Some good news about camshaft wear...

[neckarsulm]

Took the cam covers off today on my car.
For reference it's a;
2001 AZR engine (i.e. the later one)
104k miles genuine miles (bought from original owner).
No modifications including no remap.
Largely motorway miles and school runs.
None of the lobes shown any significant wear, in fact the offside bank look better than the nearside which is unusual.
Pics below;
Last pic is of the offside rear exhaust lobes which seem to be the weakest

[rtd]

what month was your car registered neckarsulm, and how do you find the engine code?

[sfrs4]

so basicaly what your saying is there is less chance of cam shaft wear on the later spec engine, could this be due to camshaft material (better spec of steel) or what the camshaft run's against. and can these bit's be fitted to the older spec engine?

[neckarsulm]

so basicaly what your saying is there is less chance of cam shaft wear on the later spec engine, could this be due to camshaft material (better spec of steel) or what the camshaft run's against. and can these bit's be fitted to the older spec engine?

No idea if the later engine IS free of problems, that's one for a specialist mechanic to comment on from case histories, I am just stating what mine is for the record so maybe we can build up a pattern.
The cams are the same part numbers for early or late engines so if there is a difference in durability it could be that from a certain date the cams were made in a stronger manner.

rtd, mine's a March 2001. the engine code is on the logbook, data sticker in boot, barcode on cambelt cover or stamped somewhere on offside front of engine just behind the timing belt cover.

[Contigo]

If you look on the "other forums" thread that rsPaul created you will see that this is on both the AZR and the ASJ engines.

[TopBear]

Mines was reg'd in Jan 2002 (AZR), and in May 2006 at 70K miles needed new cams.
No idea how the car was used by the previous owners. (same as everyone else, unless they owned it from new). It had only ever been on longlife servicing, and there was no receipts to support any MAF or other ancillary component replacement, so perhaps that has contributed to the failure.

[Contigo]

http://audisrs.com/ftopic4067-180.php

[Contigo]

Doug said that the combination of long life servicing (oil presumably) and original MAF's from new would indeed contribute towards the cam wear.

[Contigo]

And just out of interest, has your motor actually been on the road since you have had it or has it been operated on all the time? Maybe you can start enhoying it soon?

[neckarsulm]

Mine was on longlife but never did more than 13k between oil changes. It did have a new MAF but only recently.
OK, so engine code/build date isn't a deciding factor, wonder if remap or stock may be the answer?

And just out of interest, has your motor actually been on the road since you have had it or has it been operated on all the time? Maybe you can start enhoying it soon?

It's only been worked on for a matter of hours so far, finding time to work on it has been the issue for me and my RS4 driving mechanic friend.
I do yearn to drive it but know it's worth getting it right first so I don't have any nagging doubts in my mind about cams, oil cooler pipes, boost valves, rattles, etc etc

[drjones1]

Are there any noises to notify you of a problem, looking at some of the pics from other threads they must sound like a bag of nails when on there way out.

My car sounds as sweet as a nut but is this anything to go on?

[TopBear]

OK, so engine code/build date isn't a deciding factor, wonder if remap or stock may be the answer?

Not in my case. Doug confirmed that my car was standard and only remapped it after the camwork was done, and it was given a clean bill of health.

[TopBear]

Are there any noises to notify you of a problem, looking at some of the pics from other threads they must sound like a bag of nails when on there way out.

My car sounds as sweet as a nut but is this anything to go on?

Mines sounded more or less fine, and the only reason I sent it down to MRC was due to the excessive misfire DTC's being logged, and the lack of confidence I had after having my car checked over by a few Audi 'specialits' in Scotland,as well as the main dealer in Glasgow. None of them after looking\listening and running diagnostic checks on the engine, made the diagnosis of camwear or even suggested it.

The car ran fine though there was a discernable 'lumpiness' at idle, which is still ever so slightly there, but no misfire DTC's anymore.

[neckarsulm]

nes sounded more or less fine, and the only reason I sent it down to MRC was due to the excessive misfire DTC's being logged, and the lack of confidence I had after having my car checked over by a few Audi 'specialits' in Scotland,as well as the main dealer in Glasgow. None of them after looking\listening and running diagnostic checks on the engine, made the diagnosis of camwear or even suggested it.

The car ran fine though there was a discernable 'lumpiness' at idle, which is still ever so slightly there, but no misfire DTC's anymore.

Mine was logging infrequent misfires on cylinder 6 at idle via the AZR engine's misfire recognition facility (no DTCs logged) but many other things can cause misfires and even those I wouldn't trust many garages to find as they don't like to spend time finding subtle/difficult faults.
However it is worth getting your cams checked just for peace of mind misfire or not, you don't need to send it to a specialist for this.

[Silversea]

I wonder if the cars with the premature cam wear have been "ragged" whilst cold (before the oil temp comes up)?
There was problems with (VW) G60 engines getting a bigend chatter as a result of this......
Just a thought.....