Technical Cadillac flathead horsepower tricks

that's my old 4x2 intake

 

The hydraulic lifter clearance was supposed to be between .000, and .070.

I would think with solids, it should be .000, or damn close to it.

Is this correct?

 

I would say .010 ex and .007 in. Need room for the expansion of the valves. The books i have dont show any info for solid lifters on caddys.

 

I maybe wrong but I do recall for the hydraulic lifters the tolerance being a range of 0.035 to 0.070

 

Dammit Russ! Now you made me realize that maybe I do need reading glasses!

You are correct- .035- .070 on hydraulics.

 

Just trying to be neighbourly!

 

Hydo caddy lifters are ...NOT !... to have clearance. They suppost to be under compression of .035 - .070 . Solid lifters for caddy are .003 intake .005 exhaust clearance ........ Steve

 

Ok,
I have to admit I haven't taken my caddy apart (yet),
and am learning a great deal from all your guys' pics.

Aaron your engine is crazy,
will it be streetable or is it just race?

I have alot of questions though and figured this thread may have the best answers...

-is the fuel-pump lobe removable and rest on a key-way or ?
anyone have some good front cam pics?

It looks like the front of the cam is basically a threaded stud, right?
Is it removeable?

Does the oil pump run off the secondary distributor shaft?

****

The first idea is to basically put a mopar alternator where 50v8 put his p-steering pump,
it would kinda open up the top front of the engine and also make it kinda symmetrical,
while openiing the possibility of another pulley/blower/frontmounted induction system...

The wack-o idea was retrofitting an early ford flathead mallory/crab type distributor to the cam.
Yeah its a reverse direction, but was told a "custom" electronic ignition conversion could fix that.
(nealinca planted the seed for this!)

Looking at 50v8's timing cover build gave me the idea.
It looks like his cover or just a custom cover could be made up to do the job...

(I've been spending alot of time around the engine building those headers (not finished yet)
and so these are the changes, other than the intake, that pop-up.)

I'd love to change the super-tall stock distributor, just for ease of removal/tuning,
and also to keep it so far out of the firewall since the engine is set back so much.

What do you guys think?

TP

 

The fuel pump cam is removeable, but all though I am not using the mechanical fuel pump I was not use if by removing it that it may affect the balance of the cam shaft.
The whole reason for removing the fuel pump 1st up was because these engines seemed to chew out the front cam bearing due to the pump load, so i did not want to remove the pump a nd cam lobe only to create an different issue of similar magnitude. Removal probably gives back one or two horse power as well.

Yes the oil pump does run at the other end of the dizzy.
I had thought about swapping it out for say an early falcon pump, or similar, but you just can not do everything or it will never get done.

I am looking at some how using a small Ford Windsor dizzy top onto the Caddy shaft and housing and shortening down a little to save space, I also have problem with recess and fit at the fire wall end.

 

I've got mine apart right now, but I'm at my dad's, and his internet is dial up. When I get home in a couple days, I'll post pics. The fuel pump lobe is not removable, unless it's ground off. I'm going to have the cam grinder grind mine off. It is concentric, so I think it adds to the wear of the front bearing.

 

That is interesting as mine as per the pic's has a threaded end on the cam shaft and the fuel pump lobe just unbolts and slides of a key way.
My concern was by removing it, this may affect the balance of the whole cam.

Is it the concentic load from the lobe or the load of the fuel pump arm that is wearing the cam bearing, I always assumed it was just the extra loading at that end.

 

Russ,

Your right, it does slip off. The lobe for the fuel pump is part of the spacer, that, when the nut is tighted, holds the timing gear in place. I'm having the lobe removed, and keeping the spacer. I think, if one was so inclined, he could thread the end of the cam more, and do away with the whole piece.After looking at it, I think I'll do away with the whole thing, and just put a spacer there.

 

The reason that the tank, (and probably marine ) engines distributor differs from automobiles is due to "radio supression".
When high voltage current travels through an ignition system it sets up radio waves.
This is the reason that a radio will "buzz" when it gets too near an automotive ignition system. Especially one in poor condition.
The special caps, wires, and spark plugs used in military engines were there to shield or supress as much of these radio waves as possible. Why?
Because the enemy set up sensitive radio recievers to detect and track movement of our tanks, trucks, etc.
There is no performance advantage to these types of ignitions. If anything, they can be a detriment. Since if the insulation isn't in perfect condition, the spark can easily escape directly to ground from that point.

 

The real reson for the sealed cap and plugs and wire was to keep out moisture. (Waterproof)
As far as the radio suppression, I dont think that is viable.

 

The materail the blocks were made of on the military were better. i'm still trying to find out what other differences there are, besides the cosmetics, dual exhaust, dual carbs, etc.

 

Really? They were taking any quality they could in those days with the scrap drives. I'd be surprised if the milspec stuff was higher quality, and or consistent quality...... But this is just guessing based on the era.....

 

Wyatt, you could be right. I'm just going by what little printed material there is on these say. Seems like they had more nickel. I'll try and find the info and post, unless someone else has it.

 

Buddy and I have been working on an adjustable solid lifter and I think we have a decent prototype and it is time to let the cat out of the bag. Since the few of us with these engines form such a tight knit community I would like to get your opinions on our idea.

Those of you who would like to take a look (hopefully at least a few of you) I would like to send you out a sample and get some honest opinions.

This set up is designed to fit into the existing lifter body and when tightened all the way down the new lifter assembly is about .023 under stock uncompressed-spring lifter assembly height with a ton of room to adjust up.

Buddy said these type of lifters were used from 1936 to early 1948.

Here are a few pics, if you would like a sample (as long as there are not too many) I will send you one to take a look, with the understanding that you will post some comments on here as to what needs to change and or your likes and dislikes, just PM me with you address..

In this first picture the lifter on the right is set to stock height and the lifter on the left is set to stock height +.045

 

Just to clarify what Kevin said, these will fit the most common lifter body type. They will not fit the late 1948 type, that had the clip type retainer. You can see the difference a few pages back.

I think kevin did a helluva job on these!

 

Hate to break it to you guys , I aready did it ! ...... Hmmm Hay Buddy thats funny they looks just like the ones I have been working on a while back ! that I PM'ed you and showed you pics of in confidence ...........But there are a couple of more tricks to it then as simple as it looks or what you have found yet .... And also there are 3 types of lifters , early 37to41 then 42to48 then the late 48's were a new design again ..... the best ones and the most around to use are 42to48 lifter bodys . The diffrance between the early and late lifters is the hydo plungers are diffrent and wont interchange , if you do it it scews up the height of the lifter ..... and also the steps inside the lifter bodys are in a diffrent place .. also the oil clearance band around body and hole size on the lifter body is diffrent ......have fun !

 

I am afraid I only have the set of lifters from my 47' to play with so I assume the set I made will fit 42-48.

Steve what is the total height when yours is as small as it goes, and how much adjustment do you think these need?

I wish my lifters where that clean, guess I need to polish them up.


***edit***

Sorry I just reread your post and I in no way tried to steal something you have done, which is pretty obvious what you are trying to say. Every thing I did was based off of looking at my lifter bodies and seeing what would work best. I am trying to be very open here. That is why I said I would send anyone a lifter because I would like to hear what people have to say about it and possible come up with a better idea together.

 

Look BUDDY !..... Im not posting on here to do laudry like you are !..... I am about making parts and sharing info and getting facts straight ! And this why I cant be botherd to do so anylonger with guys like you that do what you do , like now . As for making these speed or custom parts I have made lots of them long ago , I just simply havent posed them to bost , ....so save it !.............And as for mine and selling them to you .. I told you I would sell them to you when they were ready and all the bugs were out and no sooner ! because I didnt want to sell you a item that wasnt tested or good quality so you to have probs later because I didnt take the time to make sure they were a good product to sell you !!!!! Thompson knock offs !!??.... REALLY !!.....And if you knew the diffenece and the looks of a thompson .... because what you are stating they look nothing like mine !.......... Anyways have you ever seen one or held one in your hand before ? or even have the instruction sheet to read about the specs....because I do ! .........................To the left .... Mine . The the right ... Thompson adjusters ......Not the SAME or a knock off ! and it was I would state REPOP ....... So anyways not angry or whatever your going on about , I just like facts straight ! not twisted bs !.......I guess I forgot this is your thread and you are the parts and thead master ! ......All Hale buddy.....so up back on your box ! .......... and I guess I will go back and grovel in the mud with the rest of the pesants making stuff quietly..... later and have a swell day !

 

Again Buddy , I feel nothing of what your posting or stating ..... You told me to post (air it) so I did ! .... Just facts ! And again ...No ! to your incorrect statment .....I will be making some sets for stock configuration right now !... But as well as and still am... As pic and info I sent you (pm) long ago , I am making sets for performance application !.... which I was testing and told you about long ago ! And I am not pissed , I am just correcting incorrect statments and assumtions on your part ....................... and as for recognition ? I dont really care one way or another , but you seem to be really focused on that statment ..... I just like to get the facts straight thats all . TTFN and have yourself a fantastic night ..........

 

ok, well that clears my confusion, I thought it was all the same people doing the same lifters. Didnt realize it was different people.

It appears niether of you care about anything but what each other thinks. I think its badass that you guys are sharing these. I appreciate the look to look one over but at the end of the day i still dont know that much about these motors. Yes i have a pile of them, yes, I've fucked around with them quite a bit, but I got nothing on valvetrain shit.

I'd love to run a set. What are the cam specs necessary to take advantage of them?


Once again glad you guys brought these out for us all to see.

 

Wyatt I posted on here because I do care what people think about these, I would like to get everyone's opinion.

I think I know how to fix this whole thing.

Steve I will send you my version, feel free to look it over, keep it, or throw it in the trash, whatever you want. If you really think I stole any ideas from you, you are free to post what ever you want on here and I will not hide a thing. As long as you give it a fair look. If you see yours is better and want to help m with these parts then we will all be the better for it. If not well then at least you know the differences and can go from there. But either way is win | win...right?

I hope it is obvious that I did not post the lifters to cause a big stick or steal any market from you. As I really only thought there were of few of us on here that would want them. To tell you the truth my grandest visions for these lifters was to trade or sell a couple sets to help me by a nice 9" rear end.

 

I've deleted my posts, because they really had nothing to do with what this is about. It doesn't matter to me where these come from, as long as they are available. I do want to clear this up, though.

If you look, I started advertising to buy cams in December, here in the classified's. Then in January, when I had mine made, I had extra made, and placed an ad here, and on epay.Steve, I approached you then, and you said you were working on them. When you posted your pic, I approched again, but again they were not ready.

I was talking with Kevin (Keeper) and approached him. I had an idea, and most of a design, and he had the means( he owns a company that manufactures parts). After a few emails, and phone call, Kevin was able to solve the torsional concers, and whip these out.Pretty amazing, how fast it happened.

Unless someone thinks they are going to get rich at this( never happen!), the best they will do is help finance their ride a little. It seems to me, a concentrated effort would be way better than this bickering. Nobody stole anything, because there was never anything to steal- this was already developed 60 years ago.





Wyatt, Kevin and I are running a Winfield su-1a grind, which actually is a loose term for the grind. For the Caddy motor, and usually the Ford flathead, that means a 286 duration, and a 355 lift. that will be significant over stock, but not so much that valve clearance and spring tension should be an issue.

 

I still think a Packard solid tappet would work in the place of the caddy hyd unit and body.

 

Hotrod Packard, it would sure be worth exploring. If you want to pm me with diminsions, or I could provide you with the Caddy numbers, we could see. Are the Packard fully adjustable?

Russ has a 3/4 inch timing chain on his motor, my 38 cadillac, and 39 lasalle both have a 1-5/16 wide timing chain. I've searched, and can't find any info on this.

Anyone know what the difference was, application wise, or what motors had the narrow, and which had the wide?

Or was one used for domestic, and one commercial/military?

 

Ok, I found the answer, thanks to Doug Houston.

1936-1941 had the wide timing chain, ans 1942-1948 had the narrow timing chain. Doug states they are the same length, so as long as the gears are changed with the chain, the can be switched on any motor.

The wide chain uses a cog type gear, instead if a tooth style gear.

 

What is the diameter of a flathead Cad lifter bore? I used International Harverster lifters in my Plymouth OHV conversion. .625 lifter bore with about a 1 inch foot. John DeLong told me he was bushing Ford lifter bores and using the same lifters on them. These were solid lifters.