Lycoming Engine replacement

[2nd505th]

Got this from Lycoming:

The prices for the O-235-L2C engine from Lycoming, on exchange, are:
Lycoming Factory Overhauled - $38,668
Lycoming Factory Rebuilt - $44,845
Lycoming Factory New - $66,561

Don't forget that only Air Power offers financing for all Lycoming Engines!

*PLEASE NOTE: if the core is more than 36 years old, Lycoming requires that you purchase either Factory-Rebuilt or Factory-New engine (Factory-Overhaul would not be an option). Unlike overhaul shops, the factory will not re-use parts that old. If you are unsure of your engines age, send me the serial number and I’ll find out for you.
Remember, there are no additional charges added later for normal wear or normal repairs on your old engine. In other words, there are no "we didn’t know about that until we opened it up" surprises. If your core is operable (with genuine Lycoming crankcase and crankshaft), active, assembled, and returned complete, this is a guaranteed price, not a penny more!

My question is that if Lycoming never uses old parts - why would they want my old engine back? All it's inner parts are more than 36 years old (except for the cylinders). It also means that no rebuilt has a part older than 36 years? Is this an industry standard - not to use parts over 36 years?

Does this also mean that a shop like Zephyr would use my older parts when doing an overhaul?

 

[Bell206]

why would they want my old engine back?

The 36 year limit is part of Lycoming's Core Policy. But it doesn't exempt you from providing a core.

It also means that no rebuilt has a part older than 36 years?

For Lycoming, yes. But NOS parts has different meanings for the OEM/producer of a product.

Is this an industry standard - not to use parts over 36 years?

No.

Does this also mean that a shop like Zephyr would use my older parts when doing an overhaul?

Maybe. Up to the shop. Would I use them? Yes.

 

[hindsight2020]

40K.. before R/R labor.. for a -235. Aaaand that's why I no longer own an airplane. smh

No, it isn't a regulatory requirement, they just choose to do that as the OEM. Their monkey, their circus type of thing. I recommend not patronizing them, it encourages this nonsense. If you're a for-profit participant, then disregard, you're passing the cost of the nonsense to others. Either way, good luck to you in navigating this captive audience affair.

 

[Dan Thomas]

My question is that if Lycoming never uses old parts - why would they want my old engine back? All it's inner parts are more than 36 years old (except for the cylinders).

That is answered by the Lycoming statement:

If your core is operable (with genuine Lycoming crankcase and crankshaft),

Those are the parts they reuse, if they're reusable. They're the expensive bits. The cam, lifters, cylinders, pistons, accessories, and some gears are all new. It's cheaper for them to replace the other stuff rather than to try to reclaim them.

They have likely found that engines that were last in the Lyc factory 36 or more years ago are too far gone to reclaim much of anything. Corrosion is a big factor in that, and maybe (maybe) the metallurgy of the old stuff isn't up to the standards in use now.

I bought factory overhauls for the flight school. Lots of them. Several times the "factory overhauled" engine in the crate was a brand-new engine. Zero time, nothing with any marks of use on it. They can't rebuild every case and crank that comes in, after all, and some cores just never get returned, as homebuilders will buy a "runout" core that still has good compressions and isn't making metal. Lots of hours in it yet.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

why would they want my old engine back?

I've been told (well it was regarding CAT engines - formerly known as Continental) that this reduces their liability exposure.
They want to get the old parts out of circulation.
Perhaps they think the older parts are more likely to fail, resulting in a crash & lawsuit.

 

[Lndwarrior]

Wow! If my O-235 grenades itself I guess I'll be converting to a $12,000 modern engine with fuel injection and 4 gallon per hour fuel burn, more horsepower and significant increase in airspeed. And much lower mx and operating costs. (Viking).

It makes you wonder about the economics of an older trainer aircraft lime a 150/52. Is an individual going to spend $45k or more (installed) to put a new/rebuilt engine in it? Or do you just sell it, or part it out?

 

[hindsight2020]

Wow! If my O-235 grenades itself I guess I'll be converting to a $12,000 modern engine with fuel injection and 4 gallon per hour fuel burn, more horsepower and significant increase in airspeed. And much lower mx and operating costs. (Viking).

It makes you wonder about the economics of an older trainer aircraft lime a 150/52. Is an individual going to spend $45k or more (installed) to put a new/rebuilt engine in it? Or do you just sell it, or part it out?

In my case (arrow), thats exactly what i did. i sold it non flying. the buyer came in a few months later (i gave him free hangar for the duration as an inducement to get rid of my problem) with a trailer and a bunch of 2x4s, pulled the wings and that's all she wrote.

Putting the entire hull insured value of the airplane on just an overhauled 1940s aircooled engine didnt pencil out for me. Nor did it pencil out to incur the price risk just to sell at a loss anyways, given the airframe history/cosmetics discount. Good money after bad type of thing.

I have looked at automotive on the eab side. I know they're much maligned, and it's my understanding the guy from viking left some sour taste in some peoples mouth when their engine conversion venture before viking folded. But honestly at the prices lyco and conti keep pitching these days, i have to be open to alternatives.

I used to be agnostic on the automotive conversion, which is to say i accepted peoples lampooning of the choice as " bound to fail" at face value, but not anymore. I think we need to encourage alternatives, and take some risks. The legacy engine OEMs arent doing the hobby any favors, we need actual friends, and car enthusiasts (and automotive economies of scale) is probably the only people we have left on our side. The aviation side just as well tell you to scram because you cant afford it. I rather pick up boating than keep "friends" like that anymore.

The 160-180hp space is a little thin right now (these conversions seem to target the stolbro airplanes at 130hp and below) but my hope is offerings start maturing as interest increases. As much as i pitched my love for lycoming, it's their pricing which shoved me to start seriously researching auto conversions, good bad or indifferent.

 

[Steamflyer]

Got this from Lycoming:

The prices for the O-235-L2C engine from Lycoming, on exchange, are:
Lycoming Factory Overhauled - $38,668
Lycoming Factory Rebuilt - $44,845
Lycoming Factory New - $66,561

Rough rule of thumb is that everything in aviation has doubled in the last ten years (a good marker of inflation as well). However, we pilots tend to remember the "old" numbers, so when confronted with a 40k rebuild we think "isn't that supposed to be around 20k for a little four banger?"

They'll sell you and engine which will go 2000 hours (and more often) under the ham-fisted operation of student pilots and 400 hour CFIs who often have little mechanical knowledge. Seems like money well spent. Not saying OP is in this category, but Lycoming has to design and build for it.

Car engines are meant to provide 5-15% of rated power continuously. Not betting on any of them at 60 yo 80% power continuously.

 

[Gary Ward]

Xmas 2019 I removed the clys on my 0-320 to inspect clys and cam/tappets. Put it back together in 7 days and kept flying it.
Ordered a lycoming factory rebuilt 0-320 H2AD Xmas 2019. It was supposed to take 7-9 weeks to come but took 12 weeks to get here. Not a big deal since I was still flying my old engine which was running well. I kept flying even after receiving the replacement engine until I had to swap out my old engine to get it back to lycoming within 90 days.
My old engine was original parts, 40 + years old still flying. I got full credit for it with no questions asked even though there was heavy pitting in the crank snout and part of the reason I did not want to overhaul it. Would had to buy a crank and have my plane down for months.
Then I did the engine swap in 6 days and was flying my new engine on the 7th day.

No drama like Hindsight2020 experienced.
The new engine now has 650+ hrs on it running well.
The rebuilt engine cost $27400. then. All my hoses and more was already new so I was able to swap it in less than a week by myself. Turns out my timing was good for a change.
Here it is last Fri as I recently got a boroscope to keep an eye on my engine. The dates on the boroscope pictures is not set yet, sorry about that.

Xmas 2019, cold and my dog helped some so I guess I didn't do it by myself?

July 2020, hot as hell, 95° days. I earned this swap. But it is easier than working on a car or truck engine swap.

 

[bnt83]

O320-E2D - 55 years old and nothing was rejected by 3rd party component overhaul shops (crankshaft, crankcase, accessory case, connecting rods, rocker arms, gears). We have steadily put $ into the accessories the last 10 years and finally pulled the trigger and took the engine off to overhaul it. We had cylinder kits, camshaft kit, connecting rod hardware, oil pump kit, gaskets, engine control cables, new Reiff winter preheater, and a pile of other items in-stock on the shelf that we have been collecting for about 5 years waiting for the day we overhauled it.

The magnetos, ignition wires, spark plugs, fuel hoses, oil cooler, starter ring gear, exhaust, fuel pump, carburetor, propellor, alternator were just put on the shelf and are being reinstalled as-is nothing has more than 400 hours on them.

Had Hartzell (formerly Aerospace Welders Inc) repair the engine mount which cost about double what I was planning on. The rubber engine mount vibration isolators on these things are about $1000 alone these days.

Did need a new starter as I suspected it was cranked continuously to near-death at some point. The 4-point EGT & CHT probes were pretty worn out so they are being replaced with new as well.

I don't wanna know how many manhours I have into it. Started disassembly 16 September 2023 might fly early April 2024. The cadmium plating vendor took 60 days to return my steel parts.

 

[SebIp]

Rough rule of thumb is that everything in aviation has doubled in the last ten years (a good marker of inflation as well). However, we pilots tend to remember the "old" numbers, so when confronted with a 40k rebuild we think "isn't that supposed to be around 20k for a little four banger?"

They'll sell you and engine which will go 2000 hours (and more often) under the ham-fisted operation of student pilots and 400 hour CFIs who often have little mechanical knowledge. Seems like money well spent. Not saying OP is in this category, but Lycoming has to design and build for it.

Car engines are meant to provide 5-15% of rated power continuously. Not betting on any of them at 60 yo 80% power continuously.

The whole thing about car engine is a bit of a myth. Sure they mostly run around 2-3k rpm, but no one counts hours on them. Some of them out there are many thousands of hours old and still runs.

And we know there are actual auto diesel converted to certified aviation engines. Not cheap but possible.

Consider cost of crate engines. Even if you have a much worse tbo, likely still coming ahead? And if everyone is swapping engines at 1000 hours or so, cost might come down as the conversion vendors gets repetitive business. Chicken and egg situation but one can hope.

 

[SebIp]

Wow! If my O-235 grenades itself I guess I'll be converting to a $12,000 modern engine with fuel injection and 4 gallon per hour fuel burn, more horsepower and significant increase in airspeed. And much lower mx and operating costs. (Viking).

It makes you wonder about the economics of an older trainer aircraft lime a 150/52. Is an individual going to spend $45k or more (installed) to put a new/rebuilt engine in it? Or do you just sell it, or part it out?

150/152 prices makes no sense these days. Especially those over tbo still asking for an amount that adds up to over 100k if a replace engine is added on. With very basic panel.

 

[Steamflyer]

The whole thing about car engine is a bit of a myth. Sure they mostly run around 2-3k rpm, but no one counts hours on them. Some of them out there are many thousands of hours old and still runs.

They are loafing in terms of energy/power. Seen many conversions come and go; it's rare to see one even make 400 hours. It's true that the failure is not always of the engine itself, but often the belt system used to slow the crank speeds to prop speeds. I suppose if one derated a 400 hp engine to 220 or so horsepower it might make sense, but so far the market has not appeared.

The auto diesel engine converted to aviation I believe is based on a Mercedes design. But the innards are different, and diesels are intrinsically more amenable to conversion since they are far sturdier in general, torquier down low, as well as heavier.

 

[Steamflyer]

Xmas 2019 I removed the clys on my 0-320 to inspect clys and cam/tappets. Put in back together in 7 days and kept flying it.

The new engine now has 650+ hrs on it running well.

If you are flying an engine 200+ hours a year it will perform and last well. GA engines corrode out for the most part, not wear out. Excellent!

 

[FancyG]

They are loafing in terms of energy/power. Seen many conversions come and go; it's rare to see one even make 400 hours. It's true that the failure is not always of the engine itself, but often the belt system used to slow the crank speeds to prop speeds. I suppose if one derated a 400 hp engine to 220 or so horsepower it might make sense, but so far the market has not appeared.

The auto diesel engine converted to aviation I believe is based on a Mercedes design. But the innards are different, and diesels are intrinsically more amenable to conversion since they are far sturdier in general, torquier down low, as well as heavier.

I was hyped about the Viking's cost when I was looking for a powerplant for my STOLbrah machine.

Coulda gotten a great deal on a low-time one being taken off of a different STOLdozer at the time.

Didn't get many details on the 'why' the Viking was being removed, just that it was being removed was enough for me.

Went with bRotax instead, filling up my logbook with TAA tailwheel time at 5-6 gph.

 

[Steamflyer]

Went with bRotax instead, filling up my logbook with TAA tailwheel time at 5-6 gph.

That's a proven engine. Which TAA?

 

[SebIp]

They are loafing in terms of energy/power. Seen many conversions come and go; it's rare to see one even make 400 hours. It's true that the failure is not always of the engine itself, but often the belt system used to slow the crank speeds to prop speeds. I suppose if one derated a 400 hp engine to 220 or so horsepower it might make sense, but so far the market has not appeared.

The auto diesel engine converted to aviation I believe is based on a Mercedes design. But the innards are different, and diesels are intrinsically more amenable to conversion since they are far sturdier in general, torquier down low, as well as heavier.

And i would be fine burning jet a instead of 100ll.

I think it’s possible just there hasn’t been a stable market for it to be done. I mean rotax runs at those high rpm for hours. And they are now the largest engine maker for aviation.

 

[FancyG]

That's a proven engine. Which TAA?

Technically Advanced Aircraft, with FADEC. Single lever reduces pilot workload, makes cruising the ramp for fellow STOLbrah's much safer.

Experimentals are easy to TAA, throw gizmos at the dash until it qualifies.

Dynon is the way.

 

[MRC01]

36 years ago is about when Lycoming started using hardened valve seats. Coincidence? Even if not, that would only affect the heads.

 

[Brad W]

150/152 prices makes no sense these days. Especially those over tbo still asking for an amount that adds up to over 100k if a replace engine is added on. With very basic panel.

I've been thinking about just this lately. While a little 15x isn't exactly my dream plane, I wouldn't mind having one. Economical to operate, and could knock around local and short x-countries knocking off the rust on my PPL....but not economical if an engine issue that really should be fixable totals the plane. If the replacements are as expensive as mentioned in this conversation, At what point will alternative STC's become more readily available? Rotax replacements perhaps?

 

[hindsight2020]

At the rate of hours I flew recreationally before the lycosaurus vomited the studs, TBO is meaningless, and paying for the "surplus" a gratuitous expense. These engines end up breaking down from disuse in the aggregate, so calendar date is a more salient benchmark point when evaluating the same eventual replacement cost, in actual recreational (read underuse) life.

A derated auto conversion (reduction units are the known wear item, who cares, at such a large discount just treat it like a consumable no different than magnetos) from these GM, subbies or hondas, even if one were to stipulate a theoretical half TBO from the aircooled dinosaurs, that is still a hobby-changing level of discount on the most *expensive non-discretionary line item and inflection point of the entire ownership spectrum. (*non-insurable event, unless prop struck).

The maligning about anecdotal engines not making 400 hours is devoid of context. I could argue my cErTiFiEd lasted only 600 hours, given it required two teardowns in the 30 year span between overhauls, both times for cracked cases, and a bunch of odd ends and cylinder work through the decades (par for the course), at which point the bearing internals were refreshed. So even inflation adjusted for the time (early 00s, and early 10s respectively) that labor alone cost more than what it'd cost me to purchase an auto converted crate from one of these honda/Subbie or Chevy GM TODAY, to say nothing of a network of support in every corner of every town. It's just not even close.

Of course then they'll go to the moral/safety argument. I'm not one bit persuaded by the TBO boogeyman anymore. Ditto for the whole "coming down" thing, as it was a Lyco that brought me down involuntarily, and I crossed the ocean on that thing mind you (better lucky than good). If that were a bona fide inflection point, I'd sooner just drive before flying a single engine piston of any kind (sunk cost). This is about fear of the unknown and price risk, which isn't irrational, but it doesn't have to be insurmountable. At pre-2020 M2 monetary policy I'd probably still be that guy giving auto conversions the side eye because the delta didn't get me out of bed in the morning. The merits were never really given a serious look. But 2024 printer go brrr and everybody gets a bailout at my earned income's expense, well things are a different story altogether.

If the replacements are as expensive as mentioned in this conversation, At what point will alternative STC's become more readily available? Rotax replacements perhaps?

It won't. The market is captured. the short of it is the price model on these dinosaurs long ago went into revenue-operator centered; hobbyists are merely running remoras off the wake of those who patronize these powerplant OEMs to bolt engines into their flight school money makers. Ditto for things like owning legacy retract trainers (Arrows, Cessna gutless et al) for non-revenue use (before TAA).

There's not enough market share of private owners to float a vendor incurring the price risk of STC engine bolt-ons in the fac-built nursing home space.

150/152 prices makes no sense these days.

As a former non-revenue C-150 owner (2009), I couldn't agree more.

 

[Dan Thomas]

It makes you wonder about the economics of an older trainer aircraft lime a 150/52. Is an individual going to spend $45k or more (installed) to put a new/rebuilt engine in it? Or do you just sell it, or part it out?

Something like a severe propstrike that wrecks the case and crank can total the airplane, and it goes for parts.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I used to be agnostic on the automotive conversion, which is to say i accepted peoples lampooning of the choice as " bound to fail" at face value, but not anymore. I think we need to encourage alternatives, and take some risks. The legacy engine OEMs arent doing the hobby any favors, we need actual friends, and car enthusiasts (and automotive economies of scale) is probably the only people we have left on our side.

You need to go to homebuiltairplanes.com, sign up, and read some of the conversion conversations. It's neither easy nor cheap to create a reliable auto conversion. Attempts have been going on since the 1930s, 90 years ago, and the most successful have been lower-power, direct-drive affairs. That redrive, commonly called a propeller speed reduction unit, or PSRU, has to deal with a phenomenon known as torsional vibration, the fight between the engine's crankshaft whose rotational speed varies with every compression and combustion stroke, and the propeller, a massive flywheel that insists on rotating smoothly. The PSRU, if not intelligently designed, will explode, sometimes before the conversion even flies. V-belts, timing belts, chains, gears, have all been tried with varying and sometimes dismal rates of success.

The problem is that the auto engine develops its max power at some unusable RPM like 6000, while the propeller must be kept at speeds that don't put its tips too far into supersonic territory. The Lycomings and Continentals are designed for this, and they're air-cooled, to keep them light and simple. Liquid cooling, as auto engines use, needs radiators and special plenums to make them work. I did it, designing and doing the installation of a Subaru 2.2 with an RAF PSRU in a Glastar. I flew it, too, and spent many hours debugging the thing. It had electronic ignition, a single system with only one sparkplug per cylinder, that relied on the airplane's electrical system, and we all know how many owners have electrical problems in their airplanes. It's not reassuring. Even the fuel pumps were both electric, as the Subaru has no provision for a mechanical pump. More electrical risks.

They'll sell you and engine which will go 2000 hours (and more often) under the ham-fisted operation of student pilots and 400 hour CFIs who often have little mechanical knowledge. Seems like money well spent. Not saying OP is in this category, but Lycoming has to design and build for it.

Yes, they are stout. People who beef about "1940s technology" are missing the fact that Lycoming and Continental have had those 80 years to work out the weaknesses and make the engines strong and sort of idiot-proof, though society keeps coming up with more capable idiots.

Car engines are meant to provide 5-15% of rated power continuously. Not betting on any of them at 60 yo 80% power continuously.

Inboard boats run auto engine conversions very hard. I did that, too, putting a Chev 283 into a boat. Two or three advantages over airplanes there, though: A source of cold water for cooling, eliminating the need for a radiator or heat exchanger unless you're in salt water, and the small propeller that doesn't present the same degree of torsional vibration issues as with an aero conversion. And if the engine quits for any reason, the boat doesn't sink and drown everybody.

The magnetos, ignition wires, spark plugs, fuel hoses, oil cooler, starter ring gear, exhaust, fuel pump, carburetor, propellor, alternator were just put on the shelf and are being reinstalled as-is nothing has more than 400 hours on them.

400 hours and how many years? Fuel and oil hoses are only good for about five years. Magnetos have a habit of getting old even with few hours. Anything with plastic or rubber in it has a calendar life. A vacuum pump has a plastic drive coupling that has a published 6-year replacement recommendation.

36 years ago is about when Lycoming started using hardened valve seats. Coincidence? Even if not, that would only affect the heads.

Lycoming trashes ALL cylinders and heads. They do not reuse that stuff. It's not worth it to them.

The valve guides, incidentally, were upgraded from bronze to a chromium-bronze in 1999 to eliminate the guide wear issues common up until that time. They introduced roller lifters in about 2006, maybe, and converted any core that was convertible to take them. That eliminated the problems of lifter spalling. These current engines are not the same as the 1940s engines Not even close. They've been improving them constantly. When I learned to fly 50 years ago they had persistent problems with the heads cracking between the exhaust valve seat and a sparkplug hole. That went away a long time ago.

 

[bnt83]

400 hours and how many years? Fuel and oil hoses are only good for about five years. Magnetos have a habit of getting old even with few hours. Anything with plastic or rubber in it has a calendar life. A vacuum pump has a plastic drive coupling that has a published 6-year replacement recommendation.

5 years or so. I put new seal, points, condenser and lubed up one mag last year. I'll do the other next year.

5 years since all new PTFE hoses. Two oil cooler hoses were replaced this year to make them fit better as they were a little on the short side.

Vacuum Pump coupling is new.

 

[fast99]

The whole thing about car engine is a bit of a myth. Sure they mostly run around 2-3k rpm, but no one counts hours on them. Some of them out there are many thousands of hours old and still runs.

And we know there are actual auto diesel converted to certified aviation engines. Not cheap but possible.

Consider cost of crate engines. Even if you have a much worse tbo, likely still coming ahead? And if everyone is swapping engines at 1000 hours or so, cost might come down as the conversion vendors gets repetitive business. Chicken and egg situation but one can hope.

Owned a towing company. Our trucks started in the morning and usually didn't shut off the entire shift. Lots of idle time. Once I ordered a new GM truck and optioned it with an hour meter, just to get some idea how many hours between repairs. We usually got around 140-160k miles of service unless something broke. Can't remember the exact hours on truck with meter but it was in the area of 15,000 before engine needed o-haul.

 

[asicer]

Owned a towing company. Our trucks started in the morning and usually didn't shut off the entire shift. Lots of idle time. Once I ordered a new GM truck and optioned it with an hour meter, just to get some idea how many hours between repairs. We usually got around 140-160k miles of service unless something broke. Can't remember the exact hours on truck with meter but it was in the area of 15,000 before engine needed o-haul.

Tach hours? Or Hobbs? What was the ratio of one to the other?

 

[DaleB]

Interestingly, my new(er) truck has an hour meter buried in the dash menus. At a little under 60K miles, the last time I looked I think it showed 1235 hours, of which 125 were idle hours.

 

[Gary Ward]

My work trucks all have hrs meters and I use them to do oil changes. I have had plenty of old trucks with 15-20k hours on them.

 

[robin ardoin]

Owned a towing company. Our trucks started in the morning and usually didn't shut off the entire shift. Lots of idle time. Once I ordered a new GM truck and optioned it with an hour meter, just to get some idea how many hours between repairs. We usually got around 140-160k miles of service unless something broke. Can't remember the exact hours on truck with meter but it was in the area of 15,000 before engine needed o-haul.

How many hours at 65% or better horsepower?

 

[bnt83]

And yet there endless stories of broke crankshafts, head gaskets, thrown rods, oil pressure problems on just about all kinds of trucks, tractors and farm machinery. You just aren't looking in the right places. Deere, Paccar, IH, CAT, Kubota, Cummins. Nothing is immune.

Out biggest tractor has busted two crankshafts in 30 years. Cummins powered Case combines are well known to throw rods.

 

[fast99]

How many hours at 65% or better horsepower?

They are heavy trucks about 10k without whatever is on back. However, would guess less than 5% of the time pulling hills. Only provided the information for the hour comparison vs expected replacement interval. Some boats might get closer to the load % but still doubt anywhere near aircraft.

And yes, broke the occasional lower end. May be 3-5 in several million miles.

 

[robin ardoin]

@fast99 Yep, some boats do get close to high HP continuous duty. One boat we owned had 6V71 TA Detroits and were run around 70% max continuous duty rating. The engines in that boat and similar applications needed OH of the cylinders under 2200hrs and the turbos, IIRC, were dropping out around 600-800hrs. We didn't ***** foot them nor did we baby them. In retrospect, similar to what one can expect from most higher displacement A/C engines.

 

[idahoflier]

Welcome to "Transitory Inflation". FWIW, I had my O-360 overhauled 4.5 years ago and a current quote shows an increase of 62%...

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Welcome to "Transitory Inflation". FWIW, I had my O-360 overhauled 4.5 years ago and a current quote shows an increase of 62%...

Yabut 5 years ago Textron stock was $48...

 

[TCABM]

@fast99 Yep, some boats do get close to high HP continuous duty. One boat we owned had 6V71 TA Detroits and were run around 70% max continuous duty rating.

That engine weighs more than a C172.

 

[RyanB]

There are less expensive options besides going through the OEM…

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

The LS1 in my Tahoe has an estimated 7,700 hrs on it since new, most of it at 2,000 rpm. Heavy and no idea the HP at that rpm.

Factory Buick 455 (“Bravo Uniform 455”) made approximately 250 HP at around 2,500 rpm (propeller speeds) and weighed 600 lbs before alum intake, heads, and block were developed by the aftermarket.

 

[fast99]

Tach hours? Or Hobbs? What was the ratio of one to the other?

Only key on power.

Some scan tools can access hours on newer vehicles if that data is stored.

 

[Steamflyer]

The LS1 in my Tahoe has an estimated 7,700 hrs on it since new, most of it at 2,000 rpm. Heavy and no idea the HP at that rpm.

Factory Buick 455 (“Bravo Uniform 455”) made approximately 250 HP at around 2,500 rpm (propeller speeds) and weighed 600 lbs before alum intake, heads, and block were developed by the aftermarket.

LS1 at 2000 rpm is probably about 100 hp stock.

600# for 250 water cooled horsepower is about 150# more than an aircooled Continental 6 cylinder engine which can make 285 to 310 hp continuously for 2000 hours. And is usually flown around 65% or say 190 hp.

Aircraft engines are generally durable and reliable; IMHO the primary culprit in insufficient usage. Warranties are pro-rated at 30-40 hours per month. Aircraft with that utilization can go way past TBO if permitted. Ironically, the most run engines must be replaced at TBO (if used for hire) and the 40-80 per year engines can be run on condition. The latter are the ones pilots are complaining about - "only 1000 hours in 15 years and it needs new cylinders already."

Using the OP prices, a brand new -320 is around 70k. If flown 200 hours per year, will last ten years (and probably longer). That's 7k per year. Could be less with the reman.

 

[Jdm]

The whole thing about car engine is a bit of a myth. Sure they mostly run around 2-3k rpm, but no one counts hours on them. Some of them out there are many thousands of hours old and still runs

Apparently change is coming. My new GMC work truck came with an hour meter located within its engine menu. It was included as standard OEM equipment. They’re probably monitoring because of the increased rate of catastrophic engine failure that GM has experienced with its 8 cyl AFM/DDM vehicles. It’s unfortunate that reliability has degraded so badly due governmental restrictions.