|
|
|
Hey folks,
as you can read in this thread I had some problems with valve clearance on 1 valve. The gap grew 2 mm in about 80 miles. Because of the extreme growth in valve clearance it made me think it could not be the lifter. (or camlobe since lift was unchanged)
Today I took of the head to have a look, and this is what I found:
The contact surface of the lifter where it meets the pushrod had been completely ‘washed’ away. The pushrod contact surface looked ok, I had also checked that before.
Never seen it before... Check out the difference between left and right lifter (right=wrong). You can clearly see the amount of wear.
I put the engine back together using new lifters, and different pushrods and also changed oil and filter. So far so good…
Cheers, Ben
--
P131, '65, B20B+M47. P131, '69, B20E+AW71L+LSD. (www.tinustechniek.tk)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Never seen such a worn lifter! In all of the more than 700k miles and about 14 B20's in 140 series cars have I ever had a lifter wear, not even a bit beyond adjustment from cup wear. Now the bottoms of the lifters are a different story.
The only way for that to happen is for the case hardening of the lifter to wear prematurely or a bad lifter that never was case hardned properly. This is a common problem with the older B18 cams where the lobes go quickly after the case hardening thins down.
Were these new lifters? Volvo lifters.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon
|
|
-
|
|
|
No, used ones, the lifters had about 10k miles on them. Makes it even stranger I would say. If it was to be a casting flaw, then you'd expect it to have shown in the first part of it's life.
I still think it's indeed a casting problem, maybe in combination with what Rhys sugested: a rotating lifter and a stationary pushrod.
The reason why it only showed now is because I used a different pushrod on the lifter which must have had a slighty different 'size'. Because of that some very little initial metal-wear-bits got loose and helped sanding it down further.
When I took out the lifter the hole was full of shiny metal bits. Which I think dramaticaly increased wear.
cheers, ben
--
P131, '65, B20B+M47. P131, '69, B20E+AW71L+LSD. (www.tinustechniek.tk)
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be joris
on
Thu Sep 30 01:41 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
" I still think it's indeed a casting problem, maybe in combination with what Rhys sugested: a rotating lifter and a stationary pushrod."
Since it is not useful any more, you could cut it in two lengthwise. Maybe you'll see something that explains it.
|
|
-
|
|
Wow, Ben, when you have a problem it usually turns out to be a dandy. What are you going to do next to keep us entertained?
Bob S.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well, I guess I have to say, my cars keep me quite busy sometimes. They certainly keep amazing me...
I was thinking of re-painting my rusty drivers door, but I had second thoughts: Perhaps the smoothness of that one door would create an uneven air flow around the car, thereby creating too much outflow resistance at the exhaust, causing a too high presure in the manifold and because of that causing continues blowing of the gasket there. Leaving me without a clue offcourse... It would however make a nice post and laughter for the BB again...
Cheers, Ben
--
P131, '65, B20B+M47. P131, '69, B20E+AW71L+LSD. (www.tinustechniek.tk)
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Rhys
on
Tue Sep 28 14:41 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
I have never seen anything like that. The only way it makes sense to me is if the pushrod stopped turning at the rocker arm end and was held stationary as the lifter rotated around it. The rocker balls and upper pushrod ends do wear frequently, and your valve adjustment may have locked the ovalized rocker ball to the cup on the pushrod. Other than that theory, I have none.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Weird!! How did the pushrod look?
It's pretty obvious that you found the problem part but I would really like
to know how it got that way. Looks like either the pushrod tip was VERY
abrasive or the top of the lifter got hot (over 500°F) somewhere along the
line. I seriously doubt that anything in normal (or even fairly abusive)
use would make a lifter do this, so I don't think you can pin the rose on
the fact that the lifter had been "used". Used lifters usually make problems
on the end where they contact the cam.
--
George Downs, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Central US
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Looks like either the pushrod tip was VERY abrasive or the top of the lifter got hot"
The pushrod tip looked just like the others. I suspected something like this was the cause of the funky valve clearance, so I had already taken out the pushrod earlier to have a look at the surface. But it looked nice and shine/polished like the others.
"so I don't think you can pin the rose on the fact that the lifter had been "used"."
My thoughts exactly. All the lifters I have seen, from nearly new till ones with over 250k miles on them, look all the same on the top surface.
This particular lifter had around 10-15k miles on it, so was nearly new. I think it must be some kind of casting flaw or something. We'll see if the new lifter holds longer then 100 miles... (I do hope so...)
cheers, ben
--
P131, '65, B20B+M47. P131, '69, B20E+AW71L+LSD. (www.tinustechniek.tk)
|
|
-
|
|
Bizarre. I can't fathom what would make that wear like that. Perhaps the cam lobe is uneven and imparting more than a normal amount of spin on the lifter?
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I've got no idea. I'm certain many others will.
What I want know is if you had it to do again next time, (Gee! I guess you already did), would you use used lifters again or not?
|
|
|
|
|
