I don't understand Simonini engines.

[fuzzybabybunny]

So I'm looking at the specs on the Simonini engines. On their front page they say: consumption lower than 4 stroke engines, 450 hours with no maintenance.

I'm wondering if they're just flat-out lying on their website.

Take the Mini 4. It says it uses only 1.8L / hour @ 5800 RPM. Is it just me or does that sound awfully low? 

450 hours with no maintenance also seems to be untrue - checking the manual of a Fresh Breeze seems to indicate regular maintenance intervals similar to other motors. 

Plus none of them seem to be offered with a clutch.

Am I just reading the specs of the Simonini engines wrong?

[admin (Simon W)]

Hummm, let's hope your mis reading it. 

Its difficult when talking to new pilots about kit because they believe this stuff.  

SW

[fuzzybabybunny]

33 minutes ago, admin (Simon W) said:

Hummm, let's hope your mis reading it. 

Its difficult when talking to new pilots about kit because they believe this stuff.  

SW

So basically their claims of better fuel economy than a 4-stroke and 450 hours with no maintenance is just a lie?

I was just wondering if Simonini engines were somehow way different from other two strokes? I've heard of a certain brand of outboard two-stroke motor that is both low-pollution and quiet, but they attained this by adding tons of sensors, electronics, and narrow tolerances, making them extremely difficult to work on when needed.

[calcifer]

Sorry, but I can't believe a 2 stroke has a better fuel economy than a 4 stroke.

To me it sounds just as a marketing claim.

Just to discover , going deeply, that maybe the claimed better fuel economy is referred to a 4 stroke engine with the same power/displacement ratio, that should be possible only with an extremely turbocharged 4 stroke engine, heavy like an anvil and with zero reliability.

I do know many PPG pilots here in Italy, where many PPG engines are produced. Nobody has a simonini engine. All Vittorazi or Polini.

There should be a reason.....