Detroit Diesel 16V92 DDEC

16V92 DDEC

I’m looking for opinions on these engines. Reliable? Good for resale? Any information is helpful. Thanks!

Capt C!

the Detroit Diesel 16V92 is

  1. [B]LOUD
    [B]3. NOISY
    [B]11. DEAFENING

[/B]Have I mentioned yet that I hate Detroits especially the 92 and 149 series engines. They are a form of hell at sea![/SIZE]

Yeah your right !!! BUMP!


After heading to Freeport Bahamas from Norfolk for a day my brain was throbbing from the noise. It’s pretty bad when you have to wear earmuffs to eat in the galley.

What did you say?

They are also computerized junk that stay broke down.

John E Graham tried putting them in crew boats. The stories I heard would read like a comedy.

Top where if a load hit the deck to hard the boat would go dead ship. Requiring the deckhand to run down stairs and reset the computers, and One boat reportedly when through 30+ engines in a year.

The DDEC’s came from trucking and seemed to be a success in tug boats, but when put under the abuse of a crew boat they failed miserably. Besides the computers them selves being horrible, they also tweaked the power too high for the blocks. Because it’s 2 bolted together V8’s they threw a lot of rods, and the camshafts were to hard and ate up the rockers from what I’ve been told.

Eventually Graham had enough and told Detroit to suck it and went with Cat 3412’s in the Ms Pearl and Jim G. Those engines have there own set of problems, but for at least the 1st 10,000 hours they held together pretty well, after that it was only a matter of time till you had to swing one. But it will say it was quite something to be on a 120ft G-boat that did 13kt’s light boat with the engines turned down.

Now a non DDEC 16V92 is one of my favorite engine in anything under 90 ft.

wont the DDEC go down in history as the first mass produced electronic diesel?

More like a mass produced pile of shit.

You must be getting it confused with Cat.

Nah I feel that way about any GM marine engine product. Maybe others have had better luck, based on my experience I stand by that statement.

I stand by my statement. CAT is by far the biggest piece of shit product on the marine market. I’m sure many others that had experience between CAT vs EMD will feel the same way.

Tomato … Tamahto!!!

Potato … Patahto

Cats? GMs? There are worse. SACMs and Nohabs come to mind…

Nohabs. I was lucky enough not to have to run any in my seagoing career. I have seen more than a few, both with ABS and now working claims. . . . . That isn’t always a good thing.

Don’t see anyone complaining about FM OPs. . . . .

I’d take a F/M OP any day over a Cat. Change a few seals around the liner or oil jumper line in the air box. Beats changing out an entire engine. As long as they don’t idle for they’ll bring anywhere you want to go.

Unless you had to pay for lube oil and fuel.

Or of you don’t mind paying for a new engine ever 6 months plus ship yard fees then Cat is your engine of choice. Oh wait… they are fuel and oil efficient so that offsets what I just said.

Yah well we have never had problems with our 3500 series on our tugs, can’t say much for the other series as I have not ran many of them.

Had problems with every Cat series. 3500 series would spin bearings or drop valves resulting in pulling the engine. Which was in a tug by the way.