PaulMillner
Line Up and Wait
Generally, the only engines that need to endure the Lycoming additive (TCP or TPP depending on whose formulation) are the O320H2AD and the handful of other engines where it's required by AD. It would be even better if someone got an AMOC approved to use CamGuard instead of TCP/TPP, but there's not likely enough juice there to justify the AMOC squeeze. If you're running an experimental with an O320H2AD, use CamGuard instead of TCP/TPP, if you interpret that the AD doesn't apply to you.Gilberto Davila said:
The TCP/TPP is unlikely to have damaged his cylinders or valves. It does attack oil coolers (copper) and engine seals. It doesn't actually do any good as implemented, because the particular TCP/TPP molecules have not been thoughtfully chosen (the alkyl side groups are too short, causing the additive to not be active at the temperatures encountered in our engines).Gilberto Davila said:
For his problem, assuming he has stuck oil control rings or blocked passages in the piston, the CamGuard cylinder flush procedure is recommended. It's documented both on CamGuard's website and reproduced on Savvy's website. Roughly, the flush fluid is a combo of paint thinner, xylene, and motor oil. Savvy documents it here:
Concur!Michael Thompson said:
Well... I agree that the Lyc additive is unwise in most any engine. But CamGuard can certainly be combined with it without worry. But, as stated above, it's better to avoid the Lycoming additive and use CamGuard instead.Michael Thompson said:
The solvent package recommended by CamGuard is more likely to remove those deposits than MMO, which is just light weight motor oil and some fragrance. I've seen that work a number of times. It's not foolproof... but it seems to work more often than not. Instead of motor oil in the 2:2:1 paint thinner, xylenes, motor oil flush fluid, you could use MMO. But it's more expensive and doesn't offer any advantage.Michael Thompson said:
Paul
