MTU 12v183 Te93 Smoke?

Skippy J started the thought but I need to close in on the concern.
This boat, these engines have never had an easy day.
Next to impossible to idle around (Arneson drives can not drive a line at low speeds), when you find clear water, you have to open them up and run hard to keep on plane and make a straight line. So, just about every hour has been under a load.

This is also going to make da wife mad. Real slow wallowing around or going fast and not see anything while burning fuel.

I don't find any issue with Arneson boats tracking straight at idle/slow speeds in the ICW. In the ocean they'll hold a course at hull speed up to moderate sea states that I've been in. But, every boat is different. I did the calculations on that 59' and at cruise, we were seeing 1% prop slip......when trimmed properly, which is unheard of.

Pick your engine of choice, find out what it would cost for a complete repower from a reputable yard, subtract that cost and make an offer. If that approach doesn’t fly with the seller, move on.

Thanks to you for your appreciation.
It surely makes sense to check the maintenance history and calibrate your potential on that basis.
For this purpose, you might find the attached file helpful.
If the seller would reject your point, showing him an abstract from MTU manuals is better than any forum hearsay, I reckon!

By the way, you will notice in the attachment that the full overhaul ("W6") is recommended every 4500 hours / 8 years, not 6000 hours as I previously mentioned.
Apologies, my mistake.
I only had a quick look at the attached file in order to check the exact description in English of W6 service, but I quoted the hours and the other numbers by heart.
And for some reason, I was sure that for 1DS rating (pleasure boats) the hours were half of 1A (continuous duty) engines, i.e. 12,000.
But as it happens, it's even more strict than that.
Anyway, I re-checked on the much more extensive original (German) manuals all the other numbers I previously mentioned, and I can confirm you that 6k hours aside, all the rest was correct.

That's the so called B60Y. Completely different animal, a sort of (failed) attempt to compete with Ferretti, Sanlorenzo, and other flybridge builders.
They only built a handful of them, 3 or 4 I believe.
Did you deal with it somewhere in Europe, by chance?
I wouldn't have thought that they ever sold any of them in the US.

Back to MTU service schedule, I struggle to understand what you mean by "start @ 2000 hrs".
I never came across any marine engine requiring no maintenance at all before reaching 2000 hrs!
Besides, there are several other inconsistencies between your post and the MTU doc that I just posted.
If you have any different MTU maintenance recommendation, I'd be curious to see them.

Well, did you check out the MTU abstract I previously posted?
Oil change (just as an example) is indeed mentioned, and included in either W2 or W3 depending on oil category - well before 2000 hrs, anyhow.

The B60Y was a 60 footer flybridge.
Not exactly a RPH vessel in fact, but to my knowledge it was the only non-open boat ever built by Baia boatyard.
Are you positive that the 31 meters vessel that you have in mind was built from them? Any pics?

I don't think this approach would work with any seller in their right mind, IF the engines in the boat are operating properly. Also a major overhaul would be considerably cheaper than a repower. If the boat had 396's which are unsupported and nearly impossible to find parts, and in need of serious repair, then I could somewhat consider this approach.

That being said, I've dealt with owners of 8v183's, 12v183's, 12v396's etc. NONE of them followed the W schedules by years, always by hours. Most did some of the W service but most didn't follow the service recommendation to the letter either. I have found that it is critical to change injector nozzles and rebuild injector pump every 1000 hours (in a pleasure yacht where it takes years to achieve 1000 hours), If you want them to run somewhat clean under 1000 rpms.

Of course my previous post was incomplete, that's why I also uploaded (in post#25) the specific schedule for the 183 TE93, as published by MTU, not myself.
That's what seems inconsistent with what you said.
Aren't you referring to the later 2000 series, possibly?

Ok, understood ref. the notorious Baia one-off.
Here in IT, I don't think anyone nowadays remembers her, and for good reasons!

The OP is a buyer not a seller.

The 183’s predate the Series 396. The 183’s are discontinued and fall in the long lead time hard to get parts category while the US Navy and others still get brand spanking new 396’s , which means that the 396 will be still be supported from a parts side for at least another 20 years.

Once you own any engine beyond warranty, how often you service the product or which schedule you use is totally up to the owner and his personal appetite for maintenance, deferred or not.

At around 10oohp, I’d explore my repower options before committing major dollars to a discontinued engine.

I've been able to find new 183 parts all day long without too much issue or lead time. Same with getting them rebuilt. I managed a yacht with 12v396's and some parts were simply no longer made new, and most parts had a 30-60 lead time as a batch was made or to be rebuilt. They were nightmare motors. Very very few yachts still have 396's in todays day and age. However, I come across many yachts still running 183's......Lazzara's, Azimuts, a few Hatteras, and others on a pretty regular basis and see them installed up to 2003 (perhaps even later I don't know). These are my experiences. There are many discontinued engines that I come across everyday...….All detroits…….series 60/53's/71's/92......Cummins 555/903's, plenty of cats...….. What yacht engines from 1998 are NOT discontinued?

You can't price in a repower on a purchase and expect the seller to take it, if the current engines are in good running condition. The boat is worth what the market will bear. That being said, if I was going to repower this BAIA, I'd look at 1150HP CAT acerts as the drives that BAIA installed(ASD 12's) will handle them.

They are still building Series 60’s engines for markets that take their emissions levels, not dead just yet.

In regards to the yacht market, yes it is. Same with the C18 1000HP, which was a terrific engine, but CAT didn't want to spend the money to get it to pass the next level of emissions and instead went with that FIAT Ivesco abomination C12.9 1000hp to replace it.

The ASD 12's may or may not be able to handle 1150HP. The gear reduction ratio is the arbiter in this.


And, there were various ASD 12 models with differing acceptable torque input ratings. Torque input is the go/no-go with Arneson applications. Not horsepower.

Absolutely.
And that's true not only for Arnies, but also for any transmission equipment, like g/boxes or v-drives.

Btw, I struggle to understand what would be the logic of replacing engines just because they are now phased out (while for all we know they could still be running perfectly, regardless of MTU prescriptions) with other engines whose output is exactly the same, and are also going to be phased out.
Not to mention that the Cats would add almost 300lb each side, on a boat which is already weight sensitive...

I researched it because I managed the same boat, BAIA 59' (which became the 63' with the fiberglass integral swim platform) and the one I ran had 8v92's with ASD 12's. MTU 8v2000's were also considered. The details are fuzzy as this is going back several years. But I'm pretty sure the C 18's were lighter than the 8v92's. I find it hard to believe that C18's are heavier than 12 cylinder 12v183's. Needless to say BAIA built 5 boats with 8v92s and all subsequent ones were 1150hp 12v183's. The hull had to do 27 knots or better or wouldn't stay on plane and with the 760HP ddec's had to be run WOT full of fuel to stay on plane, once you burned off 3-400 gallons you could run 90% load and stay on plane. LOLOLOL AND, it was a bear to get it on plane. The owner decided to sell it, rather than repower. The buyer was a car guy, he ended up putting 6 port injectors, a bigger HEUI pump and reprogramming the DDEC's and got the boat to perform really well without repowering last I heard, not sure how long they'll stay together but claimed they're making a lot more HP with the modifications.

If you are referring to my "almost 300lb each side" comment, that's actually 134Kg each side, according to the respective manufacturers' specs. Just do the math.

You are correct, they are heavier. I just found it hard to believe based upon all of the 12v183's I've been around. Everything hung on the front of the 12v183 is massively heavy (heat exchanger, alternator bracket, belt tensioner, etc.) We looked at repowering the boat. Baia's are notorious for being hard to get on plane, all sizes......compared to other brands of Arneson boats. I ran a Uniesse 55 that the COG was too far back to the stern and it hopped on plane easily regardless of weight and load as well as others.

I generally don't believe in replacing engines that are phased out that are running fine in most cases. But in some cases, such as I ran a 97' with MTU 12 v 396's and they were due for W6 service that the owner didn't want to do because of the outrageous price, and outrageous price of parts for them, even though they ran fine, it would be better to just put C32's or 3508/3512's in the boat in the long run. Not to mention the boat had side exhaust near midship and smoked like you were fumigating for mosquito's. With the wind behind you, you literally stayed engulfed in a cloud of grey smoke.

In the case of the BAIA, it simply wouldn't perform with the engines it had. Full fuel and you had to run WOT to stay on plane or were stuck doing 10 knots. A friend of mine ran a 70' Magnum when it was new with 16v92's that was the same way until he burned off 10-20% fuel. The engines had under 2000 total hours, but had already been majored at 960 hours as the boat had the receipts for the majors in it.