ORIGINAL: Daryl Martel
The 2300s are different critters compared to the 3000/3250s. The 3000/3250s don't like high nitro while many report good results with the 2300s using 10 or 15% nitro. Same goes for oil content - the 2300 needs high oil content, while the 3000/3250 needs low. Personally, I brew my own fuel for the 3000/3250 - 5% nitro/12% oil. Starting and power has never been an issue and I'm not saying that the stock carbs are outright terrible, they just don't modulate as well as (for example) an O.S. That rich midrange problem is not fun to deal with! Twice with the 2300 I'd had the engine load up on final and not respond when a go around was attempted. Both times the engine continued to idle and just wouldn't throttle up. For the record, this is the original carb that was first introduced without the dog leg groove - appears to be the same carb as in my 3250. The first time it cost me the plane, the second time I got away with repairable damage. Yes, you can get the stock carbs to run, but there are simply better carbs out there. The fact that so many (experienced) people have felt the need to change out their stock carbs really says something - you don't get that with O.S.! Anyone that really figures there's nothing wrong with the stock carbs - have I got a deal for you!
Oops, forgot to add, Yes Ed, that's a Sirex Wasp in my avatar. I flew that for 3 or 4 years but it died due to battery failure. Still have the Cad files and building instructions. Great little flyer. I've scratch built two other profile planes - here's a pix of my 3D wall...
--------------
And I am not saying that some ST engines cannot benefit from a different carb. I think the main issue is that some of the ST carbs flow too much air and lack proper atomization of the fuel. But I can point to several OS and Chinese engines that suffer similar problems.
Yes, you are correct, as you already know, that the G2300 is a different kind of critter than the larger ST engines. I'm not a fan of the larger ST engines. They were a fine first effort, but they lack the finesse of an OS 1.60, Moki or large MVVS. Still, I wouldn't put them in a bad category.
What I object to is someone dismissing the ST carbs off hand as not being any good. This is simply not true. Are there better carbs? Most certainly. And sometimes the better carb for a particular application may be of inferior average quality, but possess a small enough venturi tract to enable good atomization of the fuel.
Some of the kids are reading this stuff and are immediately trashing the ST carb on any ST engine without even trying it. I wish they would at least try the original. They might find an advantage in them (adjustable midrange). Or, for them, they might not. But trashing them out of hand prevents them from any possible advantage that that particular carb might offer for a particular installation. The ST carb shines with resonant exhaust systems because of the available midrange adjustment.