Volvo Penta IPS repower?

I'm not that familiar with the IPS, I've only run 1 yacht with them. However, I have a lot of familiarality with the Zues and ZF. Personally, I would go with the Zues package for a lot of reasons. That being said, maneuverability is greatly improved over conventional shafts, but it's going to take a lot of hours to dial the system in and program the computer on a retrofit. 600hp pods are going to be equivalent to 800hp straight shafts in a twin engine installation, when it comes to cruise speed etc etc........I've also found the pods to have a lot less vibration at all speeds over conventional shafts.......1 important thing, if the pods are mounted on the deadrise, the boat is going to steer extremely slightly (at cruise speed) ok, but anything more than slight steerage imput is going to roll the whole boat on the inside of the Vee and want to carve a very tight turn.......so you're either going to have a very slight turn or a pretty hard turn unless you can mount them straight up and down........

The IPS/600 are 435 hp, corresponding to 600 hp on shafts. They can be fitted at a deadrise up to more than 20°, but I think between 6° and 12° is to recommend. Zeus need to be close to zero deadrise.

However, a twin installation IPS/600 on an older 62 Baglietto may be a bit smallish and have to work hard for the money. Try and find a production boat with the same displacement and this type of engines to compare with before you go for it.

I would consider an older boat with an existing Rudder/Shaft/Engine/Exhaust/Steering configuration to be the more "simpler" system.

How much you will have to pay a Volvo or Zeus Tech to do the many hours of set-up and fine tuning is anybodies guess, not to mention trouble shooting those nuisance error codes.

Volvo has some very strict requirements for hull scantlings in the area of the pod flanges and they will not budge one teeny iota. The amount of glass and framework is staggering and will be extremely expensive to retrofit into an existing shaft-driven hull. Their resasoning though is sound as they want the breakaway safety feature to engage before hull damage in groundings.

If you're looking strictly for the claimed performance gains, it will be expensive and unless in commercial service you probably will not amortize the extra installation expense. If you are looking for the handling features, you can get the same joystick control now with conventional shaft drives in both single screw with bow and stern thrusters, or twin screw with bow thruster. Both Twin Disc (JCS) and ZF (JMS) offer that now as an option with their transmissions.

He is planning on installing these on a WOODEN hull. So I would hate to know or find out how you would have to beef up a wooden hull to accomodate and retrofit volvo IPS'.

Installing Zeus one would have to cut the channels out of the hull as they have to be mounted on a flat/near flat surface....? I would think IPS may have less labour involved, but as Bill says, Volvo has to draw up the contruction plans to make sure its sound.

Plus depending on where there mounted, either setup, you may also have a weight/displacement issues. Just a thought. Cheers

Far

You're right, you would hate to know especially as an owner who had to pay for it! In a nutshel, they completely disregard the entire existing structure even if it may well be capable of handling the forsec at play. They developed a set of scantlings on their own test boats and want that installed regardless of what's already there, over 20 layers of glass in many places!

Their NA's are very knowledgable and familiar with wooden and compoite building techniques and will acknowledge the existing structure may well be sufficient but their corporate insists adhering to one "standard" layup for safety and not to have to re-engineer every custom installation.

I believe Zeus now allows installation on deadrise and not just flat "pockets", most likely to allow a broader range of hulls that manufacturers don't want to change a working design they've produced for years.

They do, and I've run pod boats with pods from Zues, ZF, and Volvo. I've also run a few boats with the same hull with traditional shafts and pods mounted on the deadrise and no other hull changes. If any of the pods are installed on the deadrise, they either turn very slightly or a very tight turn, not much in between. However, other than making a very slight steering correction, the pods mounted on the deadrise cause the hull to lay completely over on the inside of the V of the hull and carve a tight turn........for example, they go from either slightly turning to any more steering input and they make a tight turn.......like turning the wheel hard over with traditional shafts/rudders.

I too have seen this sometimes disconcerting behavior on pod drives mounted normal to the deadrise and even to a lesser degree on the Zeus mounted in flat pockets. The earlier ones exhibited this much less than more recent installs I've driven and the software mapping of the turn rates can be adjusted to make a more linear steering response if you work with them during sea trials.