Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page
Subject: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: Dave Simunov <simunov@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Date: 1996/09/19 Message-Id: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.boats X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b8Gold (Win95; I)
I've been pondering this concept for some time: What's stopping any of the major marine propulsion manufacturers from designing & building a motor/drive combination that is better suited to pleasure-boating than what is now available ? We've all followed the proverbial OB vs. I/O threads and we've identified the advantages & disadvantages of each. So why hasn't Mercury, Volvo, OMC or even Yamaha, (before they left the I/O market) ever combined the best of both worlds (I/O & OB) into a single propulsion system. As an alternative to heavy, iron I/O automotive engines, wouldn't an aluminum alloy V8, either 2 or 4 stroke, be advantageous ? All three of the mfrs have a great deal of experience & history designing & building aluminum engines. OMC & Merc (& I'm sure Yamaha isn't far behind) are offering advanced OB fuel injection, so why not apply that to a two-stroke aluminum V8 coupled to a Bravo/ King Cobra/ DPX ? I see MUCH less weight, more power, smaller & more attractive packaging & better fuel economy. Anyone else have any comments on this ? Dave
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: laxlt@aol.com (Laxlt) Date: 1996/09/20 Message-Id: <51t8hm$94e@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: laxlt@aol.com (Laxlt) Newsgroups: rec.boats
Money talks, the kind of R&D for new techology marine blocks isn't supported by the market.
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: Dave Simunov <simunov@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Date: 1996/09/24 Message-Id: <32481803.4753@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> <51t8hm$94e@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.boats X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b8Gold (Win95; I)
Laxlt wrote: > > Money talks, the kind of R&D for new techology marine blocks isn't > supported by the market. Yeah money does talk. But have you any idea how many engine/drive sets MerCruiser sells every year ? More than you can imagine. Polaris just developed & built their own motors which are used in nothing except their lines of snowmobiles & watercraft. Mercruiser sales & profits dwarf Polaris sales & profits, & therefore I think it IS feasible for them to develop an engine or series of engines for the I/O boating market. Not to mention that they could carry a lot of the technology over from the Mercury division. The same applies to OMC & Yamaha. Good point, but I don't believe it's the reason. Gimme a 4-5 liter, all aluminum, wet oil sump, direct-port injected, 8 cylinder, 2 stroke, fresh-water cooled, 300 - 400 hp engine coupled to a alpha/bravo/dp/dpx/cobra outdrive. It'll be MUCH lighter, have more horsepower & torque than a comparable 4 stroke, rev like a mother and be able to sustain those revs (no valvetrain, remember), have less moving parts & probably get better fuel economy (MUCH lighter) The motor would also be considerably smaller, leaving more space for passengers & gear. dave
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Date: 1996/09/19 Message-Id: <wwalker-1909961714500001@nb-ara31.qualcomm.com> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. Newsgroups: rec.boats
In article <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil>, Dave Simunov <simunov@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> wrote: >I've been pondering this concept for some time: What's stopping any of >the major marine propulsion manufacturers from designing & building a >motor/drive combination that is better suited to pleasure-boating than >what is now available ? [...] >As an alternative to heavy, iron I/O automotive >engines, wouldn't an aluminum alloy V8, either 2 or 4 stroke, be >advantageous ? All three of the mfrs have a great deal of experience & >history designing & building aluminum engines. OMC & Merc (& I'm sure >Yamaha isn't far behind) are offering advanced OB fuel injection, so why >not apply that to a two-stroke aluminum V8 coupled to a Bravo/ King >Cobra/ DPX ? I see MUCH less weight, more power, smaller & more >attractive packaging & better fuel economy. I see much higher cost, in a market that isn't particularly sensitive to fuel economy and compact packaging. A few years ago, Mercury Marine put Corvette ZR-1 dohc aluminum V-8s in an offshore boat to showcase the fact they were building the engines for Chevy. Turned out you could build a faster boat for less money using cast iron 7.4 liter pushrod V-8s. Now, in smaller boats, there might be some incentive for compact packaging, but if that's the case, then why wasn't Bayliner's L-drive a success? The small-boat end of the market is very cost-sensitive, and is thus unlikely to support the cost of the engine you propose. Not only will there be high development costs and low volume, but with an aluminum engine, you'll have to have a closed cooling system for corrosion prevention. Currently, one reason I/Os are cheaper than comparable outboards is that the iron-block automotive engines, which the car companies produce by the millions, are much cheaper than the exotic, aluminum, low-production outboard powerheads. ---------------------------------------------- Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: Lawrence Date: 1996/09/20 Message-Id: <51u79q$8ds@lex.zippo.com> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> <wwalker-1909961714500001@nb-Ara31.qualcomm.com> Organization: Zippo Newsgroups: rec.boats
>The small-boat end of the market is very cost-sensitive, and is thus >unlikely to support the cost of the engine you propose. Not only will >there be high development costs and low volume, but with an aluminum >engine, you'll have to have a closed cooling system for corrosion >prevention. Currently, one reason I/Os are cheaper than comparable >outboards is that the iron-block automotive engines, which the car >companies produce by the millions, are much cheaper than the exotic, >aluminum, low-production outboard powerheads. This is at least starting to change for heads. Aluminum heads are beginning to be more common in auto land. I think the current corrosion solution is to coat the aluminum. The new 97 generation chevy small block v8 is alluminum. After a few years for the costs to come down we may start seeing them become more common in boats. With the decline of big blocks in auto land I doubt we'll ever see a common production alluminum big block though. Lawrence.....
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: Matthew Toly <maxfrix@ecis.com> Date: 1996/09/20 Message-Id: <3242534A.7692@ecis.com> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> To: Dave Simunov <simunov@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Pacific Boat Center Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: maxfrix@ecis.com Newsgroups: rec.boats X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b7Gold (Win16; I)
Dave Simunov wrote: > > I've been pondering this concept for some time: What's stopping any of > the major marine propulsion manufacturers from designing & building a > motor/drive combination that is better suited to pleasure-boating than > what is now available ? We've all followed the proverbial OB vs. I/O > threads and we've identified the advantages & disadvantages of each. So > why hasn't Mercury, Volvo, OMC or even Yamaha, (before they left the I/O > market) ever combined the best of both worlds (I/O & OB) into a single > propulsion system. As an alternative to heavy, iron I/O automotive > engines, wouldn't an aluminum alloy V8, either 2 or 4 stroke, be > advantageous ? All three of the mfrs have a great deal of experience & > history designing & building aluminum engines. OMC & Merc (& I'm sure > Yamaha isn't far behind) are offering advanced OB fuel injection, so why > not apply that to a two-stroke aluminum V8 coupled to a Bravo/ King > Cobra/ DPX ? I see MUCH less weight, more power, smaller & more > attractive packaging & better fuel economy. > Anyone else have any comments on this ? > > Dave Dave, Mercury Marine has experience with Aluminum. The combination of the marine enviroment and the cost are the deterent. Mercury built and tooled the only "made for the marine enviroment only" engine, so far, used as an I/O package from the mid seventies until the mid eighties. It was a great package. The fact that it had to have fresh water cooling and the cost of production killed it. When OMC introduced the cobra dive, they were offering a V/6 package for less than it cost Mercury to put this motor together. Also the fact that the head was aluminum and the temprature swings a boat engine encounters a fare greater instantly than air cooled applications. It was hard to keep head gaskets on those things. They seemed to have mysterious leaks all the time. The weight to horsepower ratio was good and it made a great package for small boats especially. Matt
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: cusdn <cusdn@ici.net> Date: 1996/09/20 Message-Id: <51uge5$1vo@bashir.ici.net> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> To: simunov@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: THE ENGINE ROOM Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.boats X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
I have always wondered why Honda has been so slow in adapting their auto engines to OB. Their cars have one of the best and lightest powerplants for the output and would make great powerheads. Some of the others ie Nissan has 200+ hp V6 engines that are light and fast. Toyota as well has a great line of engines. The problem has been market and production costs do are not justified with the limited marine market in the US. Most other contries use only diesels on their boats which limits the large OB to countries with cheap gas. Yanmar has two diesel OB but they are small and big $$$. Bryon Kass webmaster and Custom Design 150 Mechanic St. Foxboro, MA 02035 508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127 in THE ENGINE ROOM http://www.ici.net/customers/cusdn
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: plkruse@iu.net (Paul and Cindy Kruse) Date: 1996/09/21 Message-Id: <520ohs$cug@cc.iu.net> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> Organization: InternetU, Inc. Newsgroups: rec.boats
It costs a great deal to design a new engine and to tool up a production line to manufacture it. The first question that any engine manufacturer is going to ask when considering the production of a new engine is: "What will the market be for this engine, and how many engines can we realistically sell?" When the market is only the small boat market, then the answer to that question is normally, "Not very many, and certainly not enough to recover our start up costs." This is why nearly every inboard or I/O engine in small boats today was adapted from another market. Only a very few have ever been designed specifically for the marine market. Even when you get into larger boats and small ships, the engines are normally adapted from another application: truck engines, large industrial stationary engines, and locomotive engines. You mentioned aluminum as a material for a block and head. The only real advantage of that is weight. Cast iron will normally resist corrosion much better than aluminum for this application. I know people who have been using cast iron engines in boats for over thirty years with no problems. Many of them are commercial applications which exceed 3000 hours per year. How many aluminum engines have you seen last like this in a marine application? Outboards are quite different. The manufactures sell enough of them at a fairly high price to justify the production of an engine exclusively for the marine market. This does not seem to be true for the inboard market. Also, keep in mind that with lower production runs you will also have higher per unit costs, whcih ultimately can only be recovered from the consumer. If outboards were manufactured in the same numbers as automobile engines, they would be much less expensive.
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: acssysdsc@acs.eku.edu Date: 1996/09/26 Message-Id: <1996Sep26.141142.8770@acs.eku.edu> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> <51u79q$8ds@lex.zippo.com> Organization: Eastern Kentucky University Newsgroups: rec.boats
In article <51u79q$8ds@lex.zippo.com>, Lawrence writes: >>The small-boat end of the market is very cost-sensitive, and is thus >>unlikely to support the cost of the engine you propose. Not only will >>there be high development costs and low volume, but with an aluminum >>engine, you'll have to have a closed cooling system for corrosion >>prevention. Currently, one reason I/Os are cheaper than comparable >>outboards is that the iron-block automotive engines, which the car >>companies produce by the millions, are much cheaper than the exotic, >>aluminum, low-production outboard powerheads. > > This is at least starting to change for heads. Aluminum heads are > beginning to be more common in auto land. I think the current > corrosion solution is to coat the aluminum. The new 97 generation > chevy small block v8 is alluminum. After a few years for the costs The truck engines are still iron... correct? Out of curiosity, how much lighter is a current production small block if it's all Al? Dudley Cornman Systems Programmer Academic Computing Services - EKU
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: acssysdsc@acs.eku.edu Date: 1996/09/26 Message-Id: <1996Sep26.135443.8769@acs.eku.edu> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> <3242534A.7692@ecis.com> Organization: Eastern Kentucky University Newsgroups: rec.boats
In article <3242534A.7692@ecis.com>, Matthew Toly <maxfrix@ecis.com> writes: > Dave Simunov wrote: > Dave, > Mercury Marine has experience with Aluminum. The combination of the > marine enviroment and the cost are the deterent. Mercury built and > tooled the only "made for the marine enviroment only" engine, so far, > used as an I/O package from the mid seventies until the mid eighties. > It was a great package. The fact that it had to have fresh water > cooling and the cost of production killed it. When OMC introduced the Would that be the 165/170 hp 3.7L engine? If so that may not be exactly right. Several things probably killed it. 1) GM 4.3L came along at about the same time that they had most of the bugs worked out of the 3.7L. 2) In an attempt to make the engine nearly beltless, they used a stator charging system which was heat sensitive, prone to failures, and expensive to replace/repair. 3) Early and mid models had some gasket problems that allowed anti-freeze into the oil. The later models (after about 1986) were decent engines. I really liked closed water cooling. Just pull one plug for short term freeze protection. Dudley Cornman Systems Programmer Academic Computing Services -EKU
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Propulsion Plant From: Chris Wigley <cwigley@m4.sprynet.com> Date: 1996/09/27 Message-Id: <324BE7F1.187@m4.sprynet.com> References: <3241AF6B.5538@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil> <3242534A.7692@ecis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Sprynet News Service Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: cwigley@m4.sprynet.com Newsgroups: rec.boats X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
Matthew Toly wrote: > > Dave Simunov wrote: > > > > I've been pondering this concept for some time: What's stopping any of > > the major marine propulsion manufacturers from designing & building a > > motor/drive combination that is better suited to pleasure-boating than > > what is now available ? .. <snip>... combine(d) the best of both worlds (I/O & OB) into a single > > propulsion system. As an alternative to heavy, iron I/O automotive > > engines, wouldn't an aluminum alloy V8, either 2 or 4 stroke, be > > advantageous ? There have been a number of automobile aluminum block engines - the one that comes first to my mind is that used in the Hillman Imp ( 4 cyl ~ 750 cc) which was based on the Coventry Climax fire pump engine - this little motor, made in the early 1960's until ?? was developed with power up to about 100 HP. I believe that the Honda Civic motor is/was aluminum block. Also I believe that Buick had a small block V-8, tooling for which was sold to Land-Rover and may still be used by them. The bigger problem appears to be the cooling system - outboards use aluminum with freshwater cooling, so it is possible. What appears to be necessary is an effective system to drain down the system when the motor is stopped. This is only a "technical" problem that could be solved with a little ingenuity!
Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page