What's the deal with the Cont. GB?

[RJBrown]

This thread started about the GB engine.

A GB powered 231 is not much better than a 201. IF..

 If you want the engine to last.

Flown "by the book" it is a 1200 hour, at best, engine.

There are a lot of answers in this thread about 231 engines.

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/10954-231-no-intercooler-or-wastegate/

 The GB was thrown in untested and ask to do more than it could. In 84 the LB came out and was somewhat better though still inadequate. With the introduction of the 252 they finally got it where it should have started. 

 These engines NEED to be uprated to an LB AND have both the wastegate and intercooler added. Any airplane without these additions has either been abused or not flown to its potential.  You cannot get the "turbo advantage" out of a stock 231 without "abusing" the engine.

 A 231 with a wastegate and an intercooler on a LB engine could make TBO IF the pilot was very careful. Most are not. When looking for my last plane I researched over 50 231s that came up for sale over about 18 months. Checking data/logs of all planes for sale during that period the average plane did not get 1200 hour out of the engine and the only ones that made TBO had been topped.

[Marauder]

I hope you understand this is not an attack on any Mooney models. I am the first to say that I have "Turbo Envy"! I would love the high altitude capabilities of a turbo. I think you have obviously selected a plane that fits your mission profile at the 80-90% mark, that was what I was recommending for the OP and is what I did for myself. For me and the loads I carry on my long trips my useful load would be offset by fuel or I would have to make a stop. Even with the lower fuel burn or your 231 it would be require me to stop and get fuel. I would be not sipping coffee at the FBO at my destination. I would be diverting to the most convenient airport that could fuel me up the quickest and that would take more than 35 minutes. So I am a Bravo killer for my mission profile because my block time would be less. My other 90% I rarely get above 8000 feet and most is 5000 to 6000(the sweet spot for a J), with most of my hops at 79nm. This 90% of the time of my J would be more efficient and only a few knots faster than a K. I fly to work 3X a week and long trips with a lot of gear about every 6 weeks, a J fit my needs very well. It could be improve for my profile if it was Turbo Normalized then I could have the best of both worlds.

Couldn't agree more. It also doesn't hurt if you have a friend with a turbo powered plane that you borrow when you need it for the remaining 10 to 20% of missions

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DonMuncy]

My 231 was converted to an LB, but no intercooler or automatic wastegate.

I checked my log books and found 5 cylinder replacements in about 1100 hours, for no compression or low compression. I finally read Continental's SB on compression checks. In essence, they, like Mike Busch, say low compression per se, is not a reason to replace or overhaul a cylinder. (You should borescope to find out why and/or fly a short period of time and recheck the compression.) At one of my recent annuals they recommended replacement of one because of poor compression. I flew it and rechecked. It passed. A few months ago, the engine passed again.

I am not suggesting that the 231 engine is/was robust or trouble free, but the misplaced reliance on compression tests may have contributed to its bad reputation.

And this is a caution to other 231 owners to double check before they let someone talk them into tossing a viable cylinder. 

[Steve W]

So, this looks like a reasonable place to put a question about the 231 engine. What is an overhaul actually going to run. I'm starting to evaluate my options getting into ownership and am trying to get an idea of what I'd actually have to do as far as reserves go.