Inliners International

Greetings . . .

When I began planning my 216 build I started acquiring NOS parts so that the engine could be fully refurbished. I managed to find a half set of NOS lifters – but was never able to complete the set. Later I read California Bill’s book which suggests that used lifters are ‘work hardened’ and therefore a more reliable bet. He also, preferred the 37-39 style lifter/push rod package . . . so that was added to the hunt . . . and eventually bagged.

Along the way I decided to stroke the engine – and this in turn required a cam-shaft with relief ‘flats’ for connecting rod clearance. This caused me to search for a 235 cam with the small journal size. I acquired an NOS piece and sent it to Delta for re-grind.

Somewhere along the way I learned that Chevrolet had transitioned from forged-steel to cast-iron camshaft construction (mid-fifties) and that mixing incompatible lifters and cam gears leads to short and disastrous results . . .

The width of the dizzy drive gear confirmed that my re-grind was indeed a cast iron bump stick . . . so neither the NOS nor the used GM parts were an option as the tappet faces are simply too hard. (Image borrowed from Langdon's Tech)

I began to shop and found that the ‘milk bottle’ style lifters for 216, 235 and early 261 were still being made (circa ’05) – they are still manufactured today and seem even more plentiful than back then. I found a few posts on HAMB and elsewhere suggesting that these ‘new’ lifters were/are of low quality and to be avoided. So I began searching for compatible NOS parts . . . either NOS GM parts or NOS ‘aftermarket’ parts.

It was at this point that interchange confusion set in. There were several different aftermarket-to-GM part numbers being cross referenced as ‘equivalent’ and fully interchangeable – but this defied the change in materials (industry wide) away from forged-steel cams and chilled -iron lifters to cast-iron cams and hardenable-iron lifters. Research suggested that the aftermarket had produced chilled-iron lifters into the early 1960’s but production waned with demand as camshaft construction shifted exclusively to cast iron.

The ’57 Chevrolet Parts Master proved the most enlightening (as it details the transition succinctly) calling out forged versus cast construction – and in the case of the ’54-‘55 replacement cam –it included a compatible dizzy drive gear:

This reveals basic stove-bolt lifter construction/compatibility:
GM 838774 (’29 -’39 all) cup/bucket style – chilled-iron
GM 839263 (’40 -’52 216) milk bottle style – chilled iron (white paint dab on neck)
GM 3660438 (’41 -’54 235) milk bottle style – chilled iron (yellow paint dab on neck)
GM 3836342 (’53- ’55 Corvette & ’54-’55 261 ) milk bottle style – hardenable iron (single groove around body) rare:

The ‘one groove’ lifter is the missing link. It appears to be the only ‘milk bottle’ style lifter made by GM that is compatible with a cast-iron cam:

All other GM NOS parts are useful only with the older GM NOS cams or a re-grind on a forged steel core.

AFAIK the initial aftermarket cross reference for GM part 839263 (216) appears to be:
TRW, MANLEY, MCQUAY NORRIS: VL19
EATON: VL019
HYLIFT JOHNSON, Sealed Power AT708 – re-man RMT708
Dana/Clevite 213-1603
among others . . . it is unclear if any of these part numbers were ever of ‘chilled iron’ construction.

AFAIK the initial aftermarket cross reference for GM part 3660438 (235) appears to be:
TRW, MANLEY, MCQUAY NORRIS: VL71
EATON: VL071
HYLIFT JOHNSON, Sealed Power AT887 – re-man RMT887
Dana/Clevite 213-1661
among others . . . though some will have you believe that VL71 is the initial aftermarket offering for GMC part 2194006 (for 248 , 270, 302) I have not researched this but it appears that GMC interchanges as well (and likely went through the same materials transition as Chevy).

The best cross reference publication I have found online is from Clevite:
Clevite circa 2006

As far as I can tell the difference between a VL19 and VL71 is the thickness of the shoulder and slightly longer overall height. In side by side comparison the 839263 part appears to use the same basic dimension of the predecessor 838774 – with a thin shouldered bottle top “rod seat” pressed in:

Whereas the later VL71 has a shortened lifter barrel and much stouter shoulder in the bottle top:

The other key difference is the treatment of the tappet face. On the 839263 stock GM part there is an .005” hemispherical micro-polished grind. This is designed to promote lifter rotation as the cam lobe contact is not centered. None of the aftermarket lifters I have in hand exhibit this detail. They are all perfectly flat. One need only place a lifter on a hard smooth surface – the wobble is obvious. Some will have you believe that this hemispherical grind is an indication of chilled iron construction. But the used ’38 cup style lifters I have do not exhibit this detail. Neither do the lifters removed from my engine during tear down. They are of unknown origin – and are also absent oil holes (top and sides) – which are said to be present on all stock GM lifters. These unknown tappets were running on a forged steel cam so it is assumed that they are of chilled iron construction (or they would be ruined).

Some time with my calipers and triple beam balance yields the following specifications:
-------------------------------------------------------- Length------------------Weight-------------
Unknown aftermarket lifter from tear down: 2.80 +/- .010 (flat) ---- 91 grams +/- 1 gram
Sealed Power AT887 NOS......................: 2.81 +/- .001 (flat) ---- 91 grams +/- .5 gram
Johnson SP AT887 VL19 NOS..................: 2.82 +/- .005 (flat) --- 121 grams +/- .5 gram
Johnson AT887 VL71 (from Egge)............: 2.80 +/- .005 (flat) --- 174 grams +/- .5 gram
Stock GM part 838774.........................: 2.32 +/- .005 (flat) ---- 77 grams +/- .5 gram
Stock GM part 839263.........................: 2.80 +/- .010 (hemi) -- 89 grams +/- .5 gram

The current production from Egge hefts as if it is made of lead. When I first dumped it out the box I was curious to get it on my scale. An absolute whale in comparison to the stock part . . . The Egge part has a parkerized bottle top and lifter face. The Johnson part is parkerized over its entirety. The Sealed Power part has lighter colored phosphate coating - the lifter face is slightly lighter still.

In my research, I can’t find any evidence of an initial aftermarket replacement part for the ’29 –‘39 cup/bucket style lifters. So re-using the long ’37-’39 push rods with softer ‘NOS’ replacement lifters seems unlikely. But I do see postings on ebay for new lifters built to the old spec:
Ebay Aftermarket Early Stovebolt Cup Style Lifter
not sure about the quality of these pieces – but they are certainly an option.

The collapse of part numbers onto an apparent universal interchange appears to coincide with the discontinuation of part numbers by GM. By 1970 the GM Parts Master lists just one milk bottle style solid lifter – retaining the oldest 235 solid lifter part number:

but the oldest stock carrying this part number would be chilled iron – leading me to wonder if Chevrolet ever really produced a softer replacement tappet using this ancient part number.

In exploring pushrod options I came across a used set of McGurk tubular push rods. These are bit longer then the stock rods for a 216:

Some have written that tubular push rods are both lighter and stronger – but I found them only a gram or two lighter (stock being 71 or 72 grams) with none of the McGurks south of 70 grams

In looking at finished lengths – it seems the ’37-’39 package would be a good choice for a reground steel cam in a 216 – as the loss in base circle will be taken up by the additional 1/16th inch in finished length. Perhaps this is also a part of the appeal to California Bill.

With the McGurk push rods I will pick up an additional 1/8th . . .

Can’t wait for the weather to break here in Ohio.

Regards,
Stock49

Thank you, That is a lot of information and should be put into our Tech Tips

I agree all that research should be saved. Are Hyd. Lifters made in both types also? Thank you for the great info. Jay6155

Hi integrated . . .

Yes if you look closely at the 1957 parts master pages (right click View Image to see a larger pic) you will see that the 50-53 Power Glide cars all used forged steel cams. The lifters shipped from 50-52 were GM part 5230650 while the lifter for 53 was GM part 5230850. Both had chilled iron bases. In 54 Chevrolet introduced part 5231450. This softer faced hydraulic lifter was designed for use with the new cast iron cams. The aftermarket cross reference is Clevite 213-1630, Johnson A761, TRW VL6. Again even the older GM part numbers collapse on the VL6 in the cross references - but I think it's doubtful that the aftermarket ever shipped a chilled iron hydraulic tappet for this application. The replacement cycle is always years later - and the transition to cast iron cams would have already have been well underway . . .

stock49

Thanks Beater. Let me know how to go about getting this into tech tips.

I don't have a clue. My guess would be to contact Titan. In my opinion there should be a lot more tips than we have. All of the questions that come up over and over should be answered there as well as information like yours. A blend between this BB and the 12 Port news would serve the membership.

OK, I've been doing some looking around. The Tech tips on the side bar are reprints from past Issues of the 12 Port News and if you would like your research there you need to submit it to the editor. That would be good and you might win a prize. Also in our forum list there is one for Tech Tips. When I go there I can post and I think close it to further post so it just remains your info and is not an active topic. I don't know if everyone can do that or if is a moderator function. Check it out. If you can not do it I'll see if I can move your post there. Tom

Thanks for pointing out the Hyd. Lifters changing also. Can you please answer a stovebolt newbie question, why would anyone not run hyd. Lifters instead of solids? On the later 194-292 style six I would never think of running solids except maybe in an all out racing application. Thanks, Jay6155

Simple. Because one has to. The original Stovebolt engines have no provision for oiling in the lifter bores. It is isn't until the later Power Glide designs that an oil passage is created to feed a hydraulic lifter:

The solid lifter in a Stovebolt runs on residual oil collecting in the floor of the push rod bay. The cam lobes run on spray from the crank case and weeping from the exposed side-holes in the lifters while riding on the base circle of the cam. In this regard the 'milk bottle' style lifter would be more accurately described as an oil bottle.

Solids where replaced by hydraulics because they are noisy and require adjustment. In spite of the fact that solids provide much more consistent (lash tunable) valve events.

regards,
stock49

Thank you for educating me about these engines. It seems almost unbelievable that the number one selling car in the US at the time had only four different size main bearings, no oil pressure fed to the rods from crank passages, no full flow oil filter and a lot of them had solid lifters as well. Not to mention connecting rod pinch bolts. And yet from what I understand stovebolts have a reputation for longevity. I am really appreciative for the chance to get to learn about these engines, having been born just a little too late to get this knowledge while growing up. Jay 6155

Lots of great info, Thanks for sharing. TJ

I have given up on Delta cams after losing two forged steel cams and wiping out chilled iron lifters. Even following all the warnings about ZDDP, using Brad Penn break in oil, etc.

After the last tear down I took the cam to Oregon Cam Grinders and they evaluated Delta's work and said that the lobes of the cam were not appropriate for the NOS lifters I had purchased. (I had sent the lifters with the cams to Delta on both occasion).

Oregon Cam Grinders researched my cam, lifters, performance grind options and prepped the lifters, ground the cam and it went through break in perfectly as well as goes for several thousand miles without needing adjustment and the lifters now spin reliably and run far quieter.

This article is worth reading on this topic as well.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2009/04/flat-or-tapered-cams-and-flat-or-crowned-lifters/

Thanks Ken. That's a good article - even if it is about BOP vthingies . . .

I find it very interesting that Chevy chose to utilize such sophisticated engineering on a power-plant designed to be a work-horse for the masses. A taper finish on the camshaft lobes is extra labor and tooling. The same with the chilled honey-comb-plate base casting process and hemispherical treatment on the tappet faces.

As far as I can tell Chevy abandoned all of this sophistication in the '54 to '55 transition (piloted by the '53 corvette). With the move to cast-iron cam construction they chose to utilize flat cam lobes and flat lifters . . . straightforward machining on softer materials. This is certainly what the aftermarket is/was producing.

My build is headed down this same avenue. And it seems Muskegon Michigan has its hands in every aspect. From the Campbell, Wyatt & Cannon cam casting (CWC) to the Johnson/Sealed Power lifters.

Based on the mock up today the combination appears to be working as designed. I have constant rotation of the lifters in the bores. We'll see how break in goes. I have buttered the lobes & lifter faces with Zpaste and will repeat the application before the break in run.

BTW. The McGurk push rods proved too long. The stock push rods fit perfectly with the adjusters backed almost completely upwards. It would seem that the surface prep on the head and .014 milling on the block (to square it) plus the taller lifter bodies more then make up for the loss in base circle on the reground cam.

regards,
stock49

Sounds like its getting closer to being on the road. The world will be a better place when one more 1949 Chevrolet is on the highway. Jay 6155

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that a restoration of an old car changes THE world - but it certainly changes my world for the better

Not sure it will be back on the road in '15 - but the engine will definitely run this year.

My challenge with progress on the car continues to be the dirty work. Somewhere along the way the car was given a road-tar rustproof job. Trouble is road-tar gets brittle and then water gets behind it. I am at war with the stuff and I am wielding only a putty knife . . . which makes for a slog.

You need road tar dynamite! Seriously though is there a chemical way to soften/loosen up the tar without hurting the metal? Another newbie stovebolt question, are the lifters rotating when the engine is being turned over by hand? Is this with the rest of the valve train installed? Jay6155

You typically don't have enough momentum turning it by hand to make the lifters rotate, i'd be more concerned about them not turning when the engine is running. If they aren't, this can point to worn cam lobes or flat lifters or some other unseen problem.

I am getting constant rotation when turning the engine over by hand. The lifters and push-rods are rotating on the base circle (with no spring tension) and continue to rotate through the lift and return to the seat (under tension).

This is with all new components - NOS lifters and a fresh grind on the cam. Everything lashed cold to .020. Can't final lash until components are up to operating temperature.

Thanks for helping me figure this out. Do lifters rotate on other engines when running? Sounds like they should. Jay6155

Rotation is a critical design intention for flat tappets. The lobes of the camshaft are purposely off center from the lifter bores to promote rotation. Without rotation the lobes would 'scrub' the same area of the lifter face over and again - leading to premature wear. Contrast this with a roller rocker setup where the cam lobe is centered in the lifer bore and the lifter's roller bearing surface rides true.

Plus FYI, any time you order a billet roller cam you should specify that the cam blank core have the lobes centered over the lifter bores so the roller makes full contact with the lobe.