The International Cessna^® 170 Association

OK, Sandy..it's your choice... but just to be sure you understood what was suggested.. that slow and easy can lead to an oil-burner due to rings that don't seal well....

Two points that I would like to clarify, when you read ECI's breaking instructions their major concern is over heating the new cylinders. They recommend a special cowling for first run on the ground, etc.

Their recommendation for oil is no "EP" (extreme pressure oils) during initial breaking. there is no difference between shell W100 and Phillips 20W50 as far as the lubrication qualities, neither is an EP oil, both are made of the same crude stocks. There only difference is one is a single weight oil and the other is a multi weight. The requirement for a single weight oil is an old wives tale, and has been proven to nor be true many many times.

Now my personal observations and recommendations.
1. The methods of manufacturing of todays cylinders is much different than what TCM used in 1940s when your 0-300 was developed. The cylinder barrel is a different alloy, the honing method is different, The cylinders we see coming to us today are honed with a very fine stone and we don't see the deep cross hatching scratches of yesterday. Thusly we do not require the long break in period we did prior to the change in design. The last several sets of cylinders I have installed have shown no high oil consumption during breaking or after, they will go to the first 25 hours on less than a qt. of oil. We no longer see the oil usage drop off that we used to.
2. BMEP.. AKA (internal cylinder pressures) Break Mean Effective Pressures is what causes the ring to expand against the cylinder wall at high power settings. In days of old we needed high pressures to seat the rings due to the use of cast iron rings and deep scratches in the cylinder walls. we no longer use either of these two items. (breaking in chrome cylinders is a different subject) We now use chrome rings, and a very smooth cylinder wall, and this set up breaks in almost immediately.

IMHO flying around at high power setting is a waste of gas. and presents a possibility of over heating the cylinders and removing the temper of the new rings. When the new cylinders are ground run properly, and you fly to pattern altitude your new cylinders are broke in and ready for normal usage.

I tell my customers to limit their power setting to no less than 2450 RPM in cruise, and lean to vibration then richen to smooth operation, and run it that way all the way to TBO.

T. C. Downey wrote:Two points that I would like to clarify, when you read ECI's breaking instructions their major concern is over heating the new cylinders. They recommend a special cowling for first run on the ground, etc. ....

I don't think Sandy is/was doing a "run-in" nor do most cylinder change-out operations in the field. Most of those operations involve a short run to check for leaks, then as quickly as possible, get airborne for the break-in flights.

T. C. Downey wrote:....... The requirement for a single weight oil is an old wives tale, and has been proven to nor be true many many times....

It is not an "old wives tale"....it is a personal choice based upon many decades of industry practice providing reliable results.
(The OWT phrase is often an attempt to disparage actions of others without providing supporting documentation. It is not appropriate in this instance.)

I used it (the SAE 50-wt oil) in this latest instance of my cylinder change because I had only five hours earlier performed an ordinary oil-and-filter change using it and I didn't want to discard what I viewed as perfectly useable, fresh, low-time oil.
I do not live "up Nawth" where I must deal with many cold-starts and pre-heating considerations, and don't like the additional oil leaks for which multigrade oil is well-known, nor do I wish to use a "semi-synthetic" such as AeroShell's multiweight. My choice of AeroShell vs Phillips is a Ford vs Chevy argument. IF I used Phillips I'd still use a straight-wt oil (but it'd be hard to find, therefore I use AeroShell because it's readily available and more affordable.)
All the cylinder and engine mfr's allow the unrestricted use of straight-wt oils during break-in, as well as ordinary operations, and it still does a fine job in every situation where extremely cold conditions are not encountered.

T. C. Downey wrote:...Now my personal observations and recommendations.
1. The methods of manufacturing of todays cylinders is much different than what TCM used in 1940s when your 0-300 was developed. The cylinder barrel is a different alloy, the honing method is different, The cylinders we see coming to us today are honed with a very fine stone and we don't see the deep cross hatching scratches of yesterday. Thusly we do not require the long break in period we did prior to the change in design. The last several sets of cylinders I have installed have shown no high oil consumption during breaking or after, they will go to the first 25 hours on less than a qt. of oil. We no longer see the oil usage drop off that we used to.
2. BMEP.. AKA (internal cylinder pressures) Break Mean Effective Pressures is what causes the ring to expand against the cylinder wall at high power settings. In days of old we needed high pressures to seat the rings due to the use of cast iron rings and deep scratches in the cylinder walls. we no longer use either of these two items. (breaking in chrome cylinders is a different subject) We now use chrome rings, and a very smooth cylinder wall, and this set up breaks in almost immediately....

These comments are certainly valid, in my opinon. The only point I'd make is they are not chronologically documented. Let me do so (and I speak from the experience of assembling many of those engines at a CRS that allowed the customer to choose between new-process cyls and "overhauled" surplus ones when the NOS stocks dried up.):
Fine honing in modern cylinder processes began in the early 1970's when stocks of WW-2 cylinders began to dry up. WW-2 cylinder production was performed at a furious pace and operators of large radials were the post-war consumers of those old stocks. Small, horizontally-opposed engines rapidly adopted better methods which were well established by 1972, and chrome rings were used since that time frame to accomodate that change. (Although one had to be careful because some suppliers, notably Fresno Air Parts, kept huge stocks of obsolete NOS parts such as cast iron rings and non-Stellite valves, which some frugal operators relished, and from whom those obolete parts could be obtained and used inappropriately in new process cylinders.)

My point is, the break-in recommendations widely accepted have not significantly changed in the last several decades except for the relatively recent acceptance of multiweight oils in the process.... and the fact that break-in periods dropped from the previously known 20-30 hour periods, to the current 2-5 hour periods. Otherwise, the time-proven methods and techniques have not changed in recent times.

T. C. Downey wrote:...IMHO flying around at high power setting is a waste of gas. and presents a possibility of over heating the cylinders and removing the temper of the new rings. ....

So-called "high" power settings can only be accomplished in larger "altitude" engines some of which are also geared and turbocharged....not these little Continentals and Lycomings, which likely need to be run at their highest possible settings in order to achieve high forward speed for cooling.
This may be more a discussion of semantics than an actual difference of view-point.

T. C. Downey wrote:...When the new cylinders are ground run properly, and you fly to pattern altitude your new cylinders are broke in and ready for normal usage....

Tom, I beg to differ. If that were true....then please explain why so many owners are still experiencing high temps and high oil consumption 2, 3, or 5 and more hours later? It's a simple answer...those cylinders have not yet been properly broken in.

T. C. Downey wrote:...I tell my customers to limit their power setting to no less than 2450 RPM in cruise, and lean to vibration then richen to smooth operation, and run it that way all the way to TBO.

[/quote]

No less than 2450 ...IS a "high" power setting in a C-145/O-300 at "pattern" altitudes!

(It is possible, and even likely, that Tom has more customers in the Pacific NW that use props of lower pitch and capable of higher RPMS than the "stock" ones used elsewhere in the lower-48. I think you are correct to advise those with ridiculously-low pitch props to avoid excessive RPM in new engines.)

We therefore may not actually disagree all that much, except for the inference that you seem to imply a new set of cylinders should somehow be babied and flown slowly. I think that is a real no-no, and I don't think I'm alone in that opinion.

I have a couple of factual experiences relating to breaking in our O-300 type engines. A very good friend of mine had his O-300 overhauled by his IA nephew. I don't recall the mfg of his cylinders at this time. He, being a conservative pilot, didn't want to jeopardize his expensive overhaul, babied the engine for the first 25 hours resulting in high oil consumption. He glazed the cylinders. The cylinders were removed, honed, reinstalled with new rings and the break in done at much higher rpms. Result---oil consumption went down dramatically.

I reached a time with my O-300B that it had to have an overhaul. I purchased 6 new ECI steel cylinders. Upon break in time my IA went with me for the initial flight. He told me to do a quick mag check and off we went at full power until we were at about 3000 msl (2300 agl) He had me run it at full rpm and at that point it would not reach red line (2700) rpm. After about 15-20 minutes he pointed to the oil temp gauge and showed me how much the temp had come down. At that point he said lets go back to the airport. His instructions going forward was to run the engine pretty much at full throttle for the remaining time prior to an oil change and checking the oil screens (this was prior to installation of the F&M oil filter adapter). I did so and my oil consumption has for the past 900 hours been very low.

I have known of others who experienced both scenarios. I have had one cylinder off in that 900 hours for an exhaust seat replacement and I broke it in as mentioned above. Therefore I am of the opinion that operating at high power in our type engines is the way to go.

I used 20w-50 Phillips for my break in which was limited idle time, took off and flew around at 2400 rpm. Nothing stupid, nothing exotic. Last trip to the convention ( engine has somewhere around 600 smoh) in 50 flt hours it used 2 qts. I think most of that usage is due to a oil leak somewhere on my accy case.
I did take a cylinder off to check a valve, didn't re- ring it or re-hone it either, just stuffed it back on. After 20 hours the plugs returned to Normal color. I got to think materials and oils have improved.

gahorn wrote:(It is possible, and even likely, that Tom has more customers in the Pacific NW that use props of lower pitch and capable of higher RPMS than the "stock" ones used elsewhere in the lower-48.

Nope GA, nothing but standard prop settings, I have one customer who tows banners with a 172 / 0-300-D climb prop and runs it WOT and leaned to best power, he is coming up on 2600 TTSN on his cylinders and none have been off for re-work.

But I'm just an old mech, so what do I know. I only build 5-6 of these 0-200/0-300 per year.

I'm not rich enough to do stuff twice, I have to do it right the first time.

GA,
explain the difference between W100 and 20W50 oils.

Every one else read "oil talk for dummies" on the ECI web page

T. C. Downey wrote:[...GA,
explain the difference between W100 and 20W50 oils.

Every one else read "oil talk for dummies" on the ECI web page

Are you insinuating that every one else are dummies? or are you simply trying to bait me into a game of "stump the chump"?

I ain't goin' there. If you have something specific to say..then say it please.

The ECI website article to which you refer already says the same thingwhat I've already said:

Oil Viscosity
Points made are well taken on both sides of the issue of whether to use single or
multi‐grade oils. In the final analysis, you know that your aircraft is subjected to
extreme temperature variations and starting conditions. Many aircraft fly
frequently. Many aircraft don't fly enough. Successes (and lack of) suggest there is
simply not one viscosity that is always the best for all flight environments. RAM sees
the following:
• Multi‐Viscosity Mineral Based (AD) oil is working well in higher usage airplanes.
• Single Viscosity Mineral Based (AD) oil is working well in lesser‐flown aircraft

I choose the 100W for the reason I already stated...I don't fly that often.

gahorn wrote: Are you insinuating that every one else are dummies? or are you simply trying to bait me into a game of "stump the chump"?
I'd never do that with you George.

I ain't goin' there. If you have something specific to say..then say it please.
I asked to see if you really do believe there is a lubrication difference between the two oils.
The ECI website article to which you refer already says the same thingwhat I've already said:

Oil Viscosity
Points made are well taken on both sides of the issue of whether to use single or
multi‐grade oils. In the final analysis, you know that your aircraft is subjected to
extreme temperature variations and starting conditions. Many aircraft fly
frequently. Many aircraft don't fly enough. Successes (and lack of) suggest there is
simply not one viscosity that is always the best for all flight environments. RAM sees
the following:
• Multi‐Viscosity Mineral Based (AD) oil is working well in higher usage airplanes.
• Single Viscosity Mineral Based (AD) oil is working well in lesser‐flown aircraft

I choose the 100W for the reason I already stated...I don't fly that often.

Sorry,, some times you point gets lost in the long oratory.

OBTW if you are using the W100 for corrosion protection, you are using the wrong oil.

T. C. Downey wrote:....Sorry,, some times you point gets lost in the long oratory. .

W H A T !! ?? !! You don't read and hang onto my EVERY WORD !! ?? !! I'm smushed! Absolutely smushed!

T. C. Downey wrote:....OBTW if you are using the W100 for corrosion protection, you are using the wrong oil.

Seriously, tho'....there you go again, Tom....throwing out a kernel....with no clue what you really mean by it.
But if you wish to open a new thread purely for cussing/dis-cussing various oils....then please do.

But be made aware....the person who started this thread (Sandy) is married to an oil/lubrication/chemist type. I'd be willing to bet she has excellent guidance on the subject.

Dang no one wants to have at me for my posts, I guess everyone knows which oil I might like like Phillips xc20w-50. Seems Exxon elite is overtaking my fav. Engines operating on it seem to have very little corrosion at tear down . Just saying

gahorn wrote:

T. C. Downey wrote:....OBTW if you are using the W100 for corrosion protection, you are using the wrong oil.

Seriously, tho'....there you go again, Tom....throwing out a kernel....with no clue what you really mean by it..

Seriously,, w100 and Phillips 20W50 aren't the best for corrosion protection. If that is why you are using it. In the quote above that is what I read less used engine use W-100 to me that corrosion protection, but if you use it because of better start up lubrication, it ain't the best at that either.

If there are oil experts on here I'd love to enter into a discussion on oils.

So, Tom...what is your preference for corrosion protection? (Mine is to fly the airplane as often as I can using AS100W with no additives ...admittedly only about once a month....and to plug the exhaust, intake, and keep it stored in a dry hangar... no indication of rust when I "boroscoped" them after 12 years of that.)
I don't like the "plus" oils because I don't want EP additives in with my "yellow" metals.

My ECI Titan nickel carbide cylinders broke in practically immediately, by following ECI's recommendations (other than the run in with the "special cowling"). ECI designed and built the cylinders, they know the materials and processes used, and they warranty them, so who would know better about breaking in THEIR cylinders than THEM? I've used Phillips 20W50 since day one, and on the first flight I ran full throttle at about 6000 ft (I live at 4000, so that's about as low as I felt comfortable orbiting the airport without interfering with other traffic.There wasn't really a whole lot of breakin to do, as all six leak checked in the mid 70's before they ever fired the first time. After "break in", five cyllinders read 80/80, and the other one read 79/80. I do have a few minor leaks that I haven't bothered to chase down, and I''ve only had to add one quart/10 hours pretty much like clockwork. I've let the airplane sit for as long a 13 months and always have had leak checks in the mid to high 70's.

gahorn wrote:So, Tom...what is your preference for corrosion protection? (Mine is to fly the airplane as often as I can using AS100W with no additives ...admittedly only about once a month....and to plug the exhaust, intake, and keep it stored in a dry hangar... no indication of rust when I "boroscoped" them after 12 years of that.)
I don't like the "plus" oils because I don't want EP additives in with my "yellow" metals.

My preference ???? Exon Elite for engine that do not run for long periods. I used a C-150/0-200 for the maintenance of it for well over ten years, that 0-200 got less than 10 hours per year placed on it, we ran Exon Elite with no problems.

I, like you, believe that the EP oils like Exon Elite are over dosing for engines that are flown regularly. the 0-200/0-300 were designed to run pure sweet crude, simple ashless oil, no "D" or "W" additives, That said, we have had corrosion problems with these oil in our history.

Next subject, How many parts in the 0-200/0-300 are "Yellow" metals?

I believe your success with W 100 is more due to your weather area than the oil, Last I was there it was drier than popcorn.

No actual "brass" comes to mind...I used it as all encompassing for anything containing copper, brass, bronze, etc. like some conn rod bushings, valve guides, rocker bushings, etc. I don't recall exactly which article but it was one of the Belvoir pubs which documented the loss of material due to leaching (copper) when Elite and AS plus oils were used in stored engines.

Yes, Texas is not one of the most corrosive environs unless one means the Gulf Coast along Houston-Corpus.

One of the strongest cautions Cleo Bickford and Tom Hall offered me when I became Parts/MX guy was to avoid all attempts members tried to bring me into oil-wars. If you want to start an argument....drop by any WalMart oil-aisle and wait until someone shows up to buy oil and say out loud "Oh...not that! You should try SuperDuper123" (Past convention seminars ended up virtually in duels-to-the-death over favorite motor oil discussions.)

It's significant that none of the engine mfr's (other than ECI, who is a Phillips distributor) seem to have a preference as long as it's genuine aviation Mil-spec oil. Pick one and develop your own fave.