Jimhamilton Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 What about Continental turbo engines? Is Camguard approved for turbos now? Maybe I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1TJ Posted March 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 . KSMooniac, on 24 Mar 2014 - 1:09 PM, said:I take it to mean that CMI studied the product and it's impact on reducing wear and corrosion, and hence reduction in potential warranty expenses on their products, and made the decision to go forward with this arrangement. Cruiser, on 24 Mar 2014 - 3:36 PM, said: I am not so quick to jump to that conclusion. There maybe many other reasons this deal was made. I will believe the data when I see it released from Continental. CMI only warranties defects in material and workmanship and specifically excludes corrosion from their coverage. You tell me? You were the one that asked "I am not so quick to jump to that conclusion. There maybe many other reasons this deal was made. I will believe the data when I see it released from Continental." Do you think all spalled tappet claims were denied because they assumed to stem from corrosion? Ask yourself why would Continental do such a thing, assuming I am not lying as PTK thinks I am. What do they have to gain? Continental gets beat up for things such as low time engines having low compressions and tappet spalling. THEN they get beat up for trying to address the issues. Ed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 It's one thing to use an additive to solve sticking valve issues etc where the results are felt and seen. It's another thing to require something that the results can't be verified by the consumer. How many of us are going to have an engine from overhaul through TBO where we can verify the claims of this additive? David I guess my main point was that it is only one shop and as another poster already demonstrated it is not really a significant cost to add Camguard. But if there are concerns about the product by consumers I suspect Mattituck will see that in lost overhauls. Given the lack of confidence in the product or a lack of perceived value it seems to me a very reasonable decision to have the overhaul done at a shop that does not require the additive. I suppose the market will dictate whether this requirement by Mattituck has legs or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabremech Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I've heard all the good Camguard does, but have yet to see any proof with my own eyes it does what is claimed. I want to see the proof, I don't want to hear about it from marketing or even Mike B for that matter. Show us, prove that it does what's claimed. The warranty thing only bothers me in the fact that some back room deal is being done to sell a product that will have questionable value during a warranty period. I suspect that when the time comes for my engine overhaul, that I'll do it myself if I still have the airplane when that day comes. David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 What about Continental turbo engines? Is Camguard approved for turbos now? Maybe I missed it. Ed, Entering into a heated exchange with a potential customer on a very public forum does not seem like the best way to introduce a new relationship that your product has with a major engine manufacturer. Also, it does not seem very wise to have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. For all we know you may be going out of business and making this up to try and ignite some sales and save your ass. It looks like you have been dropping the exact same lines at BeechTalk and the Van's forum, and they didn't push back at all. We aren't that easy. Throwing out there a no compromise situation such as voiding a warranty for simply not using your product is a major revelation that takes evidence. A note on TCM letterhead saying that they are excited about a new partnership with CamGuard with details to be announced at SNF would have been plenty to settle everyone down and earn our trust. In the mean time, people are asking legitimate questions about your product which you are not answering (above). I have a TCM TSIO-360-LB engine. Every piece of research that I have been able to find says that your product is not to be used in my engine. What am I supposed to think when you come in here with statements such as your product is now being required by the manufacturer of my engine? Where is the long term research to justify this? Where is the announcement that its approved for turbo engines? There is just too much left out and it's a bit sketchy to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimhamilton Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ed, Entering into a heated exchange with a potential customer on a very public forum does not seem like the best way to introduce a new relationship that your product has with a major engine manufacturer. Also, it does not seem very wise to have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. For all we know you may be going out of business and making this up to try and ignite some sales and save your ass. It looks like you have been dropping the exact same lines at BeechTalk and the Van's forum, and they didn't push back at all. We aren't that easy. Throwing out there a no compromise situation such as voiding a warranty for simply not using your product is a major revelation that takes evidence. A note on TCM letterhead saying that they are excited about a new partnership with CamGuard with details to be announced at SNF would have been plenty to settle everyone down and earn our trust. In the mean time, people are asking legitimate questions about your product which you are not answering. I have a TCM TSIO-360-LB engine. Every piece of research that I have been able to find says that your product is not to be used in my engine. What am I supposed to think when you come in here with statements such as your product is now being required by the manufacturer of my engine? Where is the long term research to justify this? Where is the announcement that its approved for turbo engines? There is just too much left out and it's a bit sketchy to me. Mike, I think you got me confused with Ed. You quoted my post but responded to another. Anyway, do know the answer to my question. God Bless, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Mike, I think you got me confused with Ed. You quoted my post but responded to another. Anyway, do know the answer to my question. God Bless, Jim I was using your post as an example of a question that was asked and not answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS1980 Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Hello Mr. Kollin, Although the delivery of some may be questionable, it is hard to argue that their concerns have no foundation. First off, I am familiar with Camguard and I know that those who have extensive knowledge of aircraft engines use it. While I trust that it can't hurt an engine, there is little evidence to support that it helps. I first read about Camguard from a 2007 article from Mike Busch, so to be fair to you that is not enough time to offer long term results. However, and as previously mentioned, can you provide a general description of the chemical makeup of your product, and how it differs from AvBlend of MMO? Maybe explain how it does what it does. Maybe if folks understood the chemistry and how it functions with the physical properties of the metals there will be less resistance. Either way, welcome, and thank you for your time. Darin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 You were the one that asked "I am not so quick to jump to that conclusion. There maybe many other reasons this deal was made. I will believe the data when I see it released from Continental." Do you think all spalled tappet claims were denied because they assumed to stem from corrosion? Ask yourself why would Continental do such a thing, assuming I am not lying as PTK thinks I am. What do they have to gain? Continental gets beat up for things such as low time engines having low compressions and tappet spalling. THEN they get beat up for trying to address the issues. Ed So flying the engine a few times weekly without Camguard would void the warranty whereas parking it outside in Florida sitting for months at a time on Camguard would be ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 ...assuming I am not lying as PTK thinks I am. I don't believe you when you make the blanket claim on all CM warranties will be null and void unless you additive is used. I also don't believe you when you say "someone" told you to freely discuss CM warranties on forums. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Is there a way to filter out any and all posts by PTK on this forum? If not, I'm going to write a script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I believe the man stated more than once this will be fully announced during SUN N FUN. Maybe you guys can wait ONE week. I'm sure there will be plenty of questions/discussion after it is officially announced in a VERY public forum, and if not, well then you'll have your answer too. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyDave Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Is there a way to filter out any and all posts by PTK on this forum? If not, I'm going to write a script. Click on your profile and select "Manage Ignore prefs". It works quite well. I have 2 trolls on ignore and the system lists their posts as one line with an option to show each one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Maybe, just maybe, is it not possible that a manufacturer is actually really impressed with Ed's product and believes it to beneficial to long engine life? If Sun and Fun comes and Continental indeed endorses Camguard in the Mattituck engines, but provides no great, in depth scientific study for you all to peruse, will you believe Continental, or will it just be a big conspiracy to rip off the aviation consumer? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why not at least wait until Sun N' Fun comes and goes with no such announcement from TCM before calling the man a liar, Peter? Unbelievable. Jim Fabulist? is that better? Is there a way to filter out any and all posts by PTK on this forum? If not, I'm going to write a script. Filter these... http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/sil99-2b.pdf http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SIL99-1.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Well, I guess we'll see what has changed in the last 15 years pretty soon! PK, will you apologize to Ed and quit disparaging his product and work if CMI makes an announcement at SnF as Ed indicated? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Well, I guess we'll see what has changed in the last 15 years pretty soon! PK, will you apologize to Ed and quit disparaging his product and work if CMI makes an announcement at SnF as Ed indicated? Have you asked Mr. Kollin to apologize for fabricating stories about CM warranties? If anyone needs to be apologizing it's Mr. Kollin. He doesn't have to wait he can do it now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I give up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruiser Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I have heard the same information (Continental will require Camguard.....) from another source. It would appear this agreement is in fact true. I also learned that there is a financial aspect to the arrangement in which ASL - Camguard will support Continental with oil related warranty claims. (whatever that means). Continental will track warranty claim rates and if favorable to Continental MAY extend the requirement to all factory rebuilt and NEW engines at some future time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabremech Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 In my opinion, the only way for this to work and prove any merit to the claims of Camguard is to warranty the engine from overhaul to TBO and provide some incentive to the customer if it is found the engine requires less replacement parts due to wear or corrosion. Anything else, and there is no visible or tangible return to the customer for the use of this product. Is there anyone on this forum who has used Camguard from overhaul to TBO and seen any less wear or corrosion and have their overhaul bill reduced substantially enough to justify it's use? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Time for me to chime in here .....personally I don't believe there is any benefit to using this stuff , if there was , the companys making the oil would be putting it in the oil and charging extra for it , these are big companys with big pockets......Pete has backed up his statements with factual correspondence from the manufacturer of the engines... Having worked on automotive engines for the last 30 years , I have seen a shitload of additives that promised to be the second coming of Christ.......Slick 50 , Krex , they were all the rage , and are all gone now.......To refresh everybodys memory , they used to put Teflon and graphite in car engines......They don't do it anymore...Hmmmmm...... If you fly your plane it will last , if you let it sit , it can corrode , I love to break Petes Balls , In fact I get to do it in person.....But hes right on this one.......Give em hell Pete !!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 I love to break Petes Balls , In fact I get to do it in person.....But hes right on this one.......Give em hell Pete !!!! Hard to break what he doesn't have, but good luck searching Just as you've suggested, who has proof positive that CamGuard, or most products, work as advertised? If it gives owner's some added comfort use it; if not, don't. No different than lots of other stuff we all put in and on our planes. And most of the stuff the dent uses in his office. Why the dent is anything but "right on" is the rude and obnoxious manner he makes impossible demands of a guest, him actually calling the guest a liar and him continuing to badger the guy. Behavior that is an embarrassment to many here and something I know he wouldn't have "the balls" to do face to face. Doing that in person would get him a good ass kicking in many places, maybe even NJ. Heck, he doesn't even have a Conti engine, and THEY, not CamGuard, should be getting most of the questions raised here. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Continental Motors will begin requiring the use of Camguard in all of their Mattituck overhauls and repaired engines to maintain their warranties. The formal announcement of our relationship will be announced at Sun n Fun. Ed Edward Kollin Technical Director Aircraft Specialties Lubricants This is a grossly false statement. Camguard is NOT an approved lubricant by CM or Lycoming. Time for me to chime in here .....personally I don't believe there is any benefit to using this stuff , if there was , the companys making the oil would be putting it in the oil and charging extra for it , these are big companys with big pockets......Pete has backed up his statements with factual correspondence from the manufacturer of the engines... Having worked on automotive engines for the last 30 years , I have seen a shitload of additives that promised to be the second coming of Christ.......Slick 50 , Krex , they were all the rage , and are all gone now.......To refresh everybodys memory , they used to put Teflon and graphite in car engines......They don't do it anymore...Hmmmmm...... If you fly your plane it will last , if you let it sit , it can corrode , I love to break Petes Balls , In fact I get to do it in person.....But hes right on this one.......Give em hell Pete !!!! This is not even about any perceived benefits Allan. That's very subjective and an individual choice. This is about gross misrepresentations of the facts with blanket statements on all CM warranties! All he has to do is state the truth and the facts! Seems like some folks on here are so high on the Kool aid they'll believe anything! Especially that small guy in Davie, FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 You guys are too funny! Sun n Fun is just around the corner. Let's see what is announced there and when it is, I can help prepare the crow one of you will be eating. Hope you like the way the Amish prepare it. As for CamGuard, when this topic came up last Fall, I asked if there were any conclusive studies performed that demonstrates the claims. I also asked if anyone ever correlated the data engine rebuilders could provide to help determine whether long term CamGuard usage, in low usage airplane engines was beneficial. What I got back were some test results for an aerobatic engine that was run a relatively short period of time that showed minimal wear. I thought the whole benefit of CamGuard was to help prevent corrosion on planes that may sit for a bit. Not the ones that fly routinely. Am I missing something? Sent using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 personally I don't believe there is any benefit to using this stuff , if there was , the companys making the oil would be putting it in the oil and charging extra for it , these are big companys with big pockets. Ummm... they do. Have you never heard of Aeroshell Plus?? It is exactly this. Their standard oil with an anti corrosion package similar to Camguard blended in. Ed claims his additive is superior to theirs and real world Av Consumer tests have backed that up. Sadly, no one is going to pay for the independent laboratory long term testing to sway some of you, so continue on as you will. Aeroshell W100 is an ashless, SAE 50 dispersant oil that provides excellent service in all four cycle aircraft piston engines. Aeroshell W Multigrade 15W-50 is an antiwear, ashless, dispersant, semi-synthetic oil. It is fully approved in all Lycoming, Continental, and Pratt & Whitney aircraft piston engines. Reduces engine wear, fuel consumption, and oil consumption. Helps engines start faster & eliminates need for seasonal oil changes. Contains additive LW16702 which reduces engine wear and corrosion. Ideal for operations in mild to warm temps. Aeroshell W100 & SAE 50 oils meet MIL-L-22851C specification. Shell Oil W80 Plus introduces the anti-wear and anti-corrosion additives of AeroShell W100 Plus engine oil into a lighter, single-grade oil for use in colder climates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts