Lycoming LW-16702 vs Camguard

MarkH

MarkH

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
778
Location
Las Vegas
Display Name
Display name:
MarkH
These additives seem to solve the same problem (down to the engine they were originally marketed for).

On a technical level, other than one being Lycoming and the other being from a third party, what are the differences between these two additives, what they are comprised of and what they do?
 
Phillips 66 is now selling Victory 20w50 which is normal 20w50 with the Lyc additive already in it. Not sure which one is a better route; Lyc premixed or stick w/Camguard in the sidecar?
 
My understanding (could be wrong) is that the Lycoming additive is for wear, whereas Camguard is to prevent corrosion in sitting engines.

The Aeroshell "plus" oils also have the Lycoming additive.
 
Unit74 said:
Phillips 66 is now selling Victory 20w50 which is normal 20w50 with the Lyc additive already in it. Not sure which one is a better route; Lyc premixed or stick w/Camguard in the sidecar?
Click to expand...

Be careful mixing CamGuard with Shell Aero Plus or Phillips Victory. The combination is hard on Continental Starter adapters. It’s best to pick one additive or the other.
 
NordicDave said:
Be careful mixing CamGuard with Shell Aero Plus or Phillips Victory. The combination is hard on Continental Starter adapters. It’s best to pick one additive or the other.
Click to expand...
Any real data not anecdotal?

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Run the 2 together in a continental engine and determine for yourself. After a couple of oil changes the starter adapter begins to slip. TCM warns about running to much slippery additives impacting the performance of the starter adaptor. Don’t remember the bulletin where this was published.
 
I’ve had no issues with stater adaptors once I stopped using semi synthetic Aeroshell 15-50. Straight weight 100+ and Phillips XC work fine with Camguard added.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
I’ve had no issues with stater adaptors once I stopped using semi synthetic Aeroshell 15-50. Straight weight 100+ and Phillips XC work fine with Camguard added.
Click to expand...

Interesting that’s for sharing that. Combining AeroShell Plus with the Lycoming additive with CamGuard causes issues with some starter adapters. We’re you running Plus version of the oil?
 
I've used 100+ With Camguard, yes. No problem in my engine. I usually use Phillips.
 
NordicDave said:
Run the 2 together in a continental engine and determine for yourself. After a couple of oil changes the starter adapter begins to slip. TCM warns about running to much slippery additives impacting the performance of the starter adaptor. Don’t remember the bulletin where this was published.
Click to expand...

I have. And the one that slipped, when you pulled it was out of spec. It was actually a time bomb waiting to happen.

Tim
 
NordicDave said:
Run the 2 together in a continental engine and determine for yourself. After a couple of oil changes the starter adapter begins to slip. TCM warns about running to much slippery additives impacting the performance of the starter adaptor. Don’t remember the bulletin where this was published.
Click to expand...

That’s not data, that’s just an opinion at this point.

There is a reasonable amount of experience out there suggesting that the Lycoming LW-16702 additive by itself may make the starter adapters slip.

The two additives have different jobs. The Lycoming additive is an antiwear additive while the Camguard is largely a corrosion protection additive. Is it any surprise that something that is supposed to reduce friction/wear would potentially cause a starter adapter that operates via friction to slip?

As mentioned above, I think it has been found in many cases that the starter adapters that slip are out of spec. The use of either product may simply accelerate the inevitable.
 
Aeroshell highly recommends not using 100W Plus and Camguard together. Listened to their presentation at Oshkosh this year. More so for proper cylinder wear and clutches.
 
Skymac said:
Aeroshell highly recommends not using 100W Plus and Camguard together. Listened to their presentation at Oshkosh this year. More so for proper cylinder wear and clutches.
Click to expand...

Exactly the data is out there by the oil companies and Camguard. Lycoming additive can cause starter adaptor clutch slippage and both are not needed or recommended together.
 
mondtster said:
That’s not data, that’s just an opinion at this point...
Click to expand...

Terrific, owners should run their plane as they see fit. Mix them both and put a quart of Marvels Mystery oil in as well. Do what’s good for you. For me, I don’t run any Lycoming additives or their derivatives in my Continental engine. Nor mix the two as per oil and CamGuard manufacturers.
 
Phillips XC w/ Camguard makes better sense for pretty much every pilot I know. I haven’t seen anyone choose Aeroshell for several years. And I’ve never known anyone with a Lycoming that required the anti scuff additive.

Camguard’s website has corrosion and wear data for oils with and without Camgaurd added. The best wear results are with XC and Camguard. Corrosion results are better with Aeroshell Plus with Camguard but not enough better to matter to me.
 
Stewartb said:
Phillips XC w/ Camguard makes better sense for pretty much every pilot I know. I haven’t seen anyone choose Aeroshell for several years. And I’ve never known anyone with a Lycoming that required the anti scuff additive.

Camguard’s website has corrosion and wear data for oils with and without Camgaurd added. If you’re happy with Aeroshell? good for you. If I prefer something different? Good for me.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I’m running, Phillips X/C w/CamGuard. 200 hours over TBO on a turbo engine with lowest compression 69/80 on 1 cylinder.
 
Not sure which site it was, but there was a good review with corrosion testing on sheets of metal, as I recall XC with camguard won, though it might have been before that victory xc
 
Interestingly, Phillips 66 recommends blending it's Anti-Rust (10%) and its's Victory (90%) oils for Lycomings that are flown less than 100 hours per year according to the rep when I e-mailed them.
 
MarkH said:
https://www.avweb.com/ownership/oil-myths-debunked/

This page from Avweb speaks highly of Camguard, but it is more than 10 years old and predates LW16702 by about a year.
Click to expand...

The last time the Lycoming AD requiring LW16702 was updated was 1988, so I imagine the additive has been around a lot longer than 10 years. It should have been in the 15w50 aeroshell tested in the article you linked.
 
mondtster said:
The last time the Lycoming AD requiring LW16702 was updated was 1988, so I imagine the additive has been around a lot longer than 10 years. It should have been in the 15w50 aeroshell tested in the article you linked.
Click to expand...

For some reason I thought that is was released in 2009, it turns out I was incorrect.
 
Stewartb said:
Phillips XC w/ Camguard makes better sense for pretty much every pilot I know. I haven’t seen anyone choose Aeroshell for several years. And I’ve never known anyone with a Lycoming that required the anti scuff additive.

Camguard’s website has corrosion and wear data for oils with and without Camgaurd added. The best wear results are with XC and Camguard. Corrosion results are better with Aeroshell Plus with Camguard but not enough better to matter to me.
Click to expand...

I will only use Aeroshell in my engines. I think personally that it’s just a better oil, Aeroshell 100w Plus and no cam guard. Perfect results over the years.

I also used to own a C-172 with an H2AD, a great running engine with no issues. I didn’t run the lycoming additive but I Did run Aeroshell + which saved me from having to run the additive per the AD.
 
LW-16702 is an anti-scuffing compound, and is present in many oil brand formulations. You do not need to add it for those formulations. CamGuard is an anti-corrosion additive that can be useful in engines that are not flown frequently. These additives are not interchangeable and do not serve the same purpose. An additive package similar to CamGuard was included in the now discontinued Exxon Elite oil.
 
It would seem for most of us, assuming it's true the average aircraft owner flies fewer than 100 hours per year, the more prominent concern is corrosion as our planes sit. Therefore, either Camguard or the Phillips anti-rust would be what we should be considering.
 
Phillips anti-rust is a preservative oil, not intended for continued flying (I think they say 10 hours max).
 
Dana said:
Phillips anti-rust is a preservative oil, not intended for continued flying (I think they say 10 hours max).
Click to expand...

I reached out to Phillips Aviation about a random line on the Aircraft Spruce website, and the anti-rust can be blended with other oils for flying.

For example, on an O-320-E2D, flying 10 hours per month, 11 months per year, they recommend using Phillips Victory with 10% anti-rust. With that blend, they recommend oil changes at 50 hours/6 months (whichever comes first).
 
One thing that was clarified: the Victory is not required in that engine, but it is recommended. To quote the e-mail "Lycoming O320H, O360E, LO360E, TO360E and LTO360E series engines are the only models required to have the Anti-Scuff but Lycoming recommends using it in their other models as well."
 
Interesting... I wonder how the corrosion protection of 10% Anti-Rust compares to Camguard? Certainly it's cheaper.
 
camguard_humidity_cabinet_test.gif

This chart from Avweb (in 2008, https://www.avweb.com/ownership/oil-myths-debunked/) shows AeroShell's storage oil as much better than straight oil, but not as good as the stuff blended with Camguard.

Unfortunately, I cannot find much information on what the DIN 50017 Humidity Cabinet Test entails, nor can I find information comparing Phillips 66 Anti-Rust or Anti-Rust/Storage Oil Blends to the oils on the chart.
 
The thing that kills vastly more GA engines than running hours, is corrosion and dry starts - from not running.
Forget the snake oil and foo-foo juice - use that money to fly it.
 
Dr. O said:
The thing that kills vastly more GA engines than running hours, is corrosion and dry starts - from not running.
Forget the snake oil and foo-foo juice - use that money to fly it.
Click to expand...
Well, cost of a bottle Camguard is a lot less than the gas to fly for the 25 or 50 hours it's good for (oil change interval). But for many of us it's not the cost, it's not having the time to fly, or the weather... under 40°F in an open cockpit is just no fun, though Ron W may disagree.
 
I know this is an older thread but I am considering switching from 66's XC 20w-50 to their Victory oil with the Lycoming additive. I currently add CamGuard to th XC oil. While doing some additional digging I came across an very interesting/informative Aviation Consumer article that goes into the details of the original reason for the Lycoming AD and additive - and expresses concerns about potential adverse impacts of the additive.
It also mentions that Camguard is not the same as the Lycoming additive in the Victory oil. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything (I'm still undecided) - but figured I'd pass it along as an FYI.
UNFORTUNATELY, as a newer member of this group I can't yet post a hotlink to the article. So just do a google search on "Aviation Consumer Phillips 66 New Oil: Lycoming Additive" and the article should pop up near the top of the search results.
OR MAYBE copy/paste this into your browser: aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/phillips-66-new-oil-lycoming-additive/
 
D Bier said:
I know this is an older thread but I am considering switching from 66's XC 20w-50 to their Victory oil with the Lycoming additive. I currently add CamGuard to th XC oil. While doing some additional digging I came across an very interesting/informative Aviation Consumer article that goes into the details of the original reason for the Lycoming AD and additive - and expresses concerns about potential adverse impacts of the additive.
It also mentions that Camguard is not the same as the Lycoming additive in the Victory oil. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything (I'm still undecided) - but figured I'd pass it along as an FYI.
UNFORTUNATELY, as a newer member of this group I can't yet post a hotlink to the article. So just do a google search on "Aviation Consumer Phillips 66 New Oil: Lycoming Additive" and the article should pop up near the top of the search results.
OR MAYBE copy/paste this into your browser: aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/phillips-66-new-oil-lycoming-additive/
Click to expand...


You don't mention what plane/engine you have, but if your engine is a Continental do NOT use the Lycoming additive.

Now then,.. The Lycoming juice is an anti-scuff agent and CamGuard is a corrosion inhibitor. Two different things. For most of us who fly less than a hundred hours per year, corrosion is a greater concern than wear. Therefore I mix CamGuard in Phillips XC 20-50.

Your needs may differ.
 
Half Fast said:
You don't mention what plane/engine you have, but if your engine is a Continental do NOT use the Lycoming additive.

Now then,.. The Lycoming juice is an anti-scuff agent and CamGuard is a corrosion inhibitor. Two different things. For most of us who fly less than a hundred hours per year, corrosion is a greater concern than wear. Therefore I mix CamGuard in Phillips XC 20-50.

Your needs may differ.
Click to expand...
RV6A with Lycoming 0-360. Nevertheless, based on the article I mentioned, I'm leaning towards keeping with Phillips XC 20-50 with CamGuard. My son is flying the wings off the plane building hours for a career (flew 180 hours since last August) so I probably don't need the CamGuard right now - but figure it can't hurt.
 
D Bier said:
RV6A with Lycoming 0-360. Nevertheless, based on the article I mentioned, I'm leaning towards keeping with Phillips XC 20-50 with CamGuard. My son is flying the wings off the plane building hours for a career (flew 180 hours since last August) so I probably don't need the CamGuard right now - but figure it can't hurt.
Click to expand...

180 hours does not matter. It is frequency. Going on memory, most engines need roughly an hour flight to burn off the water created from startup and taxi. The additives to Phillips XC will stay on the engine parts for at most few days to a week. Camguard can increase the time period to a few weeks. How much, seems to be very environment and specific engine specific.

Tim
 
tspear said:
180 hours does not matter. It is frequency. Going on memory, most engines need roughly an hour flight to burn off the water created from startup and taxi. The additives to Phillips XC will stay on the engine parts for at most few days to a week. Camguard can increase the time period to a few weeks. How much, seems to be very environment and specific engine specific.

Tim
Click to expand...
Good to know. Except when there are a string of bad weather days it's usually up at least 1-2 times a week - but having the CamGuard in the oil is good/cheap insurance/protection. Our biggest issue has been getting the oil up to/past 180 or so even during longer cruise flights. The previous owner resorted to taping off 2/3rds of the opening to the 3" oil cooler air inlet SCAT tube. We just (this past weekend) installed a cable controlled buttefly valve that will allow us to adjust the oil cooler airflow as needed. Anxious to get the Annual Condition Inspection finished so we can see how effective it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top