Eggenfellner

prkaye · #1 10-06-2006, 08:15 AM

Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package? A few things I'm wondering about...

1) total installation cost relative to a new OEM Lyc O-320?

2) I was told the installed weight of the Eggenfellner is 30lbs heavier than the O-320... is this accurate?

3) operating costs (fuel/overhaul) compared with a Lyc?

4) Ease of installation compared to a Lyc?

5) is the engine core modified at all (different cylinders etc?), or is it identical to what comes from the Subaru factory?

Any other words of warning, or recommendations about this engine?

pierre smith · #2 10-06-2006, 09:31 AM

Hi Phil,
You just missed all the Eggenfellner talk by about a week. Here's the link,

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...+installations

Regards,

cjensen · #3 10-06-2006, 09:43 AM

I can help with a couple of your questions...

The cost I've come up with for EVERYTHING firewall forward (including propellor), engine monitor, and credits from Van's finish kit for the H-6 engine is $35,733 with the Sensenich four blade, and $27,173 with the IVO Magnum three blade. The H-4 is $2,000 less. My comparison's are to the 340 and 360 engines, and the Egg H-6 is + or - $2,000 of all the clone engines I've put in my spreadsheet, all with CS props. The engines from Lycoming are outta sight cost wise, but I do have them in my spreadsheet for comparison. The IO-360 brand new from Lycoming (through Van's) with everything including prop, Van's FWF install kit, fuel pump, engine monitor, with E-ignition is $50K+. I would imagine the H-4 would compare similarly to the 320 clones (we're talking new here...).

From what I've READ, the weight you've listed is pretty accurate.

Operating cost SHOULD be less depending on what fuel you use. Those using the engine can specify further.

You pull these motors out of the box, and put it on your firewall. A friend of mine had his H-6 hanging on the firewall in an hour and a half afer he got it out of the box. Wiring it takes a while.

The E-Subie motor is NOT split. It is the engine that comes from Subaru.

rv6ejguy · #4 10-06-2006, 09:58 AM

The installation will be at least 60 pounds heavier than an O-320 C/S installation and maybe more. Prop choice can make a 15 lb. difference. Here is a link for completed weights of many RVs with different engines: http://rvproject.com/wab/

Fuel burn at the present level of development is similar to the Lycomings. Users have generally reported virtually zero maintenance. Oil changes every 40-50 hours, plugs at 500-1000 hours and that is it. No timing belt changes on the EZ30 engines. They burn no oil between changes and don't leak either.

As Chad said, these engines are bone stock internally. When it comes to overhaul, parts are likely to be less than $1500 even if you need pistons (unlikely). If you don't want to overhaul, a new longblock can be had for about $8000 or a low mileage JDM one for under $2500.

Enjoy the smooth ride!

N941WR · #5 10-06-2006, 07:52 PM

I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.

cjensen · #6 10-06-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N941WR

I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.

Well, I'm not a Subie flyer yet, but they do weigh more because of the rads, coolant, and a couple of other things people can put on like a real heater, possibly A/C, and such. I plan to try and make up for some of it by building a lightwieght VFR panel, cloth seats, and minimal primer (I know the last one doesn't make too much a difference, but it is something).

The 15 pound difference was in reference to the prop only. The Sensenish and IVO props are lighter than the MT's.

rv6ejguy · #7 10-06-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N941WR

I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.

I think you mis-read my post. The Egg conversion will weigh a minimum of 60 more pounds than the Lyco and probably more. The heavy flywheel and backup battery take a fair bit of the toll. The engine itself is lighter than a Lyco but with the redrive, rads, heater, coolant, heavier mount etc. the package certainly comes up heavier, no matter which prop is fitted.

Chad has the right plan, build light.

David-aviator · #8 10-07-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prkaye

Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package? A few things I'm wondering about...

1) total installation cost relative to a new OEM Lyc O-320?

2) I was told the installed weight of the Eggenfellner is 30lbs heavier than the O-320... is this accurate?

3) operating costs (fuel/overhaul) compared with a Lyc?

4) Ease of installation compared to a Lyc?

5) is the engine core modified at all (different cylinders etc?), or is it identical to what comes from the Subaru factory?

Any other words of warning, or recommendations about this engine?

Phil, me thinks you live under a rock or are stirring the pot. The question "Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package?" fits either. There is a ton of information on these engines here and on the Egg forum.

To summarize, I have installed the 2.5 and the H6 and 2 Lycomings. They all require work and some ability to follow directions and use common sense. The Subaru will go in faster and run sooner but you have to get the wires hooked up right and have a basic understanding of how the ECU and engine work. The Lycoming requires good baffle work, secure fuel plumbing, some knowledge of how the mags work, and minimal electric work. Both have sensors to hook up for instrumentation.

The choice between the engines is very complicated. It took me a year to accept the single ignition feature of Subaru before going with it. The truth is, the ECU is as reliable as any 2 magnetos. Beyond that, much of the decision making process is very personal. You must do your own homework and make the decision, no one can say or do that for you. One guy will hate the engine and right next to him is a guy who loves it. Go with what makes YOU feel best.

In any event, we do know the Egg Subaru works well in an airplane. I like mine very much, but sometimes wish I could afford another airplane (RV8) and I'd have one Subby with MT and one Lycoming with a FP Katto.

They are both good set ups in their own way but very different. The decision is yours.

dd

frankh · #9 10-07-2006, 07:18 PM

One thing that was hinted at is the running costs being lower on the soob due to presumably using autofuel.

This is off topic somewhat but at least on paper the Lyc will run on premium autofuel and it maybe even better for it due to less lead deposit build ups.

The other thing is that the Lyc with FI will cruise Lean of peak for a further saving on fuel.

Todd Peterson (purveyor of the STC's for Lyc engined certifieds) told me they found no difference in the detonation margins between 100LL and 89.5 OCT automotive...yup thats less than the premium 92oct fuel. Apparently the FAA wanted some margin.

So Todd's advice to me was to run on 92 prmium just like it was 100LL...this surprised me because you would think the lower oct fuel would have a bigger detonation danger zone.

Anyway...fuel being what it is (or was and might be again), this might very relavent if you don't mind hauling fuel to the airport.

Frank
7a....IO360
Zenair Zodiac...subaru EA 81 400 hours.

cjensen · #10 10-07-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankh

One thing that was hinted at is the running costs being lower on the soob due to presumably using autofuel.

This is off topic somewhat but at least on paper the Lyc will run on premium autofuel and it maybe even better for it due to less lead deposit build ups.

The other thing is that the Lyc with FI will cruise Lean of peak for a further saving on fuel.

Not all Lycs can run auto fuel. If the compression ratio is lower than 8.5:1 they can without running in to problems. Above that, and it's not recommended, even though they probably will. I know you probably know that, but just wanted to mention it.

Running an engine LOP is a way to save fuel, for sure! I can't bring myself to do it however. Just a personal thing. I've seen too many Malibu's (among others our shop works on) with burned valves from improper leaning techniques. There is a definite skill to it, and there are those that have perfected it, and do it properly. The latest memo from Lycoming says not to do this anymore. I have a copy of it at work, and I'd be happy to do my best to find the thing on Monday if this isn't a widely read document.