The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Lifters...with or without holes

Is it ok to mix new solid lifters with holes (hollow as shown below) in the same block with new non-holed solid lifters? My 235 block is made for hydraulics but I'll be using solid lifters/cam setup w/Elgin 293-S cam.

Just wondering in case I end up with some of the older NOS without the holes to match the six AT-887 I already have.

The lifter body is hollow, so that hole is just there to prevent pressure buildup inside the body due to heat and to drain any oil that might accumulate inside. A small drill bit would solve any concerns you might have about a no-hole lifter.
Jerry

That thing looks like some kind of impact socket.

I didn’t know with a hydraulic block if the holes would allow them to fill with oil and overflow to lube the pushrod cup on top. Would actually prefer no top hole if such would allow more/better oil retention for the pushrod.

There will be plenty of gravity drain oil down the pushrods from the cylinder head to keep the top of the lifter lubed. There's very little movement there, other than the lifter and pushrod spinning whenever the cam lobe sweeps underneath it as it takes up the adjustment clearance. The cam lobe is very slightly off center to the bottom of the lifter.
Jerry

Awesome, thanks for the info!

What year is your block? If its a 55 power glide block, or 56-63, I would not use those milk bottle style lifters. I am not even sure I would use them on a 50-54 powerglide block. Those At877 lifters were originally chilled iron if I remember correctly. For use on the earlier steel mechanical cam motors. Later, probably in the 90s, sealed power changed the material so they could be used on the replacement cast cams for those early motors. So as an initial matter, mixing and matching might get you a junk cam and an opportunity to do another rebuild with a new cam and matched lifters.

If 55PG or 56-63, those blocks were designed for a different style lifter. If you want to run a solid cam in those blocks, use a matched set of solid lifters for a 56-62 261 truck motor.

It's definitely a hydraulic block and uses late 55-on bearings. So what dozen new lifters do you recommend in this engine for the E293S cam?

These lifters will work with the Elgin cam, but you might need to find a set of the longer pushrods they're designed to use. A pretty simple work-around will be to put the adjusting screw lock nuts UNDER the rocker arms instead of on top.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/150874558336?

Jerry

Oh ok. I've always thought the ones that look like that were hydraulic lifters. So the milk bottle style wouldn't necessarily be safe to use then.

Unless you have a way to confirm the alloy they're made from, it might be risky. Chilled iron lifters that were used on the 216 and spray-oiler 235's with the small bearing journal forged steel cams from 1953 and before will also fit the later model blocks. They may, or may not be compatible with the cast iron cams used in the later model engines, including the Elgin E-293's. We installed a set of new milk can lifters in John's 261 on an Elgin E-293 replacement cam when we built that engine about 3 years ago, and it's still running well, so it can be a crapshoot!
Jerry

Would a simple hardness tester be sufficient to check the milk bottles? (Got a friend who's a mechanic at the airport; maybe his shop has one.)

You'd need someone more knowledgeable than me to give you some Brinnell reference numbers for both types of lifter. Maybe some of the Google gurus on the site can share that information.
Jerry

Stop. The milk bottle lifters are not the right lifter to use, no matter what the hardness. So sell what you have and get the lifters you need for the motor you have.

Yep I agree. Done went and done it.

Also gonna stop looking at 1955 parts listings and just call it a '56 engine. That issue has caused confusion on several fronts because the listings treat all '55 235s as the old style.