This lifter is from cylinder number one of my O470U. Engine has 1500 hours which is TBO. Was prepared to do a top until I saw this. Oil analysis good. Engine ran fine. All other lifters are perfect.

So my guesses are oil supply issue or metallurgy defect. Ordered a factory remanufactured engine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My guess would be metallurgical. Does it qualify for this? http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/msb09-8a.pdf

Yours looks worse than anything they show in the SB.

Zzz wrote:My guess would be metallurgical. Does it qualify for this? http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/msb09-8a.pdf

Yours looks worse than anything they show in the SB.

Bought the 180k in 2008. The jug was changed in June 2008 with a ECI make. So lifter was in there in 2008 and probably much earlier. It ran 1100 hours by me before I discovered this. So I am guessing lifter was not part of this bad batch. Put engine back together so I cannot easily get part number off lifter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Definitely interesting----probably never figure it out for sure. Looks like it's a good thing you decided to overhaul when you did.

180Marty wrote:Definitely interesting----probably never figure it out for sure. Looks like it's a good thing you decided to overhaul when you did.

Do not feel bad about engine. It took me from Alaska to the bottom of the Bahamas. From the east coast to the west coast. It is a engineering marvel. Cessna got it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's been a long time since I was current enough with metallergic engineering to even make an edcated guess just by looking at that. You'd ideally put it under a microscope. '

I wondered if corrosion could be a factor?

How's the cam look? Valve sticking (mainly exhaust) can cause pressure on the lifter and cam lobe. If corrosion you'd think it'd have affected others.

Gary

SID 05-1 has some great information. My SWAG is that was caused by a oiling issue. Maybe the lifters were pulled when the cylinder was replaced in 2008 and were not lubricated enough when reinstalled. Combine that with an extended idle run right after installing the lifter and you have a pretty good recipe for damaging the lifer face.

Why would a lifter that looks like this warrant a factory reman instead of the top you planned for plus a cam lobe inspection and possibly a cam replacement on inspection? Seems a whole lot more economical. Was there more damage?

Not at all unusual for a Continental. I would have a good look at the cam, chances are it's still ok, replace the lifter and run it. SID 05-1 is detailed enough to make a very informed decision. It's common to have a sudden increase in fine iron particles in the filter from a lifter, which cleans up by the next filter change. As per the SID, the lifters do actually 'heal' themselves We've seen this issue at least a dozen times over the last 10 or so years, not once did it result in an unscheduled removal. This is also why I don't recommend oil analysis to my customers, it rarely gives any useful data and often causes more worry than necessary

These engines are very robust given just a little bit of care

lesuther wrote:Why would a lifter that looks like this warrant a factory reman instead of the top you planned for plus a cam lobe inspection and possibly a cam replacement on inspection? Seems a whole lot more economical. Was there more damage?

Engine is at tbo. 1550 hours. 2 cylinders had bad compression, less than 20. Cam showed some damage. Not paying for overhaul personally. I also fly over oceans and far northern territories for extend distances. My business partner insisted on a factory engine. My decision factors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I also wondered why the reman but then remembered that the engine was at TBO.
I don't have a problem with running an engine past TBO but it might be false economy to do a lot of work to one.
Can a Continental follower be replaced without splitting the cases?
Moot point however if there was cam damage also.

skywgnyqa wrote:Cam showed some damage. Not paying for overhaul personally....My business partner insisted on a factory engine. My decision factors.

Splains it.

I wonder what the difference in longevity/reliability between factory reman vs field overhaul in the real world is, actually. I always thought they were fairly similar.

Back in 2010, I went with a factory reman because my engine (which had fodded-out) had a lightweight case and airmelt crank (both of which had to be replaced under AD). Continental (then TCM) didn't ding me for those items on the core, so it was cost-effective as well as reassuring. Until the lifters started spalling. That showed up at 60 hours we we pulled a cylinder for an exhaust valve leak. There was some wear on the cam lobes starting, so, long story short, Continental did right by me and I got an almost MOH from Mattituck that has been trouble free and runs like a top. If I'd done a field overhaul and gotten those same defective lifters, recourse would have depended on the shop that did the work and its ability to get satisfaction out of the supplier. Not a certain prospect, in my experience. In any case, I have more confidence in an engine with a few hundred hours on it than a newly-overhauled one or a new one. YMMV.

CAVU

It looks like one that was once plated, minus the plating.