 #2
 #2  #3 Closeup
#3 Closeup #2 Closeup
#2 Closeup #3
#3 #1
#1 This pic is of #1 Cam journal on a 4.0 I had with a Comp 232-4 it ate up the Cam Bearings too ... after 76k tho.
This pic is of #1 Cam journal on a 4.0 I had with a Comp 232-4 it ate up the Cam Bearings too ... after 76k tho.
 #2
 #2  #3 Closeup
#3 Closeup #2 Closeup
#2 Closeup #3
#3 #1
#1 This pic is of #1 Cam journal on a 4.0 I had with a Comp 232-4 it ate up the Cam Bearings too ... after 76k tho.
This pic is of #1 Cam journal on a 4.0 I had with a Comp 232-4 it ate up the Cam Bearings too ... after 76k tho.











What components did these two engine share?4.0 I had with a Comp 232-4 it ate up the Cam Bearings too...after 76k tho.


I very much doubt it. All the stock 4.0 engines made from '87-'98 had the thrust pin/spring to prevent cam walk and they didn't have any cam issues, so I think we can safely rule out cam walk as the cause of the cam bearing failures.92tank wrote:im starting to believe that the spring and pin cam retainer are NOT capable of preventing cam walk. that is probably why chryco went with the new plate style
SilverXJ wrote:25 PSI with a HV pump would be too low, but the OP didn't say he was using a HV pump. With a HV pump you should have around 40 psi at a hot idle.

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot] and 2 guests