I tried to say it right I said one "external" hole I think. Yes, the same hole also goes to the tip of the pushrod, but it's a tight fit there, so you don't lose much oil down the pushrod itself. How about the "half a groove" instead of a full groove on the shaft tube? Food for thought. I did just pull the valve cover on my 1955 324 that has 41,000 miles and is squeaky clean inside..I wanted to see what style rocker the 55 had. It looks to be the same as the 53. But, that is not a running motor now. I ran it 30 seconds when I bought it, and now the tops of the valves "look" like they were getting oil?? I don't think I pre-oiled them when I started it 4 years ago, but maybe I did. So, I wonder if a low mile, clean motor, actually "did" have oil flow to the valves? I am booked up right now, but I'd like to put an intake on the 324 to start it, to see if it oils good.
The last time I ran the 324 was Friday morning for maybe 2 minutes. It was dry as could be. I just went to the shop again to look at it (Sat. night). Guess what-there's oil along the bottom of both heads up to the rear oil drain holes. Strange it never did that before, maybe it fixed itself?? Now here's another thing, I found a couple more rocker ***emblies from early 303's. I'm sure they're early because they have holes for the skinny 3/16 pushrods. Took them apart to look at the shafts and found yet another design. One shaft has a single hole at 6 o'clock and a groove centered on that hole that goes halfway up the shaft cir***ference on both sides. The other shaft has the single hole at the bottom and no groove, not even a diagonal.
Oh boy--I think I screwed up. Is it possible to put a 1.5 ***embly on a #8 head? I think I've done it. The shafts don't have any flats to clear the head bolts and the rockers sure look like they're the same ratio as the early 303's. Also the pushrods are awful close to the bottom of the the head holes, like one gnat's hair. They don't s****e though. Can't believe I didn't notice that. Like I said earlier, this engine was ***embled from parts. Looks like my parts pile wasn't big enough. I better find a 1.8 set-up and look it over.
yes. It all fits if you use 1.5 rockers with the different offset stands for 1.5 rockers. The 1.5 stand has the bore for the rocker shaft tube, almost centered between the big head bolt and the smaller lower bolt. The 1.8 stand has the shaft tube bore actually cutting into the bore for the head bolt. The head bolt almost touches the shaft tube (that's why the notched shaft tubes are on 1.8 setups. I never found out if a 49 to 51 stock cam "lobe lift" that is 1.5, is a different lift compared to a stock cam for the later 303/324 with 1.8 ratio. I've also yet to find stock specs for "total lift at valve" for these motors. I thought it should be in a Motors manual, but I don't see it. Thanks for posting that info...more info on oiling is good to know.
I was going to point that one out use a br*** closable valve to slow the oil to the first rocker then lead over to the other, my pops had a trick using cad rockers but damned if I can remember what it was.
I am starting to think that you have come up with the perfect solution for my 303. I am betting that those short grooves still don't line up with the 53 style rocker oil hole, but that it comes close. My crude tests show that as soon as the groove does line up, now you have more oil than is needed. I don't think it's a good idea to have any constant flow of oil over the valve retainers for two reasons: -One is that you are likely stealing some oil pressure from the mains, rod, cam bearings, as well as lifters and timing chain? -2nd is that now the oil drains and valve seals are critical. All we need at the valve top is to keep it damp, and not to be totally dry. I wonder what year those shafts are, as they don't have the headbolt notches, and I wonder how we could groove a later shaft in 8 places without going too high up by mistake, which would align the hole like I did?
Good to know that. My NOS Crower small journal hyd that did not have specs in the box, it figured out to be I think .580-ish with 1.8, by doing some rough math. I asked DON_WOW back then, and he said the max limit on a 324 was only a couple of thou over whatever spec I posted then. So I am pretty sure it must have been ground for 1.5. I lost my notes so I am guessing on both lifts, but I thought it figured to .470 with 1.5...not sure now.
I looked at the rocker shaft with the single hole and half groove again. It's from an early 303 for sure, because of the small(3/16) push rod sockets. The groove doesn't go quite halfway up-maybe 80° or so. It looks like the rocker holes never quite intesect with the groove. Also the rockers on this set-up are a lot thicker top to bottom, the bottom of the valve end wouldn't clear the spring retainers on a later engine. Did early engines use a smaller diameter spring or maybe different height shaft stands? Anyway, it looks the Olds engineers spent a lot of time messing with this stuff. Back to my screw-up on the #8 heads. Yes-I definately put a 1.5 set-up on it. The pushrods are very close to hitting the head holes. Probably the valve tip contact is not right as well, but hard to tell since the rocker foot is so big. So, Im now going to have to find a 1.8 rocker ***embly. Anybody got some for sale?
Quote frm F&J-"I don't think it's a good idea to have any constant flow of oil over the valve retainers for two reasons: -One is that you are likely stealing some oil pressure from the mains, rod, cam bearings, as well as lifters and timing chain? -2nd is that now the oil drains and valve seals are critical. All we need at the valve top is to keep it damp, and not to be totally dry." I'm pretty sure you're right. This whole confab started with me noticing the amount of oiling in an sbc compared to an Olds. Now I think it's an apples and oranges kind of deal. I bet the Chev needs all that oil because of the stud-mount rocker design. I can think of some designs, Ford flathead is one, that don't have any direct oil supply to the valve tip, just the oil mist in the engine. Anywho, I think the half groove is the way to go. Plenty of oil to the rocker and pushrod tip and little squirting out where it isn't needed. Now, on to finding a 1.8 rocker ***embly.
The inline Chevys that used a shaft mounted rocker barely dripped oil. And, the oil pump put out very low pressure. With the start of the 230, 250, 295 generation with their stud mounted rockers in '63, all that changed. With those you better have your rain coat on to do a running valve adjust.
Yes, you're right, my boss's '41 Chevy looks like a desert under the valve cover compared to the later stud mount sixes. Maybe we're trying to fix something that's not broke???
No, mine had no oil after cleaning the tubes and each rocker on that side. Even after running it a lot at varying rpms, then letting it sit 2 hours, there was just a bit on 2 valves. The next day when I tried other things, I looked at the tip wear on the rockers from the valves. 2 were very deep, the rest varied. I suppose it could be a combination of things on a high mile dirty motor with maybe lower oil pressure? But, Olds did change a lot of things as we have seen, so there were problems. I just looked at the 55 324 shaft itself. It has 2 holes and one is diagonal ground, but uses the 53 style rocker with that "one" exposed hole....so then in 56, they added a lot more rocker holes on the same 55 shaft? See, they had a problem. I can't spend more time right now, so maybe someone will do that 80 degree grind with a 53 style rocker to see how it goes.
The aftermarket shafts say they will fit engine from 49-58 so being the same is ok.If what you showing the 49-51 has 2 hole for oiling the rockers,and the later only has one hole for oiling. If this is true the extra hole could be more for oiling the rocker shaft.You also could be losing oil being the shaft is worn,and maybe good idea to buy new ones.
Anybody know if the new shafts have the head-bolt relief cut in them? Don't see how they could work for '49 to '58. Chinese repop?
I used to see pics of them on ebay, maybe look at a pic there? You could just grind divots in your older shaft tube; it's not critical as long as the bolt p***es by OK. Take the measurements from a motor that is together, then lay out the marks on the tube and grind. It is very shallow.
Ok, now I've got the 1.5 vs. 1.8 rocker and stand deal figured out. I found a 1.8 set-up in the bottom of the parts pile. Now I see the reliefs in the shaft. They're a lot less than what I had pictured. The funny thing is - this latest shaft I've found has yet another (!) hole configuration. This one has a hole at six o'clock, one at 8, and a groove from 8 back through 6 up to about 4. I may have lost count but I think we're up to six different shaft hole types now. Ive got five shafts with four different groove/hole types. However, only two rocker arm drill patterns. BTW- The 1.8 set described above uses the arms with external holes on each tip, the drill access hole at the bottom and the pushrod socket hole. This is getting crazy...
Are you sure that there is an external hole at the pushrod end? or am I reading it wrong...I think I might be. My 56 does not. ... and another question; does the 4 o'clock shaft hole line up with any hole in the rocker arm? Do these longer grooves look like factory in uniformity, or maybe done by hand by a mechanic? A friend looked at my 360 groove I did on a test shaft, and he said instead of testing another shaft with a 180 degree groove; that I should just tack weld one groove and file it down, to shut off that groove. (on all 8 grooves) We were trying to slightly reduce flow from what I have right now. This would be a 180 half groove like hamber 550 did to his. I have only one more spare shaft tube to destroy
"Are you sure that there is an external hole at the pushrod end? or am I reading it wrong...I think I might be. My 56 does not. ... and another question; does the 4 o'clock shaft hole line up with any hole in the rocker arm? Do these longer grooves look like factory in uniformity, or maybe done by hand by a mechanic?" I was mistaken-no external hole in the 1.8 at the pushrod end. There is not a hole at 4'clock on the shaft. The groove starts at 4 and continues to 8. The only holes are at 6 and 8. The grooves look like factory work or a machine shop, not hand cut. Today I pulled the cover on my boss's low-mile original '53 303 to see how it was oiling. It has 1.8 rockers with the holes at the valve end, no holes at the pushrods. The rockers were damp all over with just a few drips where the shaft goes through, the valve retainers were wet with a little dripping off the lower side, springs damp, pushrods barely slippery, and oil standing along the gasket rail up to the drain. The rest off the head and the valve cover was bone dry and almost dusty, so no oil flung around or even mist. I'd say the oiling was probably just OK, but surely no excess. Tomorrow, if I get time, I'll pull a rocker and see what kind of shaft holes it has.
It doesn't surprise me too much; I've dismantled several early Olds V8s over the years, and the majority of them had rocker ***emblies that were completely worn out, so I'd imagine that a lot of rocker swaps went on when they were still on the road. I pulled apart a '52 303 one time to find 1.8s on one side and 1.5s on the other.
These are the three oil gally plugs that were referred to earlier. As you can see one is behind a freeze plug on the back of the motor, very easy to miss. Thanks @GOATROPER02 for the information! That was a complete get out jail free card for me and I owe you a beer if ever we meet. You probably just saved me three grand!
These oilers that are behind the block and to the timing chain, is there any kind of maintenance for them while I have my engine dis***embled? Thanks in advance.
The Jalopy Journal
