STP?

[Alan Fox]

Epa is going to be a problem , the amalgam is chock full of mercury.......Blackstone doesn't like it either...

[Browncbr1]

@Marauder   Somehow I came across this old thread and was increasingly expecting to see your ladies at the end, but alas, it seems you went back to work and forgot to have the final say.      You know,  It’s never to late to settle things.

[Fly Boomer]

On 5/25/2015 at 11:51 AM, KSMooniac said:

Some of you might be surprised to learn that Lycoming specifies using some STP as a pre-lube during engine assembly. I just read that Saturday in THEIR overhaul manual.

 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

I used to use it only while re-assembling auto engines.  No idea if it helped in any way, but I wanted something on those parts that would hang in there until after the first start.

EDIT:  I got to start paying attention to the dates on these posts…

[PT20J]

STP = Scientifically Treated Petroleum

Lycoming (SI 1059) specifies a mixture of 85% SAE50 mineral oil and 15% STP as an assembly lubricant. STP is thick and sticky helps the oil stay on the components.

 

[M20F]

STP, MM, etc. all will do things.  The issue though is they are not fixing the root cause.  If you get to a place where MM or the like has some short term advantage all you are setting yourself up for is a longer term and more expensive problem.  
 
The best example is the infamous leak fixer for car radiators.  It will definitely stop a leak but it is going to create a much more expensive problem in the long run to fix.  
 
JB Weld on the other hand is excellent for fixing anything from a cracked cylinder to broken landing gear….

[GeeBee]

When I was a kid in college I worked at Kragen's Auto Supply to bank money for my ATP. Those of you from CA are familiar. The "Chem Wall" as it was called had all kinds of "disasters in a can". Everything from Bar's Leaks to Risalone. I'd seen more damage done than fixed. One Christmas Eve a couple came in and you could hear them drive up. Rod knock. They bought some STP. They went to the parking lot and put it in. They came back and said it was defective because it would not come out of the can. He held the can upside down and yep, it would not pour. I said, "Put it on the exhaust manifold and heat it up". He did and he got it in and the engine sounded....better but not good. Now, think of that lump sitting in the bottom of your sump and how it interacts with your engine. 

[Pinecone]

On 5/25/2015 at 9:45 AM, Alan Fox said:

In testing they have put it in oil and drained the oil , and driven cars 50 miles or better with the oil removed

And other people have done the same thing without STP.

Just because you do X and Y happens does not mean that X causes Y.  Y could occur without X.

A one of the founders of an early oil analysis lab called all aftermarket oil additives BSIAB.

BSIAB = B*** S*** in a Bottle.

The one exception seems to be CamGuard.

One place that STP works well is mixed 50/50 with oil as an assembly lube.

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I used to use it only while re-assembling auto engines.  No idea if it helped in any way, but I wanted something on those parts that would hang in there until after the first start.

EDIT:  I got to start paying attention to the dates on these posts…

Same and same.

[Jpravi8tor]

why would anyone use STP when you can use....

https://lucasoil.com/products/engine-oil-additives/heavy-duty-oil-stabilizer

[GeeBee]

3 minutes ago, Jpravi8tor said:

why would anyone use STP when you can use....

https://lucasoil.com/products/engine-oil-additives/heavy-duty-oil-stabilizer

I hear it cures cancer too.....

[1980Mooney]

I remember around 1995-2000 lots of additives for car engines were being heavily advertised…Slick50 original with PTFE “Teflon”, Microlon, Duralube etc. My then A&P had an engine in the shop torn down. The owner had been adding one of those additives without telling the A&P. The owner thought if one quart of additive was good then 2 quarts would be even better. Well all the valves stuck. 

[A64Pilot]

On a completely different note I’m pretty sure Marvel Mystery oil is just mineral spirits with red dye and something that smells nice.

But I’ve seen more than one R-1340 that would stick exhaust valves without it being in the oil.

Yeah, I know not proof, but makes you wonder

MMO is NOT approved for aircraft, but it’s interesting to note when it was first made, by who, and what it’s intended use was.

[A64Pilot]

13 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I remember around 1995-2000 lots of additives for car engines were being heavily advertised…Slick50 original with PTFE “Teflon”, Microlon, Duralube etc. My then A&P had an engine in the shop torn down. The owner had been adding one of those additives without telling the A&P. The owner thought if one quart of additive was good then 2 quarts would be even better. Well all the valves stuck. 

Dupont actually came out with a publication stating that while it’s possible there may be some benefits of powdered Teflon in a lubricant that it would not burnish into any surfaces and would drain out with the oil.

 

[T. Peterson]

On 5/28/2015 at 11:30 AM, MyNameIsNobody said:

I don't live in a world of absolutes...

 

Some would like to.

Is that statement absolutely true?

[Will.iam]

51 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Is that statement absolutely true?

Torrey didn’t you’re momma warn you about not poking the monkey?

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

On a completely different note I’m pretty sure Marvel Mystery oil is just mineral spirits with red dye and something that smells nice.

But I’ve seen more than one R-1340 that would stick exhaust valves without it being in the oil.

Yeah, I know not proof, but makes you wonder

MMO is NOT approved for aircraft, but it’s interesting to note when it was first made, by who, and what it’s intended use was.

the NTSB has made a statement about the specific composition of MMO.  They don’t say how they arrived at their conclusion.

According to the FAA inspector, the additive that was added to the fuel was Marvel Mystery Oil. An empty 1 gallon can of Marvel Mystery Oil was found in the operator's trash. Instructions found on the can stated that the correct ratio for mixing with fuel was 1 part additive to 100 parts fuel. The contents of Marvel Mystery Oil were 74 percent mineral oil, 25 percent stoddard solvent, and 1 percent lard.

[Jpravi8tor]

[N201MKTurbo]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

the NTSB has made a statement about the specific composition of MMO.  They don’t say how they arrived at their conclusion.

According to the FAA inspector, the additive that was added to the fuel was Marvel Mystery Oil. An empty 1 gallon can of Marvel Mystery Oil was found in the operator's trash. Instructions found on the can stated that the correct ratio for mixing with fuel was 1 part additive to 100 parts fuel. The contents of Marvel Mystery Oil were 74 percent mineral oil, 25 percent stoddard solvent, and 1 percent lard.

Just read the SDS.

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Dupont actually came out with a publication stating that while it’s possible there may be some benefits of powdered Teflon in a lubricant that it would not burnish into any surfaces and would drain out with the oil.

 

From what I remember, they came out and specifically stated NO benefits and possible bad things from adding it to oil.

[Shadrach]

55 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just read the SDS.

I have read the MSDS. Clearly the NTSB investigator did not. 

I just found this NTSB report particularly funny in a surreal way. Imagine someone (company mx personal?) adding enough MMO to the tank to turn Avgas pink? Imagine a Pilot (53yrs old Comm rated with 1000hrs Tailwheel time) knowingly setting off on a repo flight for Florida from Virginia with visibly “pink fuel” in a super cub.  Engine self destructs from detonation at the top of the climb. Pilot stuffs plane into a field and bends it. NTSB sites “improper” use of fuel additive as the cause (terrain contributing factor) and states as fact that said additive contained 1% lard. 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I have read the MSDS. Clearly the NTSB investigator did not. 

I just found this NTSB report particularly funny in a surreal way. Imagine someone (company mx personal?) adding enough MMO to the tank to turn Avgas pink? Imagine a Pilot (53yrs old Comm rated with 1000hrs Tailwheel time) knowingly setting off on a repo flight for Florida from Virginia with visibly “pink fuel” in a super cub.  Engine self destructs from detonation at the top of the climb. Pilot stuffs plane into a field and bends it. NTSB sites “improper” use of fuel additive as the cause (terrain contributing factor) and states as fact that said additive contained 1% lard. 

 

There are a lot of old wives tales in aviation. It seems everybody knows better than the manufactures how to do things and what lube/additive is necessary.  

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There are a lot of old wives tales in aviation. It seems everybody knows better than the manufactures how to do things and what lube/additive is necessary.  

Peter? Did you hack Rich’s account?

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just read the SDS.

Perhaps it’s the lard that’s Marvelous?

I don’t use any additives, I have been known to occasionally stabilize auto fuel though, I guess that’s an additive. It seems to work as I had a car in storage for four years with no issues.

I tend to go with the logic of say for example if there was an additive that did wonderful things, then a major leading manufacturer would have it in their oil, do some testing to prove it’s effectiveness, sell it and charge more for it.

They are in the business to make money, and that would make them more money.

When the FAA approves an additive, they only determine that it does no harm, they don’t ensure it does anything good, just that it does no harm.

[N201MKTurbo]

I could market little bottles of 100LL. I could call it "Blue Lightning" the worlds safest aviation fuel additive. Approved by aviation agencies world wide! 

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I tend to go with the logic of say for example if there was an additive that did wonderful things, then a major leading manufacturer would have it in their oil, do some testing to prove it’s effectiveness, sell it and charge more for it.

They are in the business to make money, and that would make them more money.

 

Except in the case of CamGuard.

It was developed in a major oil company, to be the best additive package for an aviation oil.  they decided it was too expensive.

So the guy who developed it, went out and packaged it and sold it.