I am posting this for a friend, who bought my old C182H a couple of years ago. He just found out his engine case is cracked (500 hours on a reman). I suggested he look into upgrading his engine for more ponies. What are your thoughts, satisfaction with any particular conversion and any ideas of prices for the various conversions. Thanks.

Steve

Hi Steve
I know you have been here for awhile, so you have probly seen this before. But if your friend has the money fre a factory new/reman, he can probly afford to to the Pponk conversion. I did it, and couldn't be happier. I know many others here who have done the same thing and feel the same way. Better, smoother, more efficient, longer TBO, better t/o and cruise performance. What's not to like.
Steve Knopp(Ppponk) 360.629.4812 for info from the source. Great folks to deal with.

PPONK!

There are more than one upgrades for the C182-- Western Skyways, texas Skyways,P. Ponk. Since he's local, most of the guys I know who go for one choose Ponk (Steve Knopp). His O-470 + 50 converts the O-470 to a carburated 520. Not sure what the others are except more horsepower, so assume similar displacement increase.

I came across this article when I was trying to get smart on options. It's a bit dated but a good discussion nonetheless...

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/181623-1.html

Something to keep in mind when you are weighing the options is the 'fluid' fuel situation. How long will there be 100LL? Will there be big shortages? Will the replacement fuel be good for the engines-or something rushed into. Should you go with an engine that has an auto fuel STC as a backup option, or do you live in a place where the govmt pollutes auto fuel with that nasty ETOH stuff.....??(relax, folks-a lot of people feel that way). Or do you live where you can get good pristine premium car gas for you stock 182 engine? If you do, how long will THAT last? The 'world savers' are on a rampage and the govmt has got their religion.....

I didn't want the decision to be too easy......
lc

And, bear in mind if you go with the Ponk mod, you'll generally be required to bring a useable core. Of course this is true for most other engine changes as well, but the point is, PPonk is NOT going to convert that engine with a cracked case with his STC.

Sooo, if you're going to have to come up with the extra $$$ for a core as well, your options are much greater, and cost will be similar to using the PPonk mod.

There are STCs for O520s, IO 520s and IO 550s, in addition to the good old O-470, which he now has.

Really it's a matter of how much money he wants to spend.

MTV

Also O-550's in the end the plonked mod will be similar in cost to stock 470. Also need to decide if you need more hp

........And then there is Supercharging to consider:

http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm

They (website) do make it sound real attractive......
Anyone have one??


Subtle hijack attempt
lc

My R model 182 runs the lyc 540, which, after having a 470 cont in my old 182, has been a nice upgrade. seems smoother, and really doesnt burn more fuel if operated conservatively... i think that all the RG's run this motor, and i like it....
been around it both turbo'd and non, and it works good, with almost 0 oil burn and 0 problems...

steve wrote:I am posting this for a friend, who bought my old C182H a couple of years ago. He just found out his engine case is cracked (500 hours on a reman). I suggested he look into upgrading his engine for more ponies. What are your your thoughts, satisfaction with any particular conversion and any ideas of prices for the various conversions. Thanks.

Steve

Steve & Flight:
I'd send the case out to be welded and up grade -- I get the Norland STC and go to 260 hp. Bigger engines (PPonk-Texas airplanes etc.) suck more gas . With all the gooble gook about "how much longer -or more 100LL" will continue to haunt us.

With only 500 hrs on a reman I agree with Boulder Bill. Ship the case off to Divco for repair and put 'er back together if everything else is OK.

gb

The Norland isn't a bad option either. My dad has a Norland in his 180 and I have a Pponk in my 182 and we fly together almost weekly and did prior to upgrading either airplane so he have good pre-upgrade data. He is a teeny bit more fuel efficient than my Pponk but I can out climb him (barely) and gained more speed from the Pponk conversion than he did from the Norland.The Norland isn't well known around the flying community which may give the Pponk an edge come resale time. The other advantage of the Pponk is the low compression pistons which I hear likes 87 octane car gas which I can buy for $3.90 locally (ethonol free), though it's not legal so I would never do this of course...

I would fix or replace the case. I can't see wasting the rest of a 500hr motor.

Good luck

66skylane wrote:The Norland isn't a bad option either. My dad has a Norland in his 180 and I have a Pponk in my 182 and we fly together almost weekly and did prior to upgrading either airplane so he have good pre-upgrade data. He is a teeny bit more fuel efficient than my Pponk but I can out climb him (barely) and gained more speed from the Pponk conversion than he did from the Norland.The Norland isn't well known around the flying community which may give the Pponk an edge come resale time. The other advantage of the Pponk is the low compression pistons which I hear likes 87 octane car gas which I can buy for $3.90 locally (ethonol free), though it's not legal so I would never do this of course...

"which I hear likes 87 octane car gas which I can buy for $3.90 locally (ethonol free), though it's not legal so I would never do this of course.." Norland will work with 91 Octane > but I would never do of course .

182 STOL driver wrote:.......I'd send the case out to be welded and up grade -- I get the Norland STC and go to 260 hp. Bigger engines (PPonk-Texas airplanes etc.) suck more gas ......

Is the Norland STC'd engine still 470 cubic inches? How does it get the extra HP? Seems like if it was higher compression that would eliminate mogas as an option.

hotrod150 wrote:

182 STOL driver wrote:.......I'd send the case out to be welded and up grade -- I get the Norland STC and go to 260 hp. Bigger engines (PPonk-Texas airplanes etc.) suck more gas ......

Is the Norland STC'd engine still 470 cubic inches? How does it get the extra HP? Seems like if it was higher compression that would eliminate mogas as an option.

I believe 91 octane is still okay with the Norland, though stated otherwise. Supposedly the cheapest engine upgrade and best bang for the buck but as posted above, not well known.

From Norland:

Attached is the basic information needed to build up a IO-470 for use per our STC.

1. Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for your inquiry about the 260 hp engine conversion for your Cessna 180 or 182.
Your O-470 engine must be exchanged for an IO-470 series, which is then modified according to our STC. The cost for an IO-470 engine "0" time exchange, for your old O-470 is approximately $1500.00 - $2500.00 more than overhauling the O-470. We can assist you with quotes on engines.

Our STC is for the use of the IO-470-D,-E,-F,-H,-M,-N or -S engine in a modified condition, that is, with the fuel injection system removed and replaced by the carburetion system that is original equipment on the O- 470 engine. The IO-470 engine is a high compression version of your original O-470 Continental, requiring 100LL fuel. There is no other change to the fuel system, engine mount, exhaust or cowls. We do not recommend the use of a 3-blade propeller because of the weight increase.

The propellers currently on the Eligibility List are as follows: McCauley D2A34C49, D2A34C58, 2A34C66, and D2A36C33. A complete Eligibility List of engine and propeller combinations is included when you purchase the STC.

The IO-470 series engine produces 260 hp at 2625 rpm. Changing this injected engine to a carbureted engine has not reduced its power. The less efficient carburetor uses slightly more fuel at maximum power settings compared to the fuel-injected version. If you fly at your normal cruise speed you will use less fuel with our modified IO-470 than with your original engine.

The figures that follow are from Cessna Range Charts. Fuel flows are taken at 2500 ft., standard day conditions. The fuel flows for each engine are almost identical when they are run at the same power settings. e.g. at 23" and 2300 rpm the difference is .3 US gallons per hour, or just over 1 liter per hour more fuel is used in the 230 hp O-470. At this particular power setting, the O-470 is at 71% or 164 hp. The modified IO-470 at 23" and 2300 rpm is at 65% or 170 hp. A Cessna 180 stock engine will cruise at 154TAS, or at 158TAS with the IO-470, on wheels.
I feel that the 260 hp engine is the very best value in power upgrades. You have all the equipment you need already and eliminating the fuel injection system means no hot start problems.

The STC alone is $2000. Your A & P can easily accomplish our STC.
I hope I have answered some of your questions. Please call 1-888-244-1112 if you require more information.

Sincerely
Chris Bullerdick President/Chief Engineer

I would completely disagree on the Pponk burning more fuel. It will only burn more fuel if you want to run it harder (go faster, climb steeper, carry more). Running the same speed as 0470 mine will burn less fuel. Do it all the time running with a friends 470 powered 180 against my Pponk motor. The nice thing with the Pponk is you have the horsepower available for takeoff or to go faster if you wish. But if you want to haul the same loads at the same speeds as a 470 you WILL burn less fuel. Think of idling along in a V8 versus running a V6 hard, which burns more fuel?

Actually, horsepower output = fuel flow. The only variable is in leaning of the mixture.

If the stoichiometric ratio is optimal, and you're USING 150 horsepower, it makes no difference the cubic inch displacement of the engine....they'll all use about the same amount of fuel.

That said, there are differences in the efficiency of fuel delivery in different engines, but carbureted engines for the most part are equally inefficient.

If you have a 300 hp engine and run it at 50 % power or you have a 230 hp engine and run it at 65% power, you should be burning pretty darn close to the same amount of fuel per hour.

Now, convincing the guy with that 300 hp engine to run it at 50 %.....THAT may not happen...

MTV

More thoughts on a larger engine - when you say they burn more fuel you have to clarify that you mean on an hourly basis at the same power setting (say, 75%, which would then yield distinctly different cruise speeds). If you set fuel flow they can be operated at the same consumption rate.

If you're considering fuel consumption for a given profile my experience so far with a pponk is that fuel burn is essentially equal to a 470. Consider a 100nm trip. With a stock 470 I could get about 105kts at 11gph (at around 5k'). With the pponk if I dial in 13gph I get about 130kts. At 105kts, 100nm takes about 58 min and consumes 10.6 gallons. At 130kts, 100nm takes about 47 min and consumes 10.2 gallons. Operational cost to get from pt A to pt B is essentially equal.

Great, you say, but that assumes steady state cruise all the way - the larger engine will burn more fuel in the climb. Fair enough, but then climb performance is generally greatly improved and time to climb (and consequently fuel burned in the climb) is reduced, which means you'd be leveled off and leaned out in cruise well before the smaller engine. That same climb performance may prove decisive in hot conditions where you'd have to stair step the climbout to manage CHTs and oil temp.

The example above is academic but I've done two coast to coast trips this year - one with a stock 470 and one with a pponk. I observed precisely what the example depicts.