camshaft failure
 

I been reading a lot about new solid camshaft and lifter failure on start up. I have a new Comp cam in my 69 Z28. Hasn't been fired yet. A engine builder I know said he won't build a motor with a solid cam because of all the failures. Any input is appreciated.

I have used a few Comp Cams in the last few years with no issue. I have used EDM lifters in the solid cams. I have one hydraulic engine out there and it seems as though all is well. We used Crower lifters in that build FWIW.

My Solid lifter motor builder performed Cam break in with reduced valve springs as a measure to assure free spining lifters during the critical break in period on the dyno. The n installed the inner springs to perform power pulls.

That IS the recommended procedure by some cam manufacturers too. The guy I've had build a few engines does that too. He has a very low cam failure rate and usually it happens after the first oil change when the owner fails to head his instructions on what oil to use.

I did the same thing on the dyno :-)

Worked out

Ryan W31

Over on the NCRS technical forum, there were a few guys with comp cams that had failures.
The consensus was don’t use Comp cams.
And wasn’t there a fellow that just recently posted on here about his poor customer experience with Comp?

This is what I'm talking about. A recent problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72uVnPQsmjc

The problem is not just solid lifters but alot of flat tappets including hyd.

I never had an engine go down in any of our restorations in over 25 years. Starting 3 years ago we lost almost every engine with rare exception. We had always used Comp Cam Nostalgic series cams for all of our LS6 builds and switched to other brands a couple of times after having issues with Comp. It helped but still lost two cams last year. In our case it has nothing to do with break in or oils. Simply bad material. Glad I am no longer doing them but still have one more to finish.

I put one of those Comp Nostalgia cams in the L71 2 years ago. No issues.
Also put one of those Nostalgia 30/30's in the DZ motor last year.

That being said, it really worries me every time I put a motor together- with all the guys reporting flat tappet cam failures for the last 10 years.

I also know some very reputable local race engine builders who do this for a living who have told me the same thing- never lost a cam in my life until...

But I do also see other folks reporting hydraulic roller failures.

So it's a crap shoot I guess.
I've been very lucky- but I go to pretty extreme measures to hopefully circumvent such a situation from happening.

First thing- it's very important that you verify the lifter convexity and the cam lobe taper.
Ensure that the lifters do not bind in the bores- and that they do spin.
Most folks do not check this- and it is critical.

Most do know to remove the inner valve springs, and use a good quality break-in lube- applied liberally to all the lobes.
Make sure your timing is set statically, and you are using a known good carb.

Prime the motor until you see oil pumping out of every pushrod.
And fill the carb float bowls with gas- so the motor fires immediately and does not crank and crank before starting.
And of course, as most know- be sure to vary your RPM range over 2000-2500 for the 20 minutes of break in time.

Personally, I use the Driven break-in oil, and dump it immediately after the engine is shut down- and then cut open the filter to inspect.

I then put about 100 easy miles on the car, with high zinc oil- then dump the oil again and cut open the filter one more time to inspect.

I'm going to be building a 327 for my dad's '55 Chevy. We are using a Comp Cam and some of their new coated lifters. The coating is supposed to fix the problem. It's not just Comp. Most of the cam cores and lifters come from the same place and are sold by many brands. Use oil with a lot of zinc, even after break in, and break it in with low pressure valve springs.

Neighbor just finished an engine with a Comp Cam and their lifters and lost two lobes on the 20 minute startup. Called Comp and they sent him a new cam and recommended the DLC coated lifters. Said the issue is really with lifters and not the cam. He totally rebuilt the engine and used the DLC lifters and all is well after run in and several hundred miles. The DLC lifters have a mirror finish on the bottom and don't really seat in to the cam. This was a small block with Z28 level valve springs so nothing over the top on spring pressure.

Great oil engineer online who has a blog full of great info on motor oils, cam breakin oil too. Its called 540ratblog. Go on google search and type this in 540 Rat. This guy is very good.
n recent years there have been entirely too many wiped cam lobes and ruined lifter failures in traditional American flat tappet engines, even though a variety of well respected brand name parts were typically used. These failures involved people using various high zinc oils, various high zinc Break-In oils, various Diesel oils, and various oils with aftermarket zinc additives added to the oil. They believed that any high zinc oil concoction is all they needed for wear protection during flat tappet engine break-in and after break-in. But, all of those failures have proven over and over again, that their belief in high zinc was nothing more than a MYTH, just as my test data has shown.

.
A high level of zinc/phos is simply no guarantee of providing sufficient wear protection. And to make matters even worse, excessively high levels of zinc/phos can actually “cause” DAMAGE your engine, rather than “prevent” it. Motor Oil Industry testing has found that motor oils with more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP, INCREASED long-term wear. And it was also found that motor oils with more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling (pitting and flaking). The ZDDP value is simply the average of the zinc and the phosphorus values, then rounded down to the nearest 100 ppm (parts per million).

.
From those failures where I was able to find out what specific oils were used, it turned out that those were oils I had already performed my Engineering Wear Protection Capability tests on. And all those oils had only provided poor wear protection capability, meaning that if they had looked at my test data before using those oils, they would have known in advance that their engines would be at significant risk of failure with those oils. And that is just what happened.
.
A number of people who have had those failures, and some had repeated failures, have contacted me, asking what they can do to prevent that failure in the future. I tell them to forget all that high zinc nonsense and look at my Wear Protection Ranking List. And to select any high ranking oil there, no matter how much zinc it has, because zinc quantity simply does NOT matter. The only thing that matters regarding wear protection, is the psi value each oil can produce in my testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I recommend they use the SAME highly ranked oil for break-in and after break-in. It’s that simple.
.
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN THAT ADVICE, NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER COME BACK TO ME TO REPORT THAT MY RANKING LIST DID NOT WORK FOR THEM. Since my ranking list has worked in every case to prevent wiped flat tappet lobes and lifters, it can also work for you to provide the best possible wear protection for your engine. My test data is the real deal, it exactly matches real world experience, and it is the best and most complete motor oil comparison data you will ever find anywhere.
.
And for those people who have been able to use various high zinc oils without having trouble with their flat tappet engines, that only means that the oil they used had enough wear protection capability for the loads their engines saw at that time. It does not mean they were necessarily using a great oil. And it does not provide any information about how much reserve wear protection capability their oil provided, nor how their oil compares to other oils on the market. Rat Recommends Quaker State 5W30 Full Synthetic oil. Best oil on the market today.

The issue IMO is more to do with insufficient case hardened depth on the cam cores being used. The issue is when the case depth on the nose isn't enough and this is magnified because of spring psi being highest at over the nose of the cam, than on the base circle of the cam .
Certain companies use the same UGL( unground lobe ) cam cores for a multitude of cam valve events, pt numbers , etc . The issue lies in that you harden the lobes during heat treat, but when you try to cut the more than one cam profile, using multiple centerlines or lobe lift( base circle) on the same core ,you end up grinding away too much or even going through the heat treat in some spots.
If the use a specialty UGL for each specific cam then the case depth is set at XX mm of what it needs and you after final grinding you are left with sufficient heat treat depth.
We see it all the time here .
Thanks :)

I have a nos 350 Lt1 cam has their been any issues with them

I run a stock LT-1 cam in my Camaro. I have had no issues. I use the stock springs. I think if you use heavier springs you will have issues.

Getting ready to put the original engine together for my 70 LT-1 Corvette, and am using EDM lifters just as a precaution.

Thanks, great information. The thread went as I hoped. I have also looked at the New DLC (Diamond-Like Carbon) coated flat tappet lifter . gary

I’m in the process of doing the engine build on my L89 and am trying to put the car back to original.
Very discouraging to read of all the cam failures.

There are solid roller conversions that will minimize the risk of failure and still have the "sound" that the tappets make. Find, or have made, a grind that is very similar to original and use that instead. Is anyone going to know if it's an original style tappet or roller lifter making the ticking noise? :dunno:

My other 69’ Corvette 427/435 has a roller installed by the PO. But he had to put these wonky valve cover spacers on that I really don’t want on my new build.
I just assumed that the rollers needed more vertical space but maybe they don’t? Perhaps it was just the brand or make of the rockers?

Probably has roller rockers too with the adjustment for clearance at the push rod. They are taller than original style rockers. The roller lifter conversion is all in the lifter valley and makes no difference under the valve cover. The strap is the only significant addition and it prevents the lifters from spinning.

https://vincentperformance.com/wp-co...BC-400x400.jpg

My father and I have built dozens of motors over the years. Our engine machine shop normally went with Comp products. Never had any issues untill about 2 or 3 months back. Started up a 66 375hp solid lifter motor with a blueprint cam. Out of caution we even used some Johnson lifters along with Joe Gibbs break in oil. Cam lost 6 lobes after 15mins of break in. One lobe as I recall lost .040-.050. Another wore itself into the lifter and made a nice .020 deep hole.

We decided because of the time and money we spend on these cars to go with Erson Roller cams. They have a very nice grind thats not in the catalogue but very closely matches an L78 or LS6 solid lifter cam. We used hydraulic rollers. Started the motor on the stand 3 weeks back and extremly happy with how the engine ran and sounded. We are currently converting over 2 more L78s we had planned to start. If you get them on the phone I would simply talk about what you have and askf if they have grind as a roller equivalent.

I did alot of research on the mater. Its difficult to get anyone to really admit to what is different or going wrong.

The car does have roller rockers.
Good stuff, thank you

Tuna Joe the reason for valve cover spacer is the poly locks on top of the stud more than likely, I'm wondering if you use new studs and crimp nuts on a roller setup would be any issue? I see no reason why they would loosen up.

Standard nuts will not fit into a roller rocker.

correct but roller rockers aren't required. I'm thinking OE rockers so you can run stock covers

I run stock rockers with the two roller cam motors I built. Stock valve covers; no spacers.

Are the engines as quiet as a hyd. flat tappet?

I have 2 friends that have had 3 separate cases where the cam went flat on break in. The proper break in oil and springs were used. In all cases it was with comp cams and lifters and from what I have heard they still refuse to admit they have a problem. Never again will I purchase a comp cam.

SPEEDYB

Just as quiet.

SpeedyB

Its pretty quiet, however the exhaust note is on par. For a little more money you could go solid rollers, to get back lifter tick. I considered that but deicded the hyd roller was my route from now on.

Good morning everyone..
Please re-read post #14
I tried to politely give the reason without throwing any companies under the bus, but
hey, looks like multiple people in here have seen the same from said company.
It is a core issue, plain and simple .
Thanks:)

Thanks Pete!
Nick’s post:

I'm building a 327 for my dad's 55 Chevy. I'm using a Comp Cams flat tappet hydraulic cam CS XE284H-10. I took it out of the box and was cleaning it to get it installed and I noticed that the lobes had a rough finish. I put it in my lathe and turned it slow while running a wire brush over the lobes. I used gray ScotchBrite after the brush and the lobes are smooth. I wonder if this has anything to do with the failures. Pictures are before and after. It's hard to tell in the pictures how rough the finish was before cleaning them.

Before pic looks like 100 grit sand paper. Looks a lot better after, but are you going to trust it, Freddie ?? Was the rough texture case hardening scale ? Seems it couldn't have been machining burrs if it came off with a wire brush.

We are using the new diamond coated lifters on it, so I feel pretty good about it. I have no idea what the junk was that was on the lobes. It wouldn't come off in my mineral spirits tank. The wire brush took most of it off pretty easy. I heat treat metal all the time, and I'm pretty sure that this wasn't scale from heat treating it.