The International Cessna^® 170 Association

T. C. Downey wrote:

gahorn wrote:Then, in the interests of their engines having a good reputation for longevity, then why don't the engine mfr's recommend or insist upon snake oils? Why is it that they universally condemn it?
If it's so good for "all engines"...why don't the oil-refiners include it?

Snake oils ???? Lycoming sells snake oil to be used to bring non EP oils up to their requirements for their engines.

Show me where the big two engine manufacturers forbid using CamGuard.
Second the oil companies can't use a patented process until they buy it, and it is not for sale.

EP additives are a requirement for certain Lyc. engines, as we know, and some oils contain the stuff, but we rarely use Lycs..
But instead of proving a negative...I think it's more appropriate to show approval of the additive.... Where do engine mfr's approve the stuff? TCM SIL 99-2B lists the approved lubricants, sealants, and adhesives and Cam Guard is not listed.

gahorn wrote:EP additives are a requirement for certain Lyc. engines, as we know, and some oils contain the stuff, but we rarely use Lycs..
But instead of proving a negative...I think it's more appropriate to show approval of the additive.... Where do engine mfr's approve the stuff? TCM SIL 99-2B lists the approved lubricants, sealants, and adhesives and Cam Guard is not listed.

SIL99-2B Oils Adhesives.pdf

Was Camguard even around in 1999, when that SIL was written? According to this the TCM Service Center in Mobile, AL is a Camguard dealer. While that may not be an "approval" by TCM it does seem to be an endorsement on some level. Also lots of ringing endorsements by CPA members. On the other hand, at an IA renewal seminar Loren Lemen of Ly-Con (formerly a service engineering manager for TCM) does not recommend Camguard. He said that Ly-Con recommends the use of AvBlend for the first two oil changes. I have no dog in this fight -- never used either product.

I have to jump in here, I wish I could post the report, but unfortunaly its an internal company document, but when we (Lycoming) tested Camguard on our engines, the results were basically that we did not see a difference in an engine with Camguard compared to an engine running normal engine oil. This was over an accelerated test to simulate the life a 2000 hour TBO engine would see at 2000 hours.

So I guess it won't hurt anything but you might use that money to buy oil and do oil changes regularly...it's probably just as good or better for your engine.

-Jud

I wish I could post the report, but unfortunaly its an internal company document

Ah, come on. We won't tell anyone.

This was over an accelerated test to simulate the life a 2000 hour TBO engine would see at 2000 hours.

How does Lycoming simulate the effect corrosion has on typical engine which used 3-5 hours a month? Isn't it the sitting rather than the running that's bringing our engines to an early TBO?

n2582d wrote:[... According to this the TCM Service Center in Mobile, AL is a Camguard dealer. While that may not be an "approval" by TCM ....

TCM has never been reluctant to re-issue SIL's or Service Bulletins when they have new info to share...and if they could improve sales of one of their distributed products I'm sure their engineering dept would love to endorse the product if they could.

That link also provides claims by an individual that his use of the product improved his compressions....but clearly that is only andecdotal info. My own compressions were down last two years in a row (low 60's), but when I started flying more regularly, they suddenly improved dramatically back into the mid-70's. The only significant change I made (besides flying more regularly) was I switched from Beck's beer to Stella Artois, therefore if anyone truly wants to improve compressions quit drinking Budweiser in green bottles! (It's no longer imported...Becks is now made in STL.)

Gary,

We can't simulate the corrosion but we have 400 hour endurance tests that we run on our flight stands that provide the cycles a normal 2000 hour engine would see at the end of 400 hours.

We do see the same corrosion every airplane sees from sitting at weeks at a time. Our flight stands are open to the outside so they see the same humidity our airplanes do.

I must be missing something, but surely the best test is to throw a complete engine that has been run with camguard into a humidity cabinet, as well as a "control" engine without the stuff, and leave it for whatever time necessary. I know camguard was tested in this fasion using strips of metal dipped in different lubricants, but I'd like to see results using actual engines before I buy the stuff.

Jason wrote:I must be missing something, but surely the best test is to throw a complete engine that has been run with camguard into a humidity cabinet, as well as a "control" engine without the stuff, and leave it for whatever time necessary. I know camguard was tested in this fasion using strips of metal dipped in different lubricants, but I'd like to see results using actual engines before I buy the stuff.

The complete engine test is just a variant of the strips of metal test, but without the repeatability, materials traceability, or comparability to other substances similarly tested. And it's more expensive. Seriously, that's why there are industry standard tests. Before doing anything else you have to show the effectiveness of the substance in question in an objective test, then you can extrapolate those results to the problem you're trying to solve.

ASL Camguard claims that much engine wear begins with microscopic corrosion events that ultimately lead to worn cylinder walls, spalled lifters, etc., and that their product reduces the incidence of the initial corrosion. It appears to be effective at doing so, but beyond the strips of metal test the number of variables grows so rapidly there's no way to know whether any particular engine will benefit from using Camguard.

Good explanation Dave, thanks. I'm not a "snake oil" guy myself, but I do find camguard intriguing for sure.

Saw a big push for use at their booth and lots of people gathered around at OshKosh.

John

Jason wrote:Good explanation Dave, thanks. I'm not a "snake oil" guy myself, but I do find camguard intriguing for sure.

I agree. An ounce of engineering data is worth a pound of snake oil. Or something like that ...

bagarre wrote:.........But this is mostly a Lycoming problem since their cam is on top. Continental cams are below the crank and are the last thing to break dry......

Next time you have a cylinder off, peek into the crankcase. You will find that in a C-170, the camshaft in an O-300 is not completely immersed in oil....

I don't think anyone said the Continental 0-300 cam was submerged in oil. It is however found under the crank and the flow of oil draining from above has been said to keep it lubed and protected longer than the Lycoming cam which is at the top of the engine. Probably spitting hairs here in reality.

Aryana wrote: After 22 days, items with Exxon Elite began to show rust.

Can you imagine how effective Exxon Elite + Camguard would be?

Camgard is just another way to suck in desparate pilots who are convinced that the manufacturers don't have a clue about what their engines really need. It is also a way for A&P mechanics to make some extra money by sucking in their unknowing customers. Camgaurd, MMO, STP. Bardahl, etc., etc., etc.: They are all in the same family of sucker bait.
Find me a really BIG user of reciprocating engines, such as the railroads or BIG trucking lines, and see what they use.