Please don’t regret writing the article. I read it as you stated and certainly not as an advertisement.
The reasoning behind the inventor’s statements and claims sound good to me, and this isn’t the first time I’ve seen comments about corrosion setting into little used engines.
So keep up the good work sir and don’t let a bunch of grumpy old men get you down…
Let us know if your “clatter” comes back, I for one would like to know.
HEY!!!
Bite me…”old”.
Agree Philip, except for the bit about JJ ‘endorsing’ anything.
What I failed to do was specifically state in an opening para (or possibly footnote) that the views expressed were those of the people concerned, not Jaguar Journal.
I found the piston pic just made me think instantly “What were the other variables?” and the flattened cam pic showed damage like no Jag cam I’ve ever seen or even heard of. But publication only means dissemination, not endorsement.
There has been other stuff published in JJ that I am unable to verify but I think readers deserve to read and make up their own mind. Comments from qualified readers like yours are the way we go forwards and learn. The year before last Dick Russ and Mike Cook had repeated engine problems after their rebuilds, and I did not always agree with Dick’s thinking as to how and why the provlems arose but was happy to publish and let readers think the issues through for themselves.
I said “indirectly” endorsed the product by publishing the article. It’s along the lines of “guilt by association.” If they publish any article in their mag, that holds a certain amount of credibility even if they have disclaimers out the wazoo.
But my point was really if JJ is going to make that a habit. I have a ton of products that I love and had good results. I just wouldn’t expect a magazine like that to publish an article on them based on my personal experience.
Sorry if Dick got all sad about my comments. I guess it’s ok for him to publish what he wants, but I should feel bad if I write my opinion on a open forum. 
"…
Nope. Keep on posting and giving your view please - especially if your training equips you to rectify specific errors.
Pete
Well, some of us aren’t “old” but sometimes we all act that way…myself excluded of course!!
No at all Philip, I consider both yours and Dick’s views and opinions on this specific subject equally valid. Print whatever you like, we pretty much all do, and let each reader decide for themselves whether they agree or not…I shared an article from a recognized Porsche engineering company recently, some liked it some thought it was fluff…so what…pay your money and take your choice.
thanks David. That’s the single point I was trying to make.
As for the product itself. I have no opinion one way or the other. If someone uses it and it works for them, fine. But I did review quite a bit of chatter on the various aircraft forums and the response to the product was universally positive.
My one question, and maybe Dick could address this, is I’ve flown enough to know that a Continental or Lycoming or whatever, engine in a light civil aviation airplane works and lives in a different environment than an automotive engine. Less frequent usage, often stored outdoors in the elements, more operation at constant RPM. Do those differences make airplane engine camshafts somehow more prone to the problems shown in the article?
After I left the space program I moved to Oklahoma and started a small aircraft company that bought used aircraft that we would refurbish or in some cases light the term we light to use Restore. Many of the planes we bought were single engine Lycoming powered. Many times the aircraft had been sitting and seldom flown. On the Lycoming engines the camshaft is mounted high in the crankcase which by not being flown much and sitting, the camshaft would rust. Many times we found the cams rusty and in many cases a lobe or two worn down from the rust that formed on the lobes. This condition in most cases required a complete overhaul of the engines. CamGuard was aware of this problem and therefore came up with an oil additive to coat the internal parts thus preventing rust to form on ferrous parts. We never had a problem with engines that had been using CamGuard. So when I read they had came out with the CamGuard Automotive additive I was excited and wanted to try it in my XK engine. I spoke directly with the Chemist and told him why I was going to use it and wanted to know what he thought. He had no idea if it would help quiet the engine or not. One reason I wanted to use it was to protect it when sitting and the other to see if their product by coating the cam lobes would possibly help with some of the noise. My engine is a high performance with only 8500 miles on it. I was told I could expect some noise from the valve train. i just wanted to see if CamGuard would help which in my case it did. It might not do the same for others, but it sure works in mine. This is the only reason I wanted to share it with others.
Again, thanks for sharing: your experience with light aircraft engines gives some gravitas to your observations.
I live where rust is thankfully not an issue: I have had engines sit for 20-30 years, indoors, and only ever form the slightest flash rust in the cylinders, if that.
Don’t the cam lobes sit in a pool of oil retained by the head casting, Wiggy?
So upon initial turning, lobes are coated?
Obviously, the journals have to wait for pressure/flow.
D
My recollection is that when I remove the cam covers there are a series of ‘pools’ but the cams and buckets are not sitting in them.
Hi Dick,
I have not read the article, but the issue of ZDDP being needed for flat tappets arose a dozen or more years ago in the TR community, My understanding was that it had been removed, or lessened in engine oil because it was no longer needed with newer cam designs, and ZDDP reduced life of catalytic converters, Is that still the rationale today? The additive was merely to restore what we used to be getting in the oil we bought. Thanks, Mike Moore
What Geo said: not precisely sittin IN the oil. Regardless, the film that is there is adequate for the first few turns, till the OP fills the cams.
Precisely correct IMHO. But the stuff described in this article is supposed to have an anti-corrosion property in addition to replacing ZDDP.
I know the concern many have over the removal of ZDDP and flat tappet issues, but I am curious? First, assuming the oil companies have not already made their current, super duper oils vastly superior in every way to 1960’s oil, would not the superior properties of synthetic oil more than make up for a lack of ZDDP. Also, what is different in recent/current flat tappet engines that they do not need ZDDP? I know this is a can of worms, but I still thought I would ask.
Tom
Tom, as far as I can tell, this hysteria about ZDDP is just that.
Overall, I have heard of little evidence this Oil Apocalypse really matters a hill of beans.
A takeaway statement:
“Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.”
Camguard apparently has a property that provides engine bare metal with protection from moisture etc. Leaving the engine for long periods of time apparently, again, will leave internal engine parts without any oil covering.
This from their site…
Here’s a data point: At the time ZDDP became an issue in our TR group, it followed stories of tappet failure which evolved into “they forgot how to make tappets”, and modified Ford tappets had become popular. I was on a very tough gear failure analysis in my work and realized gear life CAN be up to a 9th power inverse function of load if you get above a certain load level.( Contact stress failure of gears to gears have a lot in common with a round cam to a flat tappet).I ran the numbers for my TR3 tappets which I had recently rebuilt and had also installed an earlier “gotta have”, Iskendarian racing springs for the valves. I should have been in the failure zone. I removed a tappet, and sure enough, it was pitting. So there may be some other things going with tappet failures besides an absence of ZDDP.
Again: I live in a dry climate—avg 20% RH—so take my observations in that light.
My Rover—just the latest in many examples—sat for YEARS, without running. When I got it, in 2013, it hadnt run 3 hours in the previous 7 years. I got it, freshened up the fluids, did basic maintenance, then drove it ~5000 mikes, before the oil pump failed, necessitating an overhaul.
There was -ZERO- evidence of any rust, any where in the engine. Same goes for Tweety: he sat from 1983 to 2009, with maybe 2 hours of the engine being run, in that time.
Whn I tore down his engine, in 2010, I again saw NO evidence of rust, anywhere inside the engine.
For me, Ive not ever seen any significant, or even the slightest hint of, rust in any engine, kept closed up.
For those not aware of the story, I had a ‘55 100-4 Healey, which my Dad had done a rebuild on, somewhere around 1964. The engine NEVER WAS run, the car became abandoned with my Dad, then sat, outside, in the car, no carbs on the manifold, but under the bonnet.
Around about 1988, realizing the car’s value, I dragged it—literally, since ALL the tires had rotted off the rims—into the shop, fully expecting to fond a rusted-together lump of an engine.
When I pulled the head…you coulda heard a pin drop.
NOT A SINGLE SPEC of rust in the bores, on the head, or in the engine. The oil Dad had put in it was pristine!
We changed the oil, cranked it up for oil pressure (which it did fine, and without any need of priming, tossed it together enough to run…
And it ran!
So, for me, in this climate, this is all…interesting to read.