Rebuild or Replace New?

[Elie]

There are specialized shop doeing truck engines rebuilt. Their approch is very systhematic: Dismantle, check every parts, discard the bad ones, and rebuilt quickly the engine. The result is garanty ed , and very professional. Generaly they have their source of parts, and keep in mind that engine manufacturer procure most of their moving parts(the one that are subject of wear) like pistons, rings valves from the same place as these rebuilder. They just stick their logo and charge a huge amount for doing so. My experience is that truck industry diesel engine rebuilders are very efficient and much cheaper than small shop using original parts. In my case, an MD22L (its a Perkins in Volvo livery) was rebuilt efficiently and at a price that defy any thing. However, you need to take the engine out of the boat et ship it to the shop.

[Kudos]

Do what I did. I bought a boat four years ago with a M50 in it, with only 55 hours. I purchased a rebuild kit and put it on the shelf. I've been told these engines will go 10 to 20 thousand hours, change the timing belt every 3 years. If it runs good and doesn't use oil, I wouldn't worry about it now. Rebuild at a later date

[goboatingnow]

The MD2030 is a great little engine, simple straightforward ,

2000-3000 hours is nothing on these blocks.

Rebuild

[deblen]

Great engine. Suggest rebuilding. Lots of info on Google under Perkins Perama M30,M20 , Volvo 2030,2020 , Ischibaura 103-10,(100 series).


You could also look into a long block or short block packaged rebuild from tractor supply cos.


Cheers/Len

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfi-a7c6KiA

[Dieseldude]

Your older Perkins is a simple old diesel with mechanical injection and is not loaded up with complex electronics. This gives it many advantages over modern "motorized computers" that can be a huge can of worms to troubleshoot and repair. Diagnostic equipment for modern engines is costly, and it is difficult to impossible for the average owner to learn all that must be known about such high tech marvels.


If it were my boat, I would lean toward overhauling the old basic diesel. It is a strong asset of functionality, and resale value to knowledgeable buyers. Though modern electronic engines might have efficiency and emissions advantages, these are of no value when you are at sea or in some remote port without access to a factory trained mechanic who has specialized knowledge and diagnostic equipment. And of course the cost of manufacturer service is much higher than independent mechanics.


You can do as thorough an overhaul as you deem necessary based upon condition of components once dismantled and inspected. There may be no need for much more then the usual rings, cylinder honing, valve service, bearings, seals and gaskets. The crank shaft might not need any more than to be polished with fine crocus cloth. If you have basic skills, you can do much of the work yourself, saving much of the labor costs. It would be wise to have a reputable engine builder do such critical tasks as crank shaft inspection, and block/cylinder inspection. These should be dye tested for cracks in addition to precisely measured. A quality overhaul will give you a good old bullet proof engine that should last for years of service. Of course keep all records and receipts of parts purchased and any work done by engine builders and machine shops. If you think that you might be selling your boat in the next few years, it might be an asset to have an engine builder do the entire overhaul, as record of a professional overhaul could be a selling point.



I have seen too many complicated problems with the new electronicized engines. They are often the cause of expensive repeat service calls of expensive dealer mechanics.

[deblen]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Your older Perkins is a simple old diesel with mechanical injection and is not loaded up with complex electronics. This gives it many advantages over modern "motorized computers" that can be a huge can of worms to troubleshoot and repair. Diagnostic equipment for modern engines is costly, and it is difficult to impossible for the average owner to learn all that must be known about such high tech marvels.


If it were my boat, I would lean toward overhauling the old basic diesel. It is a strong asset of functionality, and resale value to knowledgeable buyers. Though modern electronic engines might have efficiency and emissions advantages, these are of no value when you are at sea or in some remote port without access to a factory trained mechanic who has specialized knowledge and diagnostic equipment. And of course the cost of manufacturer service is much higher than independent mechanics.


You can do as thorough an overhaul as you deem necessary based upon condition of components once dismantled and inspected. There may be no need for much more then the usual rings, cylinder honing, valve service, bearings, seals and gaskets. The crank shaft might not need any more than to be polished with fine crocus cloth. If you have basic skills, you can do much of the work yourself, saving much of the labor costs. It would be wise to have a reputable engine builder do such critical tasks as crank shaft inspection, and block/cylinder inspection. These should be dye tested for cracks in addition to precisely measured. A quality overhaul will give you a good old bullet proof engine that should last for years of service. Of course keep all records and receipts of parts purchased and any work done by engine builders and machine shops. If you think that you might be selling your boat in the next few years, it might be an asset to have an engine builder do the entire overhaul, as record of a professional overhaul could be a selling point.



I have seen too many complicated problems with the new electronicized engines. They are often the cause of expensive repeat service calls of expensive dealer mechanics.

Agree 100%. Unless you can afford "factory repair rates",stay with the older simple technology & learn as much DIY as required. The amount of extra pollution caused by small yacht diesels is miniscule IMHO.


Suggest you take lots of pics before & after during the rebuild for your records.

[Dieseldude]

Yup, exhaust emissions from small diesels that are well maintained are minor with the new low sulfur diesel (LSD) fuels. I use a lubricant additive in my fuel, as the lubricity of LSD is not as good as old time diesel fuel. LSD can be hard on injector pumps and injectors themselves. The slight cost of the additive is minor compared to the cost of premature wear and failure. You need to do your research in choosing an additive. I use "Howe's Lubricator", which is available throughout the US and Canada at shops that supply parts for large trucks. Howe's is also good for preventing jelling in cold weather. I even add it to my furnace oil at home. There may be additives that are just as good or better. But Howe's happens to be what I discovered, and it is readily available in my area.


CO2 emissions are certainly not the demon that much of our society believes. Climate warming causes atmospheric CO2 increase. CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming to any significant extent. Natural increases in solar radiation warms the ocean. This causes dissolved CO2 already present in sea water to be released to atmosphere. This is the same physical mechanism that makes soda pop and beer go flat as it warms. Eventually the solar radiation decreases and the ocean cools, increasing its ability to dissolve the CO2. Al Gore's theory is backwards. Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening since the first large vessel master in recorded history had his vessel ground on a mountain of the Ararat range. Noah and his contemporaries did not burn coal and petroleum. Yet the climate of their time and afterward continually changed. This is evidenced by such things as the discovery of woolly mammoths in the arctic with tropical plants in their bellies. Of course the Vikings were able to settle and farm in Greenland and Ice Land while the north was in a warming period. Their settlements declined as the climate entered a cooling period. Though inventive people, the Vikings were not running Scania diesel engines from Sweden in their vessels. They were not burning coal to produce iron and steel in vast quantities, yet the world saw climate variation before the industrial age of coal and petroleum.



So nobody is doing much harm by keeping their good old simple diesel engines instead of retrofitting with new high technology low emission monstrosities. There may be more CO2 generated by service calls and parts shipments caused by new engines then is made by older reliable diesels.

[Bill Seal]

Try explaining that to the SoCal Air Quality Management District.

[Dieseldude]

I have had no dealings with "Air Quality Management District", so can offer no comments about them. Older vessels need only meet emission requirements at the time of their construction, so no need to retrofit an engine of the newer standards.

[Bill Seal]

The South Coast Air Qualit Management District has already outlawed all the older semis in the port district (probably contributing to the 100 container ships at anchor), and the Govner is going to outlaw lawnmowers, so it's not impossible to believe our boats are next here in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

...CO2 emissions are certainly not the demon that much of our society believes. Climate warming causes atmospheric CO2 increase. CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming to any significant extent. Natural increases in solar radiation warms the ocean. This causes dissolved CO2 already present in sea water to be released to atmosphere. This is the same physical mechanism that makes soda pop and beer go flat as it warms. Eventually the solar radiation decreases and the ocean cools, increasing its ability to dissolve the CO2. Al Gore's theory is backwards. Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening since the first large vessel master in recorded history had his vessel ground on a mountain of the Ararat range. Noah and his contemporaries did not burn coal and petroleum. Yet the climate of their time and afterward continually changed. This is evidenced by such things as the discovery of woolly mammoths in the arctic with tropical plants in their bellies. Of course the Vikings were able to settle and farm in Greenland and Ice Land while the north was in a warming period. Their settlements declined as the climate entered a cooling period. Though inventive people, the Vikings were not running Scania diesel engines from Sweden in their vessels. They were not burning coal to produce iron and steel in vast quantities, yet the world saw climate variation before the industrial age of coal and petroleum.



So nobody is doing much harm by keeping their good old simple diesel engines instead of retrofitting with new high technology low emission monstrosities. There may be more CO2 generated by service calls and parts shipments caused by new engines then is made by older reliable diesels.

Demonstrably wrong on virtually every point. Someone's been watching too much TV...

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Yup, exhaust emissions from small diesels that are well maintained are minor with the new low sulfur diesel (LSD) fuels. I use a lubricant additive in my fuel, as the lubricity of LSD is not as good as old time diesel fuel. LSD can be hard on injector pumps and injectors themselves. The slight cost of the additive is minor compared to the cost of premature wear and failure. You need to do your research in choosing an additive. I use "Howe's Lubricator", which is available throughout the US and Canada at shops that supply parts for large trucks. Howe's is also good for preventing jelling in cold weather. I even add it to my furnace oil at home. There may be additives that are just as good or better. But Howe's happens to be what I discovered, and it is readily available in my area.


CO2 emissions are certainly not the demon that much of our society believes. Climate warming causes atmospheric CO2 increase. CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming to any significant extent. Natural increases in solar radiation warms the ocean. This causes dissolved CO2 already present in sea water to be released to atmosphere. This is the same physical mechanism that makes soda pop and beer go flat as it warms. Eventually the solar radiation decreases and the ocean cools, increasing its ability to dissolve the CO2. Al Gore's theory is backwards. Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening since the first large vessel master in recorded history had his vessel ground on a mountain of the Ararat range. Noah and his contemporaries did not burn coal and petroleum. Yet the climate of their time and afterward continually changed. This is evidenced by such things as the discovery of woolly mammoths in the arctic with tropical plants in their bellies. Of course the Vikings were able to settle and farm in Greenland and Ice Land while the north was in a warming period. Their settlements declined as the climate entered a cooling period. Though inventive people, the Vikings were not running Scania diesel engines from Sweden in their vessels. They were not burning coal to produce iron and steel in vast quantities, yet the world saw climate variation before the industrial age of coal and petroleum.



So nobody is doing much harm by keeping their good old simple diesel engines instead of retrofitting with new high technology low emission monstrosities. There may be more CO2 generated by service calls and parts shipments caused by new engines then is made by older reliable diesels.

You need to update your reading list to one involving some actual science.

[damianham]

Originally Posted by Simon B

I've just bought a 1993 Prout Event with a Perkins Perama M30 Engine from 1993. I telephoned parts4engines in England a they said we STILL have the full rebuild kits. The "STILL" word worries me. Total rebuild just like new, or do put in a brand new Yanmar? I think there is a $7k difference. I got the boat $12k than the asking price, but the electronics are from 2003. What would you do and why. I'm deliberating and debating with myself.

I have Volvo MD2030 - which are Perkins engines under license - which I think are Japanese Kubota engines for tractors under license. It might be the same for the Perkins M30. So in theory if you find this is the case and can determine the tractor engine make and model number you have spares available from the agricultural sector.

I imagine there will be a huge difference in price and availability.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

You need to update your reading list to one involving some actual science.

Historical records require no updates, nor can they be updated. The fact that such things as woolly mammoths, frozen human remains and artifacts are found in melting glaciers confirms that the climate of their time was at least as warm as it is now. The fact that they predate recent coal and petroleum use confirms that climate has naturally varied independent of anthropogenic causes. History confirms true science. "Science" that contradicts history cannot be true science.

Besides the physical records, we have written history that confirms the medieval warming period of about 900 to 1300 AD. This was followed by the little ice age that lasted from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century. All this historic climate variation occurred long before the the large scale burning of petroleum and coal. Long before recorded history, proxy data indicates an era called the Holocene Maximum of 7000 to 4000 years ago in which world wide temperatures were much warmer than today.

How can a CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is many times higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV


North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc Meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

Facts from credible science provide for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?

Climate enthusiasts would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

The climate change industrial complex began with Margret Thatcher who used false anthropogenic climate change theory to bolster the nuclear industry as an alternative to coal. The miners were on strike, and she was determined to break the unions. Years later she recanted. It is Ironic that Thatcher whom commie climate change crowd love to hate, supplied them with ammo.

At least a few Scientists do honest climate research, but they are ignored the media, governments, and climate change enthusiasts. The documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", has interviews with some authoritative climate and climate related scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

Prof. Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London: Little Ice Age

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Holocene Maximum (7000 to 4000 years ago). Clark discovered that Antarctic ice core data indicates that CO2 concentration increase lags temperature increase by about 800 years.

Prof. Patric Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre: Post war boom temp. decrease

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg: Post War boom Temp. decrease

Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Iniversity of Alabama: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Richard Lindzen, Dept. of Meteorology, MIT: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Frederick Singer, Former Dir. of US National Weather Service, atmospheric temp: upper troposphere temp increase insignificant compared to surface temp. increase.

Piers Richard Corbyn, BSc Physics, MSc Astrophysics confirmed that sun spot activity directly effects weather.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre lead a study that revealed climate variation is controlled by solar variation.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre analyzed 400 years of sun spot data sun spot activity and confirmed that sun spot activity directly correlates with earth's temperature variation.

Climate science has become the victim of a new inquisition in which many honest scientists are gagged by threats against their careers. The fraudsters and their ignorant followers often reveal themselves through their one sided views that ignore all opposing evidence and by their cocky remarks.

Anthropogenic climate change is only an imaginary problem. It will only be solved by honesty in science, government, education, institutions, and individuals.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Demonstrably wrong on virtually every point. Someone's been watching too much TV...

Yes, the anthropogenic climate change believers have been watching too much fake news that feeds their prejudice. Have you not noticed that in the subject of climate, big media always broadcasts propaganda that supports the notion of anthropogenic climate change. But they largely ignore honest science that refutes it. In the odd instances in which they do make mention of any honest climate science, it is with scorn and criticism. Honest Scientists are disrespected.



"The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments."- Senator Henry Clay, US Senator, 1834.

Big Media promotes a climate inquisition that scorns proven science of natural climate variation. To get good climate science info, one has to search for it. Big media and government will not put it before our eyes, for if they did, it would reveal their fraud.