HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of those
diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less" to
run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough to
see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but I
have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because it
does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of those
diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a
long time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less"
to run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough to
see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but I
have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because it
does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.


Yeah, everyone hears that. I have a old friend who has a 36-footer with
two Cat engines. The boat is maybe eight years old, and it doesn't have
high hours. He maintains the boat by the book. He's spent tens of
thousands of dollars keeping the engines running. If memory serves, he
had a turbocharger failure this year.

Not that outboards would help him because the boat is too large and too
heavy.

If you read any of the serious boating message boards, you'll note how
easy it is to find diesel horror $torie$.

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK
wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of
those diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots
of hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a
long time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less"
to run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough
to see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but
I have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because
it does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.


Yeah, everyone hears that. I have a old friend who has a 36-footer with
two Cat engines. The boat is maybe eight years old, and it doesn't have
high hours. He maintains the boat by the book. He's spent tens of
thousands of dollars keeping the engines running. If memory serves, he
had a turbocharger failure this year.

Not that outboards would help him because the boat is too large and too
heavy.

If you read any of the serious boating message boards, you'll note how
easy it is to find diesel horror $torie$.


Or aftercooler...I forgot which component he said failed.