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

[Rwsavory]

I understand.  I was just wondering if a study of this quality exists regarding different engine oils.

[BigTex]

I choose my oil based on bottle color... I did use the gold bottles of Exxon Elite but blue is my favorite color so I switched to XC 20w50. Camguard comes in black bottles which looks good with blue so used it as well.

[KSMooniac]

A clinical-style study commonly used in the medical industry would cost many millions of dollars and years of time, which would not make any economic sense for aviation oils or additives as the market is too small.  

 

Buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't, and quit complaining about the lack of medical-quality evidence.  The inventor is *the* guy in the industry and has a ton of credibility.  His explanation of the development and his time at Exxon makes sense to me, and I buy the product to maximize the chances of my cam lasting when I can't fly every week. 

[PTK]

I'm mot prepared to say what it would cost and how long it would take because I don't know. Do you know or are you assuming? On what basis do you state it would cost "many millions of dollars?"

I agree. Buy it if you like it or don't if you don't.

It's not a question of the gentleman's good intentions and experience and background at Exxon. Credibility on this, however, must be based on proper science. There is no other way.

It's not a complaint. It's an observation of the lack of scientific basis for some grossly outrageous claims!

Is this not allowed?

[fantom]

Btw, I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy.....

 

....and we've figured out why:

 

[KSMooniac]

I don't know much (or anything ) about medical studies, but imagine the costs of trying to run a controlled experiment of piston engine operators over a period of 5-25 years to gather the data you seem to want.  You'd have to have multiples of each type of owner/operator and then run groups with and without Camguard and control for usage profiles, periods of inactivity, maintenance schedules and environment the planes sit and operate in.  I'd venture a guess that it is nearly impossible to do so in the real world.  

Instead, we have correlated lab tests that Ed said they developed at Exxon in the quest to produce the best aviation oil out there.  I accept his statements, and find everything he has written as perfectly plausible.  I combine that with the "easy" tests done by Av Consumer and the anecdotal oil analysis results reported by Mike Busch and others and believe the product does what he says it does.  His advertising claims are backed up with test data from his lab development and the anecdotal oil analysis reports.  I'm happy to purchase it today at a reasonable price instead of waiting 10 years and paying 5-10x the price to fund studies to satisfy those who cannot be satisfied.

[201er]

^ Great point. Doc, I have a question for you. Why do you trust Shell or Exxon (whichever of those two you get your oil from) as your oil of choice but not ASL? What kinds of independent controlled studies have you seen for their products that convinced you to use their oil and additives?

[Marauder]

^ Great point. Doc, I have a question for you. Why do you trust Shell or Exxon (whichever of those two you get your oil from) as your oil of choice but not ASL? What kinds of independent controlled studies have you seen for their products that convinced you to use their oil and additives?

I think the trust comes from years of established performance and meeting industry standards. Oils must meet an ASTM standard for the specifications they seek. Additives are a different beast. They are considered enhancers and most of the companies that produce them don't go through the process to prove their formulations perform to any standard.

That is why I asked to see more data, something based on industry standards and done by an independent testing organization that operates as a regulated and approved testing facility. For all I know Cam Guard could add 1000 hours to my TBO.

If you want a similar scenario, look up HPFP and diesel additives. They all have claims of increasing the SCAR rating of diesel. When ULSD was introduced, the lubricity rating of diesel went down considerably because of the reduce sulfur content. If you look at the HPFP manufacturer specs for the SCAR rating and what U.S. ULSD specification are, you can see the problem. I use additives in my diesel just for that reason. When you research the diesel additives, you realize that their SCAR improvement levels are all over the map. There is no standard they need to meet. So it is buyer beware.

Not saying that is what is going on here, but if I am going to stick something in my $30k engine, I want to make sure at a minimum, it does no harm. The Mobil 1 synth scenario is a great example.

[PTK]

^ Great point. Doc, I have a question for you. Why do you trust Shell or Exxon (whichever of those two you get your oil from) as your oil of choice but not ASL? What kinds of independent controlled studies have you seen for their products that convinced you to use their oil and additives?

 

Really Mike?!

 

Do OEM recomendations, SAE specs and ASTM standards mean anything to you? You can download the literature and read it.

I rely on the advice of the manufacturer of my very expensive engine and that of the oil manufacturer, be it Shell or Exxon. Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1014M. It's all spelled out in there if you care to read it. 

 

ASL makes no oil Mike. If and when they do I'll consider it.

 

Why do you trust your oil?

[201er]

Sorry, I meant in relation to additives.

[DonMuncy]

Allsmiles,

Your question, and I quote, was;

 

“Do you have anything other than opinionated marketing material that supports Camguard or any other additive is beneficial to my very expensive engine, above and beyond regular oil changes with an approved oil?”

 

Then you quote from the Aviation Consumer report;

 

"We found that CamGuard did measurably improve W100's corrosion performance, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth the expense of adding it. The Shell package is an effective anti-corrosion package to begin with, so adding CamGuard, may have no realistic impact on the life of the engine."

 

And then you assert;

 

The particular Aviation Consumer report is not a Randomized Controlled Trial.

 

I will make a couple of assumptions here (with no scientific proof). First I assume that W100 is “an approved oil”. And second, I assume that “measurable improvement in corrosion performance” is “beneficial” to one’s expensive engine.

 

So now you are modifying your question quoted above to include testing done to your standards.

 

I will not go so far as fantom, in that I do not know your motivations for your positions here. But I have concluded that you must be smarter than most of the people on this list, smarter than Ed Kollin, smarter than the guys at Aviation Consumer, and clearly smarter than me. So I will not bother you further with my ignorance.

 

(For everyone else on Mooneyspace, I don’t claim any real expertise in anything. I have only been flying for 20 years and have a little over 1100 hours. But if I have any information or knowledge that will be of benefit to you, feel free to ask.)   

[TTaylor]

Allsmiles, Your question, and I quote, was;   “Do you have anything other than opinionated marketing material that supports Camguard or any other additive is beneficial to my very expensive engine, above and beyond regular oil changes with an approved oil?”   Then you quote from the Aviation Consumer report;   "We found that CamGuard did measurably improve W100's corrosion performance, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth the expense of adding it. The Shell package is an effective anti-corrosion package to begin with, so adding CamGuard, may have no realistic impact on the life of the engine."   And then you assert;   The particular Aviation Consumer report is not a Randomized Controlled Trial.   I will make a couple of assumptions here (with no scientific proof). First I assume that W100 is “an approved oil”. And second, I assume that “measurable improvement in corrosion performance” is “beneficial” to one’s expensive engine.   So now you are modifying your question quoted above to include testing done to your standards.   I will not go so far as fantom, in that I do not know your motivations for your positions here. But I have concluded that you must be smarter than most of the people on this list, smarter than Ed Kollin, smarter than the guys at Aviation Consumer, and clearly smarter than me. So I will not bother you further with my ignorance.   (For everyone else on Mooneyspace, I don’t claim any real expertise in anything. I have only been flying for 20 years and have a little over 1100 hours. But if I have any information or knowledge that will be of benefit to you, feel free to ask.)   

Don, My problem with the report is not how the data was collected, but who collected it. The report was written by the manufacturer, not an independent third party. Essentially it is an advertisement dressed up to look like a report.

[DonMuncy]

Allsmiles,

That is absolute bull****. I have known Paul Bertorelli for years. Aviation Consumer is above reproach, absolutely independent, do not accept advertising, do not accept free products, and do their own testing. You really ought to find out what you are taking about before posting false information. 

[gregwatts]

It is mind boggling to me that this thread has gone on for 5 pages. To be the devil's advocate.......many people bought pet rocks.

 

If you don't trust the product......don't buy it!

If you do trust the product.......buy it!

 

I have never used the product......so I have no opinion. But.......some of those pet rocks were cool!

 

 

Just sayin'

[jetdriven]

Buy a 35 grand FWF and tell me that if there was a half chance they arent all lying about Camguard, you wouldn't use it.

 

For those of you with 1200 hours IO-360-A3B6D's.  Get ready.  Its a hell of a shock.

[jetdriven]

Jim, yours will last forever.  Espeically with that snazzy blue silicone breather hose I sent you

[fantom]

You have to tell me about that blue tube. Wondering if I should crack open my engine and try to reverse all the damage Camguard has done ;-)

[PTK]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DonMuncy" data-cid="86022" data-time="1357353969"><p>The particular Aviation Consumer report is not a Randomized Controlled Trial.<br />

<br />

I will make a couple of assumptions here (with no scientific proof). First I assume that W100 is “an approved oil”. And second, I assume that “measurable improvement in corrosion performance” is “beneficial” to one’s expensive engine.<br />

<br />

So now you are modifying your question quoted above to include testing done to your standards.<br />

<br />

...So I will not bother you further with my ignorance.<br />

<br />

(For everyone else on Mooneyspace, I don’t claim any real expertise in anything. I have only been flying for 20 years and have a little over 1100 hours. But if I have any information or knowledge that will be of benefit to you, feel free to ask.)</p></blockquote>

<br />

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DonMuncy" data-cid="86037" data-time="1357358997"><p>Allsmiles,<br />

That is absolute bull****. I have known Paul Bertorelli for years. Aviation Consumer is above reproach, absolutely independent, do not accept advertising, do not accept free products, and do their own testing. You really ought to find out what you are taking about before posting false information.</p></blockquote>

Don,

1. That's right. The particular Aviation Consumer report is not a Randomized Controlled Trial. AC realizes this and is wise to not make absolute claims! That quote is an example of this.

2. Can you make the same assumption for Camguard or other additives that you are making for W100?

3. You are mistakenly calling these "your standards." It is not my standard, your standard, ASL's standard, AC's standard or anybody else's. It's the gold standard! It's how proper studies are done if they're going to yield reliable data. Period.

4. Since you want to talk about "false information" try these for size. Right out of ASL brochure: "CamGuard Aviation contains powerful multi-metal corrosion inhibitors that PREVENT rust and corrosion in infrequently used engines."

"CamGuard Aviation utilizes UNIQUE ashless deposit control additives that PREVENT the formation of deposits throughout the engine.

Yet they talk about their additives are commercially available off the shelf! Are they unique or aren't they? And "prevent??" If these aren't grossly absolute and misleading, I don't know what is!

You are not "bothering" me. Please don't feel this way! I understand you can't help it. It's that Kool-Aid!

[fantom]

Don....you are just feeding the beast ;-)

[DonMuncy]

Fantom, I just stopped.

[m20kmooney]

With all due respect Fantom that wasn't necessary. It is not a sign of weakness to disagree with someone by presenting your opinion in a civilized manner. You gain more respect by engaging the opposing position in a discussion inside the arena. You lose respect when you are unable to do so and the only thing you can do is jump out of bounds as you did and start personal attacks and mud throwing. That is immature and this forum would truly be better without it.

[tony]

With all due respect Fantom that wasn't necessary. It is not a sign of weakness to disagree with someone by presenting your opinion in a civilized manner. You gain more respect by engaging the opposing position in a discussion inside the arena. You lose respect when you are unable to do so and the only thing you can do is jump out of bounds as you did and start personal attacks and mud throwing. That is immature and this forum would truly be better without it.

 

relax, there's years of enterntainment value on here watching the two of them banter.  Its all in fun.

[1TJ]

 

Allsmiles

4. Since you want to talk about "false information" try these for size. Right out of ASL brochure: "CamGuard Aviation contains powerful multi-metal corrosion inhibitors that PREVENT rust and corrosion in infrequently used engines."
"CamGuard Aviation utilizes UNIQUE ashless deposit control additives that PREVENT the formation of deposits throughout the engine.
Yet they talk about their additives are commercially available off the shelf! Are they unique or aren't they? And "prevent??" If these aren't grossly absolute and misleading, I don't know what is!
You are not "bothering" me. Please don't feel this way! I understand you can't help it. It's that Kool-Aid!

 

The additives in question are certainly chemically unique. I chose them for their unique chemical and physical properties to accomplish what I wanted.

 

If we are the ONLY company using these additives to PREVENT deposit and sludge formation, it also make them unique.

 

They will remain unique to Camguard as long as Exxon and Shell do not understand the cause of engine deposits and their prevention(and they obviously don't). And they will continue to be unique to Camguard because they cost more than all the additives in the Shell and Exxon oils combined.

 

Ed

[PTK]

?

[PTK]

They will remain unique to Camguard as long as Exxon and Shell do not understand the cause of engine deposits and their prevention(and they obviously don't).

 

Ed, this is really very hard to believe? The fact is that Shell employs tons of mechanical and chemical engineers, chemists and statisticians globally. As does Exxon.Their life is spent on designing, testing and developing precise oils and additive package formulas. They run tons of tests upon tests on their formulations and they send them out for more tons of independent tests. The formulas they develop are synergistically balanced and as perfected as they can be.They bench test these things as well as test them on many many engines for many many years in as many ways as it is possible!

I can't understand how you can say that Shell (and Exxon) don't understand our engines! I certainly think they do! They are the authority! The last thing I'd want to do is dump some additive in my engine randomly and unilaterally changing the formulation these professionals intended! It would be very, very ignorant to say the least!