[stackj]

My recent experience says that running a dependable engine past TBO is a he.. of a lot more reliable than buying a new zero time rebuild from Continental.

My previous front engine was removed at a little over 2800 hours (I think it did have a top job during that time).

I wish I had it back... The zero time rebuild I put on the airplane has had two cylinders fail in 305 hours (1 year). Both have sticking exhaust valves.

By the way, Continental isn't exactly jumping through their rear end to solve the problem. I called them and identified the symptoms with the first failed cylinder. Their answer was, remove it and send it to us and we will determine whether there is a problem. I contacted our supplier and they arranged to send a new cylinder and piston. We replaced them and that took care of that cylinder.

Then the second cylinder failed. Our supplier had not returned the first one to Continental at that time. Now they (Continental) want us to send the second one in and they will decide if there is a problem. Our supplier is also sending in the original one.

We have spent several thousand dollars trying to get this "new rebuilt" engine to run right.

I think a few hundred more hours on the old one would have been a lot more reliable and certainly less expensive.

For my dollar... If your engine is meeting specs DON'T REPLACE IT. If I ever get this one settled down, It will be definately showing real signs of wear before I replace it.

To be fair, I replaced the rear engine with a Continental zero time rebuild several years ago. That one has had no problems other than the typical IO-360 oil distribution to the airframe.