Originally Posted by ramblinrod
Clean air and fuel
is important to every ICE on the planet. I donít believe there is any difference in sensitivity between common rail and cam driven pumps, an injector orifice is an injector orifice. How the injector is driven has no connection to the fuel
Thanks to those who questioned.
I have been very busy winterizing boats as a result of recent cold snap, and have not been able to post.
I stand corrected on two counts, a result of posting
from memory, while rushed to perform boat
winterizing services, without any fact checking on my part.
First, the Yanmar
3YM series does not
incorporate common rail fuel injection technology, as I previously stated.
There has been a lot of discussion surrounding this technology, and I erroneously associated it with the Yanmar
3YM line. I knew better, it was simply "a momentary lapse".
Under this false presumption, as my experience with the 3YM line is that they are very, very reliable, I responded that the common rail technology is no more susceptible to fuel contamination than mechanical fuel injection.
This should have simply read, the 3YM is not prone to fuel injection problems or any more sensitive to fuel contamination than any other small rec boat diesel
That said, it is true that common rail technology engines (which the 3YM is not) may be more sensitive to fuel contamination than mechanical fuel injection engines, from the perspective that the fuel pressure is much higher, and orifices may be smaller.
But the truth is, as I stated, that all diesel
engines require clean fuel and air to perform reliably; meaning that regardless of fuel injection technology it is or utmost importance to feed clean air and fuel to every diesel engine. A slug of dirt or water
can stop a diesel of any technology, dead in it's wake, and I have performed many repairs
on poorly maintained, non common rail engines, to prove it.
The advantages of common rail technology are numerous, and like every design or purchase
decision, there are pros and cons.
To me, for the larger Yanmar rec boat engines, the benefits of improved performance, fuel economy, ability to modify the fuel injection parameters if needed, and carbon emissions reduction, warrants consideration despite the possible higher sensitivity to fuel contamination (which should not be present in the first place). This could prove very important to the average boater as environmental regulations
become more stringent, as we all know they will.
The same holds true for turbos. Yes they add moving parts
which, and as such are an additional potential failure point, but improved performance, better fuel economy, and emission reduction is the benefit.
Notwithstanding, the 3YM series does not incorporate common rail technology, so this is simply not a consideration when evaluating a repower
opportunity with one.
Based on my experience with these engines, from the vessel to the corporate level, given a choice between a Beta and Yanmar repower
, even with the Yanmar was 20% more expensive (which they usually are not) I would choose the Yanmar every time BEFORE I became a Yanmar dealer, solely based on my experience servicing ALL diesel engines used in marine
applications for rec boats from 20 to 50 ft.
Sorry for any confusion my previous post may have caused.