• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Converting 150hp to 160hp

supercub

MEMBER
Let me check my GPS, gee how'd we ever navigate w
Ok..........next topic LOL......what's the general consensus on converting a 150hp to a 160hp engine?? Obviously under an STC..........what's the pro's and cons.........I have to admit.....I enjoy reading everyones opionions on here.
 
!50 to 160 conversion

Pros: 10 more horse power for around $300.00. Gets better fuel economy. Runs typically smoother.
Cons: Has a hard time shutting down when running car gas (keeps kicking over). Harder to hand prop (takes more mussel). That's about it. I think it's a must do mod at rebuild. Crash
 
Do you have a wide, or narrow deck? A narrow deck would take more to convert, but a wide deck, like crash says, is not a big deal when done at O/H, as long as your crank meets the 160 requirements, (front bore tolerance is tighter on a 160 because of the AD). Biggest con, for me anyway, is not being able to run cheap gas. But if you only run the expensive stuff already, it won't make any difference to you.
 
Mark..........I have a wide deck...........0-320A2B..........how do I know if the crank is the correct one?? I run 100LL in my plane...........that's all thats available around here............I don't use auto gas. I've heard that a 160 runs better then a 150 on 100LL........scavenges the the lead in the fuel better also, I've heard........although, I'm not quite sure what that means LOL. Do you think there's any difference in realiabilty due to the higher compression......or is it so marginal........that it's basically nill?? Brian
 
It's the same crank, the tolerances on the front bore are just tighter for a 160, (you can't remove as much material if the bore is corroded on a 160). You won't find out what you have till you overhaul the crank. Basically, if you have a wide deck, when you overhaul, check into it and see if it is feasable finacially for your engine. The performance gain in a 160 is noticeable, more efficiant fuel burn, and there is little if any reliability difference.

I like the 150 in my own Cub, but you must understand that I am a complete freak. I'm a flat lander (which has been pointed out to me, thanks diggler), live where it is useually cool, I fly a lot and cheap gas is important to me, and most importantly my Cub is stripped, (no electrics so I hand prop), and nothing in it it doesn't absolutely need. For me, the narrow deck is lighter than the wide deck, and even at 150, produces all the power I need. Because I'm lighter, I can carry as much (or more)as the higher HP machines and land shorter than them because my gross with the same payload is considerably less. If I had a "normal" Cub, I would definately want the 160.
 
Ok. I'm thinking of doing this........NOT at overhaul........but right now. My engine has 350smoh........obviously had a yellow tagged crank installed at overhaul. I've been told that if I do it......I should buy new cylinder assemblies and not just use my cylinders with new 160 pistons......that I'd be better off in the long run with new cyliners. I'm a flat lander too.........but have 14000 foot Sierra Nevada Mountains just a few miles to the east of me. I'm also thinking of doing this, because of the problems I'm having with my current engine......the roughness at 2300rpms........plus it running rich......I know.......this might not cure those problems........but I'm just considering it right now..........tuesday I'll start the annual.......and see what the AI comes up with. Brian
 
You can pull the front plug out of your crankshaft and check for corrosion and the ID. I would use the same cylinders and rings also unless there is something wrong with them. Make sure you have the heavy wall piston pins. I flew my 160 cub to SD last month and at 9500 ft and 2400 rpm I burned 6.3 gph with a 8244 prop. On the way back from 2000 ft to 4500 ft in SD and 8500 in MT I averaged 6.7 gph at 2400. You can still use 91 octane car gas. Ive put on 750+ hours in the last 3 years and most of that was using auto fuel. At OSH I went to the Superior XP0360 engine form and they recommend using auto fuel. 100LL for the first 50 hours for break in and then auto after that with 100LL ever 75 hours or so. First engine manufacture that I ever heard recommend auto gas. Burns hotter for more power and better milage.
 
This is the first 160 Hp converted 0320A2B that I have personally owned! It is noticably stronger pulling than a 150hp A2B! The 10 hp is only really noticable on take off with a load. My fuel consumption is just about exactly the same as KASE and I am really a stickler for proper leaning and watching Cooling on decent etc. I don't know off hand what STC's are out there other than Seaair's but that is the one that I have and I believe is most popular?

WORD OF CAUTION: there is a lot of controvery about the 160 hp conversion approval for floats?? Check with CC , your IA if you are going to be going back and forth wheels to floats??

Another caution: As for the PA12 there is only one STC that I am aware of for the 160hp installation in the PA12. I spent several months getting mine approved (337 field approval) to include the use of an 82in borer prop.

If it was me I wouldn't even consider it if your 150 was not in need of overhaul. Most places (as MD proves) pump gas is much more available than 100LL.
 
I fly around with a guy that has a 150 cub and we both have borer props, same pitch, tires and wings and I turn the same prop roughly 100 rpm more. I dont have a egt or a cht. I lean for take off and climb. Im at 3650 msl field elevation.
 
We are at SL here and I am running an 82/41 and I get 2450-2500 on takeoff role and 2700+ on climb, got to be careful not to over rev! I have a friend I fly with with a SC and he has an 160hp same prop and he is faster by 5 miles per hour then any other SC I have everseen! He definetly out climbs me and his takeoff roll is a good 30 feet shorter than my other neighbors 150 cub!???

Hard to tell if it is the plane or engine or combo?

I could use 100lbs less weight and 50 hp more!!

Tim
 
Have you ever tried a prop with more pitch? With a PA12 it may not effect your take off distance much and give better climb and cruise taking advantage of the 160 engine.
 
I had my engine (O-320A2B) rebuilt by Superior Air Parts and used the AeroRecip 160 STC. I think I paid $300 bucks for the STC.

Then bought CC's STC to hang it on my Cub, $300 more I believe. It all worked out well though there seems to be a problem (ambiguity) in the langauge of the CC STC regarding the prop. Called JR at CC about it, said he would fix it and replace the docs but no docs arrived. Still waiting...

Like PA12driver, I have noticed better acceleration (under load), better FPM and 7.5 - 7.7gpm at 2500 - 3000msl leaned per Lycoming instructions.

I feel I got my $$$$ worth but ask the real bush guys if it's worth it.
 
If you save .5 gal an hour with the 160 in 800 hours that would be 400 gallons. 400 gal times $2.30 a gallon (100LL)=$920.00 If you used only car gas at $1.65 for 91 Oct you would save =$660.00. I would say my paperwork has been paid for in around 3 years and the value of my aircraft has increased a little.
 
Looking for some info on the Sea-Air /Aero Recip STC SE2315NM to convert O-320-A2B to 160hp. I contacted Aero Recip Canada and they informed me that they didn't transfer the STC when they bought Aero Recip Alaska. Is still listed on the FAA website as Aero Recip AK, but all their contact numbers are disconnected, no response to email. I'm wanting to convert with standard cylinders instead of going to choked cylinders. I'd like to look through the stc requirements for the conversion. Anyone have a copy that could share? Thanks
 
Penn Yan had done this to an engine in an airplane on which I did an annual without any special approvals. To cover myself I requested documentation from them. They sent a letter describing the process which is with the airplane's papers. Basically it is a minor alteration with no STC required to convert the engine. However, you will need approval to install it in your airplane. In my case it was a seaplane on which the 160 hp was only approved on wheels. I got a field approval to derate the engine back to 150hp to meet the seaplane limitation.
This is Penn Yan's contact: https://www.pennyanaero.com
 
Has anyone ever gotten STC approval for 160 hp on floats? Not a field approval, STC or amendment? This was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing for years.

MTV
 
My cub was field approved to 160hp years ago. It is a wide deck. No floats or wheels limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Penn Yan Aero STC (and most others) requires different cylinders from the original 150hp O-320-A2B, I'm looking for the Sea-Air aka Aero Recip Alaska STC, it is my understanding that it's simply a piston and rings swap, using the original cylinders. Can anyone verify that for me, or provide me with a copy of the STC, SE2315NM. Thank you.
 
That is what he told me. Maybe it would just wear out the cylinder. Discussion after I sent him an engine a friend of mine had done the STC on using his original cylinders and the subsequent phone call I got. Whatever it was my take away was the cylinders would be junk in 500 hours.
 
That is what he told me. Maybe it would just wear out the cylinder. Discussion after I sent him an engine a friend of mine had done the STC on using his original cylinders and the subsequent phone call I got. Whatever it was my take away was the cylinders would be junk in 500 hours.

I know of a guy who has 2300 hrs. on WD 150hp Millenium Cyls and -B2B pistons
 
Since this thread has been revived, I will mention that I just received a new set of the higher compression pistons to install in my O-320-E2D. After reading about the choke in the cylinders getting worn out in 500 hours, I am a little apprehensive on installing them now. Yet, the other comment states 2300 hours on original 150 HP cylinders with the HC pistons installed.
 
Since this thread has been revived, I will mention that I just received a new set of the higher compression pistons to install in my O-320-E2D. After reading about the choke in the cylinders getting worn out in 500 hours, I am a little apprehensive on installing them now. Yet, the other comment states 2300 hours on original 150 HP cylinders with the HC pistons installed.

If I recall correctly, some of the earlier 150 cylinders weren't nitrided, thus the comments regarding excessive wear. It also seems to me that the early 150 cylinders were straight bores while the 160 cylinders are choked. I went to the 160 pistons and installed a set of overhauled 160 cylinders in my O-320-E2G when I built the engine for my Cub Clone. At 600 hrs the compressions are still perfect. I ran premium Mogas when I was flying from a high altitude airport and when I moved to sea level switched to a mixture of 20% AVgas and 80% premium Mogas for years until our reliably clean Mogas supply went away. I never had any run on or detonation issues, but did have really clean spark plugs. :D

-Cub Builder
 
If I recall correctly, some of the earlier 150 cylinders weren't nitrided, thus the comments regarding excessive wear. It also seems to me that the early 150 cylinders were straight bores while the 160 cylinders are choked. I went to the 160 pistons and installed a set of overhauled 160 cylinders in my O-320-E2G when I built the engine for my Cub Clone. At 600 hrs the compressions are still perfect. I ran premium Mogas when I was flying from a high altitude airport and when I moved to sea level switched to a mixture of 20% AVgas and 80% premium Mogas for years until our reliably clean Mogas supply went away. I never had any run on or detonation issues, but did have really clean spark plugs. :D

-Cub Builder
I think nitride is the key.
 
Back
Top