Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Aeroshell VS Phillips XC
- Thread starter apkp777
- Start date
anti scuff additive
The Phillips X/C does not contain Lycoming's approved anti scuff additive (cant remember the part number but you an buy it from ACS)
Aero Shell has the stuff in their oil.
Don't know if its important.
I bought a case of Phillips X/C (mostly because the log book for my used engine shows the Phillips at oil change time) and I'm pondering if I should buy the additive.
I think its about $23 for enough to treat a crankcase of oil.
Maybe somebody around here can enlighten us.
Dave
-9A FWF kit
N514R
The Phillips X/C does not contain Lycoming's approved anti scuff additive (cant remember the part number but you an buy it from ACS)
Aero Shell has the stuff in their oil.
Don't know if its important.
I bought a case of Phillips X/C (mostly because the log book for my used engine shows the Phillips at oil change time) and I'm pondering if I should buy the additive.
I think its about $23 for enough to treat a crankcase of oil.
Maybe somebody around here can enlighten us.
Dave
-9A FWF kit
N514R
az_gila
Well Known Member
Only the Aeroshell...
..."plus" versions of the straight weight oil have the Lycoming anti-scuff additive - and more $$$ at purchase...
..."plus" versions of the straight weight oil have the Lycoming anti-scuff additive - and more $$$ at purchase...
N395V
Well Known Member
For all that has been written on this subject, all the quoted facts, all the conjecture and logic spouted, my best guess is...................................
If you take 3 groups of O-360 or IO 360 Lycomings , 1,000 engines in each group.
Run group 1 on exclusively Aeroshell, group 2 exclusively on Phillips, group3 on Aero whatever with really expensive additives.
Let good pilots, bad pilots, experienced pilots and new pilots fly them all randomly until all the engines fail you will find that the average time to failure in each group is statistically the same.
If you take 3 groups of O-360 or IO 360 Lycomings , 1,000 engines in each group.
Run group 1 on exclusively Aeroshell, group 2 exclusively on Phillips, group3 on Aero whatever with really expensive additives.
Let good pilots, bad pilots, experienced pilots and new pilots fly them all randomly until all the engines fail you will find that the average time to failure in each group is statistically the same.
Rick_A
Well Known Member
Both are good
I have a TMX-O360 from Mattituck, so it's an ECI motor. ECI recommends Phillips X/C for break-in and normal use.
I ran the 1st 50 hours with Phillips X/C. However, many people use Aero Shell Mineral oil for break-in.
I switched to Aero Shell 100W after 50 hours. When I got to 125 hrs I started using Aero Shell 100W plus.
I have a TMX-O360 from Mattituck, so it's an ECI motor. ECI recommends Phillips X/C for break-in and normal use.
I ran the 1st 50 hours with Phillips X/C. However, many people use Aero Shell Mineral oil for break-in.
I switched to Aero Shell 100W after 50 hours. When I got to 125 hrs I started using Aero Shell 100W plus.
I removed 4 Superior Investment Cast head with steel barrels cylinders from my O-320 after 2,100 hours. I used AeroShell 15-50 almost exclusively except for using Phillips 20-50M for break-in the first 25 hours. When the cylinders were removed, the cross-hatch was still in the cylinders and they measured out as NEW spec including the choke. I used 1 quart every 25-hours for the first 500 hours then went up to one (1) quart every six (6) hours when I removed the cylinders after 2,100 hours.
I replaced the cylinders with ECI Titan Steel cylinders. I broke the ECI cylinders in on Phillips 20-50M for 25 hours. I have been using Phillips X/C 20-50 since then. After 171.6 hobbs hours since installing the new cylinders and using Phillips X/C 20-50, the oil consumption is one (1) quart every 45-hours. I have never heard of an aircraft engine going that long without using a quart. Maybe I have the only one. Report in if you can go that long without adding oil. I have not added oil between changes but instead change it a little bit early.
When oil change time comes, I have 6-quarts of X/C 20-50 left. I like the idea of the Lycoming additive. I will more than likely switch back to AeroShell 15-50 once all the Phillips is used up. The cost delta for the Phillips XC 20-50 plus the Lycoming additive was equal to the cost of the AeroShell 15-50. I purchased the Phillips X/C at A P Fischer as they are close enough for me to pick it up from them. http://www.apfischer.com/ Aircraft Spruce is a little bit longer drive and may have price matched them. I also have a local AeroShell dealer close to my hangar but they are the same price as A P Fischer near where I live.
With the Constant Speed prop, I am ready to fly at 70 degrees F oil temp. If I use the 100+, I need to wait till I hit 100 degrees F oil temp till the prop cycles the same as it does on the 15-50 or 20-50.
Ask any oil man or engineer and they will tell you that the multi-weight oil is thinner at low temp when compared to a straight weight. When you get to an ELEVATED temperature (above normal operating temp) the multi-weight oil will be thicker than the straight weight oil.
I spend a little bit more of my hard earned money on the multi-weight oil. Based on my experience with it over the 2,100 hours, I think it was worth it. Maybe I would have had no wear with the straight weight. The cost delta is not something that I am going to worry about to experiment with on my engine. All new car manufacturers that I know of recommend multi-weight oil for their engines. I do not know of any present new car manufacturer that recommends a straight weight oil. Do you have to use a multi-weight oil in our aircraft engine to make it last a long time? NO.
I replaced the cylinders with ECI Titan Steel cylinders. I broke the ECI cylinders in on Phillips 20-50M for 25 hours. I have been using Phillips X/C 20-50 since then. After 171.6 hobbs hours since installing the new cylinders and using Phillips X/C 20-50, the oil consumption is one (1) quart every 45-hours. I have never heard of an aircraft engine going that long without using a quart. Maybe I have the only one. Report in if you can go that long without adding oil. I have not added oil between changes but instead change it a little bit early.
When oil change time comes, I have 6-quarts of X/C 20-50 left. I like the idea of the Lycoming additive. I will more than likely switch back to AeroShell 15-50 once all the Phillips is used up. The cost delta for the Phillips XC 20-50 plus the Lycoming additive was equal to the cost of the AeroShell 15-50. I purchased the Phillips X/C at A P Fischer as they are close enough for me to pick it up from them. http://www.apfischer.com/ Aircraft Spruce is a little bit longer drive and may have price matched them. I also have a local AeroShell dealer close to my hangar but they are the same price as A P Fischer near where I live.
With the Constant Speed prop, I am ready to fly at 70 degrees F oil temp. If I use the 100+, I need to wait till I hit 100 degrees F oil temp till the prop cycles the same as it does on the 15-50 or 20-50.
Ask any oil man or engineer and they will tell you that the multi-weight oil is thinner at low temp when compared to a straight weight. When you get to an ELEVATED temperature (above normal operating temp) the multi-weight oil will be thicker than the straight weight oil.
I spend a little bit more of my hard earned money on the multi-weight oil. Based on my experience with it over the 2,100 hours, I think it was worth it. Maybe I would have had no wear with the straight weight. The cost delta is not something that I am going to worry about to experiment with on my engine. All new car manufacturers that I know of recommend multi-weight oil for their engines. I do not know of any present new car manufacturer that recommends a straight weight oil. Do you have to use a multi-weight oil in our aircraft engine to make it last a long time? NO.
Last edited:
oil info
Consumer Aviation and Mike Bush in particular (Bush has a 310 he has run both engines past TBO) have lots of info on oil. I will try to sumerize. A/C tested most of the aviation oils and for corrosion believe exon and then shell multi weights are the best. If you fly on a regular basis this does not seem to be an issue.
Cam Guard has been touted by Mike Bush as being better than the multi weights at corrosion protection.
Single weight oils if you fly often (shell 100W) seem to do as good a job at long engine life.
Hope this helps.
Consumer Aviation and Mike Bush in particular (Bush has a 310 he has run both engines past TBO) have lots of info on oil. I will try to sumerize. A/C tested most of the aviation oils and for corrosion believe exon and then shell multi weights are the best. If you fly on a regular basis this does not seem to be an issue.
Cam Guard has been touted by Mike Bush as being better than the multi weights at corrosion protection.
Single weight oils if you fly often (shell 100W) seem to do as good a job at long engine life.
Hope this helps.
apkp777
Well Known Member
ECI Recommends the Phillips XC multi. Spruce sells the Phillips for $52.50 per case and the Aeroshell multi for $72.75.
Here's my current thought. I will use the Phillips for the 1st 50 hours then go with Aeroshell. The thinking is the anti-scuffing additive being the deciding factor after initial break-in.
I don't mind spending the $$ for the Aeroshell, just prefer no if its not worth it. Sounds like it might be.
Here's my current thought. I will use the Phillips for the 1st 50 hours then go with Aeroshell. The thinking is the anti-scuffing additive being the deciding factor after initial break-in.
I don't mind spending the $$ for the Aeroshell, just prefer no if its not worth it. Sounds like it might be.
nomocom
Well Known Member
Wisconsin cold?
I see WS is home? If you plan on doing any cold starts, I'd pick the Aeroshell. I've used both products, the Phillips XC about 800 hours in an 0-360. When checking the oil on a cold engine, the Aeroshell doesn't look so viscous, leading me to think better for the engine on a cold start. High temps- I'm not sure yet, but I think it may be a bit better on the high temps side, with a couple pounds more oil pressure.
I see WS is home? If you plan on doing any cold starts, I'd pick the Aeroshell. I've used both products, the Phillips XC about 800 hours in an 0-360. When checking the oil on a cold engine, the Aeroshell doesn't look so viscous, leading me to think better for the engine on a cold start. High temps- I'm not sure yet, but I think it may be a bit better on the high temps side, with a couple pounds more oil pressure.
I've had very good experience with Philips XC in my Grumman. A few years ago I read an article by Richard Collins in Flying Magazine about the number of engine overhauls in his 210P (5 or 6 as I remember). He used different oils in different runs but as I remember he got the most hours before overhaul when he used Philips XC.
Ken
Ken
I started using XC back in the 90's on my midtime engine TriPacer. Oil consumption improved from 7 hrs per qt to 8. Then I sold it to finance my 9A.
I attended Mike Buschs' seminar at OSH once. He does not like multi grade oil at all. Says there's more plastic and other chemicals in there than oil. Says he gets 3000 plus hours on an engine using straight weight oil and it still blueprints within factory specs.
FWIW, Beechcraft, Cessna, and ECI recommend Phillips XC from new to TBO. Good enough for me.
Fly often and change the oil every 50 hours or 4 months and you'll make TBO easily.
I attended Mike Buschs' seminar at OSH once. He does not like multi grade oil at all. Says there's more plastic and other chemicals in there than oil. Says he gets 3000 plus hours on an engine using straight weight oil and it still blueprints within factory specs.
FWIW, Beechcraft, Cessna, and ECI recommend Phillips XC from new to TBO. Good enough for me.
Fly often and change the oil every 50 hours or 4 months and you'll make TBO easily.
N395V
Well Known Member
What do engine manufacturers base their recommendations on.
Have they run their engines in test stands for thousands of hours with the various oils and then inspected them for wear?
Or have Exxon, Phillips, Shell, etc paid them lots of bucks to make those recommendations?
Has anyone PROVEN that one oil is superior in any way to another oil? If so how did they prove it?
Have they run their engines in test stands for thousands of hours with the various oils and then inspected them for wear?
Or have Exxon, Phillips, Shell, etc paid them lots of bucks to make those recommendations?
Has anyone PROVEN that one oil is superior in any way to another oil? If so how did they prove it?
jsharkey
Well Known Member
Roller Cam Followers?
Does that make any difference - is the anti scuff needed for them?
..."plus" versions of the straight weight oil have the Lycoming anti-scuff additive - and more $$$ at purchase...
Does that make any difference - is the anti scuff needed for them?
viscosity
In reply to nomocom "the Aeroshell doesn't look so viscous, leading me to think better for the engine on a cold start."
you want a viscous oil on start up to lubricate bearings etc quickly . I changed to phillips in our pratt $ whitney 1340 AT 301 . Compared to the pennzoil we were running, we got lower oil press. on start (much better for oil cooler), quicker warm up and less consumption.
In reply to nomocom "the Aeroshell doesn't look so viscous, leading me to think better for the engine on a cold start."
you want a viscous oil on start up to lubricate bearings etc quickly . I changed to phillips in our pratt $ whitney 1340 AT 301 . Compared to the pennzoil we were running, we got lower oil press. on start (much better for oil cooler), quicker warm up and less consumption.
Last edited:
zilik
VAF Moderator
I checked other because;
I change my oil every 25 hours with used oil from all the other RV's on the field. So I really don't know what kind of oil I'm using. Lycoming says 50 hour changes if you have a filter so I grab the used stuff my hangar mate is gonna throw away. Heck he's only used it for 25 hours, I can use it for the other 25.
LOL, should be April 1st for this kind of post.
I change my oil every 25 hours with used oil from all the other RV's on the field. So I really don't know what kind of oil I'm using. Lycoming says 50 hour changes if you have a filter so I grab the used stuff my hangar mate is gonna throw away. Heck he's only used it for 25 hours, I can use it for the other 25.
LOL, should be April 1st for this kind of post.
Synthetic Oils
I'm sticking with the Aeroshell because it is a semi-synthetic oil.
Back in the 1970s and early 80s I had a fetish for Moto Guzzi motorcycles. (I discovered the RV-4 in 1993/4 thanks to Chuck Berthe.) I used to hang out (drink beer) in San Antonio with a couple of motor heads who worked for Southwest Research Institue. All they did for a living was test oils and engines. They would take a new engine, whatever make, Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, etc....run it, break it down & mic whatever, put back together run it, drain oil and run to failure, tear down & examine, mic over & over ad nauseaum. Day in & day out.
They were sold on both multi-viscosity and synthetic oils. I know these are not airplane engines and lead suspension was not an issue. Simplex was the first synthetic oil I was able to purchase; but have used synthetics in every lawnmower, tractor, vehicle and airplane since then.
So far so good. Those guys were convincing to me. Also, I strongly believe frequent oil changes based on calendar date, not just operating hours, with any oil is very beneficial. Acid buildup in an oil is detrimental. The filter will not remove the acid and it is not detectable by just a visual on the dipstick. Whatever oil one uses, it is cheaper than parts, as they say.
Happy flying,
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N34CB)
George West, TX (8T6)
I'm sticking with the Aeroshell because it is a semi-synthetic oil.
Back in the 1970s and early 80s I had a fetish for Moto Guzzi motorcycles. (I discovered the RV-4 in 1993/4 thanks to Chuck Berthe.) I used to hang out (drink beer) in San Antonio with a couple of motor heads who worked for Southwest Research Institue. All they did for a living was test oils and engines. They would take a new engine, whatever make, Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, etc....run it, break it down & mic whatever, put back together run it, drain oil and run to failure, tear down & examine, mic over & over ad nauseaum. Day in & day out.
They were sold on both multi-viscosity and synthetic oils. I know these are not airplane engines and lead suspension was not an issue. Simplex was the first synthetic oil I was able to purchase; but have used synthetics in every lawnmower, tractor, vehicle and airplane since then.
So far so good. Those guys were convincing to me. Also, I strongly believe frequent oil changes based on calendar date, not just operating hours, with any oil is very beneficial. Acid buildup in an oil is detrimental. The filter will not remove the acid and it is not detectable by just a visual on the dipstick. Whatever oil one uses, it is cheaper than parts, as they say.
Happy flying,
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N34CB)
George West, TX (8T6)
Neal@F14
Well Known Member
The O-320 in my Cherokee was broken in and ran for the about the first 600 hours on Phillips oil (20/50M break-in, 20/50 XC afterwards). It always has used a quart about every 20 hours, and I'm pretty sure most of that is from a leak... it's always had a bit of a seep at the right rear corner of the engine where the sump gasket meets the accessory case.
That was when I regularly flew at least every week, sometimes more frequently. So I switched to Exxon Elite a few years ago when I cut my frequency of flying almost in half due to skyrocketing fuel prices and the plane sometimes sits in the hangar unflown for a few weeks or even more than a month at a time. Exxon claims the Elite is supposedly formulated for better corrosion protection in infrequently flown engines, so I guess I'll find out if that's true. I've got 900 hours on the engine now with no mechanical problems, no change in oil consumption and so far the Exxon Elite seems to be a great oil. It's semi-synthetic and supposed to contain the TCP Lycoming additive just like Aeroshell.
That was when I regularly flew at least every week, sometimes more frequently. So I switched to Exxon Elite a few years ago when I cut my frequency of flying almost in half due to skyrocketing fuel prices and the plane sometimes sits in the hangar unflown for a few weeks or even more than a month at a time. Exxon claims the Elite is supposedly formulated for better corrosion protection in infrequently flown engines, so I guess I'll find out if that's true. I've got 900 hours on the engine now with no mechanical problems, no change in oil consumption and so far the Exxon Elite seems to be a great oil. It's semi-synthetic and supposed to contain the TCP Lycoming additive just like Aeroshell.
Last edited:
Wow, small world. I spent about four years as a machinist apprentice with (a very good friend) that ran a significant portion of that operation in the early '80s. Good times. That was quite an operation doing lubrication research.
Hi Scott,
REALLY!!
I wonder if that research is still going on?? ....I would imagine so. I have not seen those fellows for years now. I heard some "researchers" quit Southwest Research and started a business near Lytle, Tx testing lubricants and truck tires in the mid-80s. Some very interesting stuff and I loved listening to them. Cheers,
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N34CB)
George West, TX (8T6)
nomocom
Well Known Member
viscosity and surface tension
Hmmm. Please clarify. If you like a thick or viscous oil for startup, why'd you quit the single viscosty and go to a multi-vis? Probably because easily pumped oils circulate sooner and at better flows? More viscous equals harder to pump, lower flow to the bearings on a cold start. As far as protecting bearings on startup before oil pressure, the synthetic will likely do a better job, two reason that come to mind. The semi-synthetic keeps the bearing wetted better via engineered properties, maybe a higher surface tension. Also, the more semi-synthetic is more likely to have friction modifiers that bind to the metal and offer protection, oil layer or not. The SW Research Institute guys weren't making synthetic oil / multi viscosity converts because it cost more, it really does offer better performance.
Oil cooler abuse? AFAIK, lycomings don't suffer from oil cooler abuse on cold start. On a cold start, the oil cooler bypass should be open, and if pressure rises enough, the oil bypass to the sump opens, so subjecting the oil cooler to high pressure really isn't much of a risk.
Hmmm. Please clarify. If you like a thick or viscous oil for startup, why'd you quit the single viscosty and go to a multi-vis? Probably because easily pumped oils circulate sooner and at better flows? More viscous equals harder to pump, lower flow to the bearings on a cold start. As far as protecting bearings on startup before oil pressure, the synthetic will likely do a better job, two reason that come to mind. The semi-synthetic keeps the bearing wetted better via engineered properties, maybe a higher surface tension. Also, the more semi-synthetic is more likely to have friction modifiers that bind to the metal and offer protection, oil layer or not. The SW Research Institute guys weren't making synthetic oil / multi viscosity converts because it cost more, it really does offer better performance.
Oil cooler abuse? AFAIK, lycomings don't suffer from oil cooler abuse on cold start. On a cold start, the oil cooler bypass should be open, and if pressure rises enough, the oil bypass to the sump opens, so subjecting the oil cooler to high pressure really isn't much of a risk.
