Cessna pilots association has a nice buyer's guide to 182 available:
www.cessna.org

I believe the 182 may have had a similar history to the 172. In the 172
line which I am quite familiar with, the original wing was not as
cambered and hence not as efficient as the newer wings. That being
said, the original straight tailed, fast backed versions were much more
aerodynamic and produced much more overall lift that the newer designs.
The back window and swept tail were added for looks and really messed
up the aerodynamics.

The O300 of the 172 line typically requires a top overhaul at the half
way point to make it to TBO. It is a very reliable engine though and
like most older engines can burn mogas which saves lots of money when
pilgrimaging to OSH.

If you join CPA, they have a wonderful web forum where you can talk to
hundreds of 182 owners across the country.

Helen

Alan Browne wrote:

I was speaking with a somewhat smug fellow the other day who claimed
older C-182's (1968 that I'm looking at) had inefficient wings and that
the Continental would not make it to 1500 hours; 1300 if I'm lucky. (The
one I'm looking at has 61 SMOH; about 5000 total; new paint, interior,
etc.). As far as I can tell there has been only a minor (factory) wing
configuration mod on the 182.

Is there a line in time or models where 182's should be avoided?

Better an older 182 or a newer 177 with 180 hp constant speed?

Thanks,
Alan.