LemansBlue68

So, assuming all of these variables also exist for other cam manufacturers, why is it that Comp Cams comes up time after time with a mention in CF threads as "I wiped a lobe on my new cam today "?

The_Dude

Possibly because more of us use Comp cams when replacing our cams?

JPhil

Not trying to defend anyone here, but in my "travels" around the web I have found that it's not just Comp Cams but the steep ramp cams ( comparable to the CC XE series) from a number of manufacturers. The number of CC failures may have more to do with the number of people running Comp Cams and that they have become the whipping boy for this issue.
I by no means am competant enough in engine building to say one way or the other, but in fairness to all parties I feel this should be mentioned.

John

comp

probably true

big_G

I think that trend is reversing very quickly.....

After Shark

Deviation or mfg not choosing to use the correct cam lobe taper or using lifters designed for the taper. Results lifter does not rotate.

Zinc my A$$! That's all I have to say.

clem zahrobsky

GMs EOS is ZINK additive that they recommend for all cam and engine break in. the taper does not cause the rotation the fact the lobe is off center of the lifter does. the lobe taper is used to push the cam to the rear of the engine so it does not "walk" to the front. i can tell you about after market cams years ago that did not have the taper on the lobe and we had to use a stop to prevent the cams from coming out thru the timing gear cover. all newer engine use roller cams so break in is not a problem so zink is not needed in the engine oil. use GMs EOS,part # 1052367 to add the zink to the oil

Crash80

Here is what Lars had to say in a different thread from some time ago:

Greg Gore

If the cam lobe had no taper even though it was offset no rotation could occur because the contact point would be in the tappets center. With lobe taper the contact point is moved away from the tappets center thus generating turning torque. Consider the plight of a poor Ford; 8 lobes are tapered toward the front and 8 toward the back and they need a thrust plate to keep the cam from walking back and forth. If you are wiping out cam lobes you are missing something. When everything is right they will survive.

Regards, Greg

Muddywaters

I heard enough about Comp...I went with Isky...

mountainmotor

It is not zinc that worries the EPA in terms of emission systems longetivety . It is the phosforus .

API SL GF-3 30wts had the phos capped at .09% by weight which was around 1000ppm when looking at the oil through spectrographic analysis . There was not a cap on phos amount for SL 40wts and above , although most oil makers just used the same additive pack used in the 30wts . These oils had 1000-1200 parts per million zinc depending on what additive pack was used and oil brand .

Now we are dealing with API SM and GF-4 which generally shows 600 ppm of phos in new oil and 700-800 ppm zinc .

Shell Rotella 15w-40 uses around 1250 ppm zinc as does Valvoline Racing oil . Neither a good choice for most usages .

In what I consider " opinion " to be a knee jerk reaction , they lowered the average cam and lifter wear allowance of the GM dyno mule from 20 μm maximum for the SL 30wts to 60 μm maximum for the SM-GF-4 30wts . There's more to these GF-4's than just cam wear . They are a much better oil in regards to resisting oxidative thickening , less deposits ect .


Test Sequence IIIF -SL oils

The newer Sequence IIIG Testing

Here is a look at the API SM GF-4 Castrol GTX additive pack - most mineral oils will look close to this in terms of max amounts of phos and zinc for SM GF-4



Moly 43
Magnesium 7
Calcium 1140
Phosforus 520
Zinc 650

API SM GF-4 Mobil Supersyn 5w-30 -

Moly 56
Boron 151
Magnesium 8
Calcium 2505
Phosforus 670
Zinc 743



Mobil Extended Performance 5w-30

Moly 78
Boron 290
Calcium 2951
Magnesium 18
Phosforus 1130
Zinc 1281

Redline 10w-40

Moly 560
Magnesium 8
Calcium 2800
Phosforus 1248
Zinc 1380

Maxima Extra 4 Synthetic 10w-40

Antinomy 1020
Magnesium 640
Calcium 700
Sodium * 248
Phosforus 3390
Zinc 2530



Synergyn 3w-30 Synthetic 5.20 per quart

Moly 116
Boron 153
Magnesium 15
Calcium 3687
Phosforus 1608
Zinc 1701

5w-30 Synergyn Synthetic- 5.20 per quart

Moly 112
Boron 113
Magnesium 14
Calcium 3161
Phos 1482
Zinc 1633


Conoco's HD Fleet Supreme 10w-30 mineral oil will have around 1500-1600 ppm zinc

Mystik HD 10w-30 mineral oil will have or 1300ppm or so of zinc .

Zinc is not the only anti-wear additive in modern oils nor can some of the friction modifiers be seen through analysis . Zinc does do most of the work when it comes to protecting the valvetrain though .

There are some great alternatives still yet I've used the Synergyn for a very long time now .

JPhil

So the high zinc & phosphorus oils you listed would be even better for our engines than Rotella or Valvoline Racing oil?

mbeeman350

I agree...anyone ever hear of a Crane cam failing???

mountainmotor

The Valvoline VR1 has the potential to out perform the Rotella diesel oil only because it has additional friction modifiers . Both oils are pretty thick for most uses especially when cold .

Take a mildly built small block with tight fit hypereutectic pistons with moderate rod side clearance and use thick oils , the cylinder wear will be elevated in analysis showing higher iron " Fe " vs a lighter oil most cases .

The Mobil Truck and SUV 5w-40 , Valvoline Premium Blue Extreme 5w-40 and Phillips Trop Artic Synthetic Racing blend 15w-40 along with the newest 15w-40 Phillips Syn Blend diesel oil would make for good choices in many of these performance motors . The two Phillips oils might could actually pass 10w- pumping tests .

http://www.phillips66lubricants.com/TechData/index.htm

Alot depends on how the engine is built and about as important , how it's used when it comes to viscosity choice .

mountainmotor

I had these oils tested a while back so I thought I'd post for comparisons sakes .

Citgo Ultra Life HM Oil - this oil does not have an API donut on the bottle so it's not capped in amounts of phos - I really like this oil and they make a 10w-40 version of it also . Boron is a good additional anti-wear additive .

Moly 98
Boron 196
Magnesium 281
Calcium 1801
Barium 7
Phos 1268
Zinc 1404

Mystik JT-8 10w-30

Magnesium 390
Calcium 2600
Phos 1600
Zinc 1640

Conoco HD Fleet Supreme 10w-30

Magnesium 467
Calcium 4517
Phosphorus 2217
Zinc 1893

bobs77vet

thanks for all the info almost too much to digest... i have a rebuilt 69/70 4 bolt main stock pistons,9.5:1, fuelie heads, comp XE268, 750 speed demon, no cats what regularly available oil would you recommend for this engine it has 3K on it ?? the engine is consuming about a half quart every 1500 miles and its gets used pretty hard. thanks bob

SanDiegoPaul

It's just a marketing ploy to sell their lubes, their cams and their tappets. Reading about failures in their cams on this forum was one of the deciding factors in my cam choice: Crane.

I think comp cams are backpeddling because of a bunch of bad cams but I could be wrong. I have to be fair here: I've never bought a Comp Cam and never dealt with their customer service. So all I am reporting is heresay about things I've read. Obviously thousands more of their cam users are successful than failures. I just got scared reading about the failures reported here over the past few years and made a decision to choose a different brand.

LiquidCosworth

Hello everyone. Your discussion came to our attention because there were some comments about our new products.

Being divested from Ford about a year ago has allowed Cosworth to diversify and enter the aftermarket fluids business. We've taken on some experienced ex-oil company formulators to work with design engineers - we are not rebranding another product or licensing our name. This new team is a unique combination in this industry. We have developed an oil that will run in the Toro Rosso F1 car (just announced Mar 9), validated for the turbo methanol Champ Car engines, used to produce the Duratec-derived road car engine for the Caterham, and is for sale to the public. More information is at www.liquidcosworth.com and you can always send us an email with questions.

Reviewing a few comments from this interesting string:

Overhead cam designs can also suffer from inadequate anti-wear protection when lobes run directly on finger followers or buckets. It's not just the flat tappets in V engines.

Diesel engines do indeed have higher zinc-phosphorus levels, similar to what gasoline engines used to have. But because US diesel oils are designed for the commercial market, the oil also meets transmission requirements and therefore does not have friction modifiers. FMs would cause them to fail the required wet clutch tests.

Maximum phosphorus applies to those oils meeting ILSAC GF-xx. These are the fuel economy/emissions protection oils to meet the OEM requirements for new cars and because of the fuel economy demand, are the lower viscosities. API SH/GF-1 had a 0.12 wt% max, API SJ and SL, GF-2 and GF-3 were 0.10 wt% max, and API SM GF-4 is an 0.08 wt% max.

Cosworth uses synthetics for all applications, including break-in.


There are probably still a few questions out there and please consider this your invitation to ask!

oregonsharkman

Thanks for the info. guys This is really good tech stuff.

I am just curious if there has been more/less of these same issues with roller cam failure????

JPhil

LiquidCosworth,
On behalf of our humble (!) forum group here, I thank you for speaking to us. I'm sure some here will come up with some interesting comments and questions for discussion.

John