Drilling Oil Galleries in Original Side-Oiler

[dandascott]

I am debating having the oil galleries drilled in an original 1967 467 side oiler block so that it can accept hydraulic lifters. I have seen many threads on the solid lifter vs. hydraulic lifter and I think I understand the pro's/cons with that. Keith Craft is building this for me and his concern is the same as many of the post here - breaking the cam during the break-in. We are very early in this and of course I will rely on Keith's expert opinion heavily.

Any thoughts on drilling the required oil passages ? Anyone done this ? If anyone has any opinions that could help sway my decision I would appreciate. fyi - the car will be street driven only.

Thanks,

[Barry_R]

My only opinion is that an unmolested original side oiler block has a market value of $2500 and up. A new Genesis iron has a sell price of $3500. Sounds like you are on the way to getting pretty close to the same end cost....the replacement block is stronger...

[Excaliber]

I don't understand why there is so much fear concerning breakin of a flat tappet cam. If you understand what you need to do and follow those steps, whats the big deal?

I wouldn't drill it myself, I'd run a flat tappet.

[Jac Mac]

Drilling the Lifter galleries would allow machining of the lifter bores for positive lobe oiling as per Comp Cams info, a plus for flat tappet cams hyd or solid. Other options would be the lifters with laser drilled oiling to cam face or the 'shubeck?' lifter.

Jac Mac

[Excaliber]

Jac Mac? Are you thinking the original side oiler solid lifter blocks don't get enough oil all ready? With the later blocks that do allow hydraulic lifters you have to use a restrictor to keep from getting TO MUCH oil on the lifters.

From an engine rebuilder\suppliers view point I can see why they would recommend hydraulic lifters, every time. Why would a builder want to go through the extra hassle of breaking in a solid lifter cam? Easier to just sell hydraulic and be done with it. And what if the customer does not follow precisely the solid lifter breakin requirements? As a builder YOU still 'look bad' even if it wasn't your fault.

[dandascott]

Excaliber,
I have heard the recomendation before, "trade that block for a better one". This block was aquired by a family member in the late 60's, along with the intake, crank, rods, pistons etc. The intent was to build a high performance drag car. The parts never got assembled and never even been hot. Now I have the parts and the car and I am want to keep some of the tradition and spirit of the car/engine. Though I could have traded the parts and bought probably a nicer, higher performing engine I wanted to keep some "family tradition". Now that I am to this point I am unsure anout proceeding with drilling for hydraulic lifters or go with solid/flat tappet cam.
Thanks for opinions!

[Byots]

nm .

[dandascott]

Byrots,
I am trusting Keith Craft to drill the passages, assemble etc. I am relatively new to this so aside from a few books, a few friends and some forums I am learning as I go. Thanks.

[flwolfman]

I'm not drilling mine! Staying with solid lifters. Jim

[Excaliber]

While that 67 block comes with 'family sentiment' there is another 'sentiment' to consider. Thats a very rare original side oiler block, not many of those left. For that reason alone I'd build it to near original specs (flat tappet cam), including iron heads! But hey, thats just me. Heck I'd be tempted to go with a dual point style distributor as well.

Originality policeman pounding the beat...

[Jac Mac]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Jac Mac? Are you thinking the original side oiler solid lifter blocks don't get enough oil all ready? With the later blocks that do allow hydraulic lifters you have to use a restrictor to keep from getting TO MUCH oil on the lifters.

From an engine rebuilder\suppliers view point I can see why they would recommend hydraulic lifters, every time. Why would a builder want to go through the extra hassle of breaking in a solid lifter cam? Easier to just sell hydraulic and be done with it. And what if the customer does not follow precisely the solid lifter breakin requirements? As a builder YOU still 'look bad' even if it wasn't your fault.

Excaliber, Yes & No, In its original flat tappet solid lifter configuration in the good old days the cam lobes/lifter faces relied only on spray/splash lubrication from oil thrown from the crank/cam brgs etc along with what dribbles down from the valley area, along with a healthy dose of zddp in the oil.
In todays world without as much if any zddp along with more aggressive cam profiles/lift rates & spring pressures life has got tough for the original system.
The" To Much" oil in the hydraulic version is not over oiling of the lifter face,but as the FE did not feed the valve train oil thru the pushrods at least 50% of the lifter gallery oil simply leaks into the valley area and then drained onto the crank etc creating windage, hence the need to restrict the lifter gallerys.
As an engine builder myself I agree with your second paragraph 100%, and if I can pass on one simple tip that has saved me a lot of grief in regard to camshaft installation it is this: When installing your new flat tappet cam( solid or hydraulic), fit the cam to the block with thrust plate & cam gear (oil the cam journals/brgs/lobes). Now insert the new lifters in their bores, mark the top of each lifter & bore with twink or marker pen , Have a helper rotate the cam with speed wrench or slow drill while you apply light pressure with a pushrod to each lifter thru approx 10 camshaft revolutions, each lifter should show definite rotation in its bore, If it does not find out WHY, It could be a burr in the bore or a dud machined block that will need that lifter bore sleeved.

Jac Mac

[Excaliber]

Not just for break in but for the life of the cam I'm running the Shell Rotella in my engine (more ZDDP stuff). And yeah, it was a BIG hassle going through the break in steps, worst being reinstalling the inner valve springs after breakin period. My block IS drilled for hydraulic lifters and I STILL chose to run a flat tappet!

[Jac Mac]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Not just for break in but for the life of the cam I'm running the Shell Rotella in my engine (more ZDDP stuff). And yeah, it was a BIG hassle going through the break in steps, worst being reinstalling the inner valve springs after breakin period. My block IS drilled for hydraulic lifters and I STILL chose to run a flat tappet!

I think you mean a Solid Lifter Flat Tappet- Hydraulics are also Flat Tappet unless they are Rollers of course. Apart from the lifter gallery oiling one must remember that the hyd lifter remains in light contact with the cam lobe while on the base circle while with a solid lifter with valve lash & due to all the forces/ harmonics present in the valve train will not necessarily remain in contact with the lobe during this period, slowing or even stopping the rotation imparted to it by the cam lobe.
Yes swapping in the inner springs is a pain , but it also gives you a second chance to lok for any silly wear problems in the valve train before things get too serious- stuff like pushrod alignment etc.

Jac Mac

[Excaliber]

Point taken Jac Mac, I did indeed mean 'solid flat tappet'. I used to run solid roller cam, broke a roller, wiped out the cam, rebuilt the motor! While I might be tempted to run a solid roller again, THIS time I would spring for the very latest roller design with some kind of pressure oil feed system (BIG money). I don't think you can do that with a 'solid flat tappet' only type block?

[FFR428]

Ernie, watch that Shell Rotella. I understand it's on the shelves as a CJ rated oil now. New formula... no zinc. I had no idea either and the subject came up on another forum I frequent. JMO...

G.

[Excaliber]

FFR428, which of course begs the question... What oil is the current best choice for cam break in (and longer cam life in general)?

Darn EPA messing with the formulas again...

[55312]

I'm using Rotella as well so I went to Shell's web site. Here's their "PR blurb"

Is Shell Rotella® T motor oil going to have less zinc in 2007?

Yes. The API CJ-4 (next generation) Shell ROTELLA® T multigrade motor oil will have a slightly lower level of zinc than the current API API CI-4 PLUS Shell ROTELLA® T. Zinc is typically used as part of the anti-wear system within the oil. However, less zinc in API CJ-4 oils compared with API CI-4 PLUS oils does not mean increased wear. In fact, wear protection is one of the key areas where the API CJ-4 category provides improvements over API CI-4 PLUS. (Other areas include; oxidation stability and soot control). The new API CJ-4 Shell ROTELLA® T multigrade motor oil also meets the requirements of earlier API performance categories such as API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, as well as others, and can be used in engines specifying any of these performance categories.



Good Grief.....George Orwell is alive and working for Shell...........


Tim

[FFR428]

Well the CI-4 rating is best to look for. Mystik JT-8, Chevron Delo and Mobil Delvac are a few that should still have that rating. Also Valvoline VR-1 racing. Natch GM's EOS and or Crane's break in lube added for break in. I'm far from a oil expert but just things I picked up reading. But with a new FE project in the works...this is a area of concern for me as well.

Glenn.

[Jac Mac]

Might be a good idea to buy a 200liter, or 55 gal container now of the good stuff, that should see you out for the next 5 or so years, by then we will probably be facing a whole lot of 'new' problems that we wont want to think about!!

Jac Mac

[FFR428]

Hmmm might be a good time for me to break into the 10 case stash of Wolfs head I have from the 60's???

G.