What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

CamGuard....

David-aviator

Well Known Member
...is it worth it at $1.96 per once.

Granted, I did not shop for a decent price but just stopped at local pilot shop and bought a bottle for $28.95 plus tax. It was time to run the engine to check of leaks before reinstalling cowl, all with completing condition inspection.

In past I've used AvBlend. Seemed to be ok, got started with it years ago when had an engine overhauled in south Chicago that shared facility with AvBlend at the time. The deal was if I used the stuff, they would extend warrantee, I think it was from 1000 hours to 1500, seemed like a good idea.

Well I've read good stuff about CamGuard, thought i would try it. But was a little set back at the cost. It suggests using 1.6 ounces per quart which adds $21.95 to my oil change with 7 quarts.

I suppose considering the investment in a good engine, it is just a part of the cost of maintaining it, like oil analysis, filter, and good oil.
 
I use it. Only time will tell if it was worth it, but in the big picture of overall operating cost I consider it cheap insurance and the peace of mind it gives me is priceless.
 
Some time back I spoke to Allen Berret and he said that engines that run CamGuard are typically know better shape when overhauled.

That was enough for me to run it.
 
Some time back I spoke to Allen Berret and he said that engines that run CamGuard are typically know better shape when overhauled.

That was enough for me to run it.

I've gotten 2 engines assembled by Allen. He and sister Rhonda are the best.
 
If I flew every day I probably wouldn't use it. But for planes that sit more than a few days in a row I hear it really helps. I plan on using it after my break in period.

Chris
 
I'm confused. I thought the smallest bottle Aviation Camguard came in was 16 ounces (Pint). Is that not correct, or did you get a non-aviation version of Camguard?

Sorry for confusion. I bought aviation stuff, 16 ounces.
A search turned up the 8 oz bottle from a "pilot shop" but it is the auto version.
 
I use it in my boat, motorcycle, truck, tractor, mower and airplane (RV6A). Different versions of the same product. IMHO this is insurance and it has a cost. I got A 3 mpg increase in my Yukon using it. I don't mind spending a little money to save a lot of money.
 
Hoping its a good investment

I read a very interesting article a few years back on Avweb, Flying or maybe AOPA or at least some aviation related area. They did a In depth comparison of oil additives and rated them. Can't remember the contents at all but do remember that Camgard was the best hands down. Even wrote the word "Camguard" in the inside lid of my toolbox so I wouldn't forget. Good to see people here are getting good results.
 
My take from the salt cabinet tests was that multiviscosity is fine if you fly every week, straight weight if flying every two weeks and Camguard if you may be down up to three weeks.

Past that, you, "should" preserve the engine.

I often have 2 week flying breaks, I use Camguard.

It's the equivalent, to me of paying an extra $3.25/qt for the best oil I can get. I would pay 50% more for the best quart of oil, so I do. I only fly 75-100 hours/year, so I value time of overhaul case splits over pure flying hours between major work.

Hoping it's a bit of, "time, in a bottle".
 
ECI

ECI claimed my early (300hr) valve guide failure was the result of my using CamGaurd.
I don't believe it, but that's what they told me.
FWIW
Tim Andres
 
If you search the Aviation Consumer site for stories about oil and about Camguard, you could lose about three days reading it all. Then see what Ed Kollin, former Exxon Elite project manager and developer of Camguard has written over on BeechTalk, which will cost you another day. Here's the Executive Summary:

1. There's no advantage to semi-synthetic oils over straight dinosaur, and there's probably a disadvantage.
2. The additive packages in AeroShell 15W-50, W100+, and Exxon Elite are similar to that in CamGuard, but in inadequate quantities. There is no reason to use these more expensive oils.
3. There is no disadvantage to multi-viscosity oils.
4. AvBlend might reduce corrosion.
5. CamGuard probably reduces corrosion.

Based on this, I've come down to Phillips X/C 20W-50 and CamGuard.
 
some heretical thoughts on oil in aviation engines

1. If the problem you want to address is that you don't fly often enough then I suggest that regardless of the oil you use you'd be well advised to invest in an engine dehydrator. I won't go into detail here but I think there is ample evidence to support that assertion. PM me if you want more dialog.

2. I have nothing against the products mentioned above but I use a non-approved additive which even the manufacturer won't use in his own type certified aircraft (insurance rationale). There is, again, substantial evidence that it offers superior protection for an engine from which the oil has drained. What's your belief for how long the oil stays on the rubbing parts? It also offers superior friction reduction. It offers some corrosion protection simply because it stays on the parts. Lastly, it does not produce carbon fouling, etc. even though some have predicted that it would. In my engine it doesn't. That's not proof of anything in your engine, though. And yes, there is an automotive version which is very effective, patented, government tested, hold records, etc. It's my opinion that this is a better thing to do than the "approved" stuff. My airplane is "Experimental" so I don't have to confine myself to what others have tested, let alone demonstrated.

3. I also use one of those magnetic devices that surround the oil filter. I use the automotive one because the aviation one did not seem any different to me or at least not sufficiently different. have taken my filter apart a few times and seen for myself that the magnet is removing fine particles that the filter media don't remove. Does that have any real affect on wear? I don't know but I'm pretty certain that it can only make things better, not worse. It was a one time cost.

4. For what it's worth, my engine's cooling is so good it's maybe too good. I rarely if even see oil temps as high as even the recommended ones and never see it get hot. I run a block on the back of my oil cooler all year. The only time I saw my oil get hot was with the block in place, down fairly low and full power for full speed. I don't like to fly that way but my wife said it didn't seem fast enough. That was not my best moment. My real point here is that cooler oil that is at least warm enough (whatever that is) is able to protect at least as well and in some places better than hot oil. That would be most likely to be true where the viscosity is the mechanism such as in the main bearings on the crank. Reasonable men may disagree, but it seems reasonable to me. That would suggest that good cooling is good lubrication.

You can PM or email me about this if you want to know what I am doing. I will not be advising anyone to do what I do for the obvious reasons. I will offer facts and theories but not advice.
 
Some time back I spoke to Allen Berret and he said that engines that run CamGuard are typically know better shape when overhauled.

That was enough for me to run it.

Bill (and everyone), it could be and likely is true. However there is the analytical problem of a self-selected test group. In other words, someone who is willing to put expensive, scientifically supported stuff in his oil is obviously someone who thinks a lot about protecting the engine. At least some of the non-users would not fall in that category. My guess is that the likely thought patterns would lead to better behaviors and so on.
 
I use Flyguard

Flyguard is the best. As in fly the plane often.

Is worth almost $2 an ounce for Camguard.....it is if you let your engine sit for long periods. I guess in the long run, it's cheaper than gas if you don't fly the plane.

In my discussion with Blackstone Labs, additives were raising certain metals such as phosphorus. When I quit using additives, those levels dropped. I routinely fly above 7,000 and LOP and according to the folks at Blackstone, they told me to keep doing what I'm doing because the engine is healthy. I also use Phillips XC for my oil.

I highly recommend Flyguard and use it often.
 
Last edited:
engines that run CamGuard are typically know better shape when overhauled.

What exactly does that mean????????????????????????????????????????

Does it mean the parts are measured and found to be closer to " in tolerance" than non camguard engines? Do they exhibit less rust or corrosion than non camguard engines? Do they cost less to overhaul than non camguard engines? Do they have a longer TBO than non camguard engines?

Are they in "better shape" (whatever that means) because of the camguard or are they in "better shape" because their owner operates them correctly, frequently, and changes oil and filter regularly. I suspect someone willing to use and pay for camguard probably takes better care of his engine than most others.

If camguard is so effective and given it's cost why hasn't the maker of camguard obtained an STC to extend the TBO on engines that use it??????????

I don't know if camguard benefits an engine or not. I suspect it does no harm (other than to your wallet). I am not against camguard nor a proponent of it.

But I always wonder when camguard, avblend, mmo etc.enter the conversation::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Do they really (in a real world sense) do any good.

By real world sense I mean;

Do they prevent a catastrophic engine failure and save a life?
Do they make an engine run better or longer?
Do they make the engine more fuel efficient?
Do they make the airplane go faster, climb better?
Do they make for a higher sales price when you sell your airplane?


AND


Can anyone prove any of the above with real objective measurements or head to head long term comparison to engines that did not use the additive while operated under the same conditions for the same amount of time.

Expert opinions from mechanics, rebuilders, engineers are nice but what are they based on?

The closest I have come to proof on any of the above is over a 3 year period I kept 2 separate gas cans for 2 mowers and 2 weed eaters.

In one I added nothing other than 2 cycle oil. In the other I added 2 cycle oil and 1/2 pint of MMO to every 5 gallons.
I assigned each can to it's own mower and weed eater.

After 3 years the non MMO can was an ugly dirty looking brown while the MMO can was relatively clean and red.

My assumption was that the brown stain was from oil and fuel additives and probably also was building up inside the carbs of the mowers and weed eaters and as such the MMO equipment should run better and last longer.

They are all 10 years old now and all running well so still don't know if there is any "real world benefit" to the MMO. I quit using the MMO after 3 years. Now both fuel cans are brown and ugly.

As I mentioned I am not against additives and not a proponent either.

My opinion is they probably offer no measurable real world benefit and probably do no harm.

I do however believe that if you are going to sell something that others are going to put into their airplane engine and fly over my head with that engine;

They should be required to prove objectively that it is safe and does no harm and if they claim it benefits the engine and is expensive they should offer objective data
not just "expert opinions" or pilot anecdotes .

Some more info here>>>>



http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=58809&highlight=MMO+N395v
 
Last edited:
Good thread and responses. I used to live in Florida and used CamGuard with my Trinidad. Now that I live in Sacramento where it's MUCH drier, is corrosion really as much of a concern? I don't think so. I've been using the W100+ with very good analyses from Blackstone (which I do every oil change) . I'd be interested in what others do based on their location. Are pilots in the drier Western states using it with the same frequency as pilots in the Eastern states? Some of you engineers would certainly have a deeper understanding than I and it would be great to hear your thoughts. BTW, I fly at least once weekly and, in the year and a half of owning the plane have put on 220 hours. "........ so I've got that going for me." ( couldn't resist that Caddyshack call out)
Thanks,
David
 
Last edited:
humidity and corrosion

Good thread and responses. I used to live in Florida and used CamGuard with my Trinidad. Now that I live in Sacramento where it's MUCH drier, is corrosion really as much of a concern? I don't think so. I've been using the W100+ with very good analyses from Blackstone (which I do every oil change) . I'd be interested in what others do based on their location. Are pilots in the drier Western states using it with the same frequency as pilots in the Eastern states? Some of you engineers would certainly have a deeper understanding than I and it would be great to hear your thoughts. BTW, I fly at least once weekly and, in the year and a half of owning the plane have put on 220 hours. "........ so I've got that going for me." ( couldn't resist that Caddyshack call out)
Thanks,
David

When you burn gasoline in air you produce a lot of water vapor as a normal and essential component of the exhaust. In all engines but especially in our air cooled ones, a significant amount of that humid vapor gets past the pistons and into the lower regions. When you shut down your engine the air inside it is humid and hot. When you lower the temperature the humidity precipitates out because cool air simply cannot hold as much absolute moisture. None of this is news and none of this is debatable.

If you live in a place where the ambient relative humidity is near zero AND IF you immediately blow all the trapped humid air out of your engine then you don't have to worry about corrosion. If you fly the airplane every few hours before any of the oil drips off then ditto. But otherwise you'd be well advised to use an engine dehydrator either commercially obtained or home made. They are relatively inexpensive and very effective. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
oil

I have often wonder if your using say 15-50 weight oil and add a bottle of camguard at oil change and every time you start up with a cold engine and take off after a short warm up what the oil weight really is at the time the engine is being run the hardest on T/O and climb?Same thing when you add AV Blend and cut the oil I would like to hear some fellow thoughts as to the effects.
Bob
 
IIRC, Continental is doing some kind of ongoing Camguard test. It will be interesting to see what they decide.

The Camguard website posts "humidity cabinet" test results...

http://www.aslcamguard.com/tech-data/corrision-control/humidity-cabinet

...but my own experimental results were different.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=742443&postcount=58

Regarding synthetic oil and camshafts....way back when, a particular race cam would wipe the hardfacing off Honda rocker arms. I was replacing a rocker arm after every race weekend, sometimes two. Switching to a popular half-synthetic motorcycle ended the problem.
 
IIRC, Continental is doing some kind of ongoing Camguard test. It will be interesting to see what they decide.

The Camguard website posts "humidity cabinet" test results...

http://www.aslcamguard.com/tech-data/corrision-control/humidity-cabinet

...but my own experimental results were different.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=742443&postcount=58

Regarding synthetic oil and camshafts....way back when, a particular race cam would wipe the hardfacing off Honda rocker arms. I was replacing a rocker arm after every race weekend, sometimes two. Switching to a popular half-synthetic motorcycle ended the problem.

Excellent information Dan.
Your test ran longer and confirmed the protection is not very long. In fact CamGuard tests show protection for only 25 days if I read the results correctly.

Who was the guy that commented, fly often, he was right on.
 
When you burn gasoline in air you produce a lot of water vapor as a normal and essential component of the exhaust. In all engines but especially in our air cooled ones, a significant amount of that humid vapor gets past the pistons and into the lower regions. When you shut down your engine the air inside it is humid and hot. When you lower the temperature the humidity precipitates out because cool air simply cannot hold as much absolute moisture. None of this is news and none of this is debatable.

If you live in a place where the ambient relative humidity is near zero AND IF you immediately blow all the trapped humid air out of your engine then you don't have to worry about corrosion. If you fly the airplane every few hours before any of the oil drips off then ditto. But otherwise you'd be well advised to use an engine dehydrator either commercially obtained or home made. They are relatively inexpensive and very effective. Why is this so hard to understand?

I agree completely. A recent finding of how much water was condensed from a 540 short run combined with a separate test of putting water in a jug with a length of 5/8 hose equal to a breather tube. In 20 days, the container lost 1 gram of water out of 78. Ambient humidity is irrelevant to what the engine produces. It will not dry it self out in 30 days. 100% humidity.

A further experiment will be conducted to determine how much a hot crankcase vapor purge will lower the water trapped, vs a long term dehydrator. It is an outstanding idea, just needs some quantification. Some attach a vacuum cleaner to the oil fill for a short time (still hot) after in the hangar.

For now, I am convinced with some data that a dehydrator will drastically reduce the corrosion due to water vapor. TBO extension - no data. Wear - well, oil still has to be there on start. Camguard (or equal), a squirt of VCI on shutdown? Unknown, dreaming.

Sorry for being off the topic of the efficacy of Camguard vs alternative oil treatments.

Maybe we should invent an aircraft appropriate PCV system for our engines.
 
Back
Top