Which 172 model to choose

[rudi]

Which would be the right used 172 model (up to 60 K USD) in terms of performance, fuel costs, maintenance costs etc.

1. The "normal" 172 with the 160 HP O-320-H2AD? (I read that this motor is somewhat troublesome, better would be the O-320-D2J) ?!?
2. The converted one with 180 HP
3. The XP version with 195 HP?

4. Does anybody has some correct figures of the fuel consumptions of these motors?

5. What to look at buying one of these used?

[C310Q]

No substitute for HP. I would get the 195 hp XP. You can always pull the power back if you don't need the speed and obtain the lower fuel burn. If I was in the market for this type of aircraft, I would not rule out the Cherokee 235. With a useful load near 1500 lbs., and probaly in the same price range it's a great buy.

[cbmontgo]

The earlier ones (1960s) had the Continental 6-cylinder engine, which I hear is very expensive to overhaul as compared to the Lycoming 0-320 that came in later models. Seems like it may have had some other issues, but I know very little about that engine.

Fuel burn is typically about 8 GPH with the 160 HP Lycoming engine. I couldn't tell you about the 180 + HP engines.

The 172 is a great, stable performer with an incredible history of reliability.

[tonyw]

Many consider the M model as the best do to the engine code O-320-E2D vs the N model with the AD engine which did have some engine problems. I fly an SP model but there is no way I would buy an early version of the SP or R model do to all the AD's associated with poor quality on the flaps, seats, and cowling.

I don't have any experiance with the xp models but I have lots of time in 172RG Cutlass. I would recommend the Cutlass for rental but with the gear issues, and I have had one failure do to cracks, I would not recommend buying.

If you have the money then I personally would advise stepping up to a 182.