Jump to content

Best engine to replace BMC


Peter Thornton

Featured Posts

Without doing a lot of searching in previous posts I think I've seen more posts concerning BMC engine problems on here (overheating, can't bleed it, head gaskets blown, blocked injectors, starting issues and so on) then I have for similar issues with Beta, Kubota etc. If someone has the time available to go back and do this to prove me wrong then please do, and I'll eat my words - as it's just my feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without doing a lot of searching in previous posts I think I've seen more posts concerning BMC engine problems on here (overheating, can't bleed it, head gaskets blown, blocked injectors, starting issues and so on) then I have for similar issues with Beta, Kubota etc. If someone has the time available to go back and do this to prove me wrong then please do, and I'll eat my words - as it's just my feeling.

 

I think you are probably correct there, but it probably has something to with the fact that many thousands of them have been fitted to boats over the past forty years, wheras most of the others are, by comparison, much newer with much lower production levels.

Edited by David Schweizer
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We replaced the old BMC 1.8 a few years ago with a Beta 38. Very, very happy with it. The Beta was almost an exact drop-in fit, only needed a very small modification to the engine bearers so the engine fitting only cost a few hundred. Another nice thing was that Beta took our PRM gearbox from the old engine, repainted it and gave it an overhaul and fitted it to the new engine, saving £1k or so. Beta are a very nice company to deal with. The new engine starts much more easily and is substantially quieter than the BMC. It's also easy to service.

 

Torque / power characteristics were similar too so (if the old prop had been the right size) we wouldn't have needed to reprop. (As it was, the old prop was badly matched anyway so we did fit a new one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownerships first series of boats had names beginning with either "S" or "O", so I wouldn't attach any credence to that theory, particularly as most were Pat Buckle shells, but a few later ones were built by Graham Reeves.

 

The later ones, named after canalside villages, we're built mainly by Graham Reeves, with the latest few built in Poland by Hexagon.

 

To my knowledge Honeystreet (a Reeves hull) only suffered cooling issues in the latter days of her BMC engine installation (as well as poor fuel consumption). Both attributable to her worn engine, and in particular a very worn camshaft, abetted by many layers of blacking on the swims.

 

The skin tanks were left as original for the Beta 43 transplant.

 

One current owner of Honeystreet has testified that there are no cooling issues on canals and canalised rivers. Perhaps a current owner can confirm if this is the case against the flow on rivers?

To be slightly pedantic, early OwnerShips with names beginning with 'S' were built (hull and fitout) by Pat Buckle with, usually, Calcutt marinised BMC 1.8 engines. Boats with names beginning with 'O' came from elsewhere (often second hand) and had a variety of engines (BMC 1500 and Mitsubishi spring to mind).

 

Later, Ownerships started using Reeves hulls (as used by many hire fleets at the time) with fit outs by John Milliburn still retaining Calcutt/BMC 1800 engines and 'S' names. Later 'S' names were dropped in favour of canal place names.

 

Later still, Beta Marine engines were used instead of Calcutt/BMC but these were fairly quickly dropped in favour of Nanni engines using the same Kubota base unit due to two issues which Beta took a long time to resolve. The main reason for moving away from BMC was a perceived market demand for 'Travelpower' and bow thrusters which could be supplied as part of the engine package.

 

From memory, here are some of the issues/feedback I can recall from about 12 years ago with regard to BMC 1800 replacement on OwnerShips craft. The company view was that most engines then it use in hire fleets were suitable, including new Calcutt/BMC units. However, replacement with rebuilt or refurbished units was seen as a false enconomy -

 

- Replacement with rebuilt/refurbished units - this was not recommended by Ownerships (or Calcutt) due to a history of major early engine failures.

 

- Replacement with new Calcutt/BMC - Ok but owners were encouraged to consider having the following checked and replaced if needed -

 

engine mountings

gearbox

stern gear including aquadrive

wiring/hoses

exhaust

cooling system

 

- Replacement by Nanni/Beta - most owners went with Beta ...

 

As well as the above, owners were warned that engine mountings needed replacing and cooling/exhaust rerouting. Also replacement of the engine wiring and panel. Experience had shown that Pat Buckle and some of the very early Reeves hulls needed skin tank modification even if the replacement unit was notionally the same power. Calcutt used to do a retrofit to alter the skin tanks by welding a new tank onto the outside of the swim. Pat Buckle boats had a wet exhaust system but many had been converted to 'hospital silencer'. The few not converted were advised that it was better to convert to a dry system for replacement.

 

Isuzu - A few owners went for Isuzu which was slightly cheaper than Nanni/Beta. The general advice given to owners at the time was that known problems existed with alternator/alternator bracket failure otherwise the advice was the same for Nanni/Beta.

 

With regard to owner feedback, after installing a new engine, most reported that it was quieter with less vibration. This is perhaps to be expected! Less expected is that most who had experience of several craft found little difference between new BMC and other engines (I am talking here about volunteers that would move OwnerShips boats).

 

Owners moving from wet exhaust BMC to a hospital silencer found the new installation noisier.

 

Some owners reported heavier fuel consumption from replacement Beta/Nanni engines compared to older BMC units. Investigation of filling records showed in increase of about 20%.

 

Some owners reported a lack of hot water (possibly due to higher temperature thermostats (82%?) fitted in the BMC's)...

 

Some owners reported cooling problems due to not having the skin tank enlarged. These were sorted by Calcutt without engine removal.

 

Most owners reported better charging (as you would expect).

 

***Edited to remove extraneous blank lines.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be slightly pedantic, early OwnerShips with names beginning with 'S' were built (hull and fitout) by Pat Buckle with, usually, Calcutt marinised BMC 1.8 engines. Boats with names beginning with 'O' came from elsewhere (often second hand) and had a variety of engines (BMC 1500 and Mitsubishi spring to mind).

To be even more fractionally pedantic, Osiris and Oberon were new Pat Buckle boats fitted with BoatServe Mitsubishi engines to my certain knowledge. (I attended the launch of one to have a good look at the finished product before buying a share in the other).

 

The secondhand boats IIRC were very early boats and included Annabel, Vagabond, Copperkins II, Ursula and Endeavour.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited by cuthound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, my mistake. You are correct. There was also the Pat Buckle Oasis Too built to replace second hand (?) Oasis.

 

I rather vaguely recall that the Boatserve Mitsubishi units had quite a small swept volume (1300cc?) and ran through a 3:1 PRM gearbox rather than the more normal 2:1.

I also remember Annabelle II (but not an original Annabelle), Copperkins II (with its Vetus engine), Ursula and Endeavour. Can't remember Vagabond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick someone or other ran BoatServe. He told me that they were 1.4 litres displacement. I think Oasis was a new Pat Buckle boats not secondhand, but not too sure.

 

Certainly emergency stops were interesting in those Mitsubishi 1.4 engined boats! They needed lots of revs to stop, whereupon the whirling propeller pulled the boat across the cut. I developed a form of "cadence reversing" in an effort to keep the boat reasonably straight whilst stopping.

 

When we swapped boats to Honeystreet, the extra torque of the BMC 1.8 was very noticable, as was the handling (especially in a strong wind) of a Reeves shell over the Pat Buckle one.

 

The original Annabelle was almost unique in having wooden window frames (I have only seen one other boat with them). Vagabond was a short (40 foot?) trad but was sold out of the fleet around 1992-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a holiday on Osiris in 2009 when our boat had a condemned Alde. At that time she had just been fitted with a BMC 1800. She was originally launched in 1992 so not a bad innings for a 1.4 Mitsubishi.

We got 10,000 hours (9 years) out of the 1.4 Mitsubishi on Oberon, and then 13,000 hours (11 years) of the Turkish built BMC 1.8 on Honeystreet (much to my surprise).

Off topic but any comments advice on a Vetus as I`m considering a total package for my sailaway.

We have a Vetus stern gland and macerator toilet. IMO their kit is good, but the genuine Vetus spares are eye wateringly expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vetus do marinise Mitsubishi engines. Another company who do that are Solé (not sure if this a re-use of an old marine engine manufacturers name)

 

Anyway I would guess that the japanese engines are probably much of a muchness but as Beta Marine are a "spinoff" from Lister I expect them to have more overall knowledge of UK inland waterways craft. And their workshop is wicked ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vetus do marinise Mitsubishi engines. Another company who do that are Solé (not sure if this a re-use of an old marine engine manufacturers name)

 

Anyway I would guess that the japanese engines are probably much of a muchness but as Beta Marine are a "spinoff" from Lister I expect them to have more overall knowledge of UK inland waterways craft. And their workshop is wicked wink.png

I think, but don't know, that the 1400cc Misubishi base unit marinised by Boatserve was also used by Vetus in its 414.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The beta 43 comes out well from this as does the BMC. Is the barrus - shire anywhere.

Is the beta easy to access for servicing ie oil oil filter air filter fuel filter. Is it noisy? I'm most interested for my 59 foot narrowboat.

I'm a countryside and industrial nut so interested in the use of the engine to travel around. I slept with Sultzers and Burmeister and wain at 110 cycles per minute so no need for that again.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beta 43 is quieter than the BMC 1.8 with no other changes to the installation, although the silencer and amount of sound deadening have a bigger effect.

 

Access for servicing is dependent upon the individual installation, but the oil and fuel filters are located towards the top of the engine, and the air filter right on top, so access is easy unless the boat builder has compromised it.

 

No experience of the Shire engine, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On our boats we've had a Vetus 4.14, a Turkish BMC which had to be replaced with a Nanni because of serious manufacturing faults (on a 2003-built Ownerships 'Village' boat) and a Beta 43 (on the current boat).

 

There is no question in my mind that the Beta is superior in every way. .


And I'd echo what others have said about ease of servicing, but that is as much to do with the cruiser stern as anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some observations about E P Barrus, the marinisers of the Shire engines that are actually Yanmar based engines.

 

Any mariniser who thinks it is smart to exhibit and engine with a single belt driving two alternators and a water pump without jockey wheels must raise questions (see other recent thread about squealing alternator). Of course Beta have had their crankshaft pulley problems and Vetus have or do some stipulations that may make their marinisations unsuitable for inland use on canals.

 

I feel that in the UK spares for Mitusbishi or Kubota from non-marine sources are probably easier to come by that Yanmar spares.

 

I also do not feel it was smart to market a Korean base engine that seemed to get dropped fairly rapidly. Some of the features of that marinisation I would question.

 

E P Barrus seem to have their figures in far more than the marine engine pie so although they may be a bigger company than (say) Beta one wonders how much effort is put into building and supporting the Shire range.

 

None of this should be taken to mean the Shire range are bad engines now they use two belts for the alternators but it would not be very near the top of my list of engines to choose.

Edited by Tony Brooks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the beta 43 it is.

 

Do i need two alternators? I i run for 2 hours most weekends and the marina shore line has charged the batteries, i have a vsr which charges bothbattery banks and I have 6 leisure batteries of 110 ah each (plus the engine start). I intend going on hols to liverpool from near oxford so say 4 hours a day for many days, so i think the leisure batteries will be well charged, I have a 1kva honda geny to charge them if not.

Should i get a 3.3 or 5.5 kVa ac alternator with the beta or not. It will attract liveaboards to buy it later maybe, but its a bigger space and expense.

any ideas gratefully received.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony is correct regarding two alternators on one vee belt, but on the Barrus Shire it was fine in practice. We changed the belt as a precaution every 1000 hours and had no problems with the drive or waterpump bearings. This design is now been replaced by an additional V belts although some new models no longer have a watercooled exhaust manifold which seems retrograde

 

The Shire has twin thermostats which is a good principle - but whether it makes any real difference is a point for discussion. The only spares (apart from filters) required in 3,000 hours were a couple of pushrods which mysteriously wore through the hardening at the rocker end; they weren't difficult to source.

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.