looper vs crossflow

[fire-engine]

from what i gather loopers are supose to be a better engine than a crossflow,can someone tell me why? other than the scvanageing effects and the induction charge. thanks

 

[JasonB]

Re: looper vs crossflow

My amateur take is that the loopers have better economy, and a bit better power/weight. That being said, my 1976 85hp V4 crossflow is still running strong and zoomed up/down the river this morning chasing fish. The3 crossflows are a very durable technology if nothing else. Someone will be along shortly that will fill in the blanks/correct me.

 

[holy ghost flies]

Re: looper vs crossflow

from what i am told the looper is what almost sunk omc. Those engines had issues

 

[JB]

Re: looper vs crossflow

Disagree, Sarge.<br /><br />OMC introduced their first loopers in the 60s and they were truly great engines.<br /><br />It was the incompletely developed FICHT DI system and poor QC that killed OMC in the late 90s.<br /><br />Loop scavenged engines are more efficient, easier to manufacture, lighter weight and usually more powerful at the same displacement.<br /><br />Cross scavenged engines work better in small displacement, low rpm applications.

 

[jimmbo]

Re: looper vs crossflow

It is actually more difficult and expensive to design and build a loop charged engine than a crossflow. Port design and location are very critical on a looper in preventing all or most of the fresh charge from just passing across the piston and out the exhaust port. Crossflows have a deflector on the pistons which redirects the chsrge.