Pardon me Don S...

[dmcb]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're quick with the smaty-pants answers Don. I'm in need of some decent consultation/conversation so bear with me. Can you please tell me why an ECM swap is required to adjust the air/fuel ratio of an engine that the only change is running a different coolant through the block?
Oh... I apologize for being as blunt as you .
__________________

Boy I bet Don will be so helpful in the future.
You ask, he told you.
You ask again and he referred to his answer.
You ignore his advise, do it your way and post that.
Hmmm, if you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
Doug

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Boy I bet Don will be so helpful in the future.
You ask, he told you.
You ask again and he referred to his answer.
You ignore his advise, do it your way and post that.
Hmmm, if you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
Doug

Actually, if you read it, I ask for some clarification on the topic... and a couple more questions. I didn't ask him to change his answer if that's what you're inferring. I value his opinion though I choose to only agree with half of it this time (yes the Merc kit is better and needs all the mods.). I still see no evidence that an ECM change is warranted unless you increase the engine temp. What possible affect could the coolant have? As a matter of fact, changing may make it run lean.
I also stated that I like the fact I can enjoy some intelligent responses on iboats however yours doesn't meet that criteria. I don't feel like arguing.
Obviously you have nothing to contribute so why don't you focus your attention somewhere else?

 

[Robj]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

I think magster is just looking for some clarification as to why the ECM needs replacement. If someone would give me No for an answer, I would surely like to understand why, especially when it involves spending $1,500!! In my business when someone says you can't, you find out why and start exploring other options. Maybe there are other ways around the problem that does not involve replacing the ECM. Unfortunately you don't know that until you better understand the problem. Can't blame magster for asking. That is what we do at this site, and hopefully someone will be able to provide an answer. Unfortunately I cannot in this case.

Have a great day,

Rob.

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

I think magster is just looking for some clarification as to why the ECM needs replacement. If someone would give me No for an answer, I would surely like to understand why, especially when it involves spending $1,500!! In my business when someone says you can't, you find out why and start exploring other options. Maybe there are other ways around the problem that does not involve replacing the ECM. Unfortunately you don't know that until you better understand the problem. Can't blame magster for asking. That is what we do at this site, and hopefully someone will be able to provide an answer. Unfortunately I cannot in this case.

Have a great day,

Rob.

Thank you Rob.

 

[QC]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Despite the silliness in this thread, I believe magster's question is still valid. I, for one, do not believe that the engine will run significantly hotter with the closed cooling combined with the raw thermostat. Maybe 3 degrees, maybe 5. I am totally guessing at this as the difference is that cooling the engine coolant by heat exchanging with sea water is not as efficient for cooling as simply adding in sea water when the thermostat begins to open. However, when the thermostat is wide open, there will be some loss in the ability to shed heat, because all of that heat has to exit via the exchanger. It stands to reason that a heat exchanger is not as efficient for cooling as simply allowing that same cold sea water to enter the engine.

My guess is that you will never encounter any noticeable issue except for the possible lack of gain of some immeasurable amount of fuel efficiency and even less measurable or noticable emissions change. This is my .02 and I am sticking to it in absence of data . . . As they say, in God we trust all others show us your data. Additional conjecture is no more or less valuable than mine . . .

 

[dmcb]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Well excuse me. You are correct, I don't have anything to contribute to this thread.
Except this.
I just happen to know Don. I know how much time he devotes to these threads.
I also know he is more than qualified as a mechanic.
I also know he gets nothing in return for his efforts except perhaps a thanks as do all of you.
You ask what does Don think in your second question.
If he had anything further to contribute, I am sure he would have.
He gave his answer.
Your smarty pants remark wasn't much thanks for his efforts.
You seem to want a lot from a qualified mechanic that doesn't charge anything for his knowledge.
That is my contribution to this thread.
Ask me how I know you will never appreciate him more until he is gone from your forum.
Doug

 

[Robj]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

We all greatly appreciate the effort that Don S and many others put into this forum. Personally I have learned a great deal. There should not be personal attacks or smart *** remarks aimed at anyone but more trying to answer magsters question, as we would try for anyone else. So......

I am going back to basics here. With the open cooling the engine runs at about 160 degrees max. At this temperature I am assuming that it would require a little richer fuel mixture than at say 180. Is this correct?? With the closed cooling it will run a little hotter, say by 5 degrees or so. If the engine is running a little hotter with the closed cooling, and the fuel remains the same, then is the worst case scenario that it may be running a little richer than necessary?? You can always keep an eye on how rich by monitoring the plugs. Running a little rich, in my opinion is not really that big of a concern as if it were running too lean. Does this make sense?? If so just run it with the exixting t-stat and you should be OK. Hopefully someone with more knowledge than myself will chime in with some comments.

Have a great day,

Rob

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

We all greatly appreciate the effort that Don S and many others put into this forum. Personally I have learned a great deal. There should not be personal attacks or smart *** remarks aimed at anyone but more trying to answer magsters question, as we would try for anyone else. So......

I am going back to basics here. With the open cooling the engine runs at about 160 degrees max. At this temperature I am assuming that it would require a little richer fuel mixture than at say 180. Is this correct?? With the closed cooling it will run a little hotter, say by 5 degrees or so. If the engine is running a little hotter with the closed cooling, and the fuel remains the same, then is the worst case scenario that it may be running a little richer than necessary?? You can always keep an eye on how rich by monitoring the plugs. Running a little rich, in my opinion is not really that big of a concern as if it were running too lean. Does this make sense?? If so just run it with the exixting t-stat and you should be OK. Hopefully someone with more knowledge than myself will chime in with some comments.

Have a great day,

Rob

Yes, this was my concern... swapping the ECM to one that leans the engine out at 160 isn't so smart.
I think I've got it figured out but if I'm wrong, like you said, I'll be able to tell by the plugs... which I'll definitely being looking at.
Thanks again guys!

 

[Robj]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

My guess is if the engine ran a little warmer, but still got the same amount of fuel, it would tend to run rich. Is this correct? In that case it is easy to monitor, but if it is lean that is a different story. Where is Bondo? He knows alot about this stuff and may have some ideas. Have not heard from him for a while.

Have a great day,

Rob.

 

[DJ]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Don mentioned that MerCruiser provides a different ECM for engines when a closed system is added. They wouldn't do that if it was not necessary.

160 to 180 degrees is quite a jump. I suspect Merc's closed systems see 180 consistantly. Just like an automobile, the thermostat is going to keep the engine at 180, regardless of the ambient water temp.

A warm engine uses fuel more efficiently than a cold one. With that, the colder engine would require more fuel to keep it lit.

I suspect that the new ECM leans out the mixture to run with the higher engine temp. for better economy.

With gas at $3.00+++/gallon, I think I'd change the ECM. Besides, dumping a bunch of extra fuel into the engine is not going to do it any good.

I realize that a $1,500.00 ECM is not cheap but it is recommended and it will save fuel.

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Don mentioned that MerCruiser provides a different ECM for engines when a closed system is added. They wouldn't do that if it was not necessary.

160 to 180 degrees is quite a jump. I suspect Merc's closed systems see 180 consistantly. Just like an automobile, the thermostat is going to keep the engine at 180, regardless of the ambient water temp.

A warm engine uses fuel more efficiently than a cold one. With that, the colder engine would require more fuel to keep it lit.

I suspect that the new ECM leans out the mixture to run with the higher engine temp. for better economy.

With gas at $3.00+++/gallon, I think I'd change the ECM. Besides, dumping a bunch of extra fuel into the engine is not going to do it any good.

I realize that a $1,500.00 ECM is not cheap but it is recommended and it will save fuel.

I agree with everything you said but I think the bottom line is this... if I leave the operating temperature where it is... changing the ECM is a mistake. Besides, it won't be any less efficient than it is now, nor will it be more efficient. The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is keeping the salt out of the engine.
Something else if you're interested... Merc says it needs a through hull pickup and a raw water pump too. Well hey, I'm the slowpoke in my 'group'... most of my friends have 'hot rod' boats with high hp big blocks (two with superchargers on them). Not one of them have that set-up. Most of them are using the stock bravo pump and they don't overheat.
Like I said, if I'm right or wrong I'll post the results after I get the kit installed.
I hate eating crow but I'll do it if I have to!
Thanks again for everyone's input.

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

On a similar topic regarding efficiency... the front page of the business section in our paper said gas will reach $1.50 a liter this summer. Premium will be 10 cents more... that's $7.24 a Can. gallon and $6.05 for US.
I'm gonna' feel that.
Ouch!

 

[Robj]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

I would have difficulty justifying the ECM expense based on the fuel savings. The small change in mixture and resultant fuel savings would take a long time to pay back the $1,500 for the ECM.

Have a great day,

Rob.

 

[QC]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

To me this is a fun discussion. Some might call it a dead horse, but to me it is a good illustration of a lot of stuff.

OK, let's assume that the higher temp coupled with the correct ECM would gain the engine 5% fuel efficiency (it won't, my guess is 1% or less). And let's assume that mags is a maniac (he is) and runs his boat for 5 hours every weekend. And let's assume that he averages 15 gallons an hour. So he uses 75 gallons a week. And let's use his number of $6 USD (I think this is high, but OK as it makes my numbers conservative if I don't believe the ECM is worth it, the ECM is in USD, so I am using USD).

OK, so if he runs the boat all summer, let's say 20 weekends x 75 gallons = 1500 gallons (never gonna happen, but hang with me). 1500 Gallons x $6 = $9,000 And he is gonna save 5% (he won't), so $9,000 x 5% = $450. So maybe he gets his money back after three years . . . I say maybe as I don't believe he'll burn 1500 gallons a season, and I don't believe gasoline will be $6 USD/gallon this summer and I don't believe that the temp and ECM change will come close to 5% savings in fuel . . . Another load of unsubstantiated conjecture on my part, but again we ain't got no stinkin' data, so it's as good as it's gonna get 'til we get some . . .

 

[magster65]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Oh yeah, now I'm a maniac... sheesh!!

 

[QC]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

LOL . . . BTW, hi.

 

[Robj]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

Magster,

My bet is that the new ECM just has different control software and fuel mapping for the higher operating temperature. On another post that is currently active, guys talk about reprograming the ECM, my guess is that would be all it takes. This however sounds much simpler than it actually is. Finding someone who knows how to and is competent enough to so such type of work can be a real challenge, if not nearly impossible.

Have a great day,

Rob.

 

[DJ]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

I hate eating crow but I'll do it if I have to!
.

I don't. That's how I learn. Besides, it tastes like Spotted Owl.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

mmmmm spotted owl, tastes like chicken, not bad with seaturtle egg soup.
Magster
merc is correct, the alphas seawater pump is maxed with a half closed system,it WONT keep up with a ful system at all and may not with a half system, ALL bravo style drives used a belt driven seawater pump thats about 3 times the size of the alpha pumps.
the alpha GEN II pumps were a bit bigger than the older alpha pumps but even they dont tolerate a full closed cooling system well.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Pardon me Don S...

FWIW, my 888 has a full closed system, engine & manifolds, & is run off of the single Alpha impeller......
Maybe the cooling requirements are less for a SBF than a SBC?.....​