Lifter Failure

A

Arrow67

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
65
Location
Holland,mi
Display Name
Display name:
Yellow_bird
A friend of mine has a cessna t210 with a ram engine upgrade. Engine installed 2 years ago, has 270 hours on it. He takes care of it meticulously. Any squawks fixed right away, heated hanger, oil changed every 25-30 hours with 100w plus and camgard. Never sits more than 2 weeks at a time. Last oil change metal was found in the filter. Teardown found 8 out of 12 lifters falling apart. Cam wasn't too bad, but needs to be replaced. Crank looks good, oil pump housing torn up. The shop claims rust is the culprit. I say BS. Anyone else have opinions on this?
 

Attachments

  • IMG952371[1].jpg
    IMG952371[1].jpg
    105.8 KB · Views: 169
Hanger is kept at 50 F all winter, when the snow comes he moves it to the corporate hanger where it is at least 70.
 
There is no sarcastic smiley here, sorry. But you will get several opinions, just wait. Then we'll talk about Can Guard and why he thought is was necessary and then we'll talk about oil and then someone will insinuate that someone else doesn't know what they're talking about and finally, someone post a picture of a bunny with a pancake on it's head.

And your friend will still be right back in the same place.
 
Arrow67 said:
A friend of mine has a cessna t210 with a ram engine upgrade. Engine installed 2 years ago, has 270 hours on it. He takes care of it meticulously. Any squawks fixed right away, heated hanger, oil changed every 25-30 hours with 100w plus and camgard. Never sits more than 2 weeks at a time. Last oil change metal was found in the filter. Teardown found 8 out of 12 lifters falling apart. Cam wasn't too bad, but needs to be replaced. Crank looks good, oil pump housing torn up. The shop claims rust is the culprit. I say BS. Anyone else have opinions on this?
Click to expand...

Does the shop have anything to back up their rust claims? An engine that has been run at least once a month should have oil coating internal parts.
 
It is their opinion that it wasn't flown enough. I looked over everything after tear down. I saw no signs of rust.
 
Last edited:
No, RAM did the engine, This shop installed it. RAM offered 20% warranty. By the way, this is the 2nd Ram engine. The first made metal in the first month or 2. Ram fixed or replaced that one.
 
I'm really starting it think that lifter issues are cause either by overloaded condition due to valve guide friction or just poor manufacturing of the lifter or cam.

I've seen similar problems on big diesel truck engines, granted, no nearly as frequent.
 
Timbeck2 said:
There is no sarcastic smiley here, sorry. But you will get several opinions, just wait. Then we'll talk about Can Guard and why he thought is was necessary and then we'll talk about oil and then someone will insinuate that someone else doesn't know what they're talking about and finally, someone post a picture of a bunny with a pancake on it's head.

And your friend will still be right back in the same place.
Click to expand...
I'll just get right to the point.

rabbit21n-6-web-2.jpg
 
Personal automotive experiences here-

Excessive valve spring pressures?
Improper lifter bore offset issues in block?
Excessive cam fore/aft play?
Improper valve lash?
Incorrect cam or lifter hardening?
Poor lubrication at break-in?
Reusing lifters and cam, but mixing up the matched lobe-lifter pair or using them in a different block?

Dozens of other possibilities. Will be tough to pin-point on the Internet.
 
Is it just me or are engine making TBO just unheard of nowadays?
 
Identical customer here. First overhaul due to metal and low compressions was a bad cam, second one was bad lifters, and at this annual he came up with bottomed out compressions in two cylinders so they got overhauled, and the lifters were shot. Spalled, pitted, just extremely worn and they only have ~500 hours on them. Plane is stored in a heated hangar, flies at least twice a week and does between 250 and 300 hours a year. Oil changes every 30-35 hours.

EDIT - just looked at OPs attachment. The lifters in this case looked identical to that. Out of 12, only three were okay.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Aha! Don't baby your plane in a heated hangar. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Funny, That was the first connection I noticed too.

As for your other post, Don't forget all the opinions that will quote a service manual technique or regulation and someone demanding they go find the original manual/regulation to prove the opposite is true.
 
Sometimes lifters do fail

weight-lifting-for-women.gif
 
I call material defect on the failure mode.

Process control of the hardness on the face of those lifters/tappet is troublesome and difficult to measure and control.

Now...go try and prove that and get the manufacturer to resolve that? Not gonna happen.
 
Disclaimer: what I'm about to suggest is a W.A.G. (Wild A-- Guess). I'm not an AP, and I'm only partway around the block. I haven't made a CFI mad, so in the words of Bill Murray, I've got that going for me, which is nice...

Could the heat actually be a detriment and not a plus? One of the byproducts of propane/gas heat is water (I am assuming most hangar heaters are one of those options). The temp of the hangar (50-70) sure isn't hot enough to burn off any water inside the engine. Could the heater be adding to the issue instead of taking away? Could it also keep the oil warm enough to more easily drain into the sump rather than cling to parts?

WAG aside, I suspect surface treatment/hardening issues, particularly if guys are flying 2x/week and still seeing issues.
 
Just to pile on the "I am only guessing but maybe this is of thought" warm air hold more moisture while cold/freezing air is dry. I would expect that much running of the engine should take care of the moisture but maybe and that is a weak maybe the warm air is helping with the damage.
 
For the warm air guessers.. Wouldn't we see this damage in every Florida plane out there? A lot warmer, and a lot more humidity.

Not that I have a better guess.
 
I'd investigate metallurgy testing.
Yes it might be corrosion, but metals corrode at different rates. And inappropriate metals in that location are going to corrode way quicker than correct metals.
Also, if they are blaming corrosion, the whole engine will be corroded. Compare corrosion on lifters to other steel parts in the engine.
 
ifly4fun said:
For the warm air guessers.. Wouldn't we see this damage in every Florida plane out there? A lot warmer, and a lot more humidity.

Not that I have a better guess.
Click to expand...

Good point, hadn't thought of that.
 
Not saying this is it, but I'll just throw this into the mix.

My old 182-RG (Lycoming O540) with about 400 hours/4 years SMOH. Heated hangar, flown 100 hours per year, oil change every 30 hours, started showing some metal in the filter. Sent it out for analysis to see if it could be determined where it came from... inconclusive. Ended up having to pull the engine and sent it to Poplar Grove (overhaul was done by Penn Yan). The lifters were bad and took out the camshaft.

They (Poplar Grove) told me that they've seen this type of thing before. They think the lifters must be a batch with "bad metallurgy" or something because not much else makes sense.

On the good side, the camshaft must have been just within limits at overhaul, because after it was replaced, I picked up 5-10 knots! :)
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Is it just me or are engine making TBO just unheard of nowadays?
Click to expand...

Out here on the West Coast, the ones that routinely make it to TBO and past are the popular rentals. Usually, those get overhauled on insurance requirements instead of actual indications of failure. For instance, I'm allowed 2200 hours on a 2000 hour TBO before the insurance company won't insure for rental anymore and in my poll of other 172 leaseback owners, that actually happens pretty often. And these planes live outside all time time.

Pretty sure it's related to the good weather here and flying often.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Could the heat actually be a detriment and not a plus?
Click to expand...
Corrosion rates are a function of temperature. Warmer = more corrosion.

Humidity outside the engine is a factor for long term storage, but short term, there is more than enough water inside to keep the humidity high until it has a chance to diffuse through that long vent tube (I don't have any real number for that, but I would suspect days to weeks - not minutes or hours).
 
Only up to #28...shooting for 100.haha. Does anyone know of any testing that can be done to ensure proper heat treatment was done? What is the hardness requires?
 
Yes. You would need engineering prints to determine what the material was supposed to be and then determine which form of testing or combination would needed and access to and experience with the testing equipment. Long ago, I worked in a 145 repair station where we did Rockwell Hardness testing, conductivity and Chem-sort testing, primarily on aluminum, but occasionally on CRES and titanium.
 
Last edited:
A simple test would be to compare the response to a small 3 corner file comparing a good (worn is OK) old lifter to a questionable one. I suspect the lifters should be close to Rc 60 which is close to file-hard.

It isn't a proof positive test by any means but it is one that can be done easily.
 
"Corrosion rates are a function of temperature. Warmer = more corrosion.

Humidity outside the engine is a factor for long term storage, but short term, there is more than enough water inside to keep the humidity high until it has a chance to diffuse through that long vent tube (I don't have any real number for that, but I would suspect days to weeks - not minutes or hours."

Corrosion rate doubles about every 18 degF you raise the temperature.

Theoretically the crankcase is full of steam and CO2 on shutdown. The steam condenses on the engine's cooling surfaces to make water. There's probably not much escaping thru the breather. That sort of thing is only done in modern automobile engines via the positive crankcase ventilation system which sucks crankcase gases into the combustion chamber & exits it thru the exhaust.
 
Is a failure like this (if due to a QC issue as opposed to an MX/storage related issue) typically related to acceptable base metal with improper hardening, or inferior base metal(s) to begin with?
 
donjohnston said:
Not saying this is it, but I'll just throw this into the mix.

My old 182-RG (Lycoming O540) with about 400 hours/4 years SMOH. Heated hangar, flown 100 hours per year, oil change every 30 hours, started showing some metal in the filter. Sent it out for analysis to see if it could be determined where it came from... inconclusive. Ended up having to pull the engine and sent it to Poplar Grove (overhaul was done by Penn Yan). The lifters were bad and took out the camshaft.

They (Poplar Grove) told me that they've seen this type of thing before. They think the lifters must be a batch with "bad metallurgy" or something because not much else makes sense.

On the good side, the camshaft must have been just within limits at overhaul, because after it was replaced, I picked up 5-10 knots! :)
Click to expand...

Did you see a 1" change in max MP or so, also?
 
I'd want to know whether RAM used new lifters or if they're using reconditioned. Most custom engine builders I've spoken with use new followers at overhaul to reduce premature failure claims. The same is true for cams.

The lifter in the pic is a mess. Hard to believe that's a two year 270 hour engine no matter how it was treated or mis-treated. 8 of 12 going bad would indicate a parts problem is more likely than corrosion.
 
Last edited:
In this case....I'd want old parts vs. new. Once the parts have proven themselves and out of the infant mortality zone....I want them. In this case the lifters failed in the infant zone (less than a few hundred hours). Parts surviving hundreds of hours....are proven.

So long as they are dimensionally acceptable with hundreds of time proven operation they are more desirable IMHO.
 
Since i saw no rust on any of the other internal engine components, It is my guess that rust is not the problem...
 
Were any of the valve guides coked up? then it would be metallurgy of the lifters.
 
Its interesting to me that there are 10 year old engines with worn out cams & lifters and you can find blogs about engines over 50 years old and finally being torn down for the first overhaul since it was new and the cam & lifters don't look bad at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top