I was just out in the garage measuring some cam specs on some various cams, one of which I just removed from my '95 TA a few weeks ago...but I never noticed this until tonight!!
I changed the lifters and still had the old ones and went thru them all but none were found to be bad or scared up any on the roller so I guess the roller part is much harder than the cam lobes....maybe it does pay to install a billet cam after seeing this!! I know the lifters never had more than a 1/2 turn preload and this is the only lobe to have this problem. It had .367 lift..thats .587 w/1.6rr...a Comp Cam.

That happend to my factory cam in my car.
Roller went bad and ate the cam up.

None of my roller lifters appear to be bad, in fact I can't even tell which one was installed on that lobe.
Hey sam did you ever get that XFI268 dyno'd?

I would not put those lifters back in the engine. My machine shop told me when I pulled the stock cam out of mine (145K) that the cam should be in great shape because hydraulic roller lifters are very easy on a cam.

Wasn't planning to use them again as they were hammered by the Comp Dual springs that were on there with a 400+# spring rate on OEM lifters. I had read that OEMs couldn't take much more than 375# spring rates, but do not know that for sure...I didn't put the setup together initially. I'm sure the springs didn't help the cam wear either, but there's a lot of folks using these same springs as they used to be the spring of choice before the beehives were popular.

Not Yet.
The day of the dyno day my opti fell apart and was not able to make it.
I will soon

[QUOTE=2QUIK6;4931296] It had .367 lift..thats .587 w/1.6rr...a Comp Cam.
QUOTE]

thats only a .391 lift at 1.6 ratio. NOT .587.

[QUOTE=9formula4;4933497]You must be using the "new" math, last I checked .367 X 1.6 = .587
How'd you arrive at .391?? That would be smaller than stock... .367 is lobe lift not valve lift.

a zz9 cam made by tpis , was in the same shape when i pulled it out. except i had a few lobes like that. someone told me it was not heat treated correctly.

I'm wondering now if this isn't more common than we think because this cam was in my car for about 8k miles.

There's been several incidents of what was thought to be "lifter failure", but I'm wondering if it was really cam failure first which would then eventually cause the lifter failure.
On mine you can clearly see a groove in the lobe that the roller perfectly fits in...eventually it would have cut deep enough to where the sides of the lobe would start contacting the lifter in places it was not meant to touch and probably cause the roller bearings to come apart.

Maybe paying a little extra for a Billet cam might be a smart idea...with the cost of metal going up everyday, I'm sure the cam makers are using less expensive metals thinking that for a roller cam its strong enough. The LPE I put in was a billet cam

Billet? Mine too. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy in a very special sort of way.

Looks just like my old cam.
I had a blown head gasket though. Oil/water mix is not good on engine components.

ill thats just plain nasty....

Looks to me like that lobe didn't get a correct heat treat. Could have been due to a flaw in the core or something (bad pitting under the wear area). Same thing happened to a friend during the whole GM hotcam fiasco a few years back...

yuk!

man i got one like that ill take a pic and post it up