Europe). Condescending and down right Rude parts people. I wouldn't want to
have to deal with them if I was in a foreign port! After 6 months of torture
and still no parts...I pulled the Volvo Diesel and purchased a Yanmar.
Wow!... parts within a day if needed. Service was great! The engine (3GM30)
arrived on time with all the gear I needed. It has run flawlessly ever
since..is 150lbs lighter and 10hp bigger. I will never have a Volvo engine
again. I don't often go out of my way to slam a product...but Volvo really
went out of their way to make sure I could do it with a clear conscience. Go
with the Yanmar and don't look back...you will be making the right choice.
Volvo may have been the engine of choice years ago...but I find a company
that does not offer aftermarket support and insults their customers will
never see my business again. Good Luck!
Its Mingo wrote in message
<199804030256...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Its Mingo
I liken the Volvo to a fine Swiss (Swedish?) watch. Nothing runs smoother. We
had to run ours as long as 18 hours straight and it didn't know the difference.
I was just glad it never broke, because we would have paid royally.
Steve Danaher
I beg to differ regading the capabilites of the Volvo powerplant.
Most cruisers who have lived with a Volvo have learned to hate it and
the Volvo company. The early Volvo's had many design flaws, were in
general quite primitive, and had exorbitant prices for repair prices.
The newer 2002. 2003, and 2004 engines are smooth engines, but have
had some reliability problems. Volvo has since given up on that line
of engines and now uses Perkins engines for their auxiliary power.
This new line of Perkins/Volvo engines is a Japanese engine, of which
Perkins bought the entire plant and apparently transported it to
England! Personally, I like the way the old, slow Volvo engines
sounded, but have been mystified by some extremely serious design
flaws.
---Steve Danaher
Pacific Marine Engineering
Bob Richardson
The subject "Volvo vs Yanmar" implies that there is some sort of choice
between these two, AND that perhaps, these are the two best engines.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Volvo, UNQUESTIONABLY is the
WORST marine engine for a cruising sailboat. Whatever is the next worst
engine is so much better than Volvo that it's not fair to include their
name in the same sentence. They have earned their reputation the hard way,
one totally disgusted owner at a time.
The legend of unhappy Volvo owners has been played over and over in this
group, and, unfortuantely, will continue to be until the last Volvo engine
has been yanked out of the last sailboat, and has been replaced by
anything. Of course there's a Volvo engine that's running fine now, and has
given decent service to a sailboat or two, but the number of Volvo owners
who are very unhappy with their diesel is quite large.
Yanmar is a very good marine diesel engine, but there are other good ones
too.
Charles House
Steve Danaher wrote:
>
> I beg to differ regading the capabilites of the Volvo powerplant.
> Most cruisers who have lived with a Volvo have learned to hate it and
> the Volvo company. The early Volvo's had many design flaws, were in
> general quite primitive, and had exorbitant prices for repair prices.
This thread is fairly correct in suggesting that Volvo parts are
ridiculously expensive, customer support sucks, and all that. But
entirely wrong in suggesting the engines are not of good quality. Mine
has been absolutely flawless for six + years and seems to be in as good
condition now (after countless hours) as the day I installed it. The
good news/bad news aspect of the parts problems is that you don't often
need parts, at least with the older (MD 11C etc.) models.
So there.
-- Charles (Volvo love/hate relationship) House
Steve Danaher
Oh, I like the quality of the older Volvo's, but some of the
engineering is extremely poor. For example, for many, many years when
the seal in the salt water pump went out, salt water was pumped into
the engine. If the owner caught the problem quickly, not too much
damage occured. But if he didn't, the engine soon turned into a hunk
of frozen cast iron. How many older Volvo engines died this way, I
dont't know, but I would guess it is in the thousands (worldwide).
Eventually they corrected the problem, but no other manufacturers had
that problem. Here in San Francisco bay, one can always tell which
Westsail 32's have Volvo engines. They are the ones with black smoke
being pumped out the transom.
As to parts and service, there is a local dealer who is quite
responsive.
Kim Coleman
Love hate is the best description...
My Volvo TMD40 is a gem, a quality machine, very pleased with it's
performance and smoke free operation, BUT.... if I had the choice I
would NEVER buy a Volvo because of the price gouging cost of parts (not
the mechanics fault).
I have a great mechanic in SF and my Volvo runs like a Swiss watch, but
I know that when it needs parts.....bend over...........
Anders Svensson
Its Mingo <itsm...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<199804040159...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> I liken the Volvo to a fine Swiss (Swedish?) watch. Nothing runs
smoother. We
> had to run ours as long as 18 hours straight and it didn't know the
difference.
> I was just glad it never broke, because we would have paid royally.
The Volvo engines have a mixed reputation over here to, especially price of
spares. There's no question in my mind that Volvo is a good marine setup as
long as the engine works OK. The gearbox/S-drive/sterndrives are more or
less bullet proof and that is about half of this subsystem. There is
nothing in paricular wrong with the Volvo engines, but they are as
vulnerable as any other for fuel pump corrosion from water in the fuel, bad
maintenance and general neglect. If you plan on doing repairs when
necessary in exchange for doing regular and thorough maintenence, the Volvo
is probably not for you.
(This is, BTW, not a sarcasm, but a truism - many users of mechancal
eqipment factor in the cost in for maintenance vs replacing in the future
and sometimes find the best total economy in different strategies here)
If and when spare parts are needed, delivery time and price most probably
will be worse than for Yanmar - mostly because the Yanmar is sold in
large(r) numbers and can share the fixed costs for spare part keeping over
many more sold units.
Volvo have now gone the way of many others, and sources their base engines
from a japanese company, same as Perkins, BTW. With regard to spare part
availability this may make a difference over time, but given Volvos quality
and reliability, spare parts will not (and should not) be low price because
of them being a volume product. That maintenance parts like filters and
belts are expensive is true over here too.
Anders
Bryon Kass
Bob Richardson wrote:
> The legend of unhappy Volvo owners has been played over and over in this
> group, and, unfortuantely, will continue to be until the last Volvo engine
> has been yanked out of the last sailboat, and has been replaced by
> anything. Of course there's a Volvo engine that's running fine now, and has
> given decent service to a sailboat or two, but the number of Volvo owners
> who are very unhappy with their diesel is quite large.
>
> Yanmar is a very good marine diesel engine, but there are other good ones
> too.
Lister,
and more. For detailed info on many of the available diesels for marine
propulsion please feel free to ask us.
Bryon Kass
webmaster and
Custom Design
150 Mechanic St.
Foxboro, MA 02035
508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127 yard 508-384-2415
in THE ENGINE ROOM http://home.ici.net/~cusdn
Bryon Kass
We have experience with the Japanese Perkins on land based products
and have found them to be badly designed. The internals do not hold
up under severe use and the other components are no great shakes.
For example we have seen welder/gens with these engines that do not
last more than 2000hrs or so. They throw rods out the side for a nice
internal view. The injection system is a joke where the main fuel
rack is aluminum. The use of the camshaft to actuate the plungers is
a cheap way out. The oil pump is too slow on startup to effectively
keep the engine together. All in all for light duty use they should
be OK but as an industrial engine they suck. On the other hand I have
seen Isuzu diesels go 30,000hrs in truck reefers as do Kubota diesels.
Bryon Kass
webmaster and
Custom Design
150 Mechanic St.
Foxboro, MA 02035
508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127 yard 508-384-2415
in THE ENGINE ROOM http://home.ici.net/~cusdn
>
> I beg to differ regading the capabilites of the Volvo powerplant.
> Most cruisers who have lived with a Volvo have learned to hate it and
> the Volvo company. The early Volvo's had many design flaws, were in
> general quite primitive, and had exorbitant prices for repair prices.
>
> had some reliability problems. Volvo has since given up on that line
> of engines and now uses Perkins engines for their auxiliary power.
> This new line of Perkins/Volvo engines is a Japanese engine, of which
> Perkins bought the entire plant and apparently transported it to
> England! Personally, I like the way the old, slow Volvo engines
> sounded, but have been mystified by some extremely serious design
> flaws.
>
> Pacific Marine Engineering
>
Anders Svensson
This is IMO (not actually defending Volvo in particular) a sign of the
current price/performance/longevity emphasis people put on a lot of
equipment - not only for boats. A low cost solution that will stand up to
2000 hours of use may last for -say - 10 years in a marine auxillary engine
application - wich is a fairly long time , probably making the original
owner completely unaware or troubled with any longevity problems -
certainly enough for the builder to avoid any guarantee trouble.
If the life expectancy of the engine is 2000 hours (that is quite
reasonable for a modern aux diesel, IMHO - often built on an automotive
power source and working close to its maximum power specifications in a
boat application), it may make more sense to make that engine consistently
designed and with components designed to last the designed life period,
just.
In that way everybody is happy because there will be few (if any) repairs
until it is time to replace the engine completely and the service schedules
can be made in accordance with the designed life span. If generators,
injection pumps, injectors, exhaust header, heat exchanger, pumps and
starter motors are worn out after say 2-3000 hours, a engine block that
hangs in for maybe 10.000 more hours is of no great value.
If you want to find a suitable VLL (Very Long Life :-)) engine, go look for
the engines that are used for fishing boats, pilot launches and workboats -
the fairly light Yanmar/newer Volvo/Perkins kind of engines are not built
(or priced) to last. Prepare yourself for paying a fair amount of money
for maintaining it (high quality and price maintenance parts) and you may
end up with an engine that is cheaper in the long run, but maybe not much.
Anders
Bryon Kass <cu...@ici.net> wrote...
> We have experience with the Japanese Perkins on land based products
> and have found them to be badly designed. The internals do not hold
> up under severe use and the other components are no great shakes...
John Hapgood
On 5 Apr 1998 18:19:17 GMT, "Anders Svensson"
>the engines that are used for fishing boats, pilot launches and workboats -
>the fairly light Yanmar/newer Volvo/Perkins kind of engines are not built
>(or priced) to last. Prepare yourself for paying a fair amount of money
>for maintaining it (high quality and price maintenance parts) and you may
>end up with an engine that is cheaper in the long run, but maybe not much.
>
I don't have time to look at all the fishing boats, pilot launches and workboats
in the Los Angeles Harbor/Long Beach area. I dought if any of them use 16hp
engines anyway <GRIN>
-
My Real Address is:
____ _
| __\_\_o____/_|
<[___\_\_-----<----------<jhap...@ix.netcom.com><
| o'
Bob Richardson
Anders Svensson <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote in article
<01bd60be$a1bb47a0$LocalHost@zrkciqaa>...
> This is IMO (not actually defending Volvo in particular) a sign of the
> current price/performance/longevity emphasis people put on a lot of
> equipment - not only for boats. A low cost solution that will stand up to
> 2000 hours of use may last for -say - 10 years in a marine auxillary
engine
> application - wich is a fairly long time , probably making the original
> owner completely unaware or troubled with any longevity problems -
> certainly enough for the builder to avoid any guarantee trouble.
[snip]
This post tries, very hard, to imply that Volvo makes an marine auxillary
engine that won't have "longevity problems". The argument about making a
product for the marine industry that is designed to last only a few years,
with minimal service, is very valid. For example, I've seen a letter from
Magma that said their BBQ was designed to last about 2-3 years for the
typical weekend sailor (max 10 BBQ's per year). Can you believe, spending
$150+ for a gas grill that's good for 20-30 meals!!!
When it comes to Volvo and longevity problems, you've hit the nail on the
head. An old Volvo is one with 2000 hours on it. Heavy <> durability.
Anders Svensson
Bob Richardson <bo...@whidbey.com> skrev i inlägg
<01bd616b$36524c40$7b355ecc@bobr>...
>
>
> Anders Svensson <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote in article
> <01bd60be$a1bb47a0$LocalHost@zrkciqaa>...
> > This is IMO (not actually defending Volvo in particular) a sign of the
> > current price/performance/longevity emphasis people put on a lot of
> > equipment - not only for boats. A low cost solution that will stand up
to
> > 2000 hours of use may last for -say - 10 years in a marine auxillary
> engine
> > application - wich is a fairly long time , probably making the original
> > owner completely unaware or troubled with any longevity problems -
> > certainly enough for the builder to avoid any guarantee trouble.
>
> [snip]
>
> This post tries, very hard, to imply that Volvo makes an marine auxillary
> engine that won't have "longevity problems".
I am not shure what you mean by that.
Volvo is a engine like most other small boat diesels. I don't know if it is
worst - I just know that they sell a lot of expensive engines over and over
again - so they maybe at least are doing *something* right... :-)
Since leaving the reliable old Penta MD line behind, and going for the
modern line of the 2000 series engines, they are no better (nor worse) than
comparable engines.
> The argument about making a
> product for the marine industry that is designed to last only a few
years,
> with minimal service, is very valid. For example, I've seen a letter from
> Magma that said their BBQ was designed to last about 2-3 years for the
> typical weekend sailor (max 10 BBQ's per year). Can you believe, spending
> $150+ for a gas grill that's good for 20-30 meals!!!
> When it comes to Volvo and longevity problems, you've hit the nail on the
> head. An old Volvo is one with 2000 hours on it. Heavy <> durability.
Actually, what I said was that the customer probably won't have any need
for a engine block that stand up to 10.000 hours if all the ancillary
components have a lifelenght of 1500 to 2000 hours. All small boat engines
will deteriorate over time, too - not only use.
You must, ofcourse compare like with like - the big Volvo diesels are a
different kind altogether, and IMHO, quite good.
ite...@myna.com
On 6 Apr 1998 18:07:10 GMT, "Anders Svensson"
<andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Since leaving the reliable old Penta MD line behind, and going for the
>modern line of the 2000 series engines, they are no better (nor worse) than
>comparable engines.
>
The 2000 series engines were some of the worst diesels ever made!!
Ask Volvo why they discontinued the line after a relatively short run.
I replaced my 2003 with a Yanmar 3GM30F and vowed never to buy a boat
with a Volvo engine in it again.
Rick Itenson
La Belle Aurore
Toronto
Armond Perretta
> ite...@myna.com wrote: The 2000 series engines were some of the worst
diesels ever made!! Ask Volvo why they discontinued the line after a
relatively short run.
I'm on my second Volvo (in the same boat) but I would not call myself a
Volvo stalwart. Nonetheless, the writer's assertion requires a response.
The reason the 2000 series was discontinued has nothing to do with either
engineering or performance. A legal and commercial dispute between Volvo
and a major customer of the 2000 series arose. Rather than relocate
manufacturing or limit production to an uneconomic level, Volvo discontinued
the series. This does not mean that the Volvo line is otherwise perfect,
but it also does not mean that opinion can be substituted for fact.
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8620
Anders Svensson
John Hapgood <jhap...@Spam-Buster.ix.netcom.com> wrote...
> OK - So who makes a "Very Long Life" 16 - 30hp diesel?
>
> I don't have time to look at all the fishing boats, pilot launches and
workboats
> in the Los Angeles Harbor/Long Beach area. I dought if any of them use
16hp
> engines anyway <GRIN>
In that case: Go get a 50 HP engine - in that way you are getting a true
long life 30 HP engine. Similarly, if you think you need a 16 HP, get a 24
HP model. Put an hour meter on it and follow service intervals rigorously -
get a service manual (or even a repair manual).
Change oil every third month, or after 100 engine hours - wichever comes
first (that is every four days when running around the clock).
Pay extra for a better (additional) fuel filter setup and CHANGE these
filters. Drain the tank two or four times a year so water won't enter.
Either run your engine twice a week for at least an hour even under the off
season or preserve it according to the book.
Heck, even Volvos will survive under a regime like this... :-)
Anders
John Hapgood
I guess my 16 hp Yanmar ought to last about 30 years then since the original
Atomic 4 lasted 40 years and was still going strong when I pulled it out even
though it was grossly over proped. I figure I realy only need 10 - 12 HP for a
24' water line hull. (I hope)
Anyway, 50 HP is a bit much for me
On 7 Apr 1998 11:00:31 GMT, "Anders Svensson"
<andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
-
Anders Svensson
As long as you care for it the way I suggested, it will almost certainly
last for 30 years.
I have a (babyed) 27 year old British BMC Captain diesel in my boat - and I
expect it to last another three, at least... This engine, BTW still has
its original *Lucas* starter...
To digress further on my reasoning, this engine is rated for about 55-60 HP
in its London Cab original version, is used in generator sets and various
marinizations. When in "Captain's uniform", it is rated for 30 HP
continous, 38 HP max, for one hour only. I use about 8-10 HP at 5.5-6 knots
(2-2.5 liter/4-6 quarts per hour) for most of the time - that being the
mean consumption the last four or five years.
That low power load will give it almost indefinite life - corrosion and
general aging will be the eventual reason for scrapping it, not actual wear
- barring some neglect oriented mishap, ofcourse.
Anders
Lee Mairs
>But I just cringed at the
>thought of it ever needing parts or service as my experience with their
$20 oil
>filters taught me (I found the Fram equivalent after the first season).
marinized diesel engines regulate oil pressure after the oil filter. The
generic filters are not designed to withstand the higher oil pressures. I
know of several cases where the filter imploded blocking oil flow. Net
result is usually the $14,000 spare parts kit!
Bryon Kass
It is against federal warrantee law to restrict consumers to
OEM filters. This is how these companies certified their products
for the marketplace. Fram and Wix sell the best filters on the
market. We use them on everything because they are readily
available. To buy $20 filters for any engine where an equivalent
Fram or Wix is available for 1/4-1/2 the cost is ludicrous.
If you read the Fram master catalog they indicate the type
or flow for each engine application. To suggest that these filters
will not work is wrong.
webmaster and
Custom Design
150 Mechanic St.
Foxboro, MA 02035
508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127 yard 508-384-2415
in THE ENGINE ROOM http://home.ici.net/~cusdn
Jean Somerhausen
liters is half an imperial gallon (otherwise said, 2 quarts) or .6 US
gallons (two quarts and a bit).
John
Anders Svensson
I think the question stems from the fact that many filters will fit, even
if they are different inside, as the gasket diameter and thread are similar
for a lot of applications. It is therefore tempting for parts stores to
keep jus a few of the most popular filters in stock, and sell the one that
will fit the mounting plate.
Filters may have overflow valves and/or non return valves incorporated, and
depending on application and engine type these may be differently set, need
both, any or none. Other variations are gasket diameter, stub thread, stub
length, volume, length, and width - all essential parameters for some or
many applications. Sometimes filter material and porosity also differs -
all adding up to a tremendous variety.
You need to look for an exact replacement, as verified by the filter
manufacturer. Their master catalogs are very detailed and have most engines
in them. If you verify the exact type of engine and filter, you will most
probably be safe. Fram is AFAIK a perfectly good make.
Anders
Bryon Kass <cu...@ici.net> skrev i inlägg <352AC9...@ici.net>...
James W. Hebert
In article <01bd625a$37546b60$587bf482@zrkciqaa>, "Anders Svensson"
<andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> To digress further on my reasoning, this engine is rated for about 55-60 HP
> in its London Cab original version, is used in generator sets and various
> marinizations. When in "Captain's uniform", it is rated for 30 HP
> continous, 38 HP max, for one hour only. I use about 8-10 HP at 5.5-6 knots
> (2-2.5 liter/4-6 quarts per hour) for most of the time - that being the
> mean consumption the last four or five years.
This raises a question I have had for a while:
Does the "one-hour" rating of certain engines mean:
1. One hour of operation at this speed/HP during
the life of the engine (then never again).
-or-
2. One hour of operation at this speed/HP,
followed by operation at a lower output
for some period of time, after which
the higher output rating can be resumed.
--jim
Jim Hebert, K8SS | Virtual Cruise of Lake Huron's
Beverly Hills, Michigan | NORTH CHANNEL
ji...@w8hd.org | http://tango.w8hd.org
Anders Svensson
The second alternative is probably the most correct assumption. The power
output from this diesel is quoted at 3000 RPM and 3500 RPM, low respective
high. I translate the one hour limit to mean that if it is ran for more
than one hour like that wear and tear will go way up. Another way of
translating these numbers are that thet the power is there if you need it,
but don't plan on using it often. Ships engines are often rated for a
nominal 100 % and can deliver much more for a considerable time.
Anders
James W. Hebert <ji...@w8hd.org> skrev i inlägg
<jimh-08049...@hotel.w8hd.org>...
Anders Svensson
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> A slight mistake in your liters to gallons conversion, Anders. 2.25
> liters is half an imperial gallon (otherwise said, 2 quarts) or .6 US
> gallons (two quarts and a bit).
> John
Yiks... My metric-imperial-US conversions certainly stink ! This is not the
first time.
Or... Make sure brain is connected before engaging the keyboard...
Thanks, John - the metric values are *correct*...
Anders (metric)
Aerts
YES!!! I Agree with this guy!
ite...@myna.com wrote in message <352939a1...@news.myna.com>...
>snip
...vowed never to buy a boat with a Volvo engine in it again.