I will agree that recreational boat engines typically fare better than commercial boat engines. The reason engine manufacturers issue lousy warranties to commercial end users versus recreational end users is because they don't have faith in their own engines
There are 12,000 lobster boats here in the State O' Maine with every type of engine imaginable, and a few that probably "ain't" imaginable. The guys aren't afraid of high horsepower engines and are not afraid to use the horsepower. In fact, we have a lobster boat racing circuit every summer where we compete for the fastest boat. A few of the boats are packing more than 1,200 h.p.
Despite the high horsepower ratings, I'm not aware of any consistant problems - except in the case of the Caterpillar 3196 and C12 engines. Lobstermen are a tight-knit group. If someone is having an engine problem on the other end of the coast, there's a chance I would hear about it. The only lobsterman in the state that I know of that has had more repeat engine problems than me owned a Cat 3196 that was six months newer than mine. The engine had to be pulled three times during the first year of service. Cat eventually replaced it with a 3406. Rumor has it the 3406 eventually went grenade as well. That doesn't surprise me, because the local pilot boat which is equipped with two 3406's, busted a crankshaft when the engines were brand new and then was laid up with a leaky aftercooler.
The new Portland fireboat, which was placed in service this past summer, is equipped with two 400 h.p. Cat C12's. After I supplied Portland's Fire Chief with information about the C12 aftercooler problem, he tried to swap the Cats in favor of Cummins. The Canadian boat builder wasn't too privy to the idea of changing engines in mid-stream, so the Chief stayed the course with the Cats. Time will tell how the city makes out with its decision. A Cat rep informed the Chief that the only problem with the new C12 aftercooler was a condensation issue that could be addressed with a rerouting of the raw water supply.
I recently posted about a lobsterman with a John Deere engine with 16,000 hours and $565 in repairs before the first overhaul. This is what we should expect from our diesel engines.
I'm no spring chicken, but I don't think I have one foot in the grave yet, either. I've been a fixture on the Portland working waterfront for a few years. I know the local Detroit salesman, Mr. Peacock, well and he knows me and is familiar with my Caterpillar engine problems. I knew Mr. Peacock when he worked for Caterpillar, which was before he defected to Power Products (Detroit Diesel). I've had the opportunity to talk to him at the Detroit dealership and I bump into him occasionally at local trade shows and Fish Expo in Rhode Island. I know the local Cummins salesman, Mr. Thomsen, well and he knows me and knows about my Caterpillar engine problems because I've had the opportunity to discuss them with him at the Cummins dealership. I know the local John Deere dealer, Mr. Minnot, well and he knows me and is aware of my Caterpillar engine problems. Mr. Minnot plumbed the hydraulic system on my boat.
We have several 800 h.p. 60 Series Detroits on the Portland waterfront that don't seem to be having any problems despite hard commercial use. The local car ferries have 60 Series Detroits and still seem to be going strong. There are a number of John Deere diesels in commercial fishing boats on the waterfront and they also seem to be problem free. And the list goes on. Up and down the coast, we have commercial boats with high horsepower engines that leave port on an almost daily basis and don't seem to be having the type of repeat problems that I've seen with Caterpillars.
Caterpillar engines have had defective aftercoolers for the past ten years. Every year Cat reps claim the problem has been resolved and that's what they tell prospective customers. Caterpillar testified in court that its latest version aftercoolers have a 90% probablity of an 11,000 hour life expectancy. This wasn't a sales pitch, it was court testimony. Yet, there's a lobsterman with a 2009 Caterpillar C12 that required a new aftercooler, new injectors, and a new cylinder head during the first year of service - beginning at 300 hours. These are the same types of problems that these engines have had for the past ten years whether or not they were in commercial boats.
My question is, does Caterpillar have the aftercooler problem resolved or not? Because, I have a Cat 3196 in my boat that I depend upon for my livelihood.
there is a direct relationship between HP and displacement!!! the deere engine you rave about is a not the same as the cat motor you are complaining about. when any manufacturer starts pumping out 3 times the HP as they started with the original engine configuration you sacrifice longevity. that is why they dont last. you put that same c12 in a staionary application and it will last a lot longer then turbo aftercooled in your boat face it we all want to go fast, and we pay for it.
My point is that in a commercial application a commercial type motor should be used. The c12 is a d or e rated engine which clearly designates that it is not designed for such use. Rather that designation indicates that it is designed strictly as a go fast. Thats right on their site in plain english and I'm going to have a tough time feeling sorry for those that don't read that type fine print. A commercial engine should be rated a or b if you want longevity... Deere is a good choice or perhapps lugger or even lehmans.
I understand your point about E-rated engines. On the other hand, as a consequence of my website, I have enough email from across the country and around the world to write a book of horror stories about Caterpillar engines. And, most of these engines were in recreational boats. I've heard from charter guys, the Seattle Marine Police (they called me in what was the middle of my night, here), recreational boaters, and lobster guys like me. In fact, when I have time, I think I might start a thread with some of the excerpts - owner names not included. I have heard from individual's whose family vacations were destroyed, fishing charters that had to be cancelled until the engines were replaced, individuals that suffered through eight complete engine overhauls. The problem with these Caterpillar engines has nothing to do with commercial use.
My favorite response written by an individual (female) on Boatdiesel.com - reference a post about 3196 issues:
"Allow me to rephrase what you are saying. These engines have experienced failed aftercoolers twice, therefore ingesting salt water twice into the motors, and subsequent reworking of the internal cylinder surfaces twice to bring them back to specification. My response has absolutely nothing to do with CAT. In fact I kind of like CATS, but I'd sooner have my daughter play with hand-grenades than take her off-shore with those engines. I could go into a long technical explanation, but the question is, Why would you even consider taking that risk?"
sad thing is that caterpillar doesnt even manufacture their own aftercoolers! i think there are like 2 or 3 companies that make them for all the manufacturers but they are ultimatley responsible! I would like to know the market share of Cat in the marine market as opposed to the rest? may explain why they have more issues as well? say what you want it is awful nice to call thta 1 800number and get a real person on the phone no matter where you are in the world and get help!
Some 3196 aftercoolers came through from the factory with cracked tube bundles. Water that wasn't properly drained after dyno-testing froze and cracked the tubes. Brand new engines with defective coolers were installed in boats. I don't know where in the fine print Cat states that; Owners should pull apart the aftercoolers from their new engines and check for cracked tube bundles.
A number of 3196 aftercoolers failed because Cat design engineers were stupid enough to attach aluminum adapters over bronze cooling tubes. HELLO! What part of this recipe for disaster didn't Caterpillar understand? It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Nowhere in the fine print does Caterpillar state; Before operating engine, check thoroughly for dissimilar metals that may galvanically corrode when in contact with water.
You did read that Cat doesn't manufacture the aftercoolers? The ones that do also manufacture for other brands and they too have similar issues. Perhaps a little more focus that direction would get you better results in your quest...
Yes Cat is responsible to a degree but the aftercooler manufactureer is ultimately to blame.
I ran a big viking with cats a couple years ago. New boat and engines with a vibration. Viking pointed at Cat. Cat tried to blame the motor mounts who tried to blame Viking for mis instal. This circle repeated itself sevral times. Wasn't mounts or alignment as it still vibrated no load at dock. Turns out that it was a bad injector... Only when we went at injector manufacturer did we get any satisfaction...
I'll stick with my 454s...yeah I'll use gas, but a friend of mine repowered from 454s to diesel to the tune of $85,000...I can buy a lot of gas and motors for that...the only guys I know in the harbor that are fairly trouble free are Detroiters...and they have their fair share of "not able to fix it yourself" or "not able to afford or find the parts" issues....
In one form of excuse or another, Caterpillar is quick to place blame on its customers for their engine problems. So that Mr. Deep can decide whether or not "engine loading" is to blame for the problems with my "E-rated" engine, I will post the circumstances surrounding my engine failures.
In 2002 Caterpillar replaced the aftercooler on my 3196 that the company deemed defective with an upgraded aftercooler. At the same time, the aluminum adapter plates that connect the bronze raw water cooling tubes to the aftercooler were replaced with bronze adapter plates. Either vibration or electrolysis was causing the aluminum adapters to fail, or both. For my time and trouble, Caterpillar bequeathed me a free 5-gallon pail of engine oil - which partially makes up for the free hat I never got when I spent $45,000 for the engine. Caterpillar employees were probably too busy calculating the company's record profits in 2000 to hand out free hats. I still don't know how much an individual has to spend on a Cat engine to get a fancy instrument panel like the ones that all the other companies provide - as opposed to a bunch of spare parts in a box from which you build your own panel. I suppose top quality engines cost so much to build that trivial items tend to be overlooked - like hats, instrument panels, and $5 bronze adapter plates ($5 to manufacture, $100 retail if the box they come in has "CAT" printed on it).
In 2003 it became necessary to overhaul my engine due to catastrophic failure. Upon engine disassembly, it was noted that seawater intrusion was responsible for premature failure of the engine. The upgraded aftercooler was pressure tested and no leaks were found. It was determined that the original aftercooler and/or the aluminum adapter plates were responsible for the damage. Engine loading was never a suspected cause and there was no indication that engine loading was a suspected cause.
In 2005 the engine was repaired due to an oil starvation issue caused by a bolt that wasn't properly tightened during the 2003 overhaul. During the repair, the cylinder head was replaced and the aftercooler was inspected and cleaned. There was no indication of seawater intrusion and no indication of an engine loading condition.
In 2006 the engine again required an overhaul due to catastrophic failure. Prior to the overhaul, Caterpillar requested a histogram of the engine, which was subsequently performed by a Cat service technician. The histogram revealed that my engine has always been operated well within the parameters designated by Caterpillar. There was no evidence of engine loading. Upon disassembly of the engine, it was noted that seawater intrusion was responsible for premature engine failure. Seawater damage to the cylinder head was so severe that it was cheaper to replace the head than to repair it. The aftercooler was pressure tested. The pressure test indicated that pinhole leaks in the aftercooler core were responsible for the seawater intrusion. Pinhole leaks in an aftercooler are indicative of an electrolytic reaction. They weren't created by an engine loading condition. Although Caterpillar has taken steps to relieve thermal and vibration related aftercooler fatigue, I am unaware of any steps by Caterpillar to reduce electrolysis within the aftercooler housing. This is why I feel my current aftercooler is a ticking time bomb. Caterpillar is aware of an aftercooler related condensation issue. Because water is an electrolytic medium, steps to alleviate condensation might ultimately reduce electrolysis. It is difficult to isolate various metals that are submersed in a wet environment. I am not aware of any steps by Caterpillar to change the composition of the materials within the aftercooler housing. In addition to accelerating the rate of electrolysis, condensation by itself can cause premature engine failure. A Caterpillar technical bulletin states; "In marine applications excessive condensation can be produced in the aftercooler assembly especially in colder seawater climates. This condensation can drip directly into the intake ports. The damage that can be caused is corrosion to valves, valve seats, and cylinder packs leading to shortened engine life." This applies to engines that operate for extended periods of time at low rpm's in cold waters. I suspect Caterpillar feels that engines that operate at high speeds develop sufficient temperature that the condensate will harmlessly evaporate within the combustion chamber. That's assuming the condensate doesn't contain salt crystals. In which case, the engine acts as a makeshift desalinator and the top of the pistons look like the Bonneville Salt Flats. As a precaution during the rebuild process I requested new crankshaft bearings. The Cat tech doing the rebuild assured me that the old bearings that came out were as good as new. This again, is a sign that the engine is not being worked hard.
I purposely built my boat with a foam-cored hull, balsa top, and laminated deck and deck beams so that the boat would be both strong and lightweight. The engine has sufficient horsepower to propel the 20,000 pound semi-planing boat with no sign of difficulty. The engine is coupled to a 2.9:1 reduction gear which swings a 36" propeller. Short of pushing an oil tanker into Portland Harbor, there is no reason for this engine to ever be over loaded. If the boat is shifted into gear while tethered to the dock, it will rip the cleats from the dock without any hesitation. Been there, done that.
The problem with 3196 and C12 engines always has been and probably still is; defective aftercoolers. Changes to the core and to core mounting hardware do nothing to resolve the electrolysis issue. Engine loading has nothing to do with electrolysis. In retrospect, closer inspection and thorough testing of my aftercooler should have been performed during the 2005 repair. Although, pinholing of the core could have occurred between the time of repair and the time of overhaul. During the repair, I wasn't aware of the magnitude of aftercooler problems associated with these engines. Caterpillar reps assured me that my aftercooler issue was resolved when the cooler was upgraded in 2002. I had no reason to believe otherwise.
I had an Olds 455 in my first full-size lobster boat. The engine caught fire and the boat was a total loss. That's my experience with gas engines. Then I moved on to Detroits. What?? Sorry I seem to have lost my hearing. Then Chatterpillars.
I have a V10 488 in the Dodge in my front yard. I keep thinking if things get any worse with my 3196 I might pop that in the boat. I wonder if there's a marine conversion for that engine. I still think the Briggs and Stratton lawnmowers I've owned were more reliable than the Cats. And, when you bring them to the dealer for repairs, the dealer doesn't accuse you of loading up the engine because the tires are too big or the cutting blade is too long.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
