A collection of opinions on which is better: a two stroke or four stroke engine:

2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke I know nothing about 4 cycle rc engines. I am considering buying a YS 53fz or a Saito 50 ABC. Could everyone lend some comments or experiences with these engines? Any comments would be appreciated. I would also like to know which is the best engine for the money.

====
You need to ask yourself "Why do I want/need a four stroke?" To help you answer that question, do the old "T" account layout, where you make a big "T" on a sheet of paper and put all the advantages and disadvantages of a 4 stroke. You could also do one with the advantages of a 2 stroke on one side and of the 4 stroke on the other, and do a second one with the disadvantages of each. When you look at the results objectively, you'll see that the 2 stroke has it all over the 4 stroke, except in the area of exhaust noise and fuel economy. Those can be explained this way: the two stroke is noisier and more fuel hungry because it is making more power! No, I never owned a Sasb or DKW 2 stroke car, and my motorcycles over the years have been 4 strokes, but with these little engines, I draw the line. Flying-Lady says it best: "The two stroke is easier to work with..." Make your life simple by putting a nice Thunder Tiger .40 ball bearing in the nose of your Sig LT-40, or even one of those Tower .40 engines that most people say are a decent piece - and inexpensive! Lets make the list of advantages and disadvantages. 4 stroke Positive notes 1- versatility can swing small and larger props without problems. 2- uses less fuel per min. of run time. 3- less mess 4- less annoying noise, sounds more like a real aircraft engine 5- better resale value Disadvantages 1 slightly heavier 2 cost more, (in some cases not all)

3 has valves that may need adjusting. I check mine once per year. YS may be different. 4 needs to be larger displacement in most cases to equal 2 stroke power 2 stroke Advantages 1 Lighter than 4 stroke 2 will produce more RPM or thrust for same displacement. 3 fewer moving parts. 4 break in time a bit faster Disadvantages 1- Uses more fuel per min of run time 2- leaves a bigger mess to clean up 3- Noise is annoying and unpleasant. 4- not much resale value. 5- can't turn bigger props without suffering large power loss. The thing I split on is tuning, I don't find tuning a 4 stroke any harder than a two stroke, and a person has to be trained on what the listen for on both. I also don't see a big deal about maintenance, with the exception of perhaps YS, I have not owned one so I don't know, but I don't do anything different for my 4 strokes except check the valve clearance once per year sometimes twice, takes about 15 min. What is all this maintenance for 4 strokes? I don't see this overwhelming advantage of two strokes over 4 strokes, the only exception being the cost in some cases. I prefer the four stroke over the two, at least for smaller engines like 120 or 150 cc's. Why? Two primary reasons: 1) they just sound a lot better, I cannot verbalize it very well, but they sure do sound better. 2) They have a much more linear power curve. On the two cycle engines it seems you get all your response and power on the last 1/3 of the throttle opening, where on the four strokers you get it more proportional to the throttle opening. I used to play linkage games with my throttle linkage so that I would get much more throw during the first half of the throttle than the second half, just trying to compensate for the non-linearity. I don't have to do that with my four strokers.

As a mechanical engineer (retired), I agree. The two cycle makes more sense in our engine sizes. Any competent engineer given the facts would select the two cycle engine. But the personal element (sound and throttle response) is what pushes me into the four stroke camp. And as my sales oriented friends say, "Perception is Reality". === What some of you are trying to say in your posts is that the 4 stroke has "fat" torque curve. It certainly does! And the 2 stroke is "pipey", that is, it comes alive as it comes up on the pipe, or a place in the rpm band that the port timing and exhaust system seem to enhance each other and one gets a surge of power. Maybe a rereading of my post is in order. Notice that I recommended a 2 stroke for his current plane, a Sig LT-40. That is more of a trainer type plane and he says that he "knows nothing about 4 cycle rc engines." It seems to me that the KISS formula of simplicity applies here. Now, there is a place for these 4 strokes, especially where the distinct sound adds to the overall flavor of the plane it is in. Example: 40 sized "sport plane". Need either a good .40-46 for between $75 and $100, OR a .60-.70 4 stroker for between $225 and $300. For triple the price, what do I get? The engine sounds pretty good and will swing a larger diameter prop. But, its harder to start (especially when its cold out), finicky with the needle (can throw the prop because of this one, too), takes longer to break in and costs more just to fix it after most any dirt-nap than a brand-new 2 stroke of the same power.

Bottom line? 3 times the price buys a better SOUNDING, delicate engine that is nowhere near as user friendly as a 2 stroker.

I have a Saito 65, and its a fine engine, but its heavy, tricky, and costs 3 times what my GMS 47 did. and weighs more, and has a good deal less power. I'd rather have another motor and airplane than one motor. My Saito .80 flew the 5 pound Dominator just fine using 11X10 props. Just wasn't very good at hanging on to speed through corners, and dirt naps tend to bend the lifter rod tubes. : To get speed with a 4 stroke, you need a corner/speed/robbing high pitch prop due to the lower useful RPM. Because of the much higher RPM admissible in the 2 stroke, that speed can be retained with corner/speed/holding lower pitch props. : TT, OS and Magnum 4 strokes are heavy for their size. They all follow the same recipe. Saito's are better looking & light, lighter in fact in the .80 and .91 sizes that the comparably sized 2 strokes. Because the .65 Saito is made from the same case and cylinder as the .80 and .91, it's a bit heavier that either of the bigger ones, however at under 19 ounces, it's lighter than any of the .61's to .65 2 strokes. This is a weight discussion only. I didn't mention YS .53's and .65's, nor Saito and OS 70's

(72 or 73 whatever), as I have no experience with them. The YS's due to the cost and tenderness, and the os and saito because I haven't tried them. The .72 Saito will be the lightest of all in that range as it uses the basic .56 case, so that'd make it the same weight or lighter than any of the ball bearing .40's to .50's. I flew pattern for several years, starting with a YS60 2-stroke. After about a year I went the 4-stroke route and started using a YS120. It would haul my 8-10 pound planes through the pattern with ease, would idle around 1200RPM, start with a touch of the starter, (sorry, I have an aversion to sticking my fingers near the prop on a 3.5-4HP engine!!) and basically runs trouble free. I've had three of them, plus assorted OS and Enya's from the OS26 to the OS160 Twin. Part of the reason I started using the 4's was because of noise restrictions at our fields, and partly because they're just plain neat! Sure they cost more, and can make you work a little bit more initially, but then I've also tried to run 2 strokes that no matter what I did I couldn't get them to run worth a darn! 4 strokes aren't for all.