Oil and Unleaded fuel

M

mamkeci

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
mamkeci
I know there are a million posts arguing about oil but there's one thing I can't find any real information on. What oil to use when running unleaded fuels.

I have been hearing more about the benefits of running UL94 and am planning to make the switch, besides the fact that the FAA is planning on switching us over to unleaded fuel sometime this year anyway. I was happy to see Lycoming's service instruction 1070 until I read that it makes the use of LW-16702 oil additive "MANDATORY" when running unleaded fuels. I have been happily running Phillips X/C 20W50 with camguard. I chose this oil combination due to inactivity during the winter months and due to the reports of seal degradation from the LW-16702 additive that is found in some other oils.

Now the most concerning thing about this to me is that not only will I be forced to use an additive that I'd rather not use in order to burn UL94 but also the fact that Lycoming will essentially force us all to use this additive after we're all switched over to unleaded fuels. I'm not convinced of the benefits of the additive and the exorbitant cost doesn't help much either.
 
1070 says:

"LYCOMING OIL ADDITIVE P/N LW-16702, OR AN EQUIVALENT FINISHED PRODUCT SUCH AS AEROSHELL 15W-50, MUST BE USED." (my emphasis added).

Wouldn't Phillips X/C 20W50 also be considered an equivalent finished product? If not then I would just use Aeroshell 15W-50...
 
Last edited:
mamkeci said:
FAA is planning on switching us over to unleaded fuel sometime this year anyway
Click to expand...

Switching who over? :confused2:


idahoflier said:
1070 says:

"LYCOMING OIL ADDITIVE P/N LW-16702, OR AN EQUIVALENT FINISHED PRODUCT SUCH AS AEROSHELL 15W-50, MUST BE USED." (my emphasis added).

Wouldn't Phillips X/C 20W50 also be considered an equivalent finished product? If not then I wold just use Aeroshell 15W-50...
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Phillips doesn't have any additives.
 
"fact that the FAA is planning on switching us over to unleaded fuel sometime this year"??? I think that would be news to a lot of people.

The FAA may identify 100LL replacement fuels this year but that is a far cry from switching to a new avgas.
 
Okay I should reword that. The FAA is scheduled to identify a unleaded alternative. We don't know how long until we are switched over but it's coming. With UL94 becoming increasingly available, I don't see why it would take long to see the switch to unleaded once they pick a 100ll replacement sometime this year. And as for myself I think unleaded is a good thing, I just don't like the idea of switching oils or adding a costly additive that some would say can cause more problems
 
Last edited:
mamkeci said:
Okay I should reword that. The FAA is scheduled to identify a unleaded alternative. We don't know how long until we are switched over but it's coming. With UL94 becoming increasingly available, I don't see why it would take long to see the switch to unleaded once they pick a 100ll replacement sometime this year. And as for myself I think unleaded is a good thing, I just don't like the idea of switching oils or adding a costly additive that some would say can cause more problems
Click to expand...
UL94 is not a viable alternative for 100LL no matter what the availability might be. The majority of avgas is burned in engines that require 100 octane.
 
mamkeci said:
With UL94 becoming increasingly available...
Click to expand...

Really? How many airports as a percentage of total airports have UL94?

I’d just use it if it were actually available, I have a MoGas STC. Never see it anywhere around here.
 
I have seen it become increasingly available in my area which is why I plan to start burning it. I was not saying that UL94 is an alternative for 100LL, I was saying that given UL94 becoming increasingly available the 100LL alternative that is scheduled to be selected this year should also become available, I would think at an even greater rate than the UL94.
Maybe soon, maybe later we will be burning unleaded fuels. I plan on burning it sooner rather than later. Which leads to my ultimate question... what is the best oil now that we're not burning lead? I have a feeling that no such oil exists and Lycoming's statement In SI 1070 gives us zero options As they state that once we go unleaded we have to start using their additive or an oil that already has their additive. Given everything that I have read I have decided to stay away from the LW-16702 and go with Phillips x/c with camguard during the winter. When I go unleaded, unless someone knows of some other options, I will be forced to use an oil that I had come to the opinion was inferior.
I don't intend to start another which oil is better debate, I just believe there are some things to think about as we move forward with unleaded gas. Maybe Lycoming will re- address this when the unleaded decision is made, or maybe an oil company will forget about what happened to Mobil and take the risk in developing a new oil. Who knows, I'm just not convinced that Lycoming's additive is the answer.
 
mamkeci said:
I have seen it become increasingly available in my area which is why I plan to start burning it. I was not saying that UL94 is an alternative for 100LL, I was saying that given UL94 becoming increasingly available the 100LL alternative that is scheduled to be selected this year should also become available, I would think at an even greater rate than the UL94.
Maybe soon, maybe later we will be burning unleaded fuels. I plan on burning it sooner rather than later. Which leads to my ultimate question... what is the best oil now that we're not burning lead? I have a feeling that no such oil exists and Lycoming's statement In SI 1070 gives us zero options As they state that once we go unleaded we have to start using their additive or an oil that already has their additive. Given everything that I have read I have decided to stay away from the LW-16702 and go with Phillips x/c with camguard during the winter. When I go unleaded, unless someone knows of some other options, I will be forced to use an oil that I had come to the opinion was inferior.
I don't intend to start another which oil is better debate, I just believe there are some things to think about as we move forward with unleaded gas. Maybe Lycoming will re- address this when the unleaded decision is made, or maybe an oil company will forget about what happened to Mobil and take the risk in developing a new oil. Who knows, I'm just not convinced that Lycoming's additive is the answer.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Hope things go well with your analysis and conclusions.
 
mamkeci said:
I have seen it become increasingly available in my area which is why I plan to start burning it. I was not saying that UL94 is an alternative for 100LL, I was saying that given UL94 becoming increasingly available the 100LL alternative that is scheduled to be selected this year should also become available, I would think at an even greater rate than the UL94.
Maybe soon, maybe later we will be burning unleaded fuels. I plan on burning it sooner rather than later. Which leads to my ultimate question... what is the best oil now that we're not burning lead? I have a feeling that no such oil exists and Lycoming's statement In SI 1070 gives us zero options As they state that once we go unleaded we have to start using their additive or an oil that already has their additive. Given everything that I have read I have decided to stay away from the LW-16702 and go with Phillips x/c with camguard during the winter. When I go unleaded, unless someone knows of some other options, I will be forced to use an oil that I had come to the opinion was inferior.
I don't intend to start another which oil is better debate, I just believe there are some things to think about as we move forward with unleaded gas. Maybe Lycoming will re- address this when the unleaded decision is made, or maybe an oil company will forget about what happened to Mobil and take the risk in developing a new oil. Who knows, I'm just not convinced that Lycoming's additive is the answer.
Click to expand...

Why would you be forced to use a different oil? Just add the additive separately?
 
mamkeci said:
I have seen it become increasingly available in my area which is why I plan to start burning it. I was not saying that UL94 is an alternative for 100LL, I was saying that given UL94 becoming increasingly available the 100LL alternative that is scheduled to be selected this year should also become available, I would think at an even greater rate than the UL94.
Click to expand...

Where’s your area? “Increasingly available” feels like it’s a bit vague to me. How many airports?

The assumption that FAA will hit their self-imposed deadline for the announcement could also be a mistake. No particular industry or political push for it. That date could fly past going SR-71 speeds and nobody would really notice.
 
denverpilot said:
Where’s your area? “Increasingly available” feels like it’s a bit vague to me. How many airports?

The assumption that FAA will hit their self-imposed deadline for the announcement could also be a mistake. No particular industry or political push for it. That date could fly past going SR-71 speeds and nobody would really notice.
Click to expand...
There is some EPA push for elimination of lead. It's one of those things where EPA is playing elephant in the room.
 
The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned, but like others here say, it will be years before an alternative becomes the norm.
 
denverpilot said:
Maybe EPA and FAA can have a cage death match? I can dream right?
Click to expand...
That'd be something. The EPA is has been pushed back to defer to states on air quality but there is a catch in that policy. The EPA uses that as leverage saying "ya don't want us in the middle of this so fix it". Sooner or later they will drop the pretense...
 
From what I understand aeroshell had to modify their oil's formula after starting to add the LW-16702 due to increased copper levels. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to use the the additive on just any oil. Also the reason I didn't use aeroshell was due to it containing the additive. If I am forced to use it then it seems like the best choice is the aeroshell, or maybe exon too now that I think about it.
Maybe the FAA will stall on naming an unleaded fuel but I hope not. We're several decades behind the times as it is
 
mamkeci said:
From what I understand aeroshell had to modify their oil's formula after starting to add the LW-16702 due to increased copper levels. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to use the the additive on just any oil. Also the reason I didn't use aeroshell was due to it containing the additive. If I am forced to use it then it seems like the best choice is the aeroshell, or maybe exon too now that I think about it.
Maybe the FAA will stall on naming an unleaded fuel but I hope not. We're several decades behind the times as it is
Click to expand...

Your "several decades behind the times" air cooled Lycoming or Continental hardware was not designed for unleaded auto gas.

I expect we will get overhead cam, 4-valve per cylinder VVT, FADEC Lycomings about the same time we see widespread availability of a 100LL fuel replacement. In other words don't hold your breath.
 
mamkeci said:
I know there are a million posts arguing about oil but there's one thing I can't find any real information on. What oil to use when running unleaded fuels.

I have been hearing more about the benefits of running UL94 and am planning to make the switch, besides the fact that the FAA is planning on switching us over to unleaded fuel sometime this year anyway. I was happy to see Lycoming's service instruction 1070 until I read that it makes the use of LW-16702 oil additive "MANDATORY" when running unleaded fuels. I have been happily running Phillips X/C 20W50 with camguard. I chose this oil combination due to inactivity during the winter months and due to the reports of seal degradation from the LW-16702 additive that is found in some other oils.

Now the most concerning thing about this to me is that not only will I be forced to use an additive that I'd rather not use in order to burn UL94 but also the fact that Lycoming will essentially force us all to use this additive after we're all switched over to unleaded fuels. I'm not convinced of the benefits of the additive and the exorbitant cost doesn't help much either.
Click to expand...

Mandatory service bulletins don’t create any duty for you to comply. Do you know what type engine you have, and can you share that info with us? Like O360A1F6...

Paul
 
It has been proven that Semi-synthic oils do not scavenge lead very well.
AS long as you are not burning leaded fuel I see no reason any 40/50 weight won't work well.

BUT

we require an ashless oil, semi or fully synthetic oils are not. They have sulphur as an additive sulphur burned makes an ash.
 
Last edited:
mamkeci said:
From what I understand aeroshell had to modify their oil's formula after starting to add the LW-16702 due to increased copper levels. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to use the the additive on just any oil. Also the reason I didn't use aeroshell was due to it containing the additive. If I am forced to use it then it seems like the best choice is the aeroshell, or maybe exon too now that I think about it.
Maybe the FAA will stall on naming an unleaded fuel but I hope not. We're several decades behind the times as it is
Click to expand...

The Aeroshell 15W-50 is semisynthetic though. Maybe mineral oils are not affected by this problem? I don't know. We also don't know whether or not the coming 100LL replacement will have the same caveat as 94UL.
 
Don't make such a big deal about the Lycoming snake oil additive, The AD requiring it only applies to 1 engine, (0-320-H2AD) and I'd think by now all have the "T" Mod that no longer needs it.
 
Paul, I'll have to look into that. I was assuming that it would be mandatory as my POH references the 1070 and the 1070 states its "mandatory" but now that you mention it I have heard that it is only a recommendation until it is an AD

My engine is an O-360-A4A
 
The "snake oil" is required for those few engines but also for any running unleaded fuel per 1070 but perhaps it still isn't truly "mandatory" because it's not tied to an AD. The "few" engines you referred to have ADs to use the snake oil? Seems like they did.
 
oops:
80-04-03 R2 AVCO LYCOMING: Amendment 39-3692 as amended by Amendment 39-3977 is further amended by Amendment 39-5893. Applies to O-320-H series engines and O-360-E, LO-360-E, TO-360-E and LTO-360-E series engines; (all serial numbers and hydraulic lifter (tappet) configurations).
Compliance required as indicated, unless already accomplished.
a. To prevent hazards in flight associated with bent push rods on Model O-320-H series engines, accomplish the following:
snip
b. To prevent excessive wear and oil system contamination associated with hydraulic lifters spalling on O-320-H, and O-360-E, LO-360-E, TO-360-E and LTO-360-E series engines, accomplish the following:
1. At the next engine oil change but no later than 50 hours in service after the effective date of this AD, and at each subsequent oil change or 50-hour interval, whichever occurs earlier, add one 6-ounce can of Lycoming P/N LW-16702 oil additive in accordance with Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 446B.
2. Within the next 50 hours in service after the effective date of this AD and at every subsequent oil change thereafter, not to exceed 100-hour intervals, inspect lubrication system for metal contaminants. Inspection of the lubrication system consists of visual examination for minute particles of metal suspended in the oil, examination of the engine oil suction screen for presence of metal particles and the inspection of the external full flow oil filter for metal particles by cutting it open so that the pleated element can be unfolded and examined. If ferrous metal contaminants are detected during the above inspections, the camshaft lobes and all hydraulic lifters must be inspected for wear or loss of metal. Replace the camshaft and hydraulic lifters found to have such indications.
 
Interesting. The IO-360-L2A in my 172S has an STC for 94UL. On one hand, it's a $540 piece of paper. On the other, it's interesting that this engine, designed for 100LL and can't run on 80, is just fine with 94UL. There's 94UL at KSQL next door and it's cheaper than 100LL by a little. Hmmm...
 
arnoha said:
Interesting. The IO-360-L2A in my 172S has an STC for 94UL. On one hand, it's a $540 piece of paper. On the other, it's interesting that this engine, designed for 100LL and can't run on 80, is just fine with 94UL. There's 94UL at KSQL next door and it's cheaper than 100LL by a little. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Your engine was designed for 91/96 octane avgas, which is no longer made. 94UL meets those requirements.

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
Your engine was designed for 91/96 octane avgas, which is no longer made. 94UL meets those requirements.

Paul
Click to expand...

That's odd. 91/96 was already basically gone in 1996 when the 172R and its IO-360-L2A engine was released. Wonder why they would design to a standard that was clearly on its way out.
 
arnoha said:
That's odd. 91/96 was already basically gone in 1996 when the 172R and its IO-360-L2A engine was released. Wonder why they would design to a standard that was clearly on its way out.
Click to expand...

The engine series was designed to the fuels of the times in the 1950s. The IO360L2A is just a parts bin rehash of that basic 1950s design/certification, to manage costs.

Paul
 
arnoha said:
That's odd. 91/96 was already basically gone in 1996 when the 172R and its IO-360-L2A engine was released. Wonder why they would design to a standard that was clearly on its way out.
Click to expand...

Release date and design date are something like three or four decades apart on many engines out there. Couldn’t tell you exact dates on that one, but it’s not uncommon.
 
the-sky-is-falling-for-FB-advertisers-not.jpg


This again, the sky isn't falling 100LL isn't going anywhere, keep using the oil your manuals recommend, keep calm and carry on.
 
Tom-D said:
It has been proven that Semi-synthic oils do not scavenge lead very well.
AS long as you are not burning leaded fuel I see no reason any 40/50 weight won't work well.

BUT

we require an ashless oil, semi or fully synthetic oils are not. They have sulphur as an additive sulphur burned makes an ash.
Click to expand...
Tom, you're posting beyond your knowledge again.

Sulfur burns well to form sulfur dioxide, not an ash.

Here is an Aeroshell has a piston engine product which is semi-synthetic and ashless: https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/piston-engine-oil/about.html
Scroll down to see AeroShell Oil W 15 W 50. I'm sure the other manufacturers have similar products. As it seems to be used in Lycoming, I'm pretty sure it does an adequate job of scavenging lead as well.​
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Here is a read about leaded fuel and synthetic oils.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/
Click to expand...

The semi-synthetics do seem to work well and are still being sold. Your post above claimed both synthetic and semi-synthetic were bad.

Look up AeroShell Oil W 15W50 here: https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/piston-engine-oil/about.html, seems it is still being made.
Here's another one:
https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/aviat...ices/products/exxon-aviation-oil-elite-20w-50
 
PaulMillner said:
The engine series was designed to the fuels of the times in the 1950s. The IO360L2A is just a parts bin rehash of that basic 1950s design/certification, to manage costs.

Paul
Click to expand...

Yeah, aware of that, but Lycoming has parts bin access to stuff designed for 100LL in the IO-360. Throw in higher compression pistons and you'll get a few more HP for basically the same cost.
 
I believe the question should be, " when you are burning unleaded auto fuel exclusively could you run on a totally synthetic oil". I think yes, but I'll not sacrifice my engine to find out. I have two 0-300-D on air sleds that run auto fuel, and AMS oil. they have no problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top