SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Gear & Maintenance > Engines > Diesel > Yanmar hard starting question
 Not a Member? 


Thread: Yanmar hard starting question Reply to Thread
Title:
  

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Topic Review (Newest First)
08-07-2013 11:13 AM
dem45133
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Yea, I didn't appreciate his blatant direct attack on me either... when he obviously missed the whole point on light vs heavy duty designs and didn't understand the marine environment and what in essence is an Archimedes' screw trying to "screw", albeit inefficiently, through a fluid medium when at speed (as in a planing hull) combined with the primary forces in effect which are a combination of all three of Newton's laws of motion depending on several factors. He somehow mistakenly thought there was a 1:1 relationship on the prop's engagement to its medium as there is in a purely mechanical link to a load as in a direct connected machine or rolling stocks traction to its road. A prop does not have a true 1:1 engagement. The actions of the water on the hull almost always absorbed by the the prop's slip and do not impart enough delta to the shaft/torque to activate an internal governor. But he missed all that.

But hey we're all idiots in his mind.

Most of the marine installations I've seen were governed solely by the prop. In diesels where the engine included internal governing as part of its injector pump design... if properly propped... the prop's upper end of governing and the engine's internal will meet only near 100% torque and the max rpm the prop will allow at that torque input. If over propped it will not even get near the governor's max rpm setting. If under propped it will and prevent over revving. But he missed that too.

I also tried to explain that insulting every one did him no merits... but its doubtful he'll listen.

Dave
08-07-2013 09:40 AM
bljones
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2gmtrans View Post
just like I have a LOT more than most people do, but I give my opinion based on my experience. I get a lot people who seem to think that my being in Texas or my being a full time oilfield mechanic working on both old and new engines somehow translates to my not knowing my stuff well enough to work on a 1975 model engine. Fine, I have too much work as it is, and have had since I was a kid, take your engine to someone else, get your free advice from someone else or not, it makes me know difference at all.

I have my own engines to work on too, and I am trying to get time to do them, but it seems that other people's engines keep getting in my shop and I do not have the time or the room to do any more than I am right now.

My brother told me once not too long ago that the reason he never gives out free advice and consultation is that the people asking are just going to argue, and not do what you advised them to do anyway, so why waste the time? He is certified with Cummins, Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit, Perkins, and a couple of others as well as Allison, Eaton, and some of the others, and together we have done a few mechanic jobs over the years, but no one wants to listen to the things people getting paid to do the work have to say. Instead they go around until they can find someone who agrees with them.
Wowee...

When you can spout years of experience repairing, maintaining, troubleshooting and servicing small diesel engines in a marine environment, then maybe you will actually have the credibility that will generate the respect you so desperately think you currently deserve.

To date, the sum total of your bragged-on diesel experience- driven "advice" is to pimp two manufacturer's fuel additives.

Hey, you want us to bow to your "experience" and take your "advice" without question? Get your story straight. Depending upon which thread one reads here, you are a truck driver, or a water expert, or a mechanic with 28 years of experience who doesn't understand torque, or a pipe inspector, or a guy who has watched steel get loaded and hauled. You come in here three months ago bragging on 10,000 offshore sea miles in one thread, then in another thread admit that you have crewed on two Gulf cruises on other people's boats that ended early.

Pick a story and stick with it.

If you and your brother notice people arguing with the "advice" you give maybe you might want to reconsider the value of that advice.

BTW, i notice you brag on your brother's certs, but where's yours? I mean, after all, if you know more than lots of us, allegedly have 28 years of experience and get hissy when anyone questions your advice on additives, maybe you can show us some "Texas Diesel Mechanic of The Year" plaques or Westlawn diplomas or something.
08-06-2013 05:07 PM
hellosailor
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

No surprise thatt Mr. Berlin is clearly stating their recommendation is based on liability rather than engineering.

"Rotella is designed for diesels, is used by several manufacturers as the OEM engine oil, but it is not CF-4 because CF-4 was declared obsolete in 2007."
Ah, Mark, most engine makers would say "must use oil that meets or exceeds API standard CF-4..." If they were amateurs who said the engine simply required CF-4, well, that's what open mike night at the comedy club is for.
Engine makers have gotten used to lubricant standards being a moving mark for a long time now. This ain't the 1950's any more.
08-06-2013 04:55 PM
aa3jy
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2gmtrans View Post
Would you really trust a manufacturer's representative who was six years behind the curve on his knowledge of lubricants? Not so much.
Larry Berlin of Mack Boring response...

============================

Hello Mr. Owen,



All we are saying is what Yanmar’s minimum requirement is.





.



Larry L. Berlin

Training Services

A Division of Mack Boring & Parts Co.

==================================

My question if the above individual have ever met one another..or better yet been Yanmar serviced trained?? Larry can only speak for Yanmar as the OP's thread was a concern about his Yanmar..
08-06-2013 03:44 PM
mark2gmtrans
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Quote:
Originally Posted by arvicola-amphibius View Post
Fair enough comment - consumer protection is alive and well, in the USA at least.

But, playing devil's advocate: Suppose some-one wishing to 'feel good' put an additive in during the early life of the engine. It does not run-in the way it should - for whatever reason. The engine is serviceable, but oil consumption is excessive. The manufacturer makes no guarantees about maximum oil consumption - we have just come expect it to be almost minimal in today's engines.

I don't think anyone could be held to blame for that except the owner.
I would think that a company in business for a very long time, with a solid reputation for standing behind their product, ( if you use Lucas or Power Service anti gel treatment in a semi and it gels they pay the tow bill), and a proven benefit to the engine would not be the cause of some mystery damage. Like I said before, some things you add because they work, they give the benefit they claim to give, I like sweet tea, I add an additive purported to sweeten things, it works just like it is supposed with no surprise after taste, it is called sugar. When I want to reduce the bacteria in my fuel tank I add Power Service Diesel Kleen, when I want good adhesion to surfaces from my oil at all temperatures I add Lucas. These things I add because they do as they are advertised to do by the manufacturer. CYA guy from Mack Boring has to say things that way because he is paid to say what he is told, but if you contact Cummins, Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit, or any other engine manufacturer and ask them specifically about using Power Service or Lucas they will not tell you that those things are bad for the engine.

Rotella is designed for diesels, is used by several manufacturers as the OEM engine oil, but it is not CF-4 because CF-4 was declared obsolete in 2007.



http://www.sinwal.com/data/LUBE%20RE...20Obsolete.pdf

Quote:
API: CF-4 Diesel Oil Now Obsolete
By Lisa Tocci
WASHINGTON, D.C. – API CF-4, a heavy-duty diesel engine oil category
that debuted 17 years ago and continues to hold a sliver of the market,
was declared obsolete yesterday by the American Petroleum Institute's
Lubricants Committee at its semi-annual standards meeting here.
Beginning immediately, no new licenses for the category will be accepted or
issued.
The demise of CF-4 was pretty much a given, since one key engine test for
the category – the 600-hour Mack T-6 test that measures piston and ring
wear, viscosity change and oil consumption – is no longer available. API
had asked ASTM, which defines the test, whether the newer Mack T-12 test
might be an acceptable substitute, but ASTM's Heavy Duty Engine Oil
Classification Panel came back with a firm negative. There's no data to
support a correlation between the two tests (they use different engines and
measure different performance parameters), so this option is not open, the
panel responded.
The Engine Manufacturers Association, which represents the interests of
diesel engine builders, has already agreed that without the test to support
it, API CF-4 licensing needs to be discontinued, Kevin Ferrick of API told the
meeting. The engine builders also requested that API encourage its
licensees to upgrade their products to at least CH-4, the performance
standard that was introduced in December 1998 and is fully backward
compatible with the expiring category.
Would you really trust a manufacturer's representative who was six years behind the curve on his knowledge of lubricants? Not so much.
08-05-2013 08:37 PM
arvicola-amphibius
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Fair enough comment - consumer protection is alive and well, in the USA at least.

But, playing devil's advocate: Suppose some-one wishing to 'feel good' put an additive in during the early life of the engine. It does not run-in the way it should - for whatever reason. The engine is serviceable, but oil consumption is excessive. The manufacturer makes no guarantees about maximum oil consumption - we have just come expect it to be almost minimal in today's engines.

I don't think anyone could be held to blame for that except the owner.
08-05-2013 07:17 PM
hellosailor
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

"Also, unspecified additives in a new or overhauled engine could void the warranty."
Not in the US, not since the 1960's.
The US auto manufacturers used to say your warranty on a new car was void unless you used their oil, changed at their dealerships. Someone took them to court and the courts said that was a nice try but also was illegal restraint of trade. Now, if someone wants to claim "You broke it" they have to show specifically what you did that broke it. They can't just say "You used an unauthorized additive" but they have to show specifically, what product did what type of damage.
And any reputable maker of additives will also give you an express warranty that their product will not void the manufacturer's warranty, or they'll pick up the costs themselves.

Which doesn't mean their products aren't of much use for anything except "makes me feel good" and there's always some value in that too.
08-05-2013 06:37 PM
arvicola-amphibius
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

Hear hear! 'Concoction' being the operative word. Also, unspecified additives in a new or overhauled engine could void the warranty.
Should the engine suffer damage - whether or not caused by the additive - the ensuing claim could get messy, because we all know that when money is concerned big business and insurers will duck for cover if there is any possible 'out' that can be used to exonerate them or their product.

If the manufacturer wants stuff added, the manual will say so. For example, my Moto Guzzi motorcycle manual suggests a Moly additive in the final drive gear oil. However, it is a fairly old manual for an old-fashioned bike, so if a newer grade gear oil already had a Moly content, I would not be adding any more.

However, if you have an old, worn engine that is burning oil or obviously on its last legs, I suppose it is reasonable to try anything to prolong the inevitable overhaul or replacement.
08-05-2013 03:20 PM
smurphny
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

This is similar to another recent thread. In researching oils, the only modern classifications that seem to be ok for Yanmar or heavy use diesels are API ratings of CL-4, CJ-4, and CH-4. Their descriptions specify them as the replacements for all the "obsolete" oils. I stopped looking for the manual-specified CD rating years ago.

Oil companies like Shell and Exxon, etc. spend millions of dollars in additive research done by the best chemical/petroleum engineers in the world. IMO, it is unwise to add a concoction that tries to second-guess them.
08-05-2013 02:48 PM
hellosailor
Re: Yanmar hard starting question

My apologies, Clay. I read an earlier post as "Mr. Owen" bring the man at Mack Boring. I'll go back and edit my post to correct that.

I don't troll. Even for fish.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.