Camguard?

No, but I do use it in my aircraft engine.

 

Thanks, didn't know that. Relatively inexpensive, risk is very very low, upside is good. May have to dump some in.

 

Not an aviator, nor a tribologist, or even an pro mechanic.

I'd just note this from the link provided:

"The photos above are pistons removed from two different Lycoming IO-540 aircraft engines. The piston on the left is from our FAA certification engine using CamGuard for 500 hours. The certification test was in an aerobatic aircraft that utilized very high power settings resulting in extremely high temperatures. The piston on the right was taken from a non-aerobatic aircraft engine that was flown at typical cruise power settings, without CamGuard, for 500 hours. The difference in deposits is striking."

If you use ANY engine HARD, at high power, and high temperatures - it will certainly have fewer deposits. It will likely have a fair amount more wear, but it sure won't build up as many deposits.

 

One of the virtues of Camguard is keep critical components protected during periods of disuse. Lycoming cams are known for corrosion because they are on top and thus can shed the oil after shutdown. Continental cams are below the crank and thus get dripped on after shutdown. So a similar anecdote applies here, in that an engine that is used on a nearly continual basis is less aft to need this protection. So for cars in storage and started on a rare basis, on occasion to 'get things hot and circulate fluids', would likely be a good candidate for this stuff. Extremely unlikely that it could cause any harm, whereas the upside may be significant.

The guy who formulated this stuff was a frequent poster on an aviation forum I used to be on. Background was in research within the petro industry so seemed to know a lot about oils and additives, past and present.

 

I sure can't argue with that - just jumped on the website, as a picture is worth 1000 words & the ones shown kinda drown out all the other benefits mentioned.