IOX-340 Stroker

[Don]

Is anyone running the ECI IOX-340 Stroker in their 9 - or planning to do so? If so, what prop are you using and how do you like it? My thoughts have been running toward a CS. I'm also curious what cowling you ordered from Vans as I'm hoping to order mine tomorrow (I'm sure Vans can help me get the right one).

Please no flames or pointing out that you wouldn't do this (because no one is asking you to use this engine). I'm looking for folks with experience with this engine and airframe combination. I understand that this engine is rated at 185 hp and Van's max recommendation is 160 hp and I've read a number of articles on flutter and in particular Van's own article on the limit. It appears to me that the problem isn't the extra horses, its how the extra horses used. The airframe has limits that I don't intend to exceed deliberately and with the GRT EFIS I have purchased I can install an alarm to catch an unintentional exceedence of the true airspeed. No matter what hardware I have I can placard the cruise limits.

Compared to the O-320, the OX-340, the OX-360 and the IOX-360, the IOX-340 Stroker engine has the best fuel economy and the weight penalty is 10lbs compared to an O-320. With fuel running around $4/gal even with conservative assumptions the savings are real. Add to that the smoother running operation and more even CHTs and the choice seems even better. It appears to me that this would be a fine and fun engine for the 9, provided one is inclined to understand and live within the limits of both the engine and airframe, which I am inclined to do.

Don

 

[Don]

Hmmmm?

Is possible I'm the first person going with this engine and airframe combination? Has anyone else considered it? If you rejected it, were there any reasons other than the extra horsepower?

 

[turneraero]

Not Alone

Don, You're not alone. I too am considering this combination for my RV-9A. I think it would be great up in those higher altitude landing strips. So keep asking those questions as someone must have the info we both desire.

Jerry
RV-9A Building

 

[FredMagare]

Trailblazer...

I think the O-340 is a recent introduction, so while many are considering it, I don't think any have flown in an RV, yet. Through my (meager) research the weight difference between the O-320 and O-360 dry weights seems to be less than 20 lbs. Superior has an O-360 derated to 175 hp (auto-fuel capable, I think) which I am considering. (Mainly because an engine designed to operate at 180 hp should be able to withstand a certain amount of stress and also be able to shed the heat developed while making max hp. Derating would likely extend the life of the engine in those regards.) I'd be interested in how reliable the O-340 series is. (I'd assume the same as the -320 and -360.) It should be a good choice so long as you keep an eye on the concerns you've already addressed.

If you go that route, please keep us informed. Good luck.

Fred
RV-9A

 

[mark schoening]

Being conservative with avilable funding ( yea -call me cheap!), I am sticking with 0-320 which needs overhaul. However, I will keep it at 150 hp 'cause I like the idea of burning car gas. A little more hp, bigger motor, given the already excellent cruise and short field performance of the 9/9a, does not give a lot of bang for the buck and the necessity of burning av-gas is something to consider for economical operation. If $$$ in no prob, git-er-done!

 

[Don]

Fuel economy

Well I'm frugal...not sure I'd go so far as labeling myself as cheap and fuel economy is one of the things I looked at. I'm running a 150 hp Lycoming O-320 in my Cherokee now and it usually burns over 9 gph on my typical 1-2 hour hops and always if I do T&Gs. Fuel economy is important to me and comparing fuel burns is one thing I've done. ECI has a chart on their website that shows this information.

http://www.eci2fly.com/exp/eng_comparisons11x17.pdf

You'll note that out of the whole OX-320, OX-340, and OX-360 series (carb and FI) the IOX-340 has the lowest fuel consumption. If you compare the OX-320 at 75% power (120 hp) to the IOX-340 at 65% power (120.25 hp) you'll see that the IOX-340 burns 1.4 gph less than the O-320. At $4.00/gallon (and I expect this to go up not down) the difference is 5.60/hr now. It isn't a make or break it difference but it is real money and worth noting. If I can also get a better climb rate - for fun and for safety, a smoother running engine, eliminate carb icing, potentially longer engine life (better fuel balance) and all I need to do is manage the energy wisely, the decision seems obvious.

Don

 

[randylervold]

Is anyone running the ECI IOX-340 Stroker in their 9 - or planning to do so? If so, what prop are you using and how do you like it? My thoughts have been running toward a CS. I'm also curious what cowling you ordered from Vans as I'm hoping to order mine tomorrow.
Don

Don,
The IOX-340 looks interesting for several RV models, the RV-9 included. Because it is so new I doubt there are any flying yet, which also raises another issue... no track record. Also to consider, because it is horizontal induction only you will necessarily need to do some cowl surgery on the intake -- I don't believe Van's makes a cowl for the -9 without the intake scoop. On the other hand, maybe an RV-7 cowl, which they make without the intake scoop, would work?

BTW, I think the IOX-340 would be a great engine for an RV-3B as well. If it had been available when I made my engine decision I would have definitely considered it.

 

[RV6_flyer]

I think the O-340 is a recent introduction, ...

Fred
RV-9A

Lycoming got Type Certificate E-277 for the 340 back on July 20, 1954 and the last update was April 15, 1963.

The 340 engine has been around a long time (52 years recent) but not used in may airplanes. ECI is updating it and bring it back out to give us one more choice for OUR aircraft. ECI did up the compression from 8.5:1 to 9:1 to give us a little more power. Lycoming also had a 7.15:1 compression version that used 80/87.

I am only following info on the 340 becasue I may put a 340 crank, ECI Cold Air, and FI in my 320 at overhaul time. Not sure if a $9K upgrade above the cost of a 320 overhaul is worth the difference between it and a new IO-360 180HP.

Does the fact that the 340 was a TC engine in the past make more people want to use it now?

 

[videobobk]

Being conservative with avilable funding ( yea -call me cheap!), I am sticking with 0-320 which needs overhaul. However, I will keep it at 150 hp 'cause I like the idea of burning car gas. A little more hp, bigger motor, given the already excellent cruise and short field performance of the 9/9a, does not give a lot of bang for the buck and the necessity of burning av-gas is something to consider for economical operation. If $$$ in no prob, git-er-done!

Mark,

My O-320 D1A had 885 TTSN when I bought it and is of course 160 hp. The original owner says he never ran it on anything except car gas--not ever! It is clean as a pin and runs great on 100LL. I don't know if you need to stay with the lower compression for mogas or not. You might check into it as the higher compression is supposed to get a little better economy.

Bob Kelly

 

[mark schoening]

Bob

Thanks for heads up on 320. Told higher comp it was necessary to use ave gas, but never checked. I cert will before ovhl