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

[jetdriven]

Then why are so many cams and cylinders rusting and failing? 

 

Not only that, but consider why the 'experts" at Mobil released a fully synthetic motor oil for aircraft that caused  most of their owners to replace their engines 300 hours later.  They were warned by Ed Kollin, but they did it anyways.

[BigTex]

I was at Oshkosh this year and set in on some forums on oil and it sounds like the biggest issue is that She'll and Exxon isn't investing in additional funds into aviation oils. Due to a relatively small market and small profit margins, research dollars are going elsewhere.

[KSMooniac]

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!

Methinks you are extremely ignorant of the limitations of modern corporate America as they relate to R&D, new product development, and especially testing.  Ed previously described the test lab he developed at Exxon and all they went through, and then decided NOT to use his research and recommendations and chose the cheaper route to just copy Shell.  "They" are never an authority...the specialized knowledge is developed, discovered and retained by individuals like Ed, and used or ignored by bean counters in management.  That is the way it is on the airframe side of the aircraft industry, and I'm sure the oil side is quite similar....especially when their non-aviation business is magnitudes larger than the aviation business.

[aviatoreb]

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!

 

One thing to keep in mind is that their main goal is not to improve the health of our engines in the setting that many of us may fly them, which may include some >1week down time.  Their main goal is to sell oil, to the "average" customer.  Some of those statisticians are deployed characterizing the average customer.  Even with the best intentions in mind, they are making an average product and which greatly emphasizes cost when they decide what to put in there.  It is entirely possible for a more savy small group of airplane interested engineers to develop a product that better addresses the needs of a specific segment - for example, people who sometimes are not able to run their engine every few days on occasion, but who are willing to spend more on exotic additives.  Not saying that camguard is necessarily the solution, but I am quite convinced that the business landscape allows for the little guy to produce something that maybe the big guy may not produce for me.  FYI I do use camguard on every oil change.

[PTK]

It's a matter of where one decides to place their trust. Personally I trust Lycoming and Aeroshell and strive to follow their recommendations to the letter. Why? because they know a lot more than I do! But that's me. We're all free to choose!

[aaronk25]

I sure have not see aeroshell advertising new formulas or anything to support that they have the best oil or any other mfg for that matter. If a company was truly innovating new formulas to take advantage of the latest in technology I would sure think they would advertise it right?

[1TJ]

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!

 

Shell had one researcher responsible for the development of their 15W-50, Ben Visser. Exxon had two part-time formulators from Products Research and one part-time formulator, me, from Corporate Research working on the Elite. And my two coworkers had never seen a flat aircraft engine. I was brought onboard as the "expert".

 

Shell has not had a technical person working on aviation oils since Ben retired about 12 years ago. And they have no intention of reformulating their products.

 

Exxon, also, has not had any technical expertise involved with the Elite in 12-13 years, only marketing people. 

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is less than 35 cents worth of additives in a quart of Mobil 1. We are totally price constrained when we formulate any product but especially motor oils. There are a number of engine and bench tests, based on performance, that have to be passed. Formulators know how to pass these tests but the trick is doing so at the lowest additive treat rate. And, BTW, Exxon does not formulate oils now or for the past 10 years. The additive companies do the research and Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Pennzoil, Quaker State, Valvoline, Castrol, Motorcraft etc. just purchase one of their packages.  

It costs the additive companies millions of dollars to certify an additive package. But the market justifies it.

Not so in the aviation world where you are formulating ONLY to do no harm (KISS method). And this still costs you millions and are harder to justify.  

 

Jetdriven

 

Then why are so many cams and cylinders rusting and failing? 

 

Not only that, but consider why the 'experts" at Mobil released a fully synthetic motor oil for aircraft that caused  most of their owners to replace their engines 300 hours later.  They were warned by Ed Kollin, but they did it anyways.

 

  

 Jetdriven says it perfectly!! 

 

 

BTW, a quart of Elite has less than 15 cents worth of additive in it.

 

Ed 

[1TJ]

It's a matter of where one decides to place their trust. Personally I trust Lycoming and Aeroshell and strive to follow their recommendations to the letter. Why? because they know a lot more than I do! But that's me. We're all free to choose!

 

Which manufacturer said running LOP will burn up cylinders?.............................. BOTH until recently!!

 

Ed

[carusoam]

Www.aeroshelteam.com

http://aslcamguard.com/

Got the websites from the trade-a-plane in my WC...

ASL site is clear about the benefits, so clear it sounds over the top and hard to believe....

Aeroshell doesn't mention oil, additives or have a link that I can find to their lubricants. Well understated....

If my cam were on top and was known to sit for a week, I would consider using the ASL Camguard.

I think my cam is lower than most, so this may not be an issue. I will have to ask the engine builder on their thoughts...

Is the Continental structure significantly different than the Lycoming?

Best regards,

-a-

[201er]

Mr Kollin, I would be very curious what you could say to our dentist friend, allsmiles, to convince him of the merit of your product (particularly because he doesn't inherently trust you).

[1TJ]

Mr Kollin, I would be very curious what you could say to our dentist friend, allsmiles, to convince him of the merit of your product (particularly because he doesn't inherently trust you).

 

I don't think anything in particular. All I can do is answer his questions.

Although maybe I could tell him about my Avgas lead replacement work with a large manufacturer. Or perhaps my Automotive Camguard that reduces the wear of Mobil 1 by 50%. Or along his line of work in the use of petides to reenamal teeth.

Naah.

 

Ed

[aaronk25]

Ok I'm sold Ed, even though I put 20 hours a month on my plane I'm still going to stay with cam guard.

I just hope it will be worth the money and the engine hopefully will be cleaner and have less deposits in it to show for the investment.

[fantom]

Mr Kollin, I would be very curious what you could say to our dentist friend, allsmiles, to convince him of the merit of your product (particularly because he doesn't inherently trust you).

"Our friend"???? No to worry Ed. Many here realize 'smiles just argues for attention and has offered no factual data to support his silly doubts. Every village has one ;-)

[Marauder]

I love watching everyone see how far they can urinate up the wall. Has anyone asked any of the engine rebuilders on their findings? Surely that is the true measure of success, is it not?

Or perhaps some A&Ps who have worked on engines with and without treatment?

[m20kmooney]

The original question that has not been answered is this:

What difference will Camguard make in a well cared for engine? One that,

a. has regular oil changes

b. has more frequent oil changes before and after anticipated short duration period of inactivity

c. for longer term inactivity is using preservation oil i.e. Aeroshell Fluid 2F.

Ed if you'd care to comment?

[1TJ]

The original question that has not been answered is this:

What difference will Camguard make in a well cared for engine? One that,

a. has regular oil changes

b. has more frequent oil changes before and after anticipated short duration period of inactivity

c. for longer term inactivity is using preservation oil i.e. Aeroshell Fluid 2F.

Ed if you'd care to comment?

 

I recommend 25-30 hour oil changes for most people regardless of Camguard use.

People that fly over 250 hours a year can extend that.

Using Camguard and following this advice when you find it is time to overhaul your engine, it will be clean with virtually no sludge or deposits (like our certification engine). 

I gave a three hour lecture to 15 Lycoming Engineers and when they saw the pictures of our certification engine they all said they had never seen anything like it. They especially liked the deposit free valve guides and lack of carbon buildup in the ring grooves.

 

Clean oil will not protect against rust.

Shell 2F is fine. It is non-dispersant mineral oil with a fatty acid rust inhibitor. You have to change it when putting the plane back in service.

Camguard is a more effective inhibitor rust inhibitor. And it also provides corrosion inhibitors for the other metals in the engine. And you can just fly the plane without changing the oil.

 

Camguard addresses both frequent and infrequent use.

 

Ed 

[KSMooniac]

Ed, thanks again for your contributions here and elsewhere on the web.  I realize you are selling a product, but getting the details straight from the horse's mouth is invaluable.  

 

Signed,

A satisfied customer that doesn't need to see millions of dollars and years of test results

[PTK]

I recommend 25-30 hour oil changes for most people regardless of Camguard use.

People that fly over 250 hours a year can extend that.

Using Camguard and following this advice when you find it is time to overhaul your engine, it will be clean with virtually no sludge or deposits (like our certification engine). 

I gave a three hour lecture to 15 Lycoming Engineers and when they saw the pictures of our certification engine they all said they had never seen anything like it. They especially liked the deposit free valve guides and lack of carbon buildup in the ring grooves.

 

Clean oil will not protect against rust.

Shell 2F is fine. It is non-dispersant mineral oil with a fatty acid rust inhibitor. You have to change it when putting the plane back in service.

Camguard is a more effective inhibitor rust inhibitor. And it also provides corrosion inhibitors for the other metals in the engine. And you can just fly the plane without changing the oil.

 

Camguard addresses both frequent and infrequent use.

 

Ed 

Am I to assume then that 25-30 hour oil changes in a well cared for engine offers no protection!! It will be full of sludge and deposits and rust out?!

Sorry Ed, I'm totally not convinced!

[1TJ]

Am I to assume then that 25-30 hour oil changes in a well cared for engine offers no protection!! It will be full of sludge and deposits and rust out?!

Sorry Ed, I'm totally not convinced!

 

Are you saying that if you perform 25 hour oil changes and fly regularly that you will not have problems due to rust (valve-train components), sludge (prop hub or oil control rings) or deposits (lower compressions in Continentals or valve sticking in Lycomings)?

  

Obviously a lot of engines on 50 hour oil changes make it to TBO and are not rusted out. However they ARE ALL full of sludge and deposits. And many well cared for engines with 25 hour oil changes do not make it to TBO. How do you explain it? (And BTW they are full of sludge and deposits also.)

 

Would you be more inclined to try Camguard if it were $5 per oil change?

 

Ed

[KSMooniac]

Ed, I think he would squeal in agony if you poured it into his crankcase for free since you're not a trust-worthy big oil company!  

[aaronk25]

Ed,

 

If you ran camguard, changed oils at 30 hours or 40 hours for 250+ hour a year engines, operated LOP, cut filters and had good oil analysis how many hours would you run a IO-360 that has had no trouble or signs of change? I mean if it ran the same way at 2,000 hours as it did at 500 hours would you go 3,000 hours?  4,000hours???

 

Just curious what your thoughts are as to how modern method of engine operation and using additives such as cam guard affect longevity.  Tough question, I know, give it a shot please.

 

Thanks,

Aaron

[1TJ]

Ed,

 

If you ran camguard, changed oils at 30 hours or 40 hours for 250+ hour a year engines, operated LOP, cut filters and had good oil analysis how many hours would you run a IO-360 that has had no trouble or signs of change? I mean if it ran the same way at 2,000 hours as it did at 500 hours would you go 3,000 hours?  4,000hours???

 

Just curious what your thoughts are as to how modern method of engine operation and using additives such as cam guard affect longevity.  Tough question, I know, give it a shot please.

 

Thanks,

Aaron

 

I would not hesitate to run it to 3000 or more hours. I would expect it to start talking to me, in the oil analysis, oil filter or boroscope, and I would pay close attention. After 3000-3500 hours I think about fatigue life of things like pistons, bushings and bearings.

 

Ed

[m20kmooney]

I recommend 25-30 hour oil changes for most people regardless of Camguard use.

People that fly over 250 hours a year can extend that.

Using Camguard and following this advice when you find it is time to overhaul your engine, it will be clean with virtually no sludge or deposits (like our certification engine).

I gave a three hour lecture to 15 Lycoming Engineers and when they saw the pictures of our certification engine they all said they had never seen anything like it. They especially liked the deposit free valve guides and lack of carbon buildup in the ring grooves.

Clean oil will not protect against rust.

Shell 2F is fine. It is non-dispersant mineral oil with a fatty acid rust inhibitor. You have to change it when putting the plane back in service.

Camguard is a more effective inhibitor rust inhibitor. And it also provides corrosion inhibitors for the other metals in the engine. And you can just fly the plane without changing the oil.

Camguard addresses both frequent and infrequent use.

controlled trials in a large amount of similarly run new engines to have scientific evidence of benefit.

Without any scientific evidence from controlled trials in a large amount of similarly run new engines you can make claims all day long. Do you have such evidence to present in support of your claims? You may in fact be understating the magical powers of Camguard!

[1TJ]

Without any scientific evidence from controlled trials in a large amount of similarly run new engines you can make claims all day long. Do you have such evidence to present in support of your claims? You may in fact be understating the magical powers of Camguard!

 

After running and passing all the required ASTM bench tests for oil and additive approval, the FAA granted our acceptance approval based on a 540 hour engine run in an acrobatic airplane engine. This was the first time an aerobatic engine was used for an oil or additive certification. No other operation is as abusive on an aircraft engine as demonstration flying.

All the parts, cam, lifters, cylinders, rings, bearings measured at or near the new part measurements. It was also the cleanest engine inspected, by far, on record according to the report by the two FAA inspectors overseeing the tear-down. Feel free to contact Monte Barrett, at Barrett Performance Engines in Tulsa, to ask him about the results. He measured the parts and built the new engine as well as disassembled and measured the used engine parts. He became a Camguard dealer after we received approval. 

 

I have pictures of another IO-540 aerobatic engine that ran for 1200 hours and guess what, the engine looks just as clean.

 

Ed

[201er]

Mr Kollin, with your product being out nearly a decade, do you have any anecdotal evidence from users who have gone from overhaul to overhaul (or TBO) and their results compared to typical ones?