Bmc 1500 Horsepower?

[TNLI]

OFF TOPIC:

 

I've been looking at the BUKH 24 and 36 RME lifeboat engines, and they are differentv to the general rule for a normally aspirated small marine diesel, as they use larger cylinders than normal. So the 3 cylinder puts out 36 hp continous. That's a 75% power figure, so it's a good match to my old sunken BMC 1500 in power terms.

 

The relationship between RPM and actual SHP is interesting, as it depends on the type of prop. The best ones are auto adjusters that vary their pitch, like the Autoprops. A new one of those costs around 2500 quid for my 60's era lifeboat, so I'm stuck with the old 3 blade fixed job until Christmas ??

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

OFF TOPIC:

 

I've been looking at the BUKH 24 and 36 RME lifeboat engines, and they are differentv to the general rule for a normally aspirated small marine diesel, as they use larger cylinders than normal. So the 3 cylinder puts out 36 hp continous. That's a 75% power figure, so it's a good match to my old sunken BMC 1500 in power terms.

 

The relationship between RPM and actual SHP is interesting, as it depends on the type of prop. The best ones are auto adjusters that vary their pitch, like the Autoprops. A new one of those costs around 2500 quid for my 60's era lifeboat, so I'm stuck with the old 3 blade fixed job until Christmas ??

 

Where do you intend to use your boat?

 

If it is the UK canal system then I fear a variable pitch propellor wouldn't last 5 minites because of the shsllowness and amount of debris in there.

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

OFF TOPIC:

 

I've been looking at the BUKH 24 and 36 RME lifeboat engines, and they are differentv to the general rule for a normally aspirated small marine diesel, as they use larger cylinders than normal. So the 3 cylinder puts out 36 hp continous. That's a 75% power figure, so it's a good match to my old sunken BMC 1500 in power terms.

 

The relationship between RPM and actual SHP is interesting, as it depends on the type of prop. The best ones are auto adjusters that vary their pitch, like the Autoprops. A new one of those costs around 2500 quid for my 60's era lifeboat, so I'm stuck with the old 3 blade fixed job until Christmas ??

 

Er no - it does not depend upon the prop. The prop will define how efficiently the available shaft horsepower is used. The shaft horsepower would be measured by a dynamometer on the gearbox output coupling.

 

I think that you will find the DV36 may be slightly more torquey than the BMC 1.5. My boat (DV36) would pull away from a friend's similar boat with a BMC 1.8 at slightly lower revs, but that could well be down to a better matched prop for canal use.

[arbutus]

Here's the original spec sheet for the CT40 / BMC1500 if anyone's interested

 

CT40 Spec sheet.pdf

[Tony Brooks]

FWIW I am sure out Newage 1.5 manuals gave a maximum speed to 4400 rpm but I expect that was in neutrl. That may indicate the CT engines were/are de-rated form the automotive ones.

[Tracy D'arth]

In marinizing these BMC engines I think that all the firms reduce the maximum rev setting to avoid the engine needlessly over speeding  the propeller which is counterproductive.

[Alan de Enfield]

I know Cut  & Paste upsets a few folks on here - TOUGH !!!!!

 

 

The Mermaid Marine manual shows 4400 rpm

 

 

 

[TNLI]

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Er no - it does not depend upon the prop. The prop will define how efficiently the available shaft horsepower is used. The shaft horsepower would be measured by a dynamometer on the gearbox output coupling.

 

I think that you will find the DV36 may be slightly more torquey than the BMC 1.5. My boat (DV36) would pull away from a friend's similar boat with a BMC 1.8 at slightly lower revs, but that could well be down to a better matched prop for canal use.

Er no - if it's a variable pitch prop like the common Autoprop used on many sailboats, or offshore lifeboats. The RPM stays at that selected, which does relate to the power figure, BUT when conditions change, like sea state or wind in the case of motorsailing, the pitch adjusts to the load without changing the RPM. That requires more power. 

  One note for Autoprop lovers that like racing, they do not fully feather when the engine is shut down. That can result in a few cases where older hydraulic gearboxes are in use, in the prop turning with the engine off. Often selecting reverse will stop it, but that is not always the case. The difference in fuel efficiency for a sail boat can be very significant.

 

I'm still thinking of buying a good recon Bukh 36, BUT although the torque figures are good, it's around 200 lbs heavier than a BMC 1500. The jury is still out though, and will be a 3 way game, between a 56hp Thornycroft, 30 hp Perkins and a Bukh 36. They are all good motors and Marine Enterprises Ltd are making new Thornycrofts again. They were very popular with RNLI engineers on the 37ft Rother series, which was by far the best full displacement offshore lifeboat.

[TNLI]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

In marinizing these BMC engines I think that all the firms reduce the maximum rev setting to avoid the engine needlessly over speeding  the propeller which is counterproductive.

 

Marine engines are nearly always fitted with governers to avoid surging, unless they are larger modern ECU, or TRU control units with common rail injection systems, like wot a modern diesel car has.

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

Er no - if it's a variable pitch prop like the common Autoprop used on many sailboats, or offshore lifeboats. The RPM stays at that selected, which does relate to the power figure, BUT when conditions change, like sea state or wind in the case of motorsailing, the pitch adjusts to the load without changing the RPM. That requires more power. 

  One note for Autoprop lovers that like racing, they do not fully feather when the engine is shut down. That can result in a few cases where older hydraulic gearboxes are in use, in the prop turning with the engine off. Often selecting reverse will stop it, but that is not always the case. The difference in fuel efficiency for a sail boat can be very significant.If youing of buying a good recon Bukh 36, BUT although the torque figures are good, it's around 200 lbs heavier than a BMC 1500. The jury is still out though, and will be a 3 way game, between a 56hp Thornycroft, 30 hp Perkins and a Bukh 36. They are all good motors and Marine Enterprises Ltd are making new Thornycrofts again. They were very popular with RNLI engineers on the 37ft Rother series, which was by far the best full displacement offshore lifeboat.

 

I am not going to try to convince you that you are wrong about the prop altering the shaft hp but any prop will alter the hp the engine has to deliver either at the flywheel or shaft  to turn it at varying speeds. If you reduce the pitch on your prop the engine will try to rev up but the governor will reduce the fuel delivered thereby reducing the power delivered and thus the hp delvers to the prop. The opposite will happen if you alter the prop angle the other way. The engine speed will try to reduce but the governor will increase the fuel supply and thus  deliver more power at the same speed. With a variable prop you are just playing with engien load and causing the engine to alter the power delivered.

 

However, all torque and power measurements should be done at full throttle, with the speed being controlled by the dynamometer load so shaft HP  should be quoted at full throttle. No prop will be connected to the engine when it is measured.

 

I do not dispute a variable prop will cause the engine output HP to alter. I do dispute that quoted shaft hp data has anything to do with propellers.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

Marine Enterprises Ltd are making new Thornycrofts again.

Presumably somebody else's engine, just badged under the Thornycroft name.

Edited July 8, 2021 by David Mack

[TNLI]

They bought the tools, parts, everything. They are the real thing, not a far Eastern copy.

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, TNLI said:

They bought the tools, parts, everything. They are the real thing, not a far Eastern copy.

 

But Thornycroft haven't built their own engines for years. I seem to recall that under previous ownership they marinised BMC/BL engines and later Mitsubishi.

Edited July 8, 2021 by David Mack

[Tony Brooks]

No mention that I could find on their website as to the base engine.

 

Until that is clarified, we had better remember the Shanks affair.

[Rose Narrowboats]

A bit more BMC trivia:

 

The Nuffield Mini tractor (designed by Harry Ferguson) was originally launched in the early 1960s using the 998cc A series based engine - the diesel version producing a heady 16 horsepower. The model was called the 9/16 (9 forward gears, 16hp) but it very rapidy became apparent that the A-series lump was up to the job and the tracor was slighty re-engineered to use the B-series engine in both petrol and diesel form. The diesel version was rated at 25hp, and known as the 9/25.

 

In 1969 the Nuffield 9/25 was rebranded as the Leyland 154 and now quoted as 28.5hp. I cannot find any difference in the parts books, workshop manual or the fuel injection pump setting data to account for this change in hp, so it might just be a different way of measuring the output (maybe the marketing department did it instead of the engineering dept?)

 

Nuffield tractors were produced at the Bathgate factory of BMC (later Leyland) until 1981, but for quite some time before that they had also been produced by BMCs Turkish subsidiary under licence, and at some point in the late 70s Bathgate stopped making the 154s altogether and they were imported from Turkey. Before Leyland sold the business to Marshalls in 1981 the Leyland 154 had been discontinued and replaced by the Leyland 304, which was basically the 154 back end now mated to the BMC 1.8 engine. Marshall continued to sell the 304 until they left the tractor business in the mid 80s but the tractor continued to be built until 1989.

 

It was the factory in Turkey that provided the new engines (both 1.5 and 1.8) to the marine industry in the UK. Calcutt were still importing the 1.8 into the late 90s. The rest came from Sherpa 200 vans which were still quite easily obtainable. I know several hire fleets that used to marinise ex-van engines, which had a different version of the CAV DPA injection pump with a mechanical governor rather than hydraulic governor found in the tractor (and industrial engine.

 

The 1.8 was superseded around 1988 in the Sherpa by the Perkins Prima which whilst on paper was a much better engine, turned out to be a diaster in delivery vehicles which spent a lot of time idling as they glazed the bores. A friend of mine had a fleet of Sherpa milk floats, and after many hilarious tow starts down the road in clouds of smoke at 4am the newer Perkins powered Sherpas were rapidly disposed of and they went back to the BMCs. When they ran out of bodywork (as Sherpas tended to), a number of those engines went on to new lives in a local hire fleet (not mine).

 

 

[TNLI]

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

But Thornycroft haven't built their own engines for years. I seem to recall that under previous ownership they marinised BMC/BL engines and later Mitsubishi.

 

Neither have Volvo, Vetus or a whole bunch of other good companies, they just use well proven blocks and add all the extras, then fiddle around with the governor to allow the fully open go lever to result in 75% of the base tractor, or small truck block max power. The BMC and Mits blocks are both very good. The Mits block is used by Vetus and an incredibly tough unit developed for truck freezer and generator use initially. I was surprised to read the Perkins Parame block was used by Volvo!

 

Hence my sudden interest in replacing my BMC 1500 with a good recon Volvo Penta MD17D, (36hp). The very lst of the heavy weight Volvo motors.

[TNLI]

8 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I am not going to try to convince you that you are wrong about the prop altering the shaft hp but any prop will alter the hp the engine has to deliver either at the flywheel or shaft  to turn it at varying speeds. If you reduce the pitch on your prop the engine will try to rev up but the governor will reduce the fuel delivered thereby reducing the power delivered and thus the hp delvers to the prop. The opposite will happen if you alter the prop angle the other way. The engine speed will try to reduce but the governor will increase the fuel supply and thus  deliver more power at the same speed. With a variable prop you are just playing with engien load and causing the engine to alter the power delivered.

 

However, all torque and power measurements should be done at full throttle, with the speed being controlled by the dynamometer load so shaft HP  should be quoted at full throttle. No prop will be connected to the engine when it is measured.

 

I do not dispute a variable prop will cause the engine output HP to alter. I do dispute that quoted shaft hp data has anything to do with propellers.

No idea why you think hp graphs should only be figured out when a static load is used, or why engine HP does not relate the SHP. Just to correct one point about marine diesels, is that they do vary in real world HP terms to a minor degree in the RPM vs actual HP curves even without a variable pitch prop. Just try towing or trying to make progress into a big sea and although the RPM should stay constant the fuel burn goes up, indicating an increase in HP, engine or shaft.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 hours ago, TNLI said:

The very lst of the heavy weight Volvo motors.

 

Presumably that should read LAST rather than 1st ................

 

I take it it is this ad you are looking at ?

 

Volvo Penta - MD17d 36hp Marine Diesel Engine Package in Dorset, South West | Boats and Outboards

 

 

This engine has had very little use during its service life (sub 2000hrs) and was only removed due to the owners desire to upgrade to a heat exchanger cooled unit in order to run a hot water system. It has been fully serviced, steam cleaned and repainted to a good standard by our workshops and is now ready for more work.

 

 

If you are looking for a Volvo, why not consider the 2030D, a much more modern engine, quieter and still in regular use with easy spares availability (I have a pair in the Catamaran) and we did over 1000 miles in 4 weeks motorsailing with them - very reliable just keep on top of servicing.

 

The 3030 engine is (probably) "one of the most commonly used in the world"

 

Here is a short write-up :

 

Your engine is what Perkins calls a 103-10. Perkins started importing these 100 series engines from a Japanese company called Ishikawajima Shibaura Machinery, Ltd. nearly twenty years ago. ISM is part of Ishikawajima Harima Industries, one of Japan’s largest industrial companies. Perkins marketed this engine in a marinised version as the Perama M30. They sold the engine to Volvo Penta who marketed it as their MD2030. They also sold the engine to Massey Ferguson, McCormick, Terramite, Textron, Jacobsen, Cushman, Vermeer, Leech Lewis, JCB, Kobelco, and Northern Lights to name just a few. In the US, the engine was distributed through Detroit Diesel – Allison which is closely tied to the MTU conglomerate. By 1996, Perkins had become so successful at marketing these engines to other equipment manufacturers that they formed a joint venture with ISM called Perkins Shibaura Engines, Ltd. and began assembling the engines at the Perkins facility in Peterborough, UK from parts shipped from Japan. In 1997, Perkins was acquired by Caterpillar. With an added boost from Caterpillar, this little engine has become one of the most popular engines in the world. It’s used in turf equipment, tractors, mini-excavators, brush choppers, compressors, welders, pumps, generators, etc. etc. etc. Even Caterpillar uses it in some of their smaller equipment. The “Perkins” name was highlighted on the engine ID plate which is located on a distinctive boss just forward of the injection pump. The 2006 model year’s production of the engine has “Shibaura” highlighted on the ID plate. In 2001, the larger Shibaura 400 series engine was introduced with assembling at Peterborough, UK from parts mostly from Japan, and in June, 2004 assembling of the 400 series engine began at a Caterpillar facility in Griffin, Georgia, USA with production exceeding 100,000 units per year.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Brooks]

6 hours ago, TNLI said:

No idea why you think hp graphs should only be figured out when a static load is used, or why engine HP does not relate the SHP. Just to correct one point about marine diesels, is that they do vary in real world HP terms to a minor degree in the RPM vs actual HP curves even without a variable pitch prop. Just try towing or trying to make progress into a big sea and although the RPM should stay constant the fuel burn goes up, indicating an increase in HP, engine or shaft.

 

Exactly as simple physics would suggest would happen. In both cases you increase the resistance to forward motion and this tend to load the prop more so the engine speed would drop but the governor increases the fuel supply to keep the RPM more or less steady. Of course the consumption goes up, what else would you expect.

 

You started by  taking the 1.5's BHP data and that BHP would have been found by tests carried out under SAE, DIN type standards and would been measured at the flywheel at wide open throttle with the speed controlled by the dynamometer brake. That is the accepted way in which the tests are done.

 

You then came up with the statement that the BHPs quoted included the losses in the gearbox. That is simply not true.

I pointed out that the BHP minus gearbox losses would be the shaft hp.

You then suggested that the shaft HP has something to do with the prop load and this is where the complications come in because you are no longer talking about the same test conditions as BHP. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The best way I can describe what you are talking about is propeller absorbed HP and that will not take into account any losses in the gearbox or reduction gears, only power down the shaft as explained below.

 

I can see where you get the idea that the power absorbed/demanded by the prop is shaft HP, because larger vessels either at sea trial or during service use torque meters connected to the shaft to measure the torque, RMP and thus the HP being transmitted down the shaft but this has nothing to do with the tested BHP of the engine. Unfortunately it is sloppily, in my view, generally referred to as SHP and is used to optimise the vessel's fuel consumption by keeping the revs and torque (and thus BHP) in the area of best specific fuel consumption.

 

In the inland world, where you posted, we know all this is true because narrowboats of almost any size and across a wide range of engine makes, powers, types and designs return between 1 and 2 litres per hour fuel consumption. Usually around the 1.5 litres. That is despite the makers' fuel consumption data suggesting it will be very much higher. The reason is that the engines do not operate at fully open throttle, so produce way less than the manufacturers' BHP figures.

 

In the terms of your original comment of "I do know that that type of marine diesel puts out a max of 10hp per cylinder, so it's 40hp minus gearbox loss." you were referring to shaft hp. However, the concept upon which that statement was based upon is clearly incorrect. It might have been more correct if you referred to engine's capacity rather than design/type. To illustrate, the BMC 1.5 is an indirect injected engine while the DV36 is a direct injected engine (that is one way of talking about "type") but even though both are of similar capacities when operating for long periods at higher speeds the BMC (and all indirect injected engines) will return a higher fuel consumption because of the losses involved in pumping air into the pre-combustion chamber. The higher the speed the larger that difference becomes.

 

 

[TNLI]

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Exactly as simple physics would suggest would happen. In both cases you increase the resistance to forward motion and this tend to load the prop more so the engine speed would drop but the governor increases the fuel supply to keep the RPM more or less steady. Of course the consumption goes up, what else would you expect.

 

You started by  taking the 1.5's BHP data and that BHP would have been found by tests carried out under SAE, DIN type standards and would been measured at the flywheel at wide open throttle with the speed controlled by the dynamometer brake. That is the accepted way in which the tests are done.

 

You then came up with the statement that the BHPs quoted included the losses in the gearbox. That is simply not true.

I pointed out that the BHP minus gearbox losses would be the shaft hp.

You then suggested that the shaft HP has something to do with the prop load and this is where the complications come in because you are no longer talking about the same test conditions as BHP. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The best way I can describe what you are talking about is propeller absorbed HP and that will not take into account any losses in the gearbox or reduction gears, only power down the shaft as explained below.

 

I can see where you get the idea that the power absorbed/demanded by the prop is shaft HP, because larger vessels either at sea trial or during service use torque meters connected to the shaft to measure the torque, RMP and thus the HP being transmitted down the shaft but this has nothing to do with the tested BHP of the engine. Unfortunately it is sloppily, in my view, generally referred to as SHP and is used to optimise the vessel's fuel consumption by keeping the revs and torque (and thus BHP) in the area of best specific fuel consumption.

 

In the inland world, where you posted, we know all this is true because narrowboats of almost any size and across a wide range of engine makes, powers, types and designs return between 1 and 2 litres per hour fuel consumption. Usually around the 1.5 litres. That is despite the makers' fuel consumption data suggesting it will be very much higher. The reason is that the engines do not operate at fully open throttle, so produce way less than the manufacturers' BHP figures.

 

In the terms of your original comment of "I do know that that type of marine diesel puts out a max of 10hp per cylinder, so it's 40hp minus gearbox loss." you were referring to shaft hp. However, the concept upon which that statement was based upon is clearly incorrect. It might have been more correct if you referred to engine's capacity rather than design/type. To illustrate, the BMC 1.5 is an indirect injected engine while the DV36 is a direct injected engine (that is one way of talking about "type") but even though both are of similar capacities when operating for long periods at higher speeds the BMC (and all indirect injected engines) will return a higher fuel consumption because of the losses involved in pumping air into the pre-combustion chamber. The higher the speed the larger that difference becomes.

I did make a few errors with the BHP vs SHP, BUT what I'm looking at is the graph of BHP vs RPM in the real world, which is offshore rescue or towing. It's also very important in long range delivery trips to know how the hp (BHP, SHP or whatever) varies with RPM in different sea conditions, so you can figure out fuel flow figures. I work all that out when I'm testing a new boat, by keeping an accurate engine log. You don't really need to do that when restricted to 4kts in a calm canal. I also try and calibrate the knot log accurately so the figures can be used to work ot specific fuel consumption vs RPM in calm conditions. Most delivery trips are downwind and swell, so you normally use less fuel than the graphs. Oddly enough the oil consumption is also important to know, and that can vary in a big way with power. My old steel yacht had a Vetus M310 and at long range cruise of 1500 RPM used almost no oil between 100hr changes, BUT if I increased to 2000 RPM it did need to be calculated to allow an oil change at sea. trying to use the engine oil dipstick is not easy unless its calm. So I just added 3 liters after pumping it all out, plus a bit more for any for high power extras. You can't pump all the oil out too easily, but if my memory served me correctly it held about 3.5 liters.

 

My statement about cylinder numbers did include a sentence pointing out the Bukh series are different, as are turbo diesels. 2nd series versions are also different, as per the 1.5 and 1.8. It's just a rough way of figuring out if an engine is non standard in cylinder, governor or injection system type.

 

Still looking at which engine to fit, BUT have decided against the cheap Volvo Penta, partly because I don't like the colour, but mostly cos old direct salt cooled diesels can have issues if the previous abuser did not change the zinc anodes. Head gasket failures leaks are not good news.

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, TNLI said:

I did make a few errors with the BHP vs SHP, BUT what I'm looking at is the graph of BHP vs RPM in the real world, which is offshore rescue or towing. It's also very important in long range delivery trips to know how the hp (BHP, SHP or whatever) varies with RPM in different sea conditions, so you can figure out fuel flow figures. I work all that out when I'm testing a new boat, by keeping an accurate engine log. You don't really need to do that when restricted to 4kts in a calm canal. I also try and calibrate the knot log accurately so the figures can be used to work ot specific fuel consumption vs RPM in calm conditions. Most delivery trips are downwind and swell, so you normally use less fuel than the graphs. Oddly enough the oil consumption is also important to know, and that can vary in a big way with power. My old steel yacht had a Vetus M310 and at long range cruise of 1500 RPM used almost no oil between 100hr changes, BUT if I increased to 2000 RPM it did need to be calculated to allow an oil change at sea. trying to use the engine oil dipstick is not easy unless its calm. So I just added 3 liters after pumping it all out, plus a bit more for any for high power extras. You can't pump all the oil out too easily, but if my memory served me correctly it held about 3.5 liters.

 

My statement about cylinder numbers did include a sentence pointing out the Bukh series are different, as are turbo diesels. 2nd series versions are also different, as per the 1.5 and 1.8. It's just a rough way of figuring out if an engine is non standard in cylinder, governor or injection system type.

 

Still looking at which engine to fit, BUT have decided against the cheap Volvo Penta, partly because I don't like the colour, but mostly cos old direct salt cooled diesels can have issues if the previous abuser did not change the zinc anodes. Head gasket failures leaks are not good news.

 

 

The Bukh DV36 (not the DV48) are naturally aspirated direct injection diesel engines, so not turbo. However, the DV36 seems to smoke at low speed and power and it seems to have been acknowledged by Bukh but it is not a problem on sea boats.

 

I agree that for fuel consumption purposes you would want to plot the HP delivered and specific fuel consumption at a number of  speeds but the raw BMC BHP figures are no use for that unless you are intending to run flat out. As I said, comparing apples and oranges.

[TNLI]

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

The Bukh DV36 (not the DV48) are naturally aspirated direct injection diesel engines, so not turbo. However, the DV36 seems to smoke at low speed and power and it seems to have been acknowledged by Bukh but it is not a problem on sea boats.

 

I agree that for fuel consumption purposes you would want to plot the HP delivered and specific fuel consumption at a number of  speeds but the raw BMC BHP figures are no use for that unless you are intending to run flat out. As I said, comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks, I've already seen a Bukh 36 RME, (Keel cooled), and oddly enough it did smoke slightly, but alas it's 265 kgs, (With gearbox and fluids). It's the DV32ME that has a low speed turbo and is also a lot smaller than the 36, as it's a 2 rather than 3 cylinder whistling donkey. Alas it's a more valuable engine, although I will make an offer next week as it's been for sale for 2 months. I've not checked the RPM curves for the 32 yet, as it was fitted to a high speed rescue boat and that might be interesting in terms of matching the prop.

[TNLI]

I seem to have lost the plan of the BMC 1500's mounts and general layout. I need that to figure out the size of the 4 steel plates so that I can fit a newly reconditioned BUKH 24 onto the same engine support beams. That diagram is not in the users manual, I know it's somplace in the internet but just can't find it.

  In need to find that diagram so I can get the 4 plates made before the engine arrives.

Edited July 27, 2021 by TNLI

[Tony Brooks]

10 hours ago, TNLI said:

I seem to have lost the plan of the BMC 1500's mounts and general layout. I need that to figure out the size of the 4 steel plates so that I can fit a newly reconditioned BUKH 24 onto the same engine support beams. That diagram is not in the users manual, I know it's somplace in the internet but just can't find it.

  In need to find that diagram so I can get the 4 plates made before the engine arrives.

 

I don't see how repeating your questions on other people's topics that are only related to your needs by engine type is going to get what you think you need. In any case I would suggest it's the shaft alignment that is the most critical and that depends upon the gearbox output shaft axis compared with axis of the underside of the engine feet for both engines.

 

I apologise to other members for copying my reply to your last posting of this request and hope someone with a 1.5 will take measurements for you. Calcutt may be able to supply the required diagram. I don't think the dimensions from an older 1.5 using the Metalastic "top hat" mounts will be any good to you.

 

"Not much help, but that will depend upon who marinised the BMC and when they did it.

 

If it was Thorneycroft that you were keeping on about, perhaps someone with a Thorneycroft marinised 1.5 can measure theirs. However I think your engine may be on wooden beds and they any need distance pieces made to raise the height or pieces cut out of them to drop the engine so the shaft will line up. It's the shaft alignment that is important so I would drop the engine roughly into place,  on packing from the hull if the beds are too far apart, so you can take direct measurements."

[Keeping Up]

Am I the only one who sees the title of this topic and thinks "You'd never get 1500hp from a BMC" ?