Lycoming 0320-

AZFLIER56 · Post by **AZFLIER56** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:23 am

is there an STC for a Lyc 0320 conversion and what is the general feelings toward this type of conversion ? Pros and cons

there seems to be plenty of discussion/documentation with the 0360 (180 hp) but what about the 0320(150 hp) with a constant speed prop

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:09 am

The stock C-170 engine is one of the most reliable and economical engines ever built. It is also much smoother than a four banger.
A lycoming O-320 can pump out 160 HP max.
An engine conversion is very costly and certainly not economically viable for the very small gain in installing an O-320. I can't immagine why anyone would want to install an O-320 when the O-360 is the same physical size and considerably more powerful.

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:49 pm

BL got it about right.

But to answer your question there is/was as SCT for an 0-320 in the 170.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:46 pm

I would add that about the only way you could justify using the 0-320 over the 0-360 is if you already owned or could buy a good 0-320 real cheap AND you had and could use an adjustable pitch prop. I have no idea if the 0-320 STC would allow the use of an adjustable prop though.

Otherwise I'd think there would be nothing to gain with the conversion over the stock C-145.

c170b53 · Post by **c170b53** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:39 pm

Almost right, the 0-320 STC is a narrow deck engine, thus no cowl blisters.
All the previous comments have merit. The lycoming engines are newer and do not suffer from corrosion to magnesium components. My plane has improved climb due the increase in power and the constant speed prop. I wouldn't be surprised if its the only flying 0-320 powered 170 anybody else out there? (I'll be at Kelowna if anybody wants to look under the cowl.)
As posted why would you convert now to an 0-320 when a 0-360 conversion is available? I couldn't imagine why as well. I would convert to an 0-360 if I was on floats. Also worth considering with fuel at $1.36 Canadian a Litre, the 0-300 sips fuel in comparision to a Lycoming.
I imagine a 0-360 lifts off as soon as the tail is level in a 170. If I wanted pseudo fighter performance maybe an RV would be the answer to speed and low fuel consumption. But because I'm slowing down and getting wider I'll stick to my 170.

CraigH · Post by **CraigH** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:55 pm

Here's another O-320 for sale on Trade-a-Plane, but this one has cowl blisters?????

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotecte ... 42134.html

spiro · Post by **spiro** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:40 am

c170b53 wrote: The lycoming engines are newer and do not suffer from corrosion to magnesium components.

but the cam sits above the crank in a Lyc so they're more prone to rust with disuse than a Cont.

c170b53 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if its the only flying 0-320 powered 170 anybody else out there?

is yours blue and white and purchased from a guy here in Anchorage a couple years ago? If not then there's at least 2 models w/ this conversion.

c170b53 · Post by **c170b53** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:49 am

Hey I'm not alone after all! There's only one thing I miss from my old 0-300 and that's the smooth ride.

N419A · Post by **N419A** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:50 am

There's one out in McGrath, AK. From what I hear it flys pretty good. Eventually I'll get out there and meet the guy and check it out.

Paul

trake · Post by **trake** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:56 pm

The 150 hp o320 is a great engine-super reliable and low maintenance. I flew one for 20 years and never had a cylinder off. I used car gas mostly. Its about 20 lbs lighter than the 145 hp Continental. The 160 hp o320 is just average. I like my Continental O300A with millenium cylinders, dont think the conversion would be worth it.