Which Of the following is the best engine .... performance wise ?

After polling ...... please give ur ratings to each engine by arranging in order from top to bottom.

Why don't you put some performance engines on your list? I vote none of the above. Not a single performance engine, except perhaps the YS's on your list. Need to put Nelson's, Jetts, Rossi, Novi Rossi, Webra, etc if you are talking perfomance.

These engines are hardly comparable !

FSR were good engines, though.

I don't see the Irvine .61 or the MVVS .61 / .77 in your list

Now there is a strange mix of engines!!
By the way the YS FZ63 and the YS FZ63S are one in the same.

My vote is for the YS 63S (there is no such thing as YS FZ 63 S). It will blow away other 4-strokes with comparable displacement. It will even blow away the OS .61FX.

According to the YS Performance website there is a YS .63s that has the regulator mounted at the bottom of the pushrod tubes.

I didn't vote because there is no option for "None of the above".

What kind of performance are you looking for? High RPM for racing or bottom end torque for spinning a large scale like prop without worry of over heating? All engines listed are very good sport engines, but that's all.

just my .02,
John

Yes, but it's called just ".63S" without the modifier "FZ". My point is that there is no "FZ" associated with the new 63.

It clearly says FZ .63S on the right hand mounting tab.

Does the Y.S clearly out perform the O.S series for pattern flying ?

All my life i used O.S because most of the champs used them in history.
Well the way i have researched on it ... is that The Japanese technology is and always has been better than american technology and metallurgy.


and ..... There is the FZ 63 S on the Y.S Website

Does the Y.S clearly out perform the O.S series for pattern flying ?

The 1.4 OS is about equal to the YS 1.4 and proably a bit more popular amongs't pattern flyers. In fact I think the fuel injected version is more popular.

Japenese technology is not better than the US. Just the labor rate is lower. The rusult was that the US companies lowered their quality to compete. Now US quality is better, but the price a tad higher. But the general consumer has yet to notice. The Jett's and Nelson's are probably the best R/C engines out there period. K&B and Fox make excellent sport engines, though Fox has some carb issues with the larger engines.

You should break up your "poll" into 2 stroke engines and 4 stroke engines . Not being critical here... just a suggestion. Might get more feed back this way. Some of us are 2 cycle fans, others are 4 cycles fans, and then there are the guys that have best of both worlds...

If we rate them by "Bang for the Buck" then first are the Magnum and MDS, followed by Saito and YS.

Then after a long gap we find the OS engines. Until they go back to a chromed cylinder liner I will not recommend them. And they need to cut the %$$# out of their prices - too many other engines with similar performance, true ABC construction, and prices 1/2 to 2/3ds as high.

My rating is based purely on power per dollar. That's what makes the 2s engines beat the 4s engines.

Bill.

Will Robinson,
While I generally agree with you, none of those engines, except maybe the YS, is what I call a performance engine. I think of Nelson's and Jets as performance engines.

Sporty:

I have no argument with your statement. As others have noted, Omer's list is really not a list of "Performance" engines, and I limited my ratings to the engines he did list.

Bill.

Pols like this are misleading. Unless the polled modeler has one of the listed engines he has no real way of comparing them, and will probably vote for the one he has that is currently running the best, as I did. Also, What do you consider a "performance" engine? In what category?

Phil Heller AMA 8065
http://www.quiknet.com/~pheller

Phil:

IMO, "Performance" is a word to be avoided, it it cannot be avoided then ignored. Relative terms are always ambiguous unless set against a base point. Performance also does not necessarily mean more power, it could just mean eaaier starting, or a lower fuel rate. Or cheaper fuel.

But as a generality, to a person driving any of Honda's motorized roller skates a Mazda Miata is a performance car. Then the Miata driver runs up against a Cadillac with the Northstar engine and gets blown off the road by a big sedan. And the Cad driver is excited, so he buys a Corvette, and gets waxed by Porsche 933. The Porsche driver dreams of a Ferrari F-50. And so forth, ad infinitum. There's always faster, more maneuverable, prettier, more economical, etc.

But to someone flying an OS LA engine, almost anything is a performance engine in comparison.

Bill.

You forgot the VW Bill....

[IMO, "Performance" is a word to be avoided, it it cannot be avoided then ignored. Relative terms are always ambiguous unless set against a base point. Performance also does not necessarily mean more power, it could just mean eaaier starting, or a lower fuel rate. Or cheaper fuel.]


Well stated indeed! In so many instances in these forums I have seen an engine referred to as no good simply because the owner purchased the wrong engine for his particular need.

jess

I think there is no problem with the list.
Omer is basically trying to compare the best engine out of the ones he has listed.

If I were to arrange the engines OUT OF THE ONES LISTED BY OMER ...

i would arragne :

OS 61 FSR
MDS 68
YS 63
Magnum 61 XL ..

so we must try to judge the best engine out this particular list of engines. !