fyi:Jan 1, 1999! The "MAN diesel ALERT" Newsletter went on the Net & in Print.
PISTONFAIL
The main items in this first issue are:
1)The string of Proof-An irrefutable paper track confirms MAN Failures.
2)The Public Response-International reaction to Man marine engine piston
failures.
3)Owner Testimonials-It happened to them and to many others.
You may e-mail your request for a free copy of our 4 color MAN ALERT
Newsletter to
pisto...@aol.com
If you are in the marine industry and wish to distribute this Newsletter at
the upcoming Boat Shows or just to Mail them to your customers, please e-mail
me at: pisto...@aol.com
I was told at the Fort Lauderdale Boat show in Oct/Nov 98 by Pat Healy of
Viking Yachts that MAN was going to upgrade the pistons in 100 MAN engines.
Mind you they were not issuing a recall!
MAN has sold around 2000 engines in the USA since 1989. We have documented over
230 piston failures and the number still grows. And MAN upgrades 100 engines!
And they will take 18 months to upgrade these 100 engines. What is with their
dealer network that they need a year and a half to rebuild 100 engines?
And what about the hundreds of others?
And what about the ones that broke and were rebuilt at the owner's expense?
And what about the ones that broke again and once more were repaired at the
owner's expense?
Some people will never learn to be straight to the point. MAN told the public
in their various news releases that only 1.5% of all MAN engines had piston
failures. What they need to tell is what is the true % of MAN piston failures
in the D28 series of engines in the USA.! Viking and all the other
manufacturers of boats who have used these engines should tell you what % of
their boats with MAN engines have had piston failures. Out of about 1000 boats
with MAN engines in America, We have documented well over 130 boats that have
experienced piston failures. That is well over 1.5 % regardless of how you look
at it. So much for straight to the point!
Stay tuned. This is not over yet.
Over 238 MAN engine PISTON FAILURES! So much for German engineering!! The
number keeps growing (well over 200 now!). These failures took place in
6,8,10,12 cylinder models at 1000 hours or less!
GO TO : http://www.elalouf.com
for facts, lab reports, interesting and enlightning letters, picture album of
my 12 cylinder engine after it exploded violently at 1000 hours with the MAN
service representative on board.
Please note, in the last 90 days, I have received over 56,000 hits on my web
site. Because of this huge success, I have expanded my site. I have dug up an
incredible collection of signed documents. I promise you some enlightening
reading from an interesting cast of characters as well as dozens of
testimonials from Man
engine owners.
For your information, the case in Florida against the German Man Co. is not
over yet as Man would lead you to beleive. Florida Man did not accept
responsibility for my Man engines. They did not make them, they did not sell
them to me, therefore they are not responsible in Florida because of privity
laws. But in no way have they addressed the issue of the 200+ failures in
America that I have documented. In no way have they addressed the fact that
they kept selling these engines telling every one they were the best most
efficient, longest lasting engines on the market (10,000-20,000 hours before a
refit) when they knew for years they were having piston failures. These issues
are still in front of the Florida Court to be decided on a claim of
deceptive and unfair trade practices .
We also expect a class action suit to be filed soon in a northern court. We
will keep you informed.
BOAT BRANDS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED PISTON FAILURES
Group A (10 to 30 failures each)/
Viking Yachts, Ocean Yachts, Bay Marine, Bertram Yachts, Ricky Scarborough,
Hatteras.
Group B (4 to 7 failures each)/
Davis Yachts, Jim Smith, Shore Boat builders, Sunseeker, Berger yachts ,
Craig
Blackwell, Derektor yachts, Sportsman.
Group C ( 1to 3 failures each)/
American Yachts, Antago Yachts, Azimut yachts, B. C. Boats, Bahia, Black Fin,
Downeaster, Duffy & Duffy, Fairline Marine, Forbes, G & S Boats, Garlington,
Henriques, Heritage, Hi Tech, Leopard, Manely, Merrit, Mikelson, Monteray
Yachts,
Neptunus, Northcoast, Post, Revenge ,Riva , Starship, Versilcraft.
Several commercial vessels whose manufacturers will not be listed here
experienced 26 piston failures between them.
Please send us your experiences with MAN marine diesel engine piston failures:
Sion Elalouf
516-546-6871 FAX
pisto...@aol.com
Tell me, what reason was given for the piston upgrade? Mind you it is not a
recall!
What boat brands does it cover? Why only one hundred engines? Why 18 months to
upgrade 100 engines?Your help is appreciated and as you know, I keep my sources
confidential.
K Smith
Grow up, I suspect the only thing MAN (through their distributor)
have done wrong is allow a bunch of inexperienced customers to deceive
themselves about their use "rating" so they can buy a "cheap" engine.
I've watched your campain against MAN maybe for yrs now & feel,like
saying something, so possibly others might learn from YOUR mistake. (you
already know what I'm about to say, although I'm sure you'll continue to
deny it)
I'm not completely up to speed on your particular details, (no
matter really, this same story is reasonably common) but essentially your
complaint is that MAN have sold you large diesel engines, which have
suffered early piston failures, which you wish to blame on MAN.
I recall from the deep past that you're a ferry operator & that the
engines in question are large. (800HP)
Large diesel engines are very heavy, expensive & particularly with
the new generation of electronically controlled injection, they can within
reason be made to have a power output at whatever level the manufacturer
wishes.
They just increase the fuel, turbo boost, & cam/revs so; more fuel
more oxygen, more cam/revs. = more power BUT it also means more heat to be
gotten rid of only a little over 30% of the fuel's heat goes into power,
the rest goes out the exhaust or into the cooling system.
All the large manufacturers MAN, Cat., Cummins, etc. produce
various HP ratings virtually from the same engine. So one particular "line"
of engines might range in HP output from say 450HP to over 800HP & much
more, the differences being in the fuel/air/revs above, stronger pistons,
rods, bigger oil coolers etc. etc. but essentially the same engine.
All the big engine manufacturers have a "rating" system for their
motors, so when you buy an engine it needs to be not only the HP output you
need but also have that particular "output" within the correct rating.
There are various ratings for say 100% usage, i.e. 400HP continuous, then
down they come untill you get to pleasure craft ratings, which are very
light (under 20%) duty.
Cummins are really good, they only warrant their pleasure craft
rated engines for 2 yrs OR 600 hrs (that's only 300hrs/yr) and they
actually inspect the installation in commercial craft before they give any
warranty. Clearly were a commercial user trying to get "cheap HP" by buying
pleasurecraft rated Cummins, they would only get a 600 hr warranty, if any
at all, which would be a very bad commercial decision. Read the manual with
your high output Volvo diesel, you'll find it can only do the "rated"
power for a very short time in any one hour.
The problem the manufacturers have is that buyers always try to
under declare their usage type/rating, sometimes feigning ignorance but
more often knowingly so they don't need to spend as much money on a power
unit. Man "may" be a bit slack in allowing this, but it's the users
decision.
Most purchasers of big power units (read really big money) either
have the knowledge in house to correctly assess their "rating" requirements
or if not, the brains to employ someone who does, prior to purchase &
installation.
"Ferries" come in all sorts of configurations, but for "rating"
purposes it generally means very short runs between wharves etc., with a
reasonable rest at each one, then another & so on for a limited number of
hours a day. IF & I'm only guessing (but with some experience because I've
seen it here several times with these high speed cat hulled aluminium
"ferries") you have applied a "ferry" rating to your engine but then put it
in a boat that, whilst it's still technically "a ferry", is run at high
output for long periods, say over an hour at a time then you not MAN have
misrated the engine & you cleverly saved a lot of money & weight when
compared with what Cummins or Cat would even have let you do.... but now?
Your endless testimonials & engineers reports are not on point, so
what a PM says the piston melted, so would a Cummins, Cat. etc. etc. in
that misrated situation.
Do you really think other diesel manufacturers above would stand
idly by or very probably just quietly go out of business, whilst MAN
effectively said they have broken the rules of physics & got the holy grail
of diesels? of course not, but most importantly, Man haven't even claimed
same.
Karen.
Phoenix
briefly read over your web site, it looks like you filed suit, lost the case
and now want to retry the case in this newsgroup. Is this a correct
assumption or did I miss something?
--
--
Jim
"A piano is a piano is a piano" (Gertrude Steinway).
PISTONFAIL wrote in message
<19990219071159...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
Odiesta37
the MAN service report I read these engines were in a 1992 Sunseeker Express
Cruiser. These are marketed as expensive, high performance motoryachts.
Obviously the reason the manufacturer has powered with MAN's is the power to
weight ratio they deliver. Take a good look at all the evidfence. Copies of
memos, letters, service reports, etc.. These are not just from unhappy owners,
but more importantly from unhappy builders and repair centers that have noticed
an alarming trend in failures. Check out what the president of Viking yachts
had to say. I think this is alot more than one unhappy owner and is information
worth passing on.
Cap
K Smith
(i) No bill.
(ii) The original "MAN" whinger here a long time ago was a "ferry"
operator. (similar problems here have related to the new generation of high
speed aluminium "ferries")
(iii) I don't feel any better though about the boat manufacturers etc.,
they should know better & yes MAN should take a better interest in what
rating applications their customers, particularly boat manufacturers, put
their engines to. Cat. Cummins etc. certainly do & reflect it in their
warranties.
(iv) Again, unless MAN have made some still secret "breakthrough" as
regards diesel technology (probably would be patented therefore "public" &
it isn't) any boat manufacturer who accepts the spruiking of a salesperson
when making decisions about very expensive engines, is partly if not mostly
to blame for the outcome.
(v) This applies all the more to a boat manufacturer who is hanging
his/her reputation on the motor as much as the boat. A boat manufacturer
who supplies a boat with high performance which is reliant on an
incorrectly rated engine should supply the vessel with severe restrictions
on it's power usage (some are under 10% load factor & very low annual hrs),
which means potential owners might think twice before grabbing the highest
hp/lowest weight, for the lowest bucks. The boat manuf. don't do this of
course because it would cost them sales but then they have the temerity to
whinge, when one of their hapless owner runs it for say an hour or so at or
near full throttle & it fails, to blame the engine itself.
(vi) The experienced/knowledgable builder especially & even sometimes
the owner of large very expensive boats, either has the depth to properly
assess the rating requirements of their particular usage, the expected
usage of the vessel in a second life after resale & therefore the effect on
resale value, fuel consumption, performance, etc. etc. against the
manufacturers published material OR the brains to employ & pay for, someone
who does.
(vii) It's not as easy as just looking down the output HP column &
finding the cheapest, lightest engine with the highest number.
(viii) I get yelled at for generalisation but anything over 30hp/ltr &
under 10 lbs/hp will have a light duty cycle just to survive (read, gin
palaces, bow thrusters, very short run ferries etc.), let alone have a
reasonably long service life.
(ix) Some, marine diesels spruike figures up around 50hp/ltr & 4lbs/hp
(say 200hp 6 cyl. Volvo) which is getting up to & bettering petrol small
blocks, so why the surprise when they fail if run at anything like full
throttle/revs for extended periods of time. (Try to get over 1000 hrs out
of a small block at that usage)
Karen.
cap...@flash.net
>
> Cap,
>
> (i) No bill.
Yeah, but some pretty nifty pics of a blown engine. I'm not usre of what
significance "no bill" is.
> (ii) The original "MAN" whinger here a long time ago was a "ferry"
> operator. (similar problems here have related to the new generation of high
> speed aluminium "ferries")
that included a copy of the MAN service report which describes the
vessel in question as a Sunseeker M.Y..
> (iii) I don't feel any better though about the boat manufacturers etc.,
> they should know better & yes MAN should take a better interest in what
> rating applications their customers, particularly boat manufacturers, put
> their engines to. Cat. Cummins etc. certainly do & reflect it in their
> warranties.
engines and the only problem is the application of the engine where its
rating is exceeded. Are we to assume that owners of vessels with
Detroits, Cats, Cummins, etc. operate their boats more conservatively,
within their ratings, and this is the only reason we have not seen these
types of failures in those engines? Also, how do you know that the owner
of the Sunseeker, the five new Bertrams, the Vikings, the RCMP boats,
etc. were all operating their MAN engines beyond their ratings?
> regards diesel technology (probably would be patented therefore "public" &
> it isn't) any boat manufacturer who accepts the spruiking of a salesperson
> when making decisions about very expensive engines, is partly if not mostly
> to blame for the outcome.
>
> (v) This applies all the more to a boat manufacturer who is hanging
> his/her reputation on the motor as much as the boat. A boat manufacturer
> who supplies a boat with high performance which is reliant on an
> incorrectly rated engine should supply the vessel with severe restrictions
> on it's power usage (some are under 10% load factor & very low annual hrs),
> which means potential owners might think twice before grabbing the highest
> hp/lowest weight, for the lowest bucks. The boat manuf. don't do this of
> course because it would cost them sales but then they have the temerity to
> whinge, when one of their hapless owner runs it for say an hour or so at or
> near full throttle & it fails, to blame the engine itself.
>
> (vi) The experienced/knowledgable builder especially & even sometimes
> the owner of large very expensive boats, either has the depth to properly
> assess the rating requirements of their particular usage, the expected
> usage of the vessel in a second life after resale & therefore the effect on
> resale value, fuel consumption, performance, etc. etc. against the
> manufacturers published material OR the brains to employ & pay for, someone
> who does.
acting irresponsibly if they believe the manufacturer's claims nad
published specs. for their engines? The manufacturers representatives,
when they showed up at Bertram Yachts or Viking, should have told the
bulders what? Hey, we've got these german made high-performance engines
that are rated too high and will blow up if your buyers run them at WOT,
so how many can I put you down for? I think it's much more basic that
that Karen. Th builder is trying to compete with everyone else by
building the best performing boat while keeping costs down. He assumes
that MAN builds a good product and that if they say it will work in his
boats, and if the specs suggest the same, then using them would be a
prudent decision that may give his boats an edge over the competition.
Let's face it, Bertram, Viking, & Sunseeker represent the top of the
line builders, I don't think they were duped or misapplied MAN engines,
(not even MAN is suggesting this). I think it is more likely that
Bertram and Viking are right, there is a problem with these engines,
probably related the the manufacture of the pistons.
> (vii) It's not as easy as just looking down the output HP column &
> finding the cheapest, lightest engine with the highest number.
>
> (viii) I get yelled at for generalisation but anything over 30hp/ltr &
> under 10 lbs/hp will have a light duty cycle just to survive (read, gin
> palaces, bow thrusters, very short run ferries etc.), let alone have a
> reasonably long service life.
>
> (ix) Some, marine diesels spruike figures up around 50hp/ltr & 4lbs/hp
> (say 200hp 6 cyl. Volvo) which is getting up to & bettering petrol small
> blocks, so why the surprise when they fail if run at anything like full
> throttle/revs for extended periods of time. (Try to get over 1000 hrs out
> of a small block at that usage)
shorter its life will be. I don't know that you can attribute all these
failures to boats being run for extended periods of time at WOT.
Obviously you are basing this solely on outcome. The engine blew up
therefore they must be running them too long at WOT. That may account
for some of the failures, I don't know, but I don't think it explains
the failures of 5 engines in brand new Bertrams and two Vikings which
had yet to be delivered. Also, if you read all the evidence, you know
that the notes from MAN distributor meetings specifically addressed
their own concerns with these failures. So if the buyers thinks there is
a problem, the builders thinks there is a problem, the repair centers
think there is a problem, and the manufacturer's own distributors think
there is a problem....well, could just be that there is a problem with
MAN diesels. Radical thinking I know but even a german built diesel may
have a few bad components. I doubt this will change your opinion and my
assessment of the evidence remains unchanged but at least future buyers
will have the benefit of reviewing all of this and can make their own
informed decision. For that reason alone I encourage consumers to let us
hear their experiences with the various manufacturers in the marine
industry.
Cap
K Smith
>K Smith wrote:
>>
>> Cap,
>>
>> (i) No bill.
>Yeah, but some pretty nifty pics of a blown engine. I'm not usre of what
>significance "no bill" is.
Sorry Cap. language thing, here "no bill" means; I'll not argue
this because it might be right & it might not, but in the context of the
particular discussion it doesn't matter. It doesn't usually mean that I
agree what was said is correct, just don't care.
>Well, of course that assumes that there is nothing wrong with MAN
>engines and the only problem is the application of the engine where its
>rating is exceeded. Are we to assume that owners of vessels with
>Detroits, Cats, Cummins, etc. operate their boats more conservatively,
>within their ratings, and this is the only reason we have not seen these
>types of failures in those engines? Also, how do you know that the owner
>of the Sunseeker, the five new Bertrams, the Vikings, the RCMP boats,
>etc. were all operating their MAN engines beyond their ratings?
No contest (I agree as opposed to no bill), I don't know.
>So, in other words, the builders, the owners, the repair centers are
>acting irresponsibly if they believe the manufacturer's claims nad
>published specs. for their engines? The manufacturers representatives,
>when they showed up at Bertram Yachts or Viking, should have told the
>bulders what? Hey, we've got these german made high-performance engines
>that are rated too high and will blow up if your buyers run them at WOT,
>so how many can I put you down for? I think it's much more basic that
>that Karen. Th builder is trying to compete with everyone else by
>building the best performing boat while keeping costs down. He assumes
>that MAN builds a good product and that if they say it will work in his
>boats, and if the specs suggest the same, then using them would be a
>prudent decision that may give his boats an edge over the competition.
>Let's face it, Bertram, Viking, & Sunseeker represent the top of the
>line builders, I don't think they were duped or misapplied MAN engines,
>(not even MAN is suggesting this). I think it is more likely that
>Bertram and Viking are right, there is a problem with these engines,
>probably related the the manufacture of the pistons.
Well I agree MAN should not allow "their" reps to make false &/or
deceptive claims about the engines, but equally the boat builders were
confronted with an engine that was much higher power output/ltr (guessing
well over 40hp/ltr) & therefore had much better fuel consumption, was much
lighter (again guessing well under the norm 10lbs/hp) & much cheaper (won't
even guess).
Clearly this would give any boat builder a significant advantage in
the market place over another who was still using the normal lower output,
higher weight & dear, other brands.
A prudent big boat purchaser let alone an actual boat manufacturer
would have at least wondered; How come? What is so special about these
engines? Why doesn't or hasn't the whole world just changed over to these?
What will become of Cat. Cummins, GM, etc.
Even the most cursory enquiries, let alone getting an engineer to
assess the situation would have disclosed that such performance from
diesels is not uncommon, but is always confined to very low duty cycles.
Cummins make it easy, they just plain won't supply their high output
engines for commercial applications, they actually inspect the boat after
installation to see it's not overpropped etc & confirm the warranty in that
situation, Cat. are conservative & make it very clear that anything even
near 30hp/ltr is a light duty cycle engine, Volvo in the owners manual put
severe restrictions on how the engine is to be used (very short time at
power in any one hour) & I would think MAN publish similar info for their
engines. Do any of the manufacturers make a lot of noise about this? well
no; but any experienced big diesel (boat) user is well aware of the facts &
buy engines rated according to the proposed use.
Operating an engine outside it's rating is always easily determined
(melted pistons, valve problems etc. with little or no wear) & is treated
as operator abuse under the warranty.
The complainants through their engineers reports are virtually
arguing MAN's case for them. (see above) A manufacturing defect or a
faulty material (say a batch of aluminium) is clearly warrantable & some
very few sound like they fit that category, but an engine at say 1000hrs
suffering a melted piston is probably exactly as the reports say, it was
not designed nor constructed to be operated with that load for that
continuous period of time, with less than a certain amount of slow speed
running between power applications.
Nothing new, applies to most big diesels unless they're continuous
rated, but then they get really big, heavy & dear.
An intersting discussion; thanks.
Karen.