I have heard the prices mentioned above before.
The 2.0S involves a larger radiator and, as a result, a new section of the cowling with a slight bulge. Also vortex generators on the vertical tail are added to ensure safe single-engine operation.
Noise is known to be a subjective issue. I have flown both the Thielert 2.0 and the Austro extensively, and don’t observe a difference in smoothness. Except, like Aviathor says, on the ground where the Austro idles at a lot lower RPM.
TBR’s are a moving target. No doubt all engines will enjoy increases. So I suppose differences will continue to exist.
I don’t know what 2.0S engines themselves cost. Given that the above mentioned mods cannot be all that costly, I guess maybe 60k€ each or so?
I flew a lot cross country with a DA42 CD135 is a very good aircraft I like it. I’m flying a lot in Africa and flying Jet A1 is very cool down there.
For me the DA62 is not a finished product. Let them a few year to put a more powerfull engine in it and put pressurisation…
For 1,3M€ without options… They are dreaming. For that price buy a Malibu…
Romain
Romain wrote:
Don’t forget that the 2.0S is 1200 hours TBO instead of 1500 for the 2.0 and 1800 for the AustroEngine…
On the operating cost, it’s quite big…
What is the overhaul/replacement cost for a 2.0S? Approximately.
boscomantico wrote:
Did the early DA42s vibrate??
Like Romain’s last post I would not say the Thielerts vibrate, but you definitely feel the difference between the CD-135 and the AE300. I did my MEP training on a CD-135 equipped DA42 and went on to fly with the AE300. I have not flown with the Thielert 1,7 l
The AE300
Romain wrote:
Rather that the 2.0s I will go for the Austro engine DA42-VI.
So would I if I had a rich uncle (or even the DA62). Given the prices I do not think a 2.0s conversion makes sense, expecially because you would in most cases also need to upgrade the GPS to WAAS.
It’s not really a vibration
I can’t explain it right in English.
The AustroEngine is smoother
Did the early DA42s vibrate??
I had the same information from my service center (in Merville)
That upgrade can’t be done by a regular service center.
They don’t just change the engine but also all the cooling system.
Rather that the 2.0s I will go for the Austro engine DA42-VI.
I flew one (converted from 1.7L) and it’s really nice. Much power nice climb rate almost no vibration anymore…
Don’t forget that the 2.0S is 1200 hours TBO instead of 1500 for the 2.0 and 1800 for the AustroEngine…
On the operating cost, it’s quite big…
Romain
I just received an e-mail from ATA in Southern France informing me that upgrading a DA42 with CD-155 engines will cost 165 k€ + VAT if done by the Diamond factory at LOAN, or 140 k€ if done by Crosby Aviation on Jersey.
Furthermore Diamond have so far converted one airplane – the one used for the STC approval, and Crosby have upgraded 2 aircraft, including their demo aircraft.
No wonder given the prices.
@Emir or @aart, do you have any different input wrt this upgrade?
Yes, you confirm my point. Thielert innovated (lighter crankcase) and then as with every modification in engineering, the problems showed up later. The Thielert investors lost everything, the early customers got a lot of hassle but in the end a good engine came out of it (sponsored by the original investors) that Continental was able to pick up for peanuts and now they have a good engine that cost very little to develop and can go from there.
I very much sympathize with the electrolytic cooling problem because I was chasing a very similar issue on a common rail boat engine for years which was eating through oil coolers like there’s no tomorrow (one in 3 weeks!). Only after sitting with the engineer that originally developed the cooler (which by huge coincidence turned out to be pilot friend with whom I had toured Poland!) we were able to figure out what happened. The clever manufacturer (Volvo Penta) thought they could take a modern car engine which has a cheap aluminimum oil cooler and attach a classic marine style copper seawater cooler. Seawater + copper + coolant + aluminium was an interesting combination, clearly beyond the intellectual capacity of Penta and eventually only the very latest BASF Glysantin G48 showed to work. I’m sure it’s still eating aluminium but the pace is slow and my shelves are still stocked with replacement coolers 
Developing an engine is incredibly difficult and tedious. My engine developer friends at Merc tell me that despite all the greatest talent and computers, it’s still mostly black magic and done via trial and error.
Achimha.
Your views on the Thielert engine situation are interesting, the financial downfall of Thielert was largely due to the corrosion issues that the engine had in the cylinder head, this corrosion was due to an electrolytic action between the cylinder head and the diamond heat exchangers with the cooling fluid being the electrolyte. It should be noted that these problems did not happen with the Thielert retrofit engines that used Thielert supplied heat exchangers.
The Austro engine is a more conservative design using the cast iron crankcase ( hence the extra weight ) but it should be remembered that the most Austro design team had previously worked on the Thielert engine and bringing this knowlage to the party gave Austro the knowlage of what did not work well so it is not surprising that they had a product that worked well from day one !
