My BUDGET 451 build... finally
- Thread starter HT413
- Start date
furryfrog
Well-Known Member
Unfortunate news. I do hope the remedy goes as smooth as it could.
HT413
Semi Pro Bowler
Irony
Thinking about what could have caused this, something came to mind that made me chuckle. I've used Shell Rotella T with no issues for years in the 413. After draining the breakin oil in the, 451 I decided to drop the Rotella and go for some traditional valvoline plus zinc additive. Lol, not saying that was the cause, but the irony has not been lost on me.
Thinking about what could have caused this, something came to mind that made me chuckle. I've used Shell Rotella T with no issues for years in the 413. After draining the breakin oil in the, 451 I decided to drop the Rotella and go for some traditional valvoline plus zinc additive. Lol, not saying that was the cause, but the irony has not been lost on me.
miller
Well-Known Member
Just curious what your calling traditional valvoline plus?
Asking because, if I ever get to fire mine off, using Valvoline VR1, but straight weight 30. That's for break-in, then off to 40.
Read papers off the Valvoline site on the zddp bit, saying only multi weight oils, including VR1, fall under the EPA's law.
Toss in the wear on that bad lobe looks real strange.
Asking because, if I ever get to fire mine off, using Valvoline VR1, but straight weight 30. That's for break-in, then off to 40.
Read papers off the Valvoline site on the zddp bit, saying only multi weight oils, including VR1, fall under the EPA's law.
Toss in the wear on that bad lobe looks real strange.
747mopar
Well-Known Member
I used Lucas break in additive with conventional 30 weight Valvoline and use Lucas hot rod oil now. It comes in 5 qts and isn't priced to badly but you can just add a bottle of additive to normal oil if you choose. I've also ran the Valvoline VRI with no issues.
HT413
Semi Pro Bowler
I guess I worded that a little crazy. After break in, I used valvoline premium conventional oil (10w30) and added zddp additive.
- Local time
- 8:02 AM
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 30,831
- Reaction score
- 54,695
- Location
- Hanover, Pennslyvania
Without going back through your post, what cam did you use? What type and weight valve springs?
I read on one of the cam manufacturer's sites, that anything over 300# valve springs, to remove the inner spring for break in. My set up is going to be right at 300# and am trying to make up my mind about the procedure...
I read on one of the cam manufacturer's sites, that anything over 300# valve springs, to remove the inner spring for break in. My set up is going to be right at 300# and am trying to make up my mind about the procedure...
I would remove the inner spring for break in.
HT413
Semi Pro Bowler
Interestingly, we decided go with the stock 440 source springs, as according to lunati, those springs were right in range. These are single springs, and ill have to look back to through my records to see what kinds of pressures they produce.
- - - Updated - - -
Springs are 280 lbs open, 130 on the seat. The rep said it was perfect so long as we keep it below 6000 rpm, which has always been the plan. Heck, even on track day, i sized the tires and gear so a high 11's pass would trap at 6000 rpm, even with some converter slippage. Given that my goals are low 12's, thwt gave me plenty of safety factor.
Anything above 6000 and he likes to see a hair over 300 lbs open.
- - - Updated - - -
Springs are 280 lbs open, 130 on the seat. The rep said it was perfect so long as we keep it below 6000 rpm, which has always been the plan. Heck, even on track day, i sized the tires and gear so a high 11's pass would trap at 6000 rpm, even with some converter slippage. Given that my goals are low 12's, thwt gave me plenty of safety factor.
Anything above 6000 and he likes to see a hair over 300 lbs open.
Wookie316
Well-Known Member
The cam you put in your car isn't one that would strike me as one to file a lobe off. My solid flat is much more aggressive than yours and I'm not running a nitrated cam or an EDM lifter. I do run the expensive Joe Gibb oil though. Is that the difference? I cannot say?
I did do a dyno break in with the inner's out.
My old engine had a hydraulic .545 Comp Xtreme with a single spring. I ran that with Gibbs oil with no problems.
I guess there is bound to be a bad one every once and awhile.
Sorry for your luck man. Hope the next cam works out for you.
I did do a dyno break in with the inner's out.
My old engine had a hydraulic .545 Comp Xtreme with a single spring. I ran that with Gibbs oil with no problems.
I guess there is bound to be a bad one every once and awhile.
Sorry for your luck man. Hope the next cam works out for you.
HT413
Semi Pro Bowler
Here's the cam i put in it.... nothing too crazy, a street hydraulic flat tappet.
Part number: 10230704
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 276/284
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 234/242
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .513/.533
LSA/ICL: 110/106
- - - Updated - - -
Thanks, man. Yeah, my engine builder was surprised as well - he says my cam isn't the sort he'd figure to collapse a lifter. And the cam seemed to break in so well.
Hopefully we can nail the cause down and move on from here.
- Local time
- 8:02 AM
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 30,831
- Reaction score
- 54,695
- Location
- Hanover, Pennslyvania
Maybe a defected cam?
I bought the Summit 6401with a 488 lift and all the info points to a 300# spring, like a comp 911 that's more than 300#s. Seems a bit much for a hydraulic ft.
Sounds like your spring combo is ok. Might check the lifter bore for scaring. It might have hung up just enough to wipe the lobe. Scary stuff!
I bought the Summit 6401with a 488 lift and all the info points to a 300# spring, like a comp 911 that's more than 300#s. Seems a bit much for a hydraulic ft.
Sounds like your spring combo is ok. Might check the lifter bore for scaring. It might have hung up just enough to wipe the lobe. Scary stuff!
furryfrog
Well-Known Member
I have just been considering a cam swap, hearing about this makes me a bit unerved. I am using the summit 6401, with stock 440 source springs on stealth heads. 700 miles and it seems ok so far. I hope you figure out what went wrong.
Hope you get her back on the road soon.
Banzaiii67
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry to hear the bad news HT413!
Regarding your oiling choice for future reference. There is a fair bit of reading to do but this article https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/ specially mentions not using any additives at all, as the wear protection is lowered. The only additive that increased wear protection was Prolong Engine Treatment.
The best convention oil on his rating list is VR-1 Racing Oil at #23.
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
calcium = 2,707 ppm
TBN = 7.6
This by Brad Penn:
“There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP. “
The use of zinc/phosphorus as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components is outdated technology. Still, even the best modern low zinc/phos oils still use a some zinc/phos, but they are used only as a “portion” of the extreme pressure anti-wear components, that make up the overall additive package. And other modern “proprietary” extreme pressure anti-wear components, which are superior to zinc/phos, and can vary from Company to Company, are used as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components. But, we don’t see those components in a normal Lab test print out, because they are proprietary, so the Lab is not specifically looking for them.
So, what all this means is that the amount of zinc/phos on an oil’s Lab print out will NOT help you choose an oil that will provide the excellent wear protection you desire. As mentioned above, the only way to find out how well an oil truly provides wear protection, is to look at an oil’s film strength load carrying capability. And you can find that information in this Blog, in Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List.
However, you can make use of an oil’s Lab print out on zinc/phos levels to see which oils have too much zinc/phos and can actually “damage” an engine. As indicated above, for “long-term higher mileage” usage, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP. For limited use Hotrods and Race Cars, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP.
Regarding your oiling choice for future reference. There is a fair bit of reading to do but this article https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/ specially mentions not using any additives at all, as the wear protection is lowered. The only additive that increased wear protection was Prolong Engine Treatment.
The best convention oil on his rating list is VR-1 Racing Oil at #23.
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
calcium = 2,707 ppm
TBN = 7.6
This by Brad Penn:
“There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP. “
The use of zinc/phosphorus as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components is outdated technology. Still, even the best modern low zinc/phos oils still use a some zinc/phos, but they are used only as a “portion” of the extreme pressure anti-wear components, that make up the overall additive package. And other modern “proprietary” extreme pressure anti-wear components, which are superior to zinc/phos, and can vary from Company to Company, are used as the “primary” extreme pressure anti-wear components. But, we don’t see those components in a normal Lab test print out, because they are proprietary, so the Lab is not specifically looking for them.
So, what all this means is that the amount of zinc/phos on an oil’s Lab print out will NOT help you choose an oil that will provide the excellent wear protection you desire. As mentioned above, the only way to find out how well an oil truly provides wear protection, is to look at an oil’s film strength load carrying capability. And you can find that information in this Blog, in Section 1 – Motor Oil “Wear Protection” Ranking List.
However, you can make use of an oil’s Lab print out on zinc/phos levels to see which oils have too much zinc/phos and can actually “damage” an engine. As indicated above, for “long-term higher mileage” usage, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 1,400 ppm ZDDP. For limited use Hotrods and Race Cars, it is best to avoid oils that have more than 2,000 ppm ZDDP.
Last edited:
HT413
Semi Pro Bowler
PpThanks, Banzaii, i came across that blog a while ago too. This guy may be the most knowledgable oilguy on earth, but that blog comes across as if he's just a snake oil salesman, don't ya think?
I know you're trying to help, and I thank you for that, and obviously my way has lead me to a wiped cam. But I've worked in the scientific and engineering fields my whole career and in fact, I have 3 patents earned during my research in the late 90's (corporate research for an Fortune 500 company in the field of fuel cell tchnology). He just doesn't write scientifically, or even in an educated manner. He never really shows or explains his methodology in detail. His writings are absolutely full of self affirmations and exclamations like, "this is not opinion, this is FACT", and true snake oil salesman speak like, "you can't argue with physics and chemistry!"
If I wrote my patent applications or my countless engineering reports or proposals like that, I would have been turned out of the industry as a fraud a 20 years ago. Heck he might be right; I just wish he would try coming across more professionally. Until then, I dunno, man, I'll just review everything we did and have another go at it.
I know you're trying to help, and I thank you for that, and obviously my way has lead me to a wiped cam. But I've worked in the scientific and engineering fields my whole career and in fact, I have 3 patents earned during my research in the late 90's (corporate research for an Fortune 500 company in the field of fuel cell tchnology). He just doesn't write scientifically, or even in an educated manner. He never really shows or explains his methodology in detail. His writings are absolutely full of self affirmations and exclamations like, "this is not opinion, this is FACT", and true snake oil salesman speak like, "you can't argue with physics and chemistry!"
If I wrote my patent applications or my countless engineering reports or proposals like that, I would have been turned out of the industry as a fraud a 20 years ago. Heck he might be right; I just wish he would try coming across more professionally. Until then, I dunno, man, I'll just review everything we did and have another go at it.
66chargerpat
Well-Known Member
dear Dude, sorry about the setback on your super cool 451. One out of sixteen lobes beat to hell and back, doesn't sound like a lack of wear protection! If all the other lobes are fine, I say it's something to do with the lifter, lash ajastment, lifter binding!? or are a weak lobe. How the hell with that mild cam, soft springs did only one lobe eat it self? Best of luck on her, maybe the lifter didn't pump up and pounded the hell out that poor lobe. I would love to see the other lobes. Best of wishes , Pat
IQ52
Well-Known Member
This is how it happens...............They don't remove the flashing between the lobes. The lifter is wider than the stone they use to grind the cam and the lifter breaks the flashing off and the pieces end up between the lobe and lifter. This is a Comp Cams XE284H-10 and I have seen it twice more on two other XE295HL-10 cams.
Derwud
Well-Known Member
That is B.S. Nice quality..
Similar threads
