Older Jab - thoughts

[Paul Folbrecht]

How would you react to a Jabiru 2200 with these characteristics:

- Build in 95 (sn #60)
- 125h TT
- NEW cylinders & pistons in 2004 (larger fins)
- NEW conrods in 2008, including replacement of all seals & gaskets in
the low end

Such an engine is past the time-based TBO. Is it equivalent (value-
wise) to a run-out core?? Or is it closer to a 2004 engine with 125
TT??

[Peter Dohm]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> How would you react to a Jabiru 2200 with these characteristics:
>
> - Build in 95 (sn #60)
> - 125h TT
> - NEW cylinders & pistons in 2004 (larger fins)
> - NEW conrods in 2008, including replacement of all seals & gaskets in
> the low end
>
> Such an engine is past the time-based TBO. Is it equivalent (value-
> wise) to a run-out core?? Or is it closer to a 2004 engine with 125
> TT??

I admit to being something of a novice, especially regarding the Jab--even
though I have been very impressed with their specs--but I would have VERY
serious reservations about that one!

Basically, I can not imagine a sensible reason that the connecting rods
would ever be newer than the pistons in any internal combustion engine.
That leaves me with the impression that thare is something very wrong with
the story. If your local swamp is free of alligators, crocodiles and water
mocasins; it should be a decent engine for a very small airboat. Otherwise,
I would probably just use it as a mock up for cowling dimensions; and weight
and balance during construction.

Just my $0.02
Peter

[Paul Folbrecht]

On Apr 23, 7:39*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > How would you react to a Jabiru 2200 with these characteristics:
>
> > - Build in 95 (sn #60)
> > - 125h TT
> > - NEW cylinders & pistons in 2004 (larger fins)
> > - NEW conrods in 2008, including replacement of all seals & gaskets in
> > the low end
>
> > Such an engine is past the time-based TBO. Is it equivalent (value-
> > wise) to a run-out core?? Or is it closer to a 2004 engine with 125
> > TT??
>
> I admit to being something of a novice, especially regarding the Jab--even
> though I have been very impressed with their specs--but I would have VERY
> serious reservations about that one!
>
> Basically, I can not imagine a sensible reason that the connecting rods
> would ever be newer than the pistons in any internal combustion engine.
> That leaves me with the impression that thare is something very wrong with
> the story. *If your local swamp is free of alligators, crocodiles and water
> mocasins; it should be a decent engine for a very small airboat. *Otherwise,
> I would probably just use it as a mock up for cowling dimensions; and weight
> and balance during construction.
>
> Just my $0.02
> Peter

I should have said - the rods were replaced for a reason - the new
ones are better. There was nothing wrong with the engine or the old
rods. All of this work was done at Jabiru U.S. headquarters.

There is probably really no good answer to my question, I think.
Nobody is going to be able to say with any certainty how to value this
engine.

[Peter Dohm]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 7:39 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
>
>> ...
>>
>> > How would you react to a Jabiru 2200 with these characteristics:
>>
>> > - Build in 95 (sn #60)
>> > - 125h TT
>> > - NEW cylinders & pistons in 2004 (larger fins)
>> > - NEW conrods in 2008, including replacement of all seals & gaskets in
>> > the low end
>>
>> > Such an engine is past the time-based TBO. Is it equivalent (value-
>> > wise) to a run-out core?? Or is it closer to a 2004 engine with 125
>> > TT??
>>
>> I admit to being something of a novice, especially regarding the
>> Jab--even
>> though I have been very impressed with their specs--but I would have VERY
>> serious reservations about that one!
>>
>> Basically, I can not imagine a sensible reason that the connecting rods
>> would ever be newer than the pistons in any internal combustion engine.
>> That leaves me with the impression that thare is something very wrong
>> with
>> the story. If your local swamp is free of alligators, crocodiles and
>> water
>> mocasins; it should be a decent engine for a very small airboat.
>> Otherwise,
>> I would probably just use it as a mock up for cowling dimensions; and
>> weight
>> and balance during construction.
>>
>> Just my $0.02
>> Peter
>
> I should have said - the rods were replaced for a reason - the new
> ones are better. There was nothing wrong with the engine or the old
> rods. All of this work was done at Jabiru U.S. headquarters.
>
> There is probably really no good answer to my question, I think.
> Nobody is going to be able to say with any certainty how to value this
> engine.
>
Well, I'm still not quite sure how connecting rods in a 3200 rpm, carbureted
and normally aspirated engine can be enough better to justify the expense;
but, if Jabiru US headquarters did the work, then it certainly looks like
the engine was healthy and in very nearly rebuilt condition only two years
ago. Presuming that I read what you wrote correctly, it would strongly
suggest that the engine was recently pretty close to the far end of the
spectrum from where I presumed.

All the best.
Peter

[Mark]

On Apr 23, 5:44*pm, Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> How would you react to a Jabiru 2200 with these characteristics:
>
> - Build in 95 (sn #60)
> - 125h TT
> - NEW cylinders & pistons in 2004 (larger fins)
> - NEW conrods in 2008, including replacement of all seals & gaskets in
> the low end
>
> Such an engine is past the time-based TBO. Is it equivalent (value-
> wise) to a run-out core?? Or is it closer to a 2004 engine with 125
> TT??

If the factory signed off on it, then what's the
problem?