What engine types to avoid/look for

[mrsmelly]

Newbie here.

 

When looking at boats, are there certain engines that I should avoid or look for? I am terrible at DIY and electrics and all that and ideally want a cheap to run engine that won't break down, not interested in'vintage' etc as I don't have a lot of money to pay for repairs and won't have a clue how to do anything by myself

 

EDIT we will be moored in one place 90% of the time, in case that makes a difference

 

Hi

 

Bukh are simply the best but failing that realy anything Japanese. The hire fleet here where I am are all Isuzu and there has never been an engine failure to speak of ever. The owner rates them so highly that when he sells the hire boat on he removes the engine and puts it into a new hire boat and replaces the Isuzu in the old hire boat with a new Beta before selling boat on.

Oil changes are the simple key to engine longevity.

 

Tim

[WotEver]

And you will still get 50 different replies.

Yup, and every one of them will be right

[Athy]

Yup, and every one of them will be right

Oh come now, they can't all be from Northerners.

[WotEver]

Oh come now, they can't all be from Northerners.

Why call a spade a spade when you can call it a bloody shovel?

Edited January 30, 2016 by WotEver

[cereal tiller]

Why call a spade a spade when you can call it a bloody shovel?

Ahem,the Implement you are referring to is actually described as a 'Manual Entrenching Tool!'

 

That is what we Southerners call it.

 

CT

[pete.i]

And there you have it. everybody has their own idea of what is best. My personal preference is a BMC 1.5 or 1.8. easy tro work on, if any engine can be called easy. Spares and information readily available. My boat, that I no longer have, had a BMC 1.5. It never let me down in 4 years of ownership but it had been very well looked after by previous owners. You say you know nothing about engines and electrics. Well when you go to buy your boat take someone with you who does know. As has been stated the engine isn't the most important part of a boat. the hull and superstructure is but you cannot go far without one. Mind you boats did manage to travel long before engines were invented. Don't be fooled into thinking that a nice clean shiny engine room is a sign that an engine has been looked after. It's dead easy to keep an engine hole clean and tidy much much more difficult to keep an engine in tip top condition.

 

This thread is about to deteriorate into the usual arguments that ensue on this site so I'm out of here. Just make sure you take someone with you that really really knows about engines both old uns and new and get a full, including engine, survey done.

[rgreg]

This might be a personal thing of mine, but I'd walk away from the occasional boat you see with a rubber cam belt, Ford D series, the occasional Volkswagen engine etc.

I have a Lombardini engine with a cam belt. It has done 3000 hrs, fires up immediately and has never missed a beat or smoked (not a huge number of hours yet I know). It has operated comfortably on tidal waters many times. I had the belt changed at 2500 hrs as per the maintenance schedule (a straightforward, inexpensive job) and the old belt was almost as new. I hope I'm not tempting fate but so far it has served me very well.

[OldGoat]

 

Hi

 

Bukh are simply the best but failing that realy anything Japanese. The hire fleet here where I am are all Isuzu and there has never been an engine failure to speak of ever. The owner rates them so highly that when he sells the hire boat on he removes the engine and puts it into a new hire boat and replaces the Isuzu in the old hire boat with a new Beta before selling boat on.

Oil changes are the simple key to engine longevity.

 

Tim

 

Really? You amaze me, but then nobody's perfect....

 

A win-win for all concerned, he keeps what he likes and the new owner gets a spanking new power plant (as well as sales for Quedgely (?sp).

Some ex-hire boats make excellent first boats for newcomers, sadly they as a bit Spartan inside for modern tastes. Methinks great for folks who want to 'adjust' the interiors. Doesn't apply to all hire boat fleets though...

[keif's mate]

BMC 1.5 or Perkins 4-108 for me. Not overly impressed with the 4-108 Lowline I have in my present boat. Not very lowline, magnificent packaging exercise, but you cannot get to anything. Preferred my old 1.5, reliable, accessible and you can have 'em rebuilt for less than the price of a new 9.9 outboard!

[Athy]

.

 

This thread is about to deteriorate into the usual arguments that ensue on this site

NO IT'S NOT!

[bizzard]

And if a rubber mounted engine, which most modern installations are, sacrifice an extra foot or two of cabin space by installing the engine and transmission properly, with some kind of double prop shaft UJ, ''Python or Aquadrive'' and thrust block.

[keif's mate]

OHH YES IT IS!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, forgot the Panto season is over

[Athy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, forgot the Panto season is over

OH NO IT'S...etc.

[alan_fincher]

Sorry, forgot the Panto season is over

 

Sorry, but these days the Panto season is never over on these Forums!

[mrsmelly]

 

Really? You amaze me, but then nobody's perfect....

 

A win-win for all concerned, he keeps what he likes and the new owner gets a spanking new power plant (as well as sales for Quedgely (?sp).

Some ex-hire boats make excellent first boats for newcomers, sadly they as a bit Spartan inside for modern tastes. Methinks great for folks who want to 'adjust' the interiors. Doesn't apply to all hire boat fleets though...

 

Yes it always amazes people but nevertheless he did it again last week. Dave always gets top dollar for his x hire fleet I think many people like fairly basic as there is less twee crap to go wrong and they are maintained rather better than many privately owned stuff that jus sits and rots year to year in many marinas as we all know.

 

Timk

[peterboat]

Donna

 

What Southern Star meant was that some engines drive a critical part by a glorified rubber band, exactly the same as most cars do. If this rubber band fails on a diesel that is running (this is when they usually fail) expect a four figure repair bill. The majority of engines in boats are not like this. To prevent failure the rubber band should be changed very regularly and if you do the job wrong then its a four figure sum to put right.

 

Look at the front of the engine where the belts are. If the front of the engine has a large plastic cover over it or a thin tin one held on by a FEW screws then it has a timing belt. Some makes that could be like this - some models from one a maker could well be different. As SS say VW and I will add Lombardidi (also may have a proprietary fuel system), Peugeot, and Ford XLD.

 

I agree with SS, best to avoid these engines.

 

I would say that if a BMC can be the hire company's favourite then then there is not a lot wrong with the basic (very basic) design, one post makes me think there may be a dodgy local engineer about. They are however getting in years and production moved abroad many years ago so now there are only a very few outlets supplying anything more than service spares. If I had not managed to find a boat with a Bukh engine I would have been very drawn to a BMC 1.5 but not having one would no be a deal breaker for me. Please note that Thornycroft marinised BMCs engines before they moved to Japanese base engines.

 

Now and again a company sees an opportunity to import engines from lesser known Asian makers. These are arguably best avoided, one like this marinised by a well respects company is the Shanks. On not account get this confused with the Shire range which is based on a different engine maker.

 

"Reliable" makes of engine: Beta, Nanni, Thornycroft, Isuzu and the Canaline range from engines plus seems, to be gaining a good reputation. Three more that are also reliable but may have a cost of spares issue are Vetus, Volvo-Penta, and Bukh. Apart from Vetus these are rarer in canal boats.

 

Remember if you want to check on an engine you can always ask here and maybe post a photo so we can check the advert/vendor is not mistaken.

the point tony about bmc s is they were the higher companies choice because to be honest their wasnt much else available, and bmc had thousands of these units that nobody wanted so it was an easy sell. now there is good quality japanese stuff that runs forever and a day.

the reason why they are having problems here with their bmc s is they are knackered keiths head cost a fortune to repair new combustion chambers [noted as a problem] new valve guides inserts and valves. the bores wernt great and the engine isnt high on hours. for me if i wanted an old engine it would have to be a thumper to put up with the problems of older engines not a failed car/van engine

[Tony Brooks]

In fact the Perkins 4-10x range were a direct competitor to BMC 1.5s and the problems they had with cracked pre-combustion chambers were well known. The air cooled Listers were also direct competitors as were the dieselified Ford push-rod engines of the time.How successful were they?

 

 

I have admitted that BMCs are old engines and spares are not the easiest to obtain but to compare engines that may be 50 years old with those that are perhaps 10 years old and concluding the older engine designs are unreliable is not very convincing. I suspect when those Jap units hit 20, 30, 40 years old they will be just as unreliable.

 

Engines need maintaining in a timely manner, not running until they stop. I would very much like to know the FULL history of the engines you talk about because some may be "reconditioned" units that were then marinised and we should all know what "reconditioned" could mean.

 

The 1.5 was not a failed car/van engine although most were used in that application. There were also many used in diverse "plant" rolls and some that I know about were put in jungle clearings where they ran 24/7 and only had an engineer fly in once or twice a month to service them.

 

Personally I would rather have an old BMC than an old Lister, at least I would not be annually annealing the internal fuel pipes to keep it reliable.

 

I agree about a old slow speed engine but the OP says she was not interested is a trad engine. I can not agree that with your views on BMCs.

 

BMC 1.5s and 2.2s could take the abuse in a hire fleet. Lister SL4s could not, I suspect much like the comparison between a Vetus with Technodrive box and a Beta/Nanni.

[peterboat]

we have been here before tony, bob beresford who worked for bmc told me they were brought out for the morris oxford which they were a failure. the 1.8 was brought out for the sherpa, i in the forces remember having to debus the passengers and get a push from them to get me up sutton bank again a failure. the mod never bought them for generators. martin an agricultural engineer cant remember ever seeing them in use within agriculture.

i agree completely about reconditioned engines but keith had a calcutt boat, i would have thought they would have done a good job keith changed oil often so that should have helped.

the issue for me is out there are lots of boats out there so why buy something that has its roots over 60 years ago parts can always be a problem as we discovered with keiths engine

[Athy]

We have not recently heard from Donna (the O.P.) I suspect that she's in a darkened room suffering from a headache, after trying to absorb all this information!

[OldGoat]

IM*O an automotive unit is not well suited to this sort of marine use. We hired boats with BMC engines in the past and they were smokey and lacking in torque when needed in a hurry (as was always the case with hirers).

More importantly, they don't lend themselves well to hanging extra bits on them or even to sensible mounts for NB use. They had their time and that is well past.

 

Such a long time ago - the OP was concerned about maintainability for a novice or someone who would prefer not to get 'Muckai' (don't we all).

An industrial engine has all sorts of places where you can hang extra pumps, alternators, engine mounts, whatever - whereas a vehicle unit was designe for something simpler.