looking for an old one-lunger

[Stephen]

I'm looking for a one-lunger - around 3 hp - for an old 15' double-ender open boat. I'm in BC. Suggestions on where to look?

[Stephen]

I'm looking for a one-lunger - around 3 hp - for an old 15' double-ender open boat. I'm in BC. Suggestions on where to look?

[Stephen]

I'm looking for a one-lunger - around 3 hp - for an old 15' double-ender open boat. I'm in BC. Suggestions on where to look?

[paladin]

Cutthroat Island, north side of Hamilton Inlet, south of saglek...north of Cartwright...left several there, made very early 1900's....

[paladin]

Cutthroat Island, north side of Hamilton Inlet, south of saglek...north of Cartwright...left several there, made very early 1900's....

[paladin]

Cutthroat Island, north side of Hamilton Inlet, south of saglek...north of Cartwright...left several there, made very early 1900's....

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ask Lunenburg Foundry...

Alan

Link---

http://www.lunenburgfoundry.com/index.htm

It looks like they only (officially) offer Isuzu's and Ford's (Canadian regs..?). But I'd still call and have a gam. Ask for some names...

[ 11-10-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ask Lunenburg Foundry...

Alan

Link---

http://www.lunenburgfoundry.com/index.htm

It looks like they only (officially) offer Isuzu's and Ford's (Canadian regs..?). But I'd still call and have a gam. Ask for some names...

[ 11-10-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ask Lunenburg Foundry...

Alan

Link---

http://www.lunenburgfoundry.com/index.htm

It looks like they only (officially) offer Isuzu's and Ford's (Canadian regs..?). But I'd still call and have a gam. Ask for some names...

[ 11-10-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[ahp]

Look for a Stuart-Turner, made at Henley-on-Thames. These were slow speed two cyle one lungers that were made in 1.5, 2.5 and 4.0 hp sizes. There was also an 8 hp twin.

I had a hand start 4 hp, rated at 1500 rpm. It was a great little engine. I don't think they are made anymore.

[ahp]

Look for a Stuart-Turner, made at Henley-on-Thames. These were slow speed two cyle one lungers that were made in 1.5, 2.5 and 4.0 hp sizes. There was also an 8 hp twin.

I had a hand start 4 hp, rated at 1500 rpm. It was a great little engine. I don't think they are made anymore.

[ahp]

Look for a Stuart-Turner, made at Henley-on-Thames. These were slow speed two cyle one lungers that were made in 1.5, 2.5 and 4.0 hp sizes. There was also an 8 hp twin.

I had a hand start 4 hp, rated at 1500 rpm. It was a great little engine. I don't think they are made anymore.

[Ron Carter]

Check the classifieds on www.oldmarineengine.com (http://www.oldmarineengine.com) There are a bunch of collectors on the discussion board that might point you towards an engine.

[Ron Carter]

Check the classifieds on www.oldmarineengine.com (http://www.oldmarineengine.com) There are a bunch of collectors on the discussion board that might point you towards an engine.

[Ron Carter]

Check the classifieds on www.oldmarineengine.com (http://www.oldmarineengine.com) There are a bunch of collectors on the discussion board that might point you towards an engine.

[Meerkat]

Well, I'm not particularly old, but i'm moving in the direction of being a one-lunger. Quite torquey too! ;)

[Meerkat]

Well, I'm not particularly old, but i'm moving in the direction of being a one-lunger. Quite torquey too! ;)

[Meerkat]

Well, I'm not particularly old, but i'm moving in the direction of being a one-lunger. Quite torquey too! ;)

[Zimmer]

Find some farm trade publications with classified adds.

[Zimmer]

Find some farm trade publications with classified adds.

[Zimmer]

Find some farm trade publications with classified adds.

[capt jake]

Check with French Creek boat sales. They are in BC and have quite a few boats listed all of the time. They don't show and parts on their site, but I am betting they have access to older parts and pieces.

[capt jake]

Check with French Creek boat sales. They are in BC and have quite a few boats listed all of the time. They don't show and parts on their site, but I am betting they have access to older parts and pieces.

[capt jake]

Check with French Creek boat sales. They are in BC and have quite a few boats listed all of the time. They don't show and parts on their site, but I am betting they have access to older parts and pieces.

[willmarsh3]

You mean ones like this?
http://www.dippy.ca/picsNew/gertrude9.jpg


I found these at:
www.dippy.ca (http://www.dippy.ca) .

There might be some good leads from this.

Will.

[willmarsh3]

You mean ones like this?
http://www.dippy.ca/picsNew/gertrude9.jpg


I found these at:
www.dippy.ca (http://www.dippy.ca) .

There might be some good leads from this.

Will.

[willmarsh3]

You mean ones like this?
http://www.dippy.ca/picsNew/gertrude9.jpg


I found these at:
www.dippy.ca (http://www.dippy.ca) .

There might be some good leads from this.

Will.

[Aramas]

The venerable 3 1/2 hp Blaxland Pup is still being built in Australia after 80 odd years. I have no idea if they export them to Canada.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/discus/messages/3452/6705.jpg

Blaxland Chapman Marine Company
Nyeena Avenue, Bensville, NSW 2251
Telephone: 02 43682201

[Aramas]

The venerable 3 1/2 hp Blaxland Pup is still being built in Australia after 80 odd years. I have no idea if they export them to Canada.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/discus/messages/3452/6705.jpg

Blaxland Chapman Marine Company
Nyeena Avenue, Bensville, NSW 2251
Telephone: 02 43682201

[Aramas]

The venerable 3 1/2 hp Blaxland Pup is still being built in Australia after 80 odd years. I have no idea if they export them to Canada.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/discus/messages/3452/6705.jpg

Blaxland Chapman Marine Company
Nyeena Avenue, Bensville, NSW 2251
Telephone: 02 43682201

[TimothyB]

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/images/6-1_102_0203.jpg

1714 North Pearl
Centralia, Washington 98531

These are new engines made from old designs, and technically are only certified for stationary use. But then, that's what all engines in boats were at one time. Also, their smallest engine is 800 lbs. :)

[ 11-14-2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/images/6-1_102_0203.jpg

1714 North Pearl
Centralia, Washington 98531

These are new engines made from old designs, and technically are only certified for stationary use. But then, that's what all engines in boats were at one time. Also, their smallest engine is 800 lbs. :)

[ 11-14-2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/

http://www.oldstylelisters.com/images/6-1_102_0203.jpg

1714 North Pearl
Centralia, Washington 98531

These are new engines made from old designs, and technically are only certified for stationary use. But then, that's what all engines in boats were at one time. Also, their smallest engine is 800 lbs. :)

[ 11-14-2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[Keith Wilson]

Wow! Those Lister diesels are certainly amazing. $2K, 6HP, 800 lbs! With that sort of mass, they'd better last forever.

[Keith Wilson]

Wow! Those Lister diesels are certainly amazing. $2K, 6HP, 800 lbs! With that sort of mass, they'd better last forever.

[Keith Wilson]

Wow! Those Lister diesels are certainly amazing. $2K, 6HP, 800 lbs! With that sort of mass, they'd better last forever.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Their spec's. don't give any numbers for torque.

In a boat, the point of these old slow engines was to swing a slow but good-sized, usually four-bladed, prop...

That's where the torque came in.

Alan

[Alan D. Hyde]

Their spec's. don't give any numbers for torque.

In a boat, the point of these old slow engines was to swing a slow but good-sized, usually four-bladed, prop...

That's where the torque came in.

Alan

[Alan D. Hyde]

Their spec's. don't give any numbers for torque.

In a boat, the point of these old slow engines was to swing a slow but good-sized, usually four-bladed, prop...

That's where the torque came in.

Alan

[capt jake]

Centralis is just a hop away for me. I may have to take a trip down there and take a peek. ;) :eek:

[capt jake]

Centralis is just a hop away for me. I may have to take a trip down there and take a peek. ;) :eek:

[capt jake]

Centralis is just a hop away for me. I may have to take a trip down there and take a peek. ;) :eek:

[TimothyB]

Alan, they do give Torque. Maybe you didn't look far down enough :)

For the 6HP single cylinder:
64.67 N-m
6.46 Kg-m
(calculator tapping....)

..which equals 47.7 ft-lbs.

(Which is quite nice. The Yanmar 1GM10 with 9.1 HP @ 3600 RPM only produces 13.28 ft-lbs of torque)

We can also look at it like this...

HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

..so we can figure what RPM they are talking about to get this torque and extrapolate backwards.

RPM = 660

..which is just about what its rated speed is.

As long as you know rated speed and HP @ Rated speed, you can derive Torque using the above calculation.

[ 11-16-2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

Alan, they do give Torque. Maybe you didn't look far down enough :)

For the 6HP single cylinder:
64.67 N-m
6.46 Kg-m
(calculator tapping....)

..which equals 47.7 ft-lbs.

(Which is quite nice. The Yanmar 1GM10 with 9.1 HP @ 3600 RPM only produces 13.28 ft-lbs of torque)

We can also look at it like this...

HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

..so we can figure what RPM they are talking about to get this torque and extrapolate backwards.

RPM = 660

..which is just about what its rated speed is.

As long as you know rated speed and HP @ Rated speed, you can derive Torque using the above calculation.

[ 11-16-2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

Alan, they do give Torque. Maybe you didn't look far down enough :)

For the 6HP single cylinder:
64.67 N-m
6.46 Kg-m
(calculator tapping....)

..which equals 47.7 ft-lbs.

(Which is quite nice. The Yanmar 1GM10 with 9.1 HP @ 3600 RPM only produces 13.28 ft-lbs of torque)

We can also look at it like this...

HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

..so we can figure what RPM they are talking about to get this torque and extrapolate backwards.

RPM = 660

..which is just about what its rated speed is.

As long as you know rated speed and HP @ Rated speed, you can derive Torque using the above calculation.

[ 11-16-2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[dmede]

Not to steal the thread, but does anyone here know of a source for engines simlar to the Palmer Baby Husky? New or old.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/images/BHwithGear.jpg

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/history/Palmer/PalmerBH.htm

[dmede]

Not to steal the thread, but does anyone here know of a source for engines simlar to the Palmer Baby Husky? New or old.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/images/BHwithGear.jpg

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/history/Palmer/PalmerBH.htm

[dmede]

Not to steal the thread, but does anyone here know of a source for engines simlar to the Palmer Baby Husky? New or old.

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/images/BHwithGear.jpg

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/history/Palmer/PalmerBH.htm

[Keith Wilson]

Horsepower is horsepower. Torque and RPM are interchangeable.

(Torque ft-lbs x RPM)/5252 = HP

If you need more torque and less RPM, you can always get it from a high-RPM power source with reduction gearing. For comparison, a Yanmar 1GM10 is rated 8 hp continuous @ 3400 RPM, or 12.3 ft-lbs. It comes standard with a 3.2:1 reduction gear, which gives you 1062 RPM and about 39 ft-lbs torque at the output shaft, minus losses in the gearbox. The whole thing, including the transmission, weighs 167 lbs.

If you reduced the output shaft RPM to 660 by using a 5.15:1 reduction, the Yanmar would give you 63 ft-lbs (minus gearing losses).

[ 11-16-2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Keith Wilson]

Horsepower is horsepower. Torque and RPM are interchangeable.

(Torque ft-lbs x RPM)/5252 = HP

If you need more torque and less RPM, you can always get it from a high-RPM power source with reduction gearing. For comparison, a Yanmar 1GM10 is rated 8 hp continuous @ 3400 RPM, or 12.3 ft-lbs. It comes standard with a 3.2:1 reduction gear, which gives you 1062 RPM and about 39 ft-lbs torque at the output shaft, minus losses in the gearbox. The whole thing, including the transmission, weighs 167 lbs.

If you reduced the output shaft RPM to 660 by using a 5.15:1 reduction, the Yanmar would give you 63 ft-lbs (minus gearing losses).

[ 11-16-2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Keith Wilson]

Horsepower is horsepower. Torque and RPM are interchangeable.

(Torque ft-lbs x RPM)/5252 = HP

If you need more torque and less RPM, you can always get it from a high-RPM power source with reduction gearing. For comparison, a Yanmar 1GM10 is rated 8 hp continuous @ 3400 RPM, or 12.3 ft-lbs. It comes standard with a 3.2:1 reduction gear, which gives you 1062 RPM and about 39 ft-lbs torque at the output shaft, minus losses in the gearbox. The whole thing, including the transmission, weighs 167 lbs.

If you reduced the output shaft RPM to 660 by using a 5.15:1 reduction, the Yanmar would give you 63 ft-lbs (minus gearing losses).

[ 11-16-2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[TimothyB]

That may be true Keith, but reduction gears = complexity + wear. Higher RPM = Higher temperatures = Higher wear. All of this = $$$

The whole point of high torque, low RPM engines is durability, simplicity and reliability. The only drawback is weight and size, but in a heavy displacement cruising boat (not the type we are discussing here) that's not an issue. Personally, I would rather have a hand start, non electronic naturally aspirated old time diesel if I was in the middle of the big blue.

[ 11-17-2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

That may be true Keith, but reduction gears = complexity + wear. Higher RPM = Higher temperatures = Higher wear. All of this = $$$

The whole point of high torque, low RPM engines is durability, simplicity and reliability. The only drawback is weight and size, but in a heavy displacement cruising boat (not the type we are discussing here) that's not an issue. Personally, I would rather have a hand start, non electronic naturally aspirated old time diesel if I was in the middle of the big blue.

[ 11-17-2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[TimothyB]

That may be true Keith, but reduction gears = complexity + wear. Higher RPM = Higher temperatures = Higher wear. All of this = $$$

The whole point of high torque, low RPM engines is durability, simplicity and reliability. The only drawback is weight and size, but in a heavy displacement cruising boat (not the type we are discussing here) that's not an issue. Personally, I would rather have a hand start, non electronic naturally aspirated old time diesel if I was in the middle of the big blue.

[ 11-17-2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ahhh.

My mistake.

I was looking for foot-pounds.

Alan

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ahhh.

My mistake.

I was looking for foot-pounds.

Alan

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ahhh.

My mistake.

I was looking for foot-pounds.

Alan

[Keith Wilson]

I have no problem with low RPM engines, they certainly have some advantages, but it kind of offends my engineering sensibilities to use such an enormous device to put out so little power. My point is that the Yanmar has 167 pounds of metal, including the reduction gears and transmission, where the Lister has 800 and produces 3/4 the horsepower. A 4:1 reduction is a mechanical engineering no-brainer, and should be at least 95% efficient. Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.

[Keith Wilson]

I have no problem with low RPM engines, they certainly have some advantages, but it kind of offends my engineering sensibilities to use such an enormous device to put out so little power. My point is that the Yanmar has 167 pounds of metal, including the reduction gears and transmission, where the Lister has 800 and produces 3/4 the horsepower. A 4:1 reduction is a mechanical engineering no-brainer, and should be at least 95% efficient. Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.

[Keith Wilson]

I have no problem with low RPM engines, they certainly have some advantages, but it kind of offends my engineering sensibilities to use such an enormous device to put out so little power. My point is that the Yanmar has 167 pounds of metal, including the reduction gears and transmission, where the Lister has 800 and produces 3/4 the horsepower. A 4:1 reduction is a mechanical engineering no-brainer, and should be at least 95% efficient. Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.

[Thorne]

Here's a one-cylinder Volvo on Craigslist SF Bay -

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/boa/112216985.html

[Thorne]

Here's a one-cylinder Volvo on Craigslist SF Bay -

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/boa/112216985.html

[Thorne]

Here's a one-cylinder Volvo on Craigslist SF Bay -

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/boa/112216985.html

[Aramas]

Longevity isn't the only advantage of low speed diesels - ultra-long stroke (~3.5:1) marine diesels are the state of the art in ship propulsion because of efficiency, not longevity. Of course, they also run on bunker fuel, which looks and smells a lot like the stuff they use to make roads.

Reduction gears take around 3-5% of the power off the top. Direct drive with hydraulic variable pitch, large diameter props are as efficient as it gets.

About the closest thing that we have to a real ship engine for small boats is the Sabb Type G.

[Aramas]

Longevity isn't the only advantage of low speed diesels - ultra-long stroke (~3.5:1) marine diesels are the state of the art in ship propulsion because of efficiency, not longevity. Of course, they also run on bunker fuel, which looks and smells a lot like the stuff they use to make roads.

Reduction gears take around 3-5% of the power off the top. Direct drive with hydraulic variable pitch, large diameter props are as efficient as it gets.

About the closest thing that we have to a real ship engine for small boats is the Sabb Type G.

[Aramas]

Longevity isn't the only advantage of low speed diesels - ultra-long stroke (~3.5:1) marine diesels are the state of the art in ship propulsion because of efficiency, not longevity. Of course, they also run on bunker fuel, which looks and smells a lot like the stuff they use to make roads.

Reduction gears take around 3-5% of the power off the top. Direct drive with hydraulic variable pitch, large diameter props are as efficient as it gets.

About the closest thing that we have to a real ship engine for small boats is the Sabb Type G.

[Dave Hadfield]

And if the boat needs ballast, putting a heavy old motor with thick castings in the bilge doesn't hurt at all.

My father collects old engines. He has several of those circa 1905 stationary powerplants. Pretty simple.

I have a 1939 John Deere BN with a heavy, slow-turning 2 cylinder motor. It runs like a .....

I have it because I use it. It still works fine for wood-hauling and dragging the driveway.

If you could connect that kind of motor to a variable-pitch large prop (so the drag isn't horrendous when the motor is shut off) using a mechanism that is simple and reliable and leak-free, you'd really have something. (Maybe that isn't possible, but I sure wish it was.)

Those old engines do take a bit of old-fashioned know-how, but once you can clean and gap the points, and can clean the plugs (acetone rules), you're away. And as in all engines, the fuel must be clean and the coolant flowing.

I like the sound a whole lot better than drone-drone-drone...

[Dave Hadfield]

And if the boat needs ballast, putting a heavy old motor with thick castings in the bilge doesn't hurt at all.

My father collects old engines. He has several of those circa 1905 stationary powerplants. Pretty simple.

I have a 1939 John Deere BN with a heavy, slow-turning 2 cylinder motor. It runs like a .....

I have it because I use it. It still works fine for wood-hauling and dragging the driveway.

If you could connect that kind of motor to a variable-pitch large prop (so the drag isn't horrendous when the motor is shut off) using a mechanism that is simple and reliable and leak-free, you'd really have something. (Maybe that isn't possible, but I sure wish it was.)

Those old engines do take a bit of old-fashioned know-how, but once you can clean and gap the points, and can clean the plugs (acetone rules), you're away. And as in all engines, the fuel must be clean and the coolant flowing.

I like the sound a whole lot better than drone-drone-drone...

[Dave Hadfield]

And if the boat needs ballast, putting a heavy old motor with thick castings in the bilge doesn't hurt at all.

My father collects old engines. He has several of those circa 1905 stationary powerplants. Pretty simple.

I have a 1939 John Deere BN with a heavy, slow-turning 2 cylinder motor. It runs like a .....

I have it because I use it. It still works fine for wood-hauling and dragging the driveway.

If you could connect that kind of motor to a variable-pitch large prop (so the drag isn't horrendous when the motor is shut off) using a mechanism that is simple and reliable and leak-free, you'd really have something. (Maybe that isn't possible, but I sure wish it was.)

Those old engines do take a bit of old-fashioned know-how, but once you can clean and gap the points, and can clean the plugs (acetone rules), you're away. And as in all engines, the fuel must be clean and the coolant flowing.

I like the sound a whole lot better than drone-drone-drone...

[TimothyB]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
*snip* Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.Believe me Keith, I understand your engineering sensitivities... I was a Physics/Math major smile.gif

The thing is, the Yanmar is more complex, and made of lighter and more exotic materials. Yes, this means it gets increases in HP, however it also means it is much more complex to maintain and is more likely to breakdown without continual maintenance.

Some of those old oil engines.. I remember one on my aunt's farm that had sat unused for 10 years or so. Came time they needed to use it and my uncle (with me 'helping') took it apart with some assistance from a propane torch and bunches of lubricant. I think we changed the rings (a little hazy on that), and he used acid to clean out the cylinders of rust (there was very little) then flushed the thing with water, clean solvent and then oiled everything. He had me cut out gaskets from material that he had marked out and we replaced those. Let it sit for a day, replaced hoses, pre heated the cylinders with the torch, filled her with fuel and it started on the second try. Lots of smoke at first.

Total work, about 10 hours. 5 each day. Much of that was him explaining how diesel engines worked to me. My aunt fed me really well (I was about 10) she said because I 'smelled like a working man now'. I remember feeling very proud that I had to use the special soap. smile.gif

Anyhoo, that's my point! A cast iron engine that burns diesel, if well made, is incredibly durable, long lived and easy to maintain. In a marine environment with its added problems that huge safety margin is nice to have.

[TimothyB]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
*snip* Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.Believe me Keith, I understand your engineering sensitivities... I was a Physics/Math major smile.gif

The thing is, the Yanmar is more complex, and made of lighter and more exotic materials. Yes, this means it gets increases in HP, however it also means it is much more complex to maintain and is more likely to breakdown without continual maintenance.

Some of those old oil engines.. I remember one on my aunt's farm that had sat unused for 10 years or so. Came time they needed to use it and my uncle (with me 'helping') took it apart with some assistance from a propane torch and bunches of lubricant. I think we changed the rings (a little hazy on that), and he used acid to clean out the cylinders of rust (there was very little) then flushed the thing with water, clean solvent and then oiled everything. He had me cut out gaskets from material that he had marked out and we replaced those. Let it sit for a day, replaced hoses, pre heated the cylinders with the torch, filled her with fuel and it started on the second try. Lots of smoke at first.

Total work, about 10 hours. 5 each day. Much of that was him explaining how diesel engines worked to me. My aunt fed me really well (I was about 10) she said because I 'smelled like a working man now'. I remember feeling very proud that I had to use the special soap. smile.gif

Anyhoo, that's my point! A cast iron engine that burns diesel, if well made, is incredibly durable, long lived and easy to maintain. In a marine environment with its added problems that huge safety margin is nice to have.

[TimothyB]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
*snip* Imagine what you could do with modern technology if you made the Yanmar twice as heavy.Believe me Keith, I understand your engineering sensitivities... I was a Physics/Math major smile.gif

The thing is, the Yanmar is more complex, and made of lighter and more exotic materials. Yes, this means it gets increases in HP, however it also means it is much more complex to maintain and is more likely to breakdown without continual maintenance.

Some of those old oil engines.. I remember one on my aunt's farm that had sat unused for 10 years or so. Came time they needed to use it and my uncle (with me 'helping') took it apart with some assistance from a propane torch and bunches of lubricant. I think we changed the rings (a little hazy on that), and he used acid to clean out the cylinders of rust (there was very little) then flushed the thing with water, clean solvent and then oiled everything. He had me cut out gaskets from material that he had marked out and we replaced those. Let it sit for a day, replaced hoses, pre heated the cylinders with the torch, filled her with fuel and it started on the second try. Lots of smoke at first.

Total work, about 10 hours. 5 each day. Much of that was him explaining how diesel engines worked to me. My aunt fed me really well (I was about 10) she said because I 'smelled like a working man now'. I remember feeling very proud that I had to use the special soap. smile.gif

Anyhoo, that's my point! A cast iron engine that burns diesel, if well made, is incredibly durable, long lived and easy to maintain. In a marine environment with its added problems that huge safety margin is nice to have.

[Old Bingey]

Stephen,

Easthope Bros. used to build slow speed four stroke marine engines up by you in Steveston, B.C. for many years. I think they went out of business in the early eighties but I believe Bill Easthope is still alive and well. He was the last "assembler" and assembled the two cylinder 8-14hp engine I have. The smallest engine in my ancient catalog is 4-6hp. That's 3 7/8" bore 5" stroke 4hp at 500rpm and 6hp at 800... turned a sixteen inch wheel at engine speed (no reduction). Weight with transmission was 240 pounds. I bet somebody is still running one up there. Easthope "Longstroke" engines were hard to wear out.

[ 11-21-2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Old Bingey ]

[Old Bingey]

Stephen,

Easthope Bros. used to build slow speed four stroke marine engines up by you in Steveston, B.C. for many years. I think they went out of business in the early eighties but I believe Bill Easthope is still alive and well. He was the last "assembler" and assembled the two cylinder 8-14hp engine I have. The smallest engine in my ancient catalog is 4-6hp. That's 3 7/8" bore 5" stroke 4hp at 500rpm and 6hp at 800... turned a sixteen inch wheel at engine speed (no reduction). Weight with transmission was 240 pounds. I bet somebody is still running one up there. Easthope "Longstroke" engines were hard to wear out.

[ 11-21-2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Old Bingey ]

[Old Bingey]

Stephen,

Easthope Bros. used to build slow speed four stroke marine engines up by you in Steveston, B.C. for many years. I think they went out of business in the early eighties but I believe Bill Easthope is still alive and well. He was the last "assembler" and assembled the two cylinder 8-14hp engine I have. The smallest engine in my ancient catalog is 4-6hp. That's 3 7/8" bore 5" stroke 4hp at 500rpm and 6hp at 800... turned a sixteen inch wheel at engine speed (no reduction). Weight with transmission was 240 pounds. I bet somebody is still running one up there. Easthope "Longstroke" engines were hard to wear out.

[ 11-21-2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Old Bingey ]