Caterpilla Engine Question?

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by seafish

Cat 550hp at 1800rpm burn rate...22gph
Scania 550hp at 1800 burn rate 8gph.

LOL!!!!!!

who told you that?
someone wants an engine sale.
according to scania's own website it burns 90L/HR
your not going to triple fuel mileage at the same power setting just by dumping mechanical injection.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by seafish

Trawl boats locally seem to favor mechanical over computer engines for the obvious reasons....but, I pulled a 3412 and I'm replacing it with a Scania. I'm not sure if I'm nuts or not, but I'll let you know.
Why?
Cat 550hp at 1800rpm burn rate...22gph
Scania 550hp at 1800 burn rate 8gph.
New Scania cost the same as the rebuild on the 3412. [NO Workboat Show price]
3year unlimited warranty...injectors included, mechanic travel covered.

Something must be wrong someplace. Typo? Electronic injection adds efficiency during the five minutes of warm up (yawn), and at low rpms. But the improvement in overall fuel efficiency is trivial, and certainly nothing close to these levels, or at least I very much doubt.

p.s. I come up with 26gph for the Scania 550 hp @ 1800 rpm prop demand. Maybe keep the CAT?

[Capt Phil]

Not a real mechanical guru but just a fair bit of experience with CATS, and twin D330's running at 1500 RPM from Seattle to San Diego only burned 4 GPH total in a 54 foot DeFever! Think there might be somethin' wrong with the math or typos or something in your example above. This is from personal experience, not info from a friend. I do know that if you drop the RPM even a bit on a long trip, your fuel saving is substantial and just for the record if you are running Detroit Diesels using a smaller day tank and your inflow fuel temps into the engine are higher there is a quite a savings on a long trip as well. Cheers, Phil