Inliners International Forums General Discussion Engines Stovebolt Lifter Quest II: what's interchangeable?

Greetings . . .

I have wanted to post an update to this thread for some time now Inliners Engine Forum post circa '15. There is new information and pics to share plus some conclusions as well. When I first posted this, I was under the impression that there were two different camshaft and lifter 'Materials' in play, when in fact there are different 'Designs' largely independent of materials.

I currently have a '54 solid lifter engine in the shop. It was rebuilt at some point as it contained a circa '58 cast iron camshaft (replacement part) with aftermarket lifters that look strikingly similar to what came out of my 216. They are Parkerized over the entire lifter body and do not have holes in the lifter body or on top. They are longer (then the ones pulled from my 216) -- all 2.82" and all just north of 91 grams in weight.

It was my 216 build that started this thread -- and I was never able to source a full set of tappets, so in the end my hopped-up 216 has a half-set of Sealed Power tappets running on the intake lobes and a somewhat newer half-set of Johnson Sealed Power lifters running on the exhaust lobes.

The packaging is as interesting as the product. The older NOS Sealed Power items were delivered in a handsome 12 piece case with individual boxes and a divider card down the center should the set have to be broken on the shelf. The individual boxes are printed with the specific part number.

The latter Johnson Sealed Power items were in generic four packs with stickers for identification. The individual items were separated only by dividers. If part numbers were printed on the boxes they were covered up by later application of a sticker.

Since posting the original thread I have been buying up orphans and odd lots to get samples of the aftermarket offerings over time. I recently scored a half set of Sealed Power AT-708 tappets. The packaging is of similar vintage to the AT-887s I used on my 216 -- but the individual boxes are generic with ink stamped part numbers. I was surprised to find bright lifter bodies (not Parkerized) and even more surprised to find a micro-polished grind on the base (similar to the stock Chevrolet 216 tappet) - yet the bases are perfectly flat. They all weigh in at 91 grams +/- .01 -- very consistent build quality.

I was also surprised to the see the same treatment on the Corvette/261 tappet:

A micro-polished grind on a perfectly flat base with nothing Parkerized -- 2.825" in length and weighing almost 99 grams (it would seem because of the shoulder thickness). I have just this one orphan.

Next up are three examples in Perfect Circle (Dana) packaging with Clevite part numbers. One is Parkerized over the entire body:

The other two look like what is currently for sale at places like Egge, RockAuto and on Ebay (Parkerized on the working surfaces):

All three weigh a ton at a 172.7 grams! That's 90% heavier than the stock part. This has to put more strain the timing gears -- all the more reason to avoid the fiber gear in favor of aluminum.

Next up are four examples also in Perfect Circle (Dana) packaging but with the obsolete Clevite part number:

The Parkerizing is lighter in color and they are just a bit heavier than the stock 216 part (at 95 to 98 grams) which seems to be a result of them being taller at 2.81"+ and the shoulder is heavier similar to the Corvette/261 lifter.

And then there are these three examples in TRW packaging (made here in my home town). The installation instructions date from the late 1970s. One is from the heavy weight class (174 grams) -- though not particularly tall at 2.816". The heavier shoulder is again present and surprise so is the micro grind finish on the base. Not sure what to make of the circular impressions that look like wear or turning marks:

box/shelf wear?

The other two are longer at 2.825" but lighter at 120 grams and heavily Parkerized!


I was beginning to the think that the aftermarket lifter specifications had simply gained weight over time -- perhaps the walls of the lifter barrels got thicker because of generic tube stock on hand. But then I was surprised by this somewhat newer pair of Sealed Power tappets carrying Federal Mogul branding:

These are on the tall end at 2.825 yet only weigh 92 grams. The packaging is new enough to carry bar codes.

The aftermarket has proven to be a mixed bag as the part numbers collapsed onto one substitutable cross reference -- listed here courtesy of Clevite circa their '06 publication:

Dana Clevite new 213-1603 old M887, 213-1661 old M708 ( both obsolete)
AC Delco ML6
Accurate Products 6603, 6664
Eaton VL019
Elgin VT-1708
GM (Chevrolet) 839263, 2194006 (GMC), 3660438, 3836342
Hylift-Johnson, Johnson HyLift AT-887 (Clevite cross references as A-887)
Manley VL19, McQuay Norris VL19, VL71
Melling J708, J887, JB708, JB887, JX708, JX887 (Jx reman)
Muskegon MA708, MA887
Republic ML105
SB International VL19
Sealed Power AT-708, AT-887 (RMT prefix indicates reman)
TRW VL19, VL71

HyLift Johnson was operated as a separate business by the Johnson family. They split the original piston ring business along with other automotive components into a separate company they called Sealed Power. This entity was involved in several mergers/acquisitions (Federal Mogul '64/Clevite '96 and then SPX). These actions did not involve HyLift Johnson, which remained separate and continues to operate today as part of Top Line Automotive.

This brings us full circle to the question of how 4 different OEM parts can be replaced by as single compatible design and thus listed as interchangeable? In the case of Chevrolet, the answer is: by Design and by stocking the parts bins with compatible parts. Old world Chevrolet was a model for don't fix what isn't broken -- and the use of previous design/parts during transition. Take for example the original lifter design for the then new Chevy 6 of 1929:


The design evolved (in '34) to include a separate tappet spring and retainer -- running inside the lifter cup. This spring worked in tandem with valve spring. This design carried over into the first year of 216 production in '37. But these internal parts were omitted from the assembly in '38 while using the same lifter, camshaft and pushrod -- while the valves where larger and fitted with heavier springs. In 1940 the milk bottle style lifter was introduced along with a shorter pushrod. But the camshaft remained the same. I am continuing to search for the service bulletin that describes the introduction of the conical lifter base and if a tapered grind was ever used on the camshaft -- and if so how they were identified in the parts bin.

This is from the '41 Parts Master -- and couple of the things are worth noting. Part numbers and casting numbers were consumed sequentially -- so prefix is an indication of the vintage of when a part number was assigned -- but not necessarily the vintage of a particular part in hand. Part numbers starting with 83_ go back as far the original six cylinder design in '29 -- and the numbers were consumed slowly as the design evolved. A new camshaft was introduced in '37 (for the then new 216 -- with 4 journals instead of 3) and was subsequently stocked as a repair part because of it inclusion in the Parts Master (838426). The design was changed in '38 and assigned part number 838733. At that time it was common for the casting number and part numbers to match. My hunch was that this is when the conical lifter and tapered camshaft grind were introduced. But the same tappet was used from '29 to '39 so the cam grind was more likely flat on both 838426 and 838733 -- at least at that time.

Another item worth noting is that when the 235 was introduced (in '41) any new parts specific to the 235 carried a 366_ prefix (so the 235 engineers didn't have to coordinate with the 216 guys when creating/cataloging new parts).

The introduction of the PowerGlide in 1950 would set the stage for the 235 to become the base engine across all passenger cars and trucks in 1954. Once again the parts catalog picked up a new 523_ prefix for PG specific parts -- on top of the 383_ prefix introduced to denote post war design changes introduced in '48 and '49 models. There was also a lot of redesign (trial and error) during this time -- first year hydraulic lifters (5230460) were quickly tweaked and replaced (5230650). Strangely it appears that the original 235 camshaft forging (3660474) was temporarily ground for hydraulic applications (replacement part number 3835771). The ends were stamped with an "X" and painted green to avoid confusion with solid lifter cams in the parts bins.


In the winter of 1954 Chevrolet issued a Service Bulletin to clarify the status of the transition from steel to cast iron camshafts. They included pictures of all replacement parts that would be found in the parts bins and how to identify them. Strangely they were stocking three different hydraulic lifters:


And this would persist into the late 50's. This must correspond with differences in how oil was delivered into the lifter bores in the block -- and the compressed hydraulic height as the pushrods lengths differ.

This is also the first time that we see reference to a "white paint spot" on the 216 lifter:


This is puzzling to me. Is the white paint to help in quickly distinguishing between the Corvette and the 216 lifter? They already had the "shallow groove" for that. Is the white paint an indication of the "coned cam contact surface" or the newest production of the old part? And why the yellow paint spot at all for the 235? The 235 lifters were apparently "Lubrite" Parkerized head to toe from day one back in '41. Curiously, the first reference to "yellow paint" is the 1946 Master Parts Catalog.

I have captured images of the entire service bulletin on this webpage for quick reference and sharing Stovebolt Camshafts as well as, select outtakes from the Master Parts Catalogs over time. In terms of solid lifter compatibility the bulletin contains the punch line for this posting. In late '53 and early '54 Chevrolet was shipping the all new 235 in both stick shift and PowerGlide applications. The stick shift cars continued to employ a forged steel camshaft albeit with the new larger journals (forging 3836489). Similarly, the early Truck 235 production continued to use the block castings from prior years and the small journal steel camshafts (part number 3836490). This ended on March 1st 1954 when the large journal cast iron cam replaced both on the assembly line (part number 3713919). The surprise: the original lifter from 1941 was used on all of them!

This leads to the following conclusions: (1) The original 235 camshaft design used lobes ground flat and a lifter with a flat base. The lifter was compatible with both a steel or cast iron camshaft. Parkerizing was used to aid in break-in (but also served to distinguish a flat lifter from the conical lifter intended for the 216 -- the yellow paint dab was a second reminder). (2) The critical change when moving from a forged steel to cast iron cam is using the correct distributor gear (which GM made clear from the start). Chevrolet replacement cams after the transition were a kit that included the thrust spacer, key and distributor gear in the kit/package. (3) The use of a tapered grind on a camshaft lobe is a complement to a conical lifter base -- with benefits in terms of the width of the contact point between lobe/tappet and promotion of rotation, as well as, managing thrust all the way to creating neutral thrust (as described in the Nail Head article linked above by 50 GMC). But I don't find the tapered grind documented anywhere in the Chevrolet reference materials. And Floyd Clymer and Doug Bell don't mention it in "Cast Iron Wonder" -- a book filled with minute details. (4) The aftermarket doesn't appear to have ever bothered with producing a conical lifter base. They produced lifters mimicking all of the Chevrolet specifications -- but mixed them generously in terms of part numbers. Perhaps cam grinders were choosing which style to include in their new/reman/regrind package?

What's interesting to me is that Chevrolet engineers appear to have used the original bucket/cup lifter (838774) as the basis for everything that came next -- and I mean literally. When you shine a light into oil holes of a NOS Chevrolet tappet one can see the basic machining for the rod seat inside. When the milk bottle top was inserted the push rod was shortened to ride on the new rod seat. When the 235 was designed the lifter was made slightly taller than the 216 -- the increase in length is created by the thickness of the shoulder above that which gets pressed into the cup. When the Corvette tappet was designed it was made taller still 2.825" but the engineers chose to micro polish the base for break-in instead of the Parkerizing treatment applied to all other 235 tappets.

Another variable in the valve train geometry is the pushrod. When the milk-bottle lifter was introduced the 216 pushrod was shortened to 10 7/16" (839252). When 235 was introduced it called for a longer pushrod at 10 37/64" (839613). The Corvette and 261 called for an even longer pushrod at 10 3/4" (3836261). In 1956 a new solid tappet design was introduced with dimensions similar to the hydraulic lifter. This allowed for a common push rod (3836260). In mid '52 several push rod catalog numbers were updated but the parts remained unchanged. Instead of showing the old part numbers having been "Removed" with a new "Use" recommendation -- we instead see "Mix w/ XXXXXXX" the newer part number. For example, the old 235 push rod showed: "839603 Mix w/3835775 6-1-52". The details of these pushrod changes are also captured on the quick reference page Stovebolt Camshafts

Unfortunately, it would seem that the Master Parts catalog was also subject to errors -- in this case the long standing 235 push rod seems to have been dropped by mistake in the '57 printing -- suggesting that the longer Corvette/261 pushrod was to be used instead. This omission would persist in subsequent printings -even though the part number wasn't actually discontinued until 1990. The aftermarket cross references between the 235 and the GMC six where actually official in some cases where the GMC Parts Master actually lists Chevrolet part numbers:


This brings us to another important take away for this post -- The Parts Counter effect. The purpose of the Master Parts Catalog is to provide compatible repair parts to the service bays at a dealership. Some parts were only used during the initial phase of a shipped assembly -- these part/casting numbers may never be referenced in the Master Parts Catalog (perhaps only for a single year) -- some only referenced in a Service Bulletin indicating "not serviced Use xxxxxx", or simply for identification if referenced at all. Transition periods can leave a muddled paper trail. Take for example, the camshaft for the 1954 solid lifter 235s. The Parts Master Catalog dated March of '54 shows a part number of 3836366 with a casting number of 3660474 -- which is the same casting number used for years on the original 235 -- suggesting a small journal. This is clarified in the Service Bulletin which shows truck engines still using the small journal steel cam. Between print deadlines for Catalog publication and the logistics of manufacturing, packaging and stocking repair parts -- there appear to have been long delays from when new cars shipped in the fall and when the parts bins could support major engine work at a local dealer come winter.

In the case of the large journal steel cam used for early '54 model production (part number 3836489, casting 3836366) -- it was apparently never stocked as a repair part; shows up ONLY in the Parts Identification pages in the '55 and '57 printings and as removed from the catalog on 7-1-55 indicating "Use 3713919":

which was changed in the same time frame to 3836482 but not yet so indicated in the '57 publication.

This bring us to our final takeaway -- the distinction between Part Number, Casting Number and Identification number. Casting Numbers and Part Numbers were in many cases the same (unless the Part Number was a kit containing other parts). Parts Master entries don't always include a Casting or Identification number. Casting numbers are not necessarily unique to a part number. As we have seen some casting numbers were machined into different part numbers. Identification was then described in a Service Bulletin or in the details of the listing for the Group Number (paint, raised/struck markings, etc.)


In the case of the last version of the '54-'55 235 replacement camshafts -- the Casting Number was never referenced and it's ancient (838749):

the raised dot between the #5 and #6 inlet lobes is present along with a struck Identification number (3836127) and casting year, along with the typical cast Month Day coding ABCDEFGHIJKL XX.

WOW! That is a lot of lifter info. Thanks. These are the same as GMC aren't they? I remember in some ancient GMC performance build info, maybe Bill Fisher, it was recommended to use used '39 Chevy lifters that gad been hardened through use.

Yep. It seems that the Chevy engineers collaborated with the GMC engineers on the milk bottle lifter design - though GMC shipped it first in '39. Here's an aftermarket example:



I don't have this set in hand - or I would have measured and weighed them. The packaging is '59 or later as covers the entire date range that GMC made these engines. The earliest cross references suggest that the 235 and GMC shared a common lifter.

As far as California Bill's preferences - his book suggests used lifters because of (as you say) work hardening. As for the early Bucket/Cup style lifter - Bill was also a fan of Barker High Lift rockers. With the longer push rod they don't tilt as far off perpendicular.

Yes. They had to have worked together there is more interchange as well. GMC was the "big block" version.

That is the best write-up ever for the Chevy stovebolt lifters! Am going to reread it a few times to try and put some of it to memory. Thank you on the effort.