X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:03:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3014645 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:16:32 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.bf1.303a4a75 (42809) for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:16:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:16:28 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 320 vs 360 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1215436588" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1215436588 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is another way to think about the difference. A 360 is 1.125 times the displacement of a 320. If the optimal fuel/air ratios are the same for an equal rpm, the 360 should require 12.5% more fuel. Then again, 180 HP (360) is 12.5% more than 160 HP (320) - Of course that is a maximum power comparison at sea level. Fuel sipping (running LOP, power < 75%) requires that the little individual engines (cylinders) are delivering the same HP in order to avoid mayhem and vibration from unequal combustion events. That means managing (equalizing) the F/A for each cylinder at the desired power level. A measure of this is to perform the GAMI lean test ( _http://www.gami.com/gamilean.html_ (http://www.gami.com/gamilean.html) ). Resolving imbalances is a whole other story. Grayhawk In a message dated 7/7/2008 7:39:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time, rsmiley2@centurytel.net writes: I opted for the 360 for several reasons. 1. greater performance for addtional safety margin on short runways, high densitity altitude conditions, and load performance. Also it is my understanding that if you want fuel economy, pull the throttle back and sip your fuel. The economy should be similar to that of the 320. It would be more advantatageous to have the 360 **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) -------------------------------1215436588 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here is another way to think about the difference. A 360 is 1.125= =20 times the displacement of a 320. If the optimal fuel/air ratios are th= e=20 same for an equal rpm, the 360 should require 12.5% more fuel. Then ag= ain,=20 180 HP (360) is 12.5% more than 160 HP (320) - Of course that is a maximum p= ower=20 comparison at sea level.

Fuel sipping (running LOP, power < 75%) requires that the little=20 individual engines (cylinders) are delivering the same HP in order to avoid=20 mayhem and vibration from unequal combustion events. That means managi= ng=20 (equalizing) the F/A for each cylinder at the desired power level. = ; A=20 measure of this is to perform the GAMI lean test ( http://www.gami.com/gamilean.html= ).=20 Resolving imbalances is a whole other story.

Grayhawk

In a message dated 7/7/2008 7:39:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 rsmiley2@centurytel.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

I opted for the 360 for several=20 reasons.

1. greater performance for addtional safe= ty=20 margin on short runways, high densitity altitude conditions, and load=20 performance. Also it is my understanding that if you want fuel econo= my,=20 pull the throttle back and sip your fuel. The economy should b= e=20 similar to that of the 320. It would be more advantatageous to have=20= the=20 360

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficien= t used cars.

-------------------------------1215436588--