The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I do realise by reading previous post that most don t believe in any kind of additives, I was just browsing trought abweb maintenance topics and also aviation consumer whith both seems to think that camgard oil additive does increase corrosion protection quite a bit by making the oil sticking to the metal much longer than without the additive, a good thing for those of us who don t fly regularly. Did anybody gave it a try ? I just bought a couple of can and I will see if it make a difference, my engine has 1600hrs smoh,and still running good. Does anybody know this product, never saw any comments on the forum yet...Tanks

By what do we guage "success" in this matter? Pour it in, fly a couple hours, and if the engine
doesn't fail, declare that the stuff is wonderful?
In other words, if a product that advertises in AvWeb and Aviation Consumer doesn't cause immediate failure.....it must be Wonder-Additive?
Heres a control group for you: In 1959 two guys flew one of these engines over two months without landing and without an oil change (almost a complete TBO period), and without the benefit of this product.
If you pour that stuff in, besides a lighter wallet, What's the Best that can happen?

All of my customers run it and none have valve or guide problems with the 0-200/300 and the 0-470.

two of the engines were using oil to excess 1 qt. in 5 hours, now they have reduced that to 1 qt. in 15 or less.

I call that success .

A couple hours ? no, more like a few years.

I wonder how many thousands of others, besides me and the thousands who never read this discussion, who have run their engines for years without valve problems or snake oils just like these things were designed?

Jean777,

How do we judge "success"? Well, one form of unbiased "success" would be an improvement in the wear metals in your oil analysis. The company doing the analysis has no vested interest in the outcome of the report. They report, you decide!

Our "control group" engine is actually the perfect example of an engine that is the LEAST likely to benefit from it's use. An engine that is run to TBO, or nearly so, continuously. Flying frequently is probably the single most beneficial thing anyone can do for their engine. Changing the oil frequently is probably a very close second. I've been involved in the tear down of several engines of some local Fish Spotters. They typically fly 1000-1100 hour a year and overhaul after the 3rd season, or 3000-3300 hours. Most show surprisingly little wear and are usually well within service limits. The key to their success in routinely taking engine well past TBO is flying daily during the 8-9 month season and change oil and filters religiously. To my knowledge, none of them use Camguard.

Having said that, if you fly infrequently, your plane sits idle for weeks on end, and/or the airplane is kept in a corrosive environment(near salt water), then many have reported improvement in their engines health and performance using Camguard.

My understanding of camguard and other such products is that the higher viscosity prevents the oil film from breaking off the cam during long periods of inactivity. So, if your plane is going to sit for months, you might want to consider something.

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.

The best way to make TBO is to fly the motor frequently. Having a motor run for a few hours every few weeks or months is what kills them.
Condensation builds, oil films separate, things start to rust a little...then we go fly for a few hours.

Flying every day or every week, the oil film never gets a chance to break and getting the engine to temperature dries up any condensation that might have collected. (your oil sump wont corrode either).

I don't know how this helps stuck valves...if it did I'm sure they'd market it as valveguard as well.

bagarre wrote: I don't know how this helps stuck valves...if it did I'm sure they'd market it as valveguard as well.

Actually there is a "Valve" package, along with a "seals" package, among other things included in CamGuard. Ed Kollin, the inventor, owns a 210 and is a member in The Cessna Pilot Association and has posted frequently on what was included and why Camguard was intended for ALL engines.

Does he have a "horsepower" package?

bagarre wrote:Does he have a "horsepower" package?

I hear that's next!

gahorn wrote:I wonder how many thousands of others, besides me and the thousands who never read this discussion, who have run their engines for years without valve problems or snake oils just like these things were designed?

How many thousands of others HAVE lost their engine prematurely to a spalled cam and lifers, done valve jobs, one after another, annual after annual!

If we all lived in the dry arid climate of the desert SW, we might feel differently! Here on the coast, with salt water spray literally hanging in the air, some need all the help they can get.

gahorn wrote:I wonder how many thousands of others, besides me and the thousands who never read this discussion, who have run their engines for years without valve problems or snake oils just like these things were designed?

You are the exception to the rule, most 0-200/300 engines never make it to TBO with out major cylinder problems.

Any thing that will help with that problem, I'm good with.

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?

Seems like independent tests show camguard to be beneficial for rust protection:
http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/ ... 849-1.html
And this article was written by the inventor of camguard, so read wtih caution:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myt ... 096-1.html

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.

WSHIII wrote:

bagarre wrote:Does he have a "horsepower" package?

I hear that's next!

It is a dual purpose package, it won't make more horse power, but it will make it longer.