Camguard oil addative????

B

bahama flier

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
143
Location
Deland, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
bahama flier
Anyone know about this additive, the adds say reduces oil burn?? Is it a good additive, or just aircraft oil?
 
I run this additive with Phillips 20/50 for corrosion protection "guarding" my cam lifters. Some say camguard is not necessary with oils such as Exxon Elite(it apparently already has anti corrosion additives).
 
I don't know that it will reduce oil consumption, but independent tests tell us that when added to aircraft engine oil, it provides better internal corrosion protection (especially the cam on a Lycoming engine, which is at the top of the case rather than at the bottom as on Continentals) for engines left to sit for more than a week to ten days between flights unless you use an oil with a more modern anti-corrosion package, such as Exxon Elite (which was developed by the same guy who later left ExxonMobil to start the company which makes CamGuard).

And it's probably the only aircraft engine oil additive that has any real value (other than the LW-16702 additive required for a few Lycoming engines and included in many aircraft engine oils such as Aeroshell W100+).
 
Ron....it keeps the ring groves cleaner....and prevents them from sticking, which causes blow by and oil consumption.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have yet to see that confirmed by independent testing, but if you can point to some published results, I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...
I have....on two engines (one Lycoming 0-540 and one CMI IO-520). It usually takes two oil changes to notice a difference.
 
I used it with the Philips oil,never had a problem,seemed to work well for me.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd love to see your published results, including the control group, even though that's an awfully small sample size.
Click to expand...
I'd never just give that to ya.....:goofy:...so, you'll have to just try it and see. :D
 
Camguard's website provides lab test results for corrosion, wear, and deposit formation. It has benefits in all categories. The corrosion tests include use with Phillips X/C, Exxon Elite, Aeroshell 15-50, and Aeroshell 100. Review them for yourself and make your own decision.

I've never seen claims of reduced oil consumption and I believe the FAQs address that.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Camguard's website provides lab test results for corrosion, wear, and deposit formation. It has benefits in all categories. The corrosion tests include use with Phillips X/C, Exxon Elite, Aeroshell 15-50, and Aeroshell 100. Review them for yourself and make your own decision.
Click to expand...
Those are CamGuard's tests, not independent. Suggest checking Aviation Consumer for independent test results, which show positive results for most oils, but no significant advantage to adding CamGuard to Exxon Elite.
 
Ron....you probably should keep using Exxon Elite.

You'll be getting about 65% of the benefits of CamGuard.....since the nice folks there didn't want Ed's complete package for their blend.


btw...here's one of my aircraft that went thru the CamGuard cleaning process....ya, it's one aircraft, with many samples....no controlled study with a significant sample size, with a confidence interval....yada yada yada....but, there are dozens and dozens of stories just like this one. It's not unique or a fluke. And my current aircraft is undergoing the same treatment...with similar results. :rolleyes:

the data circled in red are samples with no CamGuard....

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Those are CamGuard's tests, not independent. Suggest checking Aviation Consumer for independent test results, which show positive results for most oils, but no significant advantage to adding CamGuard to Exxon Elite.
Click to expand...

It's common practice for a manufacturer to commission test labs to conduct tests to industry standards such as ASTM. To say that those are Camguard's tests and imply they're skewed is naive. If you have evidence of falsified test reports you should step up with evidence, as you're so vocal to call others out on. Otherwise the standard assumption is the test lab ran the tests according to the listed standard protocol.

Here's a link that includes one of the independent test lab reports on corrosion. SS 20-50 is Exxon Elite, SS 15-50 is Aeroshell, 20-50 is Phillips X/C, and 100W is Aeroshell. At least that's what I was told a few years ago when I asked. Pretty impressive improvements. One needs to compare the cost of each oil w/Camguard's and the test results. It explains why so many use Phillips X/C w/ Camguard. Great protection for about the same cost as non-treated semi synthetics. And most recognize other benefits of a mineral oil over semi-synthetics, like decreased oil consumption.

http://aslcamguard.com/products/aviation

Click on the tech data tab for a menu of test reports.
 
Last edited:
OP...

Do a search for "camguard" here and I'm confident you'll fine dozens of threads containing hundreds, if not thousands, of post for your reading pleasure.

All I'll say is, yes, my engine has Camguard in it.
 
Ron Levy said:
And it's probably the only aircraft engine oil additive that has any real value (other than the LW-16702 additive required for a few Lycoming engines and included in many aircraft engine oils such as Aeroshell W100+).
Click to expand...

better read that AD again, corrosion protection is not what the additive LW-16702 is for.
 
I had not heard the claim for lower oil consumption, but I use it with Phillips 20/50 oil. I consider it a sleep aid. I used to worry about my camshaft rotting because I don't fly everyday, or even every other day. I am a typical GA owner and fly like 3-4 times a month. With Camgaurd I can tell myself that I have done all I can and go back to sleep.

It may be snake oil, but every oil change brings a sigh of relief and so I continue...
 
Ron Levy said:
Those are CamGuard's tests, not independent. Suggest checking Aviation Consumer for independent test results, which show positive results for most oils, but no significant advantage to adding CamGuard to Exxon Elite.
Click to expand...

There was a test on backcountrypilot or the supercub forum, camguard worked well.

Here's another test.

camguard_humidity_cabinet_test.gif

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html



Camguard is really for engines that may sit, for a busy flight school or working plane I wouldn't bother, but for most GA guys, it's worth it.

There are times my plane may sit for nearly a month, especially in winter time where it's often IFR, which is not a problem, with the freezing level right on the deck, bad combo for a non FIKI plane, especially one with floats.

I use camguard and 20w/50 in my IO-520D, I change the oil and filter every 30hrs, it's about the cheapest maintance you'll ever do.
 
Last edited:
I started using it a year or so ago. Probably too late to make much difference in my engine, but I figured it couldn't hurt. It adds $25 to an oil change, but it seems to have some research behind it. I haven't noticed any change in my oil burn, but I do it primarily for the corrosion protection.
 
Dav8or said:
I had not heard the claim for lower oil consumption, but I use it with Phillips 20/50 oil. I consider it a sleep aid. I used to worry about my camshaft rotting because I don't fly everyday, or even every other day. I am a typical GA owner and fly like 3-4 times a month. With Camgaurd I can tell myself that I have done all I can and go back to sleep.

It may be snake oil, but every oil change brings a sigh of relief and so I continue...
Click to expand...

Same here... I use Camguard with Philips 20/50 oil in my plane and even if it doesn't do much, it makes me feel better since I don't fly it as frequently as I used to and all my oil analyses come back consistently good. It's cheap insurance for keeping my engine healthy IMHO.
 
Tom-D said:
better read that AD again, corrosion protection is not what the additive LW-16702 is for.
Click to expand...
Better read my post again, because I never said it was. It's an anti-scuffing additive required for a few Lycoming engines, and nothing else, but for those engines, it does (as I did say) have real value.
 
Last edited:
for as long as CamGuard has been around you would think that a simple twin engine comparison would be the best marketing possible.

Such a simple test, use CamGuard in one engine on a twin and do not use it on the other. Both engines are run by the same methods and conditions. What better test could there be. Does CamGuard have any results for any type of test like this?

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it ???????????????????
 
Cruiser said:
for as long as CamGuard has been around you would think that a simple twin engine comparison would be the best marketing possible.

Such a simple test, use CamGuard in one engine on a twin and do not use it on the other. Both engines are run by the same methods and conditions. What better test could there be. Does CamGuard have any results for any type of test like this?

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it ???????????????????
Click to expand...

why? I'm on my second aircraft using CamGuard. I know it works....the oil analysis is proof enough for me.
 
Ron Levy said:
Better read my post again, because I never said it was. It's an anti-scuffing additive required for a few Lycoming engines, and nothing else, but for those engines, it does (as I did say) have real value.
Click to expand...
That's a favorite word game, you bring a totally unrelated product into a corrosion discussion.

It's not even a antiscuffing agent.
 
Did I read too much in between the lines on this thread and the associated links or did I understand correctly given similar engines TCM engines seem to keep better due to their cam design location vs. Lycoming's design of being/needing the engine to turn over more often to pull oil on it?
 
Continental bottom ends have the reputation of lasting longer. Lycoming top ends have the reputation of lasting longer.

Pick your poison.
 
timwinters said:
Continental bottom ends have the reputation of lasting longer. Lycoming top ends have the reputation of lasting longer.

Pick your poison.
Click to expand...


HA! Okay, that explains a lot. No more info needed for me :)
 
timwinters said:
Continental bottom ends have the reputation of lasting longer. Lycoming top ends have the reputation of lasting longer.

Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Sadly for us Lycoming owners, top ends are cheaper to repair than bottom ends.:(
 
Tom-D said:
That's a favorite word game, you bring a totally unrelated product into a corrosion discussion.

It's not even a antiscuffing agent.
Click to expand...

You mad, bro? :lol:

If you can't understand his post then you probably have a lot of trouble on internet forums.

I just love these oil threads.

Now please remind me that this is not an oil thread but a camguard thread.

Sweet jebus. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top