Phillips XC 20W50 in Lyc O-360-A1A

[LoneRanger]

Any bad things about Phillips XC 20W50? I'm looking at an airplane with an 85 hour SMOH (Mattituck) Lycoming O-360-A1A that has used this oil since rebuild, except they may have used a straight weight mineral oil for initial break-in on the new Millenium cylinders used during the overhaul. Engine itself had total time of only 1700 tach hours since new going into the overhaul, so this was a first-run rebuild.

The main thing I am wondering about is how well the Phillips XC oil, apparently being a conventional oil, stays on the parts (cam etc) during engine down time because those 85 hrs SMOH are spread over four years-- not a lot of flying time and a lot of sitting still which can allow corrosion to take root in the engine... which is why i am wondering how well the Phillips XC stays on engine parts (anti-corrosion protection during sitting around times).

 

[LoneRanger]

Crickets...

 

[Johnny]

The Phillips XC 20W-50 is an excellent oil and was my first oil of choice when I was flying. It is factory fill on all Cessna piston powered aircraft.

 

[Robster]

I think the conditions under which the aircraft was stored will impact the engine condition more than the type of oil that's in it.

Was the airplane hangared or tied-down outside? Was the engine started and run to normal operating temps regularly (once per week)? If the aircraft wasn't "pickled" according to Lycomings recommendations I would assume some internal corrosion and reduce my offer amount accordingly.

All it takes is some small pits on a cam lobe (for instance) and you'll be paying for a tear-down in a surprisingly short amount of flight time.

Although the engine is "low-time", I would consider it "damaged" if it wasn't cared for properly. At the least, if I bought it I'd have a mechanic pull some cylinders and take a good look inside the case for any corrosion.

 

[Johnny]

Robster makes some good points. A few years back I purchased and extremely clean low hour Cessna 150 for my personal pleasure. Only problem was the plane had been setting unattended for a few years. I bought the plane then to my sadness I had to spend $25K for a complete engine overhaul. Make sure it has been run.

What kind of plane are you looking at?

 

[Robster]

. . .oh. . .and I forgot to mention. . .there's nothing wrong with the Phillips XC oil--Phillips and Shell have been the big players in general aviation lubes for decades. Personally I use AeroShell 15W-50 and have been running Lycomings to TBO regularly with no oil-related issues. I'm sure if I used Phillips, the results would be the same. . .

--Rob

 

[raptorman53]

I have to say that I am a fan of the multi weight oils. I currently run phillips 20/50 x/c in my Lycoming TIO-540AE2A. The local flight school uses only phillips in there fleet of 172's and have had very good service with it. I would say that the engine in the aircraft you are looking at has been flown the minimum amount of hours. This might not be a problem if the aircraft is based in let's say Arizona. If the aircraft is in someplace like Florida, then I might have second thoughts. Be sure to do a good pre-buy and don't get lured to an aircraft because of a fresh engine or paint.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted By: Johnny


What kind of plane are you looking at?


1961 Piper Comanche 180 (Pa-24), this one:


http://www.mikesaircraftsales.com/1961PiperCommancheForSale.html

But, those 85 hrs since Mattituck are since 2006 and in the engine log I saw only 14.7 hours put on the engine from 01-01-2007 to 03-12-2010. 14 hrs in three years is a lot of sitting still.

Since my original post a few weeks ago, and further investigation I have cooled off on this airplane.

Still want a Comanche 180 though, 1961 or newer.

 

[Robster]

I checked the link. . .not the deal of the century in my opinion. The avionics are dated, and the Narco line would not be my first choice for avionics anyway. The interior and panel is typical for that era, with no apparent modernizations. The paint was done by Oxford Aviation, so we know the paint was done right, but I'd be afraid of corrosion inside the engine. Keep looking--it's a buyers market for airplanes right now. . you can do better than that.

 

[LoneRanger]

After looking things over I had offered $40,000 cash couple weeks ago which selling dealer declined. That was a fair offer on that airplane, so I'm done with it unless market reality sets in and he changes his mind about my offer.

 

[Johnny]

Their asking $42,900 and you offered $40,000 cash and they turned it down, they are CRAZY!

 

[LoneRanger]

Might be just as well, though. I had a tech expert on Comanches from the International Comanche Society lined up who was willing to do a pre-buy inspection and test flight, which the offer was to be pended upon. Might be the seller didn't want that much scrutiny. Or not. Who knows. One thing's for sure, firm asking prices don't usually fly well in a buyer's market.

 

[Cujet]

Years ago, I was an aeroshell 100 fan. All the big boys say "Aeroshell 100 gives the best results". That was fine by me, as a newbie. However, after pulling our companies engines apart, I did not like what I saw. Plenty of corrosion, wear, varnish and some sludge.

I've since switched to Aeroshell 15-50 in all my aircraft. The results are far better. Clean internals, no varnish, minimal corrosion and wear.

I'm getting the same hot oil pressure, better cold startup oil pressure and cleaner looking oil. All good things.