my intake cam snapped?!!?
Mar 11, 2009, 06:10 PM
#61
Evolving Member
iTrader: (44)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Denton TX
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to say it but all this really pisses me off. Spending good money on a product and then to hope that it doesnt break and destroy my motor costing even more. No word from the manufacture on any recall or word to the wise. I have to hear about it from others who happened to post. Thanks for the updates by the way. To the cam makers GSC, Cosi and Kelford. You guys are going to have to do something to retain your loyalty base, but then you already have my money. 
Mar 11, 2009, 06:26 PM
#62
I hate to say it but all this really pisses me off. Spending good money on a product and then to hope that it doesnt break and destroy my motor costing even more. No word from the manufacture on any recall or word to the wise. I have to hear about it from others who happened to post. Thanks for the updates by the way. To the cam makers GSC, Cosi and Kelford. You guys are going to have to do something to retain your loyalty base, but then you already have my money.
Mar 11, 2009, 06:33 PM
#63
agreed. This issue is too big to leave ignored. I don't know many Evo owner who can afford to rebuild a 5-15k motor because brand new cams from supposedly top names in the business catastrophically failed from what seems to be an obvious design flaw.
ESPECIALLY now that the issue has been brought to their attention. Manufacturers, this issue needs to be resolved IMMEDIATELY. And the word should be spread to anybody who is running these cams who are risking their motors with every mile.
Recalling defective cams is a lot cheaper than dealing with lawsuits or several angry customers with completely destroyed motors. Manufacturers need to do what is right to retain your reputation and your customer base, and step up and address this before it gets worse.
ESPECIALLY now that the issue has been brought to their attention. Manufacturers, this issue needs to be resolved IMMEDIATELY. And the word should be spread to anybody who is running these cams who are risking their motors with every mile.
Recalling defective cams is a lot cheaper than dealing with lawsuits or several angry customers with completely destroyed motors. Manufacturers need to do what is right to retain your reputation and your customer base, and step up and address this before it gets worse.
Mar 11, 2009, 07:17 PM
#66
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to keep the thread alive, email and call the cam manufacturers until they start to take some action and investigate the manufacturing records or realize that the design needs a some sort of fix (if that is the case) to address the issue; we can't let the issue die down.
Last edited by JRB_EVO; Mar 11, 2009 at 07:19 PM.
Mar 11, 2009, 07:27 PM
#68
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These all have the same exact failures... I posted it in the other cam damage thread... this is absolutely a material defect. It has to be a material problem with the cam blanks... I think according to Greg, Kelford, GSC, and Cosworth are all using these cores.
These cores are machined terribly on the mivic groves anyway, for example there it is a sharp corner grove where it should have a nice radius in the bottom of the grove, not sharp corners. TNT, Boosterp and GST motor sports all have the exact same problem..... I believe there is certainly a defect in the material or treatment, maybe grain structure, hardness etc, and certainly the machining of the mivic oil groves.
I sent the original pictures from TNT1106 to the lab I use for material testing at work for the labs opinion, and with out going into detail, he immediately stated that this is absolutely a material failure, and happened at this particular point because of the sharp corner as well as the dowel holes drill into the end of he cam for the mivic cam. All of these issues add up HIGH stress risers, coupled with possible grain or material problems, its a recipe for disaster.
Quoted from the other cam failure thread in response to Greg at GSC explanation...
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 off well before the cam would shear off Period!
Over tqing the bolt has absolutely nothing to do with this type of failure.
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....
These cores are machined terribly on the mivic groves anyway, for example there it is a sharp corner grove where it should have a nice radius in the bottom of the grove, not sharp corners. TNT, Boosterp and GST motor sports all have the exact same problem..... I believe there is certainly a defect in the material or treatment, maybe grain structure, hardness etc, and certainly the machining of the mivic oil groves.
I sent the original pictures from TNT1106 to the lab I use for material testing at work for the labs opinion, and with out going into detail, he immediately stated that this is absolutely a material failure, and happened at this particular point because of the sharp corner as well as the dowel holes drill into the end of he cam for the mivic cam. All of these issues add up HIGH stress risers, coupled with possible grain or material problems, its a recipe for disaster.
Quoted from the other cam failure thread in response to Greg at GSC explanation...
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 off well before the cam would shear off Period!
Over tqing the bolt has absolutely nothing to do with this type of failure.
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....
Last edited by denver; Mar 11, 2009 at 08:10 PM.
Mar 11, 2009, 07:43 PM
#69
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully the problem is just material related and it is only a closed population that is affected, but still the manufacturers should do everthing in their power to identify the product that was machined out of "non-compliant" material, so that the consumers can be made aware, have piece of mind by knowing their cams are ok or need replacement.
Every Evo IX owner in the community needs to be made aware of this "issue".
Every Evo IX owner in the community needs to be made aware of this "issue".
Mar 11, 2009, 07:46 PM
#70
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully the problem is just material related and it is only a closed population that is affected, but still the manufacturers should do everthing in their power to identify the product that was machined out of "non-compliant" material, so that the consumers can be made aware, have piece of mind by knowing their cams are ok or need replacement.
Every Evo IX owner in the community needs to be made aware of this "issue".
Every Evo IX owner in the community needs to be made aware of this "issue".
with all of these cases popping up in such a short time... I think there is motivation to spend some effort hunting down the problem and what and how many cams have the issue. I can not believe with this many cases the vendors and manufactures (GSC) seem to be denying fault, and defaulting to abuse etc, or just replacing the product and keeping this quite, instead of going after the core manufacture... maybe they are, but based on the comments I have read, most are taking the quite road. What we all need some help from the vendors and manufactures to get the attention of the cam blank manufacture and get this resolved!
Last edited by denver; Mar 11, 2009 at 08:12 PM.
Mar 11, 2009, 08:24 PM
#71
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I won't be giving my business to any of them... not unless they come out and acknowledge there is a problem and that something is being done about it. I was going to get some kelfords but I will pass. I will be taking a closer look at the fp's now.
Mar 11, 2009, 08:39 PM
#72
this serves as a warning the cams for the mivec(IX) from gsc kelford and cosworth are flawed in design. anyone who runs any of these should seriously consider removing them and asking the vendor for a refund . enough data has revealed that there is a major problem with these and motors are be ruined. no more excuses! kelford gsc and cosworth make great products but these cams were a mistake.
There is not enough proof to say they are all defective and no direct cause of failure has yet been pinpointed. At best right now there are ideas as to why. I would be more interested in batch information (vs. purchase date).
Crap happens and all of these cars were being flogged at the time of failure. There are alot of "I heard" type posts without all the owners (obviously some the GSC and one Cosworth) of all these failures coming forth.
A better plan of action rather than suggesting everyone pull their cams (which I think is a really poor idea) is find out when the ones that failed were made. I would have very little issue suggesting I have revved mine higher than most people and I have run S1s and S2s without any issues for a year and half on the S1s and a year on the S2s.
I would be interested to know what if anything has been modified to the damper systems of these cars, timing belt tensioner, belt used, and as closely as possible what rpms these were seeing on a regular basis. I am curious on a non technical basis of all the individuals who are posting about the metallurgy what your education, engineering, metallurgical backgrounds are as well. Seems like there are some heavy handed statements being made without material science backing it up.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Mar 11, 2009 at 08:43 PM.
Mar 11, 2009, 08:42 PM
#73
100% agree with that!
with all of these cases popping up in such a short time... I think there is motivation to spend some effort hunting down the problem and what and how many cams have the issue. I can not believe with this many cases the vendors and manufactures (GSC) seem to be denying fault, and defaulting to abuse etc, or just replacing the product and keeping this quite, instead of going after the core manufacture... maybe they are, but based on the comments I have read, most are taking the quite road. What we all need some help from the vendors and manufactures to get the attention of the cam blank manufacture and get this resolved!
with all of these cases popping up in such a short time... I think there is motivation to spend some effort hunting down the problem and what and how many cams have the issue. I can not believe with this many cases the vendors and manufactures (GSC) seem to be denying fault, and defaulting to abuse etc, or just replacing the product and keeping this quite, instead of going after the core manufacture... maybe they are, but based on the comments I have read, most are taking the quite road. What we all need some help from the vendors and manufactures to get the attention of the cam blank manufacture and get this resolved!
Mar 11, 2009, 08:58 PM
#75
I'll still run Kelfords in my 8 without hesitation but it will take a lot more than one post and a bunch of worth of mouth "stories" of cams breaking to put me off the 9 cams.
I'm good friends with one of the largest Kelford distributors in the US and they've sold over 300 sets of the 9 272's in the past 6 months and haven't had one return or defective cam yet. Those numbers aren't speculation based on actual sales numbers, not what I heard from some guy on forum.
I'm good friends with one of the largest Kelford distributors in the US and they've sold over 300 sets of the 9 272's in the past 6 months and haven't had one return or defective cam yet. Those numbers aren't speculation based on actual sales numbers, not what I heard from some guy on forum.