Auto Engines in Marine Use
Glenn Scherer
I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
The point in contention is whether or not auto engines can survive
at the 75 to 100 percent power settings typically used in aviation
applications. It was pointed out that these power settings are
also routine in marine applications, many of which use auto engines
as powerplants. There doesn't seem to be much marine experience in
the aviation group's particicpants, so I'm hoping you can help us
with this.
I am particularly interested in the Ford 3.8 V6, the Chevy 4.3 V6,
and the Chevy 5.7 V8. Please be as specific as you can, i.e.,
Engine A, rated at B horsepower lasted for C hours over D years,
and failed due to problem E. Any info about how these engines are
beefed up for marine use will also be appreciated.
As a baseline, a typical light airplane engine is expected to last
about 2,000 hours, IF it is properly maintained, and IF it is run
regularly, i.e. 3-5 times a week. I am interested in ALL experience,
good or bad.
I realize that this is probably off-topic for this group, so please
email any information to Glenn_...@nt.com.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give us.
Glenn
Wayne Beardsley
Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>The point in contention is whether or not auto engines can survive
>at the 75 to 100 percent power settings typically used in aviation
>applications. It was pointed out that these power settings are
>also routine in marine applications, many of which use auto engines
>as powerplants. There doesn't seem to be much marine experience in
>the aviation group's particicpants, so I'm hoping you can help us
>with this.
I don't have any information on specific engines, but I've been told
that 800 to 1,000 hours in a marine application is about the best that
can be expected. Also, many if not most, marine applications
are using dual engines.
I'd be more concerned about reliabilty than longevity however. The
price of failure is generally a liitle higher at 5,000 feet than it is
at sea level. It's probably next to impossible to get accurate
statistics on probability of premature failure, but I see lots of
empirical evidence every day that automobile engines pretty
frequently. Many, if not most, marine applications
are using dual engines.
If I HAD to pick an automobile engine to fly with, I'd certainly
lean towards a Toyota or Honda for reliability reasons.
mark harper
Some years ago, I and an engineer friend of mine at Ford had a similar
discussion. His argument was that automobile engines fair better in the
constant RPM running enviroments of marine use. His point was that the
majority of wear and part destruction happens as a result of the rapid and
constant change in RPM and power output/demand; changes in velocity, angular
momentum, and force vectors. Also, marine engines aren't started as often as
automobile engines and, as we have been told by "Slick 50", most of engine
wear happens in cranking the engine. I have another friend (not an engineer)
that has used Volkswagen Rabbit diesels in many boats and has been quite
happy with the performance.
Mark Harper
Wayne Beardsley
Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
>expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
>marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
>information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
>about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
I don't have any information on specific engines, but I've been told
that 800 to 1,000 hours in a marine application is about the best that
can be expected.
I'd be more concerned about reliabilty than longevity however. The
price of failure is generally a liitle higher at 5,000 feet than it is
at sea level. It's probably next to impossible to get accurate
statistics on probability of premature failure, but I see lots of
empirical evidence every day that automobile engines fail very
frequently at inopportune times. Many, if not most, marine
Rocky
Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
>expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
>marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
>information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
>about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
>
>at the 75 to 100 percent power settings typically used in aviation
>applications. It was pointed out that these power settings are
>also routine in marine applications, many of which use auto engines
>as powerplants. There doesn't seem to be much marine experience in
>the aviation group's particicpants, so I'm hoping you can help us
>with this.
>
>and the Chevy 5.7 V8. Please be as specific as you can, i.e.,
>Engine A, rated at B horsepower lasted for C hours over D years,
>and failed due to problem E. Any info about how these engines are
>beefed up for marine use will also be appreciated.
I'm sorry I can't provide you with particulars on the above engines but I
can tell you from my experience building engines at the local performance
shop that the major mods. are a "marine" camshaft designed to optimize
performance based on the constant load the engine is placed under. The
cooling manifolds, which would not apply for aeronautic apps. Carb. flame
arrestors.
>
>As a baseline, a typical light airplane engine is expected to last
>about 2,000 hours, IF it is properly maintained, and IF it is run
>regularly, i.e. 3-5 times a week. I am interested in ALL experience,
>good or bad.
While it's true that a major source of wear in most auto engines occurs
during cold starts (less oil in the cylinders at this time, if very cold
the extra gas given by chokes (showing my age here) or fuel inj. metering
also "washes" oil off the cyl.walls. In a performance car or marine engine
the components are subjected to loads only occasionally seen in street
engines (e.g. pulling out onto highway or passing situations).
Whereas in performance cars w the driver has a heavy foot or marine
applications, in which the engine experiences loads like an car constantly
going uphill; the components wear out faster. How much faster is a
question of degree. i.e. running at 80% max load, etc. The "stronger" I
built my engines (of the same cu. in.) the faster they'd need a rebuild.
Remember a car engine uses up a mere 15-30 hp to maintain 60mph. A small
percentage of its designed hp rating.
It's not the exact answer your looking for but I hope it helps.
Good luck.
Rocky
Russ Bullock
All this talk about automotive engines being used for only the first
10-20% of power capacity makes me yern for another stint on the German
autobahn. Those Germans definitely use a large portion of available
power from their cars. Is there any difference in longevity or
dependability between the US and Europe?
--
Russ Bullock - b...@hpcc.epa.gov - North Carolina, USA
1980 924 Turbo (a.k.a. POR$CHE 931)
- In God We Trust, all others pay cash.
Joel Garry
In article <4os04q$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> way...@pipeline.com (Wayne Beardsley) writes:
>Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>
>>I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
>>expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
>>marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
>>information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
>>about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
>
>that 800 to 1,000 hours in a marine application is about the best that
>can be expected.
>
>I'd be more concerned about reliabilty than longevity however. The
>price of failure is generally a liitle higher at 5,000 feet than it is
>at sea level. It's probably next to impossible to get accurate
>statistics on probability of premature failure, but I see lots of
>empirical evidence every day that automobile engines fail very
>frequently at inopportune times. Many, if not most, marine
>applications are using dual engines.
>
>If I HAD to pick an automobile engine to fly with, I'd certainly
>lean towards a Toyota or Honda for reliability reasons.
>
>
>
>
life and better reliability. My Lincoln has 205,000 mi, engine never
been opened, still going strong, passing pollution testing with
flying colors. Aluminum & FI gives good mileage, too. The
electrics, on the other hand...
--
Joel Garry joe...@rossinc.com Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc. <> <>
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push. \ V /
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes... O
PEJacobsen
In article <31AE73...@nt.com>, Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com>
writes:
>As a baseline, a typical light airplane engine is expected to last
>about 2,000 hours, IF it is properly maintained, and IF it is run
>regularly, i.e. 3-5 times a week. I am interested in ALL experience,
>good or bad.
At 2,000 hour the cost of rebuilding an aircraft engine to airworthy specs
is astronmical.
(This is why marginal airplane engines end up doing fine on airboats.)
The cost of 800 hours on a converted auto engine is much less per hour
than an aircraft engine.
I would feel confident flying a converted auto engine as long as oil
analysis and compression checks had good things to tell me.
The problem is that a 6' prop has a redline of about 2,500 rpm due to tip
speed approaching 70% of the speed of sound. A 2,500 rpm auto engine
isn't developing much hp.
This leads to speed reduction methods:
Planetary gearing - mucho bucks
Belt driven - chain driven: short belt life due to the prop feeding back
vibes. Best to use a wooden prop in this combination because wood doesn't
feed back into the drive like metal does.
Spur gearing: Big bucks again, also the vibration problem.
The reduction method that has stood the test of time is planetary gearing.
Direct attachment of the prop has been used for years in Model A, VW, and
Corvair engine conversions. Problem is the prop applies gyroscopic forces
to a thrust bearing which was never designed for it. Legend is that
Model A crankshaft bearings were only good for 500 hours.
High power settings for 800 hours? Probably last. Reduction gearing?
The EAA guys have been fighting this battle for decades and the converted
auto engines are NOT sweeping thru aviation.
Couple more problems include dual ignition, radiator placement, hose
routing, installing a constant speed (variable pitch) prop onto a
reduction arrangement.
Sounds to me like you're looking for a simple answer to a complicated
question.
E.C. Freshwaters
Kevin
>
> Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I HAD to pick an automobile engine to fly with, I'd certainly
> lean towards a Toyota or Honda for reliability reasons.
It turns out that the Subaru line of engines, Legacy, EA-81, and EA-82,
have become the engine of choice for homebuilt aircraft use. They are
vary reliable, smooth, and quiet.
There are several companys selling fire wall forward kits for aircraft.
Kevin
PS Beware of Paul Lamar. If he hears of theis discussion he'll be on here
to tell us why we can't do this.
Lance Neves
I am a boat systems mechanic, certified in OMC, Mercury, ect. Just a note
on Slick 50 it is a farce it cannot survive in the temperatures
experienced in four stroke motors. It breaks down into a plastic and is
completly usless just thought youd like to know. I recieved this
information from a chemist. He stated PTFE the miricale used Slick 50
could not survive the above mentioned temperatures. Have a good one.
----------On Saturday, June 01, 1996, mark harper wrote...
Craig Wall
In article <31AE73...@nt.com>, Glenn_...@nt.com says...
| There doesn't seem to be much marine experience in
>the aviation group's particicpants,
Heh heh heh.... I'm building my 39th boat right now,
Glenn.
Craig Wall
Glenn Scherer
Will it have an engine, or are you a sailor?
Glenn
Craig Wall
In article <31B711...@nt.com>, Glenn_...@nt.com says...
These days I'm mostly building prams, with an occasional small sport
racing hydro. I have come to prefer rowing when I get the chance,
but I own a 22ft MacGregor masthead sloop and part of a 21ft Four Winns
with a Ford V-8 I/O. Not to mention about a dozen or so assorted
canoes, rowing shells, sailing dinghys, and an underwater towed "aqua-
glider".
I may get around to a true submarine before it's all over....
Craig (oh, yeah- and I'll probably put one of the
gyros on floats, too...) Wall
Russ Poffenberger
Wayne Beardsley wrote:
>
> Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>
> >I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
> >expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
> >marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
> >information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
> >about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
>
> I don't have any information on specific engines, but I've been told
> that 800 to 1,000 hours in a marine application is about the best that
> can be expected.
Well, my friend (and water skiing partner) has 1700 hours on his
Mastercraft with the orignal PCM (Ford block) engine. And it still runs
very well.
--
Russ Poffenberger Engineering Specialist
Schlumberger Technologies ATE DOMAIN: pof...@San-Jose.ate.slb.com
1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110 Voice: (408)437-5254 FAX: (408)437-5246
Glenn Scherer
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> These days I'm mostly building prams, with an occasional small sport
> racing hydro. I have come to prefer rowing when I get the chance,
> but I own a 22ft MacGregor masthead sloop and part of a 21ft Four Winns
> with a Ford V-8 I/O. Not to mention about a dozen or so assorted
> canoes, rowing shells, sailing dinghys, and an underwater towed "aqua-
> glider".
>
> I may get around to a true submarine before it's all over....
>
> Craig (oh, yeah- and I'll probably put one of the
> gyros on floats, too...) Wall
How many hours on that Ford V-8, Craig? :)
Glenn "I just can't resist!" Scherer
acss...@acs.eku.edu
>>I am particularly interested in the Ford 3.8 V6, the Chevy 4.3 V6,
>>and the Chevy 5.7 V8. Please be as specific as you can, i.e.,
>>Engine A, rated at B horsepower lasted for C hours over D years,
>>and failed due to problem E. Any info about how these engines are
>>beefed up for marine use will also be appreciated.
The only thing I have ever read is that a marine 5.7 engine should run
continusouly @5000 rpm for about 500 hours before needing attention.
This interval is extended greatly by slowing the engine down to
4600-4800 rpm... the max recommended wot rpms for the standard 5.7's and
the Magnum seriies respectively. It's hard to beleive that 200-400 rpm
can make that much difference in the life expectancy of an engine... but
I guess what I read was accurate.
> I'm sorry I can't provide you with particulars on the above engines but I
> can tell you from my experience building engines at the local performance
> shop that the major mods. are a "marine" camshaft designed to optimize
> performance based on the constant load the engine is placed under. The
> cooling manifolds, which would not apply for aeronautic apps. Carb. flame
> arrestors.
The last light pane I was in ran a constant 2500 rpm at cruising speed.
This is probably a bit below the max torque rpm for most marine/auto
engines. This could result in lugging condition and overheating. I think
there are some applications where auto/marine engines are modified to
run constant rpms in the 2500 neighborhood (welders, generators, etc).
These engines may be more suitable. You can probably alter any
auto/marine engine by simply changing the cam to develop power in the
needed range. If an auto/marine engine was so modified, I can't see any
reason why it should be a dependable and long lasting engine.
Also if you didn't need large hp, a farm tractor engine may work. Most
of them operate in the 2200-3000 rpm range.
Dudley Cornman
Systems Programmer
Academic Computing Services - EKU
ACSS...@ACS.EKU.EDU
********************************************************************
*** When it comes to boats... ***
*** I'd rather have a new boat than a used boat... ***
*** I'd rather have a Baja than a Bayliner... ***
*** I'd rather have a used Bayliner than no boat at all... ***
********************************************************************
Keith Malatesta
>Glenn Scherer <Glenn_...@nt.com> wrote:
>
>I don't have any information on specific engines, but I've been told
>that 800 to 1,000 hours in a marine application is about the best that
>can be expected.
>
My Pop has a 72 Century Raven (beautiful boat) with a Chevy 250, 165 hp.
6 cyl. OMC Stringer Stern Drive.
The motor has 3700 hours on it, the drive has been rebuilt twice, new
alternator, fuel pump and starter. EVERYTHING else is ORIGINAL!
I would be willing to say this is not the norm!
Keith M.
Craig Wall
In article <31B787...@nt.com>, Glenn_...@nt.com says...
>How many hours on that Ford V-8, Craig? :)
>
>Glenn "I just can't resist!" Scherer
Damned if I know- probably 300-400, but 1) not much is at %100 power;
2) it has a ready supply of lakewater for cooling; and 3) it weighs
*way* too much to put in an airplane. Oh yeah- it eats gas, too.
Runs pretty good, though. Or did, until it started getting water
in the carb. (Curious thing: there's absolutely no water in the fuel
water seperator, and I can't figure out where it's coming from. Any
ideas out there?)
Craig (...but you knew all that...) Wall
Frank D. Fellenz
In article <4p9fr5$1...@sun2.ccf.swri.edu> cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall) writes:
>Subject: Re: Auto Engines in Marine Use
>From: cw...@swri.edu (Craig Wall)
>Date: 7 Jun 1996 14:54:29 GMT
I've got a 1964 Correct Craft with a Buick 215 aluminum V-8 that has over 1400
original hours on it and it runs great. It has a closed cooling system, no
rot.
Frank
Dave White
The truth is that auto engines will probably not get past 200 hours in
marine use. The problem is that marine engines are built like truck
motors. They are built to run between 3000-4000 rpm under a heavy load
and perform that way for up to 1500 hours (average design time). As a
marine dealer in the early 80's, I saw no end to the problems people had
with taking off the shelve auto short blocks and replacing them. 90%
came in the shop with broken rods that occured while planing the boat.
Glenn Scherer (Glenn_...@nt.com) wrote:
: I am appealing to these newsgroups for information regarding the
: expected/experienced longevity (in hours) of auto engines in
: marine applications. The reason for this appeal is to provide
: information for a debate going on in rec.aviation.homebuilt
: about the suitablility of auto engines for use in airplanes.
: The point in contention is whether or not auto engines can survive
: at the 75 to 100 percent power settings typically used in aviation
: applications. It was pointed out that these power settings are
: also routine in marine applications, many of which use auto engines
: as powerplants. There doesn't seem to be much marine experience in
: the aviation group's particicpants, so I'm hoping you can help us
: with this.
: I am particularly interested in the Ford 3.8 V6, the Chevy 4.3 V6,
: and the Chevy 5.7 V8. Please be as specific as you can, i.e.,
: Engine A, rated at B horsepower lasted for C hours over D years,
: and failed due to problem E. Any info about how these engines are
: beefed up for marine use will also be appreciated.
: As a baseline, a typical light airplane engine is expected to last
: about 2,000 hours, IF it is properly maintained, and IF it is run
: regularly, i.e. 3-5 times a week. I am interested in ALL experience,
: good or bad.
: I realize that this is probably off-topic for this group, so please
funkraum
>bau...@wabash.iac.net (Dave White) wrote:
>The truth is that auto engines will probably not get past 200 hours in
>marine use. The problem is that marine engines are built like truck
>motors. They are built to run between 3000-4000 rpm under a heavy load
>and perform that way for up to 1500 hours (average design time). As a
>marine dealer in the early 80's, I saw no end to the problems people had
>with taking off the shelve auto short blocks and replacing them. 90%
>came in the shop with broken rods that occured while planing the boat.
>
Does this mean that they had not fitted rev-limiters and over-revved
the engines when the prop jumped out of the water or just broken a
pushrod when running the engines at high outputs for long periods ?
Lawrence
In article <83436972...@fen168.demon.co.uk>, d...@fen168.demon.co.uk says...
5.0, 5.7 had fairly stock lower ends? Granted the 5.7 is a 4 bolt main
but the rest are typical. The pistons, crank, and connecting rods
are all chevy, right?
If not, what's different???????
I've never replaced an engine because of a broken rod except in a truck.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the same in a boat, but I'd expect it to
be true regardless of the engine. Just plain harder on engines than a car.
acss...@acs.eku.edu
In article <4pc6mh$q...@cheyenne.iac.net>, bau...@wabash.iac.net (Dave White) writes:
> The truth is that auto engines will probably not get past 200 hours in
> marine use. The problem is that marine engines are built like truck
> motors. They are built to run between 3000-4000 rpm under a heavy load
> and perform that way for up to 1500 hours (average design time). As a
> marine dealer in the early 80's, I saw no end to the problems people had
> with taking off the shelve auto short blocks and replacing them. 90%
> came in the shop with broken rods that occured while planing the boat.
>
Does your answer change if the question is re-phrased...
Marine vs truck (light truck) engines?
Hunter Avis
Lawrence wrote:
>
> In article <83436972...@fen168.demon.co.uk>, d...@fen168.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> >>bau...@wabash.iac.net (Dave White) wrote:
> >
> >>marine use. The problem is that marine engines are built like truck
> >>motors. They are built to run between 3000-4000 rpm under a heavy load
> >>and perform that way for up to 1500 hours (average design time). As a
> >>marine dealer in the early 80's, I saw no end to the problems people had
> >>with taking off the shelve auto short blocks and replacing them. 90%
> >>came in the shop with broken rods that occured while planing the boat.
> >>
> >
> >the engines when the prop jumped out of the water or just broken a
> >pushrod when running the engines at high outputs for long periods ?
> >
> I'm curious too. I thought most of the merc chevy motors, 4.0, 4.3,
> 5.0, 5.7 had fairly stock lower ends? Granted the 5.7 is a 4 bolt main
> but the rest are typical. The pistons, crank, and connecting rods
> are all chevy, right?
>
> If not, what's different???????
>
> I've never replaced an engine because of a broken rod except in a truck.
> It wouldn't surprise me to see the same in a boat, but I'd expect it to
> be true regardless of the engine. Just plain harder on engines than a car.
investigating.the only differences i have found are stanless head
gaskets,brass freeze plugs,truck heads with larger exhaust valves,and
most important the cam which i have been told is designed to sustain
higher rpms for extended periods.This engine is stock mercruiser out of
a scarab.i also would like any other info because until i actually did a
tear down i have gotten some conflicting info and by the way the block
was a two bolt main.
Hunter Avis
Dan Bollinger
Dave;
How does this differ from a marine application's load the rpm
requirements? What can be done to make an auto engine run longer?
Change camshaft?
Dan Bollinger
Industrial Designer
Lawrence
>i am rebuilding a 5.7 260 horse chevy at this time and have done some
>investigating.the only differences i have found are stanless head
>gaskets,brass freeze plugs,truck heads with larger exhaust valves,and
>most important the cam which i have been told is designed to sustain
>higher rpms for extended periods.This engine is stock mercruiser out of
>a scarab.i also would like any other info because until i actually did a
>tear down i have gotten some conflicting info and by the way the block
>was a two bolt main.
Do you know the cam specs for the 260? The lift I've got for it out of
the manual is around .45 at the valve but I don't know the duration.
There are a lot of potential areas that the short block could be improved
at but I'd like to hear from a merc mech just what components are used.
Surely there is a mech out there that knows the straight story.
Ain't going to change the block much, either it's a 2 bolt or 4 bolt
chevy 350. Summit offers a splayed 4 bolt main casting that is stronger
than the stock 4 bolt if you're interested.
The best chevy connecting rods you can get are the LT1 rods. I don't
know what other stock rods are available.
Piston wise it's got to be a cast piston. Stock chevy is about as good as
anything else. Forged is the way to go for strength but they're expensive
and rattle like shit when cold.
For the crank you can get forged instead of cast and chevy did at one
time put forged in some small blocks. (Some call them steel cranks.)
The cost of an after market forged crank is around $600 verses around
$150 for a 'stock' cast one so I'm thinking cost is prohibitive and merc
went with the cast crank but again I don't know.
Like you found out the heads are just larger port heads with ss valves.
I don't know if they're the famous 2.02 heads or just 1.somethings.
I think the ss valves are more because of the water proximity than any
thing else. Did you have the roller rockers? Some mercs have those.
How about screw in studs and guideplates?
Hey out there merc mechanics, please give us the inside poop on the
components!!!!!!
Thanks.......
Joel Garry
I used to have the opposite application. Some drag boat racer rebuilt
the engine in a '63 Vette as though it were a boat engine - marine cam,
Holley, dome-top TRW's and so forth. To use as a tow car, yet. Then
he sold it after a few months. I towed a small trailer with it once,
I could see why you wouldn't want to use it in that application. I
always thought it was kind of rev-happy, though, while I think of a
truck engine as torquey from 1500 or so. It definitely wasn't happy
until the high 2000's or so, which made it very annoying to drive at
55 - barely 2000, if memory serves. One thing it taught me: build
the appropriate engine! (It finally lost a ring after I drove it
50,000 miles, so I did).
I remember in Junior High, my friends dad had a Taylor step cabin.
Bigblock Chevy (overbored, I think), dyno'd at 550 hp. I distinctly
remember it was purposely built "loose" to use a lot of oil. Modified
V hull, V drive, did at least 65 knots on a smooth ocean. They sold
it around 1970 to some guy in San Diego, who immediately blew a piston.
I still think that was the ultimate cuddy cabin. Why doesn't anyone
make a boat like that now?
Dan Bollinger
Another concern I've had about using off-the-shelf auto engines is
cooling. Using water from the lake, etc. is not the same as glycol
coolant the engine was designed for. Modern auto engines are designed to
operate much hotter than the auto engines of the 50's (which I suspect
are the engine types OMC, etc. are using). Glycol mixture has a much
higher heat density than just water. My concern is that the water will
boil, reducing cooling, leading to early engine failure. Also, there's
the benefit of operating a pressurized cooling system which increases
boiling point of the coolant.
Dan Bollinger
funkraum wrote:
>
> >bau...@wabash.iac.net (Dave White) wrote:
>
> >The truth is that auto engines will probably not get past 200 hours in
> >marine use. The problem is that marine engines are built like truck
> >motors. They are built to run between 3000-4000 rpm under a heavy load
> >and perform that way for up to 1500 hours (average design time). As a
> >marine dealer in the early 80's, I saw no end to the problems people had
> >with taking off the shelve auto short blocks and replacing them. 90%
> >came in the shop with broken rods that occured while planing the boat.
> >
>
Lawrence.....
In article <31BEFA...@holli.com>, Dan says...
>
>Another concern I've had about using off-the-shelf auto engines is
>cooling. Using water from the lake, etc. is not the same as glycol
>coolant the engine was designed for. Modern auto engines are designed to
>operate much hotter than the auto engines of the 50's (which I suspect
>are the engine types OMC, etc. are using). Glycol mixture has a much
>higher heat density than just water. My concern is that the water will
>boil, reducing cooling, leading to early engine failure. Also, there's
>the benefit of operating a pressurized cooling system which increases
>boiling point of the coolant.
>
blocks. Course some of them havn't changed since the 70's anyway.
Dave
Dan Bollinger <crit...@holli.com> wrote:
>Another concern I've had about using off-the-shelf auto engines is
>cooling. Using water from the lake, etc. is not the same as glycol
>coolant the engine was designed for. Modern auto engines are designed to
>operate much hotter than the auto engines of the 50's (which I suspect
>are the engine types OMC, etc. are using). Glycol mixture has a much
>higher heat density than just water. My concern is that the water will
>boil, reducing cooling, leading to early engine failure. Also, there's
>the benefit of operating a pressurized cooling system which increases
>boiling point of the coolant.
Modern auto engines are designed to run hotter because it greatly
improves emissions and somewhat improves fuel economy.
I don't think you have to worry about these engines running too hot in
a boat. They are kept hot in automotive applications by
high-temperature thermostats. There is nothing inherent in the engine
that makes them produce more heat, other than the fact that many of
them are small, and run at higher RPMs.
If anything, over-cooling is more likely to be a problem in a
"home-made" boat installation than overheating. Constant overcooling
can result in severe engine damage. Most boats use open cooling
systems that constantly suck cool ocean or lake water through the
engines. Restrictors or thermostats usually need to be installed to
allow the engine to run hot enough. The operating temperature of the
oil in the sump should run at at least 215-220 degrees to drive out
moisture.
Dave
former GM durability test engineer
Pat Ford
Dan Bollinger <crit...@holli.com> wrote:
OK! I've had it! I've seen more misinformation propagated in this
thread than any other Usenet discussion I've watched for a long
time!!! Sheesh. Just try to think just a little. (See comments
below)
>Another concern I've had about using off-the-shelf auto engines is
>cooling. Using water from the lake, etc. is not the same as glycol
>coolant the engine was designed for. Modern auto engines are designed to
>operate much hotter than the auto engines of the 50's (which I suspect
>are the engine types OMC, etc. are using). Glycol mixture has a much
>higher heat density than just water. My concern is that the water will
>boil, reducing cooling, leading to early engine failure. Also, there's
>the benefit of operating a pressurized cooling system which increases
>boiling point of the coolant.
Actually, marine engines tend to run cool, not hot, compared to
automotive installations! The coolant is ALWAYS at 50 to 70 degrees,
at least around here! The problem is often that the engine run too
cool.
Also, there are closed systems, fresh water cooling which you could
get if one is concerned.
>funkraum wrote:
>>
>> >bau...@wabash.iac.net (Dave White) wrote:
>>
>> >The truth is that auto engines will probably not get past 200 hours in
>> >marine use.
Now WHAT are we talking about? The fact is that all of the modern
powerboat engines with which I am familiar began life as an automotive
design. As I write, I can think of NO modern powerboat engine which
was designed orginally for marine use. In the 30's industrial engines
were used for boats. I am thinking here of the Chris Model K and M
which were orginally an industrial engine, though they were often used
for buses.
As for longevity, the marinized Chrysler hemi was noted for its long
life. This was orginally an automotive engine of the 50's. These
engines have been known to run as long as 20,000 hours. (not a
misprint!)
Perhaps what some of you guys are struggling to say is that a
automotive short block should not be marinized. (That is, have all
the marine stuff, manifolds, carbs, marine alternator hung on them.)
Well, there is something to this. Marine short blocks typically have
heavier duty pistons and a different cam profile, and of course,
corrosion resistant soft plugs and the like. A marine short block
would be certainly be preferable to an automotive short block,
however, automotive short blocks are used all the time. Particularly
in light duty applications such as speedboats and small cruisers there
probably would be no problem.
To say that they will only last 200 hours is just BS.
(Sigh.)
Regards,
pcf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Ford-Ford Boat Works-Seattle-206-789-2456
Classic Speedboat Repair for Twenty Years
Pacific Northwest Chapter-Antique and Classic Boat Society web pages:
http://www.halcyon.com/pford/acbsx.htm
Brian Dixon
Pat Ford wrote:
[snip]
> Actually, marine engines tend to run cool, not hot, compared to
> automotive installations! The coolant is ALWAYS at 50 to 70 degrees,
> at least around here! The problem is often that the engine run too
> cool.
> As for longevity, the marinized Chrysler hemi was noted for its long
> life. This was orginally an automotive engine of the 50's. These
> engines have been known to run as long as 20,000 hours. (not a
> misprint!)
>
> Perhaps what some of you guys are struggling to say is that a
> automotive short block should not be marinized. (That is, have all
> the marine stuff, manifolds, carbs, marine alternator hung on them.)
> Well, there is something to this. Marine short blocks typically have
> heavier duty pistons and a different cam profile, and of course,
> corrosion resistant soft plugs and the like. A marine short block
> would be certainly be preferable to an automotive short block,
Glad to see you jump in, Pat. I've had similar concerns and
conceptions about this thread as you (many statements didn't make
sense). A couple of things that you didn't mention, but I'd like
to hear your feelings on are a) bearing size and strength, and b)
intended rpm ranges for marine engines. Isn't it true, at least
for displacement hulls, that marine engines would require larger
stronger main and wrist-pin (piston) bearings, because the engine
is under a more sustained high load than an auto engine would be
during normal use? And are there any differences in intended rpm
ranges for 'normal' operation? Boats we've operated were either
run full-out to get to/from somewhere, but when there, they were
idled or run at low rpm for long periods of time. I'm talking about
displacement hulls used in the ocean for fishing purposes here.
For lighter duty stuff like speedboats, I assume that the operating
profile is a lot like a sport car anyway so I wouldn't expect much
change unless the stress on the engine is higher.
Brian
Lawrence
In article <31C0F3...@cv.hp.com>, Brian says...
>
>Pat Ford wrote:
>[snip]
>> Actually, marine engines tend to run cool, not hot, compared to
>> automotive installations! The coolant is ALWAYS at 50 to 70 degrees,
>> at least around here! The problem is often that the engine run too
>> cool.
>[snip]
>> As for longevity, the marinized Chrysler hemi was noted for its long
>> life. This was orginally an automotive engine of the 50's. These
>> engines have been known to run as long as 20,000 hours. (not a
>> misprint!)
>>
>> Perhaps what some of you guys are struggling to say is that a
>> automotive short block should not be marinized. (That is, have all
>> the marine stuff, manifolds, carbs, marine alternator hung on them.)
>> Well, there is something to this. Marine short blocks typically have
>
>conceptions about this thread as you (many statements didn't make
>sense). A couple of things that you didn't mention, but I'd like
>to hear your feelings on are a) bearing size and strength, and b)
>intended rpm ranges for marine engines. Isn't it true, at least
>for displacement hulls, that marine engines would require larger
>stronger main and wrist-pin (piston) bearings, because the engine
>is under a more sustained high load than an auto engine would be
>during normal use? And are there any differences in intended rpm
I don't think anyone was trying to say they shouldn't be 'marinized'
if that's a word. I want to find out just what are the actual differences
between a 4 bolt chevy 350 in a car and in a boat. You can bet that it
ain't crank bearing size. Chevy small blocks have only had 2 different
size main bearings since the 283 back in the 50s. All the modern small
blocks use the same size crank. Fact between the 5.0 and 5.7 its the
same damn crank, just bigger bore. The only heavy duty option is a forged
crank instead of cast. It costs major bucks. There is no larger
main or rod bearing options to be had.
What you are suggesting is that merc casts it's own small block chevy
4 bolt 350's. Is that so???? I doubt it. Ditto on pistons and rods.
BTW the preferred enhancement for wrist pins is to bush them instead of
press fitting them, but they are not any bigger.
I'd still like to hear from someone that actually knows where the 350
parts come from, chevy, aftermarket, etc. And some of the specifications.
Not conjecture about what they might should be.
Marcus Bell
In article <31BEFA...@holli.com>, crit...@holli.com says...
>
>Glycol mixture has a much
>higher heat density than just water.
This is not correct as written. You might have been referring to
"boiling point", which is indeed higher for the mix than for the
straight H2O. Freezing point is lowered as well, hence the common
name of "antifreeze" for the glycol (most commonly ethylene glycol,
but also prpoylene glycol).
Of the three - water, glycol, and mix - straight water has the
highest heat capacity, which means it can absorb more heat per unit
rise in temperature. This is why you use 70/30 glycol/H2O mix in
extreme cold, but not in hot climes; it sacrifices heat capacity for
freezing point depression, unnecessary and undesirable in the hot
environment.
--
Marcus. (be...@mail.med.upenn.edu)
RPERSONS
Brian Dixon wrote:
>
> Pat Ford wrote:
> [snip]
> > Actually, marine engines tend to run cool, not hot, compared to
> > automotive installations! The coolant is ALWAYS at 50 to 70 degrees,
> > at least around here! The problem is often that the engine run too
> > cool.
> [snip]
> > As for longevity, the marinized Chrysler hemi was noted for its long
> > life. This was orginally an automotive engine of the 50's. These
> > engines have been known to run as long as 20,000 hours. (not a
> > misprint!)
> >
> > Perhaps what some of you guys are struggling to say is that a
> > automotive short block should not be marinized. (That is, have all
> > the marine stuff, manifolds, carbs, marine alternator hung on them.)
> > Well, there is something to this. Marine short blocks typically have
> > corrosion resistant soft plugs and the like. A marine short block
> > would be certainly be preferable to an automotive short block,
>
> conceptions about this thread as you (many statements didn't make
> sense). A couple of things that you didn't mention, but I'd like
> to hear your feelings on are a) bearing size and strength, and b)
> intended rpm ranges for marine engines. Isn't it true, at least
> for displacement hulls, that marine engines would require larger
> stronger main and wrist-pin (piston) bearings, because the engine
> is under a more sustained high load than an auto engine would be
> during normal use? And are there any differences in intended rpm
> run full-out to get to/from somewhere, but when there, they were
> idled or run at low rpm for long periods of time. I'm talking about
> displacement hulls used in the ocean for fishing purposes here.
> For lighter duty stuff like speedboats, I assume that the operating
> profile is a lot like a sport car anyway so I wouldn't expect much
> change unless the stress on the engine is higher.
>
> Brian
The above two articles make sense. I have been a firm beleiver in
the Chyrsler Marine products. Even tho they have been out of production
for some time, they are still the mainstay among the commercial boats, be
it fishing or otherwise, in New England. I know that Chysler uses the
truck or industrial block in their marine engines and that truck parts
are pretty much interchangeable with the marine parts. Long live the
hemi!
Kevin Johnson
Hi,
Someone mentioned to me that the best cleaner and softener, for the
vinyl panels in boat camper tops is the none lemon or Plain 'Pledge'.
Just in case he was pulling my leg, does anyone else have an opinion?
Thanks
Kevin J. @X44 @X74 @X44 @XFF kevin....@encode.com
Lagoon City, Ontario. Internet rn....@rose.com
---
þ RoseRdr/2 1.00á P005248
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: kevin....@encode.com (Kevin Johnson)
This message was processed by NetXpress from Merlin Systems Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Turner
Been using Pledge for years with very good results-
1. Never let salt residue stand on windows (rinse and dry)
2. Polish with Pledge every month or so
Paul Turner "Manitou" IP40-29
acss...@acs.eku.edu
In article <31C580...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>, RPERSONS <RPER...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> writes:
<much snipped>
> I have been a firm beleiver in the Chyrsler Marine products.
Does this blanket include Chrysler outboards too? :-)
Pat Hines
Pat Ford wrote:
> > As for longevity, the marinized Chrysler hemi was noted for its long
> > life. This was orginally an automotive engine of the 50's. These
> > engines have been known to run as long as 20,000 hours. (not a
> > misprint!)
profession and now as a hobby and I would have to call you mistaken on
your claim that any engine turbine, diesel, or gasoline would ever run
for 20,000 hours without a total overhaul. Modern automotive
powerplants, much better than the engines built in the fifties, are
expected to operate for about 200,000 miles with proper maintenance.
This is about 4000 operational hours. No engine built in the fifties
could even come close to that since the bearing materials were inferior
to the newer material, the lubricating oils were much more prone to
breakdown, and carburation was much more maintenance intensive. Perhaps
those engines were overhauled every 500 hours, about the norm in the
fifties. Since its possible to "zero time" an engine at overhaul, its
incorrect to say that its hours are cumulative, now isn't it?
Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
Pat
--
"Reality is meaningless, perception is everything" PH
Ed McCrudden
> Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
>per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
>engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
Say what? The vehicle I use at work does about 20 engine hours every day.
Cop cars and taxis do the same all over the world. A thousand days gives
you the 20,000 hours. Three years.
Phill Klein
In article <31C6A4...@xis.com> Paul Turner <ptu...@xis.com> writes:
>From: Paul Turner <ptu...@xis.com>
>Subject: Re: VinylWindows
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 08:45:28 -0400
>Paul Turner "Manitou" IP40-29
I would'nt use Pledge. It might contain petroleum based solvents that could
discolor the vinyl. One of the common suppliers, Meguires or 3M makes a
special cleaner/polish for vinyl. It's pretty cheap and it's real cheap when
you consider the cost of replacing windows!
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
Phillip Klein Internet pkl...@interaccess.com Compuserve 75600,1023
Gleeson, Sklar, Sawyers & Cumpata LLP Skokie, IL 60077
Voice: (847) 673-4500 x323 Fax: (847) 673-3949
Robert L. Sims
Kevin,
It's true. We're often asked how we can keep our vinyl windows clear enough
to see through. Something about the oil in the pledge permeates the vinyl and
helps with "bend marks" and milkiness.
Matt Mondro
Lawrence wrote:
> I'd still like to hear from someone that actually knows where the 350
> parts come from, chevy, aftermarket, etc. And some of the specifications.
> Not conjecture about what they might should be.
--
Matthew A. Mondro
All I know is that is why oldsmobile and pontiac big blocks were popular
as
marine engines, because they have I believe 3" mains and very beefy
rods.
You rarely hear of one of those with a bad bottom end, but they have
weak
oiling systems
Matt in Michigan
Richard Boggs
> Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
>per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
>engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
>
I guess that means the hour meter on my last ship was running quadruple
time ...
The engine, a medium-speed 4-stroke, had over 83,000 hours in 18 years.
Many commercial engines run 168 hours a week for weeks on end. The last
leg of the voyage was from Guam to Charleston, something like 30 days with
only a couple hours stopped in the Canal, no overhauls required.
Cheers,
Rick
--
Rick Boggs : When men come to like a sea-life,
rbo...@pacifier.com : They are not fit to live on land.
Merchant Marine and Maritime Pages :
http://www.pacifier.com/~rboggs : Samuel Johnson
Rod Mc Innis
Pat Hines (fas...@surf.com) wrote:
: Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
: per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
: engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
Boy, I don't know how you figure that! I know people who put 1000
hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
Twenty hours a week is only 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. Almost
any "commercial" use would involve more than 4 hours a day.
While you don't see too many gasoline engines in this kind of use,
there are diesels all over the place that run 24 hours a day. Truckers,
especially indepentent operators, will operate for as many hours a day as
they can get away with, and will often let their rigs idle while they
sleep. Farmers hook their tractors up to a water pump and irrigate
their fields 24 hours a day, 7 days a week all summer long.
An engine run under a moderate load on a continuous basis can easily
run the hours up. It's the engines that sit all winter, then get used
once a week and pushed to their limits that die an early death.
Rod McInnis
acss...@acs.eku.edu
In article <31C79E...@surf.com>, Pat Hines <fas...@surf.com> writes:
> Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
> per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
> engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
Just curious... how many hours per week would a barge on the Ohio and/or
Mississippi river run? How many weeks per year? It would seem to me that
a 40+ hour week wouldn't be unreasonable only requiring 26 weeks to reach
that figure. Of course I don't think they could do this year in/year out
for twenty years without a fresh engine every now and then.
HIDDA
> In article <31C79E...@surf.com>, Pat Hines <fas...@surf.com> wrote:
> >>>snipped<<<
>
> > Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
> >per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
> >engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
> >
>
I missed the original post.
However, I'd like to comment on the above. It's not unusual for me to
run my boat 12 hours a day, two days a week, when the fish is running.
(Volvo)
The top charter boat in Lahaina, I believe, runs 6 or 7 days per week
for about 8 hours per day. That's about 48 hours per week. (Cummins)
Several of my friends who fish commercially, over night at the most,
generally run at least 12 hours a day and they fish about 3 days per
week. More if the fish is running and less if the water is too rough.
However, 40 hours per week is about a good average. (Mostly Volvo,
couple of Cummins)
Have another friend who put 30,000 hours on his Detroit 453 in about 10
years without any major problems.
Another friend has a 22 footer with a little 4 cylinder Yanmar and he
goes out about 15 times a month and puts in about 6 hours per trip.
Want more examples?
Pat Hines
Rod Mc Innis wrote:
Farmers hook their tractors up to a water pump and irrigate
> their fields 24 hours a day, 7 days a week all summer long.
>
> An engine run under a moderate load on a continuous basis can easily
> run the hours up. It's the engines that sit all winter, then get used
> once a week and pushed to their limits that die an early death.
>
> Rod McInnis
I think you missed the point, somewhat. None of the examples you
gave are accomplished without maintenance. If that were the case you
wouldn't see any diesel engine garages. The farmers have most of the
winter to overhaul their pump engines, which do not run 24 hours a day,
seven days a week all summer long in every field, they are rotated.
My point was that NO engine would run twenty hours per week, 52
weeks per year, for twenty years without maintenance. Even if said
engine, a 1950's Crysler gasoline engine in the original post, were run
for twenty-four hours a day until twenty thousand hours were reached
that would be 2 1/4 years of continuous running. I stand by my
statement.
1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN
In article <31CCD7...@mauigateway.com>,
HIDDA <denn...@mauigateway.com> wrote:
>> In article <31C79E...@surf.com>, Pat Hines <fas...@surf.com> wrote:
>> >>>snipped<<<
>>
>> > Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
>> >per year, 20 hours operation a week, 52 weeks a year. A figure no
>> >engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
>> >
>>
>
>I missed the original post.
>
>Want more examples?
I sure diesel engines will run for a long time. Cat advertises that
their engines are good for 10,000 hours or 100,000 gals of fuel before
a rebuild. I think the original post was referring to GAS engines.
Personally I have yet to own a gas engine that made it past the 400 hour
mark. That's just me. I've seen others whio got them pat the 1500 hour
mark. I'm skeptical about 20,000 hours on a gas engine though.
Garry Heon
First Stepp
ga...@holly.mt.lucent.com
My Opinions....Lucent's Network.
1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN
In article <4qf64m$k...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com>,
Rod Mc Innis <rmci...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Pat Hines (fas...@surf.com) wrote:
>
>: Lastly, 20,000 hours would be twenty years operation at 1000 hours
>: engine could generate in normal use including commercial.
>
>hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
What planet are you on :-) There are only 168 hours in a week. How could
someone put 1000 hours on a car in a week??????
lee_li...@bocaraton.ibm.com
>Boy, I don't know how you figure that! I know people who put 1000
>hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
Wow! I think they should move ALOT closer to their jobs!!!
Mike
>maybe your on some other planet with real long weeks.
Guy
lee_li...@bocaraton.ibm.com wrote:
>In <4qf64m$k...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com>, rmci...@adobe.com (Rod Mc Innis) writes:
>>Boy, I don't know how you figure that! I know people who put 1000
>>hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
I can't resist: 1000 hrs commute time for a 5 day week =
200 hrs +
8 hrs sleep +
8 hrs. on the job = 216 hr day ?
Larry Nolen
In article <4qme2n$a...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>,
on 24 Jun 1996 16:00:23 GMT, <lee_li...@bocaraton.ibm.com> writes:
>In <4qf64m$k...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com>, rmci...@adobe.com (Rod Mc Innis) writes:
>
>>Boy, I don't know how you figure that! I know people who put 1000
>>hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
>
>
Not to mention what a neat trick it must be to rack up 1000 hours a week when
there are only 168 hours in a week! Do the math Rod (7*24=168).
Larry
Larry Nolen
Lawrence
<snip much unrelated discussion about how many hours are in a week!>
So to summarize and return to the original topic: nobody out there
in this discussion group has a clue as to what turns an automotive
engine into a marine engine. Nobody knows any of these mysterious
'marine' engine part suppliers. Or perhaps merc forges their own
pistons, rods, etc or even blocks!
So far I'm still thinking that the only differences are brass freeze
plugs and a marine carb. Granted the cam is a little wilder, the heads
have stainless steel valves, and the exhaust manifolds are special but
the pistons, rods, crank, block, etc are the same stuff you buy from
your local auto parts dealer.
So no one has offered any factual evidence as to why someone that needs
a new 5.7 chevy short block shouldn't just call summit racing and save
a whole lot of money! So go ahead disprove me please!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lawrence.......
Timothy P. Banse
Marine engine manufacturers, such as MerCruiser, Volvo Penta,
Flagship, CRusader, Indmar and Marine Power, work from a truck long
block. In other words, the rods, cranks, bearings and pistons are
heavy-duty components. Typically pistons are hypereutectic, not cast, not
forged. The camshaft profile is slightly different, including a change
in valve overlap so less water is sucked back up the exhaust.
The alternator, starter and distributor are USCG approved, which
principally means they have devices to prevent a spark from igniting any
potential fuel vapor in the engine compartment. Also the distributor does
not have a vacuum advance.
Sure, its very do-able to marinize an automotoive engine, but it's life
cycle will be less than a marinized truck engine because of the
lighter-duty components.
However, blueprinting a block and heads and installing
hi-performance/heavy duty Summit parts should make for a solid marine
engine. This assumes manifolds and other compoments are rated for marine
service.
Note that a marine carburetor fuel bowl vent tube drains into the throat
instead of to the atmosphere as it does on an automotive carb.
These are the basics, naturally there are variations on the theme.
See marine mechanic magazine at:
http://www.avalon.net/~middlecoast
1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN
In article <31D07E...@avalon.net>,
Timothy P. Banse <middl...@avalon.net> wrote:
>Marine engine manufacturers, such as MerCruiser, Volvo Penta,
>Flagship, CRusader, Indmar and Marine Power, work from a truck long
>block. In other words, the rods, cranks, bearings and pistons are
>heavy-duty components. Typically pistons are hypereutectic, not cast, not
>forged. The camshaft profile is slightly different, including a change
When did manufacturers, like Merc, go to hypereutectic pistons. In
'89 my 7.4L Merc engines used cast pistons and a cast crank, luckilly
I did manage to get a 4 bolt main instead of the stock 2 bolt. Also in
that year the Magnum series used forged pistons and cranks. Merc also
uses stainless exhaust valves.
SNIP CG required parts
>Sure, its very do-able to marinize an automotoive engine, but it's life
>cycle will be less than a marinized truck engine because of the
>lighter-duty components.
As you mention in your next paragraph I'd also be worried about
bearing clearences and end gap on rings.
>
>However, blueprinting a block and heads and installing
>hi-performance/heavy duty Summit parts should make for a solid marine
>engine. This assumes manifolds and other compoments are rated for marine
>service.
Summit is good, and not to start another Teague war, but Teague Custom Marine
has, in my case, always beat Summit prices on parts. Plus, you get the
top advice of a _marine_ engine builder to boot.
>
>Note that a marine carburetor fuel bowl vent tube drains into the throat
>instead of to the atmosphere as it does on an automotive carb.
Holley makes J-tubes that are available from several after market carb shops.
I installed them on my Holley competition 830s, they're a little pricey
though.
>
>These are the basics, naturally there are variations on the theme.
>
>See marine mechanic magazine at:
>http://www.avalon.net/~middlecoast
Garry Heon
Timothy P. Banse
Indmar offers an inboard ski motor based on the Corvette LT-1.
Among other things, marinization includes the Cadillac Northstar
ignition.
Pat Hines
>
> Say what? The vehicle I use at work does about 20 engine hours every day.
> Cop cars and taxis do the same all over the world. A thousand days gives
> you the 20,000 hours. Three years.
Really? When did you add oil, tighten/replace fan belts,replace
piston rings, valve guides, and other repairs? The four hours in the
middle of the night? Most police cars run, at the most 10-12 hours per
day, 4 to 5 days per week. They have routine, scheduled maintaince on a
weekly, monthly, and often quarterly basis. Commercial vehicles such as
taxis aren't maintained at the same level but spent lots of time with
the engine off. Engine replacements are routine in these cars also, a
new Chevy V-8 costs only $1500.00(Called the Target Motor, made in
Mexico) and would be a low operating expense at the high mileages these
cars accumulate. The point here has always been to say that while
20,000 hours is possible to achieve, it's not achievable without
maintainance and replacement of parts that "zero" time the engine
periodically.
Its like the story of the man that told me that his family owned the
hatchette that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree with. Of
course over the years the handle had been replaced three times and the
head five, but it was THE hatchette.
Pat Hines
Yes, the answer is YES, you can buy an engine from Summit and it
will be a stellar performer. I have their catalog right here. I'm
thinking about either one of their engines or one from Racing Head
Service, or one put together locally You can specify brass or stainless
steel freeze plugs, I couldn't tell you which is better. Of course
since I have fresh water cooling and would never have raw water cooling,
the freezze plugs aren't as important. Gromm Performance in San Jose
has built 400ci Chevy small blocks with excellent results, fantastic
torque, lighter weight than big block by about 150 pounds.
Differences: In addition to the marine carb, the standard fuel
pump is replaced with one vented to the carb, and of course the
alternator is marine, and the starter is marine. Most, but not all, of
the marine engines use the four bolt truck/corvette block, but that is
really overkill below 5000 rpm and less than 500hp according to General
Motors. The cam is usually similar to one from the sixties high
performance engines, but newer profiles are beter, particularly if you
spring for the hydraulic roller lifter cams and kit.
If I build an engine next winter for my boat this is what it will
be:
383 cubic inch Chevy small block,built from a used(seasoned)
350 four bolt main engine. Brass or stainless freeze plugs, custom 3.75
stroke forged steel crankshaft, 6 inch connecting rods, 9.5 or 10.0 to
one compression ratio hypereutectic cast pistons. World product SR
heads with 76cc combustion chambers, stainless steel valves with
undercut swirl polished stems and heads, bronze valve guides, steel
roller rocker arms. Hydraulic roller camshaft chosen for peak torque at
3200-3400 rpm, max rpm 4600. Fuel system not yet chosen, will probably
be Edelbrock carb/manifold, marine of course.
Let's see, That just about covers it from my perspective. Feel
free to email me for further discussions.
Lawrence
Not surprising. This distinction between car and truck is little
vague. Lots of hi-perf versions of the chevy sb are using stronger
parts, likely the same parts going into trucks. The LT1 rods are
supposed to be the strongest sb rods available from chevy. I'll
bet the LT1 also has a forged crank like a truck too.
Rod Mc Innis
: In article <4qme2n$a...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>,
: Larry
Yes, I know that there are not 1000 hours in a week. It is a case
of the fingers not typing what I was thinking.
I had meant to say YEAR instead of week. The point being argued was
if it was possible to put 20,000 hours on an engine in 20 years. My
point was that just a long commute could put enough hours a day on an
engine to accumulate 20,000 hours in 20 years.
That math is 20,000 divided by 20 years = 1000 hours per year.
1000 hours per year is 20 hours per week times 50 weeks (assuming a
two week vacation each year) which is 4 hours per work day. And yes,
I do know people who drive 2 hours each way to work. And yes, they
are crazy.
After further discsussion, I believe that Pat's point was that an
engine wouldn't survive 20,000 hours, not that it couldn't accumulate
hours at a rate fast enough to obtain that mark if the engine did
survive.
I am not sure I agree with him. Every time I go to my boat, the
farm near the marina has a portable pump (trailer) pumping water from
the irrigation ditch to a rather massive array of sprinklers. It
seems to me that the pump is always in the same place, and it sure
looks like it has been the same pump, and it has been going every time
I have gone by.
Since it doesn't rain enough in California, even in the winter, to
keep crops watered, I suspect that these pumps run pretty much
continuously.
Still, 20K hours is a LOT of hours. How long an engine will last is
more a factor of how it is used than how much it is used.
I catogorize engine failure into three catagories: Pushed too hard,
neglected, and worn out.
Racing engines fail because they are pushed too hard. These are the
failures that break rods, spin bearings, melt pistons, etc.
Neglected engines die because they rust, or corrode, or overheat, or
freeze, or otherwise get damaged. "Neglect" may be too harsh a word.
Any recreational engine is neglected to some extent. When you only
use an engine once a month, and let it sit all the rest of the time,
you invite cylinder wall and valve rusting. The rusting pits the
surface, leading to excessive oil consumption, smoking, poor
compression, etc. Obviously, overheating or freezing can be instant
death.
Very few engines get the chance to be worn out. When they do, they
generally die from worn valve guides, timing chain, or some form of
carberation or electrical problem.
An engine that is run at a moderate load will not fail from being
pushed too hard. If it is run for multiple hours at a time, on a
frequent basis (like continously, or 12 hours a day, every day) it
wont suffer from rusting cylinders. If it is shut down and has it's
oil changed, coolent flushed, and other normal maintenance done on a
regular basis, it won't fail from neglect.
Rod McInnis
Albert Ernest
this is not a testimonial its a phone #
teague custom marine (805) 295-7000 ask for bob teague
28115 avenue stanford - valencia, ca. - 91355
teague and numerous other marine hp engine builder/parts suppliers
can be found in publications - powerboat magazine & hotboat mag.
-
pepper VZW...@prodigy.com
Start Your Engines Inc.
but I think it is not too likely. I have had diesel truck engines put
on that many hours, but they were quite badly worn by that time,
although still running. In the case of an 8V71 Detroit Diesel, we put
20,000 hours on the engine, and then rebuilt it 2 consecutive times.
The truck was working 24 hrs. per day, 5 days per week, averaging
about 200 to 220 days per year. After that, although the truck still
ran, it was replaced with a new one. At each rebuild, the wrist pins
were so badly worn that the pistons had dropped about 1/8 to 1/4 of
an inch. Because the 8V71 is a 2 cycle engine, it still ran in that
condition, it was just a little hard starting, it smoked a little
until it warmed up, and it had lost some power, but it was still
capable of running 24 hours per day. The engine was on a routine
maintenance schedule. In most cases, a diesel engine will outlast a
gasoline engine, but I suppose it may be possible in an exceptional
case to keep a gas engine running for 20,000 hours. I have heard
cases of diesel engines running considerably longer than 20,000
hours, (in excess of 50,000 hours).
JBB
acss...@acs.eku.edu
In article <31CE1E...@surf.com>, Pat Hines <fas...@surf.com> writes:
> My point was that NO engine would run twenty hours per week, 52
> weeks per year, for twenty years without maintenance. Even if said
> engine, a 1950's Crysler gasoline engine in the original post, were run
> for twenty-four hours a day until twenty thousand hours were reached
> that would be 2 1/4 years of continuous running. I stand by my
> statement.
>
> Pat
I don't think the original post claimed that routine maintenance wasn't
done. They only claimed it hadn't been overhauled or that major repairs
had't been done.
Ed McCrudden
Pat Hines (fas...@surf.com) wrote:
: Really? When did you add oil, tighten/replace fan belts,replace
: piston rings, valve guides, and other repairs? The four hours in the
: middle of the night?
We usually drop the truck off for PM around 4:30pm and pick it up
around 11 o'clock, once a month. It gets whatever maintenance it needs
in that time period.
: Its like the story of the man that told me that his family owned the
: hatchette that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree with. Of
: course over the years the handle had been replaced three times and the
: head five, but it was THE hatchette.
I dunno anything about George's hatchet, I'm Canadian. But just for
the helluvit, last night I checked the hour meter on my truck. It
has 8100 engine hours, and it's about half way through its service
life.
It's never had any kind of engine repairs, and never will. Maintenance
is done once a month, as outlined above. Sometimes it gets a brake
job, sometimes it doesn't.
The truck will be sold at auction when we're through with it, and I
expect it will have over 15000 hours on it by then. Replacing things
like valve guides or entire engines is unthinkable... the truck would
be sold if it needed any work that required engine disassembly.
I'm talking about an ordinary GM 350 gasoline V8. At 8100 hours, it
runs the same way it ran when it was brand new, and these trucks run
a minimum of 5 hours a day, average 12-14, and frequently do 20-24
hours daily in the winter. These are emergency service vehicles for
a public utility, and we do NOT shut the engines off when we're out
freezing our butts off at 4am in the middle of February...:-)
Ed <em...@io.org>
1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN
ENOUGH!!!!!!
All these stories about engines running forever in cars and trucks
don't mean anything. Let's talk about these engines in a boat
where they are working 100% of the time. Not sitting there idling
for heat to keep people warm. How many people put their car
or truck into high gear and run up hill all day????
Fabbian G. Dufoe
k...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com> <4qme2n$a...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>
Distribution: world
lee_li...@bocaraton.ibm.com wrote:
: In <4qf64m$k...@enquirer.mv.us.adobe.com>, rmci...@adobe.com (Rod Mc Innis) writes:
: >Boy, I don't know how you figure that! I know people who put 1000
: >hours a week on their car just doing their daily commute to work!
: Wow! I think they should move ALOT closer to their jobs!!!
Assuming they work a seven-day week they would have to spend
142.85 hours per day to rack up 1000 hours a week. Where I live the days
aren't that long. On what planet do these folks live?
--
Fabbian G. Dufoe, III
350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South | email: sf6l...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 |
813-823-2350 | 27 deg 44.5 min N, 82 deg 38.3 min W
Gary Anderson
In article <4r8t7r$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, ga...@holly.ho.att.com
(1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN) wrote:
--
I agree with Garry.
All of you saying you get over 5000 hrs on a gas engine are probably
telling the truth. But keep in mind the life of an engine will depend on
the load. It doesn't take a genius to figure that an idling engine will
last longer than one running at close to 100% all the time in a tow rig.
All big diesel engine builders rate their engine lifespan based on load.
Guess what, they last longer at 50% than at 100% load. And boats run with
under a much greater load than a car does. That's the problem with light
duty components in a boat engine.
Gary Anderson
Internet: GDA...@CCMAIL.MONSANTO.COM
Ed McCrudden
In article <4r8t7r$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
1329C1000-Garry Heon(MT4084)NOBIN <ga...@holly.ho.att.com> wrote:
>All these stories about engines running forever in cars and trucks
>don't mean anything. Let's talk about these engines in a boat
>where they are working 100% of the time. Not sitting there idling
>for heat to keep people warm.
Gee, the engine in my boat spends 90% of the time sitting there
idling (trolling). I expect it'll exceed the 400 hour lifespan
you think is normal by a factor of at least ten, and probably
a lot more. Not all boats are run WOT all the time.
Lemme see now.... your engines cost what, about $20,000? So a lifespan
of 400 hours means your _engines alone_ are costing you $50/hr! Not to
mention the cost of the boat, gas, insurance, dockage, and maintenance.
WOW!!
I dunno, Gary, even if I had your money to burn, I'd still be a
fisherman. But I wouldn't mind having your money anyway. I'd
find something interesting to do with it....:-)
Ed <em...@io.org>
Jamie Bracht
> don't mean anything. Let's talk about these engines in a boat
> where they are working 100% of the time. Not sitting there idling
> or truck into high gear and run up hill all day????
>
> Garry Heon
> First Stepp
> ga...@holly.mt.lucent.com
> My Opinions....Lucent's Network.
Just because an engine is in a boat does not necessarily mean that
it works 100% of the time. If a boat is deliberately underproped it
does not have to work as hard as it does if it is overproped, or if
the prop is sized to provide maximum performance. Many work boats are
underproped just so the engines will live the way they do in other
applications. Some boats have variable drive systems such as hydraulic
drives and variable pitch props so they can be operated under different
loads. However, if you must have an example of a long living gas engine
in a boat, I have a boat that was launched in 1953 with a 20-30 hp.
Easthope gas engine. For 20 years the boat was a work boat, then it was
"retired" to pleasure boat use. I am aware of 1 rebuild in that time,
and it still runs. It was not equipped with an hour meter, so I don't
know how many hours are on it, but it is certainly many thousand.
Jamie Bracht
syen...@port.island.net
Mike
>has been lost hundreds of posts ago.We do get a full eclipse of the sun
>from time to time.
Tim Olson
I'm looking for a supplier where I can buy parts such as a rear shift
cable for my mercruiser 888, but not at the local dealer. If anyone knows
any aftermarket or discount resellers, please EMAIL to my address, as I
may not have access to the newsgroup long enough to read a response.
Email Address: Deep...@sawdust.cvfn.org
Thanks for your help in advance. I just know that you pay double when you
go to the local dealer, and previously I had a friend who died that was
able to pick up parts somewhere for less.
Gary Anderson
> Gee, the engine in my boat spends 90% of the time sitting there
> idling (trolling). I expect it'll exceed the 400 hour lifespan
> you think is normal by a factor of at least ten, and probably
> a lot more. Not all boats are run WOT all the time.
> Ed <em...@io.org>
--
Hey Ed,
The norm around Lake of the Ozarks here in Missouri is running at 75-100%.
And a 400-500 hr lifespan is about right for boats around here. That's a
good thing to know if your buying a used boat.
BTW, my Chris Crafts 427s have 1100 hrs on them, burn no oil, and
compression is within 5 lbs on all cylinders. But I usually run them at
only around 2000 rpm. I'm hoping to get 2500 hrs out of them before
rebuilding.
Gary Anderson
Internet: GDA...@CCMAIL.MONSANTO.COM