Noise from lifters after rebuild buick 455

Not true. Yes almost all GM are 0.842" external diameter (including chev and buick). The 969 and 969R BBB have a higher pushrod seat than the BB Chev.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

HT-969R are also of the circlip or snap ring design

 

The HT-969R is a hi rev lifter hence the snap ring:TU:

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------

Scott, I am not sure how long you have been building buick engines for so it might before your time but if you want I can take pics of my old KB, Poston etc etc parts catalogs that state there was/use to be .001 differents in the ID of a buick lifter compared to some of the chev lifters. I think all gm/chev lifters are .842 now. The 969R is a hi rev lifter that is why it has a snap ring instead of the wire like the stock replacement lifters have ie TA 1405 lifter etc. I never stated anywhere here that the plunger heights are all the same.

 

I can't remember which way it worked, the buick manual says the lifter ID of .8422to .8427 so were buicks .843 and chev was .842? Or they were all .842 and there were some chev .841? I called some others that have been around buicks along time and we all could remember the problem we just can remember which way it wentou:

 

I'm reasonably sure - with Chevrolet-type lifters - that the plunger heights probably varied by manufacturer in most cases. Since all the big and small block chevrolet engines had easily adjustable rocker arms, the plunger height in the lifters really isn't an area of major concern. You just simply adjust for it when you set your lash.

 

I my link Larry posted I had to use a 9.600 long push rod opposed to the 9.450 that was in there. Same deal on a chev or anything else with adjustable rockers, You have to keep the geometry in check.

 

True - but most importantly on high perf applications with large lift cams, etc. The vast majority of the engines I have built over the years have been stock applications where these things aren't quite so important. That's what I was thinking of when I made that statement. In retrospect I prolly shoulda just kept my mouth shut. lol

edit: ...and I think if I ever have to build another stock 350 chevrolet for someone that I am just going to vomit.

 

Looking at the picture you posted of your lifter they look just like my buddies lifters that were trashed and not gettting much oil up to the rockers. They had the same ring down by the face. Also his came with a used TA 413 cam so you can reasonably make an assumption that they were also TA lifters. I cannot however say when they were actually purchased. minimum of 2 years ago. All I know is that when we primed the engine with the intake off hardly any oil dribbled out of the center hole of those lifters while with the Crowers oil was pouring out something like the videos that were linked to. If yours don't look something like that then something is wrong with those lifters. When we loaded up the pushrods and the rockers the oil slowed down with pushing out the sides of the lifters cup but as far as getting oil up throught the pushrods with just primeing I think the the dynamics of a running engine help circulate the oil up there better so holding a pushrod into the cup and waiting for oil doesn't mean much. All I know is his rockers started getting oil within seconds of starting and when you are idling with the valve covers off oil is squirting out of some of the rocker tips and you can't leave it running long or oil will be everywhere while his original ones barely got anything up to the rockers. How do your rockers act? Are any of them squirting oil out at idle? I'm not saying the Crowers are the best only that they solved our problem. I'm sure there are other good lifters out there.

Mechanic58 I've never seen a Buick lifter that looks like the top one you are showing. They always look like the lower one and I've pulled plenty of stockers apart since the 70's and bought plenty of new ones back then. If anything the top one looks like an Olds unit and from what I'm reading here maybe a Chevy one. I had a vendor try to sell me a set of lifters that looked like that and I got nervous because when they get up to max lift on the cam that noticably higher band gets close to the top of the lifter guide. Much closer than the real Buick.

This is what I had to say to the vendor about those lifters back then:

The box I got does have HA-969 on it and the invoice has the 969 number along with VL-73. The only problem is the lifters I got in that box don't resemble any Buick lifter I've seen. I mentioned Olds but I will have to say I just assumed that because you said you delt with Olds cams and such. Well I did some searching and came up with some pics of the VL-73 and the VL-49/951 lifter which is the Olds/Pontiac unit. Guess which one the ones I got in the HA-969 box resemble the most?

Here is a website that lists both lifter numbers and includes pictures:

http://www.motorheadautoparts.com/item.wws?sku=HT-969&itempk=100407&mfr=SEALED POWER&weight=3

http://www.motorheadautoparts.com/item.wws?sku=HT-951&itempk=133266&mfr=SEALED POWER&weight=3

After doing some measurements with the cam in the block I'm even more nervous about the "Olds" lifters. Side by side the oil band is .420" wide compared to a Buick at .580". The Olds is also much higher up on the body and that is where a problem may lie. The band on the Buick lifter is exposed to pressurized oil continously even at max lift while the Olds lifter cup is cut off from oil pressure at anything above .120" lobe lift. I'm just wondering how well the lifter cup will support itself especially after some mileage or high pressure springs are pushing on it. The last thing that makes it iffy to me is at max lift the Olds lifter only has about .100" of lifter between the pressurized oil supply and the lifter valley while the Buick has .230". The BBB is touchy about oil pressure and to me that .130" could make the difference between oil pressure tapping off or not.

Nelson, I'm running a set of the MicroTrol lifters in my engine right now and they seem to be working fine. Revs up nicely. I thought I'd give them a try last year when I slid in a new cam instead of my usual Pro Magnums. I can't however say if they would work as good as the Pro Magnums if I had to run minimal preload as I've had to do to get some fast action cams to rev smoothly. The cam I'm running with them isn't really a fast action cam. I'm running about .020" right now but the retaining ring they run would allow you to run minimal prelaod if necessary. Did Scott Brown recommend those lifters?

Buickstage1, I agree with the undersize lifters Kenne-Bell always used to warn you about. Back then they probably made 20 different lifters just for the GMs. Every engine had all these little differences and now they make a few "one size fits all units." Check out what I have to say about the higher band on the "Olds"(or Chevy)possibly leaking more oil pressure especially at higher lifts. I noticed one of those sets of lifters you were running in your oil pressure problems at higher rpm thread was a high band style and that was the one causing the problem. Just something to think about.

Back to the original problem. Eivind, it's time to stop talking about the problem and start acting on it. If yours are only dribbling out of the center hole with no pushrod then get another set of lifters in there.

 

Mike,<o></o>
I ask about the Johnson lifters because they seem to be one of the best flat tappet made and the actual lifter manufacture. I ask for the best and Scott suggested the Mirco-Trol so to answer your question Yes Scott did suggest and sell me these with his cam. I cannot tell you about the ramp on this cam but it is supposed to be a strong street cam. This is for my 72 stage 1 vert, below is a link to my build. If you have any suggestions let me know.


Thanks<o></o>
Nelson

<o></o><o></o>
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?264256-72-455-Stage-1-build-help&p=2173756&highlight=#post2173756<o></o>

 

Nelson, so as not to go too far off the OP's problem I posted over in your thread. I can't complain about the Lunati MicroTrols and they are getting plenty of oil up to the rockers on my engine so that is something.

I have a long block sitting on an engine stand and maybe just for fun I will load a few different lifters in the bores and see how much oil comes out when spinning the oil pump. I've got plenty of different ones around.

 

Mike, that's an interesting test to do. I bet the Schubecks I had would spray across the room! They had so much flow that with I took the oil cap off when idling it spit oil in my face.
Note: I'm talking oil through the pushrod hole not leakage around the lifter.

 

It is a Rhoads lifter - however the outside oil passage is almost identical the original Buick lifters that I removed from this engine. Unfortunately I had thrown them out just days before I got involved in this thread. I did make a side by side comparison of them before I threw the original ones out. My engine was original when I took it apart - it had never been apart before.

I suspect there's probably dozens of different looking lifters out there and I'm certain no single one of us has ever seen and studied every single type....lol. That being said...I reckon the **** is prolly getting near about knee deep in here. Hopefully the OP will be able to figure out what the problem is and get it fixed without spending too much money. I am still very curious to see what it ends up being.

 

I remember that marketing BS crap from KB back in the 80's. Total garbage. All lifters I've measured when building my own chevys and my own BBB's and SBB's with my micrometers were 0.842" . 0.8422" - 0.8427" is the ID of the lifter bore in the block. Lifter OD is for GM is 0.842" (except for the 425 olds which is .875") so the clearance is 0.0002" - 0.0007" . They used to claim other manufacturers lifters and other GM lifters were undersize at 0.841" resulting in oil pressure loss. BS. I've never used KB lifters and all mine have measured 0.842" (chevy, GM, aftermarket, etc) .

 

Scott, there was a problem back in the 90's with some manufactures suppling under size lifters. 10-20 psi loss I don't agree with but if you have lifter bores on the high side and not the spec's you have quoted from the buick manual another .001 makes a differents. Have you ever ran into over size lifters in a BBB? I don't know a lot about the olds engines but I thought most olds were .842 and a small hand full had .921 lifters. I find that very odd because the .875 lifter dia is that of a ford size. As a matter of fact I have a BBB cam shaft that MUST use the ford .875 lifter, its sitting on the shelf for a build, have you installed these before? You are wasting peoples time here with your banter. Please get your facts straight before you attack fellow board members. Its posting like yours that pushes me further away from helping people. How about we get back to solving Torsdalen noise problem. :beers2: He most likely has given up on his thread since it was hi-jacked.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

I forgot to mention that Its looking like Eivind is using a 1107 dual spring, the pics are a bit hard to see but it looks like the spring pad was not cut down to accommodate/locate the inner spring meaning it is sitting on top of the lip that would locate the single string. There looks like there is 2 different retainers also so I am not sure if they are correct for a dual spring. I have asked him to try a different method to set the lash so he can check that as he goes. I am try to walk him trough this one step at a time and my hopes are he can fix this with the heads on the car instead pulling them in car. My thoughts are he should use a good single spring with a dampner that will work with his cam to avoid machine work.

 

*crickets*

 

With help from a Board member (Thanks !!)i found out that the dual springs not fit correct to the heads, the heads should be machined to fit or i need to use other springs. I should have noticed this when i built the heads. Now i am happy that we found out. I have a bad feeling about the lifters that i use now. I will concidder replacing them. What do you think ? A local speed shop here in Norway have Elgin HL1969 lifters in Stock, they are lised for Buick/Cadillac. Are this good lifters ? Ore should i try With the TA lifters that i have ? Or buy New ones from another manufacter ? Thanks for all reply, i am still confused about what lifters that would be the best for me to use. I need to go further With setting the preload wit my TA lifters or With New ones.

 

I think I would get one of these that we know that work well Lunati's Micro-Trol lifters or Pro Magnums.<o></o>

 

Nelson, I respectfully disagree with you. That Delfi TA1405 lifter is a very good lifter, I have supplied and installed countless sets of these lifters with not so much as 1 lifter failure. Its funny in the way that I have used that Delfi lifter on many performance camshafts that see 6200-6400 rpm with NO problems at all and that holds true for other engine builders that have been building these BBB's with that same lifters for many years.

I also disagree that these lifters should be replaced at this point. I don't like the idea of throwing parts at things. Torsdalen, I encourage you to fix what we know is wrong at this point which is the valve springs. I will make the tool so you can use it to install the correct new valve springs on your engine while its IN CAR and after you are done you can keep the tool. You can also have the tool and I will not charge you anything for it. You don't need to use a double spring with your camshaft. There will be no need to machine anything with these springs. I will work with you to help make sure you set your springs up correctly (Correct installed heights). At this point that video of your lifters doesn't bug me, you are using a thick COLD oil at a very low RPM. Once the oil heats up and thins out and you build RPM that will all change. I can help you do this but don't just throw parts at your engine!

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

 

Sounds great ! Thanks !