Join the C34 Association Today!
[C34 Home] [C34Tech Notes] [C34 Tech Wiki] [Join!]
Please login or register.
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Motor mounts, M-35  (Read 703 times)

Jon W and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2021, 01:55:44 PM »

PS: When staying crap I’m talking parts direct from the factory in some  instances. Literally at least 25% were ‘less than a seamless experience.’ Like Wb shipping a clearly defective part, refusing to believe it, even with pictures, having to pay to ship parts back, getting another defective of the same part, and finally having to hunt down a distributor that had a good one and beg him to ship outside his district. There was no QC on incoming parts that were made who knows where, and all they did was pick a part out of a bin and ship it w/o looking at it, even after being notified the parts were defective. This happened too many times. And customers I’ve told to just order direct have had similar issues.



Quote
The 35B engine is probably 370 - 375 wet weight.

375 *(40%) / 2 =   75 static lbs. ea. front
375 *(60%) / 2 = 113 static lbs. ea. rear

Understand this is rule of :thumb: - you would need to know the center of gravity of the M35B/tranny but it's close (give or take.)


If I go with Westerbeke, should I do the rear ones with #040511 (125-220 lb)? The mechanic seemed to want to go stiffer.


First, I don't typically recommend a Wb product if there's a better or even equal alternative.  I've seen the quality (or lack thereof) many times.  I could show you pictures of their (not Kubota) nightmares.  I was a Wb dealer and I’ve seen parts that were crap, so after my stocking distributor (who would sell me anything that I wanted for a Wb engine) gave up repping Wb, I’d have to give a customer an inferior part over a better non-Wb part, so I won’t do that and wouldn’t sign a dealer agreement w/ Wb.

2nd, understand the above are static loads.   You need to know the rating of the Wb isolators for dynamic loading?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 02:06:31 PM by KWKloeber »
Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain

Ron Hill

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 61
  • Posts: 7725
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2021, 03:22:49 PM »

Guys : What a blast!!! - when you think that the Atomic 4 was bolted directedly to the stringers - no mounts!!

A thought
Logged
Ron, Apache #788

Breakin Away

  • Forum - Petty Officer 1st Class
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2021, 08:50:18 PM »

First, I don't typically recommend a Wb product if there's a better or even equal alternative.  I've seen the quality (or lack thereof) many times.  I could show you pictures of their (not Kubota) nightmares.  I was a Wb dealer and I’ve seen parts that were crap, so after my stocking distributor (who would sell me anything that I wanted for a Wb engine) gave up repping Wb, I’d have to give a customer an inferior part over a better non-Wb part, so I won’t do that and wouldn’t sign a dealer agreement w/ Wb.
I get it, Ken. You don't like Westerbeke. We went through this when I had a raw water pump problem, and everyone was all gung ho about using a ground-down Oberdorfer. This time, just as then, I will consult multiple sources, and go with the advice that seems most technically feasible. Like before, it will be impossible for me to choose a path that all the conflicting parties are suggesting. In that case I had Depco rebuild my Sherwood pump because Depco showed data that the Oberdorfer was sufficient pumping capacity for the M25 motors, but not sufficient capacity for the M35B. Had I gone with the crowd who sang the praises of Oberdorfer with their smaller engines I might have been happy for awhile, but I'd likely be "on the edge" in mid-summer when Chesapeake Bay water temperatures climb into the mid-80s. It wasn't right for me.

Now, as then, I am looking for advice specifically for my M35B, which has different mounts from the non-B motors. Why did Westerbeke make this change when it would have been so easy to keep the same mounts as before? I am open to considering your suggestion, but once again I want advice specific to my M35B. First, in order to avoid being a "guinea pig", I'd like to hear from anyone here who has actually used the modified Vetus mounts and will attest that they are indeed superior to Westerbeke's junk. Rod said that he forks over the extra money for Westerbeke mounts, and I have huge respect for him, so I need some pretty solid evidence to get me to go against his advice. Second, since you're in the industry and presumably have a lot of contacts with machine shops (while I have exactly zero such contacts), I'd be thrilled if you could provide a quote for fully assembled drop-in replacement that is guaranteed to fit my hole pattern and engine flange. You say that these mounts should cost under $100, so let me see evidence of that and I'll consider buying it from you. I'd be a fool to pass up a superior $100 product (actually 4 of them) and go with four inferior $280 products. But right now there is no such product that I can see - only advice that I should spend a bunch of time to go find a my own machine shop to modify the mounts. I feel like I'm being sent out on this by myself with no clear precedent from someone else who says they have done it and been happy with the result.

2nd, understand the above are static loads.   You need to know the rating of the Wb isolators for dynamic loading?
You got me on two counts. 1) Westerbeke doesn't appear to state the dynamic load limit for their mounts, and 2) I don't know what dynamic loads the M35B puts out when it's running. But I can't find dynamic loads from Vetus for their mounts either. So if someone can point me in the right direction for this information, I'll be happy to take it into account.
Logged

2001 MkII Breakin' Away, #1535, TR/WK, M35BC, Mantus 35# (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

KeelsonGraham

  • Forum - Seaman
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2021, 01:56:49 AM »

Hi Breakin,

I’m in exactly the same position as you. I need new mounts for my M35B, I’m not an engineer and I don’t know any skilled machinists. So I have no option other than to purchase the Wb variety which, here in the UK, cost $382 each and take 8 weeks to arrive. :?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 02:26:18 AM by KeelsonGraham »
Logged
2006 Catalina 34 Mk II. Hull No:1752

Jim Hardesty

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer
  • *******
  • Karma: 11
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2021, 03:20:32 AM »

Quote
If I go with Westerbeke, should I do the rear ones with #040511 (125-220 lb)? The mechanic seemed to want to go stiffer.

My 2 cents, I'm very happy with the smooth low vibration on Shamrock.  I would be reluctant to change.  Even though our boats are close in hull numbers yours may be quite different. 
Jim
Logged
Jim Hardesty
2001 MKII hull #1570 M35BC  "Shamrock"
sailing Lake Erie
from Commodore Perry Yacht Club
Erie, PA

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2021, 12:56:28 PM »

>>> You got me on two counts.<<<

No one is trying to “get you” on anything, just providing info that you might not be aware of, or maybe the mechanic is not aware of regarding different isolators. 
Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2021, 12:59:31 PM »

>>>> Depco showed data that the Oberdorfer was sufficient pumping capacity for the M25 motors, but not sufficient capacity for the M35B.<<<<

I’d be interested in seeing that data, maybe post it on the wiki (if I can ever get access.)
Not to take this subject off topic, pls email it?
Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain

Stu Jackson

  • C34IA - Secretary
  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 72
  • Posts: 8084
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2021, 01:56:13 PM »

................................

In that case I had Depco rebuild my Sherwood pump because Depco showed data that the Oberdorfer was sufficient pumping capacity for the M25 motors, but not sufficient capacity for the M35B. Had I gone with the crowd who sang the praises of Oberdorfer with their smaller engines I might have been happy for awhile, but I'd likely be "on the edge" in mid-summer when Chesapeake Bay water temperatures climb into the mid-80s. It wasn't right for me.

.........................................

I think your analytic approach has great merit.

I, too, would be interested in that info.  Just a note that our wiki has an Oberdorfer modified to fit their M35; this was before Oberdorfer wised up and modified the base to fit both engines.  As well as a few C36s I am aware of from the C36 site.  I have not heard of any complaints, certainly not the one you are projecting as a possibility.  I don't recall if any were in Florida or similar year round warm water.  That, too, would be interesting to know.
Logged
Stu Jackson, C34 IA Secretary, #224 1986, "Aquavite"  Cowichan Bay, BC  Maple Bay Marina  SR/FK, M25, Rocna 10 (22#) (NZ model)

"There is no problem so great that it can't be solved."

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2021, 01:24:22 PM »



I get it, Ken. You don't like Westerbeke.


Had I gone with the crowd who sang the praises of Oberdorfer with their smaller engines I might have been happy for awhile, but I'd likely be "on the edge" in mid-summer when Chesapeake Bay water temperatures climb into the mid-80s


Why did Westerbeke make this change when it would have been so easy to keep the same mounts as before?


attest that they are indeed superior to Westerbeke's junk.





Breakin,

You're embellishing upon my words and that's not at all helpful.
I NEVER said Wb isolators are junk.

It's not about liking Wb -- You asked for a recommendation on a Wb part -- saying I can't make a recommendation w/o explaining why wouldn't help much.  I have nothing good (or bad, except cost) to say about them BUT based on my experience with other Wb parts and how it cut some corners on the B engines I'm not recommending a Wb part unless I personally know its quality.

I told you what I would use IIWMB.  YBYC.

You asked for ideas about making your 5" c-c work.  I made suggestions - I'm not interested in manufacturing parts for your boat.  If you don't like suggestions, instead of arguing w/ them why not just say, "TY", and ignore them?  If you make an incorrect statement or assumption about a suggestion -- sure, I will try to correct it so you have good info, but I don't care what you use.  It's YBYC not MBMC and I doubt anyone has any upside whatsoever in making you a guinea pig.  If you don't want to "invest" the time to make the Vetus work w/ your 5" c-c, then why not take the easy route and buy the Wb mounts.   

I did go to the effort to lay out the mounts to see if an adapter could be made and I believe it could.  If you are not interested in contacting a machine shop (there's a good one in MD) then buy the Wb mounts (except I hear you saying that your mechanic doesn't think they are heavy enough?)


As to why....
Wb might change from a DF mount (that you can replace for $60 or so) in favor of proprietary ones that ONLY Wb sells at 450% more?  Really?  Think about it.  Why does Wb install a pump that IT OWNS that's available ONLY as a Wb PART for 300% what it's worth?  Really?  Think about it.

If Wb isolators are superior how come there's NO PLACE that we can find (so far, and I have searched not for a couple weeks but for 3-4 years) where they are used elsewhere?  Who KNOWS where they are manufactured.
How many on here have installed Vetus and had a problem?  Vetus is used worldwide with no issues I have heard.

I respect Rod and have not seen a comparison of Vetus vs Wb, or Rod saying that he chooses to replace Vetus with Wb mounts (if he had, I missed it.)
He replaced his Wb mounts because he also has 5" c-c mounting holes on his Westeble engine and I imagine he also didn't want to pull it.  You seem convinced about his experiences, yet are searching hard for reasons not to follow his recommendation.  If they are THE mount to use then cost isn't an issue.

As to the Ob pump....
Please send the Depco data.  It's not my experience w/ the Ob pump on the 35 or 35B.  Randy in LA runs an Ob pump.  Mick runs an Ob pump.  I do however regularly recommend that the barbs and hose changed to 3/4" to get max flow to the intake side but mainly because there are good (proper) 3/4" barbs available but not 5/8" ones.

I know of no data available re: minimum seawater flow for the M35B -- maybe Depco has but I haven't seen it and the (now retired) Manager of the Marine division communicated regularly.  When he had issues on a Universal engine he'd call me about it --  Universal Oshkosh used 8 (EIGHT) different pumps and he didn't know the history.   In fact he even had me call HIS customer to get specifics and then him what to sell.

Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain

Stu Jackson

  • C34IA - Secretary
  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 72
  • Posts: 8084
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2021, 02:58:37 PM »

...............................
...............................

As to the Ob pump....
Please send the Depco data.  It's not my experience w/ the Ob pump on the 35 or 35B.  Randy in LA runs an Ob pump.  Mick runs an Ob pump.  I do however regularly recommend that the barbs and hose changed to 3/4" to get max flow to the intake side but mainly because there are good (proper) 3/4" barbs available but not 5/8" ones.

I know of no data available re: minimum seawater flow for the M35B -- maybe Depco has but I haven't seen it and the (now retired) Manager of the Marine division communicated regularly.
........................................
........................................

As I noted earlier, I, too, would be very interested in this flow part of your discussion.

FWIW, my M25 already had an Oberdorfer on it.  When I replaced it soon after my purchase of my boat in 1998, and when I upgraded to a 3 inch HX, I noticed it had 1/2" elbows on it, going to a 5/8" inlet at the HX!!!  Someone had somehow "expanded" the 1/2" hose to fit the 5/8" barb on the old HX!!!

I have no idea who did it, and I'm not going to bash anybody.  Could have been the factory, could have been a workman the PO hired, could have been the PO, or just gremlins.  I'm glad I found it and enlarged the elbow and hose to the HX to 5/8".  IIRC, the inlet hose from the seacock was already 5/8".
Logged
Stu Jackson, C34 IA Secretary, #224 1986, "Aquavite"  Cowichan Bay, BC  Maple Bay Marina  SR/FK, M25, Rocna 10 (22#) (NZ model)

"There is no problem so great that it can't be solved."

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2021, 03:20:35 PM »

Quote from: Stu Jackson

before Oberdorfer wised up and modified the base to fit both engines. 


I think you meant to type "before Oberdorfer ... stole the design ... to fit both engines."  :shock: :shock: :shock:

If you recall I was the first to machine a round-base pump for the B engines (below.) 
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,8148.msg56869.html#msg56869

Beta tested it on a  friend's XPB.  And :thumb:
Showed it to Depco, contacted Ob about buying unmachined pump bodies (to machine both round and bolt-on pumps) and (what a coincidence) six months later Oberdorfer (before selling the company) "announced" the 908 pump.  :devil :twisted:

« Last Edit: October 15, 2021, 03:26:02 PM by KWKloeber »
Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain

Ron Hill

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 61
  • Posts: 7725
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2021, 04:35:47 PM »

Guys : I have said it MANY MANY times. Just look at the larger size of the pump cavity, look at the increased number of impeller vanes and look at the amount of water coming out of the exhaust.  The Sherwood pumps MORE water.

The real question is "does the Obodoffer pump ENOUGH water to satisfy the cooling requirement of the M35BC engine???   Westerbeke (the makers of the engine) doesn't think so!!! 

So argue between yourselves !!   :cry4`

A few thoughts
Logged
Ron, Apache #788

Stu Jackson

  • C34IA - Secretary
  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 72
  • Posts: 8084
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2021, 06:08:30 PM »

Guys : I have said it MANY MANY times. Just look at the larger size of the pump cavity, look at the increased number of impeller vanes and look at the amount of water coming out of the exhaust.  The Sherwood pumps MORE water.

The real question is "does the Obodoffer pump ENOUGH water to satisfy the cooling requirement of the M35BC engine???   Westerbeke (the makers of the engine) doesn't think so!!! 

So argue between yourselves !!   :cry4`

A few thoughts

Naw, Ron, it's more fun arguing with you.   :shock:

Look, all I've said is that many skippers have replaced their Sherwood pumps with Oberdorfers on their own M35 engines and the engines keep working. 

What's so hard to understand?

We all know, thanks actually to Ken who has documented this about the many different components in the Sherwoods, the shortcomings of those pumps.

Where in the world did you "officially" "get" this "...Westerbeke (the makers of the engine) doesn't think so..."?

I'm still waiting for the Depco "official" "data", too.
Logged
Stu Jackson, C34 IA Secretary, #224 1986, "Aquavite"  Cowichan Bay, BC  Maple Bay Marina  SR/FK, M25, Rocna 10 (22#) (NZ model)

"There is no problem so great that it can't be solved."

waughoo

  • Forum - Petty Officer 1st Class
  • *****
  • Karma: 5
  • Posts: 461
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2021, 06:35:55 PM »

It seems to me that the pump volume specs shouldnt be that hard to come by from the mfg.  The larger number of vanes wouldnt make a difference in volume but might make the flow more even.  It is actually the unoccupied volume of the impeller chamber (impeller chamber volume minus physical volume of the impeller) that would make the most difference in the water flow rate.  Based on that assumption, I suspect these two pumps wouldn't produce markedly different flow rates.
Logged
Alex - Seattle, WA
91 mk1.5 #1120
Std rig w/wing keel
Belafonte

KWKloeber

  • Forum - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
  • ********
  • Karma: 35
  • Posts: 4186
  • "Positive Impact" 1984 C-30 mk-I #3573 trbsfk M-25
    • View Profile
Re: Motor mounts, M-35
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2021, 06:48:07 PM »

It’s not the pumping rate that is the question, it’s how much flow does the engine need??
Yes the Sherwood (reportedly) pumps more (I haven’t measured it and I question manufacturer’s flow specs) BUT what does the engine require and is the additional volume simply “excess.” (Not that excess is a bad thing.)
Logged
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did.
So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the tradewinds in your sails.
Explore.  Dream.  Discover.   -Mark Twain
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up