The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I believe that every one that reads this web page should read "oil talk for dummys" this short note will remove all the wrong beliefs about oil.

First of all oil is one of three things, oil made from crude pumped from the ground, thus named "mineral oil" or it is "vegetable oil" castor bean oil being one we use, or a "synthetic". Mil-O-23699 is a turbin oil that is entirely man made.

For the most part we use the mineral oil in our engines. There are some who use a semi synthetic. but I won't discusss this here, because it is a mineral oil blend. kinda like scotch and water.

First you must understand that the lubrication qualities of mineral oil is the same for all mineral oils.

The additives are what confuses us, there are no additives in pure mineral oil so it is not a detergent oil, nor is it a EP oil, (extra pressure) nor is it an AD oil (Ashless Dispersant) it's just oil, graded by it's viscosity or weight. SAE 40 = AERO-80, SAE 50 = AERO-100.

Confused? see Oil Talk – Definitions at:

http://www.eci2fly.com/Tech_Ref/bi/BIOiltalk.htm

Remember oil is oil, until you add something. All aviation oils are of the ashless type, that's why they are aviation grade.

Now we add a "dispersant" this allows the oil to carry dirt, that is all it does, it does not change the lubrication qualities of the mineral oil. It stops the sludge build up in the oil sump by carrying that stuff to the oil filter.

DO NOT confuse a detergent with a dispersant.

There are NO aviation grade detergent oils. Detergent oils will actually desolve oil varnish, dislodge dirt, sludge and all that crap is pumped thru your engine oil system..NOT GOOD.

Some oils on the market have an agent called TCP added. See the link for the long name, I can't say it, let alone spell it.(Aero Shell 15W50 does) these oils are called EP oils (Extra Pressure), This DOES change the lubrication qualities of oil mineral oil.

Lycoming service bulletin require this to be added to aeroslime 15W50, see the Lycoming AD, the other oils on the market meet Lycomings lubrication requirements without it. read the can. (does that tell you anything?)


ANY "EP" OIL should never be used as a break in oil.. NEVER !! ANY oil that has TCP additive is an EP oil.

READ and understand the link I gave and go to
http://www.avweb.com
And read oil talk for dummys on thier maintenance section.


GA, I hope this clears the confusion.. the statement that ALL engines require mineral oil for breakin, is a true statement because that is what we use (unless you are on a blend) for all ocasions.

The statement that we can't use a AD oil for breakin is wrong. We can and should for engines having a filter.

Engines NOT equipped with a filter we should use a non dispersant oil. and allow the crap scrapped off the cylinder walls to fall out as fast as we can..

Lubrication has nothing to do with it..

I tried to be specific with regard to the "mineral" oil definition as it is commonly used. "Mineral oil" is the term used for decades throughout the industry to indicate a NON-additive oil of mineral origin, and that's what I also mean by that term.

I looked for the article you suggested Tom, but didn't have any success.
However,...I did find that AvWeb's Maintenance section did have an article on How To Break In an Engine.
( http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/184932-1.html )

In that article, the sidebar specifically states:

"Which Break-in Oil?
If there's anything approaching consensus on which oil is best to use during break-in, it's this: To obtain the ring-to-barrel contact needed, most naturally aspirated engines will require a non-detergent or straight mineral oil.
The thinking here is that mineral oil lacks the complete additive package found in the typical ashless dispersing oil so it allows better contact -- and a bit more friction -- between the rings and cylinder walls.

This, combined with the lower combustion temperatures of a rich mixture, will give the rings the time needed to seat without overheating and losing their heat treatment.

Continental says, in bulletin M87-12 rev. 1, that all their engines are to be broken in on mineral oil for the first 25 hours of operation. We recommend that on a normally aspirated engine, wait for the oil consumption to stabilize first and then change to the ashless dispersants.
It probably wouldn't hurt a turbocharged engine to start out on ashless -- as some overhaul shops do -- but if you have a Continental reman or new engine and want to keep the warranty in effect, it makes sense to follow the advice found in M87-12.

For its turbocharged power plants, Lycoming says never use non-detergent oil. Stick with the conventional ashless dispersant of your choice. In practice, either way has been shown to work well as long as temperatures are kept in line.

The biggest detriment to mineral oil in a turbocharged engine is the coking up of the turbocharger bearings when the engine is shutdown. This can happen fairly quickly if you keep the mineral oil in it much past the 25-hour mark, especially if you're running it hot. Ashless dispersant is more resistant to coking, although it's far from immune. An after-landing turbo cool down will help avoid coking problems."

I never noticed that artical before but if you look this quote it shows they confuse AD with detergent oil..

"Which Break-in Oil?
If there's anything approaching consensus on which oil is best to use during break-in, it's this: To obtain the ring-to-barrel contact needed, most naturally aspirated engines will require a NON -DETERGENT or straight mineral oil.

Caps by me.

When you realize that oil is oil, and the lubrication is the same in all mineral oils until you add TCP, Then and only then will you realize that break in issues are not lubrication, but the ability to carry away harmful contaminates, and where you want them to endup.

We as mechanics and owners/users must use the proper nomenclature of each product, in order to eliminate old wives tale about aviation.

We have heard these terms misused so many times we forget the real meaning, and thus add to the issues we face, owners using the wrong product to break in a new cylinder is a direct result of the owner following advice of a good old boy using the wrong term for the product needed.

You, with the respect given to the web page guru, should be the first person to give correct info. using the correct nomenclature of products, additives, and usage.

The fact remains the only difference between a streight mineral oil as you call it and a AD oil as I call it, is the ability to carry the dirt away to the filter.

Where do you want the dirt to end up, in the sump? if you don't have a filter, or in the filter if you do?

Your engine, your money, your choice.

Tom Downey wrote:I never noticed that artical before but if you look this quote it shows they confuse AD with detergent oil..

"Which Break-in Oil?
If there's anything approaching consensus on which oil is best to use during break-in, it's this: To obtain the ring-to-barrel contact needed, most naturally aspirated engines will require a NON -DETERGENT or straight mineral oil.

Caps by me.

When you realize that oil is oil, and the lubrication is the same in all mineral oils until you add TCP, Then and only then will you realize that break in issues are not lubrication, but the ability to carry away harmful contaminates, and where you want them to endup.

Perhaps without realizing it, Tom, it is you that has made an assumption in order to criticize their choice of words. There is nothing in that sentence to indicate they don't know what AD oil is, other than an assumption that the reader must make. What's interesting about that assumption is: It requires the reader to know the common useage of "mineral" and "detergent" as it applies to aviation oils...before you can criticize their choice of words! (I think your assumption makes my point for me, Tom, but I'll restate it.)
It's a matter of common useage. That's all there is to it. There's no intent to mislead. If you go to the oil store or any other retail/wholesale outlet of aviation oils, and ask for "non AD" oil you'll get ..... a blank stare. (By the way, the common useage of the term should be no more confusing than your own phrase "oil is oil". If that were a correct statement then there'd be no discussion of mineral, AD, or synthetic, or semi-syn, at all!)
If you ask for "mineral" oil, you'll get AeroShell/Phillips/Other non-AD oil (unless it's a kid who has his first job and he's been on the job less than 6 mos., in which he'll ask, "Huh?",...and you can then educate him.)
"Non-detergent" is an automotive term that has made it's way into describing aviation oils ever since they came out. Ashless Dispersant (AD) oils is a newer term only coming into use since Shell so successfully first produced it as a replacement for the early aviation detergent oils which had development problems. (Detergents were "additives" and additive oils became colloquially grouped.) Since it was intended to be an aviation alternative to detergent oils, it has been called "detergent" oil incorrectly ever since. But English is a living language as opposed to Latin, and so the meaning of terms do change. It may seem queer, but nontheless it's true.
"Mineral oil" is a phrase commonly used to mean non AD aviation oil. It's an accurate term because it's quite specific. What's in the bottle is "mineral" and that's all that's in the bottle. I doubt anyone was confused about what I meant, and neither the engine mfr's nor the oil refiners get confused over the street-term either.
Regardless of the useage of scientifically correct terminology or not,.... the best oil to break in a new engine according to the article, and according to generally accepted practices is non-detergent, non-AD, mineral oil.

As soon as I have AvWeb, or George Horn, overhaul an engine for me I'll follow their recommendations to the letter on the break-in. If I have Tom Downey overhaul one, as he's been known to do, I'll follow his recommendations. Since I had another OH'er do mine, using ECI cyl's, I followed his recommendations-- which amazingly enough happened to also be ECI's. And it broke in just fine.
Semantics aside, we all know what someone means when they say "mineral oil". Maybe that was the only way to break in an engine back in the old days, from whence George's "generally accepted practices" (AKA old wives tales) come from, but oil technology AND manufacturing technology AND "generally accepted practices" have come a long ways since then. If ECI, Phillips, AND my OH shop say that using XC20-50 for break-in is a good thing, I think I'm gonna go with it. Who am I to ignore the mfr's recommendations? George, you & Mister A V Web can do whatever you want with your new engines-- that's what America's all about. But if you have problems, remember that you ignored the mfr's recommendations before you go looking for them to make it right.
My 2 cents worth.

Eric

Well put, Eric. I'll take the advice of whoever will have to make good if problems arise.


As far as interpretation of posts on this forum:

"5. Opinions expressed here are those of the person making the post. Use any/all information obatained here at your own risk. TIC170A is not responsible for data or messages posted at the forums. Responsibility for the use of such information is entirely your own. Participation in the forums constitute your acceptance and promise to abide by these rules."

Miles

I didn't suggest AvWeb is the final authority on oils or break in. Tom did. I only pointed out that their article contradicted his view.
New, modern oils are no different than the old standbys as far as purpose goes, mainly lubrication and cooling. The best modern oils are certainly better than the best "old" technology as far as additives go. Those additive oils are designed for the long haul operation of engines.....not the relatively short break-in operations.
This part of the conversation was about break in, and certainly whoever stipulates the oil to be used during break-in is the person to listen to if you intend to have warranty coverage performed by them. (To the best of my knowlege, NONE of them prohibit non-AD mineral oil for break-in, most of them prefer it, and some of them require it.)
Caveat emptor. (Don't blame me if it burns oil.)

GA says
"I didn't suggest AvWeb is the final authority on oils or break in. Tom did."

I suggested that your readers read an article, now I get credit for making AVWEB the Final authority?

Thanks, GA I didn't know I had the power.

I believe that you cut your readers short. In thier ability to read a post, go to a web page, read and learn.

I also know that oil usage, is a personal choice, and as dear to many folks as the whiskey they drink.

But please, do not stop learning, because you need to know what you are putting in your aircraft and what it should be called.

When you learn the proper names and diffinations and what they actually do you'll undersatnd what should be in your engine.

runem if you gotem..

Tom D. A&P-IA

Tom Downey wrote:GA says
"I didn't suggest AvWeb is the final authority on oils or break in. Tom did."

I suggested that your readers read an article, now I get credit for making AVWEB the Final authority?

Thanks, GA I didn't know I had the power.

I believe that you cut your readers short. In thier ability to read a post, go to a web page, read and learn.

I also know that oil usage, is a personal choice, and as dear to many folks as the whiskey they drink.

But please, do not stop learning, because you need to know what you are putting in your aircraft and what it should be called.

When you learn the proper names and diffinations and what they actually do you'll undersatnd what should be in your engine.

runem if you gotem..

Tom D. A&P-IA

It's always dangerous to post msgs in the same stye language we use so casually when speaking. I apologize for putting in print what spoken might have passed as a casual remark. (Perhaps I should have said, "It wasn't me who referred us to AvWeb for an oil education.") A slight disagreement becomes elevated to a contest when another party chimes in with an equally-opined yet equally-casual, desultory remark.
Tom, I haven't cut anybody short. Everyone's comments are here to read, and as regards giving someone else the power, I certainly never realized you'd given me the power to prevent other computers from visiting other websites.
I also don't believe that I've said anything against learning, wherever that may be available. If I were predisposed to prevent anyone's learning, I'd never have agreed to do what I do.
You're certainly correct with regard to how some folks feel about their oil. There are some subjects which involve a lot of faith. Those subjects are potential hot-beds when placed in public discussion. Things like oil. And AVgas/MOgas, religion, politics, blondes,...
I'm not trying to shove my opinion about mineral oil down anyone's throat, because I don't expect to suffer the consequences of failing to use it during breakin. (That was a joke!)

gahorn wrote:..............................................................
I'm not trying to shove my opinion about mineral oil down anyone's throat, because I don't expect to suffer the consequences of failing to use it during breakin. (That was a joke!)

Joke or not, that's a good way to get in a final dig at the opposing opinion (aka the last word). How about saying " the consequences of USING IT during break-in" when it is not the recommended break-in oil?
Kinda reminds me of the old line about "so, are you still beating your wife?"-- no good way to answer that one with a simple yes or no.....
Glad we can all agree to disagree.

Eric

My engine log has a sticker placed on the second page that reads,

___CAUTION___


DO NOT USE DETERGENT OIL IN THIS ENGINE


The use of detergent oil in this engine
will automatically void all warranties
pertaining to oil consumption.


It was overhauled by T.W Smith Aircraft, which is a highly respected rebuilder.
On a side note, it ran 900 hrs. before it was topped, then at 1100 hrs the engine was changed from Aeroshell W100 to Phillips 20w-50 for the next three oil changes. After this change, three cylinders had to be removed for low compression, one of them twice. Subsequently it has ran six years since that time with Aeroshell W100 and no more problems with low compression. Also the logs show, filled with 8 qts. mineral oil after each cylinder change. It now has 1400 hrs.

I want to thank each person for their input to my situation.

Here is my plan:

I removed all 6 cylinders and they are at G&N for rehatch and new contential rings.

I am starting all over again at 40 SMOH.

I will run the engine at higher RPM's than before, I will do my best to keep the engine cool and I will again use Mineral oil as break-in oil. Changing at 25 hrs and after oil consumption stabilizes.

It may not be the best plan but one that my IA recommends.

Thanks again for your thoughts.
Dave

.[/quote]I disagree, Tom. While there are engine mfr's who state that non AD mineral oil is not required for break in,... the best way to break in an engine is to use exactly that: non-AD mineral oil. .[/quote]

When you realize that the "A" in the AD means the oil will burn with out making a metalic ash,("A"shless) and all aviation oils are required to be "A", and the "D" in the AD means it has a despersant not a detergent, and a dispersant is not a lubricant.

When you read the diffinations you will realize that there is but 1 difference between what you consider a Non AD and an AD

that is the ability to carry particals.



.[/quote]
Non.AD mineral oil is the old-standby for break in because it allows rapid wear/matching up of rings to cylinder walls..[/quote]

That my friend is the old wives tale, A dispersant does nothing to add lubrication qualities.

.[/quote]
If that mating surface is not achieved early in the engine's operation, then when the cylinder walls take on their inevitable "glaze", then the opportunity is lost and you're left with an oil burner and/or re-attempt, usually by partial disassembly, re-honing, and new rings..[/quote]

I have always agreed with this. But the "D" does nothing to stop this, it only determins where the particals comming off the cylinder wals go, "D" they go to the filter, NO "D" they drop out in the oil sump.

.[/quote]
The reason it's "best" in my opinion is because 1- it does not contain any anti-wear additives and allows rapid wear to occur thereby quickly seating rings/cylinders and .[/quote]

Here again you repeat the od wives tale that the "D" changes the lubrication qualities of the oil, it does not IAW any oil company literature. as quoted at the ECI web page.

.[/quote]
2- it does not promote the re-circulation of break-in particulates during break-in. Filters do not remove all harmful break-in particulates.
.[/quote]

I think this is our major difference, I believe aircraft quality filters will remove the grit and metal particals large enough to harm your new engine. Believing other wise, they would allow harmful particals to ruin an older engine as well.

.[/quote]
In fact, the most common filters are only partially successful in catching particulate smaller than 40 microns, and they allow most particles smaller than that to continue to circulate, just exactly like an oil-screen-only engine does. (Filters are good at catching/holding dirt, but not break in particulates. Don't believe? Then take a look at any filter that's been used in conjunction with magnets, after it's been cut open.)

With your theory the particals smaller that 40 microns(your number) are floating around in every filtered engine in service, why aren't they failing?

.[/quote]
If I agreed with your theory, Tom, then I'd have to wonder why so many round engine guys then switch to AD oils after break in. Don't they realize they're about to pick up all those particles and send them thru their new engine? .[/quote]

With that statement you confuse a "detergent" oil with a "dispersant" oil there are NO AVIATION DETERGENT OILS, "D" does not mean detergent, It means DISPERSANT there is a huge difference.

A detergent oil will do what you say, it will desolve varnishes, sludge, and pick up all the lead in your sump and run it thru the engine. That is why there is no aviation detergent oils.

A dispersant oil will not desolve varneshes, or pick up any thing that is not already in suspension. Once it has dropped out, it stays out..

.[/quote]
(Anyway, while the new engine is being broken in, and while that non-AD oil is being furiously stirred by all the thrashing parts,... all the particulates are being kept in suspension and they are being circulated thru that engine as it breaks in....just like AD oil would. .[/quote]

Out of 8qt of oil in your engine only 2qts at most are in circulation, the others are setting in the sump well below any machinery being cooled, and dropping thier particulate contamination.

.[/quote]
AD oil only keeps the stuff suspended for longer periods between engine runs. (And the stuff the AD was intended for is primarily lead from the fuel anyway....not metal shavings.) .[/quote]

Here again you make the mistake between detergent and a despersant

.[/quote]
The likely reason the Phillips 20W50 oil makes a successful break-in oil is because it's. base is a thin SAE20 wt oil which, in a new engine, will not be as successful in keeping unpolished rings off of unpolished cylinder walls and therefore will allow breakin to occur. .[/quote]

If you belive that theory why doesn't Aeroshell 15W50 make a better break in oil?

Answer, because aeroshell 15W is a EP oil with TCP, making it a extra Pressure oil, Phillips 20W50 is not a fortified EP oil. it can be used in any engine for breakin. simply because it is a mineral oil with a despersant

AD ashless despersant.. NOT a antiwear additive.

read the diffinations at

http://www.eci2fly.com/

.[/quote]
But it isn't the best viscosity for other new parts such as gears, bearings, etc. (BTW, Phillips also markets a multigrade mineral break-in oil as well, designates with a capital "M" in the grade nomenclature.)
.[/quote]

That is a sales gimic for those who believe the old wives tales.

.[/quote]
Most engine rebuilders I know still insist on non AD mineral oil for break-in, despite the approval of other oils by the mfr's. They do it for a reason: It's more dependable as a break in oil. Just my opinion, too.[/quote]

That is fast changing ECI and Superior are the first to put out the real world oil diffinations, and what they really do..

The information age I love it..

Sorry it took so long to get back, (putter problems)

zero.one.victor wrote:[ Kinda reminds me of the old line about "so, are you still beating your wife?"-- no good way to answer that one with a simple yes or no.....
Glad we can all agree to disagree.

Eric

What I want to know is, how did you know?

Have you been seeing my wife?

I have read the references you made, Tom. I am not convinced, for several reasons, (including the fact that anti-wear additives are also frequently put in AD oils) but not because I haven't read the references you mentioned and not because I don't understand the meaning of "mineral" or AD, or additive. I understand those things. (Please don't go back into "detergent" oils or any of that. We all commonly use the term "mineral oil" in popular reference to non-AD oil in aviation circles.
Phillips petroleum also knows this. Otherwise, they'd have no reason to designate their own break-in oil with an "M", ....Yes, Phillips makes a seperate oil JUST for break-in. (Hmmmn.)
Check out: http://www.ramaircraft.com/Maintenance- ... ations.htm where it states: "RAM recommends a non dispersant Mineral Oil during the initial twenty-five hour break-in period of an aircraft piston engine, or replacement cylinder. Break-in procedures should be followed whether replacing one cylinder or six, and that includes using a Multi-Viscosity Mineral Oil such as SAE 20W-50 Phillips Type-M.
Exxon-Mobil agrees. "ExxonMobil Introduces Aviation Oil For Breaking In Aircraft Piston Engines
All-Season, All-Weather Exxon Aviation Oil 20W-50 is Intended for Use Prior to Switching to Exxon Elite"

In their news release: "FAIRFAX, Virginia, February 14, 2005 – ExxonMobil Aviation Lubricants today announced the introduction of Exxon Aviation Oil 20W-50, a non-dispersant lubricant for the break-in of new or newly overhauled aircraft piston engines. The multi-grade oil can be used year-round, in high- and low-temperature climates, and was designed for use before switching to Exxon Aviation Oil Elite 20W-50 (Exxon Elite).

"Aviation engine builders and overhaul companies recommend or require a non-dispersant oil for break-in during an engine's first hours of use, but non-dispersant oils are generally available only in monograde formulations that perform best at a narrow temperature range," explains Ken Fritz, global marketing manager, ExxonMobil Aviation Lubricants. "In the past, this has meant that pilots often had to use a break-in oil that was too viscous for their operating environment."

The introduction of multi-grade Exxon Aviation Oil 20W-50 solves that problem by providing an all-season, all-weather oil for the break-in period."

So, if BP-Castrol, Exxon-Mobil, Phillips 66, etc. all make non-AD oil specifically for break-in, and if Lycoming and Continental both require it for break in (not to mention most engine rebuilders that do not have a marketing agreement with Phillips (who I suspect would like to reduce their inventory overhead and distribution problems) .... Does anybody remember when the oil companies told us that supplying 80/87 octane was simply not "cost effective" for distribution and that they'd all be supplying 100LL only? And that 100LL would be just fine for our 80/87 engines and that it'd be just as good for them as 80/87? And the valve problems associated with that marketing decision? Hmmmn.)
Even if they quit making non-AD oil entirely, I'd still find some automotive non-additive and use it for break-in before I'd use AD oil. (Haven't figured out why non-additive auto oil, if you can find any is any different than non-additive aviation oil, other than the distribution headache for refiners. Hmmmn.)
I remember back in high school at my first job down at Carl Uresti's Humble Station (Enco) that when customer's would pull in for a fill-up, that it was required for us to open the hood, check the radiator, battery, and windshield-washer bag (YES. It was a BAG!) for water...and we'd also have to check all the tire pressures and the oil level and wash the windshield (don't forget to inspect the wiper blades, radiator/oil/fuel-filler cap gaskets) ...the good ol' days... Anyway, when the oil was down a quart, we'd have to take the dipstick to the driver, show them the dipstick, and suggest a quart of oil. Part of the operation included describing the various oil products we had to offer. There was Humble (Enco) EXTRA (a detergent oil in a red/white/blue metal can with the highest price...about 50-cents a quart), Humble plain (a non-detergent in a blue/white can which sold for about 35-cents qt) and then there was "bulk" oil (a dark blue-bown syrup of unknown viscosity in a re-fillable glass mason-jar with a metal-funnel-top, which sold for about 20-cents. We would refill it each time from a large tank with a hand-operated rotary pump in the lubrication-bay.) It seems pretty odd now, some forty years later but it was a big decision-making time for many customers, many of whom chose the Humble plain, except those driving (not the Sunday car, but) old work cars or trucks which might smoke a little or even need minor body work. The latter frequently would choose the non-descript "bulk" oil, which usually needed topping off every fillup anyway.
None of that these days. Just yesterday I was in WalMart to hear a customer pull in for an oil change. He ordered some exotic full-synthetic oil and specified the "Xtra-Gard" spin on filter and told the attendant he wanted to see the empty oil bottles. While we were waiting in the customer-service lounge I asked him why he wanted to see the bottles, and he replied that he didn't trust them and wanted to make certain they only used the AmsOil ($7 qt) he'd ordered instead of some "offbrand". I asked him how often he changed his oil since he was using synthetic and he replied "3,000 miles". He then explained all he knew about oil, etc. (I was reminded of the article I'd just read about how Mobil 1 and other synthetics were good for 25K miles if the filter was changed every once in a while, and how it had been tested all the way to 100K and still met mfr warranty requirements as long as make-up quantities were added when the filter was changed. Clearly the msg was that synthetics, although expensive, were economically sound in auto engines primarily because of the extended oil-change schedules possible. This guy was throwing away the oil every 3K miles, not realizing he was tossing out the only reason to use synthetic oil.)
It was a good reminder just how opinionated people can get about a simple something like motor oil. (Not me, of course. But some people do.)
$7 per quart times 6 quarts times every 3K miles for the 3 years or so he'll likely own that new pickup adds up to quite a bit over a lifetime of new (or old) car ownership. What did he think he was getting for that expenditure? (Pretty hard to fathom for a guy like me who drives a 92 Jeep Cherokee still running strong with 270,000 miles with the oil changed only every 5,000 miles using WalMart SuperTech (88-cents per qt) and a SuperTech filter ($1.50 ea)
I can't help but say.....Hmmmn.
Anyway, ... I guess if the few cases that occur each year of engines that don't break in while using AD oil doesn't bother anyone... then ECI's arrangement with Phillips to push their oil shouldn't either. (I seem to recall that Phillips tried this several years ago also. They offered their oil as standard equipment in new Lyc. engines hoping to get some of the market from Shell. They supplied the oil free to the mfr for the exposure. It blew up in their faces when their oil became the focus of valve problems. They've never recovered the aviation market they lost. I'm guessing a new attempt is at least partly the reason of the big Phillips push by ECI.) Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with Phillips oil as far as I know. But to be fair, I use straight weight oil in my engine, and it's not Phillips.