On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0600, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, CalifBill wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

To me, it doesn't seem that the advantages of a diesel translate well to
an outboard engine, especially a turbo diesel. Am I missing something?

A turbo diesel can be a short stroke diesel that the turbo makes up the
boost to get compression ignition and higher RPM's using the short stroke.
The description sounds like a mini super charged Detroit. Blower on the
side of the block and four exhaust valves per cyl. high revs low maintenance.
Common fuel rail, Probably electronic injection. Sounds like a Mini 4-53 Detroit
style diesel on a strong lower unit to manage torque. Dry sumps have been
around a long time also.

Short stroke engines have less failure rate at high RPM's but still have
the torque of a diesel. 4000 RPM's is not that high for a short two stroke
engine. These are not large displacement diesels but put out good HP and
plenty of torque that you couldn't expect from a gas engine. The torque
makes the difference. The engine burns fuel around 100-1 ratio compared to
14-1 ratio for gas. I would expect them to be more reliable too. Heavier
crankshaft, etc.

I'd have no qualms with a diesel. Big or small, turbo or naturally
aspirated. Less to go wrong with compression ignition. I would prefer a
diesel if land isn't in sight and no sails. But that's just me. Clean fuel
is the key.

How many skiers do you need to pull? Not to mention the unmistakable knock
when you shut them down at the dock. That alone turns heads. Especially if
they are outboards. How do you pass that sound up.

The short version. They would be cheaper in the long run if you liked the
boat in the first place and kept it to use a long time and often, as in
lived on the waterfront that was always a turn key operation. An
investment with a better return than gas engines.

Ask Wayne, only his are naturally aspirated I believe, but Detroits rev up
for their size.

This isn't like a long stroke 20-1 compression ratio, low RPM, tractor engine.
Low HP,slow speed, extremely high torque.

On Dec 27, 12:09*pm, RLM wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0600, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, CalifBill wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

To me, it doesn't seem that the advantages of a diesel translate well to
an outboard engine, especially a turbo diesel. *Am I missing something?

A turbo diesel can be a short stroke diesel that the turbo makes up the
boost to get compression ignition and higher RPM's using the short stroke..
The description sounds like a mini super charged Detroit. Blower on the
side of the block and four exhaust valves per cyl. high revs low maintenance.
Common fuel rail, Probably electronic injection. Sounds like a Mini 4-53 Detroit
style diesel on a strong lower unit to manage torque. Dry sumps have been
around a long time also.

Short stroke engines have less failure rate at high RPM's but still have
the torque of a diesel. 4000 RPM's is not that high for a short two stroke
engine. These are not large displacement diesels but put out good HP and
plenty of torque that you couldn't expect from a gas engine. The torque
makes the difference. The engine burns fuel around 100-1 ratio compared to
14-1 ratio for gas. I would expect them to be more reliable too. Heavier
crankshaft, etc.

I'd have no qualms with a diesel. Big or small, turbo or naturally
aspirated. Less to go wrong with compression ignition. I would prefer a
diesel if land isn't in sight and no sails. But that's just me. Clean fuel
is the key.

How many skiers do you need to pull? *Not to mention the unmistakable knock
when you shut them down at the dock. That alone turns heads. Especially if
they are outboards. How do you pass that sound up.

The short version. They would be cheaper in the long run if you liked the
boat in the first place and kept it to use a long time and often, as in
lived on the waterfront that was always a turn key operation. An
investment with a better return than gas engines.

Ask Wayne, only his are naturally aspirated I believe, but Detroits rev up
for their size.

This isn't like a long stroke 20-1 compression ratio, low RPM, tractor engine.
Low HP,slow speed, extremely high *torque.

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

http://www.megoutboard.com/owner_info.php

http://www.megoutboard.com/owner_info.php

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Nothing is impossible. You design the tool to do the job. This isn't going
to be every ones engine. E-Tech has that wrapped up. This is a diesel.
Things change!

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:48:24 -0500, RLM wrote:

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Nothing is impossible. You design the tool to do the job. This isn't going
to be every ones engine. E-Tech has that wrapped up. This is a diesel.
Things change!

Some things don't change. By necessity diesels operate at higher
compression ratios which requires heavier cylinders and heads.
There's no way to save weight there without compromising durability.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:50:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:48:24 -0500, RLM wrote:

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Nothing is impossible. You design the tool to do the job. This isn't
going to be every ones engine. E-Tech has that wrapped up. This is a
diesel. Things change!

Some things don't change. By necessity diesels operate at higher
compression ratios which requires heavier cylinders and heads. There's
no way to save weight there without compromising durability.

With alloys and liners no problem. The crank and rods is where the beef is
at.

Aluminum heads were used on some diesels in the sixties. Ask an Onan
dealer about DJB's and DJC's. Air and water cooled.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:23:57 -0500, RLM wrote:

With alloys and liners no problem. The crank and rods is where the beef is
at.

Aluminum heads were used on some diesels in the sixties. Ask an Onan
dealer about DJB's and DJC's. Air and water cooled.

And why is it they are no longer being made? Lack of durability
perhaps? If these were great engines they would have taken over the
market for lightweight diesels by now.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:48:24 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Nothing is impossible. You design the tool to do the job. This isn't going
to be every ones engine. E-Tech has that wrapped up. This is a diesel.
Things change!

HEY!! :)

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Well, Mercedes is racing a high rpm short stroke diesel and it seems
to work well. I think they even make a car with one - I'm not a
Mercedes guy so what do I know.

Then again, your point is well taken - the whole point of diesels is
lots of power at low rpms.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:53:54 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Then again, your point is well taken - the whole point of diesels is
lots of power at low rpms.

Nonsense. The only point to Diesels is fuel economy. Were that not so,
they wouldn't even exist. They have both gasoline and steam beat in
that regard. That is what you get in exchange for cost and weight.
They make 300 RPM gas engines by the way. Caterpillar makes large,
slow turning, spark ignition engines. They mostly run on me