W

WVM

Well Known Member
Hi,

An owner of a Superior engine told me that his engine is around 15% more fuel efficient over the same Lycoming model. An engine mechanic told me that this is unproven, but not impossible, still probably a Lycoming engine will be as efficient as the Superior on the same airframe. He expect the difference between both to be not that big.

I think to put a XIO-320-D1A from Superior on an RV9, does anyone has information on the fuel burn?

Thank you
 
I went with an ECi O-360 when I replaced my engine a few years back and am very pleased with the results. 50-55% power, 150-155 Kts, while burning 7.2 GPH in cruise. My empty weight is in line with O-320 powered -9 at 1068 lbs. Climb rates can go over 2,000 FPM with a FP Catto (solo and partial tanks.).

You have a lot of options.
 
WVM said:
Hi,

An owner of a Superior engine told me that his engine is around 15% more fuel efficient over the same Lycoming model. An engine mechanic told me that this is unproven, but not impossible, still probably a Lycoming engine will be as efficient as the Superior on the same airframe. He expect the difference between both to be not that big.

I think to put a XIO-320-D1A from Superior on an RV9, does anyone has information on the fuel burn?

Thank you
Click to expand...

Most of the parts in the Superior engine are PMA parts that could be used in a Lycoming. I do no believe that there is a difference in fuel burn if they are producing the same power.

Who ever told you there is a difference needs to "Show Me" as I am from Missouri the show me state.
 
I remember about 10 years ago Superior had a sump for an updraft carb they claimed was more efficient. It had a small divider that directed airflow to each cylinder.

Other than that I think everything else is PMA and the same as Lycoming.
 
same fuel burn as Superior O-320

N941WR said:
I went with an ECi O-360 when I replaced my engine a few years back and am very pleased with the results. 50-55% power, 150-155 Kts, while burning 7.2 GPH in cruise. My empty weight is in line with O-320 powered -9 at 1068 lbs. Climb rates can go over 2,000 FPM with a FP Catto (solo and partial tanks.).
Click to expand...

my fuel burn is 7.2 GPH, 9K, 153 kts, WW200RV prop on Superior O-320 at 65% power. climb rate also greater than 2K FPM. oil cooler 90% blocked in winter oil temp = 175F, in summer with no oil cooler blockage it does not exceed 190F. a cooler engine may be a benefit if running mogas.
 
Last edited:
RV6_flyer said:
Most of the parts in the Superior engine are PMA parts that could be used in a Lycoming. I do no believe that there is a difference in fuel burn if they are producing the same power.

Who ever told you there is a difference needs to "Show Me" as I am from Missouri the show me state.
Click to expand...

Only you can order up roller tappets, different compression pistons, cold air sump, etc. which all improve performance.

ECi has their own performance tricks for the experimental market.

Truth is, you can't go wrong with either engine and once you hang it on your experimental airplane it becomes an experimental engine.
 
Something to consider is the price of the engine. If you have the option for a low time used Lycombing vs a new Superior then there may be a significant price advantage that will more than offset any fuel savings.

The OP says "as much as 15% more efficient". I'll assume half that is reasonable. At today's high octane MoGas price in Belgium that is 7.5% of 1.62?. An RV-9 will cruise around pretty quickly burning 6-6.5 gph (US). Since you are talking about even lower power settings, we could use 5 gph.

The above yields a Lycombing using 2.25? more per hour.

If maintenance costs are the same for each engine, how many hours before you break even ?
 
WVM said:
Hi,

An owner of a Superior engine told me that his engine is around 15% more fuel efficient over the same Lycoming model. An engine mechanic told me that this is unproven, but not impossible, still probably a Lycoming engine will be as efficient as the Superior on the same airframe. He expect the difference between both to be not that big.

I think to put a XIO-320-D1A from Superior on an RV9, does anyone has information on the fuel burn?

Thank you
Click to expand...

There are only a few ways that is even remotely possible.

1. Assuming ROP ops, one is excessively rich or the other is not running rich enough.
2. One has 15% higher compression ratio
3. One is a REAL dog of an engine.

Now lest look at the likely things, compression ratio. If and only if there is an option for about 15% more compression, then yes, that is possible, otherwise any differences are so small you will never really know.

I do know the Superior IO320 is a lovely sweet engine. I have no reason to believe that the Lycoming IO320 is any different.

If you want efficient, but the IO320 of your choosing (best price) with a standard compression ratio. Fit a Hartzel BA constant speed prop, or if Fixed Pitch the Vans supplied Sensinich. Ensure the GAMI spread is 0.3GPH or better and learn how to operate LOP properly.

Any other fanciful suggestions will easily be apparent.
 
My O-320 can cruise 115kts on 4 GPH or so.

IMG_2247.JPG


http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=57118&highlight=loiter


WVM said:
Nice one... :D

Does anyone with a (I)O-320 Lycoming or Superior know what the fuel burn will be around 115-125 kts?
Click to expand...
 
Wishful thinking

WVM said:
Hi,

An owner of a Superior engine told me that his engine is around 15% more fuel efficient over the same Lycoming model.
Click to expand...

No doubt that claim falls squarely into the category of wishful thinking by a Superior engine owner. ;)

I think you'll find that most builders who buy Superior do so because they're a couple of thousand cheaper than a genuine Lycoming...not because they expect an improved BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

New genuine Lycoming buyers on the other hand are prepared to pay a small dollar premium for what they consider to be a perceived advantage in terms of product reliability. Of course that may also be wishful thinking. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.