Register now to get rid of these ads!

SBC Factory Roller Lifter Problems

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by borntoloze, May 27, 2010.

  1. Dakota
    Joined: Jan 21, 2004
    Posts: 1,535

    Dakota
    Member
    from Beulah, ND

    Not 4.3.. 3.1 or so.. Look it up on Chevy High performance or something. I have done this.

    the FACTORY ROLLER BLOCK is differnt from a NON Roller block even though they are the same one piece block. all 87 and up block were NOT factory Roller blocks. you need the shorter V6 Roller Lifter that has the lower Oiling setup on them.

    Ill search it a bit and tell you what exactly you need. you can do the same, Only Factory Roller lifters from Gm will work in a factory roller lifter block.
     
  2. Dakota
    Joined: Jan 21, 2004
    Posts: 1,535

    Dakota
    Member
    from Beulah, ND

    borntolose Your block is fine, you have to grind down the spot between the lifters for the bone to fit, I do it with a die Grinder, all it is is to locate the bone. its not that accurate.

    ive done this swap probably 10 times.
     
  3. Thanks for the added info Dakota. I held one of these roller lifters up to one of the flat tappet lifters that came out of this engine and you are right. The oil hole is in the narrowed area of the lifter on the flat tappet but is raised above the narrowed area on the roller. That ends up putting the oil hole above the lifter bore in my block. I saw a picture on the net of one of the 3.1-3.4 roller lifters beside one of my style lifters and they appear to be just what I need with the oil hole in the correct spot. The problem now is do I really don't want to go at the block with a die grinder after having already assembled most of the engine. Thanks to you and the other people that answered my post, I understand what the problem is. I going to give it a bit of thought, might even drop by the wreckers and pick up some of the V6 lifters so I can see just how far they drop below the top of the lifter bore. Gotta say, I really appreciate all the feedback and feel much better about this now that I understand what is happening and what needs to be done to it if I want to stay with the roller. I absolutely agree that the V6 lifter is needed to go roller with this block, and also understand the need to "clearance" the block for the dogbones. Thanks again
     
  4. Deuces...thanks for your thoughts. I am willing to bet that a bushing that fills in the wider part of the lifter bore would solve my problems. I might poke around a little for some info on that, that would eliminate the need for different lifters and the need to grind the block.

    Hey Dakota...do you realize I am a "Kanukistani"?.....LOL
     
  5. I just googled "sbc lifter bushings" and clicked "images". Boring out the lifter bore from top to bottom and installing a bronze sleeve would solve my problems but I would really just be easier (and cheaper) to use the V6 lifter and do some hand "clearancing" or somply return to flat tappet. All this info has been great everyone...thanks again.
     
  6. Final thought ... I have come to the conclusion that GM cast one design of block from 1987-1992 and possibly later. Although the blocks have everything neccesary for roller stuff when they are cast, they are machined differently depending on whether it is to recieve a roller cam or a flat tappet. My '87 305 came with a flat tappet and it does not accept a factory roller cam set up because of machining in the lifter bores. Although I have read on the internet (not this site) that 1987 and up blocks do accept factory roller parts as a bolt-in...this does not appear to be correct. I totally agree with Dakota on this one. Thanks again peeps.
     
  7. Rudebaker
    Joined: Sep 14, 2007
    Posts: 1,598

    Rudebaker
    Member
    from Illinois

    I understand the 3.1 lifter conversion on old style blocks Dakota is talking about, I have the detailed instructions, but this one has the taller lifter bosses and is definitely not an old style block it just has FUBAR lifter bores. Not sure what purpose the counterbores serve but I've seen lots of roller blocks with flat tappet cams that did not have this. There's nothing between the lifter bores interfering with the dogbones to grind out so I'm a bit confused on that one. ???? Also, with the 3.1 lifter being that much shorter will they even reach the dog bones on this block when they're on the heel of the lobe? If they don't you're going to have a much bigger problem than oil flow.
     
  8. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 26,619

    Deuces

    If he goes with the shorter lifters. does he also need the longer pushrods???
     
  9. beachbum jim
    Joined: Nov 20, 2009
    Posts: 1,015

    beachbum jim
    Member
    from Loris, SC

    Just a thought but maybe they counter bored it to reduce friction and increase oiling on the flat tappets. Arent flat tappets shorter than rollers? I remember reading something along those lines.
     
  10. AllSteel36
    Joined: Jul 20, 2009
    Posts: 560

    AllSteel36
    Member
    from California

    Why not just have some inserts made up for press fit nd knock'em in?
     
  11. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 26,619

    Deuces

    I still think some place has those for the lifter counterbores... I could be wrong... I hope not! :D
     
  12. 53sled
    Joined: Jul 5, 2005
    Posts: 5,817

    53sled
    Member
    from KCMO

    I picked up a nice roller cam 305 for $100, running. I didn't have to go through any of this.
    Consider...
    how much do roller lifters cost? How much is everybody's time worth? What do you think roller lifters are going to give you besides a headache? its a 200 hp 305 on a good day.
    put the correct lifters back in and be done.
     
  13. So I do have a strange block after all, interesting. I agree that using the shorter lifters would mean a LOT of material would have to be removed in order for the dogbone to sit low enough. I also agree that longer pushrods would definitely be needed when using the shorter lifters. As for a machined insert that would restore the lifter bore to an equal bore size top to bottom...could work but I would rather have the entire lifter bore machined oversize from top to bottom and then a full length sleeve installed. The sleeving of the lifter bores does not make sense financially to me. I have a 350 two-piece rear seal block (flat tappet) that I am going to freshen up instead. The only reason I was trying to piece the 305 together was for the roller benefits, but it isn't working out as I had expected. I have already removed the roller parts and tomorrow I am going to reinstall the flat CRAPpet stuff in the 305 and then bury her under the bench. Thanks for all the help/comments/opinions...I really appreciate it.
     
  14. 53 SLED The reason I wanted the roller cam engine was so I wouldn't have to worry about the lack of zinc in the oil, which apparently causes premature lifter wear on flat tappet engines. Yes it is low horse power but the intended purpose is for a true daily driver rod...you know...only time you lift the hood is when the oil light comes on kinda thing. I read that '87 and up 305's can easily be converted to roller using all factory roller parts and no machining. The 305 block I have had no bore wear so I thought.."lets do it". Seems I got an oddball engine and just wasted a lot of time on this. You are right ... it is not worth it. Tomorrow it's under the bench and I am going to assemble a simple flat tappet 350 that I already have. Live and learn..just gotta try to remember what I learned.
     
  15. Just a long overdue update to this mess. After returning the 1987 305 back to flat tappet and running it on my test stand, it was determined that the block had internal issues, causing the oil and coolant to mix. I thought coolant was getting past the head bolts but that was not the case. I tossed the block in the garbage and installed an old-style 350 flat tappet engine. I kept all the roller components. So, not only was the 1987 305 block unable to work with the roller lifters due to the stepped lifter bores, it ended up being junk for other reasons as well.

    A while later I was offered a 1995 350 for $150 from a truck that originally had fuel injection. I pulled the intake and the lifter bores were NOT stepped. I installed all the roller stuff I had saved from the other engine, installed old style heads, intake and HEI (with melonized gear) and ran that engine for several years before 'retiring' the car I installed the engine in.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
    Truckdoctor Andy and loudbang like this.
  16. 1971BB427
    Joined: Mar 6, 2010
    Posts: 9,781

    1971BB427
    Member
    from Oregon

    In looking at your pictures, it appears the lifters are way too tall, even in their lowest position when valves are closed! My engine is a 1990 roller SBC and when the lifters are in their lowest position they sit flush, or slightly low on top with the lifter alignment plates. None extend above the plates.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  17. That could be but both the cam, lifters and alignment plates were removed (by me) from a 1992 Buick Roadmaster in the local wrecking yard so (I would assume) they were all factory parts. I can't verify anything at this point as that block went to the garbage roughly 10 years ago. According to one of the magazines (Hot Rod I believe) "if your lifter valley has the bosses, tapped or not, you can run factory roller stuff". I found out the hard way that was not the case. Maybe, for whatever reason, the surface the dog bones/lifter aligners sit on was machined (from the factory) too low (which would explain the lifter sticking up above the dog bone), so they then 'stepped' the lifter bores so no one would attempt to install the roller stuff. Unfortunately they forgot to send me the memo :D

    One more thing, the entire roller package was later installed in a 1995 350 (that left the factory as a flat tappet) and all worked well so ... who really knows o_O

    I doubt the lifters are too tall, my guess is the lifters appear too tall due to faulty block machining. Just a guess at this point.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
    Deuces and loudbang like this.
  18. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 16,933

    jimmy six
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Whether I learned anything from this thread or not about the 305 roller non-roller engine is still up in the air. What I did learn is I’m glad I don’t go to wrecking yards for used internal engine parts that I don’t know the real condition.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  19. Keep in mind, the 305 block itself was the problem. All of the roller stuff that was procured from the wrecking yard was removed from the 305 and later installed in a $150 1995 350 and worked flawlessly. There was nothing wrong with the wrecking yard parts in this particular case. Roller cams and roller lifters don't wear like flat tappets do so I figured it was a good gamble (I did purchase a new timing chain though).

    As far as "learning anything from this post is still up in the air". I would hope that most readers would have learned to look for and avoid stepped lifter bores if they are considering roller conversion on early Chev factory roller blocks :rolleyes:
    Since you don't appear to be paying attention, maybe you need to stay after class and clean the chalkboard :D;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    Chucky, osut362 and Deuces like this.
  20. 1971BB427
    Joined: Mar 6, 2010
    Posts: 9,781

    1971BB427
    Member
    from Oregon

    The fact that all the parts worked in a later 1995 motor tells the story. The first year motor may have used the same mold that GM switched to in 1987, but just having the retainer plate bosses doesn't mean that motor was designed for a roller lifter from a later block. As others have mentioned, even though you used factory pieces, they weren't factory for that year block. The V6 lifters sound like they would have fixed the issue with their shorter design.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  21. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 16,933

    jimmy six
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I don’t have enough money to pay attention.
    GMC 6’s don’t have a problem like this and either do Dart aftermarket SBC blocks.
    I got confused on “spiders” . None of the roller cams I use need them.
     
  22. I did not try the V6 lifters because I understood them to be way too short and therefore unable to reach the dog bones.

    According to the article I read, if the block had all the stuff there to accept roller components (mine did), it would accept factory roller components. There was no mention of stepped lifter bores in the article. Everything fit fine and ran well on the stand. I firmly believe the engine would have been fine if the lifter bores were uniform top to bottom. I do not believe the roller lifters were incorrect for that block, I believe the block had been machined (for reasons unknown) and that prevented it from being used with a roller cam.

    Comp Cams replacement roller lifters are listed as fitting from 1987 - present. I am positive the lifters I had were correct for the block.
     
  23. The 'spider' holds the dog bones in place, the dog bones prevent the lifters from rotating. These lifters are not linked (like retrofit aftermarket lifters for earlier SBC engines) so something had to be done to prevent them from rotating. The design (directly from GM) works just fine .... as long as the lifter bores aren't stepped.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  24. Found this on Motor Trend website: "The original small-block Chevy remained basically unchanged from 1955 through 1985. But in 1986 Chevy finally addressed that leaky two-piece rear main seal by making it one piece, and later added hydraulic roller cams to the 305- and 350ci passenger-car engines that retained the same 0.842-inch lifter diameter. The factory conversion to hydraulic roller cam added slightly taller lifter bosses and three small cast-in perches that mount a stamped-steel spider, along with a two-bolt cam retainer plate located at the nose of the camshaft to limit fore-aft movement in the block. While all passenger-car small-blocks from 1987 on were roller-cammed, light-duty trucks used this same iron block but stuck with a flat-tappet camshaft. This means the block comes with the casting provisions for adapting a factory hydraulic roller camshaft. At the most, you may have to drill and tap a couple of holes. We've even seen four-bolt main hydraulic roller cam blocks".

    They state "all passenger-car small blocks from 1987 on were roller cammed" and I know this to be false because the 305 came from a 1987 Monte SS, I removed it, it was not roller. They go on to say "this means the block comes with the casting provisions for adapting a factory hydraulic roller camshaft. At the most, you may have to drill and tap a couple of holes". That is correct as that is exactly what I had to do. Unfortunately they make no mention of stepped lifter bores which prevents the use of roller components. I am 100% confident that the roller conversion, on my 1987 block, using the components from the 1992 engine, would have worked perfectly, had the bores not been stepped.

    Anywho, the hole point of my update was to hopefully bring it to the attention of someone interested in adding factory roller components to a factory roller block that left the factory as a flat tappet ... it can be done as long as the lifter bores are not stepped.
     
    Truckdoctor Andy and Deuces like this.
  25. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 15,200

    Budget36
    Member

    I wonder why GM would have put that step in the bore? Seems like an extra step in the process costing time and a few bucks for no purpose?
     
  26. Johnny Gee
    Joined: Dec 3, 2009
    Posts: 14,217

    Johnny Gee
    Member
    from Downey, Ca

    Reduce friction and allow dog bone to sit properly into position.
     
  27. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 15,200

    Budget36
    Member

    I was speaking of the OPs block and step in it he has. I’ve an ‘89 factory roller block on my stand, I’ll roll it over and get a pic of the lifter bores. I don’t recall seeing that step in them, but wasn’t really looking.
     
  28. Johnny Gee
    Joined: Dec 3, 2009
    Posts: 14,217

    Johnny Gee
    Member
    from Downey, Ca

    This one.
    [​IMG]
     
    Deuces likes this.
  29. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 15,200

    Budget36
    Member

    image.jpg
    Yes, here’s a factory roller block.

    No step in the bores
     
    Deuces likes this.
  30. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 15,200

    Budget36
    Member

    Wait, when you say “less friction” you are referring to the use of flat tappet lifters?
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.