Engine Break in and Oil

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,529
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I just finished my first 7 hours with the new top on my engine running mineral oil. Due to travel and other factors I did not get up to 10 hours as requested by my mechanic before we started the annual. So we refilled with mineral oil. My question is how low should I go before I change it and start putting in an oil with disperant?
 
Scott,

New ECI's, right? Did you check out the bulletin from ECI on break in procedures?

http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BI07-2005.pdf

I had ECI Titans installed on a Mattituck O/H two years ago. ECI recommends Phillips XC 20/50 AD during break in and beyond.

Ask 10 people, and you will get 10 opinions...however I would suggest that you take ECI's recommendations. I've used XC 20/50 for years with no problems.

Greg
182RG
 
ggroves said:
Scott,

New ECI's, right? Did you check out the bulletin from ECI on break in procedures?

http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BI07-2005.pdf

I had ECI Titans installed on a Mattituck O/H two years ago. ECI recommends Phillips XC 20/50 AD during break in and beyond.

Ask 10 people, and you will get 10 opinions...however I would suggest that you take ECI's recommendations. I've used XC 20/50 for years with no problems.

Greg
182RG
Click to expand...

What Greg said, I used the Phillips X/C breaking in my new Titans. Runs great, never burned any oil, etc.
Don
 
The mechanic told me that we should use the multiwieght mineral stuff for the first ten hours to get the break in done right and then switch. But since I did not get to 10 hours prior to the annual he just refilled it with more of the same and told me to go a while with it. I did not like that answer and wanted to have a better idea as to the time to swtich back to my regular oil.

I like the Exxon ELite because it has the lycoming recomended additive in it already. When we opened up the engine there was absoltuley no wear signs or corrorsion so I am going to stick with it.
 
Last edited:
Not many folks realize that Aeroshell 150W50 is the only oil that must be fortified to meet Lycoming's requirement.

So Aeroshell did an advertizing hype and told every one they akready had the Additive.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
The mechanic told me that we should use the multiwieght mineral stuff for the first ten hours to get the break in don right and then switch.

I like the Exxon ELite becasue it has the lycoming recomended additive in it already.
Click to expand...

Scott,

I wouldn't be too anxious to switch to a semi-synth. that has anti-scuffing additives in it any too soon!!!

The Exxon Elite product is SAE J 1899 certified, meets Mil-L-22851D and is U.S. Military approved. Additionally, the product contains the anti-wear/anti-scuffing additive required for some models of Lycoming engines and is FAA-approved for this use.

If you carefully read the ECI recommendations, they state specifically to avoid semi-synth and anti-scuff during break-in. I wouldn't switch @ 10 hours..that's way too soon. It took me longer to see oil stabilization. I'd wait at least 100 hours, per the ECI documentation. I'd stay with XC 20/50 if I were you for a while.

Greg
182RG
 
Greg is right . . . I love Exxon Elite oil but it's way too slick for a new engine. It will not allow for proper break-in. I changed mineral oil at 10 hours, changed mineral oil again at 25 hours and went to Elite at 50 hours. Haven't had any problems and I'm at 175 hours.
 
First of all, NC19143 is incorrect as the AeroShell 15W-50 meets the Lycoming Service Bulletin 446D per FAA AD 80-04-03 R2 and does not need the addition of LW 16702 triaryl phosphate additive. The W100 Plus has the same additive package, minus the viscosity modifier, and also meets the same specifications.

Second, you can use and AD (ashless dispersant) oil right from the start per http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BI07-2005.pdf.

Third,there are two compounds that are interchangable and that meet the LW-16702. Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) (methylated triphenyl phosphate) and butylated triphenyl phosphate (bTPP). Exxon uses TCP and Shell AND Lycoming uses bTPP. TCP is a Extreme Pressure (EP) and phosphating additive used in jet engine oil and has never demonstrated effectiveness when used as an antiwear (milder conditions). For example auto cams fail when TCP is the only antiwear. Exxon did all of there wear testing with loads that were well in the EP range.
bTPP IS an effective antiwear as it is activated at much lower temperatures than TCP but it is not a great EP. It also shows some friction modification and may cause problems with Continental starter adapters. It is also NOT hydrolytically stable, it decomposes in the presence of water, like that found in an engine, and can lead to corrosion and seal degradation.

In case some of you were wondering I was the Director of Engine Research in the Advanced Fuels and Lubes Group for Exxon Research until 1998. I did the initial research on the Exxon Elite oil.
 
Welcome aboard, Ed!

Your sharing of your technical expertise here is greatly appreciated. Hope you find the board an enjoyable experience.
 
What does somewhat higher numbers mean? 10 to 50ppm or 10 to 500ppm?

TCP is used generically to mean a phosphate ester that meets the Lycoming LW-16702 spec.
Butylated triphenylphosphate (bTPP) is unstable in the presence of water and heat. An engine burning 15 gallons of fuel per hour will put up to a gallon of water through the oil per hour. One or two of the three ester linkages break and we're left with a phosphoric acid derivative and isobutyl phenol . It is this acid that goes after the soft metals.
Methylated triphenylphosphate (tricresylphosphate or TCP)is fairly stable and the three ester linkages do not readily hydrolyze.

Shell and Lycoming made the change to bTPP for safety reasons because one isomer (the ortho) of natural derived TCP is a nerve toxin. Exxon sources of TCP do not contain the ortho isomer.

Along with the copper corrosion Lycoming is seeing some degradation but they're blaming it on people adding the LW-16702 additive to Shell doubling the concentration at least that is the story they're sticking with.

Shell had a copper corrosion problem when they made the switch in the 90's(copper levels going from 10ppm old oil with TCP to 700ppm new oil with bTPP). They addressed it by putting additional inhibitor in the oil. This does not address the seal problem. Fortunately it is a slow degradation of the seals. I made Shell and Lycoming aware of the seal problem a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
The following sentence should read;

Along with the copper corrosion Lycoming is seeing some seal degradation but they're blaming it on people adding the LW-16702 additive to Shell additized oils doubling the concentration of bTPP, at least that is the story they're sticking with.

Sorry for the omissions.
 
Edward Kollin said:
First of all, NC19143 is incorrect as the AeroShell 15W-50 meets the Lycoming Service Bulletin 446D per FAA AD 80-04-03 R2 and does not need the addition of LW 16702 triaryl phosphate additive. The W100 Plus has the same additive package, minus the viscosity modifier, and also meets the same specifications..
Click to expand...

Aeroshell 15W50 meets te SB by blending in the snake oil at the refinery, you don't have to add any more snake oil until you run past 50 hours on the same oil. (very few folks do)

Phillips 20W50 does not require the snake oil to meet the Lycoming requirements. 15W50 aeroshell is the only oil to require additives to meet the spec.

I advise all my owners that I have built engines for, to run the Phillips as per ECI directives.
 
ggroves said:
Scott,

New ECI's, right? Did you check out the bulletin from ECI on break in procedures?

http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BI07-2005.pdf

I had ECI Titans installed on a Mattituck O/H two years ago. ECI recommends Phillips XC 20/50 AD during break in and beyond.

Ask 10 people, and you will get 10 opinions...however I would suggest that you take ECI's recommendations. I've used XC 20/50 for years with no problems.

Greg
182RG
Click to expand...
ECI has discovered that the old wives tales of non "D" oils during brake-in is not required in engines with full filtration oil systems. They have found that removing the comtaminates with a filter is better than allowing the contamination to settle to the bottom of the sump.
 
NC19143 said:
Aeroshell 15W50 meets te SB by blending in the snake oil at the refinery, you don't have to add any more snake oil until you run past 50 hours on the same oil. (very few folks do)

Phillips 20W50 does not require the snake oil to meet the Lycoming requirements. 15W50 aeroshell is the only oil to require additives to meet the spec.

I advise all my owners that I have built engines for, to run the Phillips as per ECI directives.
Click to expand...


Phillips 20W-50 oil does NOT meet the Lycoming SB 446D. You have to add the LW-16702 (bTPP). As a matter of fact NO Phillips oil meets the SB. They are currently reformulating their oil mainly in response to Camguard an additive package for aircraft oils.

Shell and Exxon add the phosphate to their oils.
 
Edward Kollin said:
Phillips 20W-50 oil does NOT meet the Lycoming SB 446D. You have to add the LW-16702 (bTPP). As a matter of fact NO Phillips oil meets the SB. They are currently reformulating their oil mainly in response to Camguard an additive package for aircraft oils.

Shell and Exxon add the phosphate to their oils.
Click to expand...

I made a mistake in the above, the Phillips A 100AW straight 50 weight oil DOES contain the LW-16702 additive and therefore would meet the SB. There have no intention of adding it to their mutiweight oil. They didn't say why.
 
NC19143 said:
ECI has discovered that the old wives tales of non "D" oils during brake-in is not required in engines with full filtration oil systems. They have found that removing the comtaminates with a filter is better than allowing the contamination to settle to the bottom of the sump.
Click to expand...

Too late anyways as the mechanic had put in the mineral oil. I have done two oil changes of straight mineral oil and now have the Exxon Elite in there now.
 
Apologies for digging out this old thread... I was searching for "Camguard" to see what people here think of it.

Anyway, I have done c. 700hrs with Exxon Elite in my engine (IO-540) and with good results, backed up by oil analysis every 50hrs. Except that there was always a lot of watery sludge around the dipstick, and a lot more under the rocker covers. Yet I fly at least once a week and never for less than 1hr.

I recently had the engine rebuilt (Lyco SB569 crank swap) in the USA; when it came back I did the 25+25hrs on Shell straight 80 oil, then another 50 on the same oil, then moved to the standard Shell multigrade. One engineer said that Shell is better for winter use because it deals with the humidity better, and one doesn't get the sludge... I am not convinced but the engine rebuilder (a highly respected U.S. engine shop) uses Shell so I thought it can't do any harm. I will do 50hrs on the Shell and then 50hrs on the old Exxon Elite and compare the oil analysis...
 
peter-h said:
Apologies for digging out this old thread... I was searching for "Camguard" to see what people here think of it.
Click to expand...
You'll find a few opinions on it here. I am sure that Ron Levy is warming up his post on oil additives as I speak!! :D

peter-h said:
Anyway, I have done c. 700hrs with Exxon Elite in my engine (IO-540) and with good results, backed up by oil analysis every 50hrs. Except that there was always a lot of watery sludge around the dipstick, and a lot more under the rocker covers. Yet I fly at least once a week and never for less than 1hr.

I recently had the engine rebuilt (Lyco SB569 crank swap) in the USA; when it came back I did the 25+25hrs on Shell straight 80 oil, then another 50 on the same oil, then moved to the standard Shell multigrade. One engineer said that Shell is better for winter use because it deals with the humidity better, and one doesn't get the sludge... I am not convinced but the engine rebuilder (a highly respected U.S. engine shop) uses Shell so I thought it can't do any harm. I will do 50hrs on the Shell and then 50hrs on the old Exxon Elite and compare the oil analysis...
Click to expand...
Interesting I have not encountered this. Do share you results.
 
Edward Kollin said:
First of all, NC19143 is incorrect as the AeroShell 15W-50 meets the Lycoming Service Bulletin 446D per FAA AD 80-04-03 R2 and does not need the addition of LW 16702 triaryl phosphate additive.

No, because it already has the snake oil in it.

The W100 Plus has the same additive package, minus the viscosity modifier, and also meets the same specifications.

Second, you can use and AD (ashless dispersant) oil right from the start per http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/BI07-2005.pdf.

Third,there are two compounds that are interchangable and that meet the LW-16702. Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) (methylated triphenyl phosphate) and butylated triphenyl phosphate (bTPP). Exxon uses TCP and Shell AND Lycoming uses bTPP. TCP is a Extreme Pressure (EP) and phosphating additive used in jet engine oil and has never demonstrated effectiveness when used as an antiwear (milder conditions). For example auto cams fail when TCP is the only antiwear. Exxon did all of there wear testing with loads that were well in the EP range.
bTPP IS an effective antiwear as it is activated at much lower temperatures than TCP but it is not a great EP. It also shows some friction modification and may cause problems with Continental starter adapters. It is also NOT hydrolytically stable, it decomposes in the presence of water, like that found in an engine, and can lead to corrosion and seal degradation.

In case some of you were wondering I was the Director of Engine Research in the Advanced Fuels and Lubes Group for Exxon Research until 1998. I did the initial research on the Exxon Elite oil.
Click to expand...

Welcome back Ed.
 
smigaldi said:
You'll find a few opinions on it here. I am sure that Ron Levy is warming up his post on oil additives as I speak!! :D

Interesting I have not encountered this. Do share you results.
Click to expand...

In Case you don't know, Ed is the most knowledgable person on the internet when it comes to oils.

He is Mr. Cam Guard. Which I have running in all my custormers aircraft.
 
gprellwitz said:
Um, Ed's post was in June, 2006, and Last Activity: March 31st, 2008 07:10 AM. He's more than welcome back, though!
Click to expand...

I didn't notice that..he is also missing at the AOPA site.
 
I will post the results, but it will be a while... I do about 150hrs/year so get only 3 oil samples to analyse each year.

I've got about half a dozen on the Exxon Elite (happy to post them here) but then the engine went to Barrett Precision for the SB569 job and was essentially rebuilt (new crank, bearings, pots re-honed, new exhaust valves and tappets, etc - but otherwise it was very clean when they got it) so the subsequent oil analyses (got 2 so far and the 3rd is due any day) are completely different, showing a lot more metal as one would expect, but the lab and the engine shop both say the metal is within expected limits.

The claim of Shell not collecting the water the way Elite seems to is something I heard from a few people, and I should be able to prove this one way or the other because my Elite oil was collecting the watery sludge on the dipstick consistently all year round.

Unfortunately I don't have oil analysis when the original engine was new in 2002 (2001 actually), because I was not doing oil analysis back then (didn't know anything about maintenance ;) ). Also I know that that engine had been stored for just just just under 1 year, between delivery from Lyco and first run in the aircraft - this is another story. Barrett re-honed the cyliders largely due to the light corrosion which was found at SB569, and it is believed it dated back to the engine storage. And I wasn't the only one with this aircraft to have found this.
 
peter-h said:
I will post the results, but it will be a while... I do about 150hrs/year so get only 3 oil samples to analyse each year.

I've got about half a dozen on the Exxon Elite (happy to post them here) but then the engine went to Barrett Precision for the SB569 job and was essentially rebuilt (new crank, bearings, pots re-honed, new exhaust valves and tappets, etc - but otherwise it was very clean when they got it) so the subsequent oil analyses (got 2 so far and the 3rd is due any day) are completely different, showing a lot more metal as one would expect, but the lab and the engine shop both say the metal is within expected limits.

The claim of Shell not collecting the water the way Elite seems to is something I heard from a few people, and I should be able to prove this one way or the other because my Elite oil was collecting the watery sludge on the dipstick consistently all year round.

Unfortunately I don't have oil analysis when the original engine was new in 2002 (2001 actually), because I was not doing oil analysis back then (didn't know anything about maintenance ;) ). Also I know that that engine had been stored for just just just under 1 year, between delivery from Lyco and first run in the aircraft - this is another story. Barrett re-honed the cyliders largely due to the light corrosion which was found at SB569, and it is believed it dated back to the engine storage. And I wasn't the only one with this aircraft to have found this.
Click to expand...
I have a few oil analysis from all based on Exxon Elite oil. They were done after the ECI top I had done. But as I am now having just finished a second top overhaul to get rid of those ECI cylinders comparing my current oil analysis to the previous ones is really apples and oranges. I hav enot heard about the water and Exxon Elite nor have I seen anything with my engine to indicate abnormal water in the oil or actually any water in the oil.
 
Please note that the "sludge" was found only where oil was stationary, as described.

Any oil which was drained from the engine was very clean.

I have no reason to believe Exxon Elite was not doing its job in lubricating the bits that actually move.

It was just that strange sludge which concerned me.
 
peter-h said:
Please note that the "sludge" was found only where oil was stationary, as described.

Any oil which was drained from the engine was very clean.

I have no reason to believe Exxon Elite was not doing its job in lubricating the bits that actually move.

It was just that strange sludge which concerned me.
Click to expand...
Ok I understand that.

When I had the first top done there was a leaking oil pan gasket and we took off the oil pan and replaced it. I do not really seeing anything unusual there.

But that was a couple of years ago and I was not looking for what youa re describing so it could have been missed.
 
smigaldi said:
I have not heard about the water and Exxon Elite nor have I seen anything with my engine to indicate abnormal water in the oil or actually any water in the oil.
Click to expand...

I also have not heard of any water (emulsifying) issues with the Elite.

Regards,

Ed
 
Ay Caramba!!!!

It seems like there are as many answers in aviation as people providing answers!! I never know what to think.

FYI, Piper breaks in new a/c, at least the Mirage and Matrix, on Exxon Elite 20W50. No mineral oil. One can only assume Lycoming is completely on board with that, as Piper won't fart unless Lycoming sez let 'er rip.

Why no mineral oil? I dunno. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a petrochemical engineer!!
 
flyersfan31 said:
Ay Caramba!!!!

It seems like there are as many answers in aviation as people providing answers!! I never know what to think.

FYI, Piper breaks in new a/c, at least the Mirage and Matrix, on Exxon Elite 20W50. No mineral oil. One can only assume Lycoming is completely on board with that, as Piper won't fart unless Lycoming sez let 'er rip.

Why no mineral oil? I dunno. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a petrochemical engineer!!
Click to expand...

According to Lycoming Service Instruction 1014M Part II, A:

Lycoming Service Instruction 1014M said:
All turbocharged engines must be broken-in and operated with ashless dispersant oil only.
Click to expand...

My understanding is it has to do with the turbo(s) needing the ashless dispersant oil for their health. Naturally aspirated engines are to be broken in with mineral oil.

So, if you want to know what the people who made your engine think, there are lots of nifty service instructions available to help you out. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
According to Lycoming Service Instruction 1014M Part II, A:



My understanding is it has to do with the turbo(s) needing the ashless dispersant oil for their health. Naturally aspirated engines are to be broken in with mineral oil.

So, if you want to know what the people who made your engine think, there are lots of nifty service instructions available to help you out. :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm no petrochemical engineer. I asked a few folks, they shrugged their shoulders and said "Dunno, that's what Lycoming tells us."

Thanks, Ted.
 
smigaldi said:
I just finished my first 7 hours with the new top on my engine running mineral oil. Due to travel and other factors I did not get up to 10 hours as requested by my mechanic before we started the annual. So we refilled with mineral oil. My question is how low should I go before I change it and start putting in an oil with disperant?
Click to expand...

Just start running Phillips 20/50 and Camguard on the next oil change in about another 10 hrs. It'll all be good.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Ay Caramba!!!!

It seems like there are as many answers in aviation as people providing answers!! I never know what to think.

FYI, Piper breaks in new a/c, at least the Mirage and Matrix, on Exxon Elite 20W50. No mineral oil. One can only assume Lycoming is completely on board with that, as Piper won't fart unless Lycoming sez let 'er rip.

Why no mineral oil? I dunno. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a petrochemical engineer!!
Click to expand...

Originally Posted Lycoming Service Instruction 1014M
All turbocharged engines must be broken-in and operated with ashless dispersant oil only.


The Lycoming engineers have come to the realization that;

1) Essentially all deposits in the engine come from fuel entering the crankcase via blow-by.

2) Turbocharged engines run richer than normally aspirated engines thus more fuel entering the crankcase.

3) Deposits in turbochargers are not good and deposits in NEW turbochargers are not good because it costs them money.

4) What they fail to understand, along with many others, is that dispersants DO NOT affect break-in as they only bind to acidic, oxidized hydrocarbon [fuel] molecules known as deposit precursors and NOT metal, metal wear particles, lead bromide particles or dirt.

The ECI folks are already way ahead of them recommending AD oil from day one.

Regards,

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top