Cam wiped out - MaxLife 10-40 blamed
- Thread starter RWEST
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they... and don't people proclaim that pushrod is more reliable or desirable in any way over OHC?
Overk1ll,
You are correct.Somebody is drinking the Asian car koolaid these days.
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they... and don't people proclaim that pushrod is more reliable or desirable in any way over OHC?
Overk1ll,
You are correct.Somebody is drinking the Asian car koolaid these days.
Why run Maxlife 10W40 (even though it shouldnt happen). Motor Craft should serve you well.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Originally Posted By: Quest
Simple! Improper cam breakin procedure observed, including but not limiting to perhaps wrong break-in lube used.
This happens more often than you think esp. in with those aftermarket retrofitting/stroked modifications with high lift cams, etc.
Bottomline: before the poster starts accusing motor oil for fault, think deeper...
Q.
Geesh! So much for the "blame" culture in the society.Don't you think it's about time to take accountability?
Agree.
Lots of things could have happened here. If he didn't use new lifters with his cam, the existing work-hardened lifters could have taken out the cam. I noticed aftermarket rocker arms. Maybe he tightened them down too tight and didn't check the preload at the rocker arm to pushrod - at the right cam phasing. There is a very specific procedure for testing preload on rocker arms to pushrods. Maybe the lifters, pushrods, rocker arms, valve springs and cam were not the right match for each other leading to too many PSI on the cam surface.
There's alot of variables at play here. When I rebuilt my 302, I thought of all these things, researched it all for parts compatibility then tested, adjusted by the book, checked and re-checked before firing it up. Then I broke in the engine by the book according to comp cams - in order to work harden the lifter surfaces to the cam surface. I did all this on 10w-30 QS dino that is sm rated. Probably negligible ZDDP. No problems in 5 years.
I would bet money that there is an assembly, break in or parts incompatibility problem here. I would also bet money that this has nothing at all to do with the oil.
Blaming the oil is far less embarassing for the engine builder. I'll admit that.
Simple! Improper cam breakin procedure observed, including but not limiting to perhaps wrong break-in lube used.
This happens more often than you think esp. in with those aftermarket retrofitting/stroked modifications with high lift cams, etc.
Bottomline: before the poster starts accusing motor oil for fault, think deeper...
Q.
Geesh! So much for the "blame" culture in the society.Don't you think it's about time to take accountability?
Agree.
Lots of things could have happened here. If he didn't use new lifters with his cam, the existing work-hardened lifters could have taken out the cam. I noticed aftermarket rocker arms. Maybe he tightened them down too tight and didn't check the preload at the rocker arm to pushrod - at the right cam phasing. There is a very specific procedure for testing preload on rocker arms to pushrods. Maybe the lifters, pushrods, rocker arms, valve springs and cam were not the right match for each other leading to too many PSI on the cam surface.
There's alot of variables at play here. When I rebuilt my 302, I thought of all these things, researched it all for parts compatibility then tested, adjusted by the book, checked and re-checked before firing it up. Then I broke in the engine by the book according to comp cams - in order to work harden the lifter surfaces to the cam surface. I did all this on 10w-30 QS dino that is sm rated. Probably negligible ZDDP. No problems in 5 years.
I would bet money that there is an assembly, break in or parts incompatibility problem here. I would also bet money that this has nothing at all to do with the oil.
Blaming the oil is far less embarassing for the engine builder. I'll admit that.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Or the Y-block, FE, 2.3L I4, 4.0L pushrod (Explorer, Aerostar..etc).......
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
+1
Ford builds very reliable engines, by and large. The Modulars, Windsors and 385s are all very reliable engines. The Duratec V6s are also some of the most reliable and nicest wearing of the current crop of 3.0L-4.0L V6s as well.
Max_Wander, don't drink the kool-aid!
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Or the Y-block, FE, 2.3L I4, 4.0L pushrod (Explorer, Aerostar..etc).......
4.9L I-6, and 3.0L v-6 Vulcan my 2 favorites.
Got to understand the following:
-all new cams came with cam lobe surface pre-treated with some sort of phosphate treatment to handle the boundary lubrication issues (with pressure on the contact surface in mind) during the initial breakin period. This phosphate coating will act as the "sacrificial lamb" and hopefully it will be more than sufficient to provide the necessary borderline protection until the break-in period is done and then the engine oil and others will take over.
- Jim 5 is absolutely correct w/r/t all the other components, mating, fitting, proper torquing, etc. that has to be rigidly followed. Otherwise, failure will happen no matter how careful you have been w/r/t following your new cam breakin procedure.
- Also: the way I see it: even if you spiked your oil with tonnes of ZDDP for your engine breakin period, there is never a guarantee that your new cam lobe surface is going to get the full benefit from those ZDDP for the aid of mating surface "conditioning" during breakin phase. My rather limited understanding to all of this has to do with the fact that: your breakin oil acts more like a basic lubricant than being the primary supplier/carrier of all kinds of additives, it's the assembly lube on the bearings,phosphate pre-treatment on cam lobes, etc. that take on that responsibility until the initial breakin work is over. From that point onwards, cam lobes and all other high pressure valvetrain parts would require very little EP additives such as ZDDP to maintain the proper conditions set by proper inital valvetrain breakins...and that means many, many years of reliable surface down the road.
Once again, cam breakin is a very very interesting subject for no 1 single cause of failure (other than human beings as being the most common cause, then comes improper workmanship and construction) would lead to it's failure and oil shouldn't be the one that takes on the sole blame for most of these cam failures.
Look around and see how many factory stock engine units that have cam failures due to low ZDDP oil on the market these days and do a statistical reports and then you'll know what I mean.
Q.
-all new cams came with cam lobe surface pre-treated with some sort of phosphate treatment to handle the boundary lubrication issues (with pressure on the contact surface in mind) during the initial breakin period. This phosphate coating will act as the "sacrificial lamb" and hopefully it will be more than sufficient to provide the necessary borderline protection until the break-in period is done and then the engine oil and others will take over.
- Jim 5 is absolutely correct w/r/t all the other components, mating, fitting, proper torquing, etc. that has to be rigidly followed. Otherwise, failure will happen no matter how careful you have been w/r/t following your new cam breakin procedure.
- Also: the way I see it: even if you spiked your oil with tonnes of ZDDP for your engine breakin period, there is never a guarantee that your new cam lobe surface is going to get the full benefit from those ZDDP for the aid of mating surface "conditioning" during breakin phase. My rather limited understanding to all of this has to do with the fact that: your breakin oil acts more like a basic lubricant than being the primary supplier/carrier of all kinds of additives, it's the assembly lube on the bearings,phosphate pre-treatment on cam lobes, etc. that take on that responsibility until the initial breakin work is over. From that point onwards, cam lobes and all other high pressure valvetrain parts would require very little EP additives such as ZDDP to maintain the proper conditions set by proper inital valvetrain breakins...and that means many, many years of reliable surface down the road.
Once again, cam breakin is a very very interesting subject for no 1 single cause of failure (other than human beings as being the most common cause, then comes improper workmanship and construction) would lead to it's failure and oil shouldn't be the one that takes on the sole blame for most of these cam failures.
Look around and see how many factory stock engine units that have cam failures due to low ZDDP oil on the market these days and do a statistical reports and then you'll know what I mean.
Q.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have a hard time beleiving it was JUST the oil that caused that damage. ML has a LOT of moly in it, that 'should' mostly make up for the lower zinc amounts. Perhaps improper assembly/break-in?
Or a flaw in the cam itself or the lifter foot surface. Note that the other lobes look just fine! If it were oil-related, I'd expect to see all of them trashed.
That, in addition to all of what Quest said, kinda clinches it.
I often wondered why 20 minutes was the cam break in running time at first start. I think Quest covered this. It would take about that amount of time to heat up the oil enough for the AW elements to work ..or so I reason.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I have a hard time beleiving it was JUST the oil that caused that damage. ML has a LOT of moly in it, that 'should' mostly make up for the lower zinc amounts. Perhaps improper assembly/break-in?
Or a flaw in the cam itself or the lifter foot surface. Note that the other lobes look just fine! If it were oil-related, I'd expect to see all of them trashed.
That, in addition to all of what Quest said, kinda clinches it.
I often wondered why 20 minutes was the cam break in running time at first start. I think Quest covered this. It would take about that amount of time to heat up the oil enough for the AW elements to work ..or so I reason.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
that Jim really seems to know his stuff. the OP is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, though. I like his phrase, "per batum". classic.
I didn't think cam mfgrs would still be recommending against syn. about 20 yrs ago I put a crower cam in my SBC and the instructions specifically said do not use syn. I thought things would have changed somewhat.
I'm a member over there, Jim is actually one of the few who has an idea of what he's talking about.
that Jim really seems to know his stuff. the OP is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, though. I like his phrase, "per batum". classic.
I didn't think cam mfgrs would still be recommending against syn. about 20 yrs ago I put a crower cam in my SBC and the instructions specifically said do not use syn. I thought things would have changed somewhat.
I'm a member over there, Jim is actually one of the few who has an idea of what he's talking about.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
I'm just saying... excessive ZDDP, special PITA cam break in procedures and excessive valve spring pressures are all crutches for a doo-doo engine design that was never meant for performance parts and high valve spring rates. Forget the kool-aid, this is obvious to me drinking Brita water... I know there is a huge aftermarket and following for these engines, and the only thing they have going for them is that, and the cubes... definately nothing that get's me excited. Honestly, all this talk about special CAM break in procedures and crossing your fingers and losing sleep at night wondering if it's gonna grenade or not?! Come on! Only way this isn't Ford's problem and assuming those big blocks have even a halfway decent lubrication for the cam, then it's the cam manufacturer's issue.
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Ford designed engines aren't exactly the beacon of reliability now are they...
What?
Ford's modular engines are one of THE most reliable engines in the world, the Windsor was also an EXTREMELY reliable engine, as was the 300 I6, and the 385-series engines, such as the 460 being discussed.
I'm just saying... excessive ZDDP, special PITA cam break in procedures and excessive valve spring pressures are all crutches for a doo-doo engine design that was never meant for performance parts and high valve spring rates. Forget the kool-aid, this is obvious to me drinking Brita water... I know there is a huge aftermarket and following for these engines, and the only thing they have going for them is that, and the cubes... definately nothing that get's me excited. Honestly, all this talk about special CAM break in procedures and crossing your fingers and losing sleep at night wondering if it's gonna grenade or not?! Come on! Only way this isn't Ford's problem and assuming those big blocks have even a halfway decent lubrication for the cam, then it's the cam manufacturer's issue.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: tig1
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Or the Y-block, FE, 2.3L I4, 4.0L pushrod (Explorer, Aerostar..etc).......
lol, definately not my cup of tea, there...
Originally Posted By: tig1
Not to mention the 3.0 Vulcan.
Or the Y-block, FE, 2.3L I4, 4.0L pushrod (Explorer, Aerostar..etc).......
lol, definately not my cup of tea, there...
He probably has hi power double or triple valve springs. For a truck engine that will rarely see over 4000 rpm, stock springs would be fine.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Are you seriously this daft?
This is an engine that came out in the SIXTIES!!!
Somebody slaps a performance cam in it, KEEPS it flat-tappet, perhaps didn't assemble it correctly, or didn't follow the cam break-in procedure, the cam fails and it is suddenly a design problem with the engine????
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I'm just saying... excessive ZDDP, special PITA cam break in procedures
Which are necessary on ANY fresh flat-tappet cammed engine from ANY manufacturer. They ALL need to be broken-in correctly, and the procedure is dictated by the CAMSHAFT manufacturer and is NOT engine-specific. The same procedure goes for a small block or big block Chevy as it does for this Ford.
Quote:
and excessive valve spring pressures
Please define excessive? My springs are 500lbs, and since it is roller, there was no break-in procedure. I'm sure in Honda land, my spring pressure is considered "excessive".
Quote:
are all crutches for a doo-doo engine design that was never meant for performance parts and high valve spring rates.
Let me correct that for you:
Are all part of the procedure of extracting performance out of a FLAT TAPPET CAMMED ENGINE. REGARDLESS OF BRAND.
I KNOW PERSONALLY a gentleman with an 780RWHP 534CI (460-based in case you didn't guess) Fox Mustang. Roller valve train (what this gentleman should have done), runs 9's on motor, and gets driven around town almost every day during the summer. Drives to and from the track.
Quote:
Forget the kool-aid, this is obvious to me drinking Brita water... I know there is a huge aftermarket and following for these engines, and the only thing they have going for them is that, and the cubes...
They have the same things going for them that the BBC and BBM have going for them:
1. Big displacement potential
2. A plethora of aftermarket parts
3. The ability to make stupid power on PUMP GAS.
You are coming down on an ENGINE FAMILY, because the procedure that, again for clarity here, MUST BE FOLLOWED FOR ANY FLAT TAPPET BUILD perhaps was NOT, and it is the ENGINE's fault??????
Quote:
definately nothing that get's me excited.
No, that's probably a Honda 1.6L with 45lbs of boost on it, running C16 and having to have the head re-torqued between runs just trying to break 12's.
Quote:
Honestly, all this talk about special CAM break in procedures and crossing your fingers and losing sleep at night wondering if it's gonna grenade or not?! Come on! Only way this isn't Ford's problem and assuming those big blocks have even a halfway decent lubrication for the cam, then it's the cam manufacturer's issue.
You don't get it.
It is not Ford's problem. It is a STANDARD PROCEDURE for ANY performance flat-tappet build. [censored], we broke-in TWO cams last year for my buddy's dad's SBC in the freakin' driveway!
People wipe cams. This happens quite often in flat-tappet land. There are LOTS of these stories for ANY pushrod engine that somebody put a performance flat-tappet cam in.
They even make break-in springs for this process if somebody is going to be running VERY heavy springs due to high-RPM and lots of lift.
Again, to reiterate:
There is a STANDARD PROCEDURE for flat-tappet cam break-in. There is nothing "special" that needs to be done for a Ford. And they are NO MORE LIKELY to wipe a lobe than ANY other big block or small block pushrod engine.
You've taken a subject you obviously know nothing about and spun yourself an interesting tale of make believe in order to blame Ford for a design flaw that doesn't exist.
Good job.
He should have gone roller.
This is an engine that came out in the SIXTIES!!!
Somebody slaps a performance cam in it, KEEPS it flat-tappet, perhaps didn't assemble it correctly, or didn't follow the cam break-in procedure, the cam fails and it is suddenly a design problem with the engine????
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I'm just saying... excessive ZDDP, special PITA cam break in procedures
Which are necessary on ANY fresh flat-tappet cammed engine from ANY manufacturer. They ALL need to be broken-in correctly, and the procedure is dictated by the CAMSHAFT manufacturer and is NOT engine-specific. The same procedure goes for a small block or big block Chevy as it does for this Ford.
Quote:
and excessive valve spring pressures
Please define excessive? My springs are 500lbs, and since it is roller, there was no break-in procedure. I'm sure in Honda land, my spring pressure is considered "excessive".
Quote:
are all crutches for a doo-doo engine design that was never meant for performance parts and high valve spring rates.
Let me correct that for you:
Are all part of the procedure of extracting performance out of a FLAT TAPPET CAMMED ENGINE. REGARDLESS OF BRAND.
I KNOW PERSONALLY a gentleman with an 780RWHP 534CI (460-based in case you didn't guess) Fox Mustang. Roller valve train (what this gentleman should have done), runs 9's on motor, and gets driven around town almost every day during the summer. Drives to and from the track.
Quote:
Forget the kool-aid, this is obvious to me drinking Brita water... I know there is a huge aftermarket and following for these engines, and the only thing they have going for them is that, and the cubes...
They have the same things going for them that the BBC and BBM have going for them:
1. Big displacement potential
2. A plethora of aftermarket parts
3. The ability to make stupid power on PUMP GAS.
You are coming down on an ENGINE FAMILY, because the procedure that, again for clarity here, MUST BE FOLLOWED FOR ANY FLAT TAPPET BUILD perhaps was NOT, and it is the ENGINE's fault??????
Quote:
definately nothing that get's me excited.
No, that's probably a Honda 1.6L with 45lbs of boost on it, running C16 and having to have the head re-torqued between runs just trying to break 12's.
Quote:
Honestly, all this talk about special CAM break in procedures and crossing your fingers and losing sleep at night wondering if it's gonna grenade or not?! Come on! Only way this isn't Ford's problem and assuming those big blocks have even a halfway decent lubrication for the cam, then it's the cam manufacturer's issue.
You don't get it.
It is not Ford's problem. It is a STANDARD PROCEDURE for ANY performance flat-tappet build. [censored], we broke-in TWO cams last year for my buddy's dad's SBC in the freakin' driveway!
People wipe cams. This happens quite often in flat-tappet land. There are LOTS of these stories for ANY pushrod engine that somebody put a performance flat-tappet cam in.
They even make break-in springs for this process if somebody is going to be running VERY heavy springs due to high-RPM and lots of lift.
Again, to reiterate:
There is a STANDARD PROCEDURE for flat-tappet cam break-in. There is nothing "special" that needs to be done for a Ford. And they are NO MORE LIKELY to wipe a lobe than ANY other big block or small block pushrod engine.
You've taken a subject you obviously know nothing about and spun yourself an interesting tale of make believe in order to blame Ford for a design flaw that doesn't exist.
Good job.
He should have gone roller.
We've built a few engines in my shop (amateurishly) and just moly the heck out of the cams and lifterss with high content axle grease. We run the engine for a while at idle with a mild rev every once in a while. Then we do a quick drain and fill with VR1 or M1HM 10w30 depending on the application.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SnakeOil
We've built a few engines in my shop (amateurishly) and just moly the heck out of the cams and lifterss with high content axle grease. We run the engine for a while at idle with a mild rev every once in a while. Then we do a quick drain and fill with VR1 or M1HM 10w30 depending on the application.
Engine builder my buddy used to work with used GM EOS on them. We'd run it for 20 minutes at 2K or so with Kendall 15w40 in it, then change the oil.
Didn't have any problems using that procedure in the S10 for the couple of cams we did in it.
It is roller now though, had a new engine built.
We've built a few engines in my shop (amateurishly) and just moly the heck out of the cams and lifterss with high content axle grease. We run the engine for a while at idle with a mild rev every once in a while. Then we do a quick drain and fill with VR1 or M1HM 10w30 depending on the application.
Engine builder my buddy used to work with used GM EOS on them. We'd run it for 20 minutes at 2K or so with Kendall 15w40 in it, then change the oil.
Didn't have any problems using that procedure in the S10 for the couple of cams we did in it.
It is roller now though, had a new engine built.
OVERKILL I appreciate the fine details. Yes the big numbers on pump gas are somewhat appealing, but again, not my cup. I don't mean to come off like an [censored] (it just happens sometimes) and I'm def. not a Honda freak, look they even have cams failing with stock parts and roller fingers! What I do appreciate is the engineer's kindness of an over-built production engine. A little known Japanese IRON block, for example, with high flowing DOHC, 4 valve/cyl head on an engine that didnt come turbo from the factory, will STILL make 550+whp reliably entirely stock (and still uses flat bucket lifters). Never ever heard of cam problems. When you do these things on a BBx, the springs have to return NEEDLESS amounts of MASS in a timely fashion; the pushrod and the HUGE single valve need a spring strong enough. But install a spring strong enough and lobes go missing. This is where problems come in. You and bubba are right in this case, does he really need such high spring rates for his redline? and the engine builder should have matched the right parts, either lower spring rates and flat tappets or his existing springs and rollers all over. But that's just whatcha gotta deal with, I spose. Perhaps I can't pin this one on FORD (although I don't find cam in block designs to lubricate as well as a OHC where each lobe gets dipped in oil on each revolution), but you can't blame the lube either.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Quote:
definately nothing that get's meexcited.
No, that's probably a Honda 1.6L with 45lbs of boost on it, running C16 and having to have the head re-torqued between runs just trying to break 12's.
*****!!! Oh my God that just made my day.
Quote:
definately nothing that get's meexcited.
No, that's probably a Honda 1.6L with 45lbs of boost on it, running C16 and having to have the head re-torqued between runs just trying to break 12's.
*****!!! Oh my God that just made my day.
- Status
