B

Bill Whidden

Member
I have an 0-360 A4M, on the engine plate is says 180 h.p. at 2700 rpm.
It also says " fuel-Oct. min 91/96. Does this mean it will take less than the 100LL? Probobly a Mahlon question if you are out there.

Bill Whidden
 
The Peterson Auto Fuel STC allows use of 91 octane or higher auto fuel in 180 hp 0-360 engines in certified airplanes. I've been using Premium auto fuel rated at 92 octane in my 160 hp 0-320 in my RV-6 without probelms.

Bob Severns
 
Yes it does. The engine was certified on 91/96, so if you could get that fuel you could run on it.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
I'm sure it means what it says But

O-360-A4M is the stock engine in a Piper Archer. I ran through several of them in the 22 years I owned mine and I always used 100LL. I would never use anything else unless I had to. In the 1980s I used to fly into Mexico quite a bit and at that time I just had to go with whatever 100+/-? avgas was available. I never had any problem but I never knowingly took on any rated less than 100 octane gas. There are different rating systems but I am not prepared to give any insight on that. If you are seriously considering alternative to 100LL avgas you should do some hardcore research via Lycoming and assure that their specific requirements are complied with everytime you fuel up.

Bob Axsom
 
93?

Bob,

Wasn't out looking for an alternative, just noticed it on the plate and figured I would ask the question. Especially as expensive at av gas is getting.
I think I will call lycoming and see what they say. Sure would be nice to use 92 or 93 only if it was certified and "safe".
 
i burn the auto-fuel in my cherokee 180 with the petersen auto fuel stc. i have burned straight auto fuel but i usually mix it with some 100ll it runs fine never a problem with it the rental a/c a few hangars down burn auto- fuel pretty much all the time the engines go past tbo every time
 
What is the Peterson STC---a $500 FAA approved sticker and some pages for the POH or some actual hardware?

Anyone else running 93 autogas in an O 360? ECI, Aerosport, etc.?

CAW
 
I have burned auto fuel in several planes, including my RV6 with a 160 HO O-320. (Not the O-360, but...)
In one case, the auto gas was much better because my plug fouling problem disappeared...in a Grumman TR2.
In my 225 HP V tail, I didn't notice any difference between how it ran with either auto gas or 100LL.
In the RV6, it ran fine, but due to the tight cowl and hotter environment, vapor lock was a consideration. A vapor return system would be best; however, mixing about 20% 100LL with the auto fuel will eliminate the vapor lock problem.
Other things to note: You will probably have to carry the auto gas, so there are some safety issues there to think about, Auto gas has a definite odor to it that 100LL does not, in auto gas, you have the problem of winter versus summer blends (the winter blend is more susceptible to vapor lock on warm days) and you need to be careful about contamination from water, debris and alcohol/ethanol.
I have yet to run my ECI IO-360, but I did ask them about using auto gas. They didn't really have a problem with it but suggested I break it in with 100LL to get some lead on to the valves and guides, and then an occasional tank of 100LL.
 
Auto fuel in O-360

I have a Superior O/360 on my 7A. Its has 425 Hrs. to date. My fuel is delivered to the house. I have a 500 gal barrel that I have them fill with 400 premium auto and 100 ave gas. Before they fill it up I put 1 1/2 gal of marvel mystery oil in the barrel. Is it the wright thing to do? I don't know, does it work? So far. Am I going to keep doing it? Absolutely.
Doyle Reed Casper two
 
USE 100LL in the O-360

I was talking with engine builder Ken Vike last week about the O-360, and he told us to stay clear of auto gas. He gets engines in his shop all the time that have run autogas and they are toasted. He told us that the only engine that works well with autogas is the O-470. You can run a 50-50 mix of AVGAS and MOGAS in the O-235, but nix on the O-360/O-320 no matter what the compression ratio. You can get away with a tank or two in Mexico when required, but thats about it according to Ken who used to build engines for Bart Lalonde of Aerosport Power.

Also, if you go on the Lycoming website and research their specs, it specifically calls for 100LL in ALL their engines. End of story.

Cheers, Pete
 
One thought I just had on this subject is, if an engine was equiped with an electronic ignition that has variable spark advance, I would want to see the advance curve before I made a decision to use auto fuel. Increased spark advance at high manifold pressure should produce increased cylinder pressures, and increased potential for detonation.

One thought on the Peterson STC, The FAA wouldn't approve it without plenty of documentation to support its safety.

Bob Severns
 
Bill,
The O-360 was certified for 91/96 AVGAS not MOGAS. There is a difference in the octane rating system used to rate AVGAS and MOGAS. So 91 octane AVGAS really has more octane then 91 octane MOGAS. In addition MOGAS often has other additives that AVGAS doesn't..ethenol is one of them. So, just because the octane number seems to fit, doesn't mean that the fuel is approved or recommended by Lycoming.
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
First a disclaimer: The following is based on hearsay and conversations half remembered from the distant past. I may be talking out my a??, but I might also stimulate more of this interesting discussion -
91/96 avgas is leaded, and all mogas we buy on the street is unleaded. Lead is good for old technology and materials engines because of the cooling (somewhat) and lubrication (quite a bit) it provides. It also allows higher compression before detonation (higher octane) than a similar formula without lead. Although good for engines, lead is terrible for the environment and our personal health.
Aircraft engine materials have improved to the point where they require less lead to protect them and help them last longer - thus 100LL. The goal (I think) is to get rid of lead altogether, and someday it will happen. For now, the continuous high power output and reliability expected of aircraft engines makes complete elimination of lead not feasable.
Unleaded mogas develops its octane by a different and more expensive formula - avgas is more expensive mainly because so little of it is produced.
I believe the effective octane ratings themselves are comparable, but mogas lacks the protective qualities of the lead. If auto engines were run at the same power levels and durations of aircraft engines, they too would probably require lead.
All that being said, yes, mogas will probably eventually toast an aircraft engine. Perhaps the STC's are based on an engine going to TBO with no problems, but not looking at if there is anything left to rebuild. Mixing mogas with 100LL would probably help the engine last a lot longer than straight mogas. The occaisional tank of Mexican gas probably won't hurt it. And my $.02 that I haven't heard yet - if you're running mogas or a mogas mixture, your engine and overhaul fund will probably be much happier running consistently at 55% than at 75%.
 
Peterson stc

I spoke to Todd at Peterson stc. He said yes you can run Hi octane mo-gas but it could vapor lock during the hotter months. I asked about the bendix pressure carb and he said no problem but they did have problems with the bendix fuel injection on some models, he did mention he thinks when they put a vapor return it solved the problems. My 0-360 may not really fall into the "OK to use category" because the person I got the kit from had chrome cylinders put on and we were not sure if high compression piston were put in or not. Anyway, I think I'll be safe and run the more expensive av gas. There that was easy.
 
Aviation fuels are graded based on performance numbers NOT octane ratings. From what they taught us in A&P school, Premium Mogas (91+ Octane) would be about the equivalent of 80/87 Avgas. Therefore, if you dataplate says 80/87 on it, It most likely will work. For the rest of us, I suggest sticking to Avgas.
 
Auto fuel vs Av gas.

Mixing av gas with auto gas is a waste of time, money and effort. It make good gas, mogas, bad and bad gas AV gas worse. There is not proof whatsoever that it is of any benifit. Adding additives to any gasoline, be it AV or mogas, affect the octane number, and also benifits little, if any.
There seems to be a notion that high octane numbers for AV gas and auto gas are different, when in effect there is very little or any refernce to both sets of numbers. Octane in AV gas is set via addition of tetraethyl lead, while in mogas, any variation except lead is used.
Octane has no specific reference to producing any less or more power. octane is a number that specifies gasolines ability to resist detonation. The higher the octane number, the higher the resisteance. Aside from octane numbers, the production of heat of high or low octane gas is identical give or take a degree or so.
Another old wives tale is vapor lock at higher altitudes. EAA had a special batch of mogas brewed. It had a very low vapor number specificically to do just that, vapor lock. The test plane climbed ( with all it's might to nearly 20K, and no vapor lock occured. Atop Pikes Peak, 15K, all sort of cars drive up and no one seems to experiences it. Maybe they don't know.
Compression is not necessarily a requirement for higher octane. Given that AC engines with standard fixed ignition timing, a higher than normal octane can concievably be more effective during maximum power settings, but under normal loads, a lower octane would be more effective. Resistance to detonation also causes more fuel to flow out the exhaust unburned. Yes, cooler CHTs will be realized, in effect, lower operating temperatures are evident, which will cause other malidies, such as valve sticking, moisture in the crankcase, corrosion, et al.
For sake of comparisons, there are several high performance autos with compression ratios that would gag an AV engine, yet run on 87 octane. One motorcycle with 12.5:1 compression ratio uses 87 octane. Of course, they have computers, but ratios and octane numbers are no longer a seperaterist issue, except for AV engines. Still any 8.5:1 av engine can run quite happily on mogas as low as 87.
There have been a few shops that have claimed that mogas have caused engine to "burn" up. Nothing is more absurd. We operate 5 different aircrafts ranging from Continental, Lycoming, auto engine, Rotax, and in all cases mogas is superior. The Conti is an O470, whose reputation is less than desirable. From OH to 700 hrs, it had to have all six cylinders replaced. Since than, nearly 15 years later, it has run predominently on mogas (87), and 15/50 Shell in the crankcase. The engine now has 1300+ hrs, and to date the results, are, reduction in fuel consumption, normal compression pressures varying only 2 to 4#, reduction in oil coonsumption as well. No additves are ever used.
Same engine with AV gas, per JPI anylizer, fuel flow increased, EGTs/CHTs unstable, oil consumption higher.
Same results with the other ACs. The auto engine hates AV gas, and generally runs poorly. The Rotax, has to have oil changes more than often when using 100LL/ The Rotax does not burn oil during it's 40 hrs between changes. Our experience with AV gas in the Rotax, is that is became unstable (much like the JPI exibited in the O470), and spark plugs glazed in an hour;s flight.
We have also found that spark plug life is vastly increased using mogas, and used with LASAR, also displays excellent results, not the least of which is further reducing fuel consumption, and addes performance.
Some may agree or disagree with our findings, but these findings have been observed over a period of more than 20 years, even before mogas approval.
FYI, In older ACs such as Piper Cubs, or a T craft (one of our 5), gas specified is mogas, AV gas is optional, as well as using SAE standard oil rather than AD. The T craft is a 1946 example with a A65 Conti. It was OHed more than 25 years ago. Just annualed, Compression tested cold were 77 low to 79 highest. Spark plugs are old as well with little more than cleaning and "checking" gap. Oil consumption negligeable.
FWIW
 
tacchi88 said:
Mixing av gas with auto gas is a waste of time, money and effort. It make good gas, mogas, bad and bad gas AV gas worse. There is not proof whatsoever that it is of any benifit. Adding additives to any gasoline, be it AV or mogas, affect the octane number, and also benifits little, if any.
There seems to be a notion that high octane numbers for AV gas and auto gas are different, when in effect there is very little or any refernce to both sets of numbers. Octane in AV gas is set via addition of tetraethyl lead, while in mogas, any variation except lead is used.
Click to expand...
Based on what? The FAA taught us in A&P school that there is a difference between "Octane" ratings (Mogas) and Performance Numbers (Avgas) and that they do not directly correspond. See above.
Octane has no specific reference to producing any less or more power. octane is a number that specifies gasolines ability to resist detonation. The higher the octane number, the higher the resisteance. Aside from octane numbers, the production of heat of high or low octane gas is identical give or take a degree or so.
Another old wives tale is vapor lock at higher altitudes. EAA had a special batch of mogas brewed. It had a very low vapor number specificically to do just that, vapor lock. The test plane climbed ( with all it's might to nearly 20K, and no vapor lock occured.
Click to expand...
Ok, but add a faulty fuel pump into the mix, or a misdesigned fuel system, and remeber the heat in the engine compartment.
Atop Pikes Peak, 15K, all sort of cars drive up and no one seems to experiences it. Maybe they don't know.
Compression is not necessarily a requirement for higher octane. Given that AC engines with standard fixed ignition timing, a higher than normal octane can concievably be more effective during maximum power settings, but under normal loads, a lower octane would be more effective. Resistance to detonation also causes more fuel to flow out the exhaust unburned. Yes, cooler CHTs will be realized, in effect, lower operating temperatures are evident, which will cause other malidies, such as valve sticking, moisture in the crankcase, corrosion, et al.
Click to expand...
I have NEVER heard of an engine running too cool with because of avgas. First off, you have a mixture control. Secondly the fuel doesn't carry THAT much of the heat away. In reality, you can get the engine running avgas leaner and therefore save FF (Run LOP).
For sake of comparisons, there are several high performance autos with compression ratios that would gag an AV engine, yet run on 87 octane. One motorcycle with 12.5:1 compression ratio uses 87 octane. Of course, they have computers, but ratios and octane numbers are no longer a seperaterist issue, except for AV engines. Still any 8.5:1 av engine can run quite happily on mogas as low as 87.
Click to expand...
That seems a bit far feched. What engine specfically are you refering to? Most high compression car engines require you to run premium. I know that you can't raise the compression ratio in a Saturn much above 12:1 on any pump gas.
There have been a few shops that have claimed that mogas have caused engine to "burn" up. Nothing is more absurd. We operate 5 different aircrafts ranging from Continental, Lycoming, auto engine, Rotax, and in all cases mogas is superior. The Conti is an O470, whose reputation is less than desirable. From OH to 700 hrs, it had to have all six cylinders replaced. Since than, nearly 15 years later, it has run predominently on mogas (87), and 15/50 Shell in the crankcase. The engine now has 1300+ hrs, and to date the results, are, reduction in fuel consumption, normal compression pressures varying only 2 to 4#, reduction in oil coonsumption as well. No additves are ever used.
Same engine with AV gas, per JPI anylizer, fuel flow increased, EGTs/CHTs unstable, oil consumption higher.
Same results with the other ACs. The auto engine hates AV gas, and generally runs poorly. The Rotax, has to have oil changes more than often when using 100LL/ The Rotax does not burn oil during it's 40 hrs between changes. Our experience with AV gas in the Rotax, is that is became unstable (much like the JPI exibited in the O470), and spark plugs glazed in an hour;s flight.
We have also found that spark plug life is vastly increased using mogas, and used with LASAR, also displays excellent results, not the least of which is further reducing fuel consumption, and addes performance.
Some may agree or disagree with our findings, but these findings have been observed over a period of more than 20 years, even before mogas approval.
FYI, In older ACs such as Piper Cubs, or a T craft (one of our 5), gas specified is mogas, AV gas is optional, as well as using SAE standard oil rather than AD. The T craft is a 1946 example with a A65 Conti. It was OHed more than 25 years ago. Just annualed, Compression tested cold were 77 low to 79 highest. Spark plugs are old as well with little more than cleaning and "checking" gap. Oil consumption negligeable.
FWIW
Click to expand...
Of course the compression ratio in the t-craft is 7.3:1. I do not dispute your personal findings on the use of Mogas, but I find it inappropriate for use in aircraft I fly.
 
There is some informative stuff about octane and aviation fuel at:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html

A quote from the article:
?HOW DO YOU DETERMINE AVIATION GASOLINE OCTANE?
The octane of aviation fuel is not measured in exactly the same was as is automobile fuel.

Once again, you start with your trusty ASTM-CFR engine. First you set up the ASTM-CFR for the motor method and use that method to determine the motor rating of your fuel. You then correct that rating to the "Aviation Lean" rating using a conversion table. Below about 110 motor octane (a performance number of 110), the aviation lean and motor octane numbers will differ by only about 1 or 2 points. Above 110 motor octane the differences can be significant. Next you pull out another version of the ASTM-CFR engine. This one has a fixed compression ratio but allows you to supercharge the intake manifold. You pressurize the intake to higher and higher values until the onset of knock. Other than that, the parameters are the same as for the motor method used for automobiles. The supercharge method is then used to assign the Aviation Rich value of the fuel. Supposedly the pressurization method (as opposed to changing compression ratios) is a throwback to the 1950s and 60s when supercharging was common in aircraft engines. The engineers were particularly concerned with the fuel's behavior under boost.

Because of the different ways in which automotive and aviation gasoline octane is measured one must be very careful when comparing absolute numbers. 100 octane avgas is not equal to 100 octane autogas (but it's close!). Note that the lean number rating of an aviation engine will correspond very closely to its autogas (mogas) motor rating requirement (see the above paragraph). Thus when shopping for autogas for your 91/96 O-360, you should look for a filling station at which the motor octane rating of the fuel is at least 91.

You should also be careful leaning the engine as this may cause its octane requirements to go above what the autofuel can provide. Look for an autofuel with an octane number as far above the lower aviation octane number as you can. If you can get one which is at or above the rich octane requirement (the higher number) then you should be a-OK.

Thus an engine rated for 80/87 aviation should have no trouble whatsoever running on 89 octane (or higher) unleaded. Engines rated for 91/96 should run on at least 91 (motor) octane unleaded but note that this is lower than the rich limit requirements (96) of the engine. Therefore it is especially critical to limit leaning with such an engine/fuel combo when running at high power settings.?

Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
More insight on MOGAS octane numbers at the automotive pump from an article I found on the web. Remember avgas, as far as I know, is rated by the motor method and most US mogas pumps display octane by the PON method.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."


RON, MON or PON?
Or how do you grade petrol/gas
I have seen many European/US conversations claiming that one petrol/gas is better than another or higher rated. This may not be the case as different rating systems are used in different countries and so not all numbers mean the same thing. You must be careful to also quote the measurement system used

To see why there are different numbers let us take a trip back in time to World War I. Aviators had a problem, many engines would suddenly self destruct through detonation, which is bad news when you're up in the air. An engine might run fine on one batch of fuel but blow holes in the pistons on the next batch. The fuels seemed the same, weighed the same and may have even come from the same factory.

The fuel companies tried to analysis and standardise the petrol, but were unable to weed out the bad batches. Therefore a standard test engine with a variable compression facility was built and the fuel to be tested run through it. This heavy duty, single cylinder engine would be warmed to a standard temperature and at a set rpm the compression increased until engine knock occurred. this would give its Highest Usable Compression Ratio (HUCR).

But with time it was discovered that different labs gave different results. So in an attempt to produce an unvarying standard, two reference fuels were chosen. The high reference was 2-2-4 trimethylpentane (iso-octane), while the low reference was normal heptane (n-heptane). Once the HUCR was determined a mix of these to fuels was made up that exactly produced the same results as the HUCR test. The result is quoted as the percentage of iso-octane. Hence a petrol that detonated the same as a mix of 90% iso-octane and 10% n-heptane is called a 90 octane fuel.

Since that time a number of tests have come into being to simulate a variety of engine conditions. Motor Spirit is usually rated using the Research or Motor test methods. Both use the same old engine but under different conditions

Motor Octane Test (MON) Research Octane Test (RON)
Inlet air temperature 148.9 C 65.6 C
Engine jacket temp 100 C 100 C
Engine RPM 900 600

As you can see the Motor Octane Test employs a higher temperature and RPM and hence is probably a better indicator for today's engines. Of course the Research octane test gives a higher number and that's why the European manufacturers quote it (RON)

The spread between the two numbers is know as the fuels sensitivity, and it is very important. Because of the variety of engines it is possible for a petrol manufacturer to come up with a fuel that has a high RON, but a lower than expected MON. Hence although it looks normal on the pump it may perform badly. However on another day the same company may make its fuel out of a different blend to get the same RON but a different MON. This is done for profit reasons and is why you occasionally get bad fuel even though it is legally rated the same. In the past with high leaded fuels nobody noticed but nowadays high performance cars do notice (The Molemobile has just had a particularly bad batch from Total, and has been pinking all week)

In America the service stations use the Pump Octane Number or PON rather than RON. this is the average of RON and MON and gives a much better grade, and is also why the American gas always seems not as good as our when in fact it is is the same (and has better quality control). But even this system can be abused by adding octane boosters to poor fuel.

Below is an approximate comparison chart, these numbers can vary by as much as 2 grades

RON MON PON
90 83 86.6
92 85 88.5
95 87 91
96 88 92
98 90 94
100 91.5 95.8
105 95 100
110 99 104.5
 
This is my experience with auto fuel. I owned a Cessna 172 (0-300) for seven years and flew it about 500 hours during that time. On my first trip to Oshkosh from Arkansas I developed a rough engine during the trip. I changed all the bottom plugs on the field at Ohskosh and the plane ran OK on the return trip. The cause was lead fouling in the plugs. I started using Exxon premium auto fuel and put in some 100 LL every other fill-up. The engine ran smoother, stopped fouling plugs and in general just ran better. I buy only Exxon gas because at the time they guaranteed their gas not to have any alcohol added. I'm not sure if that is still the case. I added the 100 LL just to keep a little lead in the mix. My A&P suggested I do that. He came from Alaska with many years experience in bush plane maintenance. I figured that was good enough for me. When I sold the plane the compressions hardly changed and there were no sticking valves so in that particular engine it seemed like the thing to do. I would go back and re-read Mahlon's first post!
Jim Wright 90919 Wings Arkansas RV-9A
 
Last edited:
Octane

Stephen,
Sorry to say that as an A&P/IA I don't recall "any" discussion about the "differences" in octane ratings of AV gas and mo gas. So happens that the auto industry, as well as other "sane" engine makers use the Mon and Ron minumim/max ratio standard. In the end, there is ony a small difference from one to the other, which in effect has little consequences.
It is known in aviation that since only 100 LL is available, that it has caused some malidies for the lower compression engines (below 7:1), and that malidy is the accumulation of deposits. This is largely due to temperatures below standards for combustiable mixtures.
The octane rating is merely a measurement of resistance to detonation, the lower the number the faster it is prone to ignite. Compression alone can do that. The higher the number, the higher the resistance to ignite.
A combination of incorrect ratio and octane, i.e.. low ratio, and a few other factors, high octane will indeed not burn completely, hence cooler running.
The ability of creating vapor via a weak or faulty fuel system is indeed a cause of vapor lock, but this is not the discussion at hand.
As an old fart, in the auto world, cars built up to the early sixties were prone to vapor lock due to weak fuel pumps. This was a common problem, until the industry discovered new materials with which to make pumps last longer.
Regardless, weak fuel pressure can indeed cause vapor lock.
As to an engine running temperature, I will tell you that after many years of "real" piston internal combustion engines, aviation was a shocker. Operating temperature must be obvious to you everytime you start your AC. Ever notice the difference in response when attempting to move the throttle after immidiately starting? After a minute or so, it responds. If you have an older car with a carburator and no electronic management, it will do the same until "operating " temperatures are met.
If you pull up the Kawasaki motorcycle site and inquire about their littlest Ninja superbike (250cc), and look up it's specs, you'll find that it has 12.5:1 compression and runs on 87 octane. More over, Dogge Hemi truck engines which use 91 octane mogas( of course) can be reprogramed with an after market programer (Hypertech III Programer) to not only increase performance, but to run on 87 rather than 91.
The data I posted earlier on the effects of mogas we have been using are indeed emperical. We have maintained observation as recently as this morning. Cool here in North FL. (on T/O) OAT 48 deg. Plane C182 w/O470. Fuel 87 octane mogas. EGTs uses for best temperatures, performance, and fuel consumption was 1470. Variations in EGT less than 10 deg. With AV gas (didn't use the foul stuff today) variation is EGTs may rise as high 70 deg.
One year the 182 logged only 4 hours before annual, tanks were 3/4 full. The owner and friend asked about removing it and adding new fuel. I responded, why? We started the engine in the "old" stuff, and eureka, it ran just as if that fuel was new. Flew for nearly 2 hrs, with no ill effect and a steady JPI varrrying less than 20 deg.
I assure you that with 2 years on a dynomometer was an eye opener about a lot of things, not the least of which was the fact that AV gas, ain't what it's made out to be. In fact it's over all, pretty foul stuff, and one of the major causes, of many AV engine malidies.
I appreciate the discussions, and information that everyone contributes. The insight on this topic is "exceptional" If ever Continental/Honda, and Bombardier/Rotax bring out their new engines, you'll be very much surprised to find that they will run an "any" gasoline fuel. In the case of Rotax, Mogas is first choice. I suspect the Conti will be much the same, in addition to using standard lubricants rather than the foul AD stuff.
FYI, I'm in the middle of an RV10. Yes, I will use the recommended size engine, but as a homebuilt, I have final say so as to what the engine will "posses".
It is a low compression 235, but it will have FI and LASAR, crank balance was altered to run up to 2700 Rpm, and HP "calculated", between 250/260 using low compression and mogas, as much as possible. I'm confident that it will perform as I expect, especially on Mogas.
Regards,
T/88
 
You must log in or register to reply here.