Twin Diesels versus single

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
In general, fuel burn depends more on the boat itself and speed than the engines. Differences between various diesels, size of engine, single vs twin are likely to be at worst a 15 - 20% difference, often less. But differences in hull form, weight, speed, etc. can make far bigger differences.
 
2000nm on 400 gallons is 5nm/gal with no reserve . . . . Not too likely IMHO . . .
Anything over about 3nm/gal is pretty darn suspect.
I probably get close to that, but our boat only came with 300 gallon tanks, since removed. 6.5 knots at 1.5 gallons an hour on average.
 
Drive a 120 Lehman at around 1600 RPM pushing a 40 foot hull making around 6.3 knots and I got 3.3 NM/g.

Some here have posted with 34/36 foot hulls and doing 7 or so knots they were getting better than 3 NM/g also even with the shorter waterline and higher speed achieved. Heck Charlie O just posted this

It would take an interesting hull of any size and super engine to get 5NM/g +/- at any speed other than idle speed.
 
It would take an interesting hull of any size and super engine to get 5NM/g +/- at any speed other than idle speed.

5 nm/gal is uncommon, but not rare. Willard with their double ender hull form is pretty efficient. That said, worrying about the last tenth of a gallon of efficiency is close to the last reason to get a single vs a twin.

Some examples of Willard efficiency - A sister ship to my Willard 36 ran from LA to Hawaii and burned 0.9 gph at just under 6-kts. Over 6 gph. I think he may have had a minor sail assist along the way, and certainly a favorable current.

My boat has gotten close to 5 nms/gal. Around 6.3 it on average burning 1-1/4 gph on average. The Willard 40 I crewed on from Long Beach to La Paz (well over 1000 nms) had a Deere 4 cylinder 4045TA and burned around 1-1/2 gph while average just over 7.2-kts for the run 4-3/4 nm/gal). The 4045TA Deere is at least 15% more efficient than a Perkins naturally aspirated 135 HP (probably 20% more efficient).

Although efficient, a Willard, while well known, is not the right boat for very many people. Obviously. A displacement boat even with amazing fuel efficient doesn't tick a lot of boxes for casual recreational boaters.

To the OP. Don't sweat the fuel burn. Someone upthread mentioned protected running gear which has become increasingly important to me as I discover more skinny water.

Peter
 
6 knots at 1.2 GPH for 5 MPG
7 knots at 2.0 GPH for 3.5 MPG

For every gallon an efficient engine burns near peak torque, it generates about 20 HP. If you plan to cruise at 1.5 to 2.5 GPH, greater than 130 HP is going to make it difficult.

To give you a rough idea of the up front fuel burn of the second diesel, my 4045TFM75 John Deere (130 HP) burns .4 GPH in neutral at cruise RPM. That's not in gear or doing any propulsion. Secondly, if I'm cruising at 6 knots with a now fuel burn of 1.6 GPM, that means each engine is burning .8 GPH or 16 HP. That's not going to be good long term, like long term under loading a generator.

Ted
 
Welcome Aboard !

If you are traveling at "S" speed and it requires "H" horse power to maintain that speed then it still requires the same "H". The one variable is the drag created by the second shaft and gear.

300 H divided by 2 is still 150 H x 2= 300 H for the same "S" + H for the additional drag. You are ~325 H for the same S.

The extra 25 H comes from additional fuel burned.
 
6 knots at 1.2 GPH for 5 MPG
7 knots at 2.0 GPH for 3.5 MPG

For every gallon an efficient engine burns near peak torque, it generates about 20 HP. If you plan to cruise at 1.5 to 2.5 GPH, greater than 130 HP is going to make it difficult.

To give you a rough idea of the up front fuel burn of the second diesel, my 4045TFM75 John Deere (130 HP) burns .4 GPH in neutral at cruise RPM. That's not in gear or doing any propulsion. Secondly, if I'm cruising at 6 knots with a now fuel burn of 1.6 GPM, that means each engine is burning .8 GPH or 16 HP. That's not going to be good long term, like long term under loading a generator.

Ted

That last point is one of proper engine selection. If your boat was well powered with a 130hp single, then the ideal twin package wouldn't be a second one of the same engine. It would be 2 smaller engines, probably in the 60 - 75hp ballpark. Some boats get that right, some don't. As a result, some boats that were available as both single or twin are better powered with one package than the other (sometimes the single is underpowered, sometimes the twin is overpowered).
 
Before electronically controlled diesels, most commercial fishing boats were single screw. Now they're mostly twin screw.
The unfortunate reality is a natural aspirated, non turbo engine is repairable mid ocean with a modicum of spares, skills and tools. When I spec’d my last sailboat that was what I wanted. In the size required and for a US flagged boat that was unavailable. Even from Beta. In power boat sizes that remains true.
My take is given the current limitations for a blue water cruiser would give thought to the following.
A day tank with appropriate filtration at all steps in fuel delivery. True for 1 or 2. Perhaps a separate daytank for each engine on board if space and budget allows.
Unfortunately fuel contamination by particulate and water remains a problem for the international cruiser. So multiple tanks, polishing system and another way to propel the boat. This need not be a twin. You can contaminate both engines in a twin as normally both will be running. In bumpy seas replacing filters can be difficult and time consuming.
At present I would spec a single with parallel hybrid as the get home. I would spec two gensets. One sufficient for base house loads (no AC nor WM nor stabilization) and another of much higher output even greater than all house loads. But running at sufficient load. They could used together to power an electric motor. With LFP and multiple banks feasible and of benefit in non emergency settings as well. Would also have as much solar/wind as available area allows. Most electrical use occurs at rest. This would add a small but not negligible amount of additional energy for propulsion. Would add in a CPP and kort tube. Would have fish as well as fins using fish set up for flopperstoppers at rest and for redundancy underway.
That way have have the benefits of a single and a separate power train. Fuel for gensets separate and with separate filtration and centrifuge.
You can’t totally eliminate crippling single point failures. This spec would still use the same shaft and prop. Lightening vulnerability must be played attention to as well. For voyaging would prefer metal so could decrease that concern more easily.
Lightening may make both twins or a hybrid system non functional. Running gear is another vulnerability. You can foul two screws at the same time. The Nordie get home with a folding prop offers some decrease in risk. If going that way now can use that as the genset.
I dislike how in all aspects of life on land as well as on water new and improved means more and more of our everyday things are less reliable, have shorter service life and and require skills, tools or parts that make it hard or impossible for us to self service or repair. No system eliminates that reality.
 
Last edited:
2000nm on 400 gallons is 5nm/gal with no reserve . . . . Not too likely IMHO . . .
Anything over about 3nm/gal is pretty darn suspect.
Kind of what I thought, but hey I am a newbie and don't know squat other than what I am reading. The biggest reason I joined this group. To get real life actual information from experienced cruisers. Thank you
 
Two of the dumbest statements repeated over and over:

1) I need two engines for redundancy.

2) I need speed to outrun storms.

Incidentally, you're not 'out in the middle of the ocean' you're Coastal Cruising.

Keep systems maintained. You're within towing distance.
 
Two of the dumbest statements repeated over and over:

1) I need two engines for redundancy.

2) I need speed to outrun storms.

Incidentally, you're not 'out in the middle of the ocean' you're Coastal Cruising.

Keep systems maintained. You're within towing distance.
I agree that speed to outrun weather is a dumb idea for the most part. But 2 engines for redundancy depends on where you operate. In plenty of areas there isn't much in the way of towing services, so you may be waiting a while if you need a tow, so it's best avoided whenever possible. And I can think of a few places I've operated through where an engine quitting would likely put you on the rocks before you could get an anchor down (or you could drop one and you'd swing into the rocks). Most of us don't operate through places like that all that frequently, but if you do, that may be a consideration for whether you want twins. In some of those places if I had a single + wing, I'd probably fire up the wing engine just in case.
 
I agree that speed to outrun weather is a dumb idea for the most part. But 2 engines for redundancy depends on where you operate. In plenty of areas there isn't much in the way of towing services, so you may be waiting a while if you need a tow, so it's best avoided whenever possible. And I can think of a few places I've operated through where an engine quitting would likely put you on the rocks before you could get an anchor down (or you could drop one and you'd swing into the rocks). Most of us don't operate through places like that all that frequently, but if you do, that may be a consideration for whether you want twins. In some of those places if I had a single + wing, I'd probably fire up the wing engine just in case.
(y) .... sure both situations are probably few and far between...of course that depends on where you operate that increases/decreases the chances that twins might help avoiding catastrophe and the speed differential in the case of outrunning a storm.

While twins for those reason may be a weak argument, there is still some merit in having twins for those reasons if your operation faces those risks on a higher level than normal..... dumb would not be a word I would use without some qualifiers and "coastal cruising" may actually be a bigger reason for those reasons to have twins.
 
I sure wish every system on my boat was as reliable as my ancient Perkins 4.236 75hp (touch wood).

I'll hazard a guess there the two biggest reasons for losing an engine are either (1) poor maintenance leads to a failure (impellor for example), including fuel hygiene; and (2) grounding/prop damage. Single engine is slightly ahead of of a twin in both accounts. EDIT - that said, I agree with Psneeld - twin engines overall decrease risk which cannot be ignored when cruising out of the way places like I have been. It's not in the front of my mind, but to deny the risk is not smart either

To the OP. Whether you get 5 NM/gal or 1 NM/gal, won't make that much of a difference in your long term ownership scheme unless you do a ton of miles. Even then, there are so many costs tossed into the pot.

Peter
 
I sure wish every system on my boat was as reliable as my ancient Perkins 4.236 75hp (touch wood).

I'll hazard a guess there the two biggest reasons for losing an engine are either (1) poor maintenance leads to a failure (impellor for example), including fuel hygiene; and (2) grounding/prop damage. Single engine is slightly ahead of of a twin in both accounts.

To the OP. Whether you get 5 NM/gal or 1 NM/gal, won't make that much of a difference in your long term ownership scheme unless you do a ton of miles. Even then, there are so many costs tossed into the pot.

Peter

On that thought, the last engine shutdown I had (which was over 400 hours ago times 2 engines) was due to a transmission issue. A part failed very suddenly with no prior warning, so that engine got shut down as it was no longer useful (no drive to the shaft). Other shutdowns I can think of in my boating career were 1 engine quitting suddenly at cruise due to a failed fuel pump (no symptoms prior to failure) and cooling related shutdowns due to sucking something into an engine water intake. 1 of those cooling related shutdowns ended in an impeller change as it was a total blockage and the impeller didn't survive, the other was just restricted flow due to seaweed and easily resolved with no impeller damage.
 
On that thought, the last engine shutdown I had (which was over 400 hours ago times 2 engines) was due to a transmission issue. A part failed very suddenly with no prior warning, so that engine got shut down as it was no longer useful (no drive to the shaft). Other shutdowns I can think of in my boating career were 1 engine quitting suddenly at cruise due to a failed fuel pump (no symptoms prior to failure) and cooling related shutdowns due to sucking something into an engine water intake. 1 of those cooling related shutdowns ended in an impeller change as it was a total blockage and the impeller didn't survive, the other was just restricted flow due to seaweed and easily resolved with no impeller damage.
Transmission failure is what I worry about most.

Peter
 
After a haul out for bottom and other works about two weeks the boat was launched and we were chomping at the bit to go cruising. One engine would not turn over. No problem the other one was working well and we operated on one engine for about 20 hours before I had time to dig into the problem.
found the problem, ordered the parts and it was three weeks to make the repairs.
As I said before, it is a personal choice single or twin.
 
Used engines/rebuilds, etc..... unless you have detailed records of the rebuild....even one with low hours might have one usually not considered a high failure/problem part fail at a dangerous moment because they were not replaced with the rebuild. Even then I had a brand new Caterpillar engine with 5 hours on it eat a turbo that was a factory defect...luckily I was still backing out of a slip and shut it down and saved the engine from a rebuild.....plus lots of other brand new boats that had engine issues with less than 50 hours.

Mine was a broken dampner spring part that after several professional and my evaluations/tests seem to be no problem for the 100 engine hours trip home.

When it failed and stopped the engine cold just 2 miles from calm water all the way back to my slip. It failed 2 miles outside the West Cape May Canal entrance on a day the weather/sea breeze kicked up more than forecast. No damage to the engine, but it quit in some of the choppiest water of my whole trip. A second engine to keep going would have prevented some of the internal vessel damage that incurred from the most violent rocking the boat had ever incurred. Sure...my fault for not having the boat ready for sea...but intracoastal cruising, with an experience eye for weather, it was one time I screwed up but a twin would have saved my bacon. A reason to only buy a twin....heck no.... but add a few of those possibilities up and I can make the argument my next long distance cruiser would have been a twin.
 
Transmission failure is what I worry about most.

Peter
You have a Velvet Drive, right? If so, you're at risk for the same failure I had, although you're putting a lot less power through the trans. Stationary plate in the reduction gear stripped the teeth, leading to no drive. Fortunately no collateral damage, and $500 worth of overnighted parts later I was able to fix it without pulling the trans or hauling the boat. Just had to push the shaft back a bit, pull the reduction housing, clean out the pieces and install new parts. Reassembled and it's been fine for 400+ hours.
 
After a haul out for bottom and other works about two weeks the boat was launched and we were chomping at the bit to go cruising. One engine would not turn over. No problem the other one was working well and we operated on one engine for about 20 hours before I had time to dig into the problem.
found the problem, ordered the parts and it was three weeks to make the repairs.
As I said before, it is a personal choice single or twin.
Agree....after 20,000 miles of ICW cruising...my next long distance cruiser, especially if cruising to remote areas would be a twin.

While never fearing a breakdown on the ACIW totally, while I was short on cash, I worried about breaking down in an area that the repairs may not be costly, but the other costs such as moorage, inability to stay on the boat and the VERY costly alternatives such as lodging, car rental, meals, etc.....

Fat checkbook...certainly not a scary, but then the argument for the costs of twins that might be able to get you to a cheaper location surely thins out.

That on top of the usual safety discussion.

So even my story of running a questionable engine (mine had an unusual compression into the coolant system leak for several thousand hours) for many miles doesn't really support the discussion that single engines are not to be trusted...as even mine kept ticking and it was the bolt ons that were the issue.

But anyone who has had multiple engine shutdowns and any problems that stemmed from the shutdown.... may lean towards twins in any discussion.
 
Appreciate the wisdom and experience posted above. So far have been towed once in over 35yrs and that was from low oil pressure. Even with that haven’t felt concerned with a single in a now exclusively coastal setting. Think coastal with my current program I can anchor. I can get help. I’m much less likely to encounter serious weather. This wasn’t true in the past. Think redundancy concerns vary with use patterns as has been wisely pointed out by several posters.
My experience in the past and at present is I do a long transit then once reaching the new cruising grounds it’s unusual to do more than 50nm. The difference is whether the long leg is coastal or not. In fact most exploring and days the boat sits and the dinghy is used. I’m more worried about steering. Find recreational coastal trawlers have grossly inadequate redundancies there. Perhaps having twins would help some but don’t view even that as adequate. Rather coastal once at a cruising ground I could easily avoid the engine and use an electric motor in a parallel system. If I resumed voyaging that would provide adequate redundancy. Take a look at the recent Doggersbank 77 for a PNW owner. He went with a PTO/PTI system. His concern was logs. Although he doesn’t get the side benefit of maximizing solar he does get a prop protected by a keel in a tube. Although electric range is limited it is sufficient to get help or to a protected anchorage. Likely sufficient for many days of local travel as well. If spec’d slightly differently he could have adequate get home capability for ocean travel. He may have that as the genset selection hasn’t been done to my knowledge. Think outside the box gentlemen .
 
Last edited:
That last point is one of proper engine selection. If your boat was well powered with a 130hp single, then the ideal twin package wouldn't be a second one of the same engine. It would be 2 smaller engines, probably in the 60 - 75hp ballpark. Some boats get that right, some don't. As a result, some boats that were available as both single or twin are better powered with one package than the other (sometimes the single is underpowered, sometimes the twin is overpowered).
Yes, exactly! The problem is that 60 to 75 HP engines are almost not available anymore.

Ted
 
Yes, exactly! The problem is that 60 to 75 HP engines are almost not available anymore.

Ted
Quite a few of the brands have dropped them, but the sailboat engine manufacturers still offer them. Yanmar offers the 80hp 4JH80 (mech injection, turbo) or the smaller 57hp 4JH57 (mech injection, naturally aspirated). Beta offers 62, 70, or 85hp mech injected turbodiesels. And all of those options are EPA tier III compliant for new builds. I think Volvo offers some stuff in that range too, but well, it's Volvo...

That issue was a big one in a lot of the Tawian Trawlers or even older Grand Banks where having twins often just meant a second one of the same engine. Still not enough power to plane (if the hull form is capable of it), but suddenly the boat is significantly overpowered for low speed cruising. In some of those boats I'd prefer the single not necessarily because I want a single, but because when looking at the overall package (power, how it fits in the boat, engine access, space for tankage, etc.) it's just the better overall package.

By the same token, some boats pretty much have to be built with twins due to limitations of what's available and will fit in the boat. Looking at my boat as an example, it has 2x 340hp engines. To run the same speeds it's capable of with a single you'd be looking at a 650 - 700hp engine. Even though a single could be set a few inches lower in the boat, I'm not sure if there are any options with enough power that would fit under the floor in the salon. And on top of that, you'd gain at least a foot of draft due to the larger prop and the prop needing to sit lower (being in the center rather than offset to the sides). However, you would gain the ability to move some fuel and water tankage further forward as saddle tanks and have less trim change as you burn off fuel (currently there aren't any tanks outboard of the engines as that would give pretty poor access with twins).
 
I will second...... as has been posted previously.....

A wing engine is somewhat like a twin.....

To me extremely valuable offshore if the main has an unfixable catastrophic failure.

Valuable nearshore cruising only if immediately available to keep you from immanent danger. Offshore the danger is usually weather, inshore it's proximity to hazards even in the clear weather (when many of us old timers are comfortable these days) and a sigle failing without immediate power backup would result in an incident.
 
And I can think of a few places I've operated through where an engine quitting would likely put you on the rocks before you could get an anchor down

I find this situation to be amazingly rare and highly unlikely. At so much so that it necessitates 2 engines.
 
I find this situation to be amazingly rare and highly unlikely. At so much so that it necessitates 2 engines.
I agree, for most of us it's not a big enough concern to be a deciding factor in boat choice. But for some people and use cases it may be at least some factor in a decision.
 
Quite a few of the brands have dropped them, but the sailboat engine manufacturers still offer them. Yanmar offers the 80hp 4JH80 (mech injection, turbo) or the smaller 57hp 4JH57 (mech injection, naturally aspirated). Beta offers 62, 70, or 85hp mech injected turbodiesels. And all of those options are EPA tier III compliant for new builds. I think Volvo offers some stuff in that range too, but well, it's Volvo...
While I like Kubota (Beta) and have no experience with Yanmar, sailboat intended engines aren't the same endorsement as powerboat engines. While you do see sailboats motoring down the AICW, I doubt that there's a sailboat manufacturer that expects their boat to motor 25% of the time.

While I liked the Kubota engine in my Onan generator, if I were buying a generator with a 10K to 20K hour expectation, Kubota probably wouldn't be my choice. Probably the same for a propulsion engine.

Ted
 
While I like Kubota (Beta) and have no experience with Yanmar, sailboat intended engines aren't the same endorsement as powerboat engines. While you do see sailboats motoring down the AICW, I doubt that there's a sailboat manufacturer that expects their boat to motor 25% of the time.

While I liked the Kubota engine in my Onan generator, if I were buying a generator with a 10K to 20K hour expectation, Kubota probably wouldn't be my choice. Probably the same for a propulsion engine.

Ted
Would be interested to know what a sailboat intended engine is. Does Yanmar, Kubota, and engines like Westerbeke make engines differently for different purposes? All of these brands above are highly regarded as far as I know. And what do you mean by sailboat manufacturers and expectations of 25%? Here in the PNW I would put sailboats at motoring 90% of the time (sails up, or down).
 
Would be interested to know what a sailboat intended engine is. Does Yanmar, Kubota, and engines like Westerbeke make engines differently for different purposes? All of these brands above are highly regarded as far as I know. And what do you mean by sailboat manufacturers and expectations of 25%? Here in the PNW I would put sailboats at motoring 90% of the time (sails up, or down).
A good way to determine how heavy duty an engine is can be seen by what commercial applications it's used in. Further, how many years or decades the model has been in production and the commercial applications it's used in. How many thousands or hundreds of thousands they've built is also a good indicator. Then there's the part about whether it's a throw away or readily rebuilt.

Take a look at Gardner engines. Low HP for a significantly larger displacement. Designed to go continuously for days on end.

Take a look at many sailboat engines. The oil capacity is miniscule. The raw water coolant system is minimal. Many would qualify as a wing engine, only to be used when necessary. Typically most sailboats don't have much of a fuel tank capacity either. Then there's the propeller. Why would you have a small folding propeller if your primary propulsion was your engine?

I'm not disparaging Kubota, but it doesn't fall into the low HP high displacement category.

Can't speak to sailboating in the PNW, but with the exception of motor sailers, engines and drive trains are an afterthought not the primary means of propulsion.

Ted
 
Rock aren't the only danger, swift currents near bridges sweeping you into them or marinas with the same currents.

Many inlets along the East Coast have rock jetties, often quite long and close aboard.

Depending on ones route from New England to Southern Florida if snowbirding or looping, you certainly encounter all these even sometimes daily.

That's why i posted inshore may be as important as offshore when it comes to keeping a power source.

Usually not a problem till it happens to you which can be rare...but not a great moment if it does (try 2 careers seeing just how many it DOES happen to).....
 
A good way to determine how heavy duty an engine is can be seen by what commercial applications it's used in. Further, how many years or decades the model has been in production and the commercial applications it's used in. How many thousands or hundreds of thousands they've built is also a good indicator. Then there's the part about whether it's a throw away or readily rebuilt.

Take a look at Gardner engines. Low HP for a significantly larger displacement. Designed to go continuously for days on end.

Take a look at many sailboat engines. The oil capacity is miniscule. The raw water coolant system is minimal. Many would qualify as a wing engine, only to be used when necessary. Typically most sailboats don't have much of a fuel tank capacity either. Then there's the propeller. Why would you have a small folding propeller if your primary propulsion was your engine?

I'm not disparaging Kubota, but it doesn't fall into the low HP high displacement category.

Can't speak to sailboating in the PNW, but with the exception of motor sailers, engines and drive trains are an afterthought not the primary means of propulsion.

Ted
At the same time, many of the small sailboat sized Yanmars run for thousands of hours. It's very rare to hear of one wearing out.

The same caveat applies as in any application. The engine selection should be based on an engine that can provide a good lifespan at the needed continuous power output. So if you need 40hp to cruise a really heavy duty engine design might be fine with a 40hp rating and running at full output. While a lighter duty design might need you to use an engine rated for more power than needed, such as a 70hp to get good durability at 40hp continuous output.
 
Back
Top Bottom