LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"


Just accepted what the seller told them & of course given that a big
part of the marketing is super low fuel consumption .........



The boat was privately owned and the owner apparently had no problems with the
numbers.

How would the owner know?? save you properly test how would any owner
know how much fuel per hour their diesel is using at "cruise". The
owners write mad testimonials about this stuff all the time doesn't make
it true, just confirms they were silly enough to fall for it in the
first place, so .............


And like I said. I looked at a 26' Shamrock with a 300 Cummins in it and the
owner said he got 7 gph at 26 kts as I recall.

Yeah yeah I went to school with a girl who had an uncle that knew a
bloke who lived down the road from the son of ............. Gee a
"capt." no less should be able to better than this:-) Nothing but
nothing, beats reviewable actual test methodology used & repeatable outcome.

So NOYB had a patient who claimed 18 on 13 gals/hr which is nearly 20%
more than your claim of 11 at 40 mph:-) NOYB may have (oops sorry)
"have had" bad teeth:-) but I bet he's a little bit closer to the mark
than your seller spruiked magazine BS. His claim is around 230HP which
is about right for continuous running of this engine. Probably got his
teeth fixed because he smiles all the time now:-)



And, instead of just calling this all a big boating magazine & manufacture
conspiracy, prove them wrong with some real world fuel flow data?

I don't have to prove anything I'm not the one making totally over the
top claims that if true would mean diesel engines as we know them have
suddenly made a quantum leap in fuel economy & I suppose emissions
output???? wow what a relief!!! Thanks for telling us "capt."

Here are some links which should "prove" even to a magazine dreamer
like you capt. just how ridiculous the claims are, I've chosen some that
are in the HP ranges we're discussing but feel free to come back with
anything remotely like 315HP on 11usgal/hr, diesel or petrol I'm fair if
nothing else:-)

So let's be absolutely clear here our base line is your claim of 315HP
= 11 usgal/hr (0.034 usgal/hp/hr) & the equally absurd 30 mph cruise on
6-7 usgal/hr that's a 28ft cabin boat cruising at 30 mph on 105 -
120HP!!!! Are you so inexperienced that this seems even remotely right
to you????

http://www.gce.cummins.com/mce/mce_4...curves_4.2.htm

320HP = 18-19 usgal/hr (0.057usgal/hp/hr)!!! But pick any you like capt.
similar size engine etc. Gee what slackers those world leading Cummins
people must be??? it seems they burn 18-19 usgals/hr when your bloke is
only burning 11 for 315HP!!! that's just under 40% more fuel efficient
HP for HP wow!!!!!!!

http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=53580&x=7

355HP =18 usgal/hr (0.050 usgal/hp/hr) But again pick some others &
remember these Cats are now proper slow diesels, fuel use wise about as
good as it gets in our pleasure boat world.

http://www.perkins-sabre.com/PR/Engi...erformance.cfm

275HP = 15.3 usgal/hr (0.055 usgal/hp/hr)

Notice a pattern at all capt.??? it seems your bloke's claim is not
just a marketing fudge; it's well out of order!!!! Damn this is of
chuckster proportions 0.03 vs 0.05 gal/hp/hr:-) Believe what you like
capt. no real harm done I guess, the closest you'll get is like Krause;
your magazine articles & dreams.


K



Capt. Bill

Butch Davis wrote:
Diesel engine manufacturers know and publish very accurate fuel consumption
data. Competition keeps them honest.

Agreed & that's exactly why Yanmar "aren't" making this claim, some
seller & dreamers' magazine are.


A given engine in good tune will burn a given quantity of fuel at a given
load or power level. Load being a factor of speed vs weight generally.

Lot's of conditions contribute to load on a boat. Windage, bottom
condition, type of water, altitude, temperature, etc. That's why data is
generally published for a standard set of conditions.

Manufacturers sometimes have the benefit of testing fuel consumption for a
specific hull under varying conditions. They often publish the findings.
Boat builders often share the data if favorable to them. The potential
liability for publishing false data is sufficient to keep just about
everyone honest.

So now you're saying that the magazines don't actually "test" diesel???
OK progress at last!!! They certainly word their claims like they
already know they're suspect numbers, the infamous chuckster's "about"
gallons, in his world they must be huge, how many litres in a chuckster
gallon??? or gees louise I suppose there's chuckster litres there too??:-)

In my previous life I was a PM for the construction of a towboat. We opted
for large twin Cats. Cat predicted with very high accuracy exactly what
fuel consumption we would have with the engines.

Yes that's true & I'm well familiar with fuel consumption of marine
diesels that's why when just strolling past the thread I near fell over.

So now all you or anyone need do is find a proper Yanmar link which
claims anything like 315HP on 11 usgal/hr, I can't but hey Butch you
bought a Ficht so I'm sure you'll lead us all to one in a jiff.


Perhaps life in Oz is different.

I'll say it is!!! here that sort of BS marketing nonsense went out
years ago.

Any experienced diesel boat person would just giggle in their face, our
fuel is dearer than yours so .................. we bother to find out
the facts rather than rely upon spruikers claims, you should try it,
oops too late you already have the Ficht:-)

It's not my fault you lost so much money on the Ficht Butch, I'm just
the messenger. Besides yours seemed to keep working so you just lost
boat value; got off lighter than you deserve in my view:-)

K


Butch
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

WaIIy wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:39:51 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:



I just looked at the Powerboat Reports Sept. 2004 issue where they
tested one
and
they saw 22 knot cruise at 7 gph. And a max speed of just a tick over 30
knots
and max gph of 12.

Well then post the link, I'll be most interested to see how they
verified the fuel consumption, particularly as they're saying they
"know" at cruise & max.

Absolute crap they're just parroting what the seller says & the seller
is .... well selling.

"If" these engines really do make 315HP (very, very, skeptical) then at
"max" that engine will be drinking a min of 18 usgal/hr but more likely
well over 20 gal/hr, if not then all the big diesel manufacturers have
been wasting their time & huge amounts of money trying to get lower fuel
usage, when all along the engine in their weekend bush basher was
getting better than their millions spent on improvements of 1 or 2 grams
per HP per hour.


PowerBoat reports does state this, but I don't think they installed
their own meters.

The charts in the article state the info is from Yanmar and True World
data.


Thanks Wally, so there ya go no actual knowledge of how much fuel the boat
burnt at various speeds etc.

Just accepted what the seller told them & of course given that a big part
of the marketing is super low fuel consumption .........

Thing is it's one thing for brand loyal owners to write fairy tale
testimonials, even the seller I guess will try to put the best spin
possible on every aspect of the boat, but the magazines claim to know & be
experienced in this stuff & they clearly aren't. By just repeating the
sellers marketing spruik they are part of a deception but to then try to
pretend they have checked the numbers?? well it seems they're knowingly
part of the marketing deception.

Those figures should have at the very least set alarm bells off, but they
haven't even checked???

Hmmmm curiouser & curiouser said Alice; hey!!!! "maybe" (NB maybe) they
did & it didn't come out even remotely close to claim (it wouldn't), then
of course the seller says yes yes sorry about that chief;-) dirty bottom,
wrong wind/sea state, full tanks, test boat you know think the prop copped
a knock, it's Wednesday, every & any excuse will be proffered all BS of
course but nudge nudge wink wink:-)




K.

Thanks, Harry. Just what I was going to point out to the K. The HP an
engine makes is dependent upon the fuel it is flowing. If a boat is running
at cruise speed the engine is far from operating at WOT, and is therefore
flowing far less fuel than that required to make the rated HP.

Clearly the K failes to read the entire data sheet... she simply looks for
anything that supports her position and presents it as though it is the only
fact(?) that matters.

It's too funny that she rants about the money I've lost because I bought a
FICHT in 1999. I'll have been running the engine for six years this spring.
No problems have appeared of any kind. My only expense has been for fuel
and oil and annual lower unit oil changes. Call me a liar, I changed plugs
as a preventive maintenance action last March at my annual maintenace
interval. I may rework the water pump this spring but probably not. Our
climate allows me to use the boat year round so idle time is not an issue.
I've no idea how much cost I've avoided through increased fuel and oil
economy. Depreciation is a non-factor for a boat/engine of this age and if
my health continues to allow I'll run this rig for many more years.

What's with the K and FICHT?

BTW, K, Where did you read in anything I wrote that I admit that magazines
do not do fuel flow testing on diesels. It is such an amazingly simple test
to run that I can't imagine why they would not run the test?

Happy Holidays.

Butch
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
K. Smith wrote:
Butch Davis wrote:

Diesel engine manufacturers know and publish very accurate fuel
consumption data. Competition keeps them honest.


Agreed & that's exactly why Yanmar "aren't" making this claim, some
seller & dreamers' magazine are.


A given engine in good tune will burn a given quantity of fuel at a
given load or power level. Load being a factor of speed vs weight
generally.

Lot's of conditions contribute to load on a boat. Windage, bottom
condition, type of water, altitude, temperature, etc. That's why data
is generally published for a standard set of conditions.

Manufacturers sometimes have the benefit of testing fuel consumption for
a specific hull under varying conditions. They often publish the
findings. Boat builders often share the data if favorable to them. The
potential liability for publishing false data is sufficient to keep just
about everyone honest.

So now you're saying that the magazines don't actually "test"
diesel??? OK progress at last!!! They certainly word their claims like
they already know they're suspect numbers, the infamous chuckster's
"about" gallons, in his world they must be huge, how many litres in a
chuckster gallon??? or gees louise I suppose there's chuckster litres
there too??:-)

In my previous life I was a PM for the construction of a towboat. We
opted for large twin Cats. Cat predicted with very high accuracy
exactly what fuel consumption we would have with the engines.


Yes that's true & I'm well familiar with fuel consumption of marine
diesels that's why when just strolling past the thread I near fell over.

So now all you or anyone need do is find a proper Yanmar link which
claims anything like 315HP on 11 usgal/hr, I can't but hey Butch you
bought a Ficht so I'm sure you'll lead us all to one in a jiff.


http://www.yanmarmarine.com/products..._TechnData.pdf


The URL listed above shows the 315 hp Yanmar produces about 250 hp at 3400
rpm and burns around 11 gph. The max rpm for the engine is 3800 rpm, but
only an idiot would run that diesel higher than cruise for sustained
periods.

Thus, the engine under whatever standard conditions are for it burns 11
gph at a high cruise rpm.

Butch Davis wrote:
Thanks, Harry. Just what I was going to point out to the K. The HP an
engine makes is dependent upon the fuel it is flowing. If a boat is running
at cruise speed the engine is far from operating at WOT, and is therefore
flowing far less fuel than that required to make the rated HP.

Seems impossible I know but are you as mad as Krause???

Again the claim is at a 22 mph cruise it uses 6-7 usgal/hr & at "max"
the boat does 40 mph on 11 usgal/hr.

Why are you thanking the lying idiot?? he posted crap about a totally
different engine, an engine with a max power of 260 HP!!! NOT 315 HP or
are you so stupid you think the engine that makes 315 HP doesn't use any
more fuel???

Clearly the K failes to read the entire data sheet... she simply looks for
anything that supports her position and presents it as though it is the only
fact(?) that matters.

The data sheet is for a 248-260 HP engine & the fuel graph shows at
max power it uses 16 usgal/hr (0.06153 usgal/hp/hr) which is much more
than the Cummins & much much more than the Cat

So now it seems these spruikers are even worse than I suspected, they
really are using chuckster gals!!!

So using their own figures at 315HP which is max it uses 19.38
usgal/hr!!! so their 11 gal/hr at max was is & until there's some huge
technology breakthrough will remain just marketing BS for magazine
dreamers like you & Krause.

It's too funny that she rants about the money I've lost because I bought a
FICHT in 1999. I'll have been running the engine for six years this spring.
No problems have appeared of any kind. My only expense has been for fuel
and oil and annual lower unit oil changes. Call me a liar, I changed plugs
as a preventive maintenance action last March at my annual maintenace
interval. I may rework the water pump this spring but probably not. Our
climate allows me to use the boat year round so idle time is not an issue.
I've no idea how much cost I've avoided through increased fuel and oil
economy. Depreciation is a non-factor for a boat/engine of this age and if
my health continues to allow I'll run this rig for many more years.

What's with the K and FICHT?

BTW, K, Where did you read in anything I wrote that I admit that magazines
do not do fuel flow testing on diesels. It is such an amazingly simple test
to run that I can't imagine why they would not run the test?

I sorta agree but they DON'T!!! because they can't use a fuel flow
meter & if the tank is anything but almost dry then their BS article
won't be impressive enough so the advertising might suffer:-).

Happy Hols to you to!!.

K


Happy Holidays.

Butch
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

K. Smith wrote:

Butch Davis wrote:


Diesel engine manufacturers know and publish very accurate fuel
consumption data. Competition keeps them honest.


Agreed & that's exactly why Yanmar "aren't" making this claim, some
seller & dreamers' magazine are.


A given engine in good tune will burn a given quantity of fuel at a
given load or power level. Load being a factor of speed vs weight
generally.

Lot's of conditions contribute to load on a boat. Windage, bottom
condition, type of water, altitude, temperature, etc. That's why data
is generally published for a standard set of conditions.

Manufacturers sometimes have the benefit of testing fuel consumption for
a specific hull under varying conditions. They often publish the
findings. Boat builders often share the data if favorable to them. The
potential liability for publishing false data is sufficient to keep just
about everyone honest.


So now you're saying that the magazines don't actually "test"
diesel??? OK progress at last!!! They certainly word their claims like
they already know they're suspect numbers, the infamous chuckster's
"about" gallons, in his world they must be huge, how many litres in a
chuckster gallon??? or gees louise I suppose there's chuckster litres
there too??:-)


In my previous life I was a PM for the construction of a towboat. We
opted for large twin Cats. Cat predicted with very high accuracy
exactly what fuel consumption we would have with the engines.


Yes that's true & I'm well familiar with fuel consumption of marine
diesels that's why when just strolling past the thread I near fell over.

So now all you or anyone need do is find a proper Yanmar link which
claims anything like 315HP on 11 usgal/hr, I can't but hey Butch you
bought a Ficht so I'm sure you'll lead us all to one in a jiff.


http://www.yanmarmarine.com/products..._TechnData.pdf


The URL listed above shows the 315 hp Yanmar produces about 250 hp at 3400
rpm and burns around 11 gph. The max rpm for the engine is 3800 rpm, but
only an idiot would run that diesel higher than cruise for sustained
periods.

Thus, the engine under whatever standard conditions are for it burns 11
gph at a high cruise rpm.

Harry Krause wrote:
K. Smith wrote:

Butch Davis wrote:

Diesel engine manufacturers know and publish very accurate fuel
consumption data. Competition keeps them honest.



Agreed & that's exactly why Yanmar "aren't" making this claim,
some seller & dreamers' magazine are.


A given engine in good tune will burn a given quantity of fuel at a
given load or power level. Load being a factor of speed vs weight
generally.

Lot's of conditions contribute to load on a boat. Windage, bottom
condition, type of water, altitude, temperature, etc. That's why
data is generally published for a standard set of conditions.

Manufacturers sometimes have the benefit of testing fuel consumption
for a specific hull under varying conditions. They often publish the
findings. Boat builders often share the data if favorable to them.
The potential liability for publishing false data is sufficient to
keep just about everyone honest.

So now you're saying that the magazines don't actually "test"
diesel??? OK progress at last!!! They certainly word their claims
like they already know they're suspect numbers, the infamous
chuckster's "about" gallons, in his world they must be huge, how many
litres in a chuckster gallon??? or gees louise I suppose there's
chuckster litres there too??:-)

In my previous life I was a PM for the construction of a towboat. We
opted for large twin Cats. Cat predicted with very high accuracy
exactly what fuel consumption we would have with the engines.



Yes that's true & I'm well familiar with fuel consumption of
marine diesels that's why when just strolling past the thread I near
fell over.

So now all you or anyone need do is find a proper Yanmar link
which claims anything like 315HP on 11 usgal/hr, I can't but hey Butch
you bought a Ficht so I'm sure you'll lead us all to one in a jiff.



http://www.yanmarmarine.com/products..._TechnData.pdf


The URL listed above shows the 315 hp Yanmar produces about 250 hp at
3400 rpm and burns around 11 gph. The max rpm for the engine is 3800
rpm, but only an idiot would run that diesel higher than cruise for
sustained periods.

Thus, the engine under whatever standard conditions are for it burns 11
gph at a high cruise rpm.

See this is where you lying idiots confirm your total lack of actual
boating experience.

Now it seems you can't even read!!! the link you proffer is for a
248-260HP engine NOT a 315 HP engine!!! You really are the most stupid
lying uneducated & uneducatable person I've ever come across Krause:-)

Even a small drop in revs is a huge drop in power & so now you are
saying that this engine burns 11 usgal/hr at "cruise".

This confirms the magazine dreamer claims are & always were just
marketing BS!!! The claim was 6-7 gal/hr at 22 cruise & only 11 gal/hr
at a 40 mph max. Max means no more, flat out, WOT, that's it.

So again still no claims from Yanmar on the subject engine because they
know they wouldn't get away with it:-) Just as you & your simpleton
mates haven't here in this thread.

K

Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"

LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"


Just accepted what the seller told them & of course given that a big
part of the marketing is super low fuel consumption .........



The boat was privately owned and the owner apparently had no problems with
the
numbers.

How would the owner know??

Your kidding, right?


save you properly test how would any owner
know how much fuel per hour their diesel is using at "cruise".
The
owners write mad testimonials about this stuff all the time doesn't make
it true, just confirms they were silly enough to fall for it in the
first place, so .............





And like I said. I looked at a 26' Shamrock with a 300 Cummins in it and
the
owner said he got 7 gph at 26 kts as I recall.

Yeah yeah I went to school with a girl who had an uncle that knew a
bloke who lived down the road from the son of ............. Gee a
"capt." no less should be able to better than this:-) Nothing but
nothing, beats reviewable actual test methodology used & repeatable outcome.

So, show us some that proves you right.



So NOYB had a patient who claimed 18 on 13 gals/hr which is nearly 20%
more than your claim of 11 at 40 mph:-) NOYB may have (oops sorry)
"have had" bad teeth:-) but I bet he's a little bit closer to the mark
than your seller spruiked magazine BS. His claim is around 230HP which
is about right for continuous running of this engine. Probably got his
teeth fixed because he smiles all the time now:-)



And, instead of just calling this all a big boating magazine & manufacture
conspiracy, prove them wrong with some real world fuel flow data?

I don't have to prove anything

And your doing a fine jod of it.


I'm not the one making totally over the
top claims that if true would mean diesel engines as we know them have
suddenly made a quantum leap in fuel economy & I suppose emissions
output???? wow what a relief!!! Thanks for telling us "capt."

Here are some links which should "prove" even to a magazine dreamer
like you capt. just how ridiculous the claims are, I've chosen some that
are in the HP ranges we're discussing but feel free to come back with
anything remotely like 315HP on 11usgal/hr, diesel or petrol I'm fair if
nothing else:-)

So let's be absolutely clear here our base line is your claim of 315HP
= 11 usgal/hr (0.034 usgal/hp/hr) & the equally absurd 30 mph cruise on
6-7 usgal/hr that's a 28ft cabin boat cruising at 30 mph on 105 -
120HP!!!! Are you so inexperienced that this seems even remotely right
to you????

It's not MY claim you dolt!

It's interesting that you feel the need to take this discussion to a personal
level.


http://www.gce.cummins.com/mce/mce_4...curves_4.2.htm

320HP = 18-19 usgal/hr (0.057usgal/hp/hr)!!! But pick any you like capt.
similar size engine etc. Gee what slackers those world leading Cummins
people must be??? it seems they burn 18-19 usgals/hr when your bloke is
only burning 11 for 315HP!!! that's just under 40% more fuel efficient
HP for HP wow!!!!!!!

http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=53580&x=7

355HP =18 usgal/hr (0.050 usgal/hp/hr) But again pick some others &
remember these Cats are now proper slow diesels, fuel use wise about as
good as it gets in our pleasure boat world.

http://www.perkins-sabre.com/PR/Engi...erformance.cfm

275HP = 15.3 usgal/hr (0.055 usgal/hp/hr)

Notice a pattern at all capt.??? it seems your bloke's claim is not
just a marketing fudge; it's well out of order!!!! Damn this is of
chuckster proportions 0.03 vs 0.05 gal/hp/hr:-) Believe what you like
capt. no real harm done I guess, the closest you'll get is like Krause;
your magazine articles & dreams.

Interesting that all manufactures are liars till what they claim seems to back
you up.

Capt. Bill

Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"

I don't have to prove anything



http://www.algroversmarine.com/dieselmenupage1.htm


"32’ Hatteras Express, Gas to Diesel Conversion"

"1983 Hatteras 32 Sportfish had her old Mercruiser 454's removed and Grover's
Team installed new Yanmar 315's. The Merc's produced an 18 knots cruise burning
40gal/hr. She now cruises 25-26 knots burning just 18 gal/hr, top @ 31 kt"



"34’ Atlantic, Gas to Diesel Conversion"

"1992 Atlantic 34, SHANGRI-LA, had the old Crusader 454's removed and Grover's
Team installed 2003 Yanmar 315's to achieve cruise speed of 26.5 kt @ 3400 rpm,
top speed 32kt. Cruise consumption is 18 gal/hr."


http://www.goboatingamerica.com/broc...show.asp?id=20

"Equipped with a Yanmar 315 hp engine she will cruise effortlessly at 14 knots
burning less then 7 gallons per hour. The Downeast 35 is safe, seaworthy and
spacious."

The above by the way, is a 13,000 lb boat. Or almost twice the weight of the
True World and draws over a foot and a half more water with a full keel.

Capt. Bill

LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"


LaBomba182 wrote:

Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"


Just accepted what the seller told them & of course given that a big
part of the marketing is super low fuel consumption .........



The boat was privately owned and the owner apparently had no problems with

the

numbers.

How would the owner know??


Your kidding, right?



save you properly test how would any owner
know how much fuel per hour their diesel is using at "cruise".

The

owners write mad testimonials about this stuff all the time doesn't make
it true, just confirms they were silly enough to fall for it in the
first place, so .............




And like I said. I looked at a 26' Shamrock with a 300 Cummins in it and

the

owner said he got 7 gph at 26 kts as I recall.

Yeah yeah I went to school with a girl who had an uncle that knew a
bloke who lived down the road from the son of ............. Gee a
"capt." no less should be able to better than this:-) Nothing but
nothing, beats reviewable actual test methodology used & repeatable outcome.


So, show us some that proves you right.



So NOYB had a patient who claimed 18 on 13 gals/hr which is nearly 20%
more than your claim of 11 at 40 mph:-) NOYB may have (oops sorry)
"have had" bad teeth:-) but I bet he's a little bit closer to the mark
than your seller spruiked magazine BS. His claim is around 230HP which
is about right for continuous running of this engine. Probably got his
teeth fixed because he smiles all the time now:-)



And, instead of just calling this all a big boating magazine & manufacture
conspiracy, prove them wrong with some real world fuel flow data?

I don't have to prove anything


And your doing a fine jod of it.



I'm not the one making totally over the
top claims that if true would mean diesel engines as we know them have
suddenly made a quantum leap in fuel economy & I suppose emissions
output???? wow what a relief!!! Thanks for telling us "capt."

Here are some links which should "prove" even to a magazine dreamer
like you capt. just how ridiculous the claims are, I've chosen some that
are in the HP ranges we're discussing but feel free to come back with
anything remotely like 315HP on 11usgal/hr, diesel or petrol I'm fair if
nothing else:-)

So let's be absolutely clear here our base line is your claim of 315HP
= 11 usgal/hr (0.034 usgal/hp/hr) & the equally absurd 30 mph cruise on
6-7 usgal/hr that's a 28ft cabin boat cruising at 30 mph on 105 -
120HP!!!! Are you so inexperienced that this seems even remotely right
to you????


It's not MY claim you dolt!

It's interesting that you feel the need to take this discussion to a personal
level.


http://www.gce.cummins.com/mce/mce_4...curves_4.2.htm

320HP = 18-19 usgal/hr (0.057usgal/hp/hr)!!! But pick any you like capt.
similar size engine etc. Gee what slackers those world leading Cummins
people must be??? it seems they burn 18-19 usgals/hr when your bloke is
only burning 11 for 315HP!!! that's just under 40% more fuel efficient
HP for HP wow!!!!!!!

http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=53580&x=7

355HP =18 usgal/hr (0.050 usgal/hp/hr) But again pick some others &
remember these Cats are now proper slow diesels, fuel use wise about as
good as it gets in our pleasure boat world.

http://www.perkins-sabre.com/PR/Engi...erformance.cfm

275HP = 15.3 usgal/hr (0.055 usgal/hp/hr)

Notice a pattern at all capt.??? it seems your bloke's claim is not
just a marketing fudge; it's well out of order!!!! Damn this is of
chuckster proportions 0.03 vs 0.05 gal/hp/hr:-) Believe what you like
capt. no real harm done I guess, the closest you'll get is like Krause;
your magazine articles & dreams.


Interesting that all manufactures are liars till what they claim seems to back
you up.

Capt. Bill

So you admit they do back me up then???? which of course they do.

I said the magazines were so inexperienced they thought they could
publish clearly wrong figures & I pointed out that Yanmar themselves
specifically DON'T publish any claims related to that motor, indeed the
sellers & magazines depend upon the public not getting any proper
information.

The Cummins, Cat & Perkins references just give the numbers which
confirm it takes about 18-20 usgals/hr to make 315HP so the claims no
matter who actually made them are false & grossly so.

Again lest there be any chance you still don't get it, a 28ft cabin
boat doing 40 mph on 11 usgal/hr is just marketing BS & anyone who wears
it is confirmed as not having much boating experience, the magazines,
you & the NG non boating idiots brigade wore it.




K

LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"


I don't have to prove anything




http://www.algroversmarine.com/dieselmenupage1.htm

You really are gullible aren't you William??? these people are sellers!!!

"32’ Hatteras Express, Gas to Diesel Conversion"

"1983 Hatteras 32 Sportfish had her old Mercruiser 454's removed and Grover's
Team installed new Yanmar 315's. The Merc's produced an 18 knots cruise burning
40gal/hr. She now cruises 25-26 knots burning just 18 gal/hr, top @ 31 kt"

Gee a testimonial that's really reliable probably in the same class as
the other magazine something to sell rubbish. For any fuel consumption
figures to be valid they need to tell exactly how the fuel usage was
measured, needless to say the spruikers don't & never do.



"34’ Atlantic, Gas to Diesel Conversion"

"1992 Atlantic 34, SHANGRI-LA, had the old Crusader 454's removed and Grover's
Team installed 2003 Yanmar 315's to achieve cruise speed of 26.5 kt @ 3400 rpm,
top speed 32kt. Cruise consumption is 18 gal/hr."

This is slightly more realistic but again why quote marketing spruik to
me, all you need do is find just one "Yanmar" reference that will tell
you how much fuel their 315 engine burns at various revs, but I can
assure you the starting point at max is going to be about 19-20 usgal/hr.

Assuming the fixed pitch props are correct, then at 3400rpm those
engines would be making 160-175HP (yes that's right around 1/2 max HP) &
given the known consumption of marine diesels it's easy to predict the
fuel usage @ 9.9 usgal/hr X 2 = 19-20 gal/hr. Honestly can't you see
even from this that the original claim of a 6gal/hr cruise & then an
11gal/hr max is just hopeless BS???





http://www.goboatingamerica.com/broc...show.asp?id=20

"Equipped with a Yanmar 315 hp engine she will cruise effortlessly at 14 knots
burning less then 7 gallons per hour. The Downeast 35 is safe, seaworthy and
spacious."

I have always had to contend with this in this NG you actually think if
enough people repeat a lie it somehow becomes true, from the OMC dealers
not knowing how their own engines idle, to them not knowing then
repeating the same lies they were given by OMC as regards Ficht, to this
endless nonsense about diesels. It's simple HP for HP you'll save about
20% of the fuel petrol vs diesel.

The above by the way, is a 13,000 lb boat. Or almost twice the weight of the
True World and draws over a foot and a half more water with a full keel.

Dealers & other selling spruikers are the a..holes from whence the BS
comes!!! From there it's spread over the magazine pages by advertising
chasing inexperienced magazine writers, then inexperienced non boaters
like you spread it word of mouth, soon people think it's right; so
what??, it's not. Things like this are not resolved by a show of hands.

The proper diesel manufacturers publish the fuel consumption figures &
it's a very competitive business even Yanmar are silent in this because
they know any proper fuel graph would stop the deception.

"Capt." you are clearly not a boater at all, you just swallow the
magazine nonsense then repeat hoping nobody will ever ring the bell, the
bell has tolled for thee.


K

Capt. Bill

Gould 0738 wrote:
The above by the way, is a 13,000 lb boat. Or almost twice the weight of the
True World and draws over a foot and a half more water with a full keel.

Capt. Bill


Looks like it's your turn in the barrel. Good luck. All those items you cited
will be shouted down as nothing more than the result of a deliberate conspiracy
between Yanmar, the installer, and Sea Magazine (goboatingamerica.com). Count
on it.

There are lies, damn lies, wicked collaborations,.....and the opposing party's
ever correct personal opinion, of course. :-)


No I conceded they might be measuring in chuckster gallons:-) You are a
classic example of how magazine writers just print nonsense in the hope
of not offending the marketers.

K