Columbia 40 - Beta 38

Stanley · Guru

Columbia 40 - Beta 38

rkh · Member

My partner and I have acquired a Columbia 40 (#23 - 1965). The original Atomic 4 was long gone and had been replaced by a 2 cyl. Albin diesel which also was long gone. The PO was attempting to clean up the engine room and install a Universal MX25 but was stymied by all of the hacked up changes made by the Albin installation. The challenge involved in installing any modern engine in the C40 is that the A4 was so low in profile that it fit under the galley floor with space to spare. Virtually all current production engines I can find are, at the least, several inches too tall. Because the Albin installer had raised the floor to provide clearance I have had the opportunity to see how that seemingly simple change negatively impacts the functionality of the boat's interior. I have decided that the floor will be returned to its original height and have been working to engineer an installation that will permit that.

The A4 and the Albin - not to mention the MX25 - were all under powered for an 18,000 pound boat. We have chosen to focus on the Beta 38 as a properly sized powerplant and for the last several months I have been working on engineering a way to meet the space challenges with the Beta. It became apparent early on that any simple changes to the engine such as repositioning movable items like the oil extraction pump and the secondary fuel filter would not reduce the overall vertical space requirement. The major change in thinking was to move the engine aft. Using a drawing program as well as creating a foam mock up has helped with the "what ifs" and at this point it appears that a workable installation can be made with the engine positioned about 14 inches aft of the OEM location. In this location the space below the bottom step in the companionway ladder can be boxed in to cover the few inches of the engine which still intrude into the galley floor footprint and the floor itself can remain at the original designed height.

As you can imagine there is a lot more to it than what I have described and you are probably wondering what the question is. Perhaps if Charlie Morgan had anticipated the change in marine powerplants all would be easy. But he left me with what I think is my last space issue. Working with take offs from less than perfect drawings and having to make a fair number of assumptions it appears that the rear motor mount bracket attach points on the Beta 38 engine to transmission adapter (bellhousing) will make contact with the hull at their lower aft corner. The question (AT LAST!!) is this; is there any version of the bellhousing in Beta's bag of tricks which either does not have these pads at all or - the better option - have these pads positioned above the prop shaft centerline rather than below?

As you may have guessed the above may be just the beginning of a long dialogue but since I've been at this since May I can assure you I am determined to find a way. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Dick

rkh · Member

Hi Stanley and thanks for the reply. My current working rear mount bracket design is almost identical to the one in the Westsail drawing except that I have not yet finalized the vertical dimension (shown as 204mm on the drawing) or the horizontal dimension (shown as 242mm). Your drawing helps quite a bit as it validates the concept of the rear mounts. It also makes things a bit clearer as it does not show the transmission water cooling plumbing I have had to try to "see through" in most of the Beta 38/TMC60 drawings I have found on line.

Nevertheless, the clearance issue remains - and the lack of clearance exists before the thickness of the bracket and the bolt heads are added. Unfortunately the hull sides are nearly parallel at the point of interference meaning that moving the engine to achieve sufficient clearance would require a considerable move forward. That would of course negate the whole purpose of moving it aft in the first place. The heck of it is that the hull widens rather rapidly athwartships which means that if, for example, the mount pad only included the top two bolts the clearance would be fine. In fact, if you were to imagine the mount pad (and the bracket of course) cut so that just the bottom aft bolt didn't exist everything would clear and we would be good to go.

Having done similar installation studies on a variety of currently available engines and finding just as many space challenges I am pretty well commited to the Beta. A fair degree of that commitment is based on the sense that Beta and Beta dealers seem much more willing to tackle the challenging installations. Your response to my query is a great start and I hope we can continue to work through the obstacles to find a viable solution. For my part I'll continue to fine tune my mock up and my measurements to see if perhaps there is some magic combination that I have missed. Just to keep the thought processes going I'll toss out one Kubota based install that I am aware of (from those other guys whom I don't believe Beta cares for). In that case the rear mount bracket is formed of a single piece of angle iron (much like the material used for the Beta mount brackets) which attaches to the upper transmission adapter to bellhousing bolts with an overall width similar to the stock Beta rear mount footprint. The bellhousing does not appear to have any mount pads at all.

I might also add that it is my hope that we can come up with a solution that uses a minimum of one-off parts. There are 50 or so Columbia 40s out there and with the exception of a few with Universal M4-30s and one with a Yanmar on a v-drive they are either floating around with an Atomic 4 or have horribly disfigured cabins. It's a great boat and I hope we can find a solution that will work for me as well as the other stalwarts out there who want to keep them going.

I know you and your compatriots have dealt with dozens of installation issues. Feel free to talk it around and let me know what other ideas come to mind. Thanks very much for your support and I look forward to being a beta customer.

Dick

Stanley · Guru

Hello Dick,

Before I attempt any recommendations, I need some questions answered.

1) Here is the link to the boat info at Sailboatdata, http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1751
Is this the correct boat?

2) What diameter propeller can be used? Please refer to the attached photo, T1 should be at least 10% of the diameter, 15% is perfect. and

3) What diameter prop shaft is fitted?

Regards,

Stanley

rkh · Member

Stanley -

1) Yes, you have the correct boat on Sailboatdata.com

2) Keeping in mind that best local knowledge is that the boat has not been out of the water in nearly 10 years, my direct knowldge of the propellor aperture is limited. The prop is currently a 3 blade which - totally anecdotally - is said to be a 16" (no idea about the pitch). Factory data and drawings I have from sailinfo.com lists the prop shipped with the Atomic 4 as a 2 blade 16" with 11" pitch. Working from a variety of 3rd/4th/? generation images as well as the sailinof.com drawings suggest that the aperture is around 19"+/- in height suggesting a bare 10% T1 /T2.

3) The prop shaft is 1 inch in diameter.

FYI - the prop shaft, propeller, cutlass bearing and stuffing box will all be replaced when the boat comes out of the water for the engine install. My expectation will be to use a 16" 3 blade prop.

Thanks for your assistance -

Dick

Stanley · Guru

Just a thought. If you go with the Beta 30 with a 2.5:1 transmission, you can expect 6.7 Knots using a 16"x 12" three blade propeller with 50% BAR.
This will save you 4" in length and still provide plenty of power for an easily driven hull. This 4" can be used to allow you to move the engine forward a bit and thus make it easier to work out the rear mounts. This gives you a max prop speed of 1440 RPM which is just acceptable in an apeture.

The 38 with a 2.5:1 transmission will want too much pitch to allow the prop to be really efficient so you wont gain much (if anything) in performance. If you go with a 2:1 transmission, the prop speed is too high for an apeture so you will get prop noise and cavitation.

Stanley

-- Edited by Stanley on Thursday 31st of October 2013 01:51:48 PM

rkh · Member

Stanley -

I considered engines in the 30 to 35 hp range but early on decided that I was not a fan of 3 cylinder engines and preferred to err on the side of too much power rather than too little. That having been said I would consider going as low as 30 horsepower a compromise I might make if it were an otherwise attractive option such as a substantially smaller physical size or lower weight or price. On the other hand I would consider going to 3 cylinders a very difficult compromise regardless of the horsepower.

My direct experience doesn't cover a great variety of boats but I have yet to find anyone who did not wish they had more power available at one point or another. My most recent and direct experience is in a boat with similar size/displacement/waterline to my Columbia (although perhaps a slightly less easily driven hull form) and she works exceedingly well with her 38hp 4 cylinder diesel and 16" 3 blade prop. She pushes right through seas that slowed her dramatically with the previous 3 cylinder Volvo.

Viewed strictly from the perspective of physically fitting the engine in the boat the Beta 30 would seem to be an option. As far as I can determine from the information I have access to, length is really the only notable difference between the 38 and the 30. Height at the forward end (issue #1) and width at the rear mount (issue #2) are essentially the same. It would seem then that using the Beta 30 with the front mount at my current working design "setback" of 14 inches from the OEM location (which deals with issue #1) would bring the transmission/bellhousing 4 inches forward which would deal with issue #2. Unfortunately since the hull widens so gradually in this area the clearance gained is very little. In light of my comments above it is not nearly sufficient to balance the compromises. Were the suggestion to go with the Beta 35 vs the 38 the change would be a no brainer. The 30 is different story.

I'm 100% committed to an installation which does not require raising the cabin floor. I am, perhaps, 95% committed to going with a 4 cylinder engine. I'm afraid a 4" reduction in length by itself is not enough to sway my thinking. But I will once again do some calculations of my own to see if I can find a convincing argument for the Beta 30. I very much appreciate your input and hope you will keep your "thinking cap" on.

I know there is a solution in there somewhere!

Dick

rkh · Member

Stanley -

Still focused on using the Beta 38 I am evaluating whether changing the setback of the engine from the OEM position by 12" or 13" rather than the 14" I was trying for might still meet my goal of retaining the original galley floor level. A setback of 12" - although causing some additional compromises in the floor area - appears to make it possible to provide clearance at the rear mount pads. It also appears that the Westsail 32 rear mount brackets might work although keeping the mounts at the "stock" 16 1/8" spacing rather than the Westsail 19" spacing might be preferable. Accepting this as a possible solution for the rear mounts I need some guidance on the front mounts.

Recall that the original engine was an Atomic 4 and that the engine spaces are sized appropriately for an engine of that physical size. The "stock" 16 1/8" front mount spacing of the Beta with the mount plane approximately at the crankshaft centerline is either too wide or too low. Looking at the only info I have - PDF engineering drawings and various photos - I cannot reliably determine what the range of possible positions for the front mounts might be. I'm hoping you can provide answers to the following. Both assume it is desirable to maintain the 17 5/16" front/rear mount spacing and essential that the front mounts are equidistant left/right from the crankshaft centerline:

- Keeping the mounts at the stock height, how narrow (ie- distance from the crank CL) can the front mount spacing be? I don't expect much here as it appears that the fuel injection pump and its linkage limit moving the right mount inboard very much.

- Keeping the mounts at the stock width (16 1/8"), how high can the mount pads be? My measurements indicate that I would have about 2 1/2" between the stock mount pad and the hull. This does not quite account for the height of the flexible mount and does not allow for the construction of a mount base. Raising the mount pads 2" could work with 3" being preferable.

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

Dick

Farron · Senior Member

Hello Dick,

This project will require custom feet on the engine.

Please visit the Beta Marine US Ltd. web site.

Using the ENGINES drop down menu, find the page for the engine that you are interested in.

On that page under DIMENSIONS you will find a download link for a PDF copy of the CUSTOM MOUNT work sheet.

Down load a copy of this work sheet.

Fill out the work sheet as specified in the instructions and submit to Beta Marine US Ltd. via fax or e-mail.

Call or e-mail if you have any questions.

-- Edited by Farron on Wednesday 6th of November 2013 10:03:45 AM

rkh · Member

Farron -

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps my overly complex posts have hidden the obvious - there are no existing engine mounts and there are no existing engine bearers. A Previous Owner carved out the OEM Atomic 4 mounts in order to make room for a welded steel structure to support an Albin diesel. That poorly built structure has now also been removed. The "engine room" is empty.

So, I am designing a new mounting structure from the hull out and the information I am seeking is needed to do that. Most certainly custom mounts will be needed and Beta may well be the best source. However, knowing what is possible with custom mounts is crucial to being able to design the structure those mounts will attach to. Can you suggest a source for answers to my questions regarding the front mounts?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Dick

Farron · Senior Member

Hello Dick,

RE: Front mounts on a Beta 38:

For standard height mounts, figure the standard width (16 1/8") as the minimum width dimension.

For standard width mounts figure the standard height as the maximum height dimension.

If you increase the width, the mounts can be raised.

Please feel free to call us to discuss your particular design criteria.

rkh · Member

Farron -

Thanks very much for the info. It is about what I had thought might be the case although I had hoped that with the variety of Beta 38 installations out there that someone might have successfully "pushed the envelope" and that I could benefit from their experience. The shape of the hull dictates that if the mounts can't move inward, they will have to move upward. Your response implies that this also means they must move outward. So that will be the underlying premise in my effort on the forward mounts.

Fitting any engine other than the Atomic 4 (or perhaps a Universal M4-30) into the Columbia 40 - even if one were to locate it right where the Atomic 4 had been - is not easy without making serious compromises to the rest of the boat. But I am convinced that it can be done and I am just as convinced that a Beta is the right choice for the effort.

Thanks to both you and Stanley for your insights and I will contact you when I have specifics we can discuss. In the mean time if you come across anything you think might help please feel free to extend this post.

Dick

Farron · Senior Member

Hello Dick,

E-mail me directly. I have a drawing or two that might help get you started.

farron@betamarinenc.com