Engines 360 vs 320

[rockwoodrv9]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

That long -9 wing will climb like a charm on 160hp....at any USA field elevation. Choose the 180 if you wish but don't consider it essential for excellent performance from a RV-9A.

I agree for sure. David L. from the forum came over from Craig CO and gave me a ride from the Rifle airport. We were off the ground and climbing at about 120 knots and over 1000fpm. We were not at gross, but we were not light either. A Lear was coming in from Denver, so Dave lowered the climb to about 800fpm and we were sailing off at about 145 knots. It was cold, but that RV 9 put a shame to the 182 I used top fly. Im not going to even mention the Piper 140!

If I found a good deal on a 320, I would jump on it and be perfectly happy. With so little cost difference or weight for the 360, I just think it makes sense to consider and look that way first. I know it isn't exactly to spec from Vans, but I don't live in a typical area. Those mountains are big around here!

[Jerry Cochran]

Resale? At some point, all of our beloved RV's will be sold. It is my firm belief that the 360 is way more of a sale enhancement than the 320 and the price one gets will reflect that. I had a lovely -6a with IO-360 that would go LOP at less than 8gph all day long.


.

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by Jerry Cochran

Resale? At some point, all of our beloved RV's will be sold. It is my firm belief that the 360 is way more of a sale enhancement than the 320 and the price one gets will reflect that. I had a lovely -6a with IO-360 that would go LOP at less than 8gph all day long.

Just thinking about the RV-6's of the same generation as mine (1999) I believe condition and panel have a considerably larger impact on resale value than engine size. The 360 may appeal to a larger pool of buyers, but I don't think the 320 will suffer much of a price disadvantage provided we aren't comparing fixed-pitch to CS prop.

I have a friend who has been surfing RV ads for quite a while and he tosses them to me for my opinion. This buyer is far more interested in condition of the aircraft than whether it has a 320 or 360. I suspect he is typical of a buyer who places high priority on a plane that has received good care.

A recent build probably would have higher resale with the larger engine....just because some newbies have been convinced the plane won't perform with a 320. But once our planes reach "maturity", condition seems to sell planes more than engine size.

[Mile High Relic]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Just thinking about the RV-6's of the same generation as mine (1999) I believe condition and panel have a considerably larger impact on resale value than engine size. The 360 may appeal to a larger pool of buyers, but I don't think the 320 will suffer much of a price disadvantage provided we aren't comparing fixed-pitch to CS prop.

As with most things, the answer is often "it depends." I spent a lot of time searching for and eventually buying an RV-6 and the panel was one on the things that I viewed as the easiest to change. However, you can have a huge variation in the amount of eye candy in a panel, so as you say panel variations affect the price a great deal. However, having looked at ads pretty much daily for all of 2010, I'd say that the 0-320 vs O-360 definitely reflects resale a lot as well, and unlike panels, it affects the price even more than it should.

I think that is the point. If you choose an O-360 over an O-320, you will likely get all of that back (and maybe more) in resale. Sort of like AC in a car in AZ. With panel options you will only get a percentage back.

I've owned 6's with both, but for the people looking for an already built RV, I'd say the 0-360 is what they want, and the prices show it. It took me awhile to settle on exactly what I was looking for, but when I did, for the Denver area, it was a well built 180 HP IFR plane, and that was that.

[JonJay]

Originally Posted by LifeofReiley

Yes... my good friends Aerosport O-360 went totally south (trashed) at 480 hrs just a couple of months ago... bearings, crankshaft, all trashed. When you run 'em hard, I'll stick with the 320 @ 178 hp.

I suspect there is a lot more to the story here. I would hate to see a good company get trashed because "my buddy" had an issue. I fly behind both, 0320 and IO360, so I either don't have a dog in the fight or I have two, depending on how you look at it. But I consider Aerosport Power to be one of the best out there.

I will rest on the other argument I think you are trying to make, seriously....

[sglynn]

Hey, a friend of mine has an IO-320 used for sale. Anyone interested? email me and I'll help you get in touch with him. He is not building an RV.

[LifeofReiley]

Originally Posted by JonJay

I suspect there is a lot more to the story here. I would hate to see a good company get trashed because "my buddy" had an issue. I fly behind both, 0320 and IO360, so I either don't have a dog in the fight or I have two, depending on how you look at it. But I consider Aerosport Power to be one of the best out there.

I will rest on the other argument I think you are trying to make, seriously....

Never trashed anyone... Nice RV6, regular oil changes with filter, never ran lean period!!! , 480 hrs engine is trashed. Over the top maintenance for sure! We will soon figure out the cause for sure, looks like a build up error.

[roee]

Originally Posted by LifeofReiley

Never trashed anyone... Nice RV6, regular oil changes with filter, never ran lean period!!! , 480 hrs engine is trashed. Over the top maintenance for sure! We will soon figure out the cause for sure, looks like a build up error.

I'll be curious to hear more about your engine when the facts are in.

And I'm still completely puzzled as to why you're suggesting that a 320 in place of the 360 would not have failed. That suggestion is even more puzzling given that you suspect it was a build error. ??? ???

[LifeofReiley]

Originally Posted by roee

I'll be curious to hear more about your engine when the facts are in.

And I'm still completely puzzled as to why you're suggesting that a 320 in place of the 360 would not have failed. That suggestion is even more puzzling given that you suspect it was a build error. ??? ???

Build error as in the engine builder did not torque the rod caps to spec. When we get the facts, I'll state them... not until then. I don't know any 360's running 3150 RPM's racing period! They can't handle it! 320's will do it all day long. Mainly CHT issues, but Lycoming sends out crankshafts up to 25 grams out of balance... that is OK tolerance for them. We balance ours. They send out rods 7-10 grams out of balance, we heal toe balance ours. We port, polish and match flow the cylinders with matched pistons. We even Cryo wear parts. I've done it with 360's and 320's, the 320's always win in life span.

[NickAir]

320 vs. 360

Reiley has a point.
The 320 has a shorter stroke and likely handles higher revs better.
The 360 has a longer stroke and is slightly heavier, (negligible.)
The angle valve engines: Most say to stay away from them for a standard RV application.

In a RV7 the 360 does demand better resale as has been seen over the recent years. Also, in a RV7 the 360 and a C/S prop improves the CG, although as Van says, build it light.

Many different missions, wants and needs from many different RV pilots.

The popular general RV7s, recent years, seem to be the following specs:
IO-360 with Constant Speed Prop. and glass panel w/ 2 axis AP.

I have had both:
RV6 O-320 carb w/ fixed Alum. Sens prop. (Loved that plane, all of it!)
RV7 IO-360 F/I w/ Constant Speed Prop. (Love this plane, all of it!)