Tony Brooks

55 bhp and using the generally accepted 1 sq ft of tank area one face) per 4 bhp gives 13.75 sq ft of skin tank area. An inter cooler pump is more likely designed for the engine coolant circuit, not to pump raw water with bits in it. I expect it's centrifugal so not self priming and also subject to loss of output as the impeller clogs. I say centrifugal because a normal Johnson/Jabsco rubber impeller would not take kindly to engine running temperatures. If this is a steel boat don't see the difference between a pipe welded into the hull and a hull seam. If its GRP we operated a large GRP Thames hire fleet using keel cooling a sour preferred option because it was so much more reliable compared with indirect raw water cooling (heat exchanger).

I bet its not, I also bet your hour counter is a mechanical one like an old car's mileage indicator. I think it the dreaded LCD screen failure that seem to be an ongoing thing with LCD hour counters, especially when outside.

PS, I last night I thought tat I could not see a raw water pump or it's crankshaft pully on that video and I can't. I trust you are aware it is a keel cooled engine.

Not me, but if I had a 1.5 AND that filter cleared the engine bed/frame it would be one of the first things I would do - far easier to do a clean oil and filter change.

Those mounts are not designed to accept prop thrust, and nether are the front rubber blocks. They will probably work for a while but i would not be surprised if the rubber started to peel away from the steel end plates. They can really only accept compression, not the sheer caused by the prop thrust. If you have a shaft thrust bearing the they should do the job but how much vibration they would transmit is open to question.

No idea, are they in the way? Perhaps a photo of that side of the engine so I can see or a Vetus owner will reply.

No, it won't go into the fuel system. it can only get to the inlet ports, the vave heads, the cylinders and the the exhaust. by the time it has been through the cylinder it would probably just be ash. I don't think it is a good idea to put anything into the engine that will wash the oil from the bores and introduce a volatile liquid into the sump. doing so may even cause an explosion in the crankcase as the engine heats up and evaporates the acetone. Taking the manifold off is probably the best way and being an inlet manifold you can just reuse the old gaske, howeevr I ssupect there may not be much left of the glove there you can get to it..

What engine? Take the inlet manifold off to see where it has to to but I suspect it it inside the engine and will soon get burned, torn and crushed so the engine will smooth out. No guarantees though. Otherwise take the head off and have a look. Diesels have been known to eat small nuts and run without apparent problems. At least a nitrile glove won't embed itself in to a piston or even bend a valve.

The way you pick and choose what you feel "Mr Morris" fitted, even though he did not, is important to preserve and what you can alter to suit yourself. The way you refused to accept that what everybody else calls an engine bed is called a frame, also the way you kept on about high quality, reliability and such like yet managed to buy what may well be a 50 year old engine and gearbox with all the potential wear and machining that implies, that had a different gearbox to that described AND had it's standard rear mounts (that are unobtainable as far as know) missing and with a bodged replacement makes me think that you are a bit of an "old woman" (kindest description) who knows a lot less that you think you do. So on one hand you want reliability and high quality as per the original design and on the other its almost anything will do when it suits you. If my identification of the flywheel housing is correct then the standard engine mounts (the type fitted when the engine was marinised) are missing and more to the point, no longer available. You also seem to want to use non-standard rear engine feet. If you don't understand what I am telling you about what mounts were the standard ones and the ones you propose to use are non-standard for that engine and flywheel housing then I don't know how to make it any clearer. You are not consistent in defining what you are trying to achieve. Remember that you say that you intend to cross the Atlantic with that engine (plus sails) and it seems the the back of the engine will be supported on non-standard engine feet. Are you sure they will be strong enough when the boat is bucking like a bronco and rolling about for hours on end? I am certainly not going to invite problems for myself if I tell you the mounts you propos to use are OK and the worst happens. THEY ARE NOT THE MOUNTS THAT WERE STANDARD ON THAT ENGINE! If you are going to cut your engine beds about or bolt bits to them then I would be happier if you used the original mount points with a strong, machined stepped washer to fill the holes the original mounts fitted through to use the original rear engine feet. I must also point out that with that gearbox that has, I think, a cast iron case the rear mounts may have to be stronger that the front ones if you intend to use the modern type of mount.

But pending better advice from and experience plumbers on here I would have thought that a typical boats 1.5 bar cut out pressure and a bout a bar and a quarter cut in pressure would be more than enough to work well enough on stuff designed to run from a loft tank.

As long as you use the plastic pipe and fittings designed for use in houses the will work well and be more frost resistant than copper. 15mm should be fine. If to make a connection you have to use a compression fitting make sure you buy metal rather than plastic inserts for the ends of the plastic pipe. As long as you can get the hose tails there is no reason not to use the hoses you show but I would tend not to use it for the kitchen tap just in case the plasticiser leached out when left for prolonged periods unused. I can't see an actual tap on Tracy's link unless you use the shower head. I also found that the wall mount on the cheaper versions were plastic and not very positive. I think I might have one you can have but collect from Reading. It is just a shower mixer.

If the pipes can be behind the wall I used one of these successfully https://www.toolstation.com/shower-wall-plate/p61910?store=LL&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=googleshoppingfeed&mkwid=s_dc&pcrid=515847200345&pkw=&pmt=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1JSs99HO8wIVrIFQBh3DpgLPEAQYAiABEgKIDPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds I suspect a standard mixer tap will also fit. I think domestic (house) taps will be far longer lasting and more robust than caravan type equipment.

Now you know why the official rear mount (flywheel housing located) are missing and a new set of feet have been fitted to the gearbox. A previous owner found the rear mounts were unobtainable, so bodged at extra set onto the unit, so he still only had four mountings. Unless oil or fuel have been sprayed about in the past, the front rubber mounts, between the engine block brackets and cross member are normally fine but if they have sagged I fully except MG B ones would do the job. The front cross member was bolted directly to the engine bed by Newage/Tempest (Mr Morris) as designed. It was not designed for the cross member to sit on extra flexible mounts. I think the front mounts that are set at an angle are the main anti-torque members, just as they were in a vehicle. I think the vehicles had just a single rear gearbox mount. It seems that you have managed to buy an engine that has been modified well away from the Newage/Tempest (Mr Morris) design. I am not going to comment on the advisability of using non-standard mount or engine feet in the light of your insistence on the need for "quality" and "reliability" in your earlier posts. We still need images of the rear of the engine, showing the mounts and feet.

It seems that you are correct to view the additives with a good dose of scepticism. Yes, using an emulsifying additive with anything but a tiny amount of water in the tank is likely to create excessive fuel/water emulsion. The biocide types and emulsifiers may also be implicated in the "sticky diesel" thing and the wax like substance that has blocked some diesel filters, as reported by RCR. I am not sure anyone properly understands the processes. I am sure that annual or half-yearly sucking whatever lurks in the bottom of the tank is vital before adding an additive. If after a couple of cleanings I only found a minimal amount of water I would not use an emulsifier but would use a biocide in the autumn ready for the winter layup.

I would be worrying more about getting new rear engine mounts than changing a serviceable air cleaner that, using your words, was fitted by Mr Morris (Except it was not, it was fitted by Newage/Tempest) The video clearly shows the front mounts and they are the standard Newage/Tempest system that employs the standard vehicle rubber mounts and those rarely fail. The rear mounts are obscured but from the part of the flywheel housing that I can see it looks as if the flywheel housing, of which the engine feet are a part, is also the original Newage/Tempest one. Now the mounts used in these, that look like a tall top hats passing up through a large hole in the foot with the securing screw/bolt down the centre, were made by Metalastic Ltd and I believe they have been unobtainable for a fair number of years. That type of mount are secured into the foot by three small set screws, screwed up from underneath, and when the mount rubber sags they hit the bed and produce vibrations and so on. The screws are not under any significant load, so sometimes it is possible to file the heads of the screws to about half thickness or turn up a thick washer that is the same size as the flange on the bottom of the metal centre to the mount and use that to make up for the sag in the mount, but it is all too easy to mess up the shaft alignment if you make it too thick. Both "solutions" should only be considered as temporary.

For the BSS - yes, if the hose is marked so the examiner can see it meets the required ISO/BS rating.

Mike, he does not seem to have a boat that is subject to the BSS so it has no relevance to him (apart from being a pointer to best practice). He has said that he intends to sail across the Atlantic in his boat.

If you look at the first image where the cover has been taken off the box, you will see a fork hanging down from the cover. This locates and secures a sliding dog clutch on the shaft below. In an emergency you take the cover off, side the dog clutch into the centre of the clutch, and replace the cover. The box is then locked in gear, but which gear depends upon how the box was assembled. I am all but sure it will operate for very long periods in either direction, so basically that dog clutch determine which rotation is ahead and which is astern. If it is wrong you go home in moving backwards! They are/were very good and reliable gearboxes, not least because they use engine oil, but if it is a 100 it is at least 49 years old. It may well be a more modern model but it could still be over 30 years old.

I am sure it is not but over the years BW have made other marine boxes but none I could find images of looked like this one. It is definitely not a 71C or 72C as far as I can see.

The control quadrant being placed on top of an up-stand seems similar to a PRM 100 (stopped production in 1973) but the bit above the coupling does not. It also seems that the box is mounted at an angle that is typical of PRM.