The question comes up often enough about the differences between a 112 and 114, and typically someone will respond that the 114 is more expensive to maintain.  Thankfully, so far I haven't seen any significant expense with my airplane that I wouldn't have expected from a 112 in like condition.

And the last time I checked, mechanics don't charge by the cylinder.

So, yeah, there's four extra plugs to be replaced and every 2000 hours or so there's two extra cylinders to be overhauled, but I don't see this as being such a tremendous difference.  Particularly if you amortize it over the time span between such cost outlays.

Why the bias about stating that the 114 costs more to maintain over the 112?  And, given the verifiably higher cost of parts for a TO-360 these days why would anyone claim that a 112TC is cheaper to own/operate than a 114?

(I'm not singling out anyone in particular that may have made such a comment about maintenance costs.  This is meant to be a general discussion.)