david j nelson wrote:I looked at all 3 engines when doing my conversion on Cessna 170 .The continental was a little heavier and more complex ,and then the Lycoming was ok but it does shake a bit , then I was shown a superior engine and doing the same thing and it’s vibration and quality control exceeded the Lycoming The superior was fitted to my aircraft and what a difference . I have the privilege of flying a 170 with both engines fitted [lycoming and superior] . The 170 with the superior feels stronger to fly and has more power. The 170 with the superior has a sensenich prop with 60in pitch while the Lycoming 170 has a fixed pitch mt prop [58 ins but not to sure] . Fuel consumption in cruise with the combination of superior/sensenich has a much better fuel consumption. Down to 34 liters a hour in cruise at 8000ft . The Lycoming engined 170 ,cruised at 38 to 40 liters a hour at 8000ft. The superior engined aircraft weighs 1428lbs and the Lycoming engined aircraft weighs 1490 lbs.

david j nelson wrote:I looked at all 3 engines when doing my conversion on Cessna 170 .The continental was a little heavier and more complex ,and then the Lycoming was ok but it does shake a bit , then I was shown a superior engine and doing the same thing and it’s vibration and quality control exceeded the Lycoming The superior was fitted to my aircraft and what a difference . I have the privilege of flying a 170 with both engines fitted [lycoming and superior] . The 170 with the superior feels stronger to fly and has more power. The 170 with the superior has a sensenich prop with 60in pitch while the Lycoming 170 has a fixed pitch mt prop [58 ins but not to sure] . Fuel consumption in cruise with the combination of superior/sensenich has a much better fuel consumption. Down to 34 liters a hour in cruise at 8000ft . The Lycoming engined 170 ,cruised at 38 to 40 liters a hour at 8000ft. The superior engined aircraft weighs 1428lbs and the Lycoming engined aircraft weighs 1490 lbs.