what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

[lmannyr]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Interesting topic.

So how about talking actual swap info now I've been wanting to have efi ever since I started my project last year. Now I have a decent boat, but it has a carb....

Check this conversion

 

[Uraijit]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

If your installation or modification catches fire and severely burns or kills someone, the bloodsucking lawyers WILL determine if there was non approved components in your boat.

If they proved that the boat owner bought the parts and installed them, the court would determine that it was negligent and the boat owner would lose the case.

Alrighty, maybe I'll just stay aboard when my 'begging-to-explode-at-the-drop-of-a-hat-deathtrap-of-a-Frankenstein-boat' catches fire.

Jokes on THEM! Who're they gonna sue NOW?

If my boat kills somebody--fuel injection or NOT--I'm gonna be responsible. End of story. Guess I'd better sell the boat...

 

[mthieme]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

That's STAINLESS steel...
.

Silly me. Why didn't I think SS?
That would be the way to go.

 

[mthieme]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Interesting topic.

So how about talking actual swap info now I've been wanting to have efi ever since I started my project last year. Now I have a decent boat, but it has a carb....

Check this conversion

I recommend you start a new thread with a disclaimer or not even mention auto.
This one seems to have turned into different debate.
Mods ?

 

[lmannyr]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Here is the beginings of the conversion I posted above.

http://forums.iboats.com/showthread.php?t=232118&highlight=96lt4c4

 

[mthieme]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

And you see what happened...didn't take long.
Interestingly, the mod closed that thread...wonder why this one hasn't been shut down? I think it's more controversial.
I hate to discourage you from leaving, but you might try the forums over at thehulltruth, the problem doesn't exist there.

 

[abj87]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

do not use alu as fuel line! it workhardens under constant vibration and is liable to crack.

 

[krisnowicki]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

You know if you never have a problem, then it won't be a problem.

If your installation or modification catches fire and severely burns or kills someone, the bloodsucking lawyers WILL determine if there was non approved components in your boat.

If they proved that the boat owner bought the parts and installed them, the court would determine that it was negligent and the boat owner would lose the case.


[/B][/I]

This thread really caught my attention. I am in law school just finishing up and am going to write my ALWR ( Basically a thesis paper) on this topic. Couple of interesting points that I have found in this thread.
First is the label Don S. posted here
Electrical, ignition and fuel system components on youjr Mercruiser are designed and manufactured to comply with USGRR to minimize risk of fire and explosion.
This isn't saying the coast guard approves them it is only saying that they have made it within the best ability to comply. So the next logical step would be to look at what they have done to "comply" with these rules. Or, is it even possible for this system to comply with the current law?
Well I went to section of coast guard law using my westlaw datatbase and I found a couple of things.
1. Every law has an applicability section to it. It tells you what it governs and in the comment section it discusses why the law was made.

183.501 - Applicability
(a) This subpart applies to all boats that have gasoline engines, except outboard engines, for electrical generation, mechanical power, or propulsion.
183.505 - Definitions
As used in this subpart :
Fuel system means the entire assembly of the fuel fill, vent, tank, and distribution components, including pumps, valves, strainers, carburetors and filters

Fuel systems as this law is written does not apply to TBI MPI any I. This makes no mention of any other fuel delivery system but the carberator and one could argue that it is specific enough to disclude any kind of injection system. Why is this? Well I read the commments and they were written in the 70's so there was no injection system invented. Now this is were it gets tricky. As the law is sets its self out to govern all gas propelled boats and the only fuel system discussed is carboration the is an argument that that (according to the letter of the law) is all that is legal. As a USCG coast guard stamp does not supersede statutes it would not matter if you had a stamp or label the one posted by don it would because the law does not allow for it as it is written. So if you were in an accident and your boat blew up your insurance company would probably cover you and sue mercruiser even if you had a system like one that would carry the stamp don has.

There is a common law rule now that states (overly simplified) that if something you are using is safer than the item discussed in a statute that you are covered. There are some exceptions to this but the key thing to remember is is just has to be safe not the "safest". So lets say you on a 90 Glastron like the one posted here
http://forums.iboats.com/showthread.php?t=239086
And you converted from what was orignally in it for arguements sake lets say a 2 barrel q-jet or weber. Then if his new system is as safe as the one that came out that was USCG approved the he may aviod liabilty if something were to happen
The bottom line is the law is old and needs to be changed. Some one with alot more money then me should bring a case before a federal judge and ask him to enjoin people from using boats with any injection system, The judge would of course dismiss it but he would have to write an opinion saying way and at least this would change the law and we could use it as precedent for what is and is not allow.

Just a couple thoughts I will have my paper done in april and alot better research by the end of the month.

 

[Uraijit]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

This thread really caught my attention. I am in law school just finishing up and am going to write my ALWR ( Basically a thesis paper) on this topic. Couple of interesting points that I have found in this thread.
First is the label Don S. posted here
Electrical, ignition and fuel system components on youjr Mercruiser are designed and manufactured to comply with USGRR to minimize risk of fire and explosion.
This isn't saying the coast guard approves them it is only saying that they have made it within the best ability to comply. So the next logical step would be to look at what they have done to "comply" with these rules. Or, is it even possible for this system to comply with the current law?
Well I went to section of coast guard law using my westlaw datatbase and I found a couple of things.
1. Every law has an applicability section to it. It tells you what it governs and in the comment section it discusses why the law was made.

183.501 - Applicability
(a) This subpart applies to all boats that have gasoline engines, except outboard engines, for electrical generation, mechanical power, or propulsion.
183.505 - Definitions
As used in this subpart :
Fuel system means the entire assembly of the fuel fill, vent, tank, and distribution components, including pumps, valves, strainers, carburetors and filters

Fuel systems as this law is written does not apply to TBI MPI any I. This makes no mention of any other fuel delivery system but the carberator and one could argue that it is specific enough to disclude any kind of injection system. Why is this? Well I read the commments and they were written in the 70's so there was no injection system invented. Now this is were it gets tricky. As the law is sets its self out to govern all gas propelled boats and the only fuel system discussed is carboration the is an argument that that (according to the letter of the law) is all that is legal. As a USCG coast guard stamp does not supersede statutes it would not matter if you had a stamp or label the one posted by don it would because the law does not allow for it as it is written. So if you were in an accident and your boat blew up your insurance company would probably cover you and sue mercruiser even if you had a system like one that would carry the stamp don has.

There is a common law rule now that states (overly simplified) that if something you are using is safer than the item discussed in a statute that you are covered. There are some exceptions to this but the key thing to remember is is just has to be safe not the "safest". So lets say you on a 90 Glastron like the one posted here
http://forums.iboats.com/showthread.php?t=239086
And you converted from what was orignally in it for arguements sake lets say a 2 barrel q-jet or weber. Then if his new system is as safe as the one that came out that was USCG approved the he may aviod liabilty if something were to happen
The bottom line is the law is old and needs to be changed. Some one with alot more money then me should bring a case before a federal judge and ask him to enjoin people from using boats with any injection system, The judge would of course dismiss it but he would have to write an opinion saying way and at least this would change the law and we could use it as precedent for what is and is not allow.

Just a couple thoughts I will have my paper done in april and alot better research by the end of the month.

Very interesting points. Basically the point that I've been trying to make. Just because it hasn't been "stamped" as "safe" doesn't mean it's not safe.

It is in fact SAFER than the status quo. This is one of those instances (cynical according to achris) where bureaucracy serves to hinder progress, and overall, make us less safe.

 

[mthieme]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

...which corroborates what is posted at USCG.MIL

glad to see some legal eagle notated the common sense factor too.

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

The bottom line is the law is old and needs to be changed. Some one with alot more money then me should bring a case before a federal judge and ask him to enjoin people from using boats with any injection system, The judge would of course dismiss it but he would have to write an opinion saying way and at least this would change the law and we could use it as precedent for what is and is not allow.

Just a couple thoughts I will have my paper done in april and alot better research by the end of the month. ____

You're right the law is old.

And while it may not technically apply to TBI or other EFI systems that doesn't stop someone from trying to haul someone else into court for a lawsuit. And yes this can apply to nearly anything.....

Remember the person sued McDonalds for the hot coffee spill? Now if I remember correctly McDonalds did finally either win the case on appeal or got the judgment reduced a whole bunch.

Maybe the best way to protect yourself would be to contact your own insurance company (you do have at least liability insurance don't you?) and see what they cover if you intentionally modify your boat. Insurance companies insure race boats all the time if you're up front then they can give you a realistic cost etc.

The time to ask about insurance is probably before the boat blows and the supoenas start rolling in....

 

[mthieme]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

If my insurance company was anal enough to not cover me for a design improvement within the law, I would drop them like a hot potato.
They lay out more money with cars that aren't bound by the same restrictions.
I don't see why they would have a problem with boats.

Seems to me the individuals concerned here are competent and are following the spirit of the law if not at least trying to stay within USCG R&R.
I think Kris' covered the bases pretty darn well.
I doubt it will cut down on the "gotta be USCG approved" padding though.

 

[mylesm260]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

USCG annual national boating statistics include Fuel Related Fire / Explosion deaths...
2001 - 2
2002 - 4
2003 - 7
2004 - 4
2005 - 0
2006 - 1
2007 - 0

While tragic, the numbers hardly represent an epidemic.

Over 2/3 of boating fatalities are due to drowning. 90% of those were not wearing a PFD.

Wow, I had no idea so FEW accidents happen. I was a mobile crane opperator for years, and the statistics for that are MUCH MUCH MUCH worse.

Also remember, these statistics are for all fuel related fires or explosions, so if someone had a small fishing boat with an outboard, spilled gas on himself and lit a cigerette and burned to death, he would fall under that statistic aswell.

Or what about boats that caught fire by some other means, then the fuel caught fire and blew up?

I mean at this point, I'd be more worried about getting into an office tower or onto a passenger train, than I would be about using an automotive EFI system in my boat. Think about how many americans died over the same time period as those statistics.

Were all specifically talking about fires as the resulf of automotive components used on boats, I bet THOSE numbers are way lower and related to starters/alternators more than EFI systems.


between 2005 and 2007 1 person died in fuel related explosions while boating in the entire united states? Sounds like were all flapping our gums over something that's really not that big of a deal.

I know the USCG might be looking for tags, but if they're the same part number, then they're OBVIOUSLY safe to use. A lot of you got mad at me for my automotive EFI setup, but now that I know it's pretty much the same setup that mercruiser uses I don't feel remotely bad about it (any more)


And Like I said in my other posts, yes, engine compartments in boats can hold in fumes if you have a fuel leak and you don't use your blowers, but if the GM automotive injection systems had the REMOTE chance of starting a fire, it would be happening in their trucks too based on the sheer number of them on the road.

Sparks usually happen in componens with moving parts like starters and alternators. Fuel injection systems are all sealed and all the parts that move, usually deal with fuel (injectors, etc) and are already build with fuel in mind.

 

[achris]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

between 2005 and 2007 1 person died in fuel related explosions while boating in the entire united states? Sounds like were all flapping our gums over something that's really not that big of a deal.

Maybe only one person died because the regulations are doing their job...

I know the USCG might be looking for tags, but if they're the same part number, then they're OBVIOUSLY safe to use.

Tis is a REALLY dangerous assumption!!! As I stated earlier, same part number on an assembly doesn't necessarily mean same parts inside...

A lot of you got mad at me for my automotive EFI setup, but now that I know it's pretty much the same setup that mercruiser uses I don't feel remotely bad about it (any more)


And Like I said in my other posts, yes, engine compartments in boats can hold in fumes if you have a fuel leak and you don't use your blowers, but if the GM automotive injection systems had the REMOTE chance of starting a fire, it would be happening in their trucks too based on the sheer number of them on the road.

Sparks usually happen in componens with moving parts like starters and alternators. Fuel injection systems are all sealed and all the parts that move, usually deal with fuel (injectors, etc) and are already build with fuel in mind.

The problem is not just a non-approved items ability not to START a fire, but also it's ability to withstand the effects of a fire started by something else...

How do you know that the small metal collar around the injector head is not plastic in the automotive version... And that it is precisely that part that determines its suitability for marine use? You don't....

I'm sorry, I have to keep saying this... If it's not an approved marine use item, it has no place in a boat.... I don't care if the guy has a hundred years working with, designing, installing automotive gear... It may well be as safe, or safer than marine approved... You, and he, don't KNOW that... The simple fact is... it's not marine approved! END OF STORY!!!!

Chris.............

 

[lmannyr]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Wow...lots of heat in here... I'll still use an automotive EFI system. Move on.....To each his own.

 

[mylesm260]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Amen

 

[achris]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

.. I'll still use an automotive EFI system. Move on.....To each his own.

Why??? Why would you put yourself and everyone around you at risk for a few hundred dollars????

Even if your system didn't cause a problem... When the investigation is done YOU'RE IT!! The lawyers will kill you, and your descendants...

I hear what you and all the other automotive users are saying... but that doesn't alter the facts...

As for your 'To each his own' statement... WOW... you are one inconsiderate S.O.B.!! It's not just your boat and family you are putting at risk... it's anyone within 'booms' distance of you!!!

Personally, I don't care what you have in your boat... I really don't... It's what that stuff COULD cause in the way of harm, hurt, death and damage to other people and their property....

Chris.......

 

[lmannyr]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Thanks for the SOB comment.....

So the violins play........................

 

[achris]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

ok.. I apologize for the SOB remark... but the sentiment remains....

 

[Uraijit]

Re: what makes a tbi from a truck different then a marine setup?

Maybe only one person died because the regulations are doing their job...

You ever hear of the logical fallacy, "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"?

Tis is a REALLY dangerous assumption!!! As I stated earlier, same part number on an assembly doesn't necessarily mean same parts inside...

Yet your argument didn't stand up. Your "Part number" was in reference to the part number for the BLOCK, which WAS, in fact, the same part. Imagine THAT. Same part number; same part! The actual engine part number WAS NOT the same, was it? You kinda ignored that one...

The problem is not just a non-approved items ability not to START a fire, but also it's ability to withstand the effects of a fire started by something else...

*Yawn* I seriously doubt that a fuel injector is a weaker point than that flexible rubber hose between the tank and the engine... Or how about that GLASS bowl that sits on the bottom of the mechanical fuel pump? Glass doesn't stand up too well to heat either. But if it happens to be full of fuel, BOOM!

Now everybody within a 12 mile radius is going to be KILLED Don't worry though, since it was a marine part, your insurance will cover it!

How do you know that the small metal collar around the injector head is not plastic in the automotive version... And that it is precisely that part that determines its suitability for marine use? You don't....

You can look at the part number! If they're the same part number, they're the same part! Even if it's NOT the same part number, you can do some common sense due dilligence.

"Is this part more likely to leak fuel?" YES/NO
"Is this part more likely to fail catistrophically?" YES/NO
"Is this part more likely to induce sparks to an area that sparks should no be? YES/NO
"Is this part more likely to hold large amounts of fuel in a central area, which could pose a significant risk of fire or explosion?" YES/NO
"Is my use of this part likely to interfere with basic safety functions of the boat"? YES/NO

"Is this part more likely to cause a pretentious fear-monger to get their panties in a bunch?" YES/NO

I'm sorry, I have to keep saying this... If it's not an approved marine use item, it has no place in a boat.... I don't care if the guy has a hundred years working with, designing, installing automotive gear...

No room for inovation, eh? It's clear that your mind is closed.

*Yawn*

It may well be as safe, or safer than marine approved... You, and he, don't KNOW that... The simple fact is... it's not marine approved! END OF STORY!!!!

Chris.............

So the only way you'll ever believe something is safe, is if your government puts a stamp on it, saying it's "safe".

What really gets me, is that even if it's SAFER, you'll use something that's NOT AS SAFE, because your government didn't explicitly state that it wasn't unsafe?

Wow!

Well over here in this little place called America, we were set up as what's known as a FREE COUNTRY. Not subject to kings, (or queens). Our entire legal system was based on the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty, and something is LEGAL until proven illegal.

Thanks for ambulance chasers, and sheeple like yourself, we've swayed FAR from that in practice, in recent years, but the principals remain the same... We're losing it fast, but there are still a select few in this country, who are still capable of independent thought.

We don't need some outside "leadership" to dictate to us what thoughts are acceptable...

Some people, it would seem, do need that though. It's a sad sad commentary on today's world.