Camguard for surface corrosion

[PTK]

1 hour ago, Greg Ellis said:

Cam guard is quite expensive.  I agree that flying regularly is the best antidote for corrosion but there are times when I have a longer than normal hiatus from the airplane even though I usually fly about 150 hours a year.

Lycoming defines active engines and recommends achieving at least one continuous hour at oil temperatures of 165°F to 200°F at intervals not to exceed 30 days. With the exception of pickling maybe, nothing will protect an engine that doesn’t consistently fly at least one hour a month.

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, PTK said:

Why I think it’s ridiculous to sidestep the recommendations of the engine and oil manufacturers. I have no direct evidence to warrant the additional cost. I’d rather put the 25$ in 5 gal 100LL and fly which is consistent with what Lycoming recommends.

What is your “direct evidence” that burning 5 extra gal of 100 LL every 3 months makes you more likely to reach TBO?  I can’t fly the recommended “1 hour a month” on 5 gallons of AVGAS every 90 days and even if I could (and the price of AVGAS was the limiting factor in my flying schedule which is definitely NOT the case)  there still is no “direct evidence” as you require that I will meet TBO by doing that. I’m willing to bet that if I call Continental and ask them if burning an extra 2 gal of fuel/month is going to guarantee that I make TBO they’ll bust a rib laughing (there actually really nice on the phone so probably not true, but you get my point).

I get it. You don’t like Camguard. That’s fine. Nobody is asking you to buy it for them. Just seems kind of silly to attack people for not being able to meet the high standards of “proof” that you are unable to meet yourself. Neither Lycoming nor Continental make any guarantee that by following their recommendations you will meet TBO.

 

[PTK]

37 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

You don’t like Camguard. That’s fine.

You are not understanding me. My point is that I’d rather put my money in avgas than contaminating my engine oil. And It has nothing to do with liking or not liking and I didn’t attack anybody. You are being ridiculous for saying that. I’m simply saying that it’s not necessary, I’m not convinced it’s harmless to my engine, and very expensive. Both Lycoming and Continental and oil manufacturers have prescribed guidlines that, if followed, mitigate the risk of corrosion. 

[Bob_Belville]

I am afraid that in my old age I am not very impressed that the engineering department has as much pull as the marketing department in businesses like oil companies. In this case I am not at all assured that Phillips, Exxon, or Shell use the best ingredients in their oils that contain additives. They have price points to hit and costs to control. (As I recall Ed Kollin left an oil company because he was hampered by cost constrains in the development of additives.)

I can not back up my cynicism. 

[Marauder]

18 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

What are those controlled experiments?  I poked around on Camguards website, but there were no references there (or anywhere for that matter) to any peer-reviewed studies as far as I could tell, unless my Google-fu is weakening...

 

I have never found any reported results from long term studies of the advantage of CamGuard usage. ASL did sign an agreement with Continental to look at the long term benefits of CamGuard back in 2014. https://aslcamguard.com/cms-camguard-announce-joint-evaluation-camguard/ I have not seen any published results from that agreement.

Ed was a customer of mine years ago when he was at Exxon Mobil. He was a researcher involved in the development of Exxon Elite. He knows his petroleum chemistry.

The challenge of any product like this is the necessary data to support the claims. In a previous thread, I asked whether any of the engine rebuilders had empirical data showing evidence if CamGuard was effective. Even if rebuilders were able to document CamGuard usage had an effect positively, negatively or neutral, who is monitoring whether the owner was using it correctly. Some of you cheap bast$#ds probably are only using 1.0 fluid ounces per quart instead of the 1.6 fluid ounces the instructions stated. Yeah, you know who you are...

On top of that, you need to track oil type, oil change frequency, engine type, engine operating parameters, environmental conditions and who knows what else to draw a firm conclusion one way or another.

This discussion is not unlike any other discussion about whether something is good or bad for you.

Coffee good, coffee bad, coffee good
Garmin good, Garmin bad, Garmin ?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Marauder

[jaylw314]

59 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I have never found any reported results from long term studies of the advantage of CamGuard usage. ASL did sign an agreement with Continental to look at the long term benefits of CamGuard back in 2014. https://aslcamguard.com/cms-camguard-announce-joint-evaluation-camguard/ I have not seen any published results from that agreement.

Ed was a customer of mine years ago when he was at Exxon Mobil. It was a researcher involved in the development of Exxon Elite. He knows his petroleum chemistry.

The challenge of any product like this is the necessary data to support the claims. In a previous thread, I asked whether any of the engine rebuilders had empirical data showing evidence if CamGuard was effective. Even if rebuilders were able to document CamGuard usage had an effect positively, negatively or neutral, who is monitoring whether the owner was using it correctly. Some of you cheap bast$#ds probably are only using 1.0 fluid ounces per quart instead of the 1.6 fluid ounces the instructions stated. Yeah, you know who you are...

On top of that, you need to track oil type, oil change frequency, engine type, engine operating parameters, environmental conditions and who knows what else to draw a firm conclusion one way or another.

This discussion is not unlike any other discussion about whether something is good or bad for you.

Coffee good, coffee bad, coffee good
Garmin good, Garmin bad, Garmin ?
 

 

Thanks, that's some great context!

What bothers me most is when PR people (or anyone for that matter) push their agenda based on the trappings of science instead of science itself.  I accept that not all snake oil is bad or ineffective, but I hate it when people spout pseudoscientific gobbledygook out of their mouths to sell it.  Anyone who sells a product has a right to use the word "proprietary," but if they do, they don't have the right to call it science.

[Marauder]

38 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Thanks, that's some great context!

What bothers me most is when PR people (or anyone for that matter) push their agenda based on the trappings of science instead of science itself.  I accept that not snake oil is bad or ineffective, but I hate it when people spout pseudoscientific gobbledygook out of their mouths to sell it.  Anyone who sells a product has a right to use the word "proprietary," but if they do, they don't have the right to call it science.

Unfortunately, we are faced with this in our personal lives. I take supplements because I hear D3 is good to ward off cancer, CoQ10 for a healthy heart and the list goes on and on. In 10 years, who knows if the latest research will support those claims. I do use CamGuard not because I am positive that it will prevent cam corrosion, rather I use it, like supplements, because it may help and there is no evidence it is detrimental to the health of my engine.

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, PTK said:

.....My point is that I’d rather put my money in avgas than contaminating my engine oil.....

The combusting 100LL does a good job of oil contamination all by itself. 

[L39pilot]

24 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

The combusting 100LL does a good job of oil contamination all by itself. 

But running my IO520 60-70 degrees lop, at 50 hours it has no carbon & looks like fresh motor oil when I change it!  I don’t use camguard, I use Marvel Mystery oil based on years of building engines for  Dragstrips & fabricating hydraulic hose.

[jaylw314]

44 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Unfortunately, we are faced with this in our personal lives. I take supplements because I hear D3 is good to ward off cancer, CoQ10 for a healthy heart and the list goes on and on. In 10 years, who knows if the latest research will support those claims. I do use CamGuard not because I am positive that it will prevent cam corrosion, rather I use it, like supplements, because it may help and there is no evidence it is detrimental to the health of my engine.

The counterargument is that D3, CoQ and other supplements do have a significant side effect that occurs in almost 100% of people who take them, and that is that they have lighter wallets.

To put it in perspective, if you use Camguard, you'll go through about one pint every oil change.  if you do oil changes every 25 hours, that's 40 oil changes over the TBO of a motor, which is about $1000.  Is that a good gamble to pay for the average cost of overhauling a motor ($25k-50k)?  You'd have to be right one time out of (say) 25-50 to break even, and one time out of 10-20 to come out ahead.  I don't think that's an obvious conclusion, and different people should (rightly) disagree--should you spend that money on one of those dessicator systems instead?

[L39pilot]

43 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

The combusting 100LL does a good job of oil contamination all by itself. 

To be totally up front, in those days I owned an industrial/automotive parts business-fairly high volume.  I was a distributor for Marvel Mystery Oil in Pints, Quarts, gallons. 5 gallons & 55 gallon drums.  But I didn’t sell stuff that I didn’t believe it!  One of our favorite marketing schemes was to take an old flat head ford to the dragstrips drain all of the oil out, refill it with Marvel Mystery Oil , run for 5 minutes, drain the Marvel Mystery oil, put the drain plug in a container on the hood & leave the engine idling until the event was over, replace the plug, refill the engine with oil & drive the old car back to the warehouse until the next demonstration.  We always sold out of all Marvel Mystery Oil in the bobtail truck & got referral business for the engine rebuild shop!

[exM20K]

7 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Camguard's primary claim to fame is that it will help your oil stick to the insides of your engine for up to 30 days as opposed to 1 or 2 days without Camguard

Interesting anecdote perhaps: I use Camguard in W100 no plus.  I haven't measured and recorded the time, but it feels like the engine "makes oil" more slowly after I fly.  I can take more than a few days to come back up to full.  A few hours after flying, dip stick says 6 qt.  +2 days: 7qt. +1 week, 8qt.  Plane's getting an oil change right now (without Camguard).  I'll try to measure the oil making rate before and after Camguard when I get it back from DMAX.

-dan

[PTK]

I find it very interesting that camguard claims it will help the oil stick to the insides of the engine for up to 30 days. Lycoming and Continental recommend flying the engine for at least an hour in 30 days. Coincidence? I don’t think so! I read this as Camguard not needed. 

[jetdriven]

I get you don’t like camguard. However there’s a couple of test out there are folks have coated engine parts with camguard laced oil and without and the straight oiled parts start rusting sooner.