I have spoken extensively to the MTU engineers, local as well as at HQ and all the issues you are suggesting if they had taken place will register an alarm on the engine electronic management system. There are absolutely no recorded alarms, historical or current. Therefore, all engine operating parameters were in normal ranges at the time of the failure and throughout the 800 operating hours.
Have the coolant analyzed. Something maybe wrong with it, PH? It's about the only thing I can think of
Given the corrosion there is a good chance this was happening over time. Per Capt J it is localized to those 3 cylinders. It that area seal compression was lost. Either there was lack of compressive forces from manufacture or the compression was lost by an event'(s). Factory issues could be dimensional (head, block flatness, gasket thickness, etc) process related (bolt tightening) or material (bolt metallurgy, gasket defects, etc). Given it if seems likely event may have happened(ing) where excessive forces were created either stretching the bolts or deflecting the gasket/substrate. Could be coolant or combustion area related. Does that bank have it's own turbo and or cooling circuit, exhaust manifold, etc? What is common to those 3 cylinders?
Same here as Beau, my Man 820’s were re-torqued to spec at 400 hours as per the maintenance manual. I have seen quite a few engines list this including generators. I am not at all surprised with the need to re-torque them at this point based on the initial run-in; this is a good practice.
Wow lots of complicated theorizing. All for naught it seems. I'm with Soultice. The head bolts needed to be torque or replaced.
Just for the records, in the meantime I had a chance to check the MAN maintenance schedule, and I can also confirm that Beau was correct. MAN indeed includes heads re-torque as a one-off activity, to be done on top of other M1...M5 service scheduled at 400 hours. Can't see why MTU didn't do the same with their 183 series engines, whose M-B block was exactly the same as MAN. But... Hey-ho!
So teach me here. That corrosion (looks pretty nasty to me?) encircles a coolant "hole, yes? If yes, why was oil leaking and not coolant.? Or is it an oil hole. Could it just have been a gasket failure/deterioration?
MTU just announced a new 2000 series engine version the 96X series starting with the 12V2000 96X "The MTU high-performance yacht engine gets a power upgrade as the output of the 12-cylinder series 2000 M96 engine is increased from 1,432 kW to 1,472 kW, equivalent to more than 2,000 horsepower. Its proven acceleration characteristics, excellent maneuverability and quiet, smooth operation make the engine especially suited to luxury yachts and leisure fishing boats. This power increase means Rolls-Royce can now respond even better to customer requirements. The new engine version MTU 12V 2000 M96X is immediately available from now on". First boats that are equipped with this new motors are a Viking sport fishing yacht and a OTAM 70. The 10 and 16 cyl. versions will follow ASAP.
That's one expensive piece of jewelry right there. Does anyone know what the expected fuel burn will be?
I was just reading this thread. One thought came up that was not mentioned; Somewhere, some water leaked into the air inlet. Water in the lung blew out the fire ring and blew out the rest of the gasket. I don't think coolant would leave a clean rust stain. Look forward to learning about inter-cooler inspections and the last time the engine or something in the engine room was washed with water?
According to the MTU engine manual app. 100 US Gal per hour per engine at rated power. They are not telling how they gaint the additional HP. They say the engine is not tuned up, only a fine tuned and optimized combustion process?
And more fuel that's for sure. If those gph numbers are anywhere near stated. I had no idea that the 12's where sucking up that much fuel nowadays. My 1485hp are only pouring 100 gph at 80% for the pair
It's all in relation to HP. 1600 HP C32's burn 122 gph at 80%, 1900's are 168 GPH, 1800hp 16v2000s were 150 GPH.....2400 HP are 200 GPH......all at 80% load.
80% load is far from max HP. Rough but close enough; 1/10 of a gallon per hp per hour / 2, per engine. So, 2000 HP is about 100 GPH. Per engine, (remove the / 2 for total boat consumption for a twin engine boat). Backwards; 75 gph is 1500HP per engine, 150 gph for the boat (twins). Looking at Skippy J's numbers above, different HP at different loads are consuming different fuel flows. Yep, It's all in relation to what HP you want to draw from that engine. Daddy told me to keep my foot out of the carb and there was enough gas in the tank to get to the movie and back. That 425CID Olds sure ran fine. Well, I had some walking to do after some dates.
Again, I don't mean to distract from T.K.s thread, just killing server disk capacity till we get an update.
I agree, but everyone runs them at 80% load, so that's where the fuel numbers really matter to most people.......
Indeed. And amazingly, this rule of thumb which was valid 30 years ago still stands, with very tiny differences also in the most modern diesel engines. Obviously, engine builders have been busier developing tricks to comply with emission regulations, more than anything else...
As in post #52 above, Builders are tuning for emission rules. Think of those last ponies in the block as unleashed / wild / spare horses. When the engine warranty runs out, they can be tamed and run with your original team. All it takes is a laptop plugged in after 1700.