Defective NEW camshaft. Ever seen one like this?

[Demonic]

Racer Brown, a.k.a. Jim Dowel, Philadelphia Rd Baltimore 410-866-7660. 2pm-7pm most days. No website, no BS. All cams are Parkerized. Ground on Van Norman machines. ( The Imperial of cam machines I am told )

There's a mild one in my Charger. Over 3k miles on it with Brad Penn or VR-1, no worries.

 

[BSB67]

Probably was the last cam made on a Friday afternoon shift.

I think the issues are with the casting itself, based on what I see, and Comps does not "make" camshafts, just grinds them. It is their supplier, and their QA/QC department, so I'm not giving them a pass, or saying it is okay. Some guy at Comp decided that this was a good enough product for the customer and that is a management problem. I think they could dress the sides without adding much cost.

And not to stir the pot, really, we do live in a Walmart world and "we" made it that way. "We" generally want stuff for nothing, then the junk follows. Let's face it, a lot of older muscle car guys are cheap, and Mopar guy are the worst, generally.

I would hope that people that know me would trust me if I told them I have a good used cam with identified lobe matching lifters. But I've sold several cams on the internet to people that don't know me. Why, to save a buck. Crazy, IMO.

 

[Kern Dog]

For now, My opinion has soured on this company.
I would trust a used cam with new lifters. I've done that before.

 

[BSB67]

For now, My opinion has soured on this company.
I would trust a used cam with new lifters. I've done that before.

Well, that's a good point. There is some merit to the notion that the risky part of cam break-in is behind you with a used cam, assuming the seller is decent and knowledgeable.

 

[moparmarks]

We have more problems with their roller rockers and roller lifters than with their cam shafts.
Have had both fail new out of the box on different motors while on the engine dyno. Mopar, GM and Fords.

 

[Wietse]

Seems like they skipped the final machining run to make a smooth surface and de-bur the edges to save money.
You would expect that QC takes that out as it does not meet the standards.
As BSB67 says, people kinda made it this way by wanting everything cheap, so cheap stuff is what you get.

 

[Kern Dog]

I didn't expect the Harbor Freight of camshafts!

 

[Chargered]

Wow, I'm glad I read through this. I'll be staying away from Comp Cams in the future.

 

[beanhead]

Maybe I'm the only one? But I've seen worse issues than casting flash on other brands, like out-of-spec journals or lobe taper. Those are instant go-backs in my book. Casting flash is easy to remedy with a fine file or die grinder, but to be clear I'm not saying it's okay to send them out like that. You won't hurt the surface; be easy, file down at an angle towards the core. Really, the lifter doesn't ride directly on the edge of the lobe anyway. You can't have anything sticking 'up' is all.
The dangerous stuff is the casting flash between lobes, and may stick up higher than the lowest part/ base circle of a lobe.
As much as we rant about not using aftermarket parts like cylinder heads and carbs without a thorough checkout, it seems guys expect to just unbox a cam and slide it in like the magazine articles do. And I know this build sure as heck isn't your first rodeo Greg but good job putting eyes on that thing first!

 

[Wietse]

it seems guys expect to just unbox a cam and slide it in like the magazine articles do.

If a magazine or anyone else "famous" orders parts that they want to show in their article or show the manufacturer will make 200% sure they send out their finest piece of art.
Curious to see what Comp cams has to say about this camshaft.

 

[moparmarks]

How about their roller rockers and roller lifters failing on the dyno before the motor is even in a car? Not just once but several times. Then call them only to have them treat you like ****. I wouldn't give the sweat off my *** for anything with the Comp name on it. The sooner they go bully up the better.

 

[Wietse]

I have no experience with any Comp cams parts in my engine, but like i said i am curious of what they have to say about that cam.
If they admit it is an unfinished product that was send or ask for explanation what is wrong with that camshaft?
Could be worth a try and measure the bearing diameters to see if they are in spec or not?
Could give more confirmation on this is a raw product or their standards have fallen?

 

[khryslerkid]

Just think if the novice would use that cam. It would probably have destroyed everything.

I read up on cams before buying my last one. I was concerned about the rave on lobe wiping that I was hearing about. A couple of articles mentioned casting flash, just one speck on the lifter base and it's wiped. Also the use of non ZDDP oil or not sufficient amounts. Improper cam break in seamed to me to be the bigest culprit.

Well after seeing this cam....

BTW I cheaped out and bought a Summit cam/lifter kit, the 6401 and it looked clean from casting flash and it broke in without issues and has been performing great. I would have liked to have gone with a more expensive cam but it wasn't in the budget.

Good catch Kern!

 

[Dipstick]

https://www.hotrodders.com/threads/...orry-about-casting-flash.471609/#post-4112473

 

[Kern Dog]

View attachment 1012073 View attachment 1012074 View attachment 1012075

No numbers present that I can see. All the lobe and bearing surfaces are fine, no signs of ugliness. Lift is around .320, no idea what lobe separation or duration it has

.320 x 1.5 works out to .480 lift. It could be either the 280/474 or the 284/484.
I thought at the back end, all cams got some type of identifying numbers. It does have the purple paint on it.
I ran the 284/484 in a 440 and wasn't as impressed as I was with the 280/474.

 

[BSB67]

I have a 280/474 in my 383 car w/ a 4 spd & 3.91. I like it a lot for my combination. Its got a little attitude and idle. If your compression is lower and you are surrounding the engine with stock stuff, a little less cam than the MP 280 might be right for you. The 280 is more cam than Comp's 270.

Lew, an occasional poster on here, has used the both, but probably in a 440. He measured the MP 280. It has 280°@ .008", but 292° @ 0.006", the more commonly used referenced lift. Maybe he'll post.

 

[66 Sat]

I've been inspecting my new cam since I saw this thread, and never having changed one before I'm not sure if these casting pieces are normal? They are flat (in line with the lobe) and are on most lobes, but are only prominent on some depending on the rotation of the lobe. What do you think - is it ok? It's a Schneider cam.

 

[66 Sat]

Well with no opinions on the quality I think I'll use my dremel to carefully clean off these pieces and hope for the best. Comparing the photos of my cam and the dodgy one Kern Dog got, I'm a bit worried as there seems to be some similarities, but from doing some Google research it seems to be fairly common too. A bit confusing. Maybe I'll take it over to a local engine builder for his opnion. I thought camshafts, being such a precision item would be ready to go "out of the box".

 

[beanhead]

I've been inspecting my new cam since I saw this thread, and never having changed one before I'm not sure if these casting pieces are normal? They are flat (in line with the lobe) and are on most lobes, but are only prominent on some depending on the rotation of the lobe. What do you think - is it ok? It's a Schneider cam.
View attachment 1012936
View attachment 1012937

Nothing wrong with that as long as nothing sticks up above the lobe. Not pretty; but doesn't hurt anything.

 

[Kern Dog]

Yeah, that is what I'd say. It doesn't look like anything but casting sloppiness but since the grind of the lobe is even, I'd use it as is. Mine looked like a narrow strip of grass left UNmowed in the yard.