Cam and follower tests.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The sad thing is that you think you’re helping. So just keep it up, you’re just going to hurt all the other Norton owners. Too bad they won’t find out until it’s too late.
 
swooshdave said:
The sad thing is that you think you’re helping. So just keep it up, you’re just going to hurt all the other Norton owners. Too bad they won’t find out until it’s too late.
Click to expand...

This gets better and better !! How do you figure that?
 
It would be great if companies could have nice open communication with their customers especially in niche markets like Norton parts. It can help with the quality and development of parts, in this instance. But being openly hostile will just cause companies to close up and reduce healthy conversation.

But if you think your approach will be more productive then good for you. I just happen to disagree.

I suggest everyone who supports you starts buying parts from Norvil. Get back to us if you ever have a problem.
 
swooshdave said:
It would be great if companies could have nice open communication with their customers especially in niche markets like Norton parts. It can help with the quality and development of parts, in this instance. But being openly hostile will just cause companies to close up and reduce healthy conversation.

But if you think your approach will be more productive then good for you. I just happen to disagree.

I suggest everyone who supports you starts buying parts from Norvil. Get back to us if you ever have a problem.
Click to expand...

Fanciful in the extreme, I must say. However, if AN had been as open and honest as you suggest, all this wouldn't have been necessary now, would it? Can you find anywhere, and I mean anywhere, in the two related threads where AN have even suggested the possibility of open and honest communication with their customers? I don't think you'll find any of that. It was all my fault, and my "idiot" engine builder's of course. The official AN line is still "no problem exists". How does that fit with your world view? Not really the start of an open and honest dialogue, now is it?

As for me causing average Norton owners/parts buyers to suffer. Stay off those drugs. They're not doing you any good. I think AN won't be deciding their future on one disgruntled customer.

But, this experience has brought home to me just how they do business, and it's not pretty.
 
When there other parties involved ie your engine builder, retailers, manufacturers etc then not everything can be released publicly or to the person who bought from the retailer. Ken you were not a customer of AN for the cam or the followers (which the followers were proven to be original 70's items and not new) they were purchased from a retailer, coated and built into an engine by persons unknown. Your remit is with them not us, we have a duty to our retailer. So our correspondence to with you is over and above what would be expected of not just AN but any company.

When there is full openness there is no control, it will be a race to the bottom of crap quality parts - I know of a couple of retailers here that have tried dealing with the Chinese / far east, 'Sorry can't make that part for you' then low an behold suddenly 6 months later find them on the web for sale on direct sale.

Sadly some things have to kept under wraps, all companies do it to protect their interests and investments. The same reason I have just sat back knowingly that someone tested an engine sprocket of ours, slate it and then make their own - the result was a little bit more than I would have predicted, but it was going to fail - one NOC owner nearly paid with his life when the 'improved' item shattered in use.

If you thought that in openness RGM, Norvil, AN and others all sat around and discussed their plans, then that is Fanciful!!
 
Madnorton said:
Followers ...... I have loads here, but would need to dress them to get them to fit as customers these days want them to drop straight in - if I had some delivered that did that I would be concerned.....
Click to expand...

The problem with this comment is that some of 'customers these days', were also customers in those days, the '70s, when new followers did not need dressing to drop in!

I did take edges off of them as advised by John Hudson's tuning notes at the time, for my race engines, but they dropped into the follower bores fine with no rework. In a road engine they dropped right in with no additional work!

If you want to sell them needing hand work to fit, then sell and label them as such, give guidance as to what needs doing, some customers need that guidance and it would help the expectations of all buyers!
 
Last edited:
Madnorton said:
When there other parties involved ie your engine builder, retailers, manufacturers etc then not everything can be released publicly or to the person who bought from the retailer. Ken you were not a customer of AN for the cam or the followers (which the followers were proven to be original 70's items and not new) they were purchased from a retailer, coated and built into an engine by persons unknown. Your remit is with them not us, we have a duty to our retailer. So our correspondence to with you is over and above what would be expected of not just AN but any company.

When there is full openness there is no control, it will be a race to the bottom of crap quality parts - I know of a couple of retailers here that have tried dealing with the Chinese / far east, 'Sorry can't make that part for you' then low an behold suddenly 6 months later find them on the web for sale on direct sale.

Sadly some things have to kept under wraps, all companies do it to protect their interests and investments. The same reason I have just sat back knowingly that someone tested an engine sprocket of ours, slate it and then make their own - the result was a little bit more than I would have predicted, but it was going to fail - one NOC owner nearly paid with his life when the 'improved' item shattered in use.

If you thought that in openness RGM, Norvil, AN and others all sat around and discussed their plans, then that is Fanciful!!
Click to expand...

Look, I've got to say, that you are the master of talking a lot but not actually saying anything. Maybe you should go into politics? Those followers were brand new AN followers at the time of the previous rebuild, not some mismatched old hand me downs as you claim. In fact you made some quite nonsensical claims about them. The followers were reground at the time of the last rebuild. I've managed to find a set of older 750 followers which have been hardness tested, along with the Webcam which will be used. As both were in spec for hardness, I picked them up from the coaters today, where they had been coated with the same "inappropriate" coating used before. May I remind you that there was never any "warranty claim" as you put it. You were alerted to a problem, and you requested to see the items, subsequently denying that there was any sort of problem. I further had correpondence with an experienced Norton tuner, who actually stated that mine was the longest lasting PW3 cam that he has ever seen or heard about.

You have spread misinformation regularly and your passing on of information to my engine builder has been patchy to non existent. You've alleged on several occasions that you sent him a copy of the report you commissioned which has never appeared. The only reference I have seen to it is where you have quoted your "interpretation" of it, which is hardly the same thing, coming from an unqualified person in the field.

Here's a question for you that I, and I'm sure, others, would like to see an answer to. Have you found a problem with AN followers? Simple enough to answer, a yes or a no will do. While we're at it, when AN followers are available again, will they be changed at all or to a new design or specification?
 
Jim, I can’t find the post where you say that the running in isn’t for work hardening, it’s to remove rough surface finish / small particles...

With this in mind, would polishing the cam and follower help?
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
Jim, I can’t find the post where you say that the running in is t for work hardening, it’s to remove rough surface finish / small particles...

With this in mind, would polishing the cam and follower help?
Click to expand...

Polishing the harder part -the follower -does help. Jim
 
Strangely Ken's followers that were sent to me by Ken's engine builder were not spot welded, though his other customers were, but someone even decide to put another chamfer down one of the other customers tappets as well for what reason we never did find out, I have photos to prove. Spot welding was used late on and can be easily seen on the tip, this means that without the spot weld they come from way back in the 70's.

As I said previously, I am waiting for Jim's followers to arrive in the UK and then they will be tested by UKAS facility, by the time Jim tests them, the retailer returns them and we get them here it is not an instant job to get items recovered and tested. So as yet, no there is not a problem, we have not done any of our own testing to indicate one way or another.

What I still don't get is that there was no indication of any coating on any of the followers I received, and I really don't get why an experienced engine builder would send tappets that have partial braze penetration and one with an additional chamfer for investigation - they were scrap, so why put them into an envelope!! From Ken's description, and what we got sent there is disparity. However I can only comment on what I was sent.

As for the new tappets - these will be nothing new and will be like the tappets of very old times, if fact Norton nearly got it right in the early 50's - one piece, had they realised then that the when one piece cast iron did not work, then they could have just substituted the once piece cast iron for one piece Delchrome, instaed of a Delchrome tip, strangely they didn't. No one these days would make something where the tip would needed to be brazed on - it adds unnecessary process steps.

On Monday I will send the email with test report to your engine builder with a read and delete rule, strangely he has not even contacted me to actually ask for the report at any time in the past, though he may have emailed Phil, as for asking for the parts back - you and David did that. it would really help if your engine builder was happy to release the report he had done, as myself and AN are more than happy to release our reports and photos, but will not until your engine builder agrees.

As for contacting your engine builder, if had he contacted me directly as many members on here and other retailers in Australia and elsewhere on the planet will confirm, that I reply within 24 hours, so if your engine builder had contacted me I would have replied - so it seems he can not be bothered to even contact me, so not my problem I'm afraid.

PW3 life, I will be sailing with the old Roadholder editor tomorrow, his PW3 cam has covered well over 30K miles, PW3 number 12 cam has covered over 50K miles, so there are many others out there that have covered a lot of miles. The two engine builders that have the sold and fitted the PW3 from the conception of the cam keep records of what they have sold and and fitted to whom, including your engine builder, going back many many years - he has been buying them for such a long time he most probably knows many owners that have covered over 20K miles - ask him.

So, no misinformation in the above, all quite simple.
 
swooshdave said:
The sad thing is that you think you’re helping. So just keep it up, you’re just going to hurt all the other Norton owners. Too bad they won’t find out until it’s too late.
Click to expand...
Pointing out an obvious manufacturing defect isn't helping? I know it will make me check before blindly putting any new AN, or any other makers, part into servcie from now on. And by your reasoning the many thousands of GM car buyers in the early 80's that had 5.0 liter engines with soft cams had no right to speak up either? Finally after enough of them did GM stopped trying to blame it on the wrong oil and admitted they had a problem.
 
MikeG said:
Pointing out an obvious manufacturing defect isn't helping? I know it will make me check before blindly putting any new AN, or any other makers, part into servcie from now on. And by your reasoning the many thousands of GM car buyers in the early 80's that had 5.0 liter engines with soft cams had no right to speak up either? Finally after enough of them did GM stopped trying to blame it on the wrong oil and admitted they had a problem.
Click to expand...


I worked for GM in those years. GM did have a problem like a lot of other manufacturers but the cams had not changed. The oil had.
Gm did upgrade the materials to help solve the problem and then they did away with flat tappets in pushrod motors all together to finally cure the problem, because they could not fix the EPA legislated oil. [except with MOA which took out it's share of cats] Jim
 
I remember it too Jim. There was a lot of finger pointing between my local GM dealer and the factory rep over who should pay. In the end it was usually the vehicle owner because neither side would admit error.
 
MikeG said:
I remember it too Jim. There was a lot of finger pointing between my local GM dealer and the factory rep over who should pay. In the end it was usually the vehicle owner because neither side would admit error.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was working for GMTC at the time. Running around to the dealers telling them to use MOA with every oil change and mentioning that only cars who had dealership service records showing that were likely to be covered under the extended warranty.
 
Ok Jim, I’ll ask the obvious...

Did the MOA additive work?

If so, why?

And if so... is it a good additive for old Norton’s?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top