Stephen

Another IO360 with hosed Lifters/CAM

Recommended Posts

Hi MSers,

 

Me too thread here. Yet another IIO360A1A with lifter>CAM>Oil pump damage sequence. 

Vitals:

App 1100 hrs SMOH on 1994 Firewall Fwd Overhaul

Cam Guard Used

Flown 150 hrs hours per year since I purchased in 2017. 

First symptom was verify fine dust started showing up in Oil Filter (see thread on MS with pics)

Oil Analysis was "clean" per IA doing changes.

Oil changes @ 25 hour intervals, or more often,  since "dust" started showing up.

Finger screen clean until last oil change where some flakes appeared. 

Flew it to Jewl Aircraft Engines for tear-down :

Lifter_Damage.png.cc451ddf0a1f2caaf5feaf97f8c9acc2.png

 

 

1119858938_CamDamage.png.6acc7893f9dace9e9bb6260cceb17f0b.png

 

Having full OH done with DLC Lifters/Cam.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

Didn't get pictures of that but can request from Jewell. Assume fines scoured or damaged pump gears or chamber so that is on the replace list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, condolences...

In the 23 years since overhaul before your purchase, the average was around 35 hrs/year... were those hours accumulated early after the overhaul?  Did the airplane sit for any extended period of time before your purchase?

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Stephen, for sharing the details and pics...

Looking forward to hearing your experience with the new lifters and cam...

It May take decades... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Didn't get pictures of that but can request from Jewell. Assume fines scoured or damaged pump gears or chamber so that is on the replace list. 

AFAIK, the oil pump is a pretty robust piece of hardware (when was the last time you heard of an oil pump getting overhauled?), so I wonder if there is something larger than just flakes... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around Y2K... an aluminum gear was used for preferential wear... it was too soft and wore out to easily...

It was an AD around that time for all Lycoming 360 engines...

PP thoughts, fuzzy memory at best...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil pump gear AD’s go back to the mid 70’s through the mid 90’s for the most recent one.  It was to get rid of aluminum gears, sintered iron gears, woodruff key drive gears and 2 piece pump bodies.

Clarence

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about your engine. This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. That extra 20 HP comes at a cost. This also brings into question the real effectiveness of Camguard versus the success of their marketing. So does Camguard offer any concessions for you in this case? 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to hear about your engine. This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. That extra 20 HP comes at a cost. This also brings into question the real effectiveness of Camguard versus the success of their marketing. So does Camguard offer any concessions for you in this case? 

He just purchased it in 2017, so Camguard will say damage was done before then.



Tom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sabremech said:

This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. 

At the risk of being an a__hole, that line of thinking is a prime candidate for confirmation bias.  you should be looking for examples that disprove or undermine your hypothesis... :P

Actually, that's not a risk, most people I know do think I'm an a__hole... ;)

Edited by jaylw314
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

At the risk of being an a__hole, that line of thinking is a prime candidate for confirmation bias.  you should be looking for examples that disprove or undermine your hypothesis... :P

Actually, that's not a risk, most people I know do think I'm an a__hole... ;)

Well, after almost 9 years of being on this site and previously on Mooney pilots FB, almost all of the camshaft problems are in IO-360 engines. I’ve been looking for a spike in O-360 engine camshaft issues and haven’t found that trend shift yet. Thankfully there’s not many a_holes on MS. The ones that are, I have blocked! 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Sorry to hear about your engine. This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. That extra 20 HP comes at a cost. This also brings into question the real effectiveness of Camguard versus the success of their marketing. So does Camguard offer any concessions for you in this case? 

First I've heard of it, but its all about the force and area.  The earlier O320H2AD engines had smaller lifters, then the T mode came along to make the lifters larger.  In my experience, its more about the regular use of the engine than the T mod.

Now for the O360 vs IO360 - I assume the same cam / lifter arrangement?  So same bearing pressure on the face of the cam/lifter?  Anything different about the valves / springs?

If not, I'd put it all on the lack of use rather than the engine time.

 

Aerodon

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

First I've heard of it, but its all about the force and area.  The earlier O320H2AD engines had smaller lifters, then the T mode came along to make the lifters larger.  In my experience, its more about the regular use of the engine than the T mod.

Now for the O360 vs IO360 - I assume the same cam / lifter arrangement?  So same bearing pressure on the face of the cam/lifter?  Anything different about the valves / springs?

If not, I'd put it all on the lack of use rather than the engine time.

 

Aerodon

 

 

I’d have to get into the Lycoming IPC to verify cam and lifter p/n’s to see if they are the same or not between the models. I don’t believe lack of activity is the major factor, but rather metallurgy of the camshaft as well as camshaft and lifter re-grinding during overhaul versus replacing with new parts. 

All bets are off with long term storage in high humidity environments. It won’t just be the camshaft with issues in this case. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Well, after almost 9 years of being on this site and previously on Mooney pilots FB, almost all of the camshaft problems are in IO-360 engines. I’ve been looking for a spike in O-360 engine camshaft issues and haven’t found that trend shift yet. Thankfully there’s not many a_holes on MS. The ones that are, I have blocked! 

I, too havwe noticed that. Not sure why, but it seems all the IO-360s have lifter problems, and some O-360s do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aerodon said:

First I've heard of it, but its all about the force and area.  The earlier O320H2AD engines had smaller lifters, then the T mode came along to make the lifters larger.  In my experience, its more about the regular use of the engine than the T mod.

Now for the O360 vs IO360 - I assume the same cam / lifter arrangement?  So same bearing pressure on the face of the cam/lifter?  Anything different about the valves / springs?

If not, I'd put it all on the lack of use rather than the engine time.

 

Aerodon

 

 

Regular use doesnt prevent it. It doesnt seem to make a difference. I know a few pilots, Mooney guys, on their third engine now. found a mid time cam wiped out, lifters shot. Replaced it, new cam and lifters, ran it 450 hours in 2-3-4 years. Camguard, Phillips XC oil, never sat more than 4 days.  Still spalls again. Brian at Wilmar has a story. So does @aaronk25

Edited by jetdriven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it is a combination of stronger valve springs on the IO series and the double duty of the intake lobes doing twice the work of the exhaust lobes, mixed in with lower use/ inactivity at times.

Clarence 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Sorry to hear about your engine. This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. That extra 20 HP comes at a cost. This also brings into question the real effectiveness of Camguard versus the success of their marketing. So does Camguard offer any concessions for you in this case? 

Meh, I had an O-360 and same exact deal. My lifters and cam were even more worn than what is seen in this picture. I think any Lycoming that sits is going to be vulnerable.

Edited by AlexLev
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardening of the cam is only on the surface, so any rust that appears will breakthrough and eventually you’ll have problems.
We’ll see if new diamond coating helps, supposedly Lycoming said if they they would not have gone with the roller tappets if they had this new technology.


Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

It May take decades... :)

....from your keyboard to my engine !

Hopefully they do the trick

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 47U said:

Yes, condolences...

In the 23 years since overhaul before your purchase, the average was around 35 hrs/year... were those hours accumulated early after the overhaul?  Did the airplane sit for any extended period of time before your purchase?

Tom

Was an AZ plane I believe through most of that time then AL afterwards, very likely had idle time but I don’t know. Was active while I’ve owned it and hopefully will remain so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 25 years since overhaul. The damage was probably done before you owned it. A small amount of corrosion on the cam, and it took your frequent flying for it to grind away enough to become evident in the filter.

I had a similar experience, mine had been over 20 years since overhaul and starting making metal. I feel like after two decades plus it was time for it anyway. To me it is just not realistic to expect an engine to sit on airplane for two or three decades and remain airworthy. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So you bought the plane with time on the engine.  Overhaul done in 1994.What was time on engine when you purchased?  You have no idea how engine was operated before purchase.  What was annual operation in years before you purchased?

1995 hours___

1996 hours___

1997 hours___

1998 hours___

1999 hours___

2000 hours___

2001 hours___

2001 hours___

2002 hours___

2003 hours___

2004 hours___

2005 hours___

2006 hours___

2007 hours___

2008 hours___

2009 hours___

2010 hours___

2011 hours___

2012 hours___

2013 hours___

2014 hours___

2015 hours___

2016 hours___

Why is CamGuard being blamed?  

Sorry you are having engine problems.  

I don’t blame this on IO-360 engine at all...

Edited by RogueOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 5:06 PM, ArtVandelay said:


He just purchased it in 2017, so Camguard will say damage was done before then.



Tom

Is this Not reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 4:53 PM, Sabremech said:

Sorry to hear about your engine. This seems to confirm much of what I’ve thought for years about the camshaft problem being more prevalent on the IO-360 engines versus the O-360’s. That extra 20 HP comes at a cost. This also brings into question the real effectiveness of Camguard versus the success of their marketing. So does Camguard offer any concessions for you in this case? 

Probably need to block me because that post is garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.