Replacing Lugger/Northern Lights PTO Clutch

Many small Lugger marine engines and Northern Lights generators are equipped with a power takeoff (PTO) unit that can be used to drive accessories. Hydraulic pumps are a common use case for this PTO.

These PTOs are equipped with electric clutches to allow them to be powered or unpowered at will. This is convenient, but the clutches are a wear item that periodically require service. In this video we replace the clutch on a Lugger L844d auxiliary engine with 1036 hours on it. This same clutch and PTO also is used on the Northern Lights 12KW and 16KW generators.

If your comment doesn't show up right away, send us email and we'll dredge it out of the spam filter.

18 comments on “Replacing Lugger/Northern Lights PTO Clutch
  1. Chris Barber says:

    BTW can you point me at sources for the pump and clutch please? And some idea of cost, in case these places all say “call for quote”. I just want to put some numbers into a budget for building out this system. Thank you!

    • The system are sold as complete systems. Focusing first on the Wing or Gen, as an option Northern Lights has a clutch driven PTO that can be ordered on their generators are propulsion engines. I think the clutch is available from Pitts Industries for a bit less than $1000 but it wouldn’t do much good to buy the clutch directly since you still need all the custom mounting hardware for it. That part of the system is usually purchased as a system from the supplier for wing engines and generators.

      On the main engine, medium sized and bigger main engines usually have PTOs ready to go. On our Deere 6068AFM75, there is a PTO available but there isn’t enough clearance there for a large hydraulic pump. Our transmission is a ZF 305-2 and it also has a PTO and it has sufficient clearance and that’s what drives our Rexroth 45CC pump.

      The hydraulic system as a whole is sold as a package from American Bow Thruster (ABT) as part of there design for stabilizers and other hydraulic components. The parts can all be purchased independently but it was a package purchased on Dirona so I don’t know the prices for each component. Many components like the stabilizers themselves and all the control systems are custom made by ABT and only available from them as part of an overall system. These are often installed on new boats but ABT is happy to help with existing builds. ABT does nice designs with a focus on reliability and their customer service is simply unbeatable. They are head and shoulders above most of the marine supply industry in their approach to making reliable gear that really works and standing behind it.

      • Chris Barber says:

        Thanks again James. Very helpful knowing I can approach ABT for a solution. My general plan is based on the notion of adding the second hydraulic pump to the wing engine of a Nordhavn that is already equipped with the pump on the main, to add redundancy for the stabilizers and capacity to run hydraulic thrusters and a bilge pump. Ideally the finished system will look just like Dirona’s, I would certainly rather rely on an established engineering firm rather than becoming a parts supplier, fabricator, and hydraulic engineer myself! :)

        • Almost all larger Nordhavn’s are equipped with hydraulics and it’s common to have two pumps where one is on the main and the other is on the gen. for systems equipped with ABT Stabilization at Rest (STAR), they also have a large electric motor driving a hydraulic pump. This electric motor can be driving by any of the generators on board. So, on the larger boats, there are lots of options.

          Most Norhavn’s in the 40′ to 52′ only have hydraulic stabilizers but use electrics for other accessories. For example, our boat is #63 in the 47/52 series and, in all those boats, 63 is the first all hydraulic boat. Many of the smaller boats use passive stabilization and some don’t have any hydraulics at all. So, when looking at Nordhavn’s you’ll see the everything from hydraulic everything to no hydraulics all. Generally, adding hydraulic stabilizers is a pretty large and expensive change but, if the boat is already hydraulically equipped, adding more hydraulic equipment is quite practical.

          • Chris Barber says:

            That’s the way I see it. Mine will be the first all-hydraulic 47 (albeit non-factory). Clearly no 47’s were full hydraulic from the factory and I know that the first ten or fifteen hulls didn’t even get a 24V electric system. There’s zero probability that I will have a 47 with 12V electric or no stabilizers, but a good chance that the one I buy will have no stern thruster. I will definitely want a stern thruster, and I will definitely want the redundant hydraulic power for stabilizers if nothing else. So if I’m going to the trouble of installing a stern thruster anyways I might as well make it a hydraulic one, gaining 100% duty cycle operation, possibly proportional thrust control, and upgrade the hydraulic system to support it. Then I can redo the bow thruster with a hydraulic at the same time or later as it suits me. A few $$$$s? No doubt. Personal satisfaction and ease of operation? Maxed out. :) Yeah, I’ll probably be puttin’ that jackscrew socket holder into the steering ram mounting plate too :)

            • It’s sounds like you have thought this through carefully and know the market fairly well. I think you are right that a 24V boat is better than 12V in that it allows smaller conductors but, from my perspective, a 12V boat might not be a show stopper. On the hydraulics front N4715, Oso Blanco, was the first N47 delivered with a hydraulic bow thruster. Between N4715 and our N5263 which is an all hydraulic boat, I don’t know of any others with even an hydraulic bow thrusther. There may be some I don’t know of but I think you’ll find it a fairly rare configuration in the 47/52 series. If you include the N55 in your search, you’ll find more hydraulic boats in the market.

              I agree with your preference for hydraulic bow and stern thrusters. On the 47/52 series, the additional advantage of hydraulics is they come with greater power. The 47/52 series when we purchased Dirona used 10 hp electric thrusters whereas the hydraulic option was 18 hp proportional thrusters.

              • Chris Barber says:

                Oh, yes, for sure the greater power in the thrusters. I look at these older boats built with 10HP or less electric thrusters… no way. And I think that may be some of the drive to the 24V electric system, to support higher power electric thrusters. Then you’ve got the windlass and davit crane which would typically be electric, even if the crane itself is hydraulic (or at least I’ve seen configurations where this is the case). I can definitely see the argument that 12V electric is sufficient when you go all in on hydraulics. Interesting thing to think about.

                I really love the 55/60 for its floor plan and I agree there will be more hydraulic configurations available in the brokerage market. A decent 55 will go over $1M and I’ve seen a survey report on one hull that would have added $200K in repairs to a sub-$1M sale. Not that I don’t expect problems in an aging boat, but I have to draw a line on my budget somewhere. But they are a fabulous design.

                • I like the 55/60 layout as well but, as you said, they are typically somewhat more expensive than the 47/52 series and we’ve been pretty happy with the 52. We do really like the hydraulic equipment on Dirona. We have Windlass, bow thruster, stern thruster, emergency bilge pump, and stabilizers. The crane is hydraulic but it runs on a separate hydraulic electric power pack so is effectively an electric crane.

                  • Jeffry Kunkel says:

                    With the hydraulic system, you have redundancy with the PTO on both main and wing, but if the main engine should fail, the wing has to be properly sized to be able to run hydraulics and drive the boat and a reasonable diminished speed. I am sure you factored this in when doing the specs on the boat, what flexibility did you have when choosing a larger wing or was the original spec wing sufficient to run hydraulics and prop?

                    • Yes, good point. It’s important that the wing have the power to drive the stabilizers and the propel the boat. When running the thrusters or anchor windlass, it really got any power left to do anything. But, the stabilizers require very little power so it has no trouble running both the stabilizers and propelling the boat at the same time. In the few times we have run it in open ocean (twice doing a repair and once doing a main engine oil change), the wing did a great job. The repairs were 3 to 4 hour operations so the wing got a good test both times with the stabilizers and it did great.

                      In my opinion, the wing on our boat would be better sized at 50HP or, potentially, even 55 to 60HP. The 40 has no trouble delivering just over 4 kts but it’s running at pretty much max output when stabilizers or windlass is used. I would prefer more HP but, with tuning, a 40hp can deliver full hydraulic operation — it just works hard to do do it.

                    • Jeffry Kunkel says:

                      One more question, sorry. At times when an anchorage has waves rolling in, like swell from around a headland, then to use the stabilizers, some power source needs to be on to run the hydraulics, running the wing with a light load would not be a good idea, a slightly over sized 16kw generator with a PTO might be an alternative?

                    • When Dirona was built, the hydraulics and stabilizer supplier (ABT) didn’t yet offer STabilization At Rest (STAR). For those boats that are so equipped, they use an electric pump that can be driven by any of on board generators. For us, if we are in a rough anchorage, we deploy a passive stabilizer. But the boat is heavy and doesn’t roll much so we seldom deploy the flopper stopper. However, the few times we have needed the flopper stopper, we really needed it.

                      Because STAR comes with larger fins and this is useful even when underway in particularly rough water, we probably would chose to install it but we might choose to go with the flopper stopper as well.

  2. Chris Barber says:

    James, Thanks for this great tutorial. I’m certain I will be using this information in my future boating adventures! Not only does this show us how to deal with the clutch replacement but it got me thinking again about having that redundant and also additive hydraulic pump capacity strapped onto the wing engine. I wish I were more knowledgeable about hydraulic systems. I’m an electrical engineer so I tend to think in terms of series and parallel circuits. My question is: are the two pumps pumping in series or parallel, and is it correct that there is no need for a bypass valve of some sort when only one pump is operating?

    • The two pumps have suction hoses drawing from the reservoir, pressure hoses that feed the same manifold, and pressure sense hoses from the same manifold. Where the pressure sensors enter the common pressure manifold there are large check valves (1-way valves) so that either pump can be used and pressure doesn’t leak back through an unused pump. It’s a nice design that offers a lot of flexibility.

      Since you are familiar with electrical parts, hydraulics are really remarkably similar to think through. In this case the two variables are pressure and flow. In our system, the high pressure nominal output is 3,800 PSI and, at that pressure the thrusters will produce 18 HP. Say you are running only on the main engine and it’s idly and you use the thrusters there won’t be much flow so, as the thrusters are applied, the pressure falls fast and the output will be feable. At higher revs or on the wing engine at higher revs, there will be sufficient flow so the pressure will stay at 3,800 and full power will be available at the thrusters.

      Hydraulics are actually very similar to electrical circuits where, if you have a source that produces 50A and 240V, the voltage will stay near constant as you increase draw but, if the load draws more than 50A, the voltage will fall. The interplay between amperage and voltage in an electrical circuit is very similar to the interplay between pressure and flow in a hydraulic circuit.

      • Chris Barber says:

        Thanks so much for this James. Indeed I have often used water flow as an analogy for electricity when explaining some electrical concept to a non-tech person. Mixing water and electricity. That always works well :)
        I’m guessing that the pressure sensors are telling the pumps not to overpressure the system? Or is there some kind of feedback loop going on here where the pump is actually regulating pressure?

        • The pumps are rotary designs where the pistons are pushed up and down by a swash plate. The angle of the swash plate is the piston stroke so the pump can be stroked up to a maximum, in this case 45CC per revolution, or down to 0. There is a pressure sense hose that runs back to the pump that controls the swash plate angle. When the system is “off” the pump is run with just enough stroke to produce 400 PSI which is enough to control the swash plate but not much more. If the stabilizers are turned on, the system moves up to 1,500 PSI. American Bow Thruster (ABT) uses 1,500 for the stabilizers since they don’t need much power to operate. If the thrusters are used, for example, the system strokes up to full pressure which, in our case, is a fairly high 3,800 PSI.

          • Chris Barber says:

            That’s incredible. See comment above about not becoming a hydraulic system engineer :)

            • Hydraulics are pretty cool. They can deliver massive forces in a very controllable way. And, the world has good experience with how to produce continuous duty hydraulic equipment so the thrusters, windlass, and stabilizer can run all day long. No thermal cutouts, no restrictions on use, they just work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.