Continental 0-300. Good engine or not ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental 0-300. Good engine or not ?
Hi All,
Thinking of buying a share in a 0-300 powered A/C. Any of you engineers or operaters out there care to share any views or experiences ?
Ta. CPC
Thinking of buying a share in a 0-300 powered A/C. Any of you engineers or operaters out there care to share any views or experiences ?
Ta. CPC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I should have said how does the engine compare to a Lycoming of similar size, ie 0-320, in terms of reliability and fuel burn. Also I guess you don't get so much camshaft ware because of its location.
Assume a zero time engine.
Assume a zero time engine.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- The 0-320 has two less cylinders so lower overhaul costs and lighter,
- The 0-320 has a 200 hour greater TBO
- The 0-320 has improved fuel efficiency and more power.
- Both can use Mogas.
- The 0-300 is smoother.
- 0-300 acceleration is not as good.
- The 0-320 has a 200 hour greater TBO
- The 0-320 has improved fuel efficiency and more power.
- Both can use Mogas.
- The 0-300 is smoother.
- 0-300 acceleration is not as good.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably it's in a C172?
If so then there really isn't a lot of difference (when everyhting is working!). The older 172s are generally a fair bit lighter so the lower power of the O-300 isn't that noticeable versus the O-320.
It's certainly smoother, much more prone to carb icing, more tolerant of not being used, slighly less fuel efficient but not enough to tip it either way. Less likely to crack cylinders at the exhaust ports than an O-320.
Non-factory re-builds can actually be cheaper with the O-300 because there are so many secondhand spares around. However if you have to buy cylinders then obviously much more expensive. And if you get into crankcase or bottom end issues then availablity is very difficult - but having said that the bottom ends seem very reliable and run for ever.
There really isn't anything that remarkable about it - now the GO-300 that is another issue!!
If so then there really isn't a lot of difference (when everyhting is working!). The older 172s are generally a fair bit lighter so the lower power of the O-300 isn't that noticeable versus the O-320.
It's certainly smoother, much more prone to carb icing, more tolerant of not being used, slighly less fuel efficient but not enough to tip it either way. Less likely to crack cylinders at the exhaust ports than an O-320.
Non-factory re-builds can actually be cheaper with the O-300 because there are so many secondhand spares around. However if you have to buy cylinders then obviously much more expensive. And if you get into crankcase or bottom end issues then availablity is very difficult - but having said that the bottom ends seem very reliable and run for ever.
There really isn't anything that remarkable about it - now the GO-300 that is another issue!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southwest France
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an F172K with an O-300D and suffered a sticking valve (stuck wide open) some years ago. The engine kept running on five cylinders, albeit somewhat roughly but I had sufficient power to keep going. Fortunately, I was close to an airfield and made an uneventful landing.
My mechanic advised me that I would have been in a far worse situation with a 4 cylinder engine.
Since I do several channel crossing a year it gives me some reassurance that had the problem occurred mid-channel I would have been able to make landfall.
My mechanic advised me that I would have been in a far worse situation with a 4 cylinder engine.
Since I do several channel crossing a year it gives me some reassurance that had the problem occurred mid-channel I would have been able to make landfall.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just sold my share in an 0-300 powered C172 and bought into an 0-320 powered version. (because it's nearer home......like 300mtrs!)
Must admit to having enjoyed flying the 6-cyl 0-300 powered version over the newer 0-320 powered one. Smaller pots and more of them = smaller bangs and a much smoother engine.
Not encountered any reliability issues with either engine.
Must admit to having enjoyed flying the 6-cyl 0-300 powered version over the newer 0-320 powered one. Smaller pots and more of them = smaller bangs and a much smoother engine.
Not encountered any reliability issues with either engine.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was said.
The fact that the O-320 is considered the more desirable engine is both a blessing and a curse. A curse if you want to buy an O-320 powered aircraft, and a blessing of you're looking at an O-300 bird. In Canada at least, the perceived shortcomings of the Continental have resulted in aircraft with that engine selling for about $10-20k less than the Lycoming equivalent. So an O-300 aircraft might in fact be quite the bargain. Our local mechanic happens to own one. He has had some issues with it, mainly bad cylinders from Continental when he overhauled the engine, requiring another top overhaul after just a few hours, and Continental won't own up to a manufacturing defect so he's stuck with the bill.
The fact that the O-320 is considered the more desirable engine is both a blessing and a curse. A curse if you want to buy an O-320 powered aircraft, and a blessing of you're looking at an O-300 bird. In Canada at least, the perceived shortcomings of the Continental have resulted in aircraft with that engine selling for about $10-20k less than the Lycoming equivalent. So an O-300 aircraft might in fact be quite the bargain. Our local mechanic happens to own one. He has had some issues with it, mainly bad cylinders from Continental when he overhauled the engine, requiring another top overhaul after just a few hours, and Continental won't own up to a manufacturing defect so he's stuck with the bill.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't flown an 0-300 powered 172 in over 35 years, but from what I've read on the Cessna Pilots Association website, the oil pan on the 0-300 is made of magnesium, and often develops corrosion near the oil drain port.
Magnesium is very difficult to weld properly, so this issue might be of some concern.
As others have said, the 0-300 is very smooth (as six cylinder engines tend to be), and I would certainly prefer a six over a four...any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Magnesium is very difficult to weld properly, so this issue might be of some concern.
As others have said, the 0-300 is very smooth (as six cylinder engines tend to be), and I would certainly prefer a six over a four...any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
