<fklein@orcasonline.com>
>
> However, the record appears to show failures of
> accessories (e.g., clutch, starter), exhaust system and
> wiring which are logically attributed to the increase in
> power beyond that of the original 80 hp engine.
>
What record? If you're referring to anecdotal reports on small email
lists, then you can't, IMO, compare that to the fact there apparently
are no such anecdotal reports from a much smaller user base of a given
nonaircraft engine. It may be a good engine, but more objective data
for the Rotax is obtainable from FAA and NTSB, and the implied service
record there is excellent. Also, Rotax Service Bulletins I feel are
another reference point as to actual service history Rotax believes is
significant.
NTSB data also shows that, for automotive engines as a whole, the
accident data where engine failure is a factor is the worst of all.
Second to that are, not Rotax 4-strokes, but Lycomings, where I
rationalize that builders will tend use ones of questionable
maintenance "provenance," or overhaul them by themselves.
Reg,
Fred F.
|