Originally Posted by 7t9l82

the o.p made no mention of moly lube. you can't get by with assembly lube on a flat tappet cam.

Originally Posted by Ironcross

You lost that lobe because the lash was too tight is one reason and another is that the retainer was bottoming out on the guide...The lifters are supposed to spin and actually ground to do that function...Too tight and no spin.

Funny its almost always only one valve. too....15 good lobes and only one bad?

There is only a couple companies that makes lifters, Johnson is one of them, Forgot the others....

.The cam companies get there lifters from them....The cam grinding companies don't make the tappets....

Originally Posted by 63mako

Saying "The only thing that matters, is an oil's film strength, load carrying capacity." is ludicrous when the highest point seen in any of the testing before the film strength is broken is 115,000 PSI and a stock, mild flat tappet hydraulic cam sees loads in excess of 200,000 PSI. The ONLY thing preventing metal to metal contact at the lode/lifter interface is the thin phosphorous sacrificial layer deposited on the highly loaded surfaces after the film strength is broken and the ZDDP is sheared at that extreme pressure highly loaded contact point.

I am betting you had a lifter not rotating correctly from the start. If it was an oil issue why would one fail completely and the other 15 be perfect.

Originally Posted by 540 RAT

I’m sorry to hear about your failure, but at the same time, I am not surprised by it at all. And I seriously doubt that Crane would agree that you were using cheap parts. Just assuming the parts are bad because you don’t know what else to blame, is no way to troubleshoot the failure and draw a meaningful conclusion. Worse yet, making assumptions like that will generally result in a completely WRONG conclusion. Then posting WRONG information on the internet only perpetuates people getting the wrong idea and believing MYTHS that only hurt them in the end.

Wiped lobes do NOT sometimes happen even with correct oil, if you are using reputable parts and the engine is properly assembled. They get wiped for a good reason. And I see a couple of glaring mistakes you made, that almost certainly caused your failure. They are:

1: Your choice of using a motor oil labeled Break-In oil.
So-called Break-In oils are nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell oil to gullible consumers that they do not need. No engine needs so-called break-in oil to safely break-in. Nearly every break-in oil I have tested, provided poor wear protection capability, because they were formulated to allow wear, not prevent wear, even though they were loaded with zinc. Only Amsoil Break-In oil actually provided good wear protection. So, your choice of oil to use during break-in immediately put your engine at risk. No matter what anyone tells you, you cannot prevent an engine from breaking in, no matter what oil you use. And countless thousands of brand new factory engines have proven that over the years, with the use of synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1. Engines break-in just fine with this oil and come with a warranty. And this oil is in the top 10 motor oils for providing the best wear protection in my Engineering testing of 145 different motor oils so far. So obviously, even synthetic oils providing excellent wear protection still allow engines to break-in fine, proving that so-called break-in oils that provide poor wear protection, are NOT needed.

2: Your choice of using Brad Penn for your normal oil after break-in.
In my motor oil Engineering Tests, all the Brad Penn oils I’ve tested, provided poor wear protection capability, even though they have a high zinc level.

And here is additional information from a Racer who used Brad Penn oil:

An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.

A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 107th out of 145 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 106 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.

So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.

So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. Now the motor has now gone 70+ Races without issue, and is still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.

Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 6th out of 145 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 101 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were eliminated.

So, this is an example that PROVES once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL, just as I’ve said all along. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.

Bottom line, your flat tappet cam and lifters had poor wear protection from the beginning, because you were NOT using the correct oil, no matter what anyone tells you. So, it is no surprise at all that you wiped the lobes. I could have told you that was likely before you ever fired it up. If you had chosen a highly ranked motor oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, you almost certainly would never have had this failure. And with a highly ranked oil from my ranking list, you wouldn’t even need to worry about performing any special break-in procedure. The whole idea of performing specialized break-in procedures, is simply a crutch to hopefully keep poor performing high zinc oils from wiping lobes. Yet people are so brainwashed to think every high zinc oil is wonderful, that they never even realize that you shouldn’t need to go through all that, if you are using a truly good oil in the first place.

The whole idea that you need high zinc levels in your oil is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH that you absolutely cannot count on, which your failure proves that yet again. Relying on an oil just because it has a lot of zinc in it, is simply playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Because some high zinc oils provide good wear protection, while other high zinc oils do not. And this is exactly what I have been saying for the past few years. What matters is an oil’s film strength load carrying capability, which is what my Engineering Tests measure, not how much zinc is present.

Wiped flat tappet lobes still happen all too frequently, while using high zinc oils. So, how many engine failures will it take for people to wake up and realize that they cannot blindly count on all high zinc oils to protect their engines? My Engineering test data is the real deal, and is the only information you can count on when it comes to being able to tell which oils provide desirable wear protection, and which oils don’t?

In contrast to what you experienced, here is an example of a flat tappet High Performance Street Hotrod engine operating just fine with low zinc oils, just as my Test Data predicts. A buddy built a 500 HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his '69 Corvette several years ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available. So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that provided 95,392 psi in my testing, which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.

He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it. And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year or so ago he decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available, so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided 105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.

He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo, which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, this is yet another example of the fact that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, is an oil's film strength load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Motor Oil Testing ranks.

If you really want to save your engine, see the link below.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

Motor Oil Tech FACTS, NOT MYTHS:
The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets say. You can see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, which is "proven" by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and EXACTLY matches real world Track experience as well as High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, by going to the Blog link below.

This Blog now has over 75,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included here, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world. See for yourself.

The Blog includes:

Section 1 – Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List

Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection

Section 3 – Motor Oil Thermal Breakdown Test Data

Section 4 - Component Quantity Lab Test Results

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

Originally Posted by LS4 PILOT

Like a bad penny

Originally Posted by AZDoug

Back when I used flat tappet cams and lifter, I followed the sage advice (from GM, and other sources)of getting some GM EOS (Engine Oil Supplement), I think it is also available elsewhere, and used it to coat the cam lobes, and also dipped the lifters in it before installing the lifters, then dumped the rest of the can into the crank case, by pouring it over the can in the holes in the lifter valley.

Use regular motor oil, run motor immediately up to 2000 RPM for about 20 minutes after initial start up, and change out the oil after 500 miles.

The GM EOS, if still available, was almost pure zinc, barium, and maybe manganese compounds, IIRC.

Doug

Originally Posted by 63mako

The artist of copy and paste, self promotion, and posts on dozens of forums get lots of views. Repeating misinformation 75,000 times does not make that misinformation correct when it is contradicted by every cam manufacturer, oil lubrication engineer, tribologist and additive specialist in the industry and confirmed by no one in the field. A longer post does not make it true any more than a short post makes it a lie. A film strength test has no bearing on extreme pressure additive effectiveness after the film strength is broken period. Once the film strength is broken the only protection from metal to metal contact is the proshorous coating deposited by heat and pressure on the loaded part after the oil film and ZDDP is sheared. These are proven scientific, undisputed facts acknowledged by every competent scientist and engineer in the industry except 1.

Originally Posted by Haggisbash

I feel sick in the stomach when I hear about these wiped lobe failures. Being new to American cars and V8's I'm curious as to whether this is a GM V8 issue or does it occur across all the brands. When the cars were new what was the break in procedure when they left the factory? Was cam failure more or less common "back in the day"? Comparing the SBC cam to one of my OHC motorcycles the lobes seem kind of puny for the amount of valve gear they have to move.
I have started my SBC with the valve covers removed and was quite surprised as to how long it took for oil to appear at the rocker gear (OP is 70 psi cold) so am I correct in thinking the cam relies on splash from the crank until oil from the heads arrives back down the lifter valley? I always allow the car to run at high idle for a couple of minutes before moving off when the engine is cold.

Originally Posted by 68post

Don't leave out Moly , withstands 500,000 psi.