On Apr 5, 10:28�am, Wayne.B wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 09:02:10 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
I was always under the impression that coked turbo bearing were the
result of
inadequate cooling. If not adequately cooled, the lubricating oil
literally burns onto the bearing leaving deposits of carbon or "coke"
that begin grinding away at the surfaces.

I am not a turbo diesel expert but I believe that's a different issue
you described. *There are apparently different ways of making a turbo
unhappy. *They all get expensive, not to mention the reliability
factor.

Speaking to the original question of one engine vs two, I think my own
experience is somewhat telling. *I bought my first twin engine boat in
1999 (454s, gas). *We brought that boat home twice on one engine, once
with a bad coil, and once with a defective raw water pump. *We've now
had our current boat, the GB49 with twin DD 671s, for almost 3 years.
We've brought it home on one engine once (seized piston rings), and
experienced one unplanned shutdown while underway, fuel filter issue
on a very rough passage. *For the kind of long distance cruising that
we do, sometimes to remote areas, you'd have a very difficult time
convincing me to buy a single engine boat. *Reliability alone is worth
the price of admission, close quarters maneuverability is icing on the
cake.

And indeed there are good cases to be made for each school of thought.

When I buy my "last boat" in another 5, 7, or 10 years I will probably
stick with a single screw- but a "get home" rig that would provide a
few knots of propulsion from a genset would provide some useful peace
of mind. I agree with your observation that when cruising into very
remote areas some redundancy is important. What's more redundant than
an "extra" engine? :-)

On 5 Apr 2007 10:35:29 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

What's more redundant than
an "extra" engine? :-)

Exactly right, and you eliminate the need for bow thrusters and the
like.