Beta JD3 Classic Tug Engine.

[PeterG]

Now it seems safe to post on this thread (possibly) this is what I have found so far on my Beta Tug.

 

First of all I will say that I first looked at a 'real' engine in the engine room but decided that I would go with a Tug instead after talking to a number of people and thinking it over for some time. Mine does sound good at low revs, but more tractor like at higher revs. It also sounds generally a bit rattly on idle inside.

 

However it is mounted directly onto very well built bearers which seems to a lot better than previous boats for vibrations.

 

All in all though it starts at the turn of the key and pulls well enough for my 62ft boat.

 

I am not all concerned about showing it off in the engine room as the base John Deere engine has been around for some time, so how modern is it? Or perhaps the thought is it sounds like a tractor as compared to a generator?

 

I also like the three cylinder beat, but there again I like the slightly odd beat of a V twin but that is another story......

[Steve3]

Hi another view.

We had our unreliable Lister JP3 replaced with a Beta Tug in March this year and have done 200 hours since.

It was fitted on wooden engine bearers and we used the same exhaust silencer as the Lister. The 24x20 Crowther prop was repitched to 20x17 which is perfect IMO. On shallow canals 700 revs is sufficient, deaper water allows up to 800 and it really moves on rivers at 1000 revs.

 

The only down side is the sound, no it is not noisey in fact it is queiter than before but with load at low revs they are very clattery, once at cruising speed its great.

 

Things i dont miss.

The smoke when doing a lock flight or at other times if it felt like it(I gave up smoking years ago)

The smell in the engine room.

Taking ages to rev up.

 

Things I like.

Instant power as soon as you wind it on.

No smoke when warm.

Does not use oil or coolant.

Easy to service.

3 year warranty.

Another 3 foot in the engine room.

Oh and this has surprised me, early days but appears to use less diesel.

Less pitch on the prop makes the boat easier to handle in emergency stop and when reversing.

 

Am I happy YES

[riverwolf]

Two very Helpfull Posts! Thank You Both! Mike.

[NB Alnwick]

I aint one of them

 

Oh yes you are!

 

I would be intrested in hearing how this engine performs?Good or Bad,Thanks,Mike.

 

I cannot comment on the Beta conversion but there is a marinised John Deere three cylinder engine installed in NB Flint - a seventy foot R W Davis 'Northwich Trader'.

 

I can vouch that it will move the boat through the water just as fast as our Kelvin K3 will (and with a lot less fuss), it is just as quiet as our engine and, unlike our engine, it takes up hardly any space in the engine room.

[n.b.Goldie]

As far as I can tell from my observations of other people's 'set-ups' if you like tinkering with and spending a lot of money on your engine then go for a vintage engine. If you want something that will start every-time and run reliably then go for a BETA MARINE motor.

 

I have no connection with Beta other than as a satisfied customer.

[carlt]

When I arrived back, from living in France, I made a living out of restoring and selling antique furniture.

 

I also made pine dressers to sell through a rural craft/antique centre which were well built, from good quality wood and not the usual palletwood cr*p that is usually foisted, on the unwary.

 

They were a very close replica of the late Georgian dresser that sat in my kitchen but there is no way I would have had one of mine, in its place.

 

If you want a new engine, that looks and sounds like a vintage then that is just fine but, personally, I would rather have a modern looking and sounding engine, than a copy of the genuine article.

[robkg]

As far as I can tell from my observations of other people's 'set-ups' if you like tinkering with and spending a lot of money on your engine then go for a vintage engine. If you want something that will start every-time and run reliably then go for a BETA MARINE motor.

 

I have no connection with Beta other than as a satisfied customer.

I think there is a wide misconception about vintage diesel engines. Like any other piece of machinery, if used for 60 - 80 years without major overhaul then problems will arise.

If the engine is restored to a high standard however there is no reason why it should be any more troublesome or unreliable than a modern one.

The component parts are generally over engineered and the slow running reduces the wear rate, hence the reason they are still around.

The only negatives that I can see are that the power to weight/size ratio needing more space (and less ballast), and the cost (although DIY restoration can reduce this substantially)

The Ruston served us for 10 years with no problems (other than one of my own making). The Kelvin also has given no problems so far after a year.

I just hope I have not tempted fate with this post.

 

Rob

[Proper Job]

I think there is a wide misconception about vintage diesel engines. Like any other piece of machinery, if used for 60 - 80 years without major overhaul then problems will arise.

If the engine is restored to a high standard however there is no reason why it should be any more troublesome or unreliable than a modern one.

The component parts are generally over engineered and the slow running reduces the wear rate, hence the reason they are still around.

The only negatives that I can see are that the power to weight/size ratio needing more space (and less ballast), and the cost (although DIY restoration can reduce this substantially)

The Ruston served us for 10 years with no problems (other than one of my own making). The Kelvin also has given no problems so far after a year.

I just hope I have not tempted fate with this post.

 

Rob

I can only agree.

'Steve3' obviously had a bad experience with his JP3, replaced it with a JD3 and is now much happier.

The JP3 in Ocelot is as good as new. When I bought the boat I had every intention of replacing it with a National 3D that I was in the process of re-building. A year down the line, I am more than happy with the JP3 to the extent that the National has now been sold.

It doesn't smoke (except for a short period when increasing the revs), is quiet (a nice big silencer - non of this through exhaust), does vibrate a bit (metal to metal mounting), needs minimal maintenance (1/2 turn on the greasers every couple of hours) and starts first time every time.

With regular oil changes, I am hoping it will out live me.

Why do people think 'vintage' means unreliable?

 

As for JD3's - I know someone who has one. It's quiet'ish at tickover, undeniably a tractor engine at much above tickover. He's very happy with it.

I always think it looks a little small in the engine room. I'm not sure if that's because it is a small engine (relitive to say a JP3) or he's got a large engine room?

[Tim Lewis]

Well. I must admit that I had neutral opinions on these engines until I had the misfortune to happen upon a "Lame Duck" at Braunston (Why on earth I am a "Lame Duck" magnet is beyond me!!), but, please do read on.

 

<Snip>

 

We (Heather and I), helped him up the through the rest of the locks out of Braunston towards Blisworth - with me doing all the donkey work, we even charged his megga-torch for an hour on our generator! Once we reach the locks at the top of the Buckby flight, I went on-line to check the canal route finder, I had to tell the guy that he had but 137 miles to go. He wanted to be there in four days, I told him that was totally impossible and that it would take at least 8 days of hard slog!<Snip>

I must admit, that once we had ceased laughing, Lame Duck was a like-able and generous guy, and we both wish him well with his naively ill-planned journey!

 

Am slightly confused, apart from the fact that the planned canal to St Albans was never built, a convienient point, say Watford, is easily do-able from Braunston in four (long) days

 

Tim

Edited July 30, 2009 by Tim Lewis

[churchward]

I think there is a wide misconception about vintage diesel engines. Like any other piece of machinery, if used for 60 - 80 years without major overhaul then problems will arise.

If the engine is restored to a high standard however there is no reason why it should be any more troublesome or unreliable than a modern one.

The component parts are generally over engineered and the slow running reduces the wear rate, hence the reason they are still around.

The only negatives that I can see are that the power to weight/size ratio needing more space (and less ballast), and the cost (although DIY restoration can reduce this substantially)

The Ruston served us for 10 years with no problems (other than one of my own making). The Kelvin also has given no problems so far after a year.

I just hope I have not tempted fate with this post.

 

Rob

I think you are right a properly reconditioned and well maintained "Vintage" engine is likely to be perfectly reliable. However, it is also true to say whilst many of these engines are tough workhorses proven over time they cannot be immune to wear or abuse. Also just because they may be a vintage engine also doesn't make them good in that some will be better designs than others.

 

The slow running does reduce wear rate up to a point but each stroke is very powerful compared to each stroke of a modern high RPM engine so the hammer effect on bearings etc is very much higher and can be unkind to any casting defects. It is not just the piston moving up and down that will cause wear and failure of an engine.

Edited July 30, 2009 by churchward

[PeterG]

I can only agree.

 

Why do people think 'vintage' means unreliable?

 

As for JD3's - I know someone who has one. It's quiet'ish at tickover, undeniably a tractor engine at much above tickover. He's very happy with it.

I always think it looks a little small in the engine room. I'm not sure if that's because it is a small engine (relitive to say a JP3) or he's got a large engine room?

 

Having a 'vintage' engine does not mean unreliable. If you have a well put together engine and it is either new or properly reconditioned it should be equally reliable. Perhaps getting a new Beta Tug with a warranty is more 'reliable' than buying a vintage engine which by definition will not be new and could be anything from as new too clapped out. However if you know what you are doing or get help from someone that does then you should be fine.

 

A JP3 is certainly over a foot longer and quite a lot higher than a JD3 so will look smaller in the engine room.

[g-man]

The slow running does reduce wear rate up to a point but each stroke is very powerful compared to each stroke of a modern high RPM engine so the hammer effect on bearings etc is very much higher and can be unkind to any casting defects. It is not just the piston moving up and down that will cause wear and failure of an engine.

 

Also the long stroke of a vintage style engine means increased piston speed in the bores against shorter stroke modern engine which is why they have to have a lower rev limit. But the upshot is both vintage and modern engines will last a long time if serviced properly the choice boils down to looks and sound V practicality (e.g twin alternators) and cost. I notice according to Beta the tug engine uses more fuel too compared to their smaller engines with similar performance? Not to be ignored with diesel costs increasing.

[PaddingtonBear]

Braunston to Cowroast a very hard 2.75 days solo but with the aid of a rousing send off from D.Schweizer Esq but don't lets start a comparing trips and times - none of us is Ron Withey and his 35 hour days

Edited July 30, 2009 by PaddingtonBear

[churchward]

Also the long stroke of a vintage style engine means increased piston speed in the bores against shorter stroke modern engine which is why they have to have a lower rev limit. But the upshot is both vintage and modern engines will last a long time if serviced properly the choice boils down to looks and sound V practicality (e.g twin alternators) and cost. I notice according to Beta the tug engine uses more fuel too compared to their smaller engines with similar performance? Not to be ignored with diesel costs increasing.

That's true as well. The low RPM engines have a different wear profile but none the less they do wear. Due to the strong forces they are made robustly though. The thing about a reconditioned engine is that some of the parts used will still be old and subject to fatigue at a later date. A friend of mine had a small valve lever break for no specific reason than it had come to a point where after 50 years working metal fatigue meant it shattered. Still, a new one was easily made and the engine none the worse.

[PeterG]

I notice according to Beta the tug engine uses more fuel too compared to their smaller engines with similar performance? Not to be ignored with diesel costs increasing.

 

I noticed the theoretical fuel consumption difference as well, but from my experience so far my old 57ft boat with a Beta 38 is only slightly (10%) more efficient than my new 62ft boat with a Beta Tug.

 

That of course is only one comparison but is valid for my typical cruising style and area has been consistent with the new boat being a bit bigger and heavier.

 

Not sure how the theoretical consumptions are calculated and hence hold much validity?

[Athy]

Surely we should not be surprised that a big engine uses more fuel than a smaller one?

[Proper Job]

Surely we should not be surprised that a big engine uses more fuel than a smaller one?

Not necessarily true.

 

My 4.3 litre Lister uses less fuel than a Perkins MC42 that I had in a previous boat, which I think was around 2 litre

 

The Lister does run a little slower though