Cam Damage! - PICS
Feb 19, 2009, 11:58 AM
#61
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (44)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards, to KTK's problem i have offered him a replacement so that we can have a look into exactly which core this is, and to see if infact if this is a problem with the cam core..
As far as the failure on Tim's S2 evo 9 Intake cam. The failure is not related to integrity of the cam core. This type of failure can happen to any manufacture's cam, OEM or aftermarket. The simple part of this is that something has caused this camshaft to break the way it did, it didn’t just happen one day. Whether it was an improper tq of the cam gear bolt, timing belt slap, a weak tensioner, an over rev on down shift, or any other of the 100+ things that can cause this type of failure it wasn’t by any means a poorly made cam billet. Below I have taken pictures of a brand new S2 inlet camshaft and compare it's measurements with the measurements of the OEM camshaft to show that our billets are equal to or better than the OEM unit.
As far as the failure on Tim's S2 evo 9 Intake cam. The failure is not related to integrity of the cam core. This type of failure can happen to any manufacture's cam, OEM or aftermarket. The simple part of this is that something has caused this camshaft to break the way it did, it didn’t just happen one day. Whether it was an improper tq of the cam gear bolt, timing belt slap, a weak tensioner, an over rev on down shift, or any other of the 100+ things that can cause this type of failure it wasn’t by any means a poorly made cam billet. Below I have taken pictures of a brand new S2 inlet camshaft and compare it's measurements with the measurements of the OEM camshaft to show that our billets are equal to or better than the OEM unit.
Feb 19, 2009, 12:15 PM
#62
Greg,
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
Last edited by l2r99gst; Feb 19, 2009 at 12:17 PM.
Feb 19, 2009, 12:19 PM
#63
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg,
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
Greg lets see some harness test and grain structure of both your cam and the stock cam.
Also, the radius inside the Mivic reliefs, are they the same? Are they both a sharp corner straight cut? While the diameter can be the same or larger, if the the inside radius is not the same, that can make all the difference in the world. Also, on top of that, have you recalled TNT1106 cams to check them your self, do you measure each cam shaft that goes out of your shop? Manufactures make mistakes, it is absolutely possible that this particular cam was machined incorrect, but you from what I can tell are automatically placing the blame elsewhere instead of taking the initiative to insure your product is not at fault. I have work for a very high volume manufacture as a manufacturing engineer, and have seen first hand machining mishaps etc. You can't catch all of them. You may very well be right, and it was other issues that caused this failure, I do not know the answer, but I guess time will tell.
Last edited by denver; Feb 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM.
Feb 19, 2009, 12:32 PM
#64
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg,
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
Statements such as this from GSC:
" As far as a metal analysis goes feel free to have it analyzed, it will come back that it was not a metal failure."
Really leaves an impression in my mind as to if they even want to know that it could be a faulty product.
As for trying to infer inproper installation, use, or related hardware malfunction (belts, tensioner,ect) that again, has been examined and eliminated as a possible cause of failure.
Feb 19, 2009, 12:56 PM
#65
Back to the thread, I talked to GCS to find the issue IS related to the very first V1 batch recalled for replacement in 2005. I turned them (in 2005) in for the V2 before I had a chance to install them. Nevertheless, the rocker cover will be coming off a hell of a lot more just in case.
Note: whenever installing cams it is a good idea to use assy lube (thick red stuff)
OT: that's alot of hair on that hand up ^there^
Note: whenever installing cams it is a good idea to use assy lube (thick red stuff)
OT: that's alot of hair on that hand up ^there^
Last edited by C6C6CH3vo; Feb 19, 2009 at 01:28 PM. Reason: "(in 2005)"
Feb 20, 2009, 07:18 AM
#69
My car is an 03 Evo 8. So no MIVEC. In fact, my cams were from before the Evo 9 with its MIVEC head had even hit the US market. MIVEC for USDM evos was still a new and upcoming technology at the time!
tnt1106's issue though is with the Evo 9 MIVEC cams, although his issue and mine are completely unrelated.
tnt1106's issue though is with the Evo 9 MIVEC cams, although his issue and mine are completely unrelated.
Feb 20, 2009, 07:25 AM
#70
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car is an 03 Evo 8. So no MIVEC. In fact, my cams were from before the Evo 9 with its MIVEC head had even hit the US market. MIVEC for USDM evos was still a new and upcoming technology at the time!
tnt1106's issue though is with the Evo 9 MIVEC cams, although his issue and mine are completely unrelated.
tnt1106's issue though is with the Evo 9 MIVEC cams, although his issue and mine are completely unrelated.
Feb 20, 2009, 08:24 AM
#72
No, as stated the issue is related to the 2004/2005 cams produced as 1st batch and were recalled shortly after.
They were called V1, then V2 were made differently and are not supposed to do that. The specs remained the same. They quit making them before the S series came for both 8 and 9. I would not worry about the current cams unless care wasn't taken when installing.
They were called V1, then V2 were made differently and are not supposed to do that. The specs remained the same. They quit making them before the S series came for both 8 and 9. I would not worry about the current cams unless care wasn't taken when installing.
Feb 20, 2009, 12:06 PM
#74
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (44)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg,
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
I'm sure the community appreciates the information provided, but simple measurements can't and won't show metallurgical properties.
There are a number of possibilities of why that S2 cam could have failed the way it did, both for reasons that you gave and metallurgical reasons. It can be related to improper fillet radius, case depth, microstrucural properties, composition, impurities, etc.
To just blindly say it wasn't a cam defect isn't right. Of course, neither I nor you know what the real reason behind the failure was, but a proper alaysis by a metallurgical/failure analysis lab can find out why.
If it was improper use or installation, then it's the user's fault/cost. But, if it was due to a defect in the cam in question, then I believe it's the manufacturer's fault/cost.
By no means take this as a shot at you. I run GSC 272/264 cams in my own Evo and haven't had any problems. I may check them one of these days to make sure everything looks OK, but overall I like your company and it's products. I just feel that if that S2 cam was defective, the client should be compensated for the damages.
We have actually done distructive testing and the only way we have been able to replicate this type of break was to us an impact gun on a stock gear and bolt and basically over tq the front bolt this didnt cause a failure directly it was only when I hit it with a sledge hamer did it break... IE EXTREME FORCE was used to cause this failure. something the cam in normal operation wont see.
As far as the Metalurgy report goes we sent out the sample core from that batch when Tim first sent these cams to COMP CAMS for evaluation. WHICH BTW was before he even spoke to us about the failure (camshaft world is pretty small).
Feb 20, 2009, 12:29 PM
#75
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg,
No offense, but did you even look at the pictures of tims failed cams?? There is no deformation, or anything, it is pure and simple a grain structure failure. There is no shearing, and I dont care how much force you put on the cam bolt, it will not cause a failure like that. Also if it was sheared do to forces generated by the RUBBER BELT driving the cams or an over rev, you would show a shear plain and a twisting failure NOT a "cup and cone" style failure. Also, that is the strongest piece of rubber I have ever seen!
Other ways forces are generated.... maybe from the valves hitting the piston... again that would cause a twisting, shear style failure, which would leave a smoother surface not a jagged edge like which is seen in the pictures. On top of that, the only moment that would be generated is the moment generated by the follower on the cam lobes (Not a very big moment arm) and again a rubber belt driven off a 4 inch cam. Im fairly certain the BELT would shear the RUBBER drive teeth of well before the cam would shear off Period!
You over tqing the bolt has absolutely nothing to do with this type of failure. I would believe if you hit the end with a 10lb sledge it would fail as seen in these pictures, but I have never seen a 10lb sled hammer attached to the camshafts of any evo I have seen....
Think about it, where does this EXTREME FORCE come from?? It is a rotating rod, with little tiny lobes on it, it rotates on bearings bathed in oil, and is driven by a rubber belt. where the cam broke at is supported about 1.5" ways so even if there was a harmonic developed by the again RUBBER timing belt, the moment arm associated with that force on the cam shaft is maybe .5" away from the failure area..... I just dont see where these mythical EXTREME FORCES are going to come from..... maybe Im missing something....
Dont get me wrong, I think You (GSC) make great parts, beautiful work, and they preform well, however, I think there is an issue with this particular set of cams, and it irritates me when when instead of simply stating, "Please send me the product so WE can evaluate the issue, and determine the failure", immediately we are given the deny there is anything wrong with my product line.....
No offense, but did you even look at the pictures of tims failed cams?? There is no deformation, or anything, it is pure and simple a grain structure failure. There is no shearing, and I dont care how much force you put on the cam bolt, it will not cause a failure like that. Also if it was sheared do to forces generated by the RUBBER BELT driving the cams or an over rev, you would show a shear plain and a twisting failure NOT a "cup and cone" style failure. Also, that is the strongest piece of rubber I have ever seen!
Other ways forces are generated.... maybe from the valves hitting the piston... again that would cause a twisting, shear style failure, which would leave a smoother surface not a jagged edge like which is seen in the pictures. On top of that, the only moment that would be generated is the moment generated by the follower on the cam lobes (Not a very big moment arm) and again a rubber belt driven off a 4 inch cam. Im fairly certain the BELT would shear the RUBBER drive teeth of well before the cam would shear off Period!
You over tqing the bolt has absolutely nothing to do with this type of failure. I would believe if you hit the end with a 10lb sledge it would fail as seen in these pictures, but I have never seen a 10lb sled hammer attached to the camshafts of any evo I have seen....
Think about it, where does this EXTREME FORCE come from?? It is a rotating rod, with little tiny lobes on it, it rotates on bearings bathed in oil, and is driven by a rubber belt. where the cam broke at is supported about 1.5" ways so even if there was a harmonic developed by the again RUBBER timing belt, the moment arm associated with that force on the cam shaft is maybe .5" away from the failure area..... I just dont see where these mythical EXTREME FORCES are going to come from..... maybe Im missing something....
Dont get me wrong, I think You (GSC) make great parts, beautiful work, and they preform well, however, I think there is an issue with this particular set of cams, and it irritates me when when instead of simply stating, "Please send me the product so WE can evaluate the issue, and determine the failure", immediately we are given the deny there is anything wrong with my product line.....
Last edited by denver; Feb 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM.