New Engine alignment in a SM


Graham Boyd
 

Hi Bill thanks again.

We are going to machine a false coupling plate and follow the rest of your instructions and Olivier's as well. Could you forward any drawings you may have that would help. my email is crwggb@...

Graham


Danny and Yvonne SIMMS
 

Hi Graeme,

I cannot give details as to model of vetus mounts to use, however you need to know that the Amel system of mounting the engine on the angle iron frames with the mounts under this allowed the use of mounts with a significantly lower weight specification than would be used usually when the mounts are directly attached to the motor. If others do not come in on this when next on my boat I can look at my spare and give you the part number. The SM 2000 had the Volvo TMD 22 or the equivalent Yanmar fitted so that is the weight comparison you need to use. The Volvo D2 75 I replaced the TMD with is lighter. If your new engine is heavier than the two Amel options this will obviously need to be taken into consideration.

Regards

Danny

Ocean Pearl

SM 299 

On 19 April 2019 at 23:45 "Graham Boyd via Groups.Io" <crwggb@...> wrote:

Hi Bill 

Thanks for the detailed advice. I think using the Beta mounts was a mistake. Can you recommend the vetus or other manufacturers' mounts that are suitable for supporting the metal frame. The new engine is around 290 kg with gearbox.This info seems hard to come by and on the Vetus site there is nothing resembling the original donut shaped mounts. The originals were by Schwartz but googling that goes nowhere. We will order the rubber donuts inside the coupling asap.

Thanks again for your help

Graham


 

Graham,

I am not 100% sure about your hull number, but I am sure that later model SMs used Vetus K50 for the engine (4) and for the C Drive (2).

Here is a photo of the Vetus coupling donuts from a SM. When these were changed there was no vibration. When you change yours, please take a photo.
image.png
Best,

Bill Rouse
720 Winnie St.
Galveston, Texas 77550
832-380-4970



On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 6:45 AM Graham Boyd via Groups.Io <crwggb=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Bill 

Thanks for the detailed advice. I think using the Beta mounts was a mistake. Can you recommend the vetus or other manufacturers' mounts that are suitable for supporting the metal frame. The new engine is around 290 kg with gearbox.This info seems hard to come by and on the Vetus site there is nothing resembling the original donut shaped mounts. The originals were by Schwartz but googling that goes nowhere. We will order the rubber donuts inside the coupling asap.

Thanks again for your help

Graham


Graham Boyd
 

Hi Bill 

Thanks for the detailed advice. I think using the Beta mounts was a mistake. Can you recommend the vetus or other manufacturers' mounts that are suitable for supporting the metal frame. The new engine is around 290 kg with gearbox.This info seems hard to come by and on the Vetus site there is nothing resembling the original donut shaped mounts. The originals were by Schwartz but googling that goes nowhere. We will order the rubber donuts inside the coupling asap.

Thanks again for your help

Graham


Graham Boyd
 

Thank you to all of you who have put up replies to my questions, all most useful and have given me a positive direction in which to head. I have no doubt this issue will be easily resolved once my engineer has the correct knowledge. Amel expertise is in short supply here in HK!


 

Graham,

Mounts, or alignment.

I believe that even if the mounts were in poor condition, a good alignment would likely result in no vibration.

Did the technician "eye the alignment" (most likely), use the Vetus Coupling to perform the alignment, or use a fixed coupling to perform the alignment (unlikely)? 

If he did not use a "Fixed Coupling," I suggest that you start over with new mounts and a fixed coupling, which can be machined there. I do not have an engineered drawing, but do have a drawing that a machinist can use. Possibly you can buy one at SAV"at"amel.fr. Install new mounts and align with the Fixed Coupling using feeler gauges N, S, E & W. If you did not already, you should have replaced the rubber donuts inside the coupling (inexpensive--$25USD--using Vetus kit K018).

I hope this helps you.

Best,

Bill Rouse
720 Winnie St.
Galveston, Texas 77550
832-380-4970



On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:26 AM Craig Briggs via Groups.Io <sangaris=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The "C" drive is in two assemblies:
  • the upper unit (that is coupled to the engine transmission) weighs, I would estimate, about 80 pounds. Below the gearbox of this upper unit is what I recall Olivier calling the "trumpet" which has about a 3 inch  wide sleeve of neoprene-like gasket material around it where it engages the hull structure sealing the flange around the vertical drive shaft hole. Around that is the hose clamped to both the hull flange and the trumpet.
  • The upper unit is supported, then in three places: at both sides of the top by the steel cross members bolted to the engine angle iron stringers and by the trumpet resting on the hull with the gasket in between. None of its weight is carried by the keel.
  • The lower unit weighs, I'd estimate, about 50 pounds and is supported by the keel at the bolt. As I recall there were two washers (shims) under the lower unit on the bolt, plus a rubber sleeve and steel compression sleeve around the bolt. The top is sealed with silicone after the bolt is secured..
  • There is a lifting eye on the engine room overhead straight above the upper unit to facilitate removal and adjustment with a block and tackle. (Feel around inside the insulation.)
If your engineer replaced all the engine frame mounts I could see the possibility of the "C" drive being askew. If he just did the engine then it sounds like an issue with the engine-to-C drive coupling.

Good luck with it.
Craig SN68 Sangaris, Delray Beach, Fl


Craig Briggs
 

The "C" drive is in two assemblies:
  • the upper unit (that is coupled to the engine transmission) weighs, I would estimate, about 80 pounds. Below the gearbox of this upper unit is what I recall Olivier calling the "trumpet" which has about a 3 inch  wide sleeve of neoprene-like gasket material around it where it engages the hull structure sealing the flange around the vertical drive shaft hole. Around that is the hose clamped to both the hull flange and the trumpet.
  • The upper unit is supported, then in three places: at both sides of the top by the steel cross members bolted to the engine angle iron stringers and by the trumpet resting on the hull with the gasket in between. None of its weight is carried by the keel.
  • The lower unit weighs, I'd estimate, about 50 pounds and is supported by the keel at the bolt. As I recall there were two washers (shims) under the lower unit on the bolt, plus a rubber sleeve and steel compression sleeve around the bolt. The top is sealed with silicone after the bolt is secured..
  • There is a lifting eye on the engine room overhead straight above the upper unit to facilitate removal and adjustment with a block and tackle. (Feel around inside the insulation.)
If your engineer replaced all the engine frame mounts I could see the possibility of the "C" drive being askew. If he just did the engine then it sounds like an issue with the engine-to-C drive coupling.

Good luck with it.
Craig SN68 Sangaris, Delray Beach, Fl


ianjenkins1946 <ianjudyjenkins@hotmail.com>
 

hi Graham,

 I can't answer your questions on the C drive, but if the Beta is 80kg heavier I would look at  the issue of different mounts that you mention.

 Ian and Judy, Pen Azen, SM 302 Greece


From: main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Graham Boyd via Groups.Io <crwggb@...>
Sent: 18 April 2019 06:42
To: main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io
Subject: [AmelYachtOwners] New Engine alignment in a SM
 
I have just had a new Beta 60 fitted to my SM no 140. Everything is just great, performance exactly the same if not better than the old Volvo, with one exception.
 
There is a very slight vibration present which was not there before. This is the sort of vibration like a very small bit of rope on the prop, that only someone who has sailed a SM for many miles is going to detect. Visually the C drive would appear to have slightly more movement than before.
 
Unfortunately my engineer failed to take accurate measurements before disassembly of the old engine, so Amel have sent me their basic instructions for aligning the engine and C drive, what my engineer doesn't understand though is the following 
 
1 What is the weight of the C drive
 
2 Where is the weight of the C drive supported on the boat?
 Does it 
a. "hang" from the metal frame inside the boat supported by its 2 rubber mounts. (The positioning of the main engine mounts under the metal frame would suggest this may be the case so that weight is equally distributed between front and back mounts.)
OR
b. Is all its weight supported by its attachment at its base to the cast iron part of the keel?
 
Once we know this, alignment can be rechecked, perhaps a new coupling fitted and even slightly stiffer mounts fitted under the metal frame. the new engine is 80 kg heavier than the old.
 
If you have the time I look forward to your comments on this matter,
 
Best wishes 

Graham
SM140 Sula
Hong Kong


Graham Boyd
 

I have just had a new Beta 60 fitted to my SM no 140. Everything is just great, performance exactly the same if not better than the old Volvo, with one exception.
 
There is a very slight vibration present which was not there before. This is the sort of vibration like a very small bit of rope on the prop, that only someone who has sailed a SM for many miles is going to detect. Visually the C drive would appear to have slightly more movement than before.
 
Unfortunately my engineer failed to take accurate measurements before disassembly of the old engine, so Amel have sent me their basic instructions for aligning the engine and C drive, what my engineer doesn't understand though is the following 
 
1 What is the weight of the C drive
 
2 Where is the weight of the C drive supported on the boat?
 Does it 
a. "hang" from the metal frame inside the boat supported by its 2 rubber mounts. (The positioning of the main engine mounts under the metal frame would suggest this may be the case so that weight is equally distributed between front and back mounts.)
OR
b. Is all its weight supported by its attachment at its base to the cast iron part of the keel?
 
Once we know this, alignment can be rechecked, perhaps a new coupling fitted and even slightly stiffer mounts fitted under the metal frame. the new engine is 80 kg heavier than the old.
 
If you have the time I look forward to your comments on this matter,
 
Best wishes 

Graham
SM140 Sula
Hong Kong