Jump to content

Bmc 1.5 Cylinder Head Rebuild


RLWP

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I notice however, that nice Mr TNLI is developing a penchant for answering decade old threads.

Yes, I might indeed plead guilty of spending many years considering a reply before posting, which has resulted in some very fine white whiners who a sober enough the notice a postal date. 

 

Back on topic: Buying an old donkey like a BMC 1500 Thornycroft version if possible can reasult in the need to spend thousands of pounds on buying reconditioned everything, and another few thousand on having those parts installed correctly, IF the previous owners or users had seriously abused the block and even made some very problematic repairs that were always going to cause another failure, as this thread shows, although the OP was good enough to be able to install the parts himself. 

Just now, TNLI said:

Yes, I might indeed plead guilty of spending many years considering a reply before posting, which has resulted in some very fine white whiners who a sober enough the notice a postal date. 

 

Back on topic: Buying an old donkey like a BMC 1500 (Thornycroft version if possible), can reasult in the need to spend thousands of pounds on buying reconditioned everything, and another few thousand on having those parts installed correctly, IF the previous owners or users had seriously abused the block and even made some very problematic repairs that were always going to cause another failure, as this thread shows, although the OP was good enough to be able to install the parts himself. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

Apart from saving money,I can't see that using a vehicle radiator and electric fan will be satisfactory for very long.

I think the electric fan will be running constantly for normal canal cruising and if you are pushing against wind and tide,I think it will be working overtime,and if it hands it's dinner pail in,you could be knackered.

A heat exchanger system I think will be more reliable,although I accept more expensive.

A BMC 1500 generates less heat than any turbo diesel car in current production, so if you use a new radiator and twin fan unit, (They are sold seperately), for a typical 1.6 or 1.9 turbo diesel, (Around 80 to 130 hp) only one fan will be active even on a warm day. If you are using the canal system, the very low power will probably result in none of the fans switching on! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TNLI said:

A BMC 1500 generates less heat than any turbo diesel car in current production, so if you use a new radiator and twin fan unit, (They are sold seperately), for a typical 1.6 or 1.9 turbo diesel, (Around 80 to 130 hp) only one fan will be active even on a warm day. If you are using the canal system, the very low power will probably result in none of the fans switching on! 

 

I have doubts,but please let us know what happens.

Don't mind being wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

I have doubts,but please let us know what happens.

Don't mind being wrong.

There are a few additional modifications involved if you have a hydraulic box, " Like wot I do ave", to quote Glenda Jackson in her greatest film ever, Cleopatra!

  I think all of the hydraulic boxes have an oil cooler that must be included in the  cooling circuit, so that type of box will add about 10% more Joules or kW to the actual engine heat loss figure at max continuous power, AND it is also very important to have a dual fan fresh air intake and engine bay oulet system. The engine bay of a real offshore lifeboat is a sealed semi water proof one, with its own auto bilges pumps and fire bottles, (One auto burst and one manual trigger bottle). The small engine bay of my own lifeboat will also have an emergency flood valve, (Or drain out), fitted to a stainless through hull that has a waterprof lock on its handle. If you don't fit engine bay fans to keep the air intake and entire outer area of the engine, (Sump in particular), cool, it will result in less max HP being available and the fan, or fans running for longer periods.

  The header tank for my design is also over rated at 2.5 liters, as TNLB Elsie May might be visting a few areas where the local yocalsare a tad trigger happy, like London. I'm also fitting the same auto shut down and low coolant level alarm system as I fitted to my last yacht. That way the engine cuts out about 30 seconds after a warning bell or siren sounds. Nearly all good marine generators have that option fitted or available.

 

Modern ECU common rail diesels, (Like many cars have), do generate about 20% less heat than a less efficient older donkey, until the turbo starts to whine, then the coolant heat output figures are the same, The dual fan radiator I'm looking at is a Volvo one so is rated for max continous power at zero speed in 35C, for 5 mins, then 75% continuos, (4000 RPM for my Volvo 1.9 TD). Vovo and Ford designers assume you are trying to tow a heavy caravan up a steep sand dune in a hot desert! Both fans will be running in that limiting case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

There are a few additional modifications involved if you have a hydraulic box, " Like wot I do ave", to quote Glenda Jackson in her greatest film ever, Cleopatra!

  I think all of the hydraulic boxes have an oil cooler that must be included in the  cooling circuit, so that type of box will add about 10% more Joules or kW to the actual engine heat loss figure at max continuous power, AND it is also very important to have a dual fan fresh air intake and engine bay oulet system. The engine bay of a real offshore lifeboat is a sealed semi water proof one, with its own auto bilges pumps and fire bottles, (One auto burst and one manual trigger bottle). The small engine bay of my own lifeboat will also have an emergency flood valve, (Or drain out), fitted to a stainless through hull that has a waterprof lock on its handle. If you don't fit engine bay fans to keep the air intake and entire outer area of the engine, (Sump in particular), cool, it will result in less max HP being available and the fan, or fans running for longer periods.

  The header tank for my design is also over rated at 2.5 liters, as TNLB Elsie May might be visting a few areas where the local yocalsare a tad trigger happy, like London. I'm also fitting the same auto shut down and low coolant level alarm system as I fitted to my last yacht. That way the engine cuts out about 30 seconds after a warning bell or siren sounds. Nearly all good marine generators have that option fitted or available.

 

Modern ECU common rail diesels, (Like many cars have), do generate about 20% less heat than a less efficient older donkey, until the turbo starts to whine, then the coolant heat output figures are the same, The dual fan radiator I'm looking at is a Volvo one so is rated for max continous power at zero speed in 35C, for 5 mins, then 75% continuos, (4000 RPM for my Volvo 1.9 TD). Vovo and Ford designers assume you are trying to tow a heavy caravan up a steep sand dune in a hot desert! Both fans will be running in that limiting case.

 

 

 

Auto cut off? Alarms? 

 

"local yocals are a tad trigger happy" ? what has that got to do with with header tanks.

 

Once again you're forgetting that this is, primarily, a canal based forum.  So your solutions are completely over engineered for the environment most people are working in.

 

At the end of the day why on earth would you fit an "abused" bodged, BMC 1.5 into any boat nowaways. There are plenty of newer, cleaner engines round now compared to when the BMC was the engine of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, StephenA said:

 

Auto cut off? Alarms? 

 

"local yocals are a tad trigger happy" ? what has that got to do with with header tanks.

 

Once again you're forgetting that this is, primarily, a canal based forum.  So your solutions are completely over engineered for the environment most people are working in.

 

At the end of the day why on earth would you fit an "abused" bodged, BMC 1.5 into any boat nowaways. There are plenty of newer, cleaner engines round now compared to when the BMC was the engine of choice.

It's normal to have an automatic shutdown for marine generators and bigger marine diesels. That simple circuit can be switched off, but needs to be on if you need to sleep with the engine, or generator running. The header tank I'm looking at will need to have a sensor to detect if the coolant level is low, as used in some cars to warn you that you need to top up the header tank. 

 

  I'm sure some canal boat rental companies fit such systems to avoid a renter or friend trashing the engine just because of a coolant leak, broken belt or low fluid levels. A simple warning light and associated gauge is OK for the actual boats owner if he or she is the skipper, but not for any person who is unable to pay for a full rebuild of what might be a 10 grand new donkey, or even a 50 grand ultra efficient go green diesel electric hybrid drive system. 

 

The BMC 1500 I now own has been fully rebuit to a far higher standard than even I expected, about the only jobs I need to do is to fit a brand new instrument panel with all the features the RNLI offshore boats and many private, (Oil & Gas sector contractors), small on station rescue boats use. If you correctly restore a BMC 1500, it is a far tougher engine and will survive some very serious abuse that occurs when you have a bad day at the office. The worst shout or emergency involves a loud bang from some facility when your own main engine is not running and the generator is also shutdown. In artic, (Scotland in winter), cold starts and sudden need for full power ASAP, only the Bukh and BMC 1500 blocks were built to a high enough standard to not only start first go, (If you are using the correct engine oil which is probably a major brand 0 or 5w30 Acea B4 truck oil), and not chew out the rings, or just stop dead, as the skipper slams the go lever. The same game can happen if the anchor drags or the mooring fails, 

  The folks selling modern shiny diesels for small boats do not klike any extra system being fitted that is designed to offer aditional protection to the main block, that is why those fairly simple systems are not offered as an option. It's bad for business!

 

  The BMC 1500 block is the very one used for the Thornycroft 1.5 used to power the last of the full displacement offshore RNLI lifeboats, the lovely Rother 37. 

The RNLI engineers really do know how tough they made the block, Thornycroft just added the extras like keel cooling, not the silly suck and spit systems, I do try to copy some of their old designs and requirements, even though my basic design was based on a modified USCG 36500 concept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Wikipedia entry for the Rother class RNLI Boat:

 

Twin 52 hp Ford Thorneycroft 250 four-cylinder diesels gave a maximum speed of 8 knots

 

Does not sound much like a 30 to 35 HP BMC 1.5 to me, but we all know Wikipedia cam be wrong but in this case I doubt it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

From the Wikipedia entry for the Rother class RNLI Boat:

 

Twin 52 hp Ford Thorneycroft 250 four-cylinder diesels gave a maximum speed of 8 knots

 

Does not sound much like a 30 to 35 HP BMC 1.5 to me, but we all know Wikipedia cam be wrong but in this case I doubt it.

Yep, I should not base any comments on what I was told about the Thornycroft engines, as the BMC block was only used in the smaller Thonycroft 1.5. The chap that said it was the same basic block works as an engineer building boats for the RNLI, but is a bit too young to remember how lovely a Rother 37 was. 

  No one seems the know the exact HP, and it would be less than the 37 hp quoted by many owners for the hydraulic boxes. 

 

Changing subject, some chap in the pub started ranting that I had puchased the wrong one and it was no good etc. The chap who sold the engine seemed to have simply paid a series of different companies to restore it, and might not have known very much about the engine itself. 

  

  So as you seem to be the expert in terms of identifying the different BMC diesels, and I can't get access to mine for a while, Is there any chance I purchased a 1.8, or is he ranting on about the gearbox. I kind of agree the gearbox bellhouse mounts are going to complicate the installation and the RNLI installation expert, (Not the one who said it was used in Rother), did ummm and arrr about the box, as regards the mounts. At present the plan is to move it into my garage to paint correctly and wire up the instrument panel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason no one will tell you the hp is that (from memory) Newage gave 3 hp figures. Continuous, intermittent with limitations to period and frequency, and maximum. The there is the fact that most displacement boats prop for maximum toruqe, not maximum speed so the engine is prevented form reaching the maximum hp speed.

 

With the flywheel housing and front engine mounts shown on the video that is  a very old 1.5 produced long before the 1.8 was even thought of. Apart from that the timing cover and injector pump position is correct for a 1.5 and wrong for a  1.8.

 

If you initial choice for a 1.5 was based on what that engineer told you be aware that the 1.5 has a three bearing crank plus a torsional oscillation damper to prevent it snapping itself. I don't know the Ford unit in detail but I fully expect it to be a five bearing crank without a torsional oscillation damper. I would not like to use a 1.5 these days for long distance cruising a long way from the UK, properly overhauled or not.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

If you initial choice for a 1.5 was based on what that engineer told you be aware that the 1.5 has a three bearing crank plus a torsional oscillation damper to prevent it snapping itself. I don't know the Ford unit in detail but I fully expect it to be a five bearing crank without a torsional oscillation damper. I would not like to use a 1.5 these days for long distance cruising a long way from the UK, properly overhauled or not.

 

As I've said earlier - if I was fitting a boat engine today I wouldn't be using a BMC 1.5, even if it was brand spanking new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

If you initial choice for a 1.5 was based on what that engineer told you be aware that the 1.5 has a three bearing crank plus a torsional oscillation damper to prevent it snapping itself. I don't know the Ford unit in detail but I fully expect it to be a five bearing crank without a torsional oscillation damper. I would not like to use a 1.5 these days for long distance cruising a long way from the UK, properly overhauled or not.

My last boat was powered by a BMC 1500 and I often wondered why the torsion damper was in the front pulley.

Surely any shock load would come from the drive end.

What's the reason the damper is at the front?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

My last boat was powered by a BMC 1500 and I often wondered why the torsion damper was in the front pulley.

Surely any shock load would come from the drive end.

What's the reason the damper is at the front?

There is a torsional element to the rotation of the 3 bearing crank. The front pulley is also a weight, rubber bonded to the inner, that has a natural oscillation counter to the crank and hence damps the whip in the crank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general its not shock loads, its the crank going into resonance excited by the firing frequency of the cylinders (or a harmonic of). This causes excessive torsional movement that stresses the crank and as you would intuitively expect this occurs at the front, not at the flywheel because its hard to make the flywheel move quickly (thats what its for) so the damper must always go at the front to take the energy out of the torsional movement.

 

There are a few special dampers that can go in the flywheel but that's specialist stuff.

Some dampers will help with crank bending as well as torsion, sometimes by accident rather than design..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, StephenA said:

 

As I've said earlier - if I was fitting a boat engine today I wouldn't be using a BMC 1.5, even if it was brand spanking new.

So if your boat has to be funded from what is in effect a Trinidad charity, although in the UK some might describe the main sponsor as a Christian church group, who have many members that are from the Caribbean area, (Mostly Trinidad and Jamaica), which inboard diesel engine would you recommend that costs as little as possible, but does need to be at least 20hp  in max continous terms, (The Bukh 24 is the minimum acceptable), It would also need to be an engine that a few friends in the BBC 2 documentry business think looks like an original engine from the 1960's era, when the boat was built. I really don't think that asking them to pay 8 grand plus installation for a Beta Greenline that will fit on the mounts is going to prove very popular! 

 

Change of tack: It is looking very likely that the TMP 100 box will have to be sold, although I did know that might be the case when I purchased the engine. It's in good condition, but the attitude of the experts is that although my cooling plan was OK, the fact it has not been overhauled to the same standard as the main block is not. It would also need a fairly big change, (New alloy cross beam), to the engine beds. 

Edited by TNLI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TNLI said:

So if your boat has to be funded from what is in effect a Trinidad charity, although in the UK some might describe the main sponsor as a Christian church group, who have many members that are from the Caribbean area, (Mostly Trinidad and Jamaica), which inboard diesel engine would you recommend that costs as little as possible, but does need to be at least 20hp  in max continous terms, (The Bukh 24 is the minimum acceptable), It would also need to be an engine that a few friends in the BBC 2 documentry business think looks like an original engine from the 1960's era, when the boat was built. I really don't think that asking them to pay 8 grand plus installation for a Beta Greenline that will fit on the mounts is going to prove very popular! 

 

Change of tack: It is looking very likely that the TMP 100 box will have to be sold, although I did know that might be the case when I purchased the engine. It's in good condition, but the attitude of the experts is that although my cooling plan was OK, the fact it has not been overhauled to the same standard as the main block is not. It would also need a fairly big change, (New alloy cross beam), to the engine beds. 

I think go ahead and fit your BMC.They have proved reliable and durable providing you don't flog them (as on canals) but buy an outboard as a back up. ( And a box of distress rockets)   😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

I think go ahead and fit your BMC.They have proved reliable and durable providing you don't flog them (as on canals) but buy an outboard as a back up. ( And a box of distress rockets)   😜

Thanks for the reply, and yes they are very good exeptionally tough engines, but only if maintained to a high standard, (Including the eventual need for full rebuild).  Notv too sure what you mean by, "Flog them", as the worst type of treatment for a non close tollerance, (I foget the term for such engines), diesel, is to use it at too low a power setting, or as a battery charger. Many sail boat owners or skippers seem to use their main engines as battery chargers, which is the worst type of abuse, as it results in Carbon and other deposits forming inside the cylinders. Those Carbon related deposits are bad news in the long term, and I understand that many canal boats with engines that are in reality too big, also suffer from fouled cylinders due to low power settings. 

 

I regard petrol and gas as dangerous on a boat, so my plan for a secondary power source invloves using a small air cooled diesel generator to power a 48 volts electric motor, with a belt drive on the main engine prop shaft. I also plan to fit a sailing rig in the form of a hinged A frame. In light winds that A frame could support a Lanteen pole. It should be easy to lower down, but only 20ft high, (standard alloy scaffolding poles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2021 at 07:43, Tony Brooks said:

The reason no one will tell you the hp is that (from memory) Newage gave 3 hp figures. Continuous, intermittent with limitations to period and frequency, and maximum. The there is the fact that most displacement boats prop for maximum toruqe, not maximum speed so the engine is prevented form reaching the maximum hp speed.

 

With the flywheel housing and front engine mounts shown on the video that is  a very old 1.5 produced long before the 1.8 was even thought of. Apart from that the timing cover and injector pump position is correct for a 1.5 and wrong for a  1.8.

 

If you initial choice for a 1.5 was based on what that engineer told you be aware that the 1.5 has a three bearing crank plus a torsional oscillation damper to prevent it snapping itself. I don't know the Ford unit in detail but I fully expect it to be a five bearing crank without a torsional oscillation damper. I would not like to use a 1.5 these days for long distance cruising a long way from the UK, properly overhauled or not.

 

When I first started asking for information on BMC 1500 issues, I did ask about crank failures and received a number of informative posts about why they occasionally occur. In terms of offshore use, nearly all of the engine use is at fairly low power settings, as my boat is fairly light and you nearly always motor for range not speed. To prevent deposits forming I always increase to a higher power setting for around the last 30 mins of a 10 hour run. 

  So what exactly fails on a well maintained BMC, as you have been fairly postive about this type of engine, and are now suddenly rather negative about them ??

 

I'm not concerned about the age of an engine, but would like to know the total hours figure, which in reality is not possible to know for most of the used engines, Most old BMC's have been rebuilt to some extent, but one thing I liked about the one I purchased was that the rebuild was done correctly as far as I can tell.

 

From the delivery point of view, the real risk relates to a serious rig failure, rather than the engine, so as nearly all the yachts I've sailed or owned have suffered some fairly significant failures in that respect, I will build my own rig this time, based on standard thick walled alloy scaffolding poles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, TNLI said:

 

When I first started asking for information on BMC 1500 issues, I did ask about crank failures and received a number of informative posts about why they occasionally occur. In terms of offshore use, nearly all of the engine use is at fairly low power settings, as my boat is fairly light and you nearly always motor for range not speed. To prevent deposits forming I always increase to a higher power setting for around the last 30 mins of a 10 hour run. 

  So what exactly fails on a well maintained BMC, as you have been fairly postive about this type of engine, and are now suddenly rather negative about them ??

 

I'm not concerned about the age of an engine, but would like to know the total hours figure, which in reality is not possible to know for most of the used engines, Most old BMC's have been rebuilt to some extent, but one thing I liked about the one I purchased was that the rebuild was done correctly as far as I can tell.

 

From the delivery point of view, the real risk relates to a serious rig failure, rather than the engine, so as nearly all the yachts I've sailed or owned have suffered some fairly significant failures in that respect, I will build my own rig this time, based on standard thick walled alloy scaffolding poles. 

 

When you started you were on about wanting a quality rebuilt BMC and you made no mention of wanting to take it to Jamaica under its own power or sail. I also told you that an ex lifeboat Bukh might be a good idea. In typical inland use and I suspect estuary and inshore use in the UK 1.5s are reliable enough but they still only have three bearing crank plus torsional oscillation damper and the long term integrity of the crank relies upon that damper. Any contamination of the rubber in the damper by oil, fuel, or other  hydrocarbons like degreasing fluid is likely to alter is oscillation frequency and make snapping the crank more likely. You don't know the full history of the engine you showed the video of and from what we can see of it it is clearly a very old engine with bits missing. The shaft is perhaps the most catastrophic failure that might occur but then there are other possibilities unless you know pretty much the full history AND exactly what was done in the rebuilds. Note that, builds plural. The camshaft and pump drive skew gears can wear, the lubricator strainer can fall appart or block, although that should be picked up on a decent rebuild. Timing chains stretch and tensioners wear out, although they should have ben changed, and I have even seen timing sprockets with worn teeth. Perhaps the biggest problem with taking such an engine to the other side of the Atlantic is the CAV DPA pump. Our European members seem to have problems getting them serviced and unless the pump has been properly rebuilt leaking from the main shaft seal into the sump is always possible. Just remembered, it is far from uncommon for to crank case oil mist trap to clog up completely. However I am sure a similar but different list could be draw up for the Ford engines as found in the Rother class lifeboats.

 

You started off, months ago, talking about your need for quality and reliability and seem to have gradually changed from that to "make do and mend" with cost seeming to be your main concern now hence the apparent need to buy from the likes of Ebay and then complain about the quality as per your instrument panels. Then there was your selection of potential engine mounts that was clearly done on cost and not suitability.

 

Your sources of information seem to be suspect, like the RNLI "engineer" who allegedly told you the Rother class boats used BMC 1.5s. Even when people try to explain the problems you have bought yourself you seem to try to ignore them and they accuse them of advising expensive courses of action. One thing I am sure of is that to get that video engine installed to a decent reliable standard is going to cost more than if a better engine had been bought.

 

Then there is the gearbox. You claimed it is a Borg Warner but it looks nothing like the ones usually fitted to 1.5s. Yes. i did initially say it MIGHT be a TMP and asked for further photos. After a bit of pondering I realised the control lever on the "turret" looks more like an early PRM and gave you a link so you could check. You then agreed and  came back with another link as confirmation. The next thing we know is that you are trying to by an oil cooler for a TMP box from ASAP supplies, even when I suggested that you go back and look at the relevant posts you keep on about a TMP box. One thing is for sure, a TMP box is likely to be very old and is arguably the least reliable hydraulic box while Borg Warner and PRM are the most reliable.

 

Any negativity has more to do with what you seem to be buying, your stated intentions, your sources of information, and the way you seem to be going than any 1.5 in good condition from a reputable rebuilder.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2021 at 07:54, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

 

 

 

When you started you were on about wanting a quality rebuilt BMC and you made no mention of wanting to take it to Jamaica under its own power or sail. I also told you that an ex lifeboat Bukh might be a good idea. In typical inland use and I suspect estuary and inshore use in the UK 1.5s are reliable enough but they still only have three bearing crank plus torsional oscillation damper and the long term integrity of the crank relies upon that damper. Any contamination of the rubber in the damper by oil, fuel, or other  hydrocarbons like degreasing fluid is likely to alter is oscillation frequency and make snapping the crank more likely. You don't know the full history of the engine you showed the video of and from what we can see of it it is clearly a very old engine with bits missing. The shaft is perhaps the most catastrophic failure that might occur but then there are other possibilities unless you know pretty much the full history AND exactly what was done in the rebuilds. Note that, builds plural. The camshaft and pump drive skew gears can wear, the lubricator strainer can fall appart or block, although that should be picked up on a decent rebuild. Timing chains stretch and tensioners wear out, although they should have ben changed, and I have even seen timing sprockets with worn teeth. Perhaps the biggest problem with taking such an engine to the other side of the Atlantic is the CAV DPA pump. Our European members seem to have problems getting them serviced and unless the pump has been properly rebuilt leaking from the main shaft seal into the sump is always possible. Just remembered, it is far from uncommon for to crank case oil mist trap to clog up completely. However I am sure a similar but different list could be draw up for the Ford engines as found in the Rother class lifeboats.

 

You started off, months ago, talking about your need for quality and reliability and seem to have gradually changed from that to "make do and mend" with cost seeming to be your main concern now hence the apparent need to buy from the likes of Ebay and then complain about the quality as per your instrument panels. Then there was your selection of potential engine mounts that was clearly done on cost and not suitability.

 

Your sources of information seem to be suspect, like the RNLI "engineer" who allegedly told you the Rother class boats used BMC 1.5s. Even when people try to explain the problems you have bought yourself you seem to try to ignore them and they accuse them of advising expensive courses of action. One thing I am sure of is that to get that video engine installed to a decent reliable standard is going to cost more than if a better engine had been bought.

 

Then there is the gearbox. You claimed it is a Borg Warner but it looks nothing like the ones usually fitted to 1.5s. Yes. i did initially say it MIGHT be a TMP and asked for further photos. After a bit of pondering I realised the control lever on the "turret" looks more like an early PRM and gave you a link so you could check. You then agreed and  came back with another link as confirmation. The next thing we know is that you are trying to by an oil cooler for a TMP box from ASAP supplies, even when I suggested that you go back and look at the relevant posts you keep on about a TMP box. One thing is for sure, a TMP box is likely to be very old and is arguably the least reliable hydraulic box while Borg Warner and PRM are the most reliable.

 

Any negativity has more to do with what you seem to be buying, your stated intentions, your sources of information, and the way you seem to be going than any 1.5 in good condition from a reputable rebuilder.

 

Wow, that is a real long rant, so I've highlighted the non rant parts of technical interest.

 

Firstly I had to buy my BMC without being able to inspect it, and even after delivery, I could not go and visit my engine due to storage regulations at the facility involved. That's why I had to try and use this forum to both ID the gearbox and mounts. Not an easy game when you can't see the mounts too clearly in the video. 

 

NOW FOR THE HIGHLIGHTED ISSUES OR SUBJECTS:

 

1/ Jamaica: NO she did it herself!    Never wrote that anywhere, and I was based in TRINIDAD.

 

2/ Quality rebuilds: I did visit Marine Enterprises Ltd, BUT they refused to do any more rebuilds of the BMC engines. Calcutt are located a tad too far from Poole, AND refused to supply a BMC 1.5 without the old block, which if it is siezed. The one on my sunken wreck was both siezed, broken, (One cylinder only), although I should have kept the manual gearbox, as it was in good condition. Calcutt charge around 4000 quid if your block is kaput, plus about 500 for delivery, Marine enterprises would have been about a grand cheaper, IF they had been interested, but alas they were far too busy. The feedback on the Calcutt engines was less than perfect in terms of lack of information on what exactly they are doing to each engine. 

  None of the companies supplying so called rebuilds, or reconditioned BMC diesels seem to know how many hours the engine has run, or its service history. The only exception relates to Bukh lifeboat engines, as they are only run once a month until warm. 

 

3/ Ex lifeboat BUKH: Yes took a real good look at the 24 and 36hp ones, but the 36 is far too heavy and problematic in fore and aft C of G terms. If I knew the future, and found that it might not be possible for family or health reasons to return to Trinidad or Tobago, (Much safer and very good place for diving etc), then I would have gone for the Bukh 24 supplied by Marine Enterprises Ltd. That would have cost around 3 grand.

 

4/ 3 bearing crank sentences: All very interesting and there is no easy way of inspecting those parts at present and as the rebuild was done by different companies, it's impossible to know without a video. The older RNLI engineer has already suggested that I will eventually need to get a real inspection done by them, preferably before the offshore or rough weather trials, (New designs and hull up project boats need fairly extensive testing prior to heading out into the Atlantic). I could be a few years away from the related full insurance inspection, so no rush at present.

 

5/ Full history: Never seen an old diesel with a full history and the lack of a sealed Hobbs meter makes that idea a tad unlikely. Even if you found one, it could well be a forgery.

 

6/ What was done in the rebuilds. Note that, builds plural etc: I did include the entire list in a previous post, BUT it did not include a new crankshaft etc. Oddly enough the same risk applies to the so called, quality companies. So that crank issue is a tough one to avoid if you are unable to supervise or film the inspection. 

 

7/ Potential engine mounts: I have not purchased any mount so far, as I need to inspect the present ones. My posts relating to that subject were just fishing for information, or the owner of a similar engine who knows what they are. Alas the result was effectively a zero in information terms.

 

8/ Sources of info: The owner of the engine incorrectly identified the gearbox as a Borg, and the younger of the 2 RNLI chaps confused matters as regards which block was which incorrectly. 

 

9/ Bits missing: It's obvious from the clip and my previous posts that the panel and hoses were missing. The cut off wiring was also known to me.

 

10/ Cost more than etc: How is 1700 quid delivered vs 4000 quid from Calcutt work out incorrectly ??

 

PART 2 LATER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PART 2 reply to TB technical rant.

 

11/ You said it was a Borg Warner:  Very difficult to ID a gearbox when the engine is in storage, and the nameplates are missing, as they nearly all seem to be. So all I had to base my statement on was what the owner, who purchased 2 engines from a yard to keep himself and his sons amused during the Covid lockdowns, had stated and that was that it was some type of Borg Warner. Luckily TB did find a picture of the operating cable mount that clearly showed it was in fact a 100 box.

 

Oddly enough it's a good thing I will need to remove the present hydraulic box, as I suddenly realised that although I can fit the engine when all the issues with the mounts, paint and wiring have been resolved, that there would have been a problem with where the temporary alloy ladder is located inside the boat. There is only one way into the aft crew cabin, apart from an emergency hatch through to the forward cabin. 

 

12/ TMP box is likely to be very old and is arguably the least reliable hydraulic box while Borg Warner and PRM are the most reliable.

       I thought it was a Newage PRM 100, so you might like to check a previous post. Not concerned as it's going to be removed and sold. The only           reason I do need to know is so I can list it correctly. 

13/ good condition from a reputable rebuilder: 

       Alas there is only one classic diesel rebuild company within easy range of Poole, and that is Marine Enterprises Ltd, The other companies are             too far away if you are on call out.

 

CHANGE OF TACK

TB mentioned issues caused by blocked or restricted oil flow. That type of problem often relates to owners or users failing to use the engine oil list that was written by BMC, and that list does say DELVAC, so the designers do like high detergen truck oils. It can also be caused by too long an OCI, (Oil Change interval). 

 

 

Edited by TNLI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.