- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 14,383
- Reaction score
- 2,255
A while back I posted some horsepower comparisons between the 85, 90, and O-200 Variants.
Here's a bit of the same for the torque comparison.
In my opinion, a single torque point for the C90 at 2350 rpm is anomously low (so is that point in the horsepower curve). However, it doesn't affect the overall comparison.
Sea Level Torque in Lb-Ft vs RPM at 29.0 inches Manifold Pressure is shown for the
C85
C90
O-200
O-200 9.5:1 Compression Ratio
O-200 10.5:1 Compression Ratio
Personally, I would not run a 10.5:1 engine on anything less than 100 octane. The 9.5 will run OK on 93 octane premium mogas.
As Bob says, All Opinion -- except for the chart data, which was extracted from the Continental Manuals with the 9.5 and 10.5 O-200's projected up by the thermodynamic relationship between power, torque, and compression ratio.
View attachment Sea_Level_Torque_29_MP.bmp
View attachment Sea_Level_Torque_29_MP.bmp
Here's a bit of the same for the torque comparison.
In my opinion, a single torque point for the C90 at 2350 rpm is anomously low (so is that point in the horsepower curve). However, it doesn't affect the overall comparison.
Sea Level Torque in Lb-Ft vs RPM at 29.0 inches Manifold Pressure is shown for the
C85
C90
O-200
O-200 9.5:1 Compression Ratio
O-200 10.5:1 Compression Ratio
Personally, I would not run a 10.5:1 engine on anything less than 100 octane. The 9.5 will run OK on 93 octane premium mogas.
As Bob says, All Opinion -- except for the chart data, which was extracted from the Continental Manuals with the 9.5 and 10.5 O-200's projected up by the thermodynamic relationship between power, torque, and compression ratio.
View attachment Sea_Level_Torque_29_MP.bmp
View attachment Sea_Level_Torque_29_MP.bmp