The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Bad milk can lifters?

New guy question...

I've begun my first ever engine teardown. It's a 261, casting date of C193. I thought that meant a later casting, (and maybe it does) however I've discovered "milk can" lifters. I guess I don't really have a preference as long as it works correctly.
Anyway, as I was inspecting, I noticed that a few of the lifters had caps that we're pretty loose. Loose enough that they pop out of the lifter with just the suction created by the oil sealing the pushrod into the cap as I lift a pushrod.
Are these junk, or is that the norm?

I think I'd replace them, but do it as a complete set. There are usually a few sets on Ebay that won't make you hock your firstborn kid to buy them. Lifters for a 216 or early 235 will also fit. How about the base of the lifters where they contact the cam lobe? If they're cupped to the point you can see daylight under a straight edge like the back of a hacksaw blade held across the bottom, you need to consider replacing the camshaft, also.
Jerry

Am I interpreting casting date correctly as March 63? If so, I have never seen a 261 as late as that one with factory milk bottle lifters. Those lifters were generally in early motors, think chilled iron sealed power at887 lifters for us with the early steel Cams. sealed power later on changed the material they were making those lifters out of and they could be used with cast iron cams as long as stock spring pressure. So possibly early lifters installed in a later block during a rebuild, but hey, I could be wrong. If they are, take a close look at your rockers. Using the solid side at887 lifters in a later block cuts off the oiling to the rockers.

If it is a later 261 block, you can use at874 hardenable iron lifters, has the proper side contour to feed the rockers. You do have to use the later push rods, 10 5/8 long, Napa 215-4011 or sealed power rp3020.

Thanks guys, I'll inspect for cupping as soon as I can. Not sure if this makes a difference or not, but some of the milk can lifters I've seen for sale have a hole in the side of them, I don't recall seeing that in the one (and so far only) lifter I've removed. Is one more desirable than the other? Is that what you are talking about?(at887)
As for replacement... isn't a new set of lifters on an old cam, asking for trouble?

at887 are the milk bottle lifters generally used on the early steel cam motors. Around 1990, sealed power changed the material so that you could run a new cast iron cam in an early motor that original had a steel cam. That being said, can you confirm what year your block is because if its a 59 or up 261, one that eliminated the steel feed line from the rear cam bearing to the head (behind the lifter side cover on the 55-58 motors), those motors used a direct galley feed from the lifter galley and you would want to use the at874 solid lifters (that look like the 55-62 235 lifters.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=235+chevy+lifters&fr=yfp-t&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chevsofthe40s.com%2Fimages_product%2Flarge%2F5230850.jpg#id=0&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chevsofthe40s.com%2Fimages_product%2Flarge%2F5230850.jpg&action=click

the depressed area in he middle allows to oil to flow past.

Without question, the casting is C193
It also has a steel line behind the side cover. Kinda squiggly, from the rear of the engine to the middle of the area behind the cover.
If I knew how to load pictures to this site, I would.

Interesting. That would be the oiling system style for 54-58. The 59-62 261 did not use that line.

Might as well know what head/block you have.

Post these codes and we will know a little more about your engine.

Seems like a hodge podge of parts...
No biggie I guess. It was working before teardown.

Post the codes, and know what you have?
You ID'ed your block in the first post.

The engine we just built up at Stovebolt headquarters was a high water pump block, with a casting date of 1959, and main bearing bores machined for the late model type bearings with anti rotate tabs for the upper bearings at the parting line. It gave us a few headaches because we had ordered mains for the early style block. I believe it also had an oil line under the pushrod cover. Don't assume anything about these oldtimers!
Jerry

" Don't assume anything about these oldtimers!
Jerry"

So true, about our trucks, and about us.

How true! My two 59 blocks do not have the line. In 59, GM changed the oiling system. The line was removed so the rockers were no longer being fed via the rear cam bearing but a direct drilled feed from the galley. The orifice in the head metering the oil was enlarged (I forget the sizes off the top of my head but larger then the 54-58 heads). The rockers were changed in that the groove inside each rocker arm no longer directly intersects the spit hole in the rocker but is offset, and the connector that connected both halves of the rocker assembly is pinched off instead of a loop to bleed off extra flow like the 54-58 rockers. It made a sort of higher pressure rocker oiling system.

Any chance the 3 is actually an 8? At any rate, can you see any of the stampings on the distributor pad. That may help identify the block. Sometimes the casting date does not overlap with the use (for example 54-58 blocks cast in 59 for use as service replacement for 54-58). If no stamping on the distributor pad, might be a service replacement block.

You can send the cam out to Schneider cams in san diego, they can regrind it for you. AT 874 is what I would use for a lifter but that is just me. Also the Napa 215-4011 or sealed power rp3020 push rods. Interestingly enough, the replacement push rods are stronger then the GM push rods. If you want really strong push rods, Smith Brothers in Oregon can make up 3/8 chrome moly pushrods. I have them in my motor. they also make a rocker adjuster that uses the more modern 12 point nut and hex head adjuster. The ball on the adjuster is machined and polished to fit the push rod cup on the smith brothers push rods perfectly. A work of art really. Unfortunately, they do not make anything other than 3/8 push rods for our motors. If the rocker arms are loose on the rocker shaft and/or the rocker shaft is really galled up badly, you can have the assembly rebuilt at rocker arms unlimited in California. Not cheap, but worth it for a quiet well running motor. Take a look at the adjuster balls on the ends of the rocker arms. Should be round. If not, they will need to be replaced. Replacements are sort of hard to come by but rocker arms unlimited may have them.

Clean the line behind the side cover really well. Do the same for the passage in the head that goes to the rockers (the path from the steel line up to the head.)

Block Casting Code:
3769925

Block Date Casting Code:
CON3 C193

Serial Number flat area is smooth & blank.

Head Casting Code:
CON12
3836848
GM 27

Head Date Casting Code:
K 2 1

Continued thanks fellas, keep the advice coming!

3769925 (block casting code) = 59-63 261 block

CON3 = engine plant CONveyor #3

C193 (block date casting code)
C = 3 = March
19 = 19th day
3 = 1963 (261s were used in 4x4 trucks in 1963, or, a replacement block)

3836848 = 56-62 235 head

K 2 1 (head date casting code)
K = 11 = November
1 = 1961

"Serial Number flat area is smooth & blank."
Most likely a replacement block (or, a carefully machined-off Engine Serial Number)

This will be corrected by others, if wrong (or, if other guesses seem reasonable).

Thanks for the decoding.
How much play in the rockers is considered bad, or is ANY play enough to warrant replacement?

Are you referring to play where the rocker arm rotates on the rocker-arm assembly shaft?
If yes, I'd want no play.

Note: the wear could be on the shaft and/or in the pivot-points on the rocker arms.

Replacement shafts are available.
Replacement arms are harder to find.
You might be lucky and find a shop that can "rebuild" the rocker arms.

Ya know, it pleases me to no end to learn something new. Had no idea that 261 motors went as far as 63!

Yes, on the pivot shaft, as in side-to-side motion.
How can I determine which part has worn?

Elgin grinds brand new 261 cams for less than the cost of most regrinds. That's the one we put in John's engine with new milk can lifters, and it degree-checks right on the money.
Jerry

That's the stuff I want to hear!
Did they supply the lifters?

I just checked Elgins website and couldn't find it...got a part number Jerry?

There are two different "Elgin" companies- - - -I'll check my purchase records, or I believe John kept the end flap off the cam box with the part number on it. I think the price was somewhere around $115.00, and it's hard to get one regrouind for that.

Elgin Industries:

Cam part # E-293S
This cam is the same grind that was used in the Stovebolt six Corvettes and the 261 solid lifter engines. Don't get spooked by the "290 degree" advertised duration- - - -they are including the clearance ramps in that number. The actual valve duration is somewhere in the 255-262 degree range. It idles smooth, has good vacuum, and pulls like a D9 bulldozer! I don't know if Elgin has the milk can lifters available or not, but there's usually a few sets of new ones on Ebay at relatively reasonable prices.
Jerry

Do all milk can lifters have holes in the sides?

I believe so- - - -a sealed chamber would pressurize and cause the hollow lifter body to swell and stick in the bore. "Solid" doesn't mean it's a big chunk of metal- - - -the lifter is a hollow casting.
Jerry

Do I fill them with oil during reassembly, or just let it happen on it's own?

Just install 'em- - - - -if some oil finds its way in there, so be it. "Solid" lifters only need oil for lubrication. A stovebolt engine doesn't run fast enough for a little bit of unequal weight between lifters to make a difference. The roller cam small block V8 that I'm building with the rev kit, the one that I expect to run 8K+ RPM if I choose- - - -now that's s different kettle of fish! Be sure to use a good quantity of cam lube on assembly, and break in the new cam and lifters by running the engine at 2K RPM or so for 15-20 minutes as soon as you see good oil pressure.
Jerry

Sounds like a great plan.
THANKS!

Isn't the hole at the BOTTOM of the lifter(at the side)- - - -to be sure it doesn't fill up?
Jerry

Jerry, just as a question, do you have a preference milk bottle vs at874? I have always stuck with the later style lifters for the later motors and the milk bottle for the earlier motors. I prefer the later lifters myself but was courious as to your take on this.

Mike

As long as the valve gets lifted properly, the shape of the cam follower doesn't make much difference to me. The later style might be a little lighter, but at the normal RPM range for a stovebolt engine, I don't think it makes much difference. The milk can shape is just a holdover from the 216 design, in my opinion. Once hydraulics came into common use, I think "solids" got redesigned so the same length pushrods could be run in either type of engine. Some of today's mechanical lifters are simply hydraulics without the plunger and check valve installed- - - -just the pushrod seat and a spring clip.
Jerry

Towards the bottom, ya. I would imagine that way they hole would be blocked by the bore. So what do you suppose the purpose of the hole is?

I seem to have figured out how to upload pictures.
Block Casting Code

Head Casting Code

THE SUSPECT!
In case someone hasn't seen one before...

It's a drain. The lifter has to stick out the bottom of the bore enough that the cam lobe doesn't hit the block. It's easy enough to check if the cam and lifters are still in the block and the oil pan is off.
Jerry

You have me curious now. I am going to have to drag out my spare 59 block (no line behind the side cover) when the weather breaks here. I always assumed that the 59-63 blocks (those that did not have the line, now that it appears that some do have the line) Could not use the milk bottle lifters (regardless of the material they were made of, i.e. pre 1990 manufacture for steel cams, post 1990 manufacture for steel or cast) simply because the solid sides would prevent any or most of the oil from traversing through the lifter oil galley to the internal drilled oil passage for the rockers. Further, I also assumed that the reason I have never seen a milk bottle lifter in a later block was just for that problem, and that the at874 lifter was used because that lifter was not solid sided and would allow oil pressure to pass the lifters to get t the rockers. To be truthful, it was Charlie Baker, Pat Smith and Tom Langdon who provided me with that info many years ago now and I was never willing to risk a cam or rocker failure, particularly a rocker failure given how darn expensive they can be to have rebuilt.

The blocks with the big gallery drilled for hydraulic lifters are probably the ones that need the lifters with the stepped-down center. The block we were dealing with on John's project was cast in 1959, according to the codes on the block, but it was a high water pump replacement block for 1954/early 55 engines, apparently, for the early 261 design engines. It still had the rocker feed line from the rear cam bearing area under the pushrod cover. I'm guessing that the later casting style with the low water pump might have included the different oil passages as well, and would need the stepped-down lifters. John's block was also machined for the later style main bearings. Since I had ordered the early style bearings with the dowel in the upper shell based on the "high water pump" situation, we ended up modifying the block so it could accept either type bearing. If I had been present for the disassembly, I might have picked up on the difference, but I was 700 miles away at the time.
Jerry

I think that is right. Any chance you sonic checked the bores on the replacement blocks. I have never had a 54 early 55 261 block but was told that the original cast blocks could take a larger overbore because they had thicker cylinder walls. Would be curious as to whether the replacement castings were done on original tooling with the thicker cylinders (does not seem so with the later style mains) or the later thinner cylinder walls.