Feedback on MTU 10v2000 Engines

M93 at 1500 hp in 135,000 pound displacement, 85' MY. WOT at 2450 rpm is 27 knots. Cruise at 2000 rpm is 23 knots. Acceleration is nice for a boat this size but not what you'd expect in a 54' SF. On the other hand, this boat was designed with these engines in mind and they were the only engines offered so as to a retrofit, one really can't say. I do advise against the M94 just on principle of never favoring the maximum hp out of a block. 10v2000 goes from 1200-1600 and 1500 is good for a fast vessel with low load which out boat is for these engines. 4 gpnm at cruise. 60 decibels but you wouldn't be that low on an SF.

We have between 500 and 600 hours and nothing but routine maintenance. However, previously we chartered two different boats, both older models of ours, with very heavy hours and no problems. It's well matched to that boat. That's the key, matching to the boat. If you were talking about a heavy displacement boat you'd go down to 1200 hp with those engines. It's strictly a personal thing that I don't like to go with the absolute maximum out of an engine, so not the 1600. We just bought a center console and we went with three Yamaha 300's, not the 350's. That last little bit of horsepower comes at a heavy price in my opinion with maintenance and fuel and very little change in performance.

Older Boater I want to learn from you!

Why not, you seems to be posting from the same place....

The M-93's were the "last little bit of horsepower" until the M-94's came out, so what happens when the theoretical m-95's come out?

What?

Then I guess I'll be ok with the M94's. By the time Yamaha comes out with the 400's, I might like the 350's better than I do now.

All I can say is I've used three different boats with the 93's and am familiar with their wide usage in the same model while I've never used or been on a boat with the 94's.

The newest edition of the 2000 series are the M96 versions

I've seen Pershing is using M96's, but I don't see any sign of it yet on a 10 cylinder. Have you? MTU needs to update their website too as they don't yet list the M96's. Within their news releases I did find it being offered in 12 and 16 cylinder versions, but no mention of a 10.

You can download the Marine engine catalog 2015 from the mtu-online shop. It shows the present marine engine portfolio. The 96L was shown on the SMM fair in Hamburg in September 2014. I was told, the 96 versions will show up in all cylinder numbers during the year. Their is no increase in total power available in the upgrade from the 16V 2000 M94L towards the 16V 2000 M96L for example. It is not a higher powered version, it is more a modernisation of the 2000 series.

The future MTU engine portfolio is not very predictable at the moment, as there are some management decisions pending from the new 100 % owner of MTU, Rolls Royce. The sales and engineering officials at the SMM were not very optimistic about that subject (friendly spoken).

And now I'd look at the M96 in year two of it's existence.

Sorry but I do not understand Your last post.

The only long term personal experience I have with higher rated 2000 series, are the 16V 2000 M61 and M70, both in sail boats. They always worked and still work absolutely flawless (but my chief is a genius). Other than that, we only work with the unrestricted continuous rated engines like the 16V 4000 M53R in mechanical drives or 2000 series and S60 in gensets. And for the big ones, we only rely on 2 or 4 stroke MANs.

But if share holder value and short term profits get more important than quality and reliability and the 16V 4000 for example, will show an RR on its cylinder heads (and in its behavior) in the future, we will change to the MAN 175 D for repowering and newbuilds.

The gist of my last post is I don't want any engine in it's first year of production or the current iteration. I don't like leading edge, prefer slightly behind leading edge so some bugs worked through if any.

I think making assumptions that quality is about to be sacrificed in some way in advance of anything happening is a very dangerous thing. Rest assured shareholder value and short term profits were important before as well. They can lead to compromised quality but don't have to. I've been pleased with MTU and won't jump to conclusions about possible future changes until solid reason to do so. I will also comment that anytime there's a change in a company, employees are nervous of the consequences so hearing negative things from sales and engineering people at a show doesn't surprise me.

In addition to the 10V2000's mentioned above, we also have 12V4000's too. No, not on the same boat. We've been equally pleased with them and been on three other boats with them.

Thanks for the explanation of your post. I do think the same. The only engine manufacturer, I always trust with their highest rated engines, even when they are brand new on the production line, is PORSCHE .

I do not want to derail this subject by discussing the problems of industrial takeovers and globalisation but the commercial maritime world has seen some bad examples of downgoing quality in the past after the takeover by a foreign global player. But I can assure You, the MTU staff I am in regular contact with, is pretty high ranking and knowledgeable. And my personal experience with the RR marine guys is not very exhilarating.

The colourfull history of MTU would be a subject of its own. But the present status of MTU is the pure fault of a German top manager some years ago.

We have reliable diesel engines with amazingly high power ratings on the market, which would have been unthinkable 15 or 20 years ago. 73 HP per liter of volume and 2.450 RPM sounds like a pretty high performance marine engine to me. MTU engines are great and reliable engines and especially the newer 200o series are very advanced technology. If I compare our 16V 4000 Ironman engines in the inland waterway cargoships with box cooling and dry exhausts (simple heavy iron burning heating oil all day long at low RPM) with an 2014 model 16V 2000 M94 heat exchanger cooled, planning boat engine (only relying on EN 590 automotive diesel) pushing for example a Pershing 92 to 40+ Kts, we are talking about two totally different worlds.

The key for those high performance engines IMO is proper use (leasure boat ratings!) and professional care. The average planning boat in the Med using those engines (MTU, MAN, Volvo) has far less than 500 operating hours per year. I have seen statistics, that the average planning boat in the Med is leaving the harbour less than 12 times the year, for anything other than a short warm up cruise.

My engineer was told on a technical course at MTU Friederichshafen, that the quality of an engine series is mostly dependend on the type of construction of the original type engine and the follow on construction of its derivates. Will say, if you develope a V12 basic offroad engine with a continuous commercial rating, you will not automatically generate a complete all purpose engine family, just by adding or taking off some cylinders and changing the colling system.

The 2000 and 4000 series engines are of modular design and share many components within their family. But an 8V 2000 is not just half a 16 V 2000, its a different engine using some common parts. And bolting 2 V8 together will not make necessarily a great 16V.

I believe the M96 designation has more to do with emissions requirements than another power boost.

That is exactly what I ment with modernisation in my humble englisch . New and improved electronic engine control an internal measurements for torque and emission control.

Welcome back HTMO9 been awhile...
You are right... most of the high speed boats, in the Med, have the worse operating situation you could imagine... leading to all kinds of basic durability issues.

The worst thing for any engine is to set around in the Marine environment and then see occasional high output use... often without proper run time before the throttles are jammed forward.
Worse, quite often the limits of time at full power are exceeded.
Worse, maintenance is often not regular... no just because you don't use it doesn't mean it does not need maintenance on the time schedule.

So you will see boats several years old with a very few hundred hours of use... that is not a good thing and likely indicates spotty care and abuse between.

Engines like to run and last much longer, run best and are most reliable when run all the time within the manufacture's limits with proper maintenance.

As far as I remember my mechanical lessons about piston engines in university correctly, the V10 diesel engine (in general) is on of the most intricate buddies amongst all multi cylinder diesel engines. Mass forces of the first and second degree are much harder to compensate for and the firing order and crankshaft offset has to be far more carefully calculated. Mass forces can easily be handled on 6 cylinder inline and V8 engines, perfectly on V12 and V16 engines. V10 (diesel and petrol) engines in cars for example, additionally use either counterrotating, double speed balance shafts and/or higher mass flywheels. Again, by just adding 2 cylinders to a V8 or removing 2 from a V12, you will not automatically get a great running V10. A V10 will never give the smooth turbine like running like a V12 or V16.

I still remember the old TV advertisement, where the guy put a coin on the edge on a running Jaguar V12 engine ad idle speed and it stood there.