Tim wrote:
1:54 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Mercury Marine and several others have high horsepower diesel outboards
under development and maybe in production or close to it. I saw a model
claiming 200 hp a couple of years ago at a boat show...don't remember
the brand name, ?X something or other?
...
Oxe(?)
http://www.mby.com/gear/oxe-200hp-di...e-tested-51194


With all the nice 1.7L diesels in non American cars, should be easy to
design a nice diesel outboard. I think the large Honda is an automotive
engine, dry slumped and on end.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 3:45:04 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
Tim wrote:
1:54 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Mercury Marine and several others have high horsepower diesel outboards
under development and maybe in production or close to it. I saw a model
claiming 200 hp a couple of years ago at a boat show...don't remember
the brand name, ?X something or other?
...
Oxe(?)
http://www.mby.com/gear/oxe-200hp-di...e-tested-51194


With all the nice 1.7L diesels in non American cars, should be easy to
design a nice diesel outboard. I think the large Honda is an automotive
engine, dry slumped and on end.

I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!

2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
......
Diesels 'usually' last Ingersoll than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:10:59 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
.....
Diesels 'usually' last Ingersoll than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.

They said the main market was military and commercial, with some tenders for yachts where price was no issue but fuel compatibility was. It wouldn't make sense for pleasure boating.

Diesels 'usually' last Ingersoll than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel."

How auto check thought that "Ingersoll " would be a good substitute for "longer" is beyond me...🙄

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
.....
Diesels 'usually' last longer than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.


===

Increased range because of greater fuel economy is the most common
reason for justifying the higher cost. Diesels use almost 50% less
fuel for the same power output, and have higher low end torque.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 10/11/2017 4:10 PM, Tim wrote:

2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
.....
Diesels 'usually' last Ingersoll than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.



GM's 2.0L diesel is made by Fiat.

On 10/11/2017 5:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
.....
Diesels 'usually' last longer than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.


===

Increased range because of greater fuel economy is the most common
reason for justifying the higher cost. Diesels use almost 50% less
fuel for the same power output, and have higher low end torque.


Which also allows bigger, more efficient props running at lower RPM.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:24:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 5:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


2:51 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
I just read about the Oxe. It uses a 2.0 GM diesel. According to the article is also costs twice what a 200hp Yamaha 4 stroke goes for. Ouch!
.....
Diesels 'usually' last longer than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.


===

Increased range because of greater fuel economy is the most common
reason for justifying the higher cost. Diesels use almost 50% less
fuel for the same power output, and have higher low end torque.


Which also allows bigger, more efficient props running at lower RPM.


I was reading an article somewhere else that said the economy might
not make the difference in less than 10,000 hours. They also assume
higher maintenance cost, particularly with a belt drive. I am curious
how the belt is working out on the 7 Marine.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:33:16 -0400, wrote:

Diesels 'usually' last longer than a gas job and are much more economical on fuel. But what you save in fuel costs probably don't over ride the massive up front expense of the whole unit. Bad trade off IMO.


===

Increased range because of greater fuel economy is the most common
reason for justifying the higher cost. Diesels use almost 50% less
fuel for the same power output, and have higher low end torque.


Which also allows bigger, more efficient props running at lower RPM.


I was reading an article somewhere else that said the economy might
not make the difference in less than 10,000 hours. They also assume
higher maintenance cost, particularly with a belt drive. I am curious
how the belt is working out on the 7 Marine.

===

Here's a real world example of the diesel vs gas engine trade off. Our
old Bertram 33 had a 320 gallon fuel tank which seems like a lot but
it had 454 gas engines which burned 35 gallons per hour. Cruising
speed barely reached 18 knots on a good day. Doing the math, you come
up with a safe fuel range of less than 140 miles, not enough for
offshore canyon fishing in the NY area. Converting to diesel engines,
the burn rate drops to about 20 gallons per hour, and cruising speed
climbs to 23 knots or so, for a fuel range of around 300 miles. That's
a big difference in the capability of the boat and has nothing to do
with the price of fuel or reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com