The Cessna 182 model history from Cessna Pilots Association is very comprehensive.

https://cessna.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... hist-1.pdf

1970 - 182N
Serial Numbers 18260056 thru 18260445
Base Price 182 - $19,795; Skylane - $20,895
Gross weight 2950 lbs.
1. Conical camber wingtips reduce wingspan 4 inches.
2. Redesigned instrument panel incorporates eyebrow lights.
3. Cowling redesigned for greater streamlining.
4. Transistorized light dimming circuit.
5. Split master switch separating battery from alternator.
6. Radio speaker housed overhead in center-ceiling console which also contains red and white panel flood lighting plus provisions
for optional oxygen system controls.
7. Optional retractable ground assist handles in tailcone.
©Cessna Pilots Association - April 11, 2012 182 History page 7
8. Air Temp gauge relocated to air vent for improved visibility.
9. Heavy duty exterior door handles.
10. Optional quick drain oil valve.
11. Gross weight increased from 2800 to 2950 lbs., useful load increased approximately 130 lbs., landing weight remains 2800 lbs.
Total Built - 390

1971 - 182N
Serial Numbers 18260446 thru 18260825
Base Price 182 - $20,850; Skylane - $21,850
Gross weight 2950 lbs.
1. Front seat shoulder harnesses standard, optional on rear seats.
2. Increased soundproofing in forward side panels and cabin roof
areas.
3. One piece vacuum formed Ensolite headliner.
4. Baggage compartment lengthened 1 foot and maximum baggage
load increased to 200 lbs.
5. Black control wheels used.
6. Bonded baggage door provides rivet free surface.
7. Rear cabin wall attached with Velcro, providing easier access to tailcone area.
8. Seat track installation redesigned to provide better carpet life.
9. Optional leather seat coverings.
10. Glareshield padded.
11. Optional tinted skylights.
12. Improved flap position indicator incorporated into the flap pre-select control.
13. High capacity wiring tapes are routed through the extruded, glare-free black anodized control tubes for control wheel wiring
needs.
Total Built - 380

1972 - 182P
Serial Numbers 18260826 thru 18261425
Base Price Skylane - $23,040
Gross weight 2950 lbs.
1. Landing lights moved from wing to nose cowling.
2. Tubular landing gear replaces spring steel, main gear track width
increases 13 1/2 inches to 109 inches, landing weight increased 150
lbs. to match 2950 lbs. takeoff weight.
3. Re-contoured leading edge bonded to wing to increase camber.
4. Push button annunciator panel.
5. Restyled control wheel with urethane padding, positioned further forward than previous models.
6. Non-essential numbers removed from engine instrument, operational arcs utilized instead.
7. Improved control lock collar, made from glass filled nylon, will not scratch and is extremely tough.
8. Over voltage relay installed.
Total Built - 621

1973 - 182P
Serial Numbers 18261426 through 18262465
Base Price 182 - $22,435; Skylane - $23,040
Gross weight 2950 lbs.
1. Bonded metal doors for added strength, rigidity and rivet free
surface, provide better fit and quieter cabin.
2. Extended dorsal fin.
3. Low profile inside door handles.
4. Redesigned glareshield and panel cover.
©Cessna Pilots Association - April 11, 2012 182 History page 8
5. Molded compass mount with provision for an outside air temperature gauge.
6. Shock mounting entire cowling at firewall, isolating it completely from the fuselage to reduce vibration and noise.
7. Bonded metal upper cowl section.
8. Improved map and storage pockets provide additional depth and contain sub-pockets for pencil, flight computer, headset and
plotter.
9. Redesigned window moldings allow the side panel material to extend up and over the lower part of the lower part of the win-
dow molding.
10. Cessna/ARC navigation radios upgraded from 100 channels to 200 channels.
11. Optional strobe lights available with wingtip mounted power supplies.
Total Built - 1039

An overview of the 2006
https://www.avweb.com/ownership/cessna-206-review/

From the article:
Cessna's biggest fixed-gear piston single is really three models, though all are essentially the same airframe. It was originally introduced in 1963 as the 205, a fixed gear 210, technically known as the 210-5. It had two doors up front and a relatively small rear door on the left side. The engine was a 260-HP Continental IO-470. This airplane was a fixed-gear version of the recently revamped 210;it was produced for two years, with 577 delivered.

In 1964, Cessna responded to demand for more utility and created the U206 (U for Utility) Super Skywagon, with a 285-HP Continental IO-520A, redesigned wing and bigger flaps. Intended as a flying pickup truck, even the seats were optional. There was one door for the pilot and a big double door aft on the right side. The next model year saw the 205 become the P206 Super Skylane, with "P" representing "personal" or "passenger," depending on with whom you're speaking. The P206 had the same door arrangement as the 205, but with the bigger engine from the 206. The U206 was by far the more popular of the two.

In a nutshell, the 72 model year 182 had the new wing leading edge (similar to RSTOL leading edge) and the tubular steel gear. The newer main gear seems to be a bit better ground handling and maybe a bit less prone to PIO.

The 205 is only available in passenger door configuration (no rear double door) and used the IO470 at 260 hp.

My '75 182P has the cuffed leading edge, and it really hangs on at low speed. The P model 182's with the 150 pound gross weight increase STC to 3100 pounds, which is just paper work, plus a Pponk 470-50 or a Texas Skyways 520 makes it a real performing workhorse, but the 205 (210-5) or 206 beat it on cabin size if that's what's needed, otherwise it outperforms them both.

Did it come new with the leading edge cuff or was that an add on, is the 206 cabin wider? I had a 185 that i wish i still had but the extra 4 inches on the 182 is a lot more comfortable

206 Nose Gear is stronger than a 182.
Fuel Flow/MPG is negligible compared to a 182.
Everybody spends lots of $$ putting big engines on a 182. You already have it with a 206.
Its heavy on the controls but it really doesn't matter.
Early 206's have the same Hstab & Elevator as a wide body 182.
206E loses the chin on the cowl.
206F has the larger tail.
206 has larger flaps than a 182.

My insurance is about $2K a year 150K hull.


Tim

The 182P model, 1972 to 1976 big improvement was the cuffed leading edge new from the factory. The extra cabin width over a 172 makes a lot of difference, not rubbing elbows.

any thoughts on what the one on aircraft bidder is worth

I had the great good fortune to spend some time with a workhorse TU206... Always in high density altitude conditions. Man, that turbo was the only thing that made that airplane viable. I wish I had known then what I know now about engine operation - I could have saved quite a bit of fuel.

I loved the load-carrying capacity and the broad C of G range (we used ALL of it sometimes). I HATED the rear door setup when it came to opening and closing, but loved it when it came to loading cargo.

The plane flew like a dump truck - on a good day one could fly hands-off with just the odd tickle of the rudder pedals to adjust for small bumps. Ground handling was good but the amount of power required when at max gross made prop maintenance an issue because we were almost always on "less improved" strips. That last statement should say something about the robustness of the landing gear.

At 5'9" I'm not tall, but also not short. I always had a supplemental cushion under me as seeing over the glareshield when taxiing with a full boat near the aft C of G limit was a challenge.

My only real "holy cr@p" moment came when unplugging a sticky ground power plug after a GPU-assisted start. My left elbow came perilously close to the prop. Lesson learned - a very valuable lesson!

Yeah, the T206 is the ultimate for cabin load and altitude performance, but the 205 (210-5) would be next with better fuel economy. A T182 or a 182 with a 520 suits most family operations with an extended baggage compartment option and a gross weight increase STC to 3100 pounds. A 182 520 powered has a 22,000 service ceiling, and will fly if you can get the doors closed.

As always we need to determine the typical mission, buying too much airplane and seldom using it's cabin capacity and power can be costly, and not buying enough airplane that won't do frequent mountain family camping trips as the primary mission is a disappointment.

the one i'm looking at has a lyc 540?

I was under the impression that Cessna introduced some improvements to the wing design on the 206? More flaps area and improved roll control with improved ailerons. Spent a fair amount of time in the Lycoming powered 182T (NA). Solid platform and at higher altitudes quite a reasonable cross country airplane delivering 140-145 KTAS. Handling was somewhat ponderous, especially compared to an early Cessna 180 with the leading edge cuff and gap seals. The early 180 set a benchmark for nice handling for the type.

early 180 for sure handled better than the 185 i had

Here's the Cessna 182 model history.

The 182RG had the Lycoming before the fixed-gear 182.



https://cessna.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... hist-1.pdf

I see that Steve Z. already provided the link. Credit to him.

The restart 182S and 182T got the Lycoming IO-540 derated to 230 HP.

Note that the cabin upgrades took a big toll on the useful load. It's probably more crashworthy, but kind of a pig. Heavier seats, heavier (and more insulation), etc. They're nice, but with 6 hours of fuel it's a 2 grownups airplane. A 182R has a much better useful load.

The 182T has the G1000, which is fine as long at the WAAS upgrade was already done or it was upgraded to NXi. The problem with the G1000 is that there's no path to other avionics when they get old.

If it's a 182S with steam gauges, the King stack was the thing. If it has an autopilot it's probably a KAP140. These are okay, but I don't love 'em.

The restart 182S and 182T got the Lycoming IO-540 derated to 230 HP.

Note that the cabin upgrades took a big toll on the useful load. It's probably more crashworthy, but kind of a pig. Heavier seats, heavier (and more insulation), etc. They're nice, but with 6 hours of fuel it's a 2 grownups airplane. A 182R has a much better useful load.

The 182T has the G1000, which is fine as long at the WAAS upgrade was already done or it was upgraded to NXi. The problem with the G1000 is that there's no path to other avionics when they get old.

If it's a 182S with steam gauges, the King stack was the thing. If it has an autopilot it's probably a KAP140. These are okay, but I don't love 'em.