Engines 360 vs 320

[AlanNZ]

Good afternoon all, before I start I know this question is as bad as the primer wars / but I'm a little unsure which one to go for. What I want is the most econimcal to run and maintain without being a pain to fly.

There is a guy I talk to a lot who is a LAME that has built 3 RV's. He tells me the difference between the two engines is very small in performance (from a flying perspective) but large from a cost of ownership / running. He tells from his experiance the 360 is far more maintance intensive than the 320.

Talking with the guys at Van on the build line they seem to concer with my LAME as far as these two engines are concerned. Please note I'm talking Fixed pitch only!

What are the comments from the group on this as it seems to me to make good sense to use a 320 if this is the case?

Thanks in advance.

[Vlad]

When I am flying with somebody I wish I had 360. When alone on a loooong trip I wish I had 235 Your choice it IS a primer war

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by AlanNZ

Good afternoon all, before I start I know this question is as bad as the primer wars / but I'm a little unsure which one to go for. What I want is the most econimcal to run and maintain without being a pain to fly.

Neither engine is a pain to fly, both are well suited to a RV-7.

There is a guy I talk to a lot who is a LAME that has built 3 RV's. He tells me the difference between the two engines is very small in performance (from a flying perspective) but large from a cost of ownership / running. He tells from his experiance the 360 is far more maintance intensive than the 320.

This has not been proved in the field. I assume you are talking about the 180 hp O-360. It is basically just a slightly stroked O-320, they will have very similar maintenance requirements.

Talking with the guys at Van on the build line they seem to concer with my LAME as far as these two engines are concerned. Please note I'm talking Fixed pitch only!

I suspect the Vans person you were talking to was referring to the 200hp IO-360 which is indeed more complex to install and cool.

What are the comments from the group on this as it seems to me to make good sense to use a 320 if this is the case?

Go with whichever engine is the easiest for you to obtain. Either one will fly your plane beautifully with similar operating cost.

[DanBaier]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Go with whichever engine is the easiest for you to obtain. Either one will fly your plane beautifully with similar operating cost.

Good advice. I've operated Cherokees for over 40 years - my experience has been that O-360 parallel valve vs O-320 relative to maintenance issues is insignificant.

I'd be inclined to vote the O-360, but truthfully, if there was a good O-320 candidate around as I was building, I'd grab it. In context, the flight time difference from western NY to northern FL would only be about .3 or .4 hours more with the O-320.

[RV Jerry]

THE 360 IS NO MORE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN THAN THE 320 ,FUEL BURN WILL PROBALY BE LESS ON A XCOUNTRY. FUEL PER HR. WILL BE ABOUT THE SAME AT THE SAME GIVEN SPEED AS THE 320. RESALE WILL BE CONSIDERLY MORE. FUN FACTOR A LOT MORE FINALLY THE RV-7 CAN USE MORE NOSE WIEGHT HAVE BUILT 30 PLUS RV'S THE 360 IS USUALLY ENGINE OF CHOICE REGARDS JERRY

[roee]

Originally Posted by AlanNZ

There is a guy I talk to a lot who is a LAME that has built 3 RV's. He tells me the difference between the two engines is very small in performance (from a flying perspective) but large from a cost of ownership / running. He tells from his experiance the 360 is far more maintance intensive than the 320.

Seems unlikely. If the comparison is between the parallel valve O-360 and 320, then the two engines are nearly identical in all aspects except that the 360 has a longer stroke. The two engines are practically identical in external dimensions, weight, purchase cost, operating procedures, and maintenance. Fuel burn should also be practically identical at a given power output. But with the 360 you have an additional power reserve compared to the 320. Use it when you need/want it. In simple terms, the extra horse power will translate to a modest increase in cruise speed, and a substantial increase in rate of climb.

I'm wondering if in your conversation there was confusion with the angle valve IO-360, which is a very different engine, and may very well have higher costs associated with it.

[PCHunt]

Alan, check your Pvt Messages.

The 200hp io-360 will really bite you if you need to buy a cylinder. I paid $1900 each a few years ago. I don't think Superior builds a cylinder for it so you have to go Lycoming.

[roee]

Originally Posted by paul mosher

The 200hp io-360 will really bite you if you need to buy a cylinder. I paid $1900 each a few years ago. I don't think Superior builds a cylinder for it so you have to go Lycoming.

Again to clarify, you're talking about the angle valve 360, which is a very different animal than the parallel valve 360 and 320.

[humptybump]

Vlad already said most of what I hold as my opinion.

You can fly a 180 hp as if it were a 160hp but you can't do the opposite. If you have the need for speed, then you have the answer.

I fly an RV-8 with a 150hp and a fixed (wood) prop. I can easily keep up with the 150/160hp RV's out there but the guys with 180/200 and constant speed props will out climb me and out run me. That's OK. I want a 150-160kts plane (Once I get high) that burns 7.5 +/- gph. Thosecare my mission parameters.

You can take a bigger engine and throttle back and get pretty close. I can't "throttle up".

As Sam noted, an O320 does very well across the fleet of RV's. I enjoy 400nm legs and flying at 10,500/11,500 when the weather is favorable. These planes can handle the range of engines and there RV grin is just as big