Let me be clear - I have been a huge ECI fan ever since they began making replacement parts that challenged the design technology and quality of the Lycoming monopoly. Way back in the days before ECI and Superior, you bought your parts from Lycoming, and that was that ? and many of us complained about poor cylinder and valve cooling due to lousy parts finishing and antique metallurgy. With the advent of competition came, well?competition! And quality on all counts improved. Let?s forget, BTW, that they have ALL had AD?s, SB?s, recalls, and failures?.yes, they all have those?.).
Because I was an ECI fan, I was pleased when Mattituck built my RV-8 engine from ECI components, and the Cerminil Cylinders were, in my mind, a big plus due to their non-corrosive properties. Of course, I never dreamed I?d be flying the airplane five days a week so that corrosion just wasn?t going to be an issue, but I liked the idea. Mattituck did their usual excellent job of matching the various components for the engine, and it was a very smooth runner, even LOP (with a carb!). I was never, however, very satisfied with the oil consumption on the jugs ? the best ever was about 8.5 hours/quart, and I averaged about 5 - 6 hours per quart. I talked with Mattituck frequently over the years, and was told this was well within spec, and that we could re-ring and hone, but might very well end up at the same place.
Well time went on, and I kept using oil ? eventually, it got to a quart in four, just about the time I had 1400 hours on the engine, and I decided it was time to do the top. I have recounted this here earlier this year, so let?s just say that I went with Lycomings this time due to a number of reports of problems honing nickel cylinders, and customer service mis-steps on ECI?s part. The four new Lycoming (standard nitride) cylinders came from A.E.R.O. and have broken in nicely. With fifty hours on them, I can draw a few interesting (and somewhat subjective) observations between the old and the new:
1. Oil Consumption: Clearly, even though it is still stabilizing, the Lycomings are doing far better ? on the order of a quart in 9 or 10 hours right now.
2. Balance: The four ?random? jugs and pistons from Lycoming don?t seem to have changed the dynamic balance by any perceptible amount ? the engine is wonderfully smooth (except when I get it excessively lean and jugs start mis-firing of course).
3. CHT?s: The Lycomings are running about 20 degrees WARMER all the way around, and seem to heat up and cool down more quickly than the ECI?s. All are within normal limits, and the baffling is identical. (I had no cracks or damage to the baffling in 1400 hours ? simply amazing!)
4. Leaning: The carefully matched ECI?s from Mattituck did better than the random replacements from Lycoming. The four EGT?s don?t come together as nicely as I lean, and the engine won?t run quite as smooth when I get to peak or beyond ? therefore, I am not able to get as low of fuel flow numbers - probably on the order of .5 gph average at lower altitudes (better up high).
5. Oil temperatures: Seem to be running just a little bit cooler with the new jugs, now that the initial break-in has occurred.
Overall, I am happy with the new jugs, but a little sad to lose that beautiful smooth LOP capability ? we?re still getting LOP (as evidenced by the significant drop in CHT?s when you go over peak), just not as deep. I am curious to see how the engine will do on its first long cross-country to Oshkosh and back in a couple of weeks. I expect to see the oil consumption improve a little bit more, but we?ll see.
Paul
Because I was an ECI fan, I was pleased when Mattituck built my RV-8 engine from ECI components, and the Cerminil Cylinders were, in my mind, a big plus due to their non-corrosive properties. Of course, I never dreamed I?d be flying the airplane five days a week so that corrosion just wasn?t going to be an issue, but I liked the idea. Mattituck did their usual excellent job of matching the various components for the engine, and it was a very smooth runner, even LOP (with a carb!). I was never, however, very satisfied with the oil consumption on the jugs ? the best ever was about 8.5 hours/quart, and I averaged about 5 - 6 hours per quart. I talked with Mattituck frequently over the years, and was told this was well within spec, and that we could re-ring and hone, but might very well end up at the same place.
Well time went on, and I kept using oil ? eventually, it got to a quart in four, just about the time I had 1400 hours on the engine, and I decided it was time to do the top. I have recounted this here earlier this year, so let?s just say that I went with Lycomings this time due to a number of reports of problems honing nickel cylinders, and customer service mis-steps on ECI?s part. The four new Lycoming (standard nitride) cylinders came from A.E.R.O. and have broken in nicely. With fifty hours on them, I can draw a few interesting (and somewhat subjective) observations between the old and the new:
1. Oil Consumption: Clearly, even though it is still stabilizing, the Lycomings are doing far better ? on the order of a quart in 9 or 10 hours right now.
2. Balance: The four ?random? jugs and pistons from Lycoming don?t seem to have changed the dynamic balance by any perceptible amount ? the engine is wonderfully smooth (except when I get it excessively lean and jugs start mis-firing of course).
3. CHT?s: The Lycomings are running about 20 degrees WARMER all the way around, and seem to heat up and cool down more quickly than the ECI?s. All are within normal limits, and the baffling is identical. (I had no cracks or damage to the baffling in 1400 hours ? simply amazing!)
4. Leaning: The carefully matched ECI?s from Mattituck did better than the random replacements from Lycoming. The four EGT?s don?t come together as nicely as I lean, and the engine won?t run quite as smooth when I get to peak or beyond ? therefore, I am not able to get as low of fuel flow numbers - probably on the order of .5 gph average at lower altitudes (better up high).
5. Oil temperatures: Seem to be running just a little bit cooler with the new jugs, now that the initial break-in has occurred.
Overall, I am happy with the new jugs, but a little sad to lose that beautiful smooth LOP capability ? we?re still getting LOP (as evidenced by the significant drop in CHT?s when you go over peak), just not as deep. I am curious to see how the engine will do on its first long cross-country to Oshkosh and back in a couple of weeks. I expect to see the oil consumption improve a little bit more, but we?ll see.
Paul