IO-360 vs IO360

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I would like to understand why Lycoming and Continental both gave their engines the same nomenclature when they have nothing in common except aluminum and total displacement.

If you could put either engine in an airframe, which would you select and why?
 
That is all they need to have in common for that designation. I equals fuel injected. O for horizontally opposed and 360 for the displacement. That is just how aircraft engines are generally designated. Is that what you were looking for?
 
I've got a Lycoming IO360A3B6D in my Mooney. Don't think the type certificate would allow anything else. :nonod:
 
Pilawt said:
It's nothing new, and not limited to Lycoming and Continental. In 1937 you could buy a DC-3 with either Wright R-1820 or P&W R-1830 engines.
Click to expand...

And while there is only 10 cubic inches difference in displacement, the R-1820 uses only 9 cylinders in a single row vs 14 in two rows for the -1830.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I would like to understand why Lycoming and Continental both gave their engines the same nomenclature when they have nothing in common except aluminum and total displacement.

If you could put either engine in an airframe, which would you select and why?
Click to expand...

They are both injected and opposed engines of 360 cubic inch displacement. Personally I will always take a 6 cylinder over a 4, much smoother.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is all they need to have in common for that designation. I equals fuel injected. O for horizontally opposed and 360 for the displacement. That is just how aircraft engines are generally designated. Is that what you were looking for?
Click to expand...

Not quite....

Why would a homebuilder choose Ly or Conti, if he could do either. I am looking for pros and cons of each.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Not quite....



Why would a homebuilder choose Ly or Conti, if he could do either. I am looking for pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...

Okay. I know nothing about either. My experience with Lycs is limited to renting and hearing my dad bitching about the ADs he has has to deal with over the years on his TIO-540. M ownership experience all Continental. I've personally had positive experiences with Continentals.
 
Henning said:
Six cylinder is smoother, 4 cyl has less cylinders to maintain.
Click to expand...

But the Continental has half the valve problems of the lycoming.
 
Last edited:
For a certain power rating at the crankshaft, which has better fuel burn? Apples to apples?
 
How much horse power do you need? there are other engines.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Not quite....

Why would a homebuilder choose Ly or Conti, if he could do either. I am looking for pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...

As was already stated to your original post, it's a matter of configuration and displacement for why they're both IO-360s. The -WXYZ after the IO-360 will be different for both.

The Lycoming IO-360s are also in different forms - 180 HP (parallel valve) and 200 HP (angle valve). Both are good engines, and I think generally more reliable than the Continental IO-360s. I've never really heard good things about the reliability of these Continentals, but I've never owned one.
 
What Ted said. It's the same basic engine but with different components. Parallel valves, angled valves, different mags, etc. It's all in the suffix after the basic engine model.
 
Tom-D said:
But the Continental has half the valve problems of the lycoming.
Click to expand...

Only if you let them sit. I love the Lycoming IO360 in my arrow. II. I'll never go back to the Conti TSIO 360.

And it didn't really run smoother. I have the three blade prop on my II, and it's still smoother than the two blade prop on my Turbo Arrow.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Only if you let them sit. I love the Lycoming IO360 in my arrow. II. I'll never go back to the Conti TSIO 360.

And it didn't really run smoother. I have the three blade prop on my II, and it's still smoother than the two blade prop on my Turbo Arrow.
Click to expand...

Whoa, slow down, lets not confuse the "T" sio for the good old IO360- Run the power up turn the time down. you can't expect the 195 horse power IO 360 to be super charged to 220 horse (@ 42HQ) to run very long.
 
compare an O-300 powered cessna 170/172 to one with a 4-cyl. The control hinges, instrument mounts, electrical switches, everything that moves will be worn out on the 4-cylinder version pushing 7-8k hours.
 
IIRC Conti IO360 has one of the best specific fuel consumptions on the market.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
As was already stated to your original post, it's a matter of configuration and displacement for why they're both IO-360s. The -WXYZ after the IO-360 will be different for both.

The Lycoming IO-360s are also in different forms - 180 HP (parallel valve) and 200 HP (angle valve). Both are good engines, and I think generally more reliable than the Continental IO-360s. I've never really heard good things about the reliability of these Continentals, but I've never owned one.
Click to expand...

I've owned and operated four of them (TCM IO-360) and had no issues or problems. One was 2200 SMOH and running strong with zero issues.
 
Lance F said:
I've got a Lycoming IO360A3B6D in my Mooney. Don't think the type certificate would allow anything else. :nonod:
Click to expand...

sure you can. You can always ante up to the IO390. new motor, different prop, another $50k and maybe 1-2 additional knots. :lol:


oh yeah, forgot to the mention the obscenely expensive jugs in case you need to do a top overhaul.
 
Tom-D said:
Whoa, slow down, lets not confuse the "T" sio for the good old IO360- Run the power up turn the time down. you can't expect the 195 horse power IO 360 to be super charged to 220 horse (@ 42HQ) to run very long.
Click to expand...

What's the Conti IO360 used in? Mooney?
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Piper Seneca II has two of 'em, 1200 hr TBO. Lycoming IO-360 TBO is 2000 hrs and if operated under part 91 they can be expected to exceed that.
Click to expand...
Continental's published specs say the IO-360-KB in the R172K and the IO-360-GB in the C-337 (both normally aspirated) have a TBO of 1500 hours. For the IO-360-ES in the Cirrus SR-20 Continental claims 2000 hour TBO.

The turbocharged L/TSIO-360-E in the Seneca II is listed at 1400 hours, and the TSIO-360-F in the Piper Turbo Arrow IV is 1800 hours. Why the difference in these similar engines, I don't know.

Lycoming lists TBO for the TO-360 in the Turbo Seminole at 1800 hours, and that's a 180 hp engine vice 210-220 hp for the turboed Continental 360s.

Now whether you actually get that far before an overhaul in any of these is another question. Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
Lance F said:
I've got a Lycoming IO360A3B6D in my Mooney. Don't think the type certificate would allow anything else. :nonod:
Click to expand...

Hey, you can always get a field approval.

The Swift I fly has a Lycoming IO-360. There is a very small placard on the panel. It reads

"Engine Operating Limitations"

"This engine is limited to 125HP for all operations"

22" manifold pressure at sea level, 2700 RPM



I'm pretty sure all of the Swifts flying around (legally I might add) with 180-210HP continental or lycomings have a similar placard.
 
Arbiter419 said:
SR20s if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

The Continental IO-360 is most commonly found in the Cessna 337 and the SR-20.


The 6 cylinder engine is smoother than a four. There's no getting around that. A good prop balancing job will make a four very smooth, but a well balanced 6cyl continental will be noticeably better.

That said the maintenance costs on the Continental IO-360's do amount to quite a premium over a lycoming 4cyl IO-360. Not only do they have two more cylinders, but IIRC there is a crank AD that makes a lycoming factory overhaul the most 'economic' option at $30-35,000 bucks. The lycomings can get a good overhaul from a reputable shop for around $20k.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can fill in on the crank issue.
 
dell30rb said:
The Continental IO-360 is most commonly found in the Cessna 337 and the SR-20.


The 6 cylinder engine is smoother than a four. There's no getting around that. A good prop balancing job will make a four very smooth, but a well balanced 6cyl continental will be noticeably better.

That said the maintenance costs on the Continental IO-360's do amount to quite a premium over a lycoming 4cyl IO-360. Not only do they have two more cylinders, but IIRC there is a crank AD that makes a lycoming factory overhaul the most 'economic' option at $30-35,000 bucks. The lycomings can get a good overhaul from a reputable shop for around $20k.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can fill in on the crank issue.
Click to expand...

I believe all the cranks in question have been recovered, and removed from service. It's pretty much a non issue.

Neither of these engines can be overhauled to "REBUILT" spec for your numbers.
 
Tom-D said:
I believe all the cranks in question have been recovered, and removed from service. It's pretty much a non issue.

Neither of these engines can be overhauled to "REBUILT" spec for your numbers.
Click to expand...

For $20K you can over haul a Lyclone nicely for experimentals. ;)
 
Pilawt said:
The turbocharged L/TSIO-360-E in the Seneca II is listed at 1400 hours, and the TSIO-360-F in the Piper Turbo Arrow IV is 1800 hours. Why the difference in these similar engines, I don't know.
Click to expand...

The -F does not have an 1800 hr TBO. The -FB does have an 1800 TBO. A crank mod is the difference between the -x and the -xB for the series. The differences between letters include variations in exhaust and injection systems. The internals seem to be pretty standard up to the -M which at least has different cylinders.

My -FB is modified to have an intercooler and a -K fuel system. Pretty cool to just bolt on a 10% power increase.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Not quite....

Why would a homebuilder choose Ly or Conti, if he could do either. I am looking for pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...

Most kits use a Lycoming (or clone thereof), so if you choose to go Continental you'll be needing custom parts (cowling, engine mount, etc.). As others have said, the six cyl will be smoother, but how much effort is a small amount of additional smoothness worth?
 
dell30rb said:
Hey, you can always get a field approval.

The Swift I fly has a Lycoming IO-360. There is a very small placard on the panel. It reads

"Engine Operating Limitations"

"This engine is limited to 125HP for all operations"

22" manifold pressure at sea level, 2700 RPM



I'm pretty sure all of the Swifts flying around (legally I might add) with 180-210HP continental or lycomings have a similar placard.
Click to expand...

My father had a Swift with the 210hp TCM IO-360. I never recalled seeing such a placard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top