- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,133
I had a 70 model where the left side lobe was pitted toast on a teardown. All 3 to the right were perfect. No explanation I could see , regular oil changes.
No we need a cam shaft hardness and a follower hardness to be compatible with each other, so they don't destroy each other.Hi, Since we have some very talented people here. Has any one considered developing a Roller Cam and Cam shaft for our Norton engines ?
"Yes, I put needle bearings right next to the lobes and a ball bearing next to the sprocket to support the RH end and control the end play."
Jim, Your bike is highly modified (and I admire that) but what about us low life's who just rebuild to factory spec.
What we need to see is a stock high mileage cam and lifter set up with Rockwell C testing on both Followers and Cam that have stood the test without wear. What can we derive from that correlation. I am really confused why one lobe takes a dump.
Cheers,
T
Hi, Since we have some very talented people here. Has any one considered developing a Roller Cam and Cam shaft for our Norton engines ?
Since when have oil companies been reputable? You must have different standards to me.
The oil you use probably costs a good deal more than other oils plus the cost of the little bottle of zinc poop. For most of us oldsters the cost
of oil today is unbelievable.
However, the cost of our bikes is equally beyond what we would have ever paid so, as per your policy, false economy using less than premium oil.
Maybe it doesnt matter, in which case you can simply say better safe than sorry.
I have been using Penrite 20w/60 with high zinc ,changed around every 3000 miles.(for around the last 18,000 miles)
Instead of adding some kind of additive to the oil, why not just buy good oil with a high ZDDP content? That way you know the entire oil and additive ‘recipe’ is going to be good, and work together.
I can’t follow the logic that says we blokes in our sheds can mix a better oil than the top end reputable oil companies !
Cost of oil vs cost of failure. Plus peace of mind. That’s why I’m happy with my oil choice.
We spend a lot of money on these old bikes. Saving money on engine oil cannot possibly be efficient in the longer term IMHO.
Has that been shown, or is it suggesting that the original specification that could be improved? A friend recently pulled a late '60's 650SS down to find the reason for its asthmatic performance was a very worn cam follower. Plus ca change etc....now that it has been shown, scientifically, that the followers are at fault, and not made "to original specification", as claimed in all their advertising?
in the perfect world a solution would be simple but we have to accept the fact the cam and follower design was flawed from the get go
Norton had many issues with incompatible materials and this is still rearing its ugly head today numerous suppliers have tried different options steel billet / chilled iron / hard facing by welding
various different combinations of oil and still no definative solution to why they continue to fail
i have some sympathy for AN as a supplier they are limited to provide materials which are to the original flawed design (made from non compatible materials ) as they were OE by Norton otherwise they will not fit and work without major modification to the cases / cylinders . AN material specs may have changed but the actual design must remain the same ( flawed )
many automotive manufacturers in the 1980s and 90s also had premature camshaft & follower failiures only through development have these been all but eliminated today
the last Commando rolled of the production line in the mid 70`s and as owners we have to accept that vehicles produced over 40 years ago will have issues that cannot be be solved without a complete re design it is part and parcel of owning an old machine , we can spend thousands on restoration and upgraded parts to make our bikes more user freindly
but they are still a 50 year old design and will not perform and handle like a new 2018 machine which has cost millions to develop to that standard
Has that been shown, or is it suggesting that the original specification that could be improved? A friend recently pulled a late '60's 650SS down to find the reason for its asthmatic performance was a very worn cam follower. Plus ca change etc.
I took the bottom end apart at 105,000 miles just to check it out. The crank was still perfect and it went back together with just new rod bearings and seals.
Don't turn this into an oil thread.