December 2008 Issue
CamGuard Oil Test: Results Require Time
Two tests reveal that this oil additive’s anti-wear properties might not show up immediately, but will over the long haul. Anti-corrosion protection remains the strong suit.
The companies that sell aviation oils tend to view their products as being like Mother Nature—and you don’t mess with Mother Nature. Which is another way of saying that if they thought their oils needed a certain additive package, they would put that package into the product. It stands to reason, then, that if an oil company doesn’t use a certain additive, you don’t need it. The fault in this logic is that it’s manufacturer-centric—it assumes that what’s good enough for the oil company should be good enough for you. And if an oil maker doesn’t use an additive simply because it costs too much, that’s a marketing decision the customer would be ignorant of, not a technical consideration. This more than anything explains why the oil companies have been chilly toward an additive we think is promising—ASL CamGuard. Our bench tests of CamGuard have proved promising, especially with regard to corrosion prevention, which we are increasingly inclined to believe is the more critical consideration than running wear. We recently performed an informal in-service test of CamGuard and we’re reporting on a more extensive test done by our AVweb colleague Mike Busch in his Cessna 310. His findings mirror our own.
To continue reading this entire article you must be a paid subscriber.
Subscribe to Aviation Consumer
Aviation Consumer is the independent online source for impartial and uncompromising evaluations of aircraft, avionics, accessories, equipment and more.
Already subscribe but haven't registered for all the benefits of the website? Click here.
Subscriber Log In
Forgot your password? Click Here.