|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > Onan RS20000 - silly pieces of information
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Onan RS20000 - silly pieces of information
|
|
| sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com 2006-02-16, 9:21 am |
| Hi,
I was thinking about getting one of these and hence have been looking
more into what it is really underneath
Generator Set -- Cummins GGDB 20 Kw set. Powered by a Ford 425 EFI Fuel
injected Engine. The Ford 425 Industrial engine is an off shoot from a
2.5 Liter Ford Ranger engine used in 1998. This engine was in turn
derived from the Ford Pinto engine used back in the 1970's, internal
Ford code name T-88.
So I guess as far as reliability of engine goes, we could look at
reliability of Ford Pinto's and Ford Rangers, and take some read from
that. Not exactly the same since the generator version is propane
rather than petrol.
I also noticed that the Onan generators are in general less
aggressively specified than the Generac range. I.E. Onan will use a
larger engine, to give the same power as Generac usign a smaller
engine. I guess Onan keeps the reliability up in this way.
Best, Mike.
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-17, 1:21 am |
| How do the fuel consumption numbers compare for the Generac versus the
Onan that you are considering.
We had originally considered an Onan solution, but based on the "paper"
specs, it "seemed" to use more fuel than the air cooled Generac (now
Briggs) - in our application - but, I readily admit that unless we ran
both and compared the results, it would be difficult to know the
difference....
Also, I think our situation is not typical of most folks, because noise
is not a big issue for us - while light weight, fuel economy, propane,
easy replacement and low price (so that we could afford a second unit)
are more important to us than quietness and extra long life.
However, we estimated that the fuel and oil would cost us more per hour
than the generator, so we started to think of the generator as a
"consumable" rather than a capital item.
Are you planning to use the unit for "prime" or "standby" -
If standby, you may not log enough hours for longevity to be an issue.
Our experience is that if you really NEED a generator, then you need a
second one to back it up. One memory I have of the news during Katrina,
was of the hospitals that ran their generators - until they failed...
Regarding the "specs" of the Pinto engine, it seems really hard to
"know" what any particular manufacture is choosing to use in any
specific application at any given time... I guess it is a trust thing.
For example, what do they use for exhaust valves and seat material? Or
in our case, Honda oil pump drive gears...
good luck!
Phil
sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking about getting one of these and hence have been looking
> more into what it is really underneath
>
> Generator Set -- Cummins GGDB 20 Kw set. Powered by a Ford 425 EFI Fuel
> injected Engine. The Ford 425 Industrial engine is an off shoot from a
> 2.5 Liter Ford Ranger engine used in 1998. This engine was in turn
> derived from the Ford Pinto engine used back in the 1970's, internal
> Ford code name T-88.
>
> So I guess as far as reliability of engine goes, we could look at
> reliability of Ford Pinto's and Ford Rangers, and take some read from
> that. Not exactly the same since the generator version is propane
> rather than petrol.
>
> I also noticed that the Onan generators are in general less
> aggressively specified than the Generac range. I.E. Onan will use a
> larger engine, to give the same power as Generac usign a smaller
> engine. I guess Onan keeps the reliability up in this way.
>
> Best, Mike.
| |
| phatty mo 2006-02-17, 2:21 am |
| philkryder wrote:
> How do the fuel consumption numbers compare for the Generac versus the
> Onan that you are considering.
>
> We had originally considered an Onan solution, but based on the "paper"
> specs, it "seemed" to use more fuel than the air cooled Generac (now
> Briggs) - in our application - but, I readily admit that unless we ran
> both and compared the results, it would be difficult to know the
> difference....
>
> Also, I think our situation is not typical of most folks, because noise
> is not a big issue for us - while light weight, fuel economy, propane,
> easy replacement and low price (so that we could afford a second unit)
> are more important to us than quietness and extra long life.
>
> However, we estimated that the fuel and oil would cost us more per hour
> than the generator, so we started to think of the generator as a
> "consumable" rather than a capital item.
>
> Are you planning to use the unit for "prime" or "standby" -
> If standby, you may not log enough hours for longevity to be an issue.
>
> Our experience is that if you really NEED a generator, then you need a
> second one to back it up. One memory I have of the news during Katrina,
> was of the hospitals that ran their generators - until they failed...
They failed because they were in the hospitals Basment...which flooded.
Maybe next time they'll catch a freakin clue,and install them on the roof.
> Regarding the "specs" of the Pinto engine, it seems really hard to
> "know" what any particular manufacture is choosing to use in any
> specific application at any given time... I guess it is a trust thing.
> For example, what do they use for exhaust valves and seat material? Or
> in our case, Honda oil pump drive gears...
>
> good luck!
> Phil
>
>
>
> sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-17, 3:21 am |
| Some may have flooded - - some failed.
Some roofs may have had damage in the hurricane -
Things happen - that is one reason why we feel a second unit is import
-
You make an excellent point that a separate second installation
location might have value in critical situations.
phatty mo wrote:[color=darkred]
> philkryder wrote:
>
> They failed because they were in the hospitals Basment...which flooded.
> Maybe next time they'll catch a freakin clue,and install them on the roof.
>
>
| |
| sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com 2006-02-17, 1:21 pm |
| Hi Phil,
Thanks for the information. My main use is for standby (a plain vanilla
house). At the moment the Onan RS20000 is the front runner. Pricing
wise the best I could find was at Costco www.costco.com.
I also looked at Generac / Guardian / Centurion (all the same brand
really). They are available at Wal-Mart's Sam's Club web site. The
Generac's I think will do the job but in general I think Generac tend
to be less conservative with their engineering. I.E. They are willing
to push their componets harder. Engines that Onan would use for 20kw,
Generac will push to maybe 25Kw ratings or more.
One very weird way that I sort of guestimate quality is to look at the
weight of the machine. My thoughts are the greater the Unit Weight / KW
capacity ratio the higher quality the unit is. I.E. In generators more
stuff is better, more copper, more cast iron in your engines. More
mount points to hold the thing together. In general Generac is usally
lighter. I must admit that the Generac QuietSource line throws all this
off because they use Aluminum enclosures, but in general I think that
this is an OK measure to use... comments anyone?
Yes the Gas tank size is an issue. I would like to have a 500 gallon
tank. This should give me at least 3 days. 500 Gallon tank I think will
hold about 450 gallons of LP. The I guess we would use some weekly test
running, cooking etc. Unfortunately I cannot bury the tank because I
would have to blast through rock to do it. Specification wise the
Generac RS20000 uses slightly less fuel to generate 20kw than the
Generac 15,000 air-cooled unit to generate 15kw. So I guess this is
sort of evidence that the Generac air colled machines are pushed pretty
hard up the engineering stress curve.
Warmest regards, Mike.
philkryder wrote:[color=darkred]
> How do the fuel consumption numbers compare for the Generac versus the
> Onan that you are considering.
>
> We had originally considered an Onan solution, but based on the "paper"
> specs, it "seemed" to use more fuel than the air cooled Generac (now
> Briggs) - in our application - but, I readily admit that unless we ran
> both and compared the results, it would be difficult to know the
> difference....
>
> Also, I think our situation is not typical of most folks, because noise
> is not a big issue for us - while light weight, fuel economy, propane,
> easy replacement and low price (so that we could afford a second unit)
> are more important to us than quietness and extra long life.
>
> However, we estimated that the fuel and oil would cost us more per hour
> than the generator, so we started to think of the generator as a
> "consumable" rather than a capital item.
>
> Are you planning to use the unit for "prime" or "standby" -
> If standby, you may not log enough hours for longevity to be an issue.
>
> Our experience is that if you really NEED a generator, then you need a
> second one to back it up. One memory I have of the news during Katrina,
> was of the hospitals that ran their generators - until they failed...
>
> Regarding the "specs" of the Pinto engine, it seems really hard to
> "know" what any particular manufacture is choosing to use in any
> specific application at any given time... I guess it is a trust thing.
> For example, what do they use for exhaust valves and seat material? Or
> in our case, Honda oil pump drive gears...
>
> good luck!
> Phil
>
>
>
> sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com wrote:
| |
|
| In article <1140151175.747161.204370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
> Our experience is that if you really NEED a generator, then you need a
> second one to back it up. One memory I have of the news during Katrina,
> was of the hospitals that ran their generators - until they failed...
Hospitals ran their generators, not untill they "Failed", but untill
they ran out of fuel, and could not be resupplied, because the Streets
were all UNDERWATER.......
same for the Cellphone Sites, and Telco Switch Centers......
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-18, 2:21 am |
| How do the Generacs compare to the ONANs for fuel use?
sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com wrote:[color=darkred]
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for the information. My main use is for standby (a plain vanilla
> house). At the moment the Onan RS20000 is the front runner. Pricing
> wise the best I could find was at Costco www.costco.com.
>
> I also looked at Generac / Guardian / Centurion (all the same brand
> really). They are available at Wal-Mart's Sam's Club web site. The
> Generac's I think will do the job but in general I think Generac tend
> to be less conservative with their engineering. I.E. They are willing
> to push their componets harder. Engines that Onan would use for 20kw,
> Generac will push to maybe 25Kw ratings or more.
>
> One very weird way that I sort of guestimate quality is to look at the
> weight of the machine. My thoughts are the greater the Unit Weight / KW
> capacity ratio the higher quality the unit is. I.E. In generators more
> stuff is better, more copper, more cast iron in your engines. More
> mount points to hold the thing together. In general Generac is usally
> lighter. I must admit that the Generac QuietSource line throws all this
> off because they use Aluminum enclosures, but in general I think that
> this is an OK measure to use... comments anyone?
>
> Yes the Gas tank size is an issue. I would like to have a 500 gallon
> tank. This should give me at least 3 days. 500 Gallon tank I think will
> hold about 450 gallons of LP. The I guess we would use some weekly test
> running, cooking etc. Unfortunately I cannot bury the tank because I
> would have to blast through rock to do it. Specification wise the
> Generac RS20000 uses slightly less fuel to generate 20kw than the
> Generac 15,000 air-cooled unit to generate 15kw. So I guess this is
> sort of evidence that the Generac air colled machines are pushed pretty
> hard up the engineering stress curve.
>
>
> Warmest regards, Mike.
>
>
>
>
> philkryder wrote:
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-18, 2:21 am |
| That certainly sounds right - I'm just relaying what I heard the news
was reporting - that they failed...
I am still of the opinion that if really need one, then you need a
backup.
On other hand if you are just getting one so you can be more
comfortable and run your PC and watch TV, then it doesn't really
matter.
You wrote:
> In article <1140151175.747161.204370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hospitals ran their generators, not untill they "Failed", but untill
> they ran out of fuel, and could not be resupplied, because the Streets
> were all UNDERWATER.......
>
> same for the Cellphone Sites, and Telco Switch Centers......
|
|
|
|
|