W80 vs W100

Then I'm really confused.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary ingredient of LW-16702 tri phenyl phosphate? It was my belief that this is an anti-scuffing/wear agent? Not particularly flammable or toxic.

TCP is tri-cresyl phosphate, a completely different beast. TCP is a very good lead scavenger, it is also very flammable and certain isomers are known neurotoxins.

I don't believe LW-16702 is TCP.

As far as phosphate... that is not the same as phosphoric acid as far as chemical properties.

Not sure that we are talking about the same compounds. Is the Lycoming snake oil which Tom mentions - LW-16702 or TCP??

Gary

see the comment about TCP in "oil talk for dummies" in the link above.

and in the product sheet I linked to you'll see a major ingredient in the manufacturer of TCP is Phosphoric acid.

this is not nice stuff.

I really do not believe that we operators need to run anything in our engines other than good AD oils, unless we are directed to by AD such as 80-04-03R2, and service bulletin 466B.

there are few engines that really require an EP oil, and there is only one EP oil that uses TCP as an additive to meet the EP requirement.
 
Seems this has evolved into oil "OPINIONS"..... Hey I got one! :goofy:

I often visit Sac Sky Ranch. Yes they are certified folks but this experimental guy listens to them carefully...

They used to operate a shop that saw a lot of engines that saw a lot of different oils including the brief experiment with synthetics. Without pointing any fingers the experience was that there was more business from multi-grade customers and a huge influx of fleet owners when the synthetics were tried.

After a long conversation I came away convinced that 100 in summer and 80 in winter is best for me in California, changed at 25 hours with a spin on filter. A couple extra dollars in maint. costs and clean oil in my old engine and it keeps purring on......

I also talked to a cylinder shop or two while researching cylinders and found a universal experience that they also had more business with multiweight customers. Now this will certainly jack up the flamers that swear by multiweights and that's fine. I hope their flaming can report many, MANY years of excellent results like those I tend to listen to that have rebuilt a crap load of engines and cylinders......

Your results may vary......
 
Last edited:
see the comment about TCP in "oil talk for dummies" in the link above.

and in the product sheet I linked to you'll see a major ingredient in the manufacturer of TCP is Phosphoric acid.

this is not nice stuff.

I agree that TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) is nasty stuff. Also agree that phosphoric acid is a fairly corrosive acid. In the manufacturing process of making TCP, the phosphoric acid provides the phosphate - it isn't phosphoric acid anymore.

I really do not believe that we operators need to run anything in our engines other than good AD oils, unless we are directed to by AD such as 80-04-03R2, and service bulletin 466B.

there are few engines that really require an EP oil, and there is only one EP oil that uses TCP as an additive to meet the EP requirement.

No argument there concerning the use of good AD oils, but I'm still not sure whether you are confusing TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) with the LW-16702 which is tri-phenyl phosphate. Which oil uses TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) to meet the EP requirement?

Gary
 
Dan -- 40 degrees lower??

:confused:

Yup. Used to reach 180 easily in the summer. Now, even with the lower case/oil tank cooling channel blocked off I can't get much more than 140 in the summer. I thought maybe the gauge was off, but immersing the bulb in boiling water gave me the right reading. I need to order the tank cover the old guys used for cold-weather ops with the small Continentals. Still available from Wag-Aero.

Dan
 
Well, here's what I understand about oils.

LW-16072 additive was created in response to problems with the -76 engines (-H2AD). It was required in those engines, otherwise you had problems. Hence the AD. As I understand it, it's a friction modifier.

Lycoming has stated that the additive is fine for use in its other engines. All I can tell you is that in my thousands of hours of running Lycomings, I've never had a major engine issue that could be considered oil-related, and I've used every oil out there from Aeroshell to Philips in my 540s. Straight weight and multi-weight. Lycomings really just don't seem to care (with the exception of the engines that require the additive). Plus I've done all kinds of other torture on test stands.

Continentals are another matter, though, because they have the starter adapters that bolt to the block and are bathed in oil. For those of you who have Japanese motorcycles, this is similar to the wet clutches that many Jap bikes have. And you'll notice that most of them require that you use oil that has no friction modifiers in it. That's harder to find these days, but Shell Rotella happens to be one. So the Jap bikes in my garage get Rotella in them. :)

As such, the Continentals should NOT have LW-16072. Remember, Lycoming said it won't hurt your Lycoming engine. It said nothing about your Continental engine. For your Lycoming, I doubt the engine will care either way.

When I was chatting with some of the guys at Cape Air's base in Hyannis (running more TSIO-520s than anyone else in the country), they told me that Cape Air uses Philips XC in all their Continentals. Good enough for me, they've got more hours of Continental operation experience than I ever will.
 
The only oil I remember that ever was supposedly the cause to excessive cam wear was the Mobil 1 oil back in the '90s. Mobil paid out lots of money to have people's engines overhauled.
 
The only oil I remember that ever was supposedly the cause to excessive cam wear was the Mobil 1 oil back in the '90s. Mobil paid out lots of money to have people's engines overhauled.

That was oils worst nightmare.. probably why we don't have a synthetic oil in use today.
 
Then I'm really confused.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary ingredient of LW-16702 tri phenyl phosphate? It was my belief that this is an anti-scuffing/wear agent? Not particularly flammable or toxic.

TCP is tri-cresyl phosphate, a completely different beast. TCP is a very good lead scavenger, it is also very flammable and certain isomers are known neurotoxins.

I don't believe LW-16702 is TCP.

As far as phosphate... that is not the same as phosphoric acid as far as chemical properties.

Not sure that we are talking about the same compounds. Is the Lycoming snake oil which Tom mentions - LW-16702 or TCP??

Gary

from ECI's page

TCP

Tricresyl Phosphate. An oil additive which produces an EP lubricant. Lycoming oil additive LW‐16702 contains this chemical.
 
I agree that TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) is nasty stuff. Also agree that phosphoric acid is a fairly corrosive acid. In the manufacturing process of making TCP, the phosphoric acid provides the phosphate - it isn't phosphoric acid anymore.



No argument there concerning the use of good AD oils, but I'm still not sure whether you are confusing TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) with the LW-16702 which is tri-phenyl phosphate. Which oil uses TCP (tri-cresyl phosphate) to meet the EP requirement?

Gary
again.

TCP : Tricresyl Phosphate. An oil additive which produces an EP lubricant. Lycoming oil additive LW‐16702 contains this chemical.
 
Whatever you say, Tom.:rolleyes:

I talked to him last night in chat, he no longer works for Lycoming, or supports their policies..You can see from his post above he pretty much agrees on the oil issues.

but he isn't as adamant as I over not using TCP when you don't need it.
 
I talked to him last night in chat, he no longer works for Lycoming, or supports their policies..You can see from his post above he pretty much agrees on the oil issues.
Yes -- he agrees with them, not you. And he's still the most knowledgable person here on engine engineering.

but he isn't as adamant as I over not using TCP when you don't need it.
Put the TCP in your 100LL avgas, and your 80/87-engineered engine will run a lot better. Put LW-16072 in your oil, and it won't make a bloody bit of difference in how your engine runs (unless it's one which requires the additive, and then it will run a whole lot worse without it). Drink LW-16072, and you deserve what happens to you.
 
Say Captain, am I missing anything?

Yesterday, 09:52 PM Posted in reply to CMTowner's post starting "The only oil I remember that ever was..."
Remove user from ignore listTom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.
View Post Yesterday, 10:47 PM Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: W80 vs W100"
Remove user from ignore listTom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.
View Post Yesterday, 11:02 PM Posted in reply to Gary's post "Re: W80 vs W100"
Remove user from ignore listTom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.
View Post Yesterday, 11:06 PM Posted in reply to Gary's post "Re: W80 vs W100"
Remove user from ignore listTom-D
This message is hidden because Tom-D is on your ignore list.

Seems better for my blood pressure....! :dunno:
 
again.

TCP : Tricresyl Phosphate. An oil additive which produces an EP lubricant. Lycoming oil additive LW‐16702 contains this chemical.

If we go to http://www.skygeek.com/telyenoilad6.html and click on the MSDS link associated with the product, we get a document outlining the properties of a chemical called SYN-O-AD 8485, the industrial version of LW-16702. It has no TCP in it, but it is still nasty stuff.

Googling other sources finds that many folks who have had difficulty with the additive have used oils with it already blended, then have added further additive to the oil. Too much of it causes troubles like deteriorating seals and metallurgical problems in the engine. This is no different from any other part of life: a little might be good but more isn't necessarily better.

Dan
 
Googling other sources finds that many folks who have had difficulty with the additive have used oils with it already blended, then have added further additive to the oil. Too much of it causes troubles like deteriorating seals and metallurgical problems in the engine. This is no different from any other part of life: a little might be good but more isn't necessarily better.

See, that doesn't sound like a smart idea. It doesn't surprise me that they have issues.
 
Dear Ron and Tom,

I would greatly appreciate it if you don't have arguments about what I think. While I appreciate the sentiment, I am capable of vocalizing my thoughts quite plainly (or typing them, as the case may be).

I would furthermore appreciate it if you do not openly discuss my employment, seeing as I do not discuss it openly myself (other than Cloud Nine and DuPuis Aviation, LLC).

I thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Love,

-Ted
 
Put the TCP in your 100LL avgas, and your 80/87-engineered engine will run a lot better. Put LW-16072 in your oil, and it won't make a bloody bit of difference in how your engine runs (unless it's one which requires the additive, and then it will run a whole lot worse without it). Drink LW-16072, and you deserve what happens to you.

go ahead and use it in your continentals if you like to buy starter adaptors.

I use TCP fuel additive in my Warner, it still fouls the plugs in 25 hours..
I stopped using it, and it still fouls plugs in 25 hours. I quit waisting my money.
 
If we go to http://www.skygeek.com/telyenoilad6.html and click on the MSDS link associated with the product, we get a document outlining the properties of a chemical called SYN-O-AD 8485, the industrial version of LW-16702. It has no TCP in it, but it is still nasty stuff.

Googling other sources finds that many folks who have had difficulty with the additive have used oils with it already blended, then have added further additive to the oil. Too much of it causes troubles like deteriorating seals and metallurgical problems in the engine. This is no different from any other part of life: a little might be good but more isn't necessarily better.

Dan

Did you notice what the major usage of TCP is?
 
Yes -- he agrees with them, not you. And he's still the most knowledgable person here on engine engineering.

That was never in debate

Put the TCP in your 100LL avgas, and your 80/87-engineered engine will run a lot better. Put LW-16072 in your oil, and it won't make a bloody bit of difference in how your engine runs (unless it's one which requires the additive, and then it will run a whole lot worse without it). Drink LW-16072, and you deserve what happens to you.

How much actual usage do you have in the use of TCP fuel additive? or are you believing the advertising hype again?
 
Better yet, blend 100LL with 87 Octane non-ethanol MOGAS for your 80/87 Octane engine and you'll be far better off.

I do in all my 80/87 engines to the 3/2 ratio, but never store the aircraft over a week with auto in it.

It's cheaper than TCP additive and does better in the 150 and the Warner, and doesn't have the safety issues of TCP
 
I do in all my 80/87 engines to the 3/2 ratio, but never store the aircraft over a week with auto in it.

It's cheaper than TCP additive and does better in the 150 and the Warner, and doesn't have the safety issues of TCP


Exactly -- same here -- no long term storage with MOGAS in the tank. I drain it and put it in the mower.

I now have TWO sources of pure gasoline within 1/2 hour of me!!!
 
you ask any A&P in any hangar in the world, about Lycoming's snake oil, they will know exactly what you are talking about.

read the AD and tell me why Lycoming wants the additive in their engines, then read the MSDS sheet on it and you'll know why I recommend not using it when you are not required to.

read the safety hazards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricresyl_phosphate

Here's a quote from a product information page.
"The most extensive section assesses findings from toxicity studies, emphasizing the large number of studies documenting neurotoxic effects, often at very low doses. These effects are further characterized through a review of the numerous reported cases of large-scale human poisoning following the ingestion of accidentally or deliberately contaminated medicines and foodstuffs. Readers are given detailed information on the clinical symptoms of poisoning, the characteristics of delayed neuropathy, long-term prognosis, and advice on the first-aid treatment of victims. While the concluding section notes that use of tricresyl phosphate poses very little risk to either the environment or the general population, the report underscores the severity and long-duration of the neuropathology caused by accidental poisoning, noting that some victims never recover."

here is some info on this wonderful stuff, read this page and tell me how many times it mentions Phosphoric acid.

http://chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/plasticizer/TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE.htm

OBTW Phosphoric acid is a metal cleaner, used mostly to clean metal, bought at he local hardware store as loc-tite corrosion remover for aluminum. and soldering flux.
Tom- how do you go from tricresyl phosphate to phosphoric acid?

Not everything with a phosphate group acts like phosphoric acid. By the logic in the quoted post, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is bad because it, too, contains esters of phosphoric acid.
 
Last edited:
Tom- how do you go from tricresyl phosphate to phosphoric acid?

Not everything with a phosphate group acts like phosphoric acid. By the logic in the quoted post, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is bad because it, too, contains esters of phosphoric acid.

Do this simple test:

get 2 small pieces of 4130 plate, wash them in soap and water to remove any corrosion protection, lay them out in the weather for a couple days or until the show a light corrosion.

lay them on your work surface, using a soft cotton cloth rub one with aeroshell 15W50, and the other with a little Phillips 20W50.

come back and tell us what happens to each.

Go to the Cessna owner club and ask this simple question, "how many C-150/0-200 key start owners have had a slipping starter and what oil were you using in the engine?"

Yesterday I spent time looking thru my records to see how many starters I have changed over the years, looking back to 1995 I found 32 starter changes 14 of those were Lycoming starters they have no oil issues mostly bendix failures. the rest are Continetal starters or starter drives. starter motor failures are not an oil issue, but the drives are.

close to half of my continental customers were dedicated aeroshell users, they ranged from the old E & C series engines to the 550.

They are the ones that totally convinced me that aeroshell with TCP in the additive package is harmful to the starter clutches in these engines, because they are the ones having problems.

My continental operators using Phillips or Exon Elite have no problems, yet they are EP oils.

my 182 operator had a starter failure on the way home from buying it, he bought and installed a new starter clutch less than 50 hours later he has the same thing happen, we reviewed the logs and the aircraft had 4 starter changes in the prior 300 hours all on aeroshell, we changed to phillips and its been 4 years trouble free.

2 of the 3 C-150s that have owned came to me with slipping starter clutches, when flushed and changed to Phillips ran trouble free for the entire time I owned them.

I built 88S from the ground up and overhauled the engine using a new starter clutch and it has run on Exon Elite for 1400 hours with no starter problems.

I suggest each of you read Lycoming service bulletin 644B and see why Lycoming wanted the AD 80-04-03R2, read that also and understand the Lycoming additive is NOT to lessen friction, it is there to add protection on start up by adding cling to the oil.

Why TCP is in aeroshell is in the additive package is unknown to me. other than it does make an EP oil, I do know it is not the only ingredient to the product.

I do know when a acid is used to modify any substance it will be a corrosive by product, that is basic high school chemistry, and the bases for every metal polish on the market. (grit/cleaner makes shiney metal) and my theory of why we have so much corrosion in engines using aeroshell.
 
I've been running Shell 80 and 100 in my personal Continentals (C-85, O-200, O-300, O-470) for a lot of years with no starter adapter problems, but I'm always willing to learn.

However, I've got a Shell distributor just down the road and it is convenient to buy case lots there. I don't think I've ever seen a Phillips or other AD oil distributor in the Sacramento area. Other than mail order, how do you get non-Shell AD oils?

Thanks

Jim
 
I've been running Shell 80 and 100 in my personal Continentals (C-85, O-200, O-300, O-470) for a lot of years with no starter adapter problems, but I'm always willing to learn.

However, I've got a Shell distributor just down the road and it is convenient to buy case lots there. I don't think I've ever seen a Phillips or other AD oil distributor in the Sacramento area. Other than mail order, how do you get non-Shell AD oils?

Thanks

Jim

I buy them at the local oil dealer.

OBTW Shell 80/100 are simple AD oils, they work fine in any engine, even those requiring the snake oil additive, yes you do have to add the 6 oz of snake oil every 50 hours.
 
I order Phillips XC 20-50W from Aircraft Spruce.

Add it with some other order items and shipping is reasonable.

:dunno:

I think Aeroshell has a better distributor network.....
 
I do know when a acid is used to modify any substance it will be a corrosive by product, that is basic high school chemistry, and the bases for every metal polish on the market. (grit/cleaner makes shiney metal) and my theory of why we have so much corrosion in engines using aeroshell.
Too bad you forgot your chemistry. Note the bolded word- a base is not an acid. Acids and bases react to make salts (using the classical definition).

Would you call nylon corrosive? It's composed of amines modified by acids. How about fingernail polish remover (ethyl acetate based)? That's ethanol modified by acid. I'm sure you wouldn't drink it because it was made from ethanol. Ethyl acetate would make a poor metal polish too.

Here's the MSDS for Brasso- a common metal polish:
http://www.parish-supply.com/msds/0380008.pdf
Show me the acid in this product.
 
Exactly -- same here -- no long term storage with MOGAS in the tank. I drain it and put it in the mower.

I now have TWO sources of pure gasoline within 1/2 hour of me!!!

My ride has had auto gas in it since long before I bought it.

I just add as needed.
 
Are salts corrosive?
Only some are. Chloride salts tend to be corrosive. You still didn't comment about the amides and esters I mentioned to you. Also, other than the confusion you seem to have with acids and bases, where did bases come into the conversation? I noted that you called acids bases, and pointed out they were very different.
 
Last edited:
Only some are. Chloride salts tend to be corrosive. You still didn't comment about the amides and esters I mentioned to you.

I didn't see the link between nylon and oil, I never seen or heard of oil with nylon in it.

I have had experience with Skydrol Hydraulic fluid, that is a ester based fluid, and really nasty stuff.

The links I have given in this thread is all any one really needs to know about the oil required in their engines.

there are very few engines we fly that require any oil except a good AD oil, so why pay for more oil than we need.

Specally one known as a hazard to us.
 
I didn't see the link between nylon and oil, I never seen or heard of oil with nylon in it.
Let me help you remember- you made the comment below:
I do know when a acid is used to modify any substance it will be a corrosive by product, that is basic high school chemistry, and the bases for every metal polish on the market. (grit/cleaner makes shiney metal) and my theory of why we have so much corrosion in engines using aeroshell.
Nylon is made from acid, but it isn't corrosive.


I have had experience with Skydrol Hydraulic fluid, that is a ester based fluid, and really nasty stuff.
Nasty in what way? I'm sure it's an irritant, but so are lots of other compounds.

The links I have given in this thread is all any one really needs to know about the oil required in their engines.

there are very few engines we fly that require any oil except a good AD oil, so why pay for more oil than we need.

Specally one known as a hazard to only to ME.
FTFY
 
Yes -- he agrees with them, not you. And he's still the most knowledgable person here on engine engineering.

Put the TCP in your 100LL avgas, and your 80/87-engineered engine will run a lot better. Put LW-16072 in your oil, and it won't make a bloody bit of difference in how your engine runs (unless it's one which requires the additive, and then it will run a whole lot worse without it). Drink LW-16072, and you deserve what happens to you.


Just run ethanol-free mogas, and don't worry about anything. ( if you have a low compression engine and an stc)
 
Nasty in what way? I'm sure it's an irritant, but so are lots of other compounds.

Next you are at the FBO, ask the mechanics, for a little to soak your little handy down in. you'll know for sure how nasty it is.

FTFY

Fixed That for you ? apparently you didn't read the hazards warning I linked.
 
Back
Top