Fiesta diesel powered 58' from an engine room no less!

[Seti-Yeti]

I've just seen a modern build (this century) trad 58 footer complete with pseudo boatman's cabin AND engine room but fitted with a Ford Fiesta diesel.

I can't get it sorted in my head. Modern boat, vintage arrangement but no Russell Newbury or similar... Doesn't compute.

 

I do wonder if the high rev car engine is going to sulk at these rpm.

[Southern Star]

I'd say the pistons and valves will definitely sulk if the cambelt ever fails.

[ditchcrawler]

I've just seen a modern build (this century) trad 58 footer complete with pseudo boatman's cabin AND engine room but fitted with a Ford Fiesta diesel.

I can't get it sorted in my head. Modern boat, vintage arrangement but no Russell Newbury or similar... Doesn't compute.

 

I do wonder if the high rev car engine is going to sulk at these rpm.

Did you hear it run, is it slow reving or has it got an egg whisk on the back

[Theo]

Did you hear it run, is it slow reving or has it got an egg whisk on the back

It doesn't have to have an egg whisk on the back if it is sufficiently geared down, I would imagine.

 

Has it been marinised in any way?

[ditchcrawler]

It doesn't have to have an egg whisk on the back if it is sufficiently geared down, I would imagine.

 

Has it been marinised in any way?

That's very true, what is the largest ratio you can get.

[Nightwatch]

I think Nightwatch had a Fiesta/Escort engine in it before the previous owner had the Shire installed. I have heard it was very slow between locks when sharing. Nightwatch is 55'.

[Seti-Yeti]

It doesn't have to have an egg whisk on the back if it is sufficiently geared down, I would imagine.

 

Has it been marinised in any way?

 

It's fully marinised and a good installation with the exhaust silenced and going up through the cabin roof. It is also "guarded" by a frame you can lean against if you know what I mean. It's not the install per se that messes with my head, it's the juxtaposition of a modern build to trad engine room and back to a modern car engine... See what I mean?

 

Maybe it's just me... Spend circa £60-70k+ on a build to include an engine room and attendant long prop-shaft etc. and then not spend a tad more on a brand spanking new RN. I'll get my coat...

[ditchcrawler]

 

It's fully marinised and a good installation with the exhaust silenced and going up through the cabin roof. It is also "guarded" by a frame you can lean against if you know what I mean. It's not the install per se that messes with my head, it's the juxtaposition of a modern build to trad engine room and back to a modern car engine... See what I mean?

 

Maybe it's just me... Spend circa £60-70k+ on a build to include an engine room and attendant long prop-shaft etc. and then not spend a tad more on a brand spanking new RN. I'll get my coat...

Tad more £15K ish or 20%

[captain birdseye]

IIRC the Thornycroft engines put in many cruiser stern boats were marinised Ford 1.8 Ltr engines. So nothing unusual about using that engine in a boat

[alan_fincher]

 

Maybe it's just me... Spend circa £60-70k+ on a build to include an engine room and attendant long prop-shaft etc. and then not spend a tad more on a brand spanking new RN. I'll get my coat...

 

 

Tad more £15K ish or 20%

 

Even that is optimistic. AFAIK a new RN (if you can actually get one) is not far shy of £20K, before you factor in fitting or any of the ancilliaries like controls, mud box or day tank.

 

That "tad extra" is going to be a lot more than 30% extra, I think!

IIRC the Thornycroft engines put in many cruiser stern boats were marinised Ford 1.8 Ltr engines. So nothing unusual about using that engine in a boat

 

And other Thornycrofts were the BMC 1800 diesel, also marinised by countless other outfits. Nothing used to be unusual about using old fairly low powered normally aspirated "van" engines for canal boat power.

 

However I would have thought modern diesels (usually turbo-diesels) are probably far too powerful, and in other ways inappropriate, for use in a typical modern narrow boat.

[Neil Smith]

Betas tug engine would be another option.

 

Neil

[ditchcrawler]

Betas tug engine would be another option.

 

Neil

Perhaps he didnt want the noise

[Celestine]

I've seen a boat fitted with a Mk1 VW GOLF diesel, but these were early none turbo version, very slow, engines. I would think that a modern diesel car engine with all the associated electrics and other devices would be a challenge to install. The easy option would be to fit any boat engine. I do know of a traditional boat with a modern Isuzu 42 fitted into the engine room. I think, IMO, the Beta Tug would be a more appropriate and easier to install.

 

My personal preference is a Gardner or Kelvin, sadly these are well out of my reach financially these days.

[DHutch]

I'd say the pistons and valves will definitely sulk if the cambelt ever fails.

But then, you can get a new one from the scrap yard for £150 notes....

 

 

The 1900 VW nat-asp diesal is certainly a common choice to manrinise, but equally, other cheap nat-asp diesals are avilable!

 

 

 

Daniel

[Geoff Taylor]

The non turbo Ford 1600 and 1800 engines were quite torquey at the lower rev range and as long as the cambelts are changed every three years regardless of use they are an ideal match to the Perkins and BMC units and cost of parts are around the same.

[gazza]

The non turbo Ford 1600 and 1800 engines were quite torquey at the lower rev range and as long as the cambelts are changed every three years regardless of use they are an ideal match to the Perkins and BMC units and cost of parts are around the same.

Agreed, excellent power unit as long as access to the timing belt is good.

 

I have the proper ford service tools for changing the valve shims. Spent more than an hour or two playing with them

I've seen a boat fitted with a Mk1 VW GOLF diesel, but these were early none turbo version, very slow, engines. I would think that a modern diesel car engine with all the associated electrics and other devices would be a challenge to install. The easy option would be to fit any boat engine. I do know of a traditional boat with a modern Isuzu 42 fitted into the engine room. I think, IMO, the Beta Tug would be a more appropriate and easier to install.

 

My personal preference is a Gardner or Kelvin, sadly these are well out of my reach financially these days.

The ford needs +12v to the stop solenoid and heater plugs (via a relay) and the usual starter and alternator wiring.

 

Not exactly high tech!

[DHutch]

The non turbo Ford 1600 and 1800 engines were quite torquey at the lower rev range and as long as the cambelts are changed every three years regardless of use they are an ideal match to the Perkins and BMC units and cost of parts are around the same.

Three years?

 

Daniel

[gazza]

Three years?

 

Daniel

Yes, it was revised down from 48k/4 years as they had a tendency to go ping! I did one that lunched it's self, couple of new valves and we were all good to go, quicker than wrenching another head off a scrapped car - got a feeling they were around £8 a valve!

 

Very very easy belt change, the 1600 has a belt that drives the cam and a gear driven pump, the 1800 has both belt driven.

 

Donor vehicles are starting to get thin on the ground now though, terminal tin worm the usual culprit!

[gazza]

Just found my service book.

 

1600 = 54 bhp @ 4800 rpm and 70 lbf ft @ 3000 rpm

 

1800 N/A = 60 bhp @ 4800 rpm and 81 lbf ft @ 2500 rpm

[Geoff Taylor]

I have a valid reason for the three year change as experience of looking after a company fleet of mixed 1600 & 1800 powered cars and pick ups, sometimes the camshaft oil seal would weep and dampen the belt with oil and the corner of the 1600 cylinder heads would let out oil also and the capillary effect would reach the belt. The other nasty failures were if the bottom bracket holding the cambelt cover on came loose and the bolt fell out, the bracket would cut away the belt, you can guess the rest (I only saw two cases of this and checking at every service saved quite a few more!).

I also had two cases on the 1800 engine have the camshaft snap clean off on the pulley end which scrapped the cylinder head, both of these failed on idle, one on a Sierra and one on my P100 pick up.

The parts guy at the Ford dealership was able to memorise the part numbers of the cam and cyl head so this made me suspicious that we were not the only ones getting this failure, I took it up with Ford and got no sensible answer to the problem of what must have been a material defect in a cam batch or over tightening the belts at the factory as the breakages were at low mileages from new.

[gazza]

There were some revisions to the cam shaft pulley and covers on the 1800.

 

I did one that had a bust camshaft - broke into three pieces, didn't help the owner tried to repeatedly start it after failure - head was a right off but amazingly the pistons survived - had a bit of a lumpy idle but ran well enough to get it to its date with the scrap man 2 years later

 

The P100 was way better with the 1800 than that awful old 2.3 Peugeot lump!

[Celestine]

Gazza,

 

Re the 'not exactly high tech' comment.

 

As the original post did not specify the age of the Fiesta engine, then it could be one made at any time in the last 20 years or more.

 

I've been responsible for installing various engines on test beds for oil testing, and yes, it can just mean a 12v battery. It can also mean installing an ECU and all the associated complicated bits to override parts of this device.

 

Just in case someone reads this thread and is then tempted to pluck an engine from the local scrap yard.

[gazza]

Gazza,

 

Re the 'not exactly high tech' comment.

 

As the original post did not specify the age of the Fiesta engine, then it could be one made at any time in the last 20 years or more.

 

I've been responsible for installing various engines on test beds for oil testing, and yes, it can just mean a 12v battery. It can also mean installing an ECU and all the associated complicated bits to override parts of this device.

 

Just in case someone reads this thread and is then tempted to pluck an engine from the local scrap yard.

Don't get prickly!

 

The engine/s being discussed here were first introduced in 1984. The 1.8 was used in one form or another up to 2000 odd gaining some very unsophisticated control in turbocharged form (highly unlikely to be found in your average NB) IN N/A form Thornycroft used it for a fair while in marine applications

 

I'm yet to here of a 1.6tdci being fitted to a new boat..... And as ford no longer produce a 1.8 diesel its unlikely to be mistaken for anything else!

 

Mention of tin worm and P100's should also put a reader on the right track! That and the donor vehicles being thin on the ground.

 

Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things!

[Celestine]

Just wanted to help anyone reading this who may think that any car diesel engine would do.

 

I thought that was being helpful, the purpose of this forum I believe.

[gazza]

Just wanted to help anyone reading this who may think that any car diesel engine would do.

 

I thought that was being helpful, the purpose of this forum I believe.

Yes, I agree that is the purpose of this forum, I think it is unlikely that someone would think you could nip to a beakers and lob any car engine into a boat though...

 

Let's be honest, most folks that would entertain changing an engine themselves are likely to know one end of a spanner from the other.

Those who don't are likely to look to someone who knows one end of a spanner from the other to do it for them, all being well they would put them on the right track.

 

None of this alters the fact that cam belt access being adequate the Ford 1.6/1.8 IDI OHC engine is a suitable lump for chugging up and down a ditch.

 

PS, the Ford was much beloved by Charlie Fox here in deepest darkest East Anglia and did sterling service in his hire fleet