Like Tree0Likes

Diesels for boats

Reply
Old 04-22-2008, 04:27 PM
  #141
Registered
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 472
Default

More BS again ,the modern engines are all dyno,d as complete engine,s ,and measured as CORRECTED horsepower not uncorrected ....

I have no idea as to where you heard this ,but thats from the stone age ..

There are a lot guys driving a Mack ,Kenworth ,peterbilt ,etc overhere ,these guys have multiple trucks combo,s ,when they go to Italy with 50 ton , and have to climb steep hills ,the US trucks can,t keep up with the Scania,s and MAN,s ,never ever ,only on top speed they win because the euro trucks are limited at slightly less than 60 mph.
Thats from guys that have both the US and Euro trucks ,seen it myself .....drove them all ...but you won,t believe that ......I work on these trucks every day,but I guess you know better..

I don,t call the US engines trash because it isn,t so ,you should be ashamed yourself ,US people love the Mercedes BMW and Porsche ,Audi ,Lamborghini,Ferrari ,etc ,,I,ve never heard anybody calls them trash,, but I guess if you can,t win a discussion ,you throw in all you can .....right ?

Last edited by stirling; 04-22-2008 at 04:30 PM.
stirling is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 04:46 PM
  #142
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West edge of the Pacific
My Boats: Beat up ole Sleekcraft
Posts: 610
Times are a changing

Quote:
Originally Posted by HabanaJoe View Post
29 firefox,

I enjoy everyone's remarks on here, yours as well. I even say some outlandish things from time to time!

500,000 a miles a year, can't be done. In a perfect world a OTR can avergae about 45 mph, that takes into account fuel stops, drivers eating, maintenance, loading and unloading.

@168 hrs per week that is 393 miles a year (perfect world), factor in logs and a little more than half that is all you can actually put on a truck. Even in the old days, 300,000 was monumental and could only be done by certain teams never a company effort.

I think we all got off track here including me and need to remember this is a boat forum and we should be discussing boating issues.

We're all just talking to talk at this point, one of us (me included) or a group of us should get off our a**es and start kicking some gas engine butt like we know we can!!!

Let's take a vote!!

What engine would we start with if we could put a project together today?

I'll start a new thread for this.
Joe,
Thats back in the day logging figures. The industry is an evolving thing. They have tons of new technology. Regulations have changed. Modes of operations have changed. Things like weigh on the fly and Pre Pass. Paperless logs. Secure internet posting of cargo manifests. Interstate internet hook ups between scale houses. Satellite communication with the trucks. Companies know where the truck is and what it's doing and if necessary the dispatcher can shut a truck down from his computer at headquarters. Changes to the hours of service rules. Operations wise Team drivers maximized. They do a FULL 100% drop & hook. Solo drivers and Shag drivers handle the load and unload. Back under the old 10 & 8 rules with a 65 mph governed truck As a solo drives the max I could run in a "day" (24 hrs one log page) was 760+ miles. When they went to 11 & 10 I was able to start hitting 840+ miles in a day. Plus they shaved 14 hours off the reset after a 5 day flame out. I got off the road when they banned splits. Also stuff like when the truck maintenance getting done while the driver is sleeping. Back in the day a solo could log a million miles in 7 to 8 years now they do it in 4 to 5 years. Teams? Their trucks are turned up higher they are operationally treated special and they are maximized as much as possible. My best year solo I did 265,700.
29Firefox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 06:51 PM
  #143
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Turku, Finland
My Boats: Something small blown and light
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Njawb View Post
Don't tell 29Firefox, stirling, but those MAN and Scania V8s have a better horsepower to displacement ratio than the I6, 14.9l Cummins ISX 565.
And I drive currently a MAN...
Thats the same truck maker that built the Very first diesels ever and many U-boats had them too.

Now regarding the claims of how much a US trucker makes I have to take Firefoxes claims with a load of salt and the miles would be 5 times more than I do at 60hrs weeks working 5 days a week.
Now you had to talk about gross pay and as a O/O which equals to about 60-70thou at the bottom line max.
I know a few Truckers overthere as O/O and they cry out currently when they hear what I make as an employee...

Last edited by MikeyFIN; 04-24-2008 at 07:35 PM.
MikeyFIN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 06:54 PM
  #144
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Turku, Finland
My Boats: Something small blown and light
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 29Firefox View Post
I swear every time you guys see a V type engine it's lust at first sight. The Audi V12-TDI has all those flashy euro numbers lets cut them down to real world numbers 500 PS @ 1000 Nm. Or in real world numbers 493 hp SAE (actually less because they cheat on the dyno set up)@ 738 ftlbs. Now if you take a look at their own published performance curves you will see the torque curve peters out at 3000 rpm. http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060911....2-tdi-revealed
A Cummins QSB 5.9 will out perform the Audi engine hands down. Lets take a redneck physics lesson. You have a two 53' trailers loaded with 75 lb bags of pinto beans. You have one being unloaded by a dozen 10 yr olds and the other one by a half dozen 20 yr olds. The 20 year olds can lump one bag per man per trip into the trailer. The 10 year olds can lump one bag per two children per trip into the trailer. Two kids on one bag cannot move as well as one adult on one bag. It's parasitic loss. Under 15 liters of displacement straight 6 engines out perform V engines any day of the week.

BS all the way...
And my friend has a 470hp Dodge Ram 5.9...
And my dyno works too...
MikeyFIN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 07:00 PM
  #145
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Turku, Finland
My Boats: Something small blown and light
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 29Firefox View Post
At 85 PS per liter that Audi engine is no slouch. The Banks tuned QSB is hitting a 124 hp per liter. There are older 6-BT engines in sled competition hitting a 169 hp per liter. Cummins is still on the fence about releasing the QSB-600. Thats a production marine engine that puts out 101 hp per liter. That Audi engine is an engineering marvel. But its near it's peak out of the box. There isn't very much room to tweak some more go fast out of it. But remember the QSB is no technological slouch. It was using the same fuel delivery system as the Audi while the Audi was still on the drawing board. The Banks tuned QSB uses a VGT turbo like the Audi albeit a different design. Also remember this. The L vs V argument is the same for gasoline engines too!
blah blah blah.. and the Audi diesel V12 won the LeMans24Hr OVERALL.
Now that was flat out all the way from the start with 200+mph tops...
It can take a pleasure boating task with no sweat. But cummins struggles after 500 hp... and canīt last a 24 hrs race even on land.
MikeyFIN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 07:13 PM
  #146
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Turku, Finland
My Boats: Something small blown and light
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 29Firefox View Post
I've been toying with idea of controllable pitch props like the ones on the big stuff that I work on. Anybody have soem input?
I do. I haul those mothers constantly...what do you like to know about them ?

Last edited by MikeyFIN; 04-24-2008 at 07:32 PM.
MikeyFIN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 07:30 PM
  #147
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Turku, Finland
My Boats: Something small blown and light
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 29Firefox View Post
Cummins QSB is about the same displacement and has been built to over a hundred HP more. The Banks Sidewinder Dakota can out run that Le Mans car.

Never on both counts...The Banks sidwinder would never Finish the races the Audi can put up with.
Happen to have a friend deeply connected with the current Rally side of Audi Motorsport and Iīm a diehard GM nut but the fact is the Duramax isnīt all that great...

Last edited by MikeyFIN; 04-24-2008 at 07:32 PM.
MikeyFIN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 10:50 PM
  #148
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,425
Default

[QUOTE=HabanaJoe;2532034]The question is, our experience here in the US with big V-8 diesels is they don't hold up to a lot of rapid load changing. QUOTE]

I'm sorry, Joe, but that doesn't make a bit of sense to me. What in the world does load changing have to do with engine durability based on cylinder configuration? It just sounds like a bunch of poorly designed engines.

Michael
Michael1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2008, 11:33 PM
  #149
Registered
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Freehold, NJ
My Boats: 32 SeaCraft
Posts: 1,381
Default

First things first

firefox - I like you, we talk on here have some fun, but your miles that a truck can run are just not possible ie:
24 hr/day x 365 days = 8760 hrs

500,000 mi divided by 8760 hrs = 57 miles per hours average speed.

I'm trying not to be insulting here but there is no way anyone can look at that and say it's possible.

Michael1 - let me explain myself about the V8 remark. In the olden days as someone pointed out that I am part of, we had 3 V8 engines for class 8 trucks. The Cummins 903, Detroit 8V92 and Cat 3408 and for whatever reason the bottom ends on these engines would not last as long as an in-line 6. It was always explained as simply the I-6 has more bearing surface for the same Hp, and the shifting is what tears up the bottom ends, hence I-6 bottom end lasted longer.

Was that the case as to why??? Could it be the advancements in bearings and oiling (such as low pressure, high flow) were coming to the I-6 engines and V's got nothing and were allowed to die a natural death???

Ask any old timer like myself who had trucks in the late 70's and early 80's about V-8's and they tell you the bottom ends don't last. Again, I don't for sure why, just know they sucked.

For you doubting Thomases, I attached a my first peice of press ever. Look at the bottom it talks about classes starting in 1983. If you can read it I all ready had 350 trucks and trailers by that time, I started the business in 1979 running all team trucks from NY to LA and back. I may not be able to give you exact reasons as to why the V-8's were bad, but I know they cost me money and couldn't stay together.
Attached Thumbnails
Diesels for boats-scan0015small.jpg  
HabanaJoe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2008, 12:43 AM
  #150
Registered
 
matador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
My Boats: 42 victory offshore racing team
Posts: 51
Default

we need a light engine like yanmar or cat and multiple gear tranny 2-3 speeds ZF or Weissman and should get decent reliable results.....
matador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FROGMAN524
MTI (Marine Technologies)
31
06-02-2009 11:53 PM
45sonic
General Q & A
18
12-30-2008 08:06 AM
Fenderjack
General Boating Discussion
2
03-11-2008 09:37 AM
Quicksilver
Trucks, Trailers and Transportation
12
02-02-2008 12:21 AM
Jassman
General Boating Discussion
27
01-27-2007 10:01 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.