V220 / V300T stillborn?

[rv6ejguy]

You lads are missing what I wrote. I would never bother with the cert market period. Let Lycoming have that nightmare in our litigation happy world.

No, never done a clean sheet design but I already know what this would look like. A lot like a Rotax, geared with air cooled cylinders, water cooled heads, pushrods, integral redrive, twin cams and 4 valves.

The FADECs are easy. That is what we build here every day and we already supply these to the experimental market. Have been for over a decade.

The right people, I already have 3 in mind who are longtime friends in this field.

Off the shelf parts, we go aftermarket as have some new experimental engines already have. CIMA cylinders with Mahle forged pistons for a VW. These are excellent quality and dirt cheap plus race proven in my turbo engines at extreme power levels.

I'd use many of the race vendors that I have dealt with over the last 28 years to supply some of the other bits.

You'd never, ever use castings to prototype a design these days with RP, CAD and CNC available. You would use castings once the design is validated to lower cost in production.

I've had some dealings with the Jabiru design over the last few years. This was a classic example of inadequate validation before release which rapidly showed many design problems and quickly instilled a bad reputation. The idea was great. We are now working with an engineer who is addressing some of the design problems with new hardware and again on a FADEC for this engine eventually. You must put thousands of hours on a design at full power and rpm, not only on the dyno to quantify performance but also in an airframe to duplicate real world conditions. Jabiru clearly never did this as problems were cropping up initially on production engines in less than 40 hours. Jabiru's support to fix the problems was poor.

FF packages are certainly the way to go to avoid the avalanche of tech calls but I'd still expect many. In the FADEC industry we expect this and deal with it by offering the best tech support in the industry. We spend as much time as required with each client to get problems ironed out. Result is many happy customers who spread the word. Good, accessible tech may cost money but saves in the advertising budget. We've seen the rapid demise of many companies in our industry due to their dreadful tech support. In the era of the internet, bad word spreads like the plague.

Improving on the Lycoming design? Well what I hear from most people is that they are sick of the ADs and they want some of the new technology available today on other engines. Whether this is what others think they should have is irrelevant. The market is there. They'd like to have something other than a Lycoming available.

I really would not expect to be able to make big improvements in SFC or weight reduction over the standard O-360 type engine but equaling these benchmarks with the technology available today would not be a problem based on my 28 years of experience with engines of all types. People would mainly have another choice for their engine. Something which would run smoother, quieter, with lower oil consumption, lower maintenance and much lower overhaul costs. Price wise in these small quantities, I think these engines would not be sold for less than $15K US because if you look at the design and development costs, testing, tooling, building and support costs, you would not make enough to make it worthwhile charging less than that.

BTW, I have no plans at this time to start down this path. Too many irons in the fire presently.

To all the naysayers, my uncle who started BRC Engineering, now produces one of the fastest and most powerful 2 stroke kart engines in the world. Faster than any of the big manufacturers. It took 15 years on a shoestring budget (relatively speaking) but has been done by a small company with a small group of smart people. This is a VERY competitive market. You stand still here and you are swept behind right away. Others like Hart, Judd and Falconer have done similar things on a fraction of the budget of the big boys. With size, comes waste as we say.

http://www.brceng.com/news.php

Interestingly as the BRC engines began to win and dominate races, the inevitable whining dogs come to the forefront. Multiple teardowns, visits by FIA officials, ridiculous penalties and treatment at races. The big boys never like to be shown up by the small fry!

With my involvement in Reno racing programs, I see worry from the Lyconental camp about the Falconer powered Thunder Mustang. It showed blazing speed this year and it won't be long before this race bred engine wins the Sport Class at Reno against engines which were never designed for racing. Unless it is outlawed of course. Racing politics surface everywhere it seems. It qualified on the pole this year and set fastest race lap. The design inadequacies of the air cooled engines and supporting systems are the big wall now to further hp increases of any significant magnitude. The Falconer has proven itself reliable in offshore boat racing at 1000+ hp. "Technology on a Fast Track" was Toyota's moto during their rise and domination of IMSA racing. Technology marches on and can make engines better than they are today. It has been proven many, many times before.

http://www.precision-aircraft.net/supercharger.htm

[gmcjetpilot]

I'd start at the propeller, say something that will turn that prop at about 2,800 to 2,100 RPM and produce about (fill in a HP that turns you on).

The engine has to be light, compact, efficient and "relatively" inexpensive, and oh yes SUPER SUPER reliable.

Of course compatibility "plug-n-play" with existing airframes and props would be nice.

I say to all future aircraft engine designers:

"FORM, FIT, FUNCTION"

&

"I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all
counting on you.", Dr. Rumack to Ted Striker and Elaine, "Airplane"


Kart Race engines are cool and guru's brilliant, who can make good engines great, but aircraft power plants are a special bread. Kart racing is fine, but a new AIRCRAFT engine design needs specialized engineering. Besides a Go Kart BRC two cylinder two stroke is $18,500. (exit two crank engine very cool but very expensive)

Computers, CNC, Variable valve timing, 16 valves per cylinder, FADEC, Four-Double-Overhead-Cam's are all good stuff, which makes race engines cool, no doubt, but is that what's needed in an aircraft engine?

The quandary, technology vs. simplicity. How much better fuel efficiency can we get? lighter? cheaper? more reliable? That is the question. We can get over 26 mpg at three times the speed of a car, that ain't bad. How much better can it get, just from the engine?

The Falconer V12 engine in the Thunder Mustang is great. I think its made by a company Rayn involved in off shore boat engines. Any way, the Thunder Mustang is still just a "show" at Reno and it's a dedicated race engine which is not cheap. That speaks well of the good Old Lycoming and Continental. However none of these Reno engine's are really every-day, every-man engine's. I don't think we're all going to be flying behind V8 or V12 engines anytime soon. Sure we can do better, but how much?

PS: I agree AD's suck, but my O360 was made in the 70's and it has no AD's. None! Well yes I had to do inspections and replace the oil pump at overhaul and a few other minor things (Carb, prop gov oil line and fittings to steel). Still it has been fairly trouble free. I hear how some have fear and loathing for the old air-cooled engines and complain about AD's, but I've been lucky with the AD lottery I guess.

Traditional aircraft engines have had issues, sure, and an aircraft engine with pure turn key Lexus/Acura qualities (smooth, reliable, powerful) would be wonderful. I don't know if its possible to do and still keep it light and inexpensive? Regardless we can dream, but for now I want to fly.Bottom line, if you want to fly, get a Lycoming; You want to tinker and dream, build an alternative engine. Both are good fun choices depending on your definition of fun.

[Jconard]

BRC is a cool company.

When I was younger, and raced the sprint 125 class, in a factory Pavesi/PCR backed deal, BRC was the sprocket of choice for us...excellent machine quality.

But, these engines produce extremely high power levels...like 55 HP from 125 CC. And they only do it for a short period. The competitive teams put in a top end at least every race weekend, and just before the final "sealing" of the engine.

I would love to see a SFC/Weight/Power equal to the Lyc/Clone, especially if it could be had for less overall system weight and complexity, but sadly haven't see it yet.

I am not sure if the racing paradigm really fits aircraft use...parts are replaced well before failure, and budgets are extreme. Super high outputs are expected, within the rules (mostly), and any sense of long term reliability is simply not an object.

I would never use the same approach in a high wing loaded airplane.

Ross, Have you really had good luck with CIMA cylinders? I always usd to hunt for Mahle, and the last HO VW engine I built (Type 4) had "Nickies", a billet aluminium, Nicasil cylinder. I always thought of the CIMA as in the same general group as Cofap....generally to be avoided.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by Jconard

BRC is a cool company.

When I was younger, and raced the sprint 125 class, in a factory Pavesi/PCR backed deal, BRC was the sprocket of choice for us...excellent machine quality.

But, these engines produce extremely high power levels...like 55 HP from 125 CC. And they only do it for a short period. The competitive teams put in a top end at least every race weekend, and just before the final "sealing" of the engine.

I would love to see a SFC/Weight/Power equal to the Lyc/Clone, especially if it could be had for less overall system weight and complexity, but sadly haven't see it yet.

I am not sure if the racing paradigm really fits aircraft use...parts are replaced well before failure, and budgets are extreme. Super high outputs are expected, within the rules (mostly), and any sense of long term reliability is simply not an object.

I would never use the same approach in a high wing loaded airplane.

Ross, Have you really had good luck with CIMA cylinders? I always usd to hunt for Mahle, and the last HO VW engine I built (Type 4) had "Nickies", a billet aluminium, Nicasil cylinder. I always thought of the CIMA as in the same general group as Cofap....generally to be avoided.

My point with all the race parallels is that we can take something proven to last at extreme outputs and rpm levels and derate the design for long life and reliability. Keep the core design and fit milder cams, springs etc., close up the bearing clearances but retain the strong quality, proven pieces.

My other point with the example small race engine companies is that you don't need a huge company with 30 engineers to design top of the class engines. I'd argue that designing winning race engines is a much taller task than designing something to run at low specific power outputs and rpm for many hours.

I agree that you don't need many of the high tech devices on today's auto engines for the aircraft task but to have the view that the basic 40 year old technology, QC and manufacturing methods of the Lycoming can't be improved on today is completely narrow minded. There are new materials and processes used today which are superior to those used in current Lycoming engines.

The big stumbling block in the cert world is the litigation angle as previously mentioned. I am frankly surprised that Textron keeps Lycoming going. With the massive judgements against them in the last few years, I don't see how that division remains profitable. Perhaps as a Legacy company and with new management and QC procedures in place, Textron sees a brighter future. I hope so. Continental has taken massive steps in the QC direction in the last 2 years (tagged crank billets is a good example with EVERY tag tested in house), I'm sure Lycoming must follow step to stay alive and keep the shareholders support. They cannot continue with any more big problems and lawsuits.

For our RV world, we don't need a certified engine, just a good one.

Had good luck with CIMA stuff, always within .0002-.0003, surface finish good. Cofap was hit and miss, QC obviously spotty. The Mahle pistons inside were always spot on. We'd often fit the pistons to liquid cooled Toyota race engines with minor mods as these were the lightest, best piston available and even when buying the entire barrel, piston kit, they were way cheaper than custom aftermarket Arias, Venolia, JE pistons. One of the small radial experimental engines uses these VW barrels and pistons. Today, we have so many suppliers of top quality custom pistons, rods, valves, springs etc. for so many different engines, you could choose popular off the shelf race parts for a clean sheet design and save huge money in development and machining costs. In many cases, these vendors have ISO certification which is probably at least as good as what Lycoming has today.

Despite what others have said here regarding CNC, CAD etc., these technologies along with RP and modelling software are HUGE leaps in cost saving during the design, prototyping and ultimate production of new engine designs. These have revolutionized industries like this. To suggest otherwise, shows a lack of currency and understanding in the state of the art today.

I think engines like the 912 Rotax have shown that Lycoming power to weight ratios can be equalled or bettered with a small geared engine. The TBO is now up to 1500 hours on these. The fact that Rotax and others have decided not to pursue the 150-200hp engine range maybe just shows that they don't think they can be profitable here with the litigation worries. If we look at the Rotax 912 certified and uncertified versions and pricing, I doubt if too many parts are different inside, the price difference is a litigation surcharge essentially.

[Jconard]

I guess I always thought that the BRC Engine was originally a copy of the rotax 256 GP engine, and that they have evolved the design over the years. I always thought that original rotax jugs and gear box compnents were used, as well as cranks, rods, etc. I see that they are now manufacturing many parts to their own improved design.

When they started, I thought they were an alternate case option for those who had an investment in the rotax products.

Was it a clean sheet design?

Oh yeah its like $18-19 THOUSAND dollars for an engine package. This is without the multiple exhausts and other sundries necessary.

You would have to change alot more than tuning. For example, most racing two cycles use a single ring piston...fine for 1 hour of use, innaplicable to a 2,000 hour engine. Just an example.

The other thing to think about is maintenance. I know as an independant and later on some substantial teams, even in Kart racing, the vehicle is dissassembled and rebuilt stem to stern evr 5 hours or less.

My experience with GA is that most pilots get the oil changed, and check it once in a while, but there is no where near the scrutiny and pro active maintenance that racing involves.

The other thing is that pilots are generally not as mechanically sensitive as even the most ham fisted driver. Few drivers who lasted any length of time do the stupid destructive things to the workings that pilots do every day.

Finally the mindset of racing is weight reduction. Every rod, every fastener, right down to minimal for the limited life of the part. On the other hand a benefit of low RPM design is that parts can be super robust without much penalty.

Having torn down a few lycs, and countless Honda, TM, Pavesi, Vortex, Rotax, Porsche, Toyota and VW race engines, the result of this difference in design philosophy is very very clear.

The one area I am surprised about with Lycs is that there is no aluminum barrel, with straight Nicasil cooling. The heat transfer is great, but I suspect it would require a different stud arangment. It may shave of some weight and make it easier to cool with less air....still a high delta T direct to air, but the aluminum would sink more of the heat out of the head, and to the barrel in a quicker fashion. But, you would want full length studs from case to head, as the bottom flange would be enormous if made from aluminum.

Just a thought.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

I agree that you don't need many of the high tech devices on today's auto engines for the aircraft task but to have the view that the basic 40 year old technology, QC and manufacturing methods of the Lycoming can't be improved on today is completely narrow minded. There are new materials and processes used today which are superior to those used in current Lycoming engines.

What are the new materials?

What are the new process?

(There have been new processes used by Continental and Lycoming over
the years, especially the Crank forging. Ironically the new steel forging
processes caused problems? Hummm if it ain't broke......)

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

Despite what others have said here regarding CNC, CAD etc., these technologies along with RP and modelling software are HUGE leaps in cost saving during the design, prototyping and ultimate production of new engine designs. These have revolutionized industries like this. To suggest otherwise, shows a lack of currency and understanding in the state of the art today.

100% agree, but the design is from the brain of the designer. CNC and CAD does not mean it's good, they are just tools of the designer. CNC, CAD is state of the art, about two decades old. This is not new. I am familiar with CATIA and SOLID elements and CNC. Still its the designer not the computer. Also for example aluminum rods would be too big to fit in the case of a Lycoming, therefore they are steel. Many parts on a Lyc are Forged, which provides fatigue life. Besides aluminum on a 2,700 engines is not needed.

There's no doubt a new design will use all these tools and it will aid in accuracy and speed of development. Cost? BRC charges $18,500 for a Go-Kart ENGINE!

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

I think engines like the 912 Rotax have shown that Lycoming power to weight ratios can be equalled or bettered with a small geared engine. The TBO is now up to 1500 hours on these. The fact that Rotax and others have decided not to pursue the 150-200hp engine range maybe just shows that they don't think they can be profitable here with the litigation worries.

What is this thing about cost and people think the Lycoming is expensive with the following prices.

A Rotax 914UL Geared Turbo 115 hp engine COST, $26,800 (fixed prop) or $33,600 (c/s prop). Where do they get off asking those prices?

A Rotax 912 UL, 100 hp is $17,600 to $23,600!

BRC two stoke Go-Kart engines are $18,500. Are they not CAD/CNC? Why so much money? They should cost almost nothing on your theory.

The TCM IO240 (125HP) cost $19,175 and an O200 (100HP) $17,100. HP per dollar is not better. A Lycoming O235 (118HP) is $22,500 (which is more than a 160/180HP, 320/360 clone $21,300).

So much for cheaper engines. If its just a matter of a click of the mouse with some CAD program and a CNC to make chips, than why don't we have a cheap engine that does it better than a Lyc? (Hard to beat $21,000, 180HP, 2000 hour TBO and 270 lbs)

POWER TO WEIGHT?
At 1.5 lbs/HP for the Lyc 360, it is better than a 80hp Rotax 912UL @ 1.74 lbs/HP. The 100HP/115HP Rotax are about 1.41 lbs/HP, slightly better by 6%, but than they are only 100/115HP, not 180 HP. Also I don't want to listen to 5,800 RPM and deal with a gear box and a turbo.


GEARED ENGINES
Gearing has nothing to do with technology. Gearing is LIKE MAGIC, more RPM = more power while keeping the prop RPM down, but like everything there are tradeoffs. Aircraft engine designers have used gearing from the beginning of time; most radials are geared. A freight outfit had a twin with geared engines. You had to be very careful how you moved the throttle and not to back-drive the engine with the prop. Of course an overhaul was more money.

The debate about low RPM speed direct drive or high RPM geared is a valid one a designer can make. Besides radials, Lycoming and Continental have many geared horizontal opposed flat engine models. The Continental GO-300 turned 3,200rpm, prop 2,400 rpm @ 175 HP, used on Cessna 175's. The GSO-480 Lyc made 340 HP.

Lets say they made that V220 or 300T. It was going to weigh ridiculous heavy and cost crazy money, and they where not going to sell to individuals. Liability reason is only part of the story. The main reason they dropped out was because they could not make a better engine than a Lycoming or Continental? May be they realized an air cooled direct drive engine is a better design? Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.


DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCE
There is nothing wrong with the dimensional tolerances of a Lycoming. For some reason people think Lycs are crude, made on an anvil with a hammer by a blacksmith. Case flatness tolerances are ridiculously tight. Other tolerances are "triple ball 2" or "double ball 1" (0.0002 or 0.001). I'm sorry, I don't buy that Rotax or RBC makes better parts or hold tighter tolerances. Tolerance cost money and why a Go-Kart engine cost almost $20,000. If you think CAD/CNC alone makes engine magic and the Lycoming obsolete, it will not. It will take a better design, the tools (CNC/CAD) are incidental.

I hear complaints "Lycoming pistons are out of tolerance by 15 grams". Well I think they are matched closer than that and besides, its a 2,700 RPM red line engine, its just not critical, but from parts I have bought, granted limited experience, the piston pairs have been with in a few grams out the box. I think there's a rumor mill that makes this stuff up. The last time I heard it was from a guy who makes and sells custom Lycoming pistons. I know race guys are perfectionist and look down on regular old engines, but race tolerances in a regalar old engine is a waste.


AD's
A brand new Lycoming or ECI/Superior clone bought today will have no AD's on it and probably will not have any significant AD's in its service life. My 1970's Lyc O360 has lived a fairly limited AD life, including the crank. Yes there was the bad batch of cranks in the 90's and a recall AD/SB. It's a bummer for the few affected, but this is small blip on the radar screen of 50 years. A 50 year old crank is still fine. The only life limit is the journals dimensions. It's probably one of the most critical things in the engine, along with the rods and exhaust valves. That is why they are built like battle axes. The critical limits of a Lyc are CHT's and flying regularly.


TWO STROKE NEITHER RELIABLE OR EFFICIENT
Two stroke BRC twin crank, two cylinder race Go-Kart or Rotax two stoke engines have good power to weight ratio, but how's their reliability and efficency? No so great. I'd never fly two-stroke powered aircraft. They may be safe? Too many of my airport buddies who flew ultra lights had two strokes die on them. I don't think the two stroke Rotax models are going 1,500 hours.


WEIGHT
The weight for the Rotax 914/912 is listed at 162/141 lbs. That is great. A Lyc O235 is listed at 218 lbs, about 56 lbs more than a 914UL. However when you get to a 320/360 Lycoming the power to weight is as good or better. The down side of the Rotax is the screaming 5,800 rpms, gear box, turbo and radiator. They are maxed out little engines. Would the V220 or V300T be way better than a IO360 or 540? Who knows, we will never know, at least for the time being.

I think the V220 and V300R dropped out because they could not compete with Lycoming and Continental.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by Jconard

I guess I always thought that the BRC Engine was originally a copy of the rotax 256 GP engine, and that they have evolved the design over the years. I always thought that original rotax jugs and gear box compnents were used, as well as cranks, rods, etc. I see that they are now manufacturing many parts to their own improved design.

When they started, I thought they were an alternate case option for those who had an investment in the rotax products.

Was it a clean sheet design?

Oh yeah its like $18-19 THOUSAND dollars for an engine package. This is without the multiple exhausts and other sundries necessary.


The one area I am surprised about with Lycs is that there is no aluminum barrel, with straight Nicasil cooling. The heat transfer is great, but I suspect it would require a different stud arangment. It may shave of some weight and make it easier to cool with less air....still a high delta T direct to air, but the aluminum would sink more of the heat out of the head, and to the barrel in a quicker fashion. But, you would want full length studs from case to head, as the bottom flange would be enormous if made from aluminum.

Just a thought.

The BRC engine is completely built in house now and bears little resemblance to any one else's engine. I think the original work started with Rotax components. The only point I was trying to make was that a small group of smart people could take on the might of the best big companies and beat them. Cheap? No. The fastest? Yes. The other leading engines are not cheap either. How fast do you want to go? How much money do you have? For kart racing, which was originally intended as entry level racing, I agree the price seems crazy. Where there is a market...

The Lycoming method of cylinder hold down at the base is simply made for easy replacement of individual cylinders. Not a bad idea given that cylinders sometimes go bad on them. Probably the reason why the steel cylinder. It is inferior to a through stud under tension, anchored into the main bearing saddles. It works, but is heavier and less stiff than through stud designs, making more vibration.

The Nikasil thing is interesting. European manufacturers frequently use this. (Rotax and Porsche like it) Japanese and American designers typically shun it, preferring cast in , iron liners. Certainly both work well. I could go either way on that one, cost advantage to iron along with more ring materials choices, Nikasil, like you say, offering better heat transfer with an aluminum barrel and lower weight possibly. Tension studs would be a must then.

This would be a very interesting project to be involved in. Examining the pros and cons of materials like MMC for the case, titanium rods, 2618, WMS-75 or 4032 for the pistons. Explore EN30B vs. 4340 vs. 5140 vs. nodular iron crank materials as have been so successful for GM with rolled fillets and nitrided surfaces. Plastics for the intake system, VCs etc. as used by most OEMs today, SPS type fasteners, sputtered anti friction and thermal coatings. Cryogenic stress relief vs. traditional methods. Carbon fiber gear housings. CFD modeling of the intake and exhaust flow and thermal loadings and flow. Tuned intake and exhaust systems. The list goes on.
I'd be like a kid in a candy store sorting through these details and cost vs. weight benefits.

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

A Rotax 912 UL, 100 hp is $17,600 to $23,600!

The 912ULS 100Hp, fixed pitch is currently $14k, + or -. If you need the 912S certified version, it's about $4k more, but who needs that? Not us.

Where are you getting $23,600? Is that for a gold-plated version?

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

POWER TO WEIGHT?
At 1.5 lbs/HP for the Lyc 360, it is better than a 80hp Rotax 912UL @ 1.74 lbs/HP. The 100HP/115HP Rotax are about 1.41 lbs/HP, slightly better by 6%, but than they are only 100/115HP, not 180 HP. Also I don't want to listen to 5,800 RPM and deal with a gear box and a turbo.

Max continuous power is 5500 RPM. Prop RPM in cruise is about 2200 RPM. It doesn't seem to me to be any worse than a O-320/360 at 2500 RPM. It will depend on the muffler used in the specific airframe.

[Andy_RR]

Ross,

Even after throwing all your technology at the engine, you are not going to make massive (i.e. convincing) inroads into weight, power, SFC, durability or cost. It's undeniable you will acheive some headline benefits in some areas and possibly even at least a small, but hard to measure benefit in all areas, but is it enough to create a quantum shift in the industry?

Maybe, but remember that the technically best product doesn't always win. There's a huge amount of inertia in the current industry which would present a challenge even if you get everything else right.

Take a look at the current Lycosaurus users. Not a huge proportion of pilots out there world-wide know how to get the best out of them, even with the knobs they already have to turn. An even smaller, albeit growing proportion are investing in FADEC technology that can yield useful FC, range and durability benefits, but the pace if very slow.

In my opinion, you need to offer a paradigm shift in capability - range, fuel consumption, altitude performance, maintenance costs and possibly purchase price. The V300T was possibly heading in that direction and with a good FADEC delivering decent unleaded AVGAS capability it is undoubtedly the future at some time. But Rotax obviously can't make a razoo out of it - if they could, then it certainly would be in the business.

I take your point about targeting the non-certified market only, but whilst it keeps some costs under control, it doesn't eliminate liability in the US maket and it absolutely doesn't give you the volumes that viable amortization will need. Which ever way you crunch the numbers, you'll have to do it for the love of it rather than for profit - not a good way to start/run a business.

A

[Jconard]

The idea I threw out was aimed slightly at weight, and more importantly at improvement in heat transfer.

In aircraft, cooling drag is a major component of speed, so the thought was to increase the rate of heat transfer, thus reducing the necessary volume of air, and increasing speed through reduced drag.

I personally am a big fan of the nickasil/aluminum option. I have seen numerous pavesi and honda 125 shifter kart engines "Stick" (55 HP from 125 cc..go figure). With that combo we could burn the aluminum chunks off of the nikasil with muriatic acid and a long q-tip...hone with a ball hone for a few strokes, and make it through the race weekend. Tough stuff.