Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 10:31:43 GMT
Exol is OK, we have used it without issue in a pair of Perkins genetators at our boat club - although not the particular oil you have listed. Still not the 15/40 quaysider wants though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 11:01:42 GMT
Good company local to me supply my oil for the boat.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 11:07:34 GMT
In that case the book isn't telling you the whole story, . . it should be saying API-CC or a later, higher spec. of oil, . . . generally referred to as 'back compatible', . . such as API-CE, CF, CF-2, CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, CI-4, CJ-4 and CK-4. In fact anything except the very latest API-FA-4, which is not suitable for use as a substitute for earlier spec.s. Not necessarily. The later oils are fine if you are running the engine reasonably hard, but if you are running a 40+bhp engine at say 5bhp to trundle a leisure narrowboat along a typical shallow canal, the new oils are “too good” and can, allegedly, result in bore glazing. Aviation piston engines (which routinely run flat out for takeoff) these days are run on multigrade oils by anyone who values long engine life. But even so, if you have a brand new one or have to fit a new cylinder, you have to run for the first 50 hrs on old fashioned straight mineral oil. Otherwise it won’t bed in and you will have low compression and high oil consumption. I'll accept that the risk of poorly bedded-in rings and glazed bores could, under certain circumstances, be increased by using too high a spec. of oil in a new or rebuilt engine. Those circumstances that can and do sometimes lead to these problems are slow warm-up after starting accompanied by low cylinder operating temperatures due to light load running and/or over cooling. However, no such permanent or irreversible problems are going to result from using a higher spec., better performing oil in a properly and fully run-in engine. The worst that's going to happen then is that lengthy periods of light load running will almost certainly result in some temporary, slight bore glazing, but it won't be anything that can't be cured by giving the engine a bit of hard work for an hour or two. The fact that most pleasure craft engines run grossly underloaded for most of the time is undeniable. However, to put that right will need the builders and owners of these boats educating about not overpowering and underpropping virtually everything they either produce or buy. I agree that using oils to the old API-CC or CD spec. for running-in new or rebuilt engines is good and commonly used practice, but these oils are NOT the 'straight mineral oil' you refer to your last paragraph. From the late 1950's/early 1960's oils such as the CC and CD spec.s (they were known as detergent or HD oils back then) began to replace the straight mineral oils that had been used previously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 11:25:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 18:16:41 GMT
I've ran out of my big tub of morris golden film . . . . . . . . . Having just had a butcher's at the Morris Lubricants website, I can only find two of the (mariniser specified for your engine) 10W-40 (multigrade) oils listed on the 'Golden Film' brand page. One is labelled as '10W-40 Classic Marine Oil', with a picture of a boat on the label but no mention of the 'Golden Film' brand, the other is labelled as 'Golden Film 10W-40 Classic Motor Oil'. Is it one of these you've just run out of, or have you been using some other 15W-40 grade of Morris's? I'm also rather curious as to why you specified 15W-40 for your engine in this thread title, . . . page 15 of the on-line version of the Canaline Manual doesn't : - Lubricant
The quality of engine oil may affect engine performance, start-ability and engine life. The use of unsuitable oil may result in piston ring stick, piston and cylinder seizure, and accelerate sliding surface wear causing increased oil consumption, lowered output and possible engine failure. To avoid this, use the specified engine oil. Engine Oil Selection
Engines Plus Ltd recommends oil to the following specifications… API CC or CD specification is used in Canaline 38, 42, 52 & 60 Marine engines. API CH is used in Canaline 70T Marine engines. Either 10W/40 or 10W/30 is acceptable for temperate climates. Do NOT use Synthetic or Semi-Synthetic Oils in Canaline Marine engines. The correct grade oil is available from your local marine dealer. • 5 litres API CC 10W/40 – EPL Part No - EP710008 - CL38~60• 25 litres API CC 10W/40 – EPL Part No - EP710009 – CL38~60• 5 litres API CH-4 15W/40 – EPL Part No - EP710560 – CL70T ONLY • 25 litres API CH-4 15W/40 – EPL Part No - EP710561 – CL70T ONLY
|
|
|
Post by quaysider on Jan 1, 2018 18:59:17 GMT
5 litres API CC 15W/40 – EP part no - EP710008 • 25 litres API CC 15W/40 – EP part no - EP710009
thats what my book says...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 19:08:57 GMT
5 litres API CC 15W/40 – EP part no - EP710008 • 25 litres API CC 15W/40 – EP part no - EP710009 thats what my book says... So, it looks like you should be asking the marinisers why they've changed their minds, and the grade of oil that retains the same part no.'s. Another look at what the label on your empty drum says wouldn't go amiss either.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 1, 2018 19:29:48 GMT
Not necessarily. The later oils are fine if you are running the engine reasonably hard, but if you are running a 40+bhp engine at say 5bhp to trundle a leisure narrowboat along a typical shallow canal, the new oils are “too good” and can, allegedly, result in bore glazing. Aviation piston engines (which routinely run flat out for takeoff) these days are run on multigrade oils by anyone who values long engine life. But even so, if you have a brand new one or have to fit a new cylinder, you have to run for the first 50 hrs on old fashioned straight mineral oil. Otherwise it won’t bed in and you will have low compression and high oil consumption. I'll accept that the risk of poorly bedded-in rings and glazed bores could, under certain circumstances, be increased by using too high a spec. of oil in a new or rebuilt engine. Those circumstances that can and do sometimes lead to these problems are slow warm-up after starting accompanied by low cylinder operating temperatures due to light load running and/or over cooling. However, no such permanent or irreversible problems are going to result from using a higher spec., better performing oil in a properly and fully run-in engine. The worst that's going to happen then is that lengthy periods of light load running will almost certainly result in some temporary, slight bore glazing, but it won't be anything that can't be cured by giving the engine a bit of hard work for an hour or two. The fact that most pleasure craft engines run grossly underloaded for most of the time is undeniable. However, to put that right will need the builders and owners of these boats educating about not overpowering and underpropping virtually everything they either produce or buy. I agree that using oils to the old API-CC or CD spec. for running-in new or rebuilt engines is good and commonly used practice, but these oils are NOT the 'straight mineral oil' you refer to your last paragraph. From the late 1950's/early 1960's oils such as the CC and CD spec.s (they were known as detergent or HD oils back then) began to replace the straight mineral oils that had been used previously. Well we can both agree that in general modern canal boat engines run at very light loads for most of the time, and this can result in bore glazing if too “good” an oil is used. And that the problem is more during the early stages of running a new engine. My point about aviation straight oil is not that it is the same as the api CC oil we are talking about (obviously, since straight oil is the opposite of multigrade!) but that the engine needs to be run with “bad” oil, lacking in fancy anti-scuffing additives etc, in order for it to bed in properly. I would disagree that the problem can easily be fixed by giving the engine a bit of hard work for an hour or so - simply because it can be unfeasible or at best antisocial to give the engine a “bit of hard work for an hour or two” on a narrow shallow canal. Of course, if there is a handy river available, no problem. But being in the depths of the midlands, we don’t often have that option. Finally on the engine power thing, clearly many boats including ours are grossly over-powered for canal cruising. But that isn’t the whole story. Firstly of course we may want to use a lot of power eg fighting current on a river. I recall a prolonged period running at 2400rpm trying to get upstream to Worcester when the Severn was in flood. And secondly, the engine is not only for propelling the boat. We have the ability to generate 5.5kw of electrical power with it. That is ~7.5 bhp, but with alternator efficiency of perhaps 60%, that requires 12.5bhp from the engine. And it needs to be available at canal cruising rpm of perhaps 1300 (idle being 850). Or in fact at 1000 rpm when passing moored boats. Of course most of the time all that electrical power isn’t wanted, but even a realistic demand of say 2kw for the tumble drier and putting 100A into the domestic batteries needs 3.5kw which is 8 bhp from the engine, just off idle (so it still works when passing moored boats). For that you need an abundance of torque at low rpm - unlike a propellor, a fixed electrical load needs increasingly more torque at lower rpms. All that means a big engine that at times can seem severely over-powered. Bottom line is that things have moved on a bit since a bollinder, a stove and an oil lamp was all one needed!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 21:58:19 GMT
I'll accept that the risk of poorly bedded-in rings and glazed bores could, under certain circumstances, be increased by using too high a spec. of oil in a new or rebuilt engine. Those circumstances that can and do sometimes lead to these problems are slow warm-up after starting accompanied by low cylinder operating temperatures due to light load running and/or over cooling. However, no such permanent or irreversible problems are going to result from using a higher spec., better performing oil in a properly and fully run-in engine. The worst that's going to happen then is that lengthy periods of light load running will almost certainly result in some temporary, slight bore glazing, but it won't be anything that can't be cured by giving the engine a bit of hard work for an hour or two. The fact that most pleasure craft engines run grossly underloaded for most of the time is undeniable. However, to put that right will need the builders and owners of these boats educating about not overpowering and underpropping virtually everything they either produce or buy. I agree that using oils to the old API-CC or CD spec. for running-in new or rebuilt engines is good and commonly used practice, but these oils are NOT the 'straight mineral oil' you refer to your last paragraph. From the late 1950's/early 1960's oils such as the CC and CD spec.s (they were known as detergent or HD oils back then) began to replace the straight mineral oils that had been used previously. . . . . My point about aviation straight oil is not that it is the same as the api CC oil we are talking about (obviously, since straight oil is the opposite of multigrade!) but that the engine needs to be run with “bad” oil, lacking in fancy anti-scuffing additives etc, in order for it to bed in properly. 'Straight' oils are NOT 'the opposite of multigrades', . . . the grade numbers, be they multi or monograde, are indexes/indicators of viscosity only, whereas the term 'straight' oil refers to the absence of any additives intended to improve the oil's performance, of which there are several different types to perform different functions. I think you're probably also confused about the type and function of the additives used in the oil spec.'s that came after the CC and CD spec.'s, which contained little or nothing else other than dispersants to keep soft carbon/soot particles in suspension in the oil so it gets drained out with the oil when its changed instead of settling out and clagging up the the engine's internals. The additives in the later, improved, spec.'s that can contribute to bore glazing are there to prevent, or at least reduce, the formation of abrasive ash and hard carbon particles in the cylinders during combustion. These abrasive particles actually assist in the ring/bore bedding-in process, and that's why oils containing them are best avoided immediately after a rebuild or in a new engine.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 1, 2018 22:45:19 GMT
. . . . My point about aviation straight oil is not that it is the same as the api CC oil we are talking about (obviously, since straight oil is the opposite of multigrade!) but that the engine needs to be run with “bad” oil, lacking in fancy anti-scuffing additives etc, in order for it to bed in properly. 'Straight' oils are NOT 'the opposite of multigrades', . . . the grade numbers, be they multi or monograde, are indexes/indicators of viscosity only, whereas the term 'straight' oil refers to the absence of any additives intended to improve the oil's performance, of which there are several different types to perform different functions. I think you're probably also confused about the type and function of the additives used in the oil spec.'s that came after the CC and CD spec.'s, which contained little or nothing else other than dispersants to keep soft carbon/soot particles in suspension in the oil so it gets drained out with the oil when its changed instead of settling out and clagging up the the engine's internals. The additives in the later, improved, spec.'s that can contribute to bore glazing are there to prevent, or at least reduce, the formation of abrasive ash and hard carbon particles in the cylinders during combustion. These abrasive particles actually assist in the ring/bore bedding-in process, and that's why oils containing them are best avoided immediately after a rebuild or in a new engine. You are rather derailing this thread with pedantry, since nothing in your post above, nor my reply, is relevant to it. However... Well possibly you are right in theory in differentiating between straight oil (has no additives) and monograde (has additives, but not viscosity stabilisers/improvers). But in the real world this difference doesn’t seem to be respected. So for example you can find oil manufacturers referring to one of their products as a “straight” oil but then going on to talk about the various additives in it. It seems that “monograde” and “straight” are used interchangeably in the real world. Does anyone sell “straight” oil - ie oil having no additives at all? Castor oil, maybe. I suggest that to some extent descriptive words can have the meaning the user wants, and so if a manufacturer of oil wants to refer to their additive-assisted oil as “straight” there’s nothing you can do about it! Well I suppose you could argue with them too! Modern oils contain a lot of different additives, I don’t pretend to know exactly what is in each brand and variety, but certainly dispersants are one. Anti-scuffing is another, as are additives to help stop oil completely running off engine internals during periods of non-use to ward off corrosion caused by condensation. And anti-foaming. Probably lots more. Going back to aircraft piston engines, the “straight” (monograde) oil that most folk used to use, contains dispersant additives. But Lycoming recommend using an additional anti-scuffing additive with them as they don’t have it built in (unless it’s a new/rebuilt engine of course). But aviation multigrades already have that built in. So clearly the need to use “straight” oil on a new engine is less related to the dispersant properties and more to the anti-scuffing additive. But Anyway, the point is that in the real world of big engines running mostly under very light loads, it is best not to use too “good” an oil, to keep bore glazing at bay. Especially with a new/rebuilt engine but also throughout its life.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 23:01:04 GMT
I'll accept that the risk of poorly bedded-in rings and glazed bores could, under certain circumstances, be increased by using too high a spec. of oil in a new or rebuilt engine. Those circumstances that can and do sometimes lead to these problems are slow warm-up after starting accompanied by low cylinder operating temperatures due to light load running and/or over cooling. However, no such permanent or irreversible problems are going to result from using a higher spec., better performing oil in a properly and fully run-in engine. The worst that's going to happen then is that lengthy periods of light load running will almost certainly result in some temporary, slight bore glazing, but it won't be anything that can't be cured by giving the engine a bit of hard work for an hour or two. The fact that most pleasure craft engines run grossly underloaded for most of the time is undeniable. However, to put that right will need the builders and owners of these boats educating about not overpowering and underpropping virtually everything they either produce or buy. I agree that using oils to the old API-CC or CD spec. for running-in new or rebuilt engines is good and commonly used practice, but these oils are NOT the 'straight mineral oil' you refer to your last paragraph. From the late 1950's/early 1960's oils such as the CC and CD spec.s (they were known as detergent or HD oils back then) began to replace the straight mineral oils that had been used previously. Finally on the engine power thing, clearly many boats including ours are grossly over-powered for canal cruising. But that isn’t the whole story. Firstly of course we may want to use a lot of power eg fighting current on a river. I recall a prolonged period running at 2400rpm trying to get upstream to Worcester when the Severn was in flood. And secondly, the engine is not only for propelling the boat. We have the ability to generate 5.5kw of electrical power with it. That is ~7.5 bhp, but with alternator efficiency of perhaps 60%, that requires 12.5bhp from the engine. And it needs to be available at canal cruising rpm of perhaps 1300 (idle being 850). Or in fact at 1000 rpm when passing moored boats. Of course most of the time all that electrical power isn’t wanted, but even a realistic demand of say 2kw for the tumble drier and putting 100A into the domestic batteries needs 3.5kw which is 8 bhp from the engine, just off idle (so it still works when passing moored boats). For that you need an abundance of torque at low rpm - unlike a propellor, a fixed electrical load needs increasingly more torque at lower rpms. All that means a big engine that at times can seem severely over-powered. Bottom line is that things have moved on a bit since a bollinder, a stove and an oil lamp was all one needed! All of the points you make above could be addressed simply by measures to improve the appallingly low propulsive efficiency that's a designed and built-in feature of virtually every modern day canalboat, and/or refraining from using the boat as a mobile laundry whilst on the move. Or, of course, there is the even better solution of installing a sensibly and adequately sized propulsion engine driving a well matched, efficient propellor of ideal diameter and adequate pitch, . . . 20 bhp is more than enough for a canalboat, river use included, and a separate, built-in genset to take care of your high load domestic needs. That would give you two separate sources of power with both of them running at, or at the very least a lot nearer, their optimum loading for best efficiency for most of the time either one or both are running.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 1, 2018 23:15:05 GMT
'Straight' oils are NOT 'the opposite of multigrades', . . . the grade numbers, be they multi or monograde, are indexes/indicators of viscosity only, whereas the term 'straight' oil refers to the absence of any additives intended to improve the oil's performance, of which there are several different types to perform different functions. I think you're probably also confused about the type and function of the additives used in the oil spec.'s that came after the CC and CD spec.'s, which contained little or nothing else other than dispersants to keep soft carbon/soot particles in suspension in the oil so it gets drained out with the oil when its changed instead of settling out and clagging up the the engine's internals. The additives in the later, improved, spec.'s that can contribute to bore glazing are there to prevent, or at least reduce, the formation of abrasive ash and hard carbon particles in the cylinders during combustion. These abrasive particles actually assist in the ring/bore bedding-in process, and that's why oils containing them are best avoided immediately after a rebuild or in a new engine. You are rather derailing this thread with pedantry, since nothing in your post above, nor my reply, is relevant to it. Don't talk so daft, . . . . the thread is all about oil, and it was well off the rails from post #1 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 1, 2018 23:40:45 GMT
Finally on the engine power thing, clearly many boats including ours are grossly over-powered for canal cruising. But that isn’t the whole story. Firstly of course we may want to use a lot of power eg fighting current on a river. I recall a prolonged period running at 2400rpm trying to get upstream to Worcester when the Severn was in flood. And secondly, the engine is not only for propelling the boat. We have the ability to generate 5.5kw of electrical power with it. That is ~7.5 bhp, but with alternator efficiency of perhaps 60%, that requires 12.5bhp from the engine. And it needs to be available at canal cruising rpm of perhaps 1300 (idle being 850). Or in fact at 1000 rpm when passing moored boats. Of course most of the time all that electrical power isn’t wanted, but even a realistic demand of say 2kw for the tumble drier and putting 100A into the domestic batteries needs 3.5kw which is 8 bhp from the engine, just off idle (so it still works when passing moored boats). For that you need an abundance of torque at low rpm - unlike a propellor, a fixed electrical load needs increasingly more torque at lower rpms. All that means a big engine that at times can seem severely over-powered. Bottom line is that things have moved on a bit since a bollinder, a stove and an oil lamp was all one needed! All of the points you make above could be addressed simply by measures to improve the appallingly low propulsive efficiency that's a designed and built-in feature of virtually every modern day canalboat, and/or refraining from using the boat as a mobile laundry whilst on the move. Or, of course, there is the even better solution of installing a sensibly and adequately sized propulsion engine driving a well matched, efficient propellor of ideal diameter and adequate pitch, . . . 20 bhp is more than enough for a canalboat, river use included, and a separate, built-in genset to take care of your high load domestic needs. That would give you two separate sources of power with both of them running at, or at the very least a lot nearer, their optimum loading for best efficiency for most of the time either one of both are running. Why would I want to refrain from using my boat as a mobile laundry? And more to the point, why would you think it OK to tell me how I should use my boat? Weird! The problem of overpowered engines would equally well be fixed if we filled in the canals and kept our boats on the moon. But neither is a helpful or sensible suggestion. As I said, things have moved on. I’m sure that your grandfather would have taken a similar view to you when his beloved horse was in danger of being replaced by a noisy, dirty, internal combustion engine. Why would anyone possibly have need for more than one horse? Clearly all modern boat builders are fools and it is such a shame that you didn’t turn your talents to building perfect boats, instead of just talking about them. Of course if you had done, you might have eventually discovered that having a smaller engine and separate genset requires much more space and much more cash, and all to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 1, 2018 23:57:32 GMT
They'll have changed the spec as for some reason 15/40 mineral oils have become harder to obtain. 10 years ago any motor spares place would have it, but not now. I used to use it in my air cooled engines.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2018 8:21:23 GMT
All of the points you make above could be addressed simply by measures to improve the appallingly low propulsive efficiency that's a designed and built-in feature of virtually every modern day canalboat, and/or refraining from using the boat as a mobile laundry whilst on the move. Or, of course, there is the even better solution of installing a sensibly and adequately sized propulsion engine driving a well matched, efficient propellor of ideal diameter and adequate pitch, . . . 20 bhp is more than enough for a canalboat, river use included, and a separate, built-in genset to take care of your high load domestic needs. That would give you two separate sources of power with both of them running at, or at the very least a lot nearer, their optimum loading for best efficiency for most of the time either one of both are running. Why would I want to refrain from using my boat as a mobile laundry? And more to the point, why would you think it OK to tell me how I should use my boat? Weird! The problem of overpowered engines would equally well be fixed if we filled in the canals and kept our boats on the moon. But neither is a helpful or sensible suggestion. As I said, things have moved on. I’m sure that your grandfather would have taken a similar view to you when his beloved horse was in danger of being replaced by a noisy, dirty, internal combustion engine. Why would anyone possibly have need for more than one horse? Clearly all modern boat builders are fools and it is such a shame that you didn’t turn your talents to building perfect boats, instead of just talking about them. Of course if you had done, you might have eventually discovered that having a smaller engine and separate genset requires much more space and much more cash, and all to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. I'm not even going to bother replying to most of that load of rambling nonsense, but as for my opinion of modern, so-called boatbuilders, you're almost on the right lines, because I really don't think very much of them. The prize fools, however, are those buy their crappy products and then try so publicly and so hard to convince themselves that they've got something good in return for the vast sums of money they've forked out. In the mid 1930's Harland & Wolff at North Woolwich and Yarwoods at Northwich turned out a largish number of motor narrowboats, capable of towing another similar but unpowered vessel and with a combined payload of up to almost 70 tons on the two, at 6 knots on adequately deep water with engines producing a mere 18 bhp. Today's piss poor imitations, with well under half the total displacement of a pair of fully loaded narrowboats, need around twice that horsepower to drag themselves along at somewhere near to similar speeds in similar depths. Do you really think that's something the creators of these so-called 'narrowboats' should be proud of, and is it what you're referring to when you say that "things have moved on" ?
|
|