Oil Consumption and CamGuard

[mooneyflyer]

I did a test on my M20S with IO-550.  I was burning a quart every 9 hours using CamGuard.  At last oil change, I did not use CamGuard.  My consumption has gone down to almost 1/2.  Anyone see this type of difference?  Is it possibly a red herring?

[Oldguy]

It might be beneficial to compare it across a few oil changes before coming to a clear perspective. It might depend on whether the total quantity of oil+Camguard was the same as the amount of oil without Camguard.

I have been using Camguard for the past 4 years and have seen a reduction in oil usage, but have also cleaned up some leaks on the engine. The one noticeable thing I have seen is a gradual increase in compression over the same time. I currently have ~1,600 hours on my IO-360 and add a quart every 8 hours. With a recommended oil level of 8 qts., I add 7 at an oil change and the recommended amount of Camguard to bring it to slightly less than 8 qts. Using a process I learned from @Bob_Belville, I carry spare oil with the appropriate amount of Camguard added to each bottle. Makes it easier to keep the correct amount in the sump. Whenever it is below 6 qts., I add a 1/2 unless I am going to be in the air for more than 3 hours.

As with everything, YMMV.

[Bob_Belville]

I've had this E for over 6 years, about 440 hours, and 15 oil changes.

It seems like I can't go 3 months without finding another oil leak which I fix as quickly as I discover them - and I have the cowling off frequently and check the engine and baffles for anything loose, chaffing, frayed, burning, or leaking.

I know how much oil I use but I do not know how much I burn. 

[Cruiser]

How do you accurately measure oil usage?

I check before every flight. It takes at least two or three days for the oil to drain to the point of a fair comparison. 

[kmyfm20s]

After reading another thread about oil consumption with IO-550 I started overfilling by a quart and adding Camgard. So far I have seen a pretty decent drop in consumption. Mine wasn’t bad before but is less now, I want to do a couple of changes to confirm. This is opposite of what I used to do with my J.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, kmyfm20s said:

After reading another thread about oil consumption with IO-550 I started overfilling by a quart and adding Camgard. So far I have seen a pretty decent drop in consumption. My wasn’t bad before but is less now but I want to do a couple of changes to confirm. This is opposite of what I used to do with my J.

I too have done the over fill method on a customer’s IO-550, oil usage has gone down dramatically.

Clarence

[amillet]

Do you measure with the dip stick screwed in or out?

[amillet]

My experience is that it is more accurate if it is unscrewed. When I change oil and put 6 quarts in, the dipstick will show close to 7 if it is screwed in

[Rick Junkin]

Weighing in for the Lycoming large bore - I fill with 9 quarts of Philips XC 20/50 plus a full bottle of Camguard at oil change, and add a quart at 12-13 hours. That keeps me within 1/2 quart of 8 quarts on the dipstick (screwed in). Two years ago I had to add a quart at 10 hours. Things appear to have improved and stabilized.

Cheers,
Rick

[carusoam]

The IO550 is quirky about oil burn...

1) it doesn’t use nearly as much as the IO360

2) it often hides oil in the cooler for a day or four, before it shows up again...

3) If it is down a quart, put in a quart.... don’t be surprised the next weekend when it looks like your oil sump is manufacturing oil...

That was with about 1600 hrs on the engine...

Best regards,

-a-

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:29 AM, mooneyflyer said:

I did a test on my M20S with IO-550.  I was burning a quart every 9 hours using CamGuard.  At last oil change, I did not use CamGuard.  My consumption has gone down to almost 1/2.  Anyone see this type of difference?  Is it possibly a red herring?

I know this is going to be controversial, but here goes . . . the first time I put Camguard in an Ovation that I owned (IO-550) the starter adaptor started slipping and had to be replaced. My mechanic at the time, a well known Mooney guru, said "I can't believe you didn't know that. Everyone knows not use Camguard in Continentals because of the starter adaptor." Apparently everyone but me. The adaptor may have been on the way out, but I never noticed any slippage before that. If I still owned a Continental that's one of the reasons I would be cautious about using it. Another reason I doubt its usefulness on Continentals is that the camshaft is on the bottom of Continentals, so it's very unlikely that it won't have oil on the camshaft even after sitting for awhile. On the Lycomings, however, where the camshaft is on top, I think Camguard makes complete sense.

[mooneyflyer]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

I know this is going to be controversial, but here goes . . . the first time I put Camguard in an Ovation that I owned (IO-550) the starter adaptor started slipping and had to be replaced. It may have been on the way out, but if I owned a Continental that's one of the reasons I would be cautious about using it. Another reason I doubt its usefulness on Continentals is that the camshaft is on the bottom of Continentals, so it's very unlikely that it won't have oil on the camshaft even after sitting for awhile. On the Lycomings, however, where the camshaft is on top, I think Camguard makes complete sense.

I love CamGuard.. It works.  My original question is just to see if other IO550 owners have experienced increased OIL CONSumption.  

[kmyfm20s]

Just now, mooneyflyer said:

I love CamGuard.. It works.  My original question is just to see if other IO550 owners have experienced increased OIL CONSumption.  

I saw no change in consumption as a result of initial use of CamGuard. I have only seen beneficial effects but have no evidence it is directly a result of using it. I started using CamGuard after bore scoping my engine a few times and noticed oil pooling and what appeared to be cylinder glazing. My engine only a couple hundred hours on it and at first I thought the glazing was corrosion on the cylinder walls. I believed the glazing occurred when the new engine and prop was installed and it wasn’t reaching 2700 rpm per the STC. The mechanics ran it couple of hours on the ground with the new cylinders. After 3 oil changes and a few high powered runs the glazing was gone and oil consumption decreased as if the engine finally broke in. At that point I was burning a quart every 10-14 hours. I can not difinitevly say CamGuard was responsible for the good results but I still us it. 

As a side note I tend to fall for marketing hype! I thinking of getting a few cooper skillets and a bullet hose:)

[M016576]

2 hours ago, mooneyflyer said:

I love CamGuard.. It works.  My original question is just to see if other IO550 owners have experienced increased OIL CONSumption.  

I have an IO-550A (12qt sump). I’ve used camguard for 3 years.  No starter adaptor issues and no increase in oil consumption (burns about a qt every 12-15hrs)

edit:  have about 500hrs since overhaul

Edited May 12, 2018 by M016576

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

I know this is going to be controversial, but here goes . . . the first time I put Camguard in an Ovation that I owned (IO-550) the starter adaptor started slipping and had to be replaced. My mechanic at the time, a well known Mooney guru, said "I can't believe you didn't know that. Everyone knows not use Camguard in Continentals because of the starter adaptor." Apparently everyone but me. The adaptor may have been on the way out, but I never noticed any slippage before that. If I still owned a Continental that's one of the reasons I would be cautious about using it. Another reason I doubt its usefulness on Continentals is that the camshaft is on the bottom of Continentals, so it's very unlikely that it will have oil on the camshaft even after sitting for awhile. On the Lycomings, however, where the camshaft is on top, I think Camguard makes complete sense.

One can't blame wear on the starter adaptor do to Camguard. But its certainly a fact that as the starter adaptor wears out, that since it works off of friction, that anything you do to reduce the oil viscosity (the fluids resistance to flow) is going to allow the starter adaptor to slip earlier. A few ounces of Camguard though has a much smaller effect though than going from a single weight oil to a multi-weight oil since the multi-weight oil is going to thicken significantly less at ambient cold start temperatures than its single weight version. So although its true that a Continental should be able to get a few more hours out of its starter adaptor by using a straight weight oil without any thinning agents I personally think it matters little in the big picture where its more important to optimize our oil formula to the true needs of the engine as whole. Thus I would put much greater priority in reducing chance of internal corrosion as the engine sits between flights, which Camguard is designed to do, and oil that reduced high wear at startup which could mean a multi-weight if conditions warranted or changing single weight oils between summer and winter,  and avoiding the popular synthetic blend Aeroshell 10-40 because of it high 50% synthetic PAO content which has been shown to add to starter adaptor slipping, as well as have poor anti-corrosion protection, with increased oil leakage as well as result in high copper in oil analysis.  When you do need a multi-weight oil Phillips XC multi-weight which is 100% mineral oil (0% PAO) is preferred but its best to combine it with Camguard since the Phillips XC oil alone doesn't offer much in its additive package. But another compromise is Exxon Elite which is only 25% PAO or 75% mineral and has an excellent additive package. RAM has additionally reported that in their experience they see engines that are frequently run do best on the pure 100% multi-weight mineral oil and the engines that are not frequently run do better on a straight weight 100% mineral oil.   

[bradp]

Makes sense ^^^.  Simplification:  Straight weight for infrequently run engines with more anti corrosion properties sticking to a cam.  Frequently used engines probably don’t have to worry about oil running off the cam but do have to worry about wear during startup and their valve stem librication.  Pick your poison I suppose. 

[Rick Junkin]

59 minutes ago, kortopates said:

 RAM has additionally reported that in their experience they see engines that are frequently run do best on the pure 100% multi-weight mineral oil and the engines that are not frequently run do better on a straight weight 100% mineral oil.   

Thanks for the empirical data Paul. That seems counter-intuitive to me from what I've read, but the proof is in the experience. I like Philips XC 20/50 and CamGuard, so I guess my best recourse is to fly more!

Cheers,
Rick

[Fookz92]

So, is it ok to use Camguard in an engine on an analysis program? how does it change the readings?

[kortopates]

1 minute ago, Junkman said:

Thanks for the empirical data Paul. That seems counter-intuitive to me from what I've read, but the proof is in the experience. I like Philips XC 20/50 and CamGuard, so I guess my best recourse is to fly more!

Cheers,
Rick

Exactly as @bradp said it! The straight weight oils are known for sticking to surfaces longer than the multi-weight oils and therefore have provided better corrosion resistance to plane that are not flown regularly. You can see this in action by watching the oil level rise on your dip stick as the days progress from shutdown and compare the difference between a single vs multi-weight.  On the other hand, frequently flown aircraft aren't as vulnerable to corrosion from sitting and can benefit more from a multi-weight oil that will flow more optimally when cold at startup.   Or so goes theory behind it.

[Rick Junkin]

Just now, Fookz92 said:

So, is it ok to use Camguard in an engine on an analysis program? how does it change the readings?

Yes, its ok. Make sure you tell them you are doing something different since your last sample if you are just now starting to add Camguard.

I use Blackstone every oil change, and note on the sample that I use Camguard. They account for that in their analysis.

Cheers,
Rick

[THill182]

I am on my third set of cylinders now; the first two sets lasted about 1300 hours; for the last set I used Camguard pretty regularly after the first few hundred hours. Didn't seem to make a difference, although I was never able to tell exactly why quite suddenly the engine started using lots of oil (1Qrt per 3 hours; with lots of oil on the belly; I got a TOP overhaul to hopefully take me to a complete overhaul in another 10 years or so).

Whatever the impact of Camguard, it seems subtle to me. My hope is to nurse my current cylinders and engine past 1400 hours or so. Looking at Ovations for sale over the last 15+ years it seems that rarely do you see an Ovation (IO550) with more than 1400 hours on a single set of cylinders. 

If someone invents or has invented a supplement to run those engines to 2000 hours (with once-a-week or once-every-10-days trips)-- I'd sure like to know. Camguard I think is not it. But at the same time I have never read or heard about anybody claiming that it does any harm -- so that is why I am sticking with it (there are times where I don't fly for 2 weeks, very rarely with 3 week breaks in the winter). 

PS: As others have noted, measuring oil levels in the Ovation is definitely an approximate science. Even the slightest deviations from level can make a huge difference; when I pre-heat the oil seems to rise; sometimes it can take a week for all the oil to show back up on the dipstick after flying. Seems really hard to get accurate reads. I now always measure the oil using the same technique in the same place at the same time after flying, and at about the same temps when possible. While travelling and not knowing how the plane was stored (level?) or moved around there is no telling really....

 

[Cruiser]

I agree with your Camguard observations. I have 1800 hrs. on three original cylinders. The first replacement was the #5 because the previous owner was unaware of the Alternator issue and the rings seized in the grooves. The second (#2) and third (#4) were because of cracks.

Best treatment for our engines is to fly far and fly often.

[bradp]

I’d bet that those who chose to / have to run their cyls at high temperatures and pressures will run through a Top sooner than those who baby their cyls notwithstanding valvetrain / external reasons for failure.   

[Cruiser]

39 minutes ago, bradp said:

I’d bet that those who chose to / have to run their cyls at high temperatures and pressures will run through a Top sooner than those who baby their cyls notwithstanding valvetrain / external reasons for failure.   

the key here is what do you mean by "high"

[bradp]

15 hours ago, Cruiser said:

the key here is what do you mean by "high"

“Redbox... redbox “