Camguard....and LOP operations really help clean and seal up a engine?!?

aaronk25 · December 24, 2012

Question I've put 250 hours on my j this year and started running camguard about 200 hours ago and also started running strictly LOP and I noticed prior to implementing both operations that when I turned the prop over by hand and stopped just before top dead center on a compression stroke that after a second or two much of the compressed air leaked out resulting in being able to more easily turn the prop through the compression stroke.

Now doing the same procedure even waiting a couple seconds after resistance is felt when turning the prop it takes a considerable amount more effort to "pull it through".

Tell me its the voices in my head but 200 hours after implementing Lean of Peak operation and running a full bottle of cam guard at oil changes there seems to be a noticeable difference, also I'm not saying its a direct relation but I'm darn near 5kts faster at the same power settings. I haven't done a compression check in the last 200

Hours but will soon to see if there is a noticeable difference.

I've heard camguard does a great job cleaning up deposits ECT, so I think that might be it. I'm also the last one to try things that arnt proven just to make me "feel" like I'm doing something good for the engine, but my goodness what could be causing this if not the items mentioned above??

Ill also installed a new battery and starter a couple months back and when cranking it over it turns slower than before to? More of a "woomp, woomp, woomp" instead of turning over faster with less resistance.....

Tell me I'm losing it please /:)

johnggreen · December 24, 2012

Aaron,

I'm no mechanic or engine rebuilder or a mechanical engineer, but I think you are simply making a connection between two basically unrelated events. I have read countless "debates" on aviation blogs about "magic additives" that produced amazing results in engine and airplane performance. Sooner or later, there is enough real evidence to debunk them. If your engine is cleaner from either LOP or Camguard, it is hard to make the connection that it would have increased the compression on a properly maintained and regularly operated engine.

I do not use Camguard, not because I don't believe in the superior lubrication capabilities of synthetic oils, I do, but because I believe it to be overkill if you use a semi-synthetic product which i do. From the legitimate data I have read, if Camguard is beneficial, it is because it has the benefit of retaining an oil covering on engine parts after shut down to prevent rust; a benefit that its makers do, in fact, claim.

As to other claims, I will fall back on the old adage "if it is sounds too good to be true, it probably is" for support to my position. I will also say that for Camguard or any other additive, an independent monitoring of an engine on a dyno, with and without the additive would pretty much prove the claim and make the producer millionaires many times over. So, when they don't come with that kind of "PROOF", I pretty much ignore it.

That's my two cents. 99% of these products are snake oil; they don't do any good, but thankfully they don't do any harm either.

Jgreen

**Jeff_S** · December 24, 2012

One other thing to consider re: your speed increase. It is undoubtedly cooler now then when you started your new technique, and cooler air will always yield faster TAS at a given altitude and power level. That's why flying in winter is so good for the ego!

201er · December 24, 2012

One other thing to consider re: your speed increase. It is undoubtedly cooler now then when you started your new technique, and cooler air will always yield faster TAS at a given altitude and power level. That's why flying in winter is so good for the ego!

I keep hearing this but all logic would say otherwise. Climb rate and full power performance is no doubt better. However, cruise TAS should be slower at lower altitudes (below 6k) because the air is denser and it's the same as cruising even lower. Could be the illusion of going faster when really you're flying a higher than normal setting? ie 2500RPM WOT might make 65% in summer but 69% in winter at the same msl altitude.

**N201MKTurbo** · December 24, 2012

Maybe it is just flying the airplane 250 hours in a year. Engines love that.

PTK · December 24, 2012

I'm not a mechanic either but I do believe oil additives are unnecessary overkill. It's throwing perfectly good dollars down the used oil bucket. Using an appropriate oil and changing it regularly is all there is to it!

**jetdriven** · December 24, 2012

In our case, using Philips X/C 20W50 oil and camguard is about the same cost as Aeroshell 15W50.

M016576 · December 24, 2012

In our case, using Philips X/C 20W50 oil and camguard is about the same cost as Aeroshell 15W50.

I use the same. Phillips X/C 20W50 and camgaurd, made the switch from Aeroshell last year at my A&P's recommendation. It appears to be somewhat of a favorite combo on this board.

danb35 · December 24, 2012

I do not use Camguard, not because I don't believe in the superior lubrication capabilities of synthetic oils, I do, but because I believe it to be overkill if you use a semi-synthetic product which i do.

Camguard isn't a synthetic, and its developer doesn't recommend synthetic (or semi-synthetic) oils either. It does have antiwear and anticorrosion additives, the effectiveness of both of which has been confirmed in independent testing. I recall that they do claim it will clean some engine deposits. They don't make any claims, though, regarding increased power. Operating LOP, of course, should also result in a cleaner engine.

201er · December 24, 2012

So would cleaning up an engine result in a return of lost power (not necessarily creating new power but return power that the OP may have lost from different operation previously)?

fantom · December 24, 2012

In our case, using Philips X/C 20W50 oil and camguard is about the same cost as Aeroshell 15W50.

Exactly....and for maybe $100 a year for the Camguard, why not, if only for peace of mind. Makes a lot more sense, dollar wise, than putting a $20K Garmin 750, or a $15K paint job on a 30 year old Mooney, to me. :ph34r:

Marauder · December 24, 2012

Exactly....and for maybe $100 a year for the Camguard, why not, if only for peace of mind. Makes a lot more sense, dollar wise, than putting a $20K Garmin 750, or a $15K paint job on a 30 year old Mooney, to me.

I resemble that remark!

PTK · December 24, 2012

In our case, using Philips X/C 20W50 oil and camguard is about the same cost as Aeroshell 15W50.

Depends. But assuming same cost, the question then becomes: why not use Aeroshell 15W50? Is the Camguard additive tested to the same degree as Aeroshell? And how does it affect the performance of the oil it's added to? I don't want to hear that it coats the cam. Does it increase the performance of the oil? Can somebody point to any real studies that look at how the chemistry of Camguard interacts with that of the various different base oils?

fantom · December 24, 2012

Can somebody point to any real studies?

Gee, I've missed your pompous posts :rolleyes:

Try doing some research yourself, before continually posting uninformed opinion as fact. Oh, and Merry Christmas.

PTK · December 24, 2012

Pardon me Sir! I did not post opinion as fact. I simply asked a question. Can somebody point to any real studies that look at how the chemistry of Camguard interacts with that of the various different base oils? Would someone please point me to these studies, if they exist? Regretfully, I haven't found any thus far.

And Merry Christmas to you and your entire family!

jimosborn · December 24, 2012

Tell me its the voices in my head but 200 hours after implementing Lean of Peak operation and running a full bottle of cam guard at oil changes there seems to be a noticeable difference, also I'm not saying its a direct relation but I'm darn near 5kts faster at the same power settings. I haven't done a compression check in the last 200 Hours but will soon to see if there is a noticeable difference.

That's curious! Assuming your earlier ROP cruise ops were close to best power or thereabouts, going LOP slightly reduces HP for a given MP/RPM, thus you'd ordinarily see slower IAS after leaning. Because IAS is directly affected by the difference between ROP vs. LOP fuel flow, and that you are now seeing IAS increase when LOP, it may mean your former ROP cruise fuel flow was quite high (perhaps full rich or thereabouts?) causing less power being produced than MP/RPM would imply, in which case going LOP most assuredly will produce higher IAS. Do you have before-and-after notes on fuel flow and/or EGT?

Whatever the case, you are doing your engine great favor by running LOP inasmuch as oil and plugs run MUCH cleaner due to lower chamber pressure (less blow-by) and more complete combustion (less plug fouling); evidence of which shows up convincingly at oil change and inspection time (do save oil samples for comparison).

I've heard camguard does a great job cleaning up deposits ECT, so I think that might be it. I'm also the last one to try things that arnt proven just to make me "feel" like I'm doing something good for the engine, but my goodness what could be causing this if not the items mentioned above??

To the best of my knowledge Camguard is strictly a corrosion preventative additive that should be considered for that function alone.

Ill also installed a new battery and starter a couple months back and when cranking it over it turns slower than before to? More of a "woomp, woomp, woomp" instead of turning over faster with less resistance.....

Starter torque may differ from one to another when driven by the same voltage. I've had an experience or three over the years where a slow starter was caused by a poor ground between starter and airframe, particularly in some aircraft where a braided ground-strap bonds between the airframe and engine at the motor mount.

Tell me I'm losing it please /:)

Cheers! JimO

**jetdriven** · December 24, 2012

Depends. But assuming same cost, the question then becomes: why not use Aeroshell 15W50? Is the Camguard additive tested to the same degree as Aeroshell? And how does it affect the performance of the oil it's added to? I don't want to hear that it coats the cam. Does it increase the performance of the oil? Can somebody point to any real studies that look at how the chemistry of Camguard interacts with that of the various different base oils?

Aeroshell 15W50 is half synthetic, which does noty carry lead away. I cna confirm that because the ring lands were full of brown lead bormide sludge and it used a quart every 5-6 hours when we bought it. It had been on 15W50 since the last overhaul. We immediately switched to W100 with Camguard, and once, ran X/C 20-W50 with camguard. Switched to LOP and gave it a shot of MMO. Oil consumption went to a quart in 8-10 hours and the rings were clean on teardown. 250 hours in, three lifters shelled out and the engine was trashed. They said it was that way when I bought it, whihc means 15W50 wasn't helping the engine.

15W50 has the TPP anti-scuffing agent that Lycoming lists for the AD, but no anti-wear additives, acid neutralizers, or things like that, IIRC.

PTK · December 25, 2012

Byron, if this is accurate info, as you describe it, it's very good empirical data. Very compelling; not that 15w50 was inadequate, but care of the engine was lacking and inadequate! May I ask you why did you decide to go to W100? You feel the issue is the additive package in Shell is lacking in all but the anti-scuffing Lycoming agent?

I'm also not sure why you're blaming the oil for lead deposits. Was the oil changed regularly? Assuming it was, blow-by contaminants would not be an issue. This is primarily why we change oil! Lead scavenging is a funcrion of CHT's and ethylene dibromide in the fuel, not oil. They go hand in hand to get rid of lead out the exhaust in gaseous form.

johnggreen · December 25, 2012

Yes, I will admit to being a skeptic simply because life has taught me that it is advisable to be so. Like Allsmiles, I would be, not only interested, but grateful, for independent empirical evidence, i.e. an independent lab, which shows any benefit of Camguard. I would indeed like to know that the protection claimed by the manufacturer is available for my aircraft.

I have googled and read every response that promised such evidence. I'm sorry Fantom, but like Allsmiles, I find nothing other than articles either written by the "inventor" of Camguard or some statement that tests were "promising". Promising? Are you kidding. This product has been out for years and again, I will ask, if it works then why doesn't the inventor/manufacturer submit the product to a truly, in depth, independent review? You may rest assured that if the results are positive in the least, I will become a regular user.

One more question: is there any component of Camguard that is patented? It would seem that if there is any ingredient in the product that actually works, oil manufacturers would use it and if patented, pay for the privilege.

Please educate me. Please point me to real evidence that I can better protect my $81,000 TIO-540 engine better than what I am doing now.

Please.

Jgreen

johnggreen · December 25, 2012

I found this from an article in Aviation Consumer.

"ASL CamGuard. Our bench tests of CamGuard have proved promising, especially with regard to corrosion prevention, which we are increasingly inclined to believe is the more critical consideration than running wear. We recently performed an informal in-service test of CamGuard and we’re reporting on a more extensive test done by our AVweb colleague Mike Busch in his Cessna 310. His findings mirror our own."

"Bench test" by Aviation Consumer? "More extensive test" by Mike Busch? I wasn't aware that Mr. Busch was a metallurgical engineer or qualified for such tests.

And I still doubt. Silly me.

Jgreen

**DonMuncy** · December 25, 2012

How many of you have studied the metallurgical or chemical testing done by Aeroshell. Do you doubt them as well.

johnggreen · December 25, 2012

Don,

That obviously does not even address my question. In fact, it is an obvious evasion.

Do you or anyone else have the answer to the question I asked?

Jgreen

**DonMuncy** · December 25, 2012

No evasion intended. I know of no scientific data about Camguard, Aeroshell, Elite, etc. I trust the major oil producers because they have been around a long time. I get anecdotal evidence about MMO, Camguard, mouse milk, etc. here, the MAPA site, and all my pilot buddies. I read, and believe (to a large extent) Aviation Consumer and most other aviation publications. Then I make a decision about what to use in, and do to my plane. I use a Battery Minder without seeing any scientific evidence about its efficacy. I built and use a dissicator blowing into my engine, with no real proof that it works. Bottom line, I don't claim Camguard is the best thing since sliced bread. Neither do I think it is snake oil because I haven't seen scientific proof.