Boating and fuel cost

[Marin]

As diesel (and gas) prices continue to head for the stratosphere with no end to the ascent in sight, how do you (collectively) think this will affect the way people use their boats?

I've talked to people who say they'll take shorter cruises, or sacrifice short cruises during the year*and make only*a few longer cruises.* I've heard from marine park rangers in our area*that the numbers of boats in the marine parks during the peak season has dropped noticeably.

And do you think fuel prices will start increasing the demand for low-power, low-speed, low-fuel consumption boats, new or used?* Will more boaters start thinking about downsizing?* At least one boatbuilder in our area is betting on this.* The maker of the Allweather, a small trawler*that*is reputed to have gone*from*Puget Sound to Ketchikan and back on 42 gallons*of fuel, has stated he's going to step up the marketing of his boat because*he thinks more people will be wanting this sort of craft.**The design pros and cons of the Allweather are another subject, but the philosophy is intriguing.

Our GB36*(twin)*burns about 5gph at a bit over 8 knots and carries 400 gallons of fuel.* At this point, the boat is so much a focus of our lives that I do not see changing our*year-round use of the boat.* However,*I have a full-time job so we'll not be in a position to take long cruises for another six or seven years.* So most of our trips are relatively short.

But what about the retired folks who are used to spending the whole summer cruising the east coast or the Carribean or the Inside*Passage?**Will they start shortening the focus of their cruises as the*pump dials spin faster?

What will you do?

 

[CamanoFolks]

I think we'll see the big go-fast boats as usual - those folks* usually don't have to worry about $$$$$.* What's another few boat units for fuel, it's buried in the noise limits under crew expenses, moorage, insurance and $$ maintenance!

As for the smaller folks, I think it will have a real impact.* Although we have a very fuel efficient boat, if the fuel cost goes up $1.00/gal, last summer would have cost an additional 4 months of moorage - ouch!

Guess we'll slow down some more.

 

[2bucks]

I don't see any changes coming in my cruising. My current cruising uses about 600 gallons of fuel per year. (200 hours x 3 gph, lehman 120) If the price goes up a dollar a gallon this year, that's another $600. Not a deal killer for me.

But then I didn't buy the most expensive boat in the marina, I didn't stretch my budget to get the fanciest yacht I could finance. I bought what I could pay cash for without dipping into retirement savings.

The item that causes me the most angst is the transient moorage fees. Some places we enjoy visiting don't have convenient anchorages close by. I guess we'll be looking for a larger tender to make the longer jaunts when we visit town.

 

[Carey]

Hey ya'all
*** ** Well, it wasn't too long ago that I was cruising all summer on $.57/gal diesel. We ran at 15 knots, for 200hrs./summer burning 13 gph. for a total $1,482.00. No problem, as it's less than 1.5 boat units. This last summer, having been semi-retired for the last few years, and being Scotch to the roots, decided to keep costs down by cruising mostly at an average 9 knots @ 5gph. We also decided that we would not leave our berth for less than a three day weekend, and mostly longer trips. We ended up at about 200 hrs. X 5 gph, equaling 1,000 gallons, and* $2,600.00. Deal breaker? No. How do you put a price on a dream such as ours. I'll cut corners anywhere else, but I guess I've done what I can to reduce the cost, and will continue to find a way to justify this boating life. I think it will have to hit $10/gal. to stop me. Fortunately, at some point, retirement will allow me to do much longer trips, not necessarily covering more water or hours running.

 

[Keith]

I love it! The higher fuel goes, the more the value of my single engine trawler increases. I don't think it'll affect boaters much for a long time. The cost of fuel really isn't a big issue compared with the other costs... the boat itself, the insurance, slip rental or storage, maintenance, etc. It won't affect my cruising plans or use at all. I do shop around for fuel though, since I can hold 700 gallons.

 

[troy994719]

I agree with Keith, when you compare all the other costs of owning a boat fuel is pretty cheap!*

 

[Clark Eaton]

Ha,
I will be glad when the cost of DE FUEL gets 5$ or so a gallen,we will just stay tyde to the dock more. And you know what? We will stell look good,real good!
Sea Ya;
Captain C.
PS
The more you pay for some thing ,the better it is , rite?

 

[jethrobd]

I also agree with Keith.* We burned*about*250 gal. of diesel this year in 4 weeks of cruising and many weekends, or $750 at $3.00/gal.* In contrast, slips in my neck of the woods are running north of $120/ft for the summer.* Regardless of the cost of your boat, when you're paying about $5000/yr for a 40 foot slip,*another $750 for fuel becomes almost incidental for owners with similar usage patterns.* Of course, it's different for long-distance cruisers.

That said, some of the owners of big sportfisherman and express boats have told me they're being slightly more circumspect in their boat usage.* For example, they'll forego making the 40 mile trip to Block Island for the night, going someplace closer instead.* I guess a hidden benefit of a trawler is that at 8 knots, I would never consider*40 miles each way*for an overnight!

 

[2bucks]

WOW! 5 grand a year for moorage? I'd be way more concerned about fuel prices if I was paying that. My investment in joining a Yacht Club that owns moorage is paying off. Of course that $300.00 initiation was a bunch back in 1981, but at just barely over $110.00 per month for moorage (includes moorage, dues, fees, electricity etc.) of my boathouse I think I made a good decision.

 

[Carey]

Yes, the moorage issue could become worse than fuel costs for many of us in the future. We are currently blessed with reasonable moorage at $2,400/yr for a forty foot slip. Most moorage south of us, as in the Seattle area is more like $3,600/yr and higher. Seven to ten thousand dollars a year to own and operate a boat will be common place very soon. I sometimes think about a move to a sailboat with a fifty horse, but then I awaken and the nightmare is over.

-- Edited by Carey at 20:24, 2007-11-20

 

[Marin]

While it's true that fuel costs may be one of the lower costs involved with boating, money is money, even to wealthy folks. It's the nature of boats to be in a constant state of deterioration, hastened by the environment they live in, and those cutless bearings, water pumps, anchor windlesses, batteries, refrigerators, canvas covers, you name it, are all wearing out. I've heard it said that the average life expectancy of most boat components (not including engines, transmissions, etc) is about ten years.

When an owner is faced with having windows rebuilt to fix a leak problem or needs to buy a new refrigerator to replace the one that just died or a transmission starts acting up, high fuel prices can suddenly put a dent in the cruising plans.

If moorage in this area was $120 a foot, we would not be boating, at least not with a boat that required a slip. We'd be using our 17' trailer boat or maybe buying a larger trailer boat. Our moorage is in the neighborhood of $6 a foot I think (my wife deals with the bills). Nine years ago when we bought our GB it was $4.50 a foot. Moorage in Seattle is considerably higher, maybe $10-$12 a foot. I used to think that was astronomical. But it's practically free compared to those northeast fees.

 

[Jay N]

For those interested:

2007 voyage, Puget Sound to SE Alaska and return:

420.6hrs, 1139gal, av$3.15/gal, $8.54/ophr, cruise 7.4kts

2001 voyage, Puget Sound to SE Alaska and return:

420.0hrs, 1270gal, av$1.07/gal, $3.22/ophr, cruise 7.8kts

We did cruise at a faster speed in 2001, but the average cost of fuel rose 194% over the six year period. At this rate of increase, fuel prices will average $6.11/gal in 2013 for the same voyage. As time goes on, this will get harder to rationalize on a fixed retirement income.

 

[rgano]

After $10K for a covered slip out behind the house in 2000, no more mooring fees.

Average annual ownership costs since that time (minus all the assorted unrequired improvements) are only a couple of BU.

Cost of 900 gallons of fuel we used last year in our 2400-mile trip up the T-Tom and Tennessee River would be more than my annual ownership costs at 3 bucks a gallon.

It gives one pause.

 

[RT Firefly]

The first year we started boating we spent $600 on fuel (gas) and $973 on cocktails. Now I never worry about the fuel

 

[Baker]

RT Firefly wrote:

The first year we started boating we spent $600 on fuel (gas) and $973 on cocktails. Now I never worry about the fuel

Excellent point.* I am pretty sure we spent at least that much and more!!!!

Folks, our boats are a big part of who we are.* So don't sweat it........yet!!!* I sure hope the gubment won't take that away.

 

[troy994719]

Good point, beer is about $8 a gallon and I never hear any of my boating friends complain about that!

 

[Phil Fill]

Most of our fuel consumption is heating the boat which ranges from 5 gallons/week to 20 gallons per week when temps drop into the 20 and 30 or about 400 gallons per year.* We do not leave the dock that often or for long as we both work, and been there done that many times.* We use far more gas using the water toys which we carry and/or tow.** What I am getting at is if in the colder climes you heat the boat in the winter and then a big cruiser in the summer it can get quite expensive.

*
However, being the Eagle is a long range efficient boat the price and/or the salability should be increasing to off set the increase cost of fuel.* 13 years ago very few people were interest in a slow ugly full displacement trawler.* Trawler was a dirty word and a kiss of death back.** Now*most*are trying to classify their boat as a trawler, to the point the trawler is a meaningless word.

The increase price of fuel will/has effected boating as speed will be reduced, and fewer cruises.* The other big effect is going to be the market demand to more fuel effienct boats.* It will be interesting to*watch the change of*the market*demand as price of fuel increases.* * *

 

[2bucks]

"Good point, beer is about $8 a gallon and I never hear any of my boating friends complain about that! "


I only have a couple friends that drink 3 gallons of beer an hour. And they can only do it for a couple hours at a time, not almost forever like a Lehman.

Ken

 

[Nomad Willy]

My choice of boat was heavily influenced by seaworthyness, comfort and most importantly - fuel consumption. I wound up with a gallon an hour boat. One also needs to choose an engine that is small enough so the engine can be worked fairly hard if it is diesel. Steve DeAntoino of Passage Maker magazine ( technical editor ) says that one needs to work the engine at 75% load 75% of the time. He calls it the 75/75 rule. 75% load is determined by finding the engine speed that ones boat burns 75% of the fuel it burns at wide open throttle. Engine manufacturers or engine marineers ( such as Volvo and Cummins ) can usually tell you what the WOT burn rate is. I think the most common response to high fuel costs is to slow down. I shudder to think how many trawler yachts have diesel engines with serious problems ...even glazed cylinder walls from under loading. I choose an engine of only 37 hp and the boat only requires 18hp to cruise. I still am going to have trouble running it hard enough to comply with the 75/75 rule.

Eric Henning
M/V Willy
30' Willard
Thorne Bay AK

 

[Jeffrey S]

Fuel is one of the happiest costs we have with trawlers. First, our consumption is lower than many other boats in our size class. Second, buying fuel means you've been moving the boat and exploring new areas. Isn't that why we have these things to begin with?

 

[Marin]

This business of having to work a diesel hard is something of a myth. The harder you work any machine the faster it's going to wear out. This is just as true of diesels as it is of can openers. What's critical with a diesel is that it be operated within the correct temperature range to ensure complete combustion in the cylinders. If you achieve that, glazing, carboning up, etc. don't happen. If you have a diesel (like a FL120) with a maximum rpm of 2500 rpm that runs at its proper temperature under load at 1600 rpm then you can run it at 1600 rpm pretty much forever and it will be a happy engine and will most likely have considerably more time between overhauls than if it was run at 2000 rpm or more which is the rpm range closer to the 75/75 rule.

A turbocharged engine is a little different in that the turbo imposes some operational requirements that NA engines don't have. But for an NA diesel, running it at the correct cylinder temperature is much more important than the percentage of max rpm or fuel flow.

The "run it hard, it's good for the engine" notion is very, very popular. But in almost forty years of being around airplane and marine engines, I've never heard a mechanic who tears down and rebuilds engines for a living agree with that assessment. There are times that an engine has to be run hard, of course, and they're not saying not to. But the notion of having to run them "hard" all the time because it's good for them is simply not true.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I asked Dave at Klassen Engines if the run'em hard is the answer. He told me of a customer that had one of thier generators and asked if he could run it on light load for some period of time. They said no, they did anyway and the engine soon had to be rebuilt. In an article in Passage Maker Magazine about Northern Lights They said they tell thier customers to " run'em as if you hate'em ". I don't see how Steve D'Antonino can make such a statement, applying a rule to all engines with the same numbers but he does and he has over a period of time. I do belive the way to rate engine load by percentage of fuel burned is the aboloute truth. If you run your Leyman 120 at 1600 rpm you may have it properly loaded but if you do your'e seriously over proped. Your boat runs too fast in boat harbors and if you run over 1600 your'e seriously overloaded , a situation that would indicate the need for a 60 to 70hp engine.But on youre side of the argument if Steve D'Antonio is correct there would be thousands and thousands of hard starting poor running Ford Lehmans out there that smoked like a freshly lit campfire and can't make full power. Norm Dibble who works at Pat's Marine Engines in Seattle would be a good man to ask about this as he has extensive experience with Ford Leyman engines.

Eric Henning
30' Willard
Thorne Bay AK

 

[Marin]

We run 1600-1700 (the tachs aren't all that accurate) which gives us a little over 8 knots. The engines are in their proper temperature range at this rpm. According to the marks on the engine instruments and EGT from previous owners, this is the way this boat has been run for a long, long time. It makes the proper WOT rpm, and the engines don't smoke (except a bit on startup which is normal for Lehman 120s). They start on the first turn of the starter. At idle rpm (aobut 600) the boat does a bit over 3 knots. The engines are now 34 years old.

I've heard the Northern Lights comment about "run them as if you hate them," and in fact one of the fellows that often uses that remark down there is a good friend of mine. Interestingly enough, he does not seem to apply this philosophy to any of his OWN engines, including the engines in his airplanes....

The Washington State Ferry system had some Ford Lehman 120s on some of their boats a number of years ago. Not as propulsion engines, of course, but I assume running generators or hydraulic pumps or whatever. I was told they were run about 1800 rpm or so. They went 25,000 hours before needing an overhaul.

Running a generator on light load probably does not allow the generator to get up to its proper operating temperature. So I'm not surprised the generator in your example had to be rebuilt.

With a diesel, it's all about temperature and proper combustion. The amount of load is irrelvant as long as the engine is running at proper temperature. Obviously they are designed to achieve their proper temperature under a particular load and speed. Below that and they don't get up to temperature and bad things will happen over time.

Another factor is the kind of engine in your boat. If you have a new generation diesel that's designed to run at relatively high-rpms and in fact has to in order to achieve the proper temperature, power, emissions, etc. specfiications, then that's the way that engine should be run. But an FL120 is an engine that was designed in the 1950s with 1950s metallurgy and technology. The maximum rpm for this engine is only 2500 rpm. It was designed for the way engines were run back then (in England) which was very conservatively.

Even so, the engine proved to be a failure in the trucks it was originally designed for because under higher rpms and loads, it simply didn't hold up. Where it proved very successful was in relatively low-power, constant-rpm applications like cranes, generators, pumps, and tractors. Which is why it proved to be an ideal engine for trawler-type boats. People who cruise their FL120s at 1600-1800 rpm at its proper operating temperature in their boats are running them the way the engine was designed to be run. Cruising them faster and harder will simply hasten the day when they'll need an overhaul. The same would hold true of other makes of engines from that period-- Perkins, etc.

I've asked a lot of mechanics--- automotive, aviation, and marine--- about this "run it hard" notion, and other than during an initial break-in period, the answers were always the same. If you need the power, run the engine to get it. But if you don't need the power, run the engine in its proper temperature range but make life as easy as possible for it. The harder you run them, the faster they wear out. The temperatures are higher, the pressures are higher, the stresses are higher, the vibration is higher, everything is higher the harder you run them (I'm talking aobut a reciprocating engine here, not a turbine which is a whole different deal).

The best, most exprienced mechanic (and pilot) I have ever known once told me when I was writing a book about him that a piston is only going to go up and down so many times. The better you make life for the engine, the more times that piston is going to go up and down. He didn't mean to baby an engine--- that can be bad for it too. But he also didn't mean to "run it hard" unless you absolutely had to and then no longer than you needed the power.

People like Steve D'Antonio spend most of their time with new or fairly modern engines. Many or most of these engines are turbocharged, which bring additional operational considerations, and they are probably higher speed, lighter weight designs using the latest in metallurgy and technology. They are a far cry from the old thumpers like Lehmans and the like. I also hear and read that the newer, lightweight, high-speed diesels don't have the service life of the older engines. The trade-off is they are lighter, more powerful, more economical, cleaner-burning, etc. But the fact that their TBOs may be considerably lower than the old low-tech engines is in itself an indication that the harder you run an engine the faster it will wear out.

Besides, you've got to figure the engine manfuacturers are going to encourage hard running. The last thing they need is a bunch of engines out there that last forever, right?

If you believe running a diesel hard is good for it, the good news is that unless you've bought an older boat with high-time engines the chances are remote that you'll be the one to have to deal with the potential of premature wear. So for most of us, the argument will remain more theoretical than actual.

-- Edited by Marin at 20:46, 2007-11-23

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin

How many gph do you burn at 1700 rpm ?

Eric

 

[Marin]

We haven't measured it accurately ourselves, but the previous owner who ran the boat the same way (1600 rpm cruise) said he did and he calculated about 6 gph (total, both engines).

This would tally with the rule-of-thumb fuel-use formula my friend at Northern Lights/Lugger told me which is 1 gallon per hour per 20 horsepower. With the Lehman 120, 1600 rpm is approximately 60 horsepower. 60 divided by 20 is 3 gallons per hour per engine. This seems to jibe with what we see on the fuel gauge of the day tank, which is what both engines feed from.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Sloboat,

Thank you very much for the information. I'd like to expand my horizons a bit on the web. I only do Trawler Fourm and Willard Boat Owners on Yahoo Groups. I barley know how to send this message and its slow going since i've ignored the web for so long. I'm OK with the fuel burn of my own boat but I'm still interested in this sort of thing.

Marin,

I had a boat with a 120hp Sabre...almost exactly the same as your LE 120s and the book on that engine specified a tad less than 6 gph at WOT. That puts you at 50% load. I'm going to guess that puts you in the OK zone as I know many LE 120 powered boats operating at 1.5 to 2gph. I like the 20hp per 1gph rule....it seems to work everywhere.

Eric Henning
30' Willard
Thorne Bay AK

 

[Sesame]

I am a neophyte (former sailor for 60 years) with a "semi-displacement trawler" which has a 200 HP Volvo turbo-diesel: very efficient at 7.5 knots (around 2000 RPM) and far less efficient at 12 knots (3400 RPM). After a lot of research, I think I have determined that there is a real question of what we're talking about when we say we are bringing the engine up to "proper temperature." The fact that the fesh water cooling system is operating at 180 degrees f and indicates such on the gauge (most engines will warm up enough to open the thermostat at a high idle), does not mean that the INTERNAL parts of the engine are hot enough to run efficiently. Since we are definitely on a "7 knot budget", we compromise by opening her up for 15 minutes or so every day when possible. If we're right, we hope the engine will last longer than WE do!

 

[Marin]

To me, proper temperature in a marine diesel is a combination of at least two factors. In the case of our boat, it's the coolant temperature and the exhaust gas temperature. On our boat, the coolant temperature of each engine will not come up to the lower end of the proper temperature range until we're running at least 1200 rpm under load.

We don't get into the desired exaust gas temperature range until we're at a cruise power setting of about 1600 rpm. Obviously the harder the engine works the higher the EGT will be. But it's possible to find out what the correct EGT temperature range should be for the engine and then operate it inside that range.

In the plane I fly, I'm used to using EGT, cylinder head temperature, and oil temperature gauges to judge the temperature of the engine. It would be nice to have a CHT sensor on the diesels in our boat but the Ford Lehman 120 isn't set up for them. So the EGT is the next-best thing.

Most engine manufacturers select a thermostat that will keep the engine in it's proper operating range (once the temperature gets high enough to open the thermostat). So if the proper temperature in the combustion chamber for complete and efficient fuel burn is "x," and when "x" is achieved the coolant temperature is 180 degrees, then the coolant temp gauge becomes a pretty accurate way of knowing when the engine's combustion chambers are at "x". The only way I can see that you'd get a different coolant reading when the combustion temperatures were at "x" degrees is if the thermostat, temp sensor, or gauge was malfunctioning.

But it's much better, I think, to have at least two ways of reading engine temperatures, which is why it's handy to have both coolant temperature and exhaust gas temperature readouts.

An oil temperature readout would also be very handy, and would probably be much easier to add onto and engine like a Lehman than a CHT. Oil temperature is like coolant temperature but without the potential variable of a thermostat. But I believe a coolant temperature readout will react faster than a lube oil temperature readout to a cooling problem, which is probably why the manufacturers of liquid cooled engines use them.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hello Allan and Judy,

Very impressive bow wave made by a very nice boat.
It seems the question most of us are gropping for is how hard do we need to run. Steve DeAntonio from PMM says 75% load 75% of the time. It's hard to live with. Especially those of that actually like to go slow. It's only a matter of time untill we need to buck big seas and strong winds. How would a boat fare under such conditions if it needed 75% of it"s power just to cruise at a normal proper speed. There is a boat in Anacortes WA that was purchased in Scotland and came around the Horn on it's own hull to Anacortes. It was about 75', very heavy and powered by an 8 cyl Gardner diesel. It had only 2.6 hp per ton. I learned this in an article in PMM all about the trip home
and more. Nowhere in the story was there any indication there was any lack of power or inability to make nessessary headway. So the question of how mutch power we need and how hard we need to work our engines is closely related. I think the truth is a little closser to what most of us are doing but i'd like to hear some facts by engineering type people. Northern Lights says " runem as though you hate'um " . Dosen't sound like real good objective stuff to me.

Eric Henning
30'Willard
Thorne Bay AK

 

[Forkliftt]

Eric,
Was that the Radiant Star?
Steve