"First issue, had an overheat of the exhaust hose that could have gone undetected. I was planning on replacing the exhaust elbow that fall (preventative) anyway. Cost to troubleshoot and repair at a transient marina over $7,000 and a month's moorage, new exhaust elbow (custom made and shipped to our location), and a complete off boat overhaul of the raw water cooling system."
I am not oblivious to the redundancy benefits of a twin. I forget if it was this thread or another recent thread where the owner of a diesel duck loses his engine midway to Hawaii. Stuff happens. For all the folks who talk about how commercial fishermen run singles, just binge watch a season or two of Deadliest Catch and notice how many times they are fixing something on their engines.Two days running after we bought our boat, a DeFever 44 with twins, we cracked an injector line. We had no choice but to shut down the engine. It was almost dark. The wind was blowing hard. We tried to anchor but the bottom would not hold our boat. We were definitely in peril. As an earlier poster opined, no problem, just call a tow boat. Nope. We would have been blown onto the nearby rocks in no more than 30 minutes. Instead, having luckily found a T-dock in the waning light about two miles off we motored there on one engine and tied off with great difficulty, without permission. So, you one-engine guys, go ahead and rationalize all you want about singles being good enough. Indeed they are until they are not and you become pretty much screwed as we would have been. And tow baots are no so available in Canada as they are here and no Seatow of BoatUS insurance either. By the way, we lost propulsion in the Ottawa locks and had to motor 18 miles down the Rideau Canal to a repair marina. I hate to think how much a tow would have cost. Still, I might consider a single in the future and take my chances knowing and accepting the risks.
I am not oblivious to the redundancy benefits of a twin. I forget if it was this thread or another recent thread where the owner of a diesel duck loses his engine midway to Hawaii. Stuff happens. For all the folks who talk about how commercial fishermen run singles, just binge watch a season or two of Deadliest Catch and notice how many times they are fixing something on their engines.
All things considered, for me, I'm a single engine guy. CatalinaJack happens to own one of the few twins I respect, though the windage is horrible and stabilization is not optional on a defever 44. But she has an amazing engine room and I have wet dreams over the sea chest. She's a total sleeper in the pantheon of trailers.
There is no risk free configuration. Twins carry their own costs and risks. I suppose the risks are manageable with an adequate credit limit. But I agree - headed offshore with a single diesel and no backup increases the risk profile. Anyone who disagrees is simply being argumentative and will likely be unprepared when the time comes.
Peter.
"headed offshore with a single diesel and no backup increases the risk profile"
The risk profile is altered by the engine choice. Industrial rated diesels , think big Cat Detroit , big Cummins rather than repurposed yard implement or light delivery van sourced engines.
Two days running after we bought our boat, a DeFever 44 with twins, we cracked an injector line. We had no choice but to shut down the engine. It was almost dark. The wind was blowing hard. We tried to anchor but the bottom would not hold our boat. We were definitely in peril. As an earlier poster opined, no problem, just call a tow boat. Nope. We would have been blown onto the nearby rocks in no more than 30 minutes. Instead, having luckily found a T-dock in the waning light about two miles off we motored there on one engine and tied off with great difficulty, without permission. So, you one-engine guys, go ahead and rationalize all you want about singles being good enough. Indeed they are until they are not and you become pretty much screwed as we would have been. And tow baots are no so available in Canada as they are here and no Seatow of BoatUS insurance either. By the way, we lost propulsion in the Ottawa locks and had to motor 18 miles down the Rideau Canal to a repair marina. I hate to think how much a tow would have cost. Still, I might consider a single in the future and take my chances knowing and accepting the risks.
Not to nitpick, but how do you motor 18 miles when you've lost propulsion?
Occasionally, PAE has built a Nordhavn with twin engines. A few N57s come to mind. Pretty sure these twins are less desirable and less valuable than a single with get home. I believe there was a recent thread on an early KK42 with twin engines.thaf would be a very tough sell.
Not to nitpick, but how do you motor 18 miles when you've lost propulsion?
I was so impressed I spoke to the skipper of the boat we took. No articulated rudder either.31-second video of a tour boat on an Amsterdam canal making a very tight turn. Single engine, no thruster. Looks like rudder swings through at least 120-degrees....Peter
Thanks for all the replies. It seems like the higher price for twins in a new boat is based upon the additional cost of the second power train.
However, as the boat gets older, that additional price will decrease based upon the likes/dislikes of particular buyers?
Does this seem right?
Under this logic, it's a 3 engine boat due to generator.Almost all Nordhavns are twin engine vessels. Just that the second engine is a smaller get home engine, so you have to stock spares for multiple brands, sizes of engine. If you had two of the same make and model engine, you only have to have spares of one type. It is about like discussing anchors, politics or religion. It is a no win thing. Either you're a for 1 engine, or for two engines, it's a personal decision based on where you want to go, and what you value in life.
I would far prefer having two diesels over one for maneuverability, even with thrusters. Having been a diesel mechanic for years, the first problem you're likely to have is fuel, then cooling. On a boat, that's probably reversed or at least tied, unless you use keel coolers and closed loop cooling system.
stroughtmail wrote;
“there is a significantly increased risk of failures as you approach 4000-5000 hours..“
If an engine is in good condition why is that so?
Sounds snarky but no I would like to know. My engine is just barely over 1000hrs so I’m not personally concerned but can’t see why an engine should be less dependable. Not durable but dependable. I would think if an engine is 100% maintained it should be dependable.
On a well maintained engine of a known-reliable design, the base engine will typically wear out gradually, rather than let go with a bang. So high hours wouldn't indicate reduced reliability as long as everything checks out healthy.
Re your post 87 wouldn’t one replace these individual components as part of regular maintenance?
But once these components had been replaced dependability is again bumped up into the future.