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

[jetdriven]

I know from just being an airplane pilot that 5 people I know personally have replaced engines in the past year from cam and lifter failure, and the shop in Leesburg last week had a 1977 201 with no engine on it (shipped for overhaul, cam failure). I parked next to a M20B in Staniel Cay, Bahamas with a fresh factory OH, also the result of camshaft failure. I am not sure Camguard is doing anything for us, but I am certain that no commercial aviation oil can alleviate this sudden death syndrome the IO-360s are facing.

Aviation Consumer has 2 or 3 articles that show Camguard delays the onset of rust forming on metal coupons in their test after being heated and doused in aviation oil. Further, Busch ran Camguard in one engine and straight W100 in the other, and the wear metals were lower in the Camguard engine, especially after sitting for a month after annual.

Seriously, I dont know. But the 21$ every oil change is peanuts compared to the cost of a 35K FWF overhaul, and if your engine lasts 45 hours longer in an 1800 hour time period, the Camguard is a break-even cost.

[PTK]

"...Use them if they are fully tested. But generally, they aren't tested to the same degree our base oils are. There can be interactions between additives and the base oil chemistry. For example, if you improve corrosion resistance with an additive, do you prevent the anti-wear additive from working or do you make the oil's load carrying capability worse? You don't know. FAA approval is on a "no-harm" basis, but that doesn't mean the additive improves the performance of the oil."

Robert Midgley, Shell global technical director on additives. Crucial questions that haven't been and can't be answered by additive proponents.

"CamGuard works with all conventional mineral oils, semi-synthetic oils, and fully synthetic oils. It is compatible with all commonly used oil components including detergents, dispersants, zinc or phosphorus antiwear compounds, antioxidants, friction modifiers, basestocks, etc."

Ed Kolin on Camguard. Sounds like "Yup we can do dat. Yup we can do dat too."

Show me the science, please.

[johnggreen]

Until yesterday, I have ignored Camguard. Why? Though it had been "recommended" to me by several acquaintances in the aviation industry, when I read up on it, I found no independent testing. That was several years ago and several million dollars of sales of Camguard past. Yesterday, on reading this thread, it brought the question up again. Now that the product has been here so long with some significant degree of acceptance by the aviation community, has there still been no independent verification of its worth?

I can find nothing other than the Avweb article by Camguard's "inventor" and the Aviation Consumer articles that again do not reflect any authentic testing by a reputable testing institution.

Again, I ask why?

Camguard's claims are not subtle. To quote from their literature, "designed to dramatically improve the performance of all mineral based, semi-synthetic and fully synthetic motor oils in the area of corrosion protection, wear reduction, and seal protection."

Camguard uses the word "dramatic", not me. So, should something so "dramatic" not be easily proved? And if so, why not?

Where is the legitimate, independent test?

Jgreen

[fantom]

Most of the 'older ' hanger bums at my home drome add 10ml of Camguard to a can of beer, claiming it regulates them, smooths out their bowel movements, cures any prostrate issues and sharpens their eyesight.

While I haven't seen any conclusive scientific evidence for these clams, I have noted them for future reference.

[N201MKTurbo]

Everything I've read says that camgagrd is helpfull in engines that are rarely flown. If you fly your plane at least once a week, it is a waste of money. I understand that Camgard provides corrosion prevention and startup lubrication.

[johnggreen]

Most of the 'older ' hanger bums at my home drome add 10ml of Camguard to a can of beer, claiming it regulates them, smooths out their bowel movements, cures any prostrate issues and sharpens their eyesight.

While I haven't seen any conclusive scientific evidence for these clams, I have noted them for future reference.

Fantom,

Finally, a scientifically proven use of Camguard !! Though I don't seem to need any of the above, for future reference, what about erectile disfunction?

Thanks for the humor bud.

Jgreen

[fantom]

Pilots don't get ED

[aaronk25]

Thanks for all the impute everyone. Merry Christmas.

[gregwatts]

what about erectile disfunction?

Jgreen

You get that from flying LOP.......just sayin'

[johnggreen]

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Jgreen

[201er]

Everything I've read says that camgagrd is helpfull in engines that are rarely flown. If you fly your plane at least once a week, it is a waste of money. I understand that Camgard provides corrosion prevention and startup lubrication.

If it saves you just 40 hours of life on the engine, you break even. Any more than that and you're saving money. At 40 cents an hour it's a gamble worth taking. Worst case scenario, you lose $800 by using it for nothing. Best case scenario you actually make it to TBO instead of losing 600 hours and $12,000 worth of engine value. Hmm.... even if the science is wrong, as long as it can't hurt your engine (and I have not heard a single claim that it can), then just from a financial standpoint it's a gamble worth taking.

[bnicolette]

If it saves you just 40 hours of life on the engine, you break even. Any more than that and you're saving money. At 40 cents an hour it's a gamble worth taking. Worst case scenario, you lose $800 by using it for nothing. Best case scenario you actually make it to TBO instead of losing 600 hours and $12,000 worth of engine value. Hmm.... even if the science is wrong, as long as it can't hurt your engine (and I have not heard a single claim that it can), then just from a financial standpoint it's a gamble worth taking.

That logic sure works for me!

[Jeff_S]

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.

Well, there's no illusion of going faster in my case, as the TAS indicator from my Shadin air-data computer definitely shows an increase in TAS in cooler temps. But the air density does factor in and I would grant you that the engine is producing greater power, so perhaps I should explain my definition of power setting. I have never bothered trying to figure out a percent power output...to much math, and not really a valuable exercise when you can set your fuel flow using an engine monitor. So in my prior post I was considering just MP and RPM as the two factors in "power setting," which as I recall was what the OP had mentioned. And in this case, cooler temps always seem to yield a higher TAS for me. YMMV.

[aaronk25]

Just a update I sent mike Busch a question if I should use camguard since I'm flying 200+ hours a year and am in a non-corrosive climate and he said he would not use cam guard but 100w plus aeroshell because its only 5 bucks more a case than standard 100w and has anti wear and antiscuff in the formula.

That's what I'm going to do, I'm sure camguard is good but sure adds up when you changing oil every 2-3 months.

I'm convinced that any differences I've seen are because of LOP and running the engine alot, I guess engines that get run alot hours on end are happy campers!

Thanks,

Aaron

[DaV8or]

To the OP-  Do you have oil consumption records from the time before your changes in oil and operation? The only reason I can think of for you regaining lost compression is you may have had a stuck ring or two. If this were the case, you should have had high oil consumption too. The only other thought would be lead deposits on the valve seats that have gone away, but if this were the case, you probably would have ended up with burned, or warped valves pretty quickly. In the case of the rings, just running the engine a lot and changing the oil a lot probably fixed that. In the case of the valves, running LOP might have fixed that.

 

As to "Is the plane faster in the winter?" I would say yes. Ask yourself, if the plane takes off in a shorter distance and climbs at a greater rate of climb than in summer, why would it not cruise faster too? If the notion is, the air is denser and therefore creates more drag, then isn't the there additional drag during the take off roll and climb out as well? My understanding is, there is additional drag, but the prop and wing perform so much better that the net effect is better climb and speed. Kind of like, the cold air causes -1kt of speed, but it gets an additional +5kts out of the prop and wing for an over all of +4kts.

 

As to John and Allsmiles question about Camguard testing by a third party official lab, who would pay for this expensive testing? If Camguard pays for it, then the results may be skewed, or influenced by their patronage and the results not trusted. Same goes for if the oil companies pay for the test. Other sources like Av Consumer, don't have the resources to do the testing, so they did a bench test and that wasn't good enough for you. Aviation magazines aren't going to do it because both Camguard and the various oil manufacturers are advertisers and they don't want anyone unhappy.

 

In short, the tests you're hoping for will never happen and they're not out there. You either believe it or not.

 

Camguard and beer is a well known cure to all that ail middle aged pilots. For those rare cases of ED, MMO and bourbon combined with a healthy dose of "nose art" usually does the trick!

[201er]

As to "Is the plane faster in the winter?" I would say yes. Ask yourself, if the plane takes off in a shorter distance and climbs at a greater rate of climb than in summer, why would it not cruise faster too? If the notion is, the air is denser and therefore creates more drag, then isn't the there additional drag during the take off roll and climb out as well? My understanding is, there is additional drag, but the prop and wing perform so much better that the net effect is better climb and speed. Kind of like, the cold air causes -1kt of speed, but it gets an additional +5kts out of the prop and wing for an over all of +4kts.

 

Because you are climbing at closer to (or possibly even above) 100% power on a normally aspirated engine. You have more power available from the engine for the climb so fpm is greater. Climb configuration is near best L/D so the friction of air plays a smaller role. In cruise, you're going to reduce power to a prescribed power setting (75% or below).

 

So in summer you may be taking off and starting with 90% power and diminishing as you climb. In winter you start with 100%. That extra power down low plays a big role in takeoff distance and initial climb angle. But when you reach 4000ft, the excess power is irrelevant (let's say 80% everything forward in summer or 85% in winter) because you're still going to reduce power to 75% or below. If you're making 75% power in denser air vs less dense air, you'll go faster in less dense air. So when cruising at equivalent power setting in summer, I postulate your TAS is faster than in winter.

[M016576]

Because you are climbing at closer to (or possibly even above) 100% power on a normally aspirated engine. You have more power available from the engine for the climb so fpm is greater. Climb configuration is near best L/D so the friction of air plays a smaller role. In cruise, you're going to reduce power to a prescribed power setting (75% or below).

 

So in summer you may be taking off and starting with 90% power and diminishing as you climb. In winter you start with 100%. That extra power down low plays a big role in takeoff distance and initial climb angle. But when you reach 4000ft, the excess power is irrelevant (let's say 80% everything forward in summer or 85% in winter) because you're still going to reduce power to 75% or below. If you're making 75% power in denser air vs less dense air, you'll go faster in less dense air. So when cruising at equivalent power setting in summer, I postulate your TAS is faster than in winter.

 

I think that logic holds true if you set your cruise power based on a % of total HP, regardless of altitude/RPM/etc.

 

When I set my cruise power, I just alter the RPM and lean out the mixture as appropriate.  I take whatever % HP I get at that point.  For a given altitude, my cruise A/S will be higher in the winter (cold air) than in the summer (hot air) using this method, because my motor is actually producing more HP at a given altitude. 

 

If you set the same %HP at a common pressure altitude, but there will probably be a KT or two difference between the two.  I don't know many NA pilots that set their cruise power based primarily on %HP alone (although you are most certainly altering it), that's more of a turbo management technique.  In the NA world, leaving the throttle full open and just dialing back the RPM seems to be a more widely used technique.

[PTK]

DP

[PTK]

?

[PTK]

As to John and Allsmiles question about Camguard testing by a third party official lab, who would pay for this expensive testing? If Camguard pays for it, then the results may be skewed, or influenced by their patronage and the results not trusted. 

 

In short, the tests you're hoping for will never happen and they're not out there. You either believe it or not.

 

...and personally, I don't believe it. I'd like to but, regretfully, I can't!

Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the SAE established certain requirements for lubricating oils containing ashless dispersant additives that are used in our piston engines? I'm referring to the SAE-J 1899, formerly MIL-L-22851. 

Would you even think of using an oil in your engine that didn't meet SAE specs? 

It is my opinion that it's incumbent upon the additive manufacturer to subject their product to the same SAE testing the oil is subjected to.

The additive manufacturer requesting my consideration to add their bottle contents into my engine oil, better be prepared and able to demonstrate that their stuff is on par with the oil. i.e. conform to the SAE requirements set forth. Also they have to show the same for the resulting concoction from whatever oil:additive ratio, once mixed.

 

I believe this is what Shell's Robert Midgley is referring to when he says "...they [additives] aren't tested to the same degree our base oils are. There can be interactions between additives and the base oil chemistry. For example, if you improve corrosion resistance with an additive, do you prevent the anti-wear additive from working or do you make the oil's load carrying capability worse? You don't know."

It's very simple really and not a matter of trust! It's a matter of science. Without standards, we simply don't know!

 

[Marauder]

As to John and Allsmiles question about Camguard testing by a third party official lab, who would pay for this expensive testing? If Camguard pays for it, then the results may be skewed, or influenced by their patronage and the results not trusted. In short, the tests you're hoping for will never happen and they're not out there. You either believe it or not. ...and personally, I don't believe it. I'd like to but, regretfully, I can't! Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the SAE established certain requirements for lubricating oils containing ashless dispersant additives that are used in our piston engines? I'm referring to the SAE-J 1899, formerly MIL-L-22851. Would you even think of using an oil in your engine that didn't meet SAE specs? It is my opinion that it's incumbent upon the additive manufacturer to subject their product to the same SAE testing the oil is subjected to. The additive manufacturer requesting my consideration to add their bottle contents into my engine oil, better be prepared and able to demonstrate that their stuff is on par with the oil. i.e. conform to the SAE requirements set forth. Also they have to show the same for the resulting concoction from whatever oil:additive ratio, once mixed. I believe this is what Shell's Robert Midgley is referring to when he says "...they [additives] aren't tested to the same degree our base oils are. There can be interactions between additives and the base oil chemistry. For example, if you improve corrosion resistance with an additive, do you prevent the anti-wear additive from working or do you make the oil's load carrying capability worse? You don't know." It's very simple really and not a matter of trust! It's a matter of science. Without standards, we simply don't know!

All industry testing for oils and oil additives can be tested against specific ASTM standards (stuff like lubricity, viscosity, etc.). These standards are used as the baseline for performance. If this is used as an additive and provides specific claims as to improved wear characteristics or protection, there are tests to prove that it performs better than standard SAE performance specs. This conversation reminds me of the one that always is ongoing for SCAR rating improvements for diesel fuel additives.

[sleepingsquirrel]

I put a half a bottle of Cam Guard in my M20B , It has reduced friction to the point that I can't get any heat from the exhaust heater muff to the cabin.

The law of unintended consequences, I'm freezin!

[DaV8or]

I put a half a bottle of Cam Guard in my M20B , It has reduced friction to the point that I can't get any heat from the exhaust heater muff to the cabin.

The law of unintended consequences, I'm freezin!

I thought squirrels had plenty of fur for the winter?

[DonMuncy]

Glad to see you back in fine form, Squirrel. I don't recall seeing anything from you lately.

[sleepingsquirrel]

My cylinder head temps are noticably lower as well, Last summer they were consistantly 380 degrees, now they are running 325 degrees. I'm sure it was the Camguard .  I'm saving the last half of the Camguard for next Summer,that way I won't have to buy one of those expensive cabin air conditioning units. ( I couldn't figure which emoticon to use)