Lycoming factory .rebuilt vs new

[purcel]

Hi all,

 

I’m about to pull the trigger on a replacement engine ( Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A) and I’m debating between going Factory New or Factory Rebuilt directly from Lycoming.

Some context:

My current engine is approaching overhaul time.

I know the rebuilt option comes with zero-time logbooks and the same warranty as new, but it includes re-certified components.

I’ve had bad experiences in the past (BMW factory rebuild that burned oil…), so I’m a bit skeptical about reused parts.

Main concerns

Is the factory rebuilt truly as reliable as a new one in real-world use?

Have any of you noticed higher oil consumption or performance issues on rebuilt engines?

Is the extra ~$60k for factory new worth it for the peace of mind (and all-new internals)?

Any issues with warranty claims between rebuilt vs new?

Would love to hear from owners/operators who’ve flown both or gone through this decision. Any advice, regrets, or things you wish you knew before choosing?

Thanks in advance for any input!

Dan

[toto]

If the cost of a new engine weren’t so eye-watering, I think we’d see more discussion of new vs reman vs overhaul. Very few Mooney owners buy a brand-new engine to replace an engine at TBO, so it may be hard to find enough data points here for comparison. 

A new engine can have infant mortality issues just like a reman or an overhaul. With the same 24-month warranty for a new engine as for a certified reman, at least Lycoming thinks they have equivalent reliability. 

I’d be curious what a large flight school like Embry-Riddle does with their engine replacement money. 

[jetdriven]

All three engines come down the same line and although the factory new engine is guaranteed to get all new parts, you’re gonna get mostly all new parts with a rebuilt one anyway. Or overhaul. For one thing you’re gonna get all new cylinder assemblies, and if they have a serviceable crank and case which I probably don’t, you’ll get one of those otherwise you’ll get that too.   

[1980Mooney]

7 hours ago, purcel said:

Hi all,

 

I’m about to pull the trigger on a replacement engine ( Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A) and I’m debating between going Factory New or Factory Rebuilt directly from Lycoming.

Some context:

My current engine is approaching overhaul time.

I know the rebuilt option comes with zero-time logbooks and the same warranty as new, but it includes re-certified components.

I’ve had bad experiences in the past (BMW factory rebuild that burned oil…), so I’m a bit skeptical about reused parts.

Main concerns

Is the factory rebuilt truly as reliable as a new one in real-world use?

Have any of you noticed higher oil consumption or performance issues on rebuilt engines?

Is the extra ~$60k for factory new worth it for the peace of mind (and all-new internals)?

Any issues with warranty claims between rebuilt vs new?

Would love to hear from owners/operators who’ve flown both or gone through this decision. Any advice, regrets, or things you wish you knew before choosing?

Thanks in advance for any input!

Dan

Skip @PT20J attended a Lycoming Factory Engine class.  He previously commented on MS that:

”For instance, crankshaft journal dimensions can be new, -.003, -.006, -.010. A rebuilt crankshaft must be -.006 or better whereas an overhauled crankshaft might be machined down to -.010. But, I’m told that this very rarely happens because mostparts retained from used engines are in pretty good shapeor they get scrapped.”

Regarding your bad cylinder history with a factory rebuilt BMW burning oil, I think Lycoming uses new cylinder assemblies which includes new piston, rings, valves, guides, springs etc  in Factory Rebuilt engines. 

Per Skip:

“When I took the factory class, Lycoming said the rebuilts are done to new limits and have the same warranty as a new engine. There are a lot of new parts: Cylinders,  pistons, camshaft, lifters, gears. They try to reuse cases, and crankshafts, probably con rods.”. 
 

As @jetdriven pointed out, even Lycoming Factory Overhauls get new cylinder assemblies. This is why a Lycoming Factory Overhaul costs more than a field overhaul. 

[Jackk]

No

 

It’s not a car, people get into lots of ownership trouble comparing planes to their cars, how they are built, maintained, etc is a different universe

Factory screws up too, look at the engine weights  AD for the factory engines in a ton of cirrus.

 

 I’d find a reputable builder and go with that, no sense spending money for the sake of spending money, they all are documented and built the same way by FARs, the job positing for the guy working for the factory vs engine rebuilder is probably about the same pay and QOL, thus it’s going to be about the same build, most all also offer a warranty 

[DCarlton]

29 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 

Factory screws up too, look at the engine weights  AD for the factory engines in a ton of cirrus.

 

 

The Lyc connecting rod bushing AD comes to mind.  The fact that Lyc used what appears to have been undersized bushings that were very likely more easily pressed into the rods and no one caught it, during QA acceptance inspection of the parts, or during rod assembly is not confidence building.  Moreover they appear to have lost traceability of the defective parts and the AD expanded to nearly a decade of production.  And... nothing about the design of the affected engines was new.  For the sake of US manufacturing, one can hope they've made the necessary process improvements.   

[Schllc]

Have you checked on lead times?  
last I checked it was 2+ years for a new one. 
I honestly don’t understand that kind of lead time for something as simple as our engines, but unless it’s improved, that’s a huge factor. 

[dkkim73]

The thought that crosses my mind is: Has quality improved, declined, or stayed the same at the relevant factory? So many pressures, changes in upstream supply, market, etc, it's not clear that something built 20 yrs ago might not have been made better. But then again some parts may simply fatigue regardless. And in some areas process capabilities have probably improved, the question is, does that flow through to the specific manufacturer? (Ie it can be done better, but does it make business sense). 

I'm hopefully a ways away from this decision, knock on my wooden head,  but will be asking the same question regarding Continental. 

 

[Hank]

25 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Have you checked on lead times?  
last I checked it was 2+ years for a new one. 
I honestly don’t understand that kind of lead time for something as simple as our engines, but unless it’s improved, that’s a huge factor. 

Its simple economics--as prices have skyrocketed, orders have decreased and the cost of inventory has gone up, so Lycoming's response is to reduce inventory rather than control costs.

[toto]

I’ve been curious how much of Lycoming’s business is on the UAV side. If you have nation-state customers with deep pockets who buy in large quantities, it’s easy to see how the bugsmasher crowd might get a lower priority. 

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, toto said:

I’ve been curious how much of Lycoming’s business is on the UAV side. If you have nation-state customers with deep pockets who buy in large quantities, it’s easy to see how the bugsmasher crowd might get a lower priority. 

True. OTOH it might help as an implicit subsidy. Cover costs and enable kind of like "individual pricing" in an economics sense. They tool up to sell UAV engines to various "states", and can sell at a mid-price to the certificated market, maybe even at a lower price to the experimental scene. 

[skykrawler]

My understanding is that Lycoming had started to outsource some of the parts and had quality problems.  This took a while to rein in.   Supply chain issues started in COVID. They started building their own cylinders again but had production and quality problems (around COVID timeframe) during startup.   Follow that up with labor union demands that seem to prevent expansion of the engine production lines and what you have is a limited capacity to produce, and a large back log.

I get the impression demand is high.

We're all paying gold bullion for oil filters and spark plugs - and V-band clamps.

Many field overhauls get new cylinders.

It's nice to be able to list you airplane with a Lycoming rebuilt engine - if you can stand waiting that long and don't mind spending the extra money.  Does it make a difference? It might lower your chances of a problem, and how it is dealt with under warranty.   Choose a shop you have faith in.

[DCarlton]

34 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

My understanding is that Lycoming had started to outsource some of the parts and had quality problems.  This took a while to rein in.   Supply chain issues started in COVID. They started building their own cylinders again but had production and quality problems (around COVID timeframe) during startup.   Follow that up with labor union demands that seem to prevent expansion of the engine production lines and what you have is a limited capacity to produce, and a large back log.

I get the impression demand is high.

We're all paying gold bullion for oil filters and spark plugs - and V-band clamps.

Many field overhauls get new cylinders.

I nice to be able to list you airplane with a Lycoming rebuilt engine - if you can stand waiting that long and don't mind spending the extra money.  Does it make a difference? It might lower your chances of a problem, and how it is dealt with under warranty.   Choose a shop you have faith in.

I have a hard time with the outsourcing excuse from a reputable proven manufacturer.  Vans learned the hard way too.  The specification of parts, quality control, receipt inspection, QA should fall on LYC.  Hopefully someone whipped them into shape.  I'm a huge proponent of US manufacturing.  There can be no excuses.  

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, skykrawler said:

My understanding is that Lycoming had started to outsource some of the parts and had quality problems.  This took a while to rein in.   Supply chain issues started in COVID. They started building their own cylinders again but had production and quality problems (around COVID timeframe) during startup.   Follow that up with labor union demands that seem to prevent expansion of the engine production lines and what you have is a limited capacity to produce, and a large back log.

I get the impression demand is high.

We're all paying gold bullion for oil filters and spark plugs - and V-band clamps.

Many field overhauls get new cylinders.

I nice to be able to list you airplane with a Lycoming rebuilt engine - if you can stand waiting that long and don't mind spending the extra money.  Does it make a difference? It might lower your chances of a problem, and how it is dealt with under warranty.   Choose a shop you have faith in.

To survive the brutal downturn in demand for engines starting in the late 80's, Lycoming aggressively outsourced manufacturing of many critical parts and reduced capacity. The Lycoming plant became more of an engine assembler and with less and less competitive advantage from independent engine shops.  Outsourcing, while cutting cost, sacrificed quality control.  The crankshaft debacle of the late 90's/early 2000's was due to botched heat treating by a vendor.  As @PT20J noted, Lycoming brought manufacturing of jugs back in house just before Covid.  Piston manufacturing also returned.  These are huge "additions" to manufacturing at Williamsport and very disruptive.  Covid brought more disruption.

Per Skip in Sept. 2022:

"I just got back from a tour of the Lycoming factory. They have invested heavily to bring more work in house for better control over quality and cost. About all they don’t do now is casting and forging. The factory floor is an interesting mix of very modern highly automated machining equipment, mid-20th century machine tools, and 19th century techniques (I saw two workers mating case halves with a plastic mallet).

Lycoming is currently as much as a year behind on cylinder kits depending on the model. This is due to bringing head manufacturing in house just before Covid hit, which caused a gap in production, while simultaneously demand increased greatly beyond forecast. Apparently, a lot of folks decided to put money into airplanes during Covid — especially homebuilders. Vans went from a distant 3rd to Lycoming’s biggest customer (by “ many millions of dollars”). They are currently running 6 automated CNC lines that can machine heads from raw castings in about 45 minutes for a parallel valve head, and an hour for angled valve heads. Machines are running 24/7. 

Lycoming has about 520 employees and is shipping about 12 engines per day.

Lycoming is still shipping new dual mag engines. They get the mags from Kelly. Apparently Partenavia uses them in some model.

And, for Clarence @M20Doc, they rebuild or overhaul about two IO-720s per year.

Skip"

 

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

The thought that crosses my mind is: Has quality improved, declined, or stayed the same at the relevant factory? So many pressures, changes in upstream supply, market, etc, it's not clear that something built 20 yrs ago might not have been made better. But then again some parts may simply fatigue regardless. And in some areas process capabilities have probably improved, the question is, does that flow through to the specific manufacturer? (Ie it can be done better, but does it make business sense). 

I'm hopefully a ways away from this decision, knock on my wooden head,  but will be asking the same question regarding Continental. 

 

The difference between new and factory zero time on Continental is much less, so much so it is almost a no brainer to go new if you can get it.

[Shadrach]

Why anybody would risk buying a factory engine from either brand when they have a reputable engine builder within driving distance is beyond me. The economics simply don’t make sense when coupled with the increase in risk, poor factory warranty and questionable service. 

Factory “zero time” is a marketing ploy for the uninformed. If you have an existing engine with a known and proven history of reliability, why on earth would you give up those parts for unknown parts?

Why on earth would you tear down an engine that is functioning well with a history of good service in favor of an unknown? 

 

[Fly Boomer]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Why on earth would you tear down an engine that is functioning well with a history of good service in favor of an unknown? 

Great data.  What document is this from?

[MikeOH]

Hmm, I'm in the 2500-2999 category

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Great data.  What document is this from?

https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2010-02_engine-tbo-a-myth.pdf

it’s definitely older data, but I doubt the trend has changed. 

[dkkim73]

It's interesting in the first graph the drop after 2000 hrs. I wonder if there is a a subgroup that, since it does things on condition and goes beyond TBO (often 2000 hrs) might  *also* be taking better care of their engines? This data would necessarily reflect a few different cohorts from "wait til it breaks, overhaul when told" to "borescope and do compressions every 35 hrs". 

An aside, I had my plane in the shop last week:

- Alternator and coupling inspected last week (about 850hrs since replaced with new, SB says inspect every 500 hrs). Brushes were pretty worn (predictable) but the coupling also failed the torque check. I decided to do this after listening to a recent Finer Points podcast with Jeff Simon, bringing up discussion of occasionally catastrophic failure modes in this part. Example of periodic inspection and expected wear. 

- Borescoped while they had the plane down for oil change and plugs out. Valves look good except for some deposits on the oldest cylinder. Lapped. Example of surveillance for known failure modes. The rotocoil replacements prophylactically likely helped. 

Aside from oil analysis, I'm not looking "deeper" in the engine. 

I can definitely see the argument of the "horse you know" being more reliable. 

 

 

 

[toto]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Hmm, I'm in the 2500-2999 category

The good news is that, according to the chart, there’s almost no chance of engine failure from here on out. 

Might as well put a few thousand more hours on that engine

 

[philiplane]

there is no reason to pay the premium for a new engine versus a rebuilt. All the parts that really matter, the cylinders and camshaft, and all accessories, are new in both versions. 

[dkkim73]

11 hours ago, philiplane said:

there is no reason to pay the premium for a new engine versus a rebuilt. All the parts that really matter, the cylinders and camshaft, and all accessories, are new in both versions. 

I wonder if anyone has any good reliability and time-in-service numbers on engines rebuilt by "higher-end" shops like Victor, Gann, etc. I've heard anecdotal positive reports even about small rebuilders. So also about machining valve guides to reduce wear etc. 

[jetdriven]

On 7/26/2025 at 11:29 AM, Jackk said:

No

 

It’s not a car, people get into lots of ownership trouble comparing planes to their cars, how they are built, maintained, etc is a different universe

Factory screws up too, look at the engine weights  AD for the factory engines in a ton of cirrus.

 

 I’d find a reputable builder and go with that, no sense spending money for the sake of spending money, they all are documented and built the same way by FARs, the job positing for the guy working for the factory vs engine rebuilder is probably about the same pay and QOL, thus it’s going to be about the same build, most all also offer a warranty 

Most of these warranties are a laugh. But just make sure you put DLC lifters in it or you get to do it again. There’s plenty of people in that circumstance.

[DCarlton]

18 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Why anybody would risk buying a factory engine from either brand when they have a reputable engine builder within driving distance is beyond me. The economics simply don’t make sense when coupled with the increase in risk, poor factory warranty and questionable service. 

Factory “zero time” is a marketing ploy for the uninformed. If you have an existing engine with a known and proven history of reliability, why on earth would you give up those parts for unknown parts?

Why on earth would you tear down an engine that is functioning well with a history of good service in favor of an unknown? 

 

Would be interesting to see a statistical breakout of that first column.  0-499.