engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines?

I'd be very surprised if Crusader or any other engine marinizer will produce
retrofit kits to enable NMEA 2000 communication with displays. It would be
pretty expensive.

However, in time, perhaps several marinizers will cooperate to produce a
series of analog to digital readers to accomplish the job for individual
readouts. ie. a box for engine temp, another for RPM, another for oil
pressure, etc. In that way one could add as much or as little to the
display as desired or as may be affordable. An aftermarket company could
also do this, of course.

I hope it happens as it would virtually cause dash gages to become obsolete
and provide far more accurate info with a great range of alarm options.

Butch
"Kees Verruijt" wrote in message

> Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> What are my choices on getting engine monitoring data into my Raymarine
>> E-80
>> display from a pair of 6.0 Crusader engines? The E-80 can monitor oil
>> pressure, rpm, fuel flow, fuel tank levels, alternator and coolant temp.
>> I
>> can use either their SeaTalk or NMEA formatted data.
>>
>> How do I get the signals from the current analog gauge setup into the
>> E-80?
>> Whose devices are suitable?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Bill Kearney
>>
>
> You'd need a gizmo that converts the sensor data into NMEA-2000 (not
> NMEA-0183). Start with the engine manufacturer?
>
> --
> Kees
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

I heard that Noland Engineering is developing an engine monitoring
system that can interface with sensors / gauges using an NMEA 0183
format, rather than the NMEA 2000 format. I'm not an expert in this
area, so perhaps you should check it out for yourself. I think they
call it a vessel monitoring system. I'm familiar with their
multiplexer and expander products, and they work great and are
reasonably priced.

www.nolandengineering.com
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

I think the OP's point was that the raymarine e series accepts the
input from 'standard' NMEA 2000 and displays the stuff on the screen
without the need for another display so you dont need the e80 and a
laptop.

Ian
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

> I think the OP's point was that the raymarine e series accepts the
> input from 'standard' NMEA 2000 and displays the stuff on the screen
> without the need for another display so you dont need the e80 and a
> laptop.

I want to use my E-80 to monitor the engines and fuel. I'm also
hoping/expecting that I might also be able to extract at least some of that
same data ot my laptop, currently connected via NMEA-0183. The latter being
something I'd expect might require an extra interface as -0183 is slower
than -2000.

Regardless, I'd prefer to avoid duplicating sensors. The boat's already got
analog gauges monitoring everything but the fuel flow. I'd expect to add
fuel flow sensors, unless the fuel injection/engine management system can
provide this data. But I'd certainly want to avoid attaching all new oil,
temp, rpm and alternator sensors AND their wiring. If it means 'tapping
into' the wires currently feeding the analog gauges that's not an
unreasonable solution, providing it's not horrendously overpriced.

The reason I have both the laptop AND the e-80 is I prefer to layout routes
on the PC and do other work on it. That and the e-80 works better in
sunlight and wet weather.

-Bill Kearney
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

> You'd need a gizmo that converts the sensor data

Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that a device of some kind will be needed,
isn't it?

> into NMEA-2000 (not NMEA-0183).

Given the 'emerging' nature of NMEA 2000 I'm not sure I'd want to bother
with the bleeding edge.. The E-series can take NMEA-0183, SeaTalk (slower),
SeaTalk2 (faster) or their ethernet-based SeaTalkHS (fastest). I'd imagine
one that used SeaTalk2 would be best for this display. Especially since
that's what the E-80 manual suggests.

> Start with the engine manufacturer?

And I have sent 'em an e-mail inquiry. I'm asking the group to help avoid
the usual hassles of vendor 'recommendations' of products that bring along
their own headaches.

So who supplies the sort of interface that converts from oil, tach, etc,
into SeaTalk 2?
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

Bill,

If fuel flow is your concern you might look into the Lowrance EP-10 which is
an NMEA 2000 fuel flow device which inputs data to Lowrance displays.
Perhaps other displays as well??? It's cost is about US$ 50. It is a
turbine device which taps into the fuel line going to the engine. There is
also an EP-15 which converts fuel level to NMEA 2000 data. It hooks up to
the sending unit and also reads out on a Lowarance display.

Is it true that NMEA 2000 displays will accept NMEA 0183 input? Heard that
some where and it makes sense that the new would accomodate the old, eh?

Butch
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message

>> You'd need a gizmo that converts the sensor data
>
> Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that a device of some kind will be
> needed,
> isn't it?
>
>> into NMEA-2000 (not NMEA-0183).
>
> Given the 'emerging' nature of NMEA 2000 I'm not sure I'd want to bother
> with the bleeding edge.. The E-series can take NMEA-0183, SeaTalk
> (slower),
> SeaTalk2 (faster) or their ethernet-based SeaTalkHS (fastest). I'd
> imagine
> one that used SeaTalk2 would be best for this display. Especially since
> that's what the E-80 manual suggests.
>
>> Start with the engine manufacturer?
>
> And I have sent 'em an e-mail inquiry. I'm asking the group to help avoid
> the usual hassles of vendor 'recommendations' of products that bring along
> their own headaches.
>
> So who supplies the sort of interface that converts from oil, tach, etc,
> into SeaTalk 2?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

> If fuel flow is your concern you might look into the Lowrance EP-10 which
is
> an NMEA 2000 fuel flow device which inputs data to Lowrance displays.
> Perhaps other displays as well??? It's cost is about US$ 50. It is a
> turbine device which taps into the fuel line going to the engine.

Anything other than the Lowrance EP-10? It would appear they're using their
own form of NMEA cabling. While adapters do appear to be available it sort
of makes sense to just use stuff that's got standard Micro-C connectors on
them already.

> There is
> also an EP-15 which converts fuel level to NMEA 2000 data. It hooks up to
> the sending unit and also reads out on a Lowarance display.

Does this work with the existing way the tank level is monitored? As in, am
I just patching into the wire, not installing something else in the tanks?
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

Bill,

The EP-15 simply connects to the teminals at the existing sending unit. A
very simple connect. A visit to the Lowrance web site might be worthwhile.

I understand some folks are converting the Lowrance connectors to Micro-C
connectors. I believe this is discussed on THT thehulltruth.com in the
electronics forum at some length. Take a look.

Butch
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message

>> If fuel flow is your concern you might look into the Lowrance EP-10 which
> is
>> an NMEA 2000 fuel flow device which inputs data to Lowrance displays.
>> Perhaps other displays as well??? It's cost is about US$ 50. It is a
>> turbine device which taps into the fuel line going to the engine.
>
> Anything other than the Lowrance EP-10? It would appear they're using
> their
> own form of NMEA cabling. While adapters do appear to be available it
> sort
> of makes sense to just use stuff that's got standard Micro-C connectors on
> them already.
>
>> There is
>> also an EP-15 which converts fuel level to NMEA 2000 data. It hooks up
>> to
>> the sending unit and also reads out on a Lowarance display.
>
> Does this work with the existing way the tank level is monitored? As in,
> am
> I just patching into the wire, not installing something else in the tanks?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

> I understand some folks are converting the Lowrance connectors to Micro-C
> connectors.

There are five connectors I've encountered thus far. The back of the E-80
(a 5-pin circular whose type I don't know is is Micro-C?), the LowranceNet
bus, SeaTalk2 ,Micro-C and Mini-C. Which type is being run as the backbone?

Coupled with news from this panbo post:
http://www.panbo.com/yae/archives/001246.html
The LowranceNet connectors are being obsoleted in favor of Micro-C?

http://www.panbo.com/yae/archives/LowranceNet%20cables.jpg

> I believe this is discussed on THT thehulltruth.com in the
> electronics forum at some length. Take a look.

Yeah, THT has a number of good posts but nothing that really lays it all out
(yet)

I just want to avoid running something that'll require too many adapters.

-Bill Kearney
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

> I know what you mean about too many adaptors. As to which type is being
run
> as the backbone.... with the Lowrance displays comes a Lowrance backbone
> (bus). I know nothing about Raymarine but guess/assume they have a
backbone
> of their own design.

Lowrance has been using their own, but recent news (via panbo) seems to
indicate they're changing to use the industry-adopted Micro-C type. If/when
that's going to happen is the question.

Raymarine says they can splice right into an existing NMEA 2000 bus. Or you
can use their proprietary SeaTalk2 connectors.

I'm inclined to go with standard over proprietary so I'd prefer to avoid the
existing Lowrance Raymarine styles. Not that they're "bad", more that I'd
prefer to avoid installing stuff that drags along obsolete and/or legacy
issues.

Right now it looks like Maretron has the best range of cable and connection
options.

> Wouldn't it be nice if all the connectors were made to a single
convention??
> Perhaps some day interoperability between electronics manufacturers will
be
> a reality.

Supposedly that's here today in the form of Micro-C connections.

> As it is, one needs to be much smarter than I to consider mixing
> and matching.

I'm just trying to plan far enough ahead so that I don't have the 'wrong'
style connections being used for main bus. If I have to adapt from that I'd
like to make sure the offshooting spurs don't introduce headaches of their
own. As in, if Lowranace isn't going to ship Micro-C connectors on their
fuel monitoring sensors (tank & flow) then I'll setup a LowranceNet just
between those and then stub it off a Micro-C bus. Which introduces
questions about supplying power and termination.

As in something like this: (ln being lowrancenet)

LN terminator
LN T -- LN Power
LN T -- LN EP-10 (fuel flow)
LN T -- LN EP-15 (tank level)
LN cable (between tanks)
LN T -- LN EP-10
LN T -- LN EP-15
LN T -- LN-NMEA adapter---> NMEA bus
LN terminator

NMEA terminator
NMEA T -- LN-NMEA adapter <---- LN Bus
NMEA T -- NMEA-SeaTalk splice -- E-80
NMEA T - NMEA Power
NMEA terminator

Or can the adapter between the LowranceNet bus and NMEA2k be a simple splice
and be terminated using Micro-C connections?

Ideally it'd just use Micro-C all around:

NM terminator
NM T -- NM Power
NM T -- EP-10
NM T -- EP-15
NM cable
NM T -- EP-10
NM T -- EP-15
NM cable
NM T -- splice to E-80
NM terminator

> I guess about the best we can do, so far, is DSC connections
> between differing manufacturers of VHF and GPS. That's a start, anyway.

Well, DSC uses NMEA 0183 so that's not directly related to this situation.
But I get your point.

-Bill Kearney
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines? 

Bill,

I know what you mean about too many adaptors. As to which type is being run
as the backbone.... with the Lowrance displays comes a Lowrance backbone
(bus). I know nothing about Raymarine but guess/assume they have a backbone
of their own design.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the connectors were made to a single convention??
Perhaps some day interoperability between electronics manufacturers will be
a reality. As it is, one needs to be much smarter than I to consider mixing
and matching. I guess about the best we can do, so far, is DSC connections
between differing manufacturers of VHF and GPS. That's a start, anyway.

Butch
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message

>> I understand some folks are converting the Lowrance connectors to Micro-C
>> connectors.
>
> There are five connectors I've encountered thus far. The back of the E-80
> (a 5-pin circular whose type I don't know is is Micro-C?), the LowranceNet
> bus, SeaTalk2 ,Micro-C and Mini-C. Which type is being run as the
> backbone?
>
> Coupled with news from this panbo post:
> http://www.panbo.com/yae/archives/001246.html
> The LowranceNet connectors are being obsoleted in favor of Micro-C?
>
> http://www.panbo.com/yae/archives/LowranceNet%20cables.jpg
>
>> I believe this is discussed on THT thehulltruth.com in the
>> electronics forum at some length. Take a look.
>
> Yeah, THT has a number of good posts but nothing that really lays it all
> out
> (yet)
>
> I just want to avoid running something that'll require too many adapters.
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
 >> Stay informed about: engine monitoring with raymarine and crusader engines?