We have been flying the Ford V-6 for almost 20 years now with several
installations making 2000 hours TBO. All of the idiosyncrasies have pretty
well been figured out. Same is true for the Chevy V-6s. "Not designed to put
out 60, 80, 100% power," was the cry 20 years ago. "They'll be falling out
of the sky and will destroy the homebuilt movement," was the second most
bandied phrase. You should do a search and read Corky's past posts (he has
said it all very succinctly) to read what an auto engine goes through before
the manufacturer installs it in an automobile model. Automotive durability
tests exceed, by about 400%, anything required to certify an aviation type
engine. (both in hours and precentage of power output)
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"

| Publishing interesting material
| on all aspects of alternative
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.


"pragmatist" wrote in message
om...
John Thompson wrote in message
...
Corky,
I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
"cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.

SNIP

John

Amen to that, but what scares me about auto conversions is the that
the design parameters for the auto engine are based on 25-30% constant
power at hiway cruise.
The reliability of the engine in automotive use is therefore not a
meaningful indication of fitness for flight.
Even with the engine blueprinted and a beefed up cooling system and
oil cooler added, when you run that engine at constant 75-80% power in
an aircraft you are likely to have 'hot spots` in there somewhere
which can play hell with reliability.
Do a lot of base testing Corky, and good luck to ya.