Hey everyone, I have a nice 509 casting 400 SBC that I will be using in a 1992 SUBURBAN, along with my ported aluminum Vette heads, ported plenum, ported Edelbrock base, ported SLP runners. This will be a towing/daily driver vehicle. I want a hydraulic roller cam setup in this block, so since I already have several 87-up cams, I was wondering what all I have to do to use one of these late model cams in this setup? RSVP with any and all replies. Thanks everyone .

 

considering the poor design and weakness of the factory design why would you want to? as rb says you'd be spending your money to buy the bullets to shoot yourself in the foot with. why not use a roller like we've been doing for 30 plus years before the factory picked up a crack pipe and designed a roller lifter set up for our inconvience. if you're still set on using some old parts you have laying around you'd need the block mcahined for the retainer and spider.

 

I don't think you can use the late-model style cam in the early block, because the late style cam has the place for the factory's cam retainer ring thing that they stupidly modified the block specially for. The nose of the cam is shaped differently from the early model cam to accommodate it. You can't use the late model timing gear without the retainer because then the cam would sit too far back in the block (by the thickness of the retainer), and I don't think the early model cam gear will fit the late style cam properly.

Life would be so much better if the factory hadn't porked the pooch with that idiotic roller system they decided to use. The original design fits every block from 55 up, no costly special block casting modifications required, and there's nothing wrong with it; I can't imagine why the factory chose that particular wheel to re-invent, and screwed it up into a triangular shape instead of round.

Bottom line is, I think you're going to have to buy the original design cam and roller lifters and cam button just like all the rest of us have been doing for all these decades. The factory's stuff AFAIK only works in their specially-modified blocks, unlike the original (now called "retrofit"), which will work in any block.

 

I believe the lifter bores also have to be ground down so the factory retainers that keep the lifter from spinning don't rest on the tops of the bores.

The cam will fit and work. The only difference is on the front journal. GM ground a step ridge on the outside edge of the journal for the thrust plate. It's inner diam. is smaller than the cam, so they had to reduce the OD of the cam to fit into the thrust plate. That's the only diff. The reason I know this is because I'm using a flat tappet hyd. cam (without the ridge) in a 87+ block and it fits as snug as a rubber.

The factory thrust plate holds the cam in the block much like a cam button does. Evidently GM didn't want to spend the time to develope a timing chain cover thick enough to support a cam button, so they chose to modify the block there also.

If you've ever paid attention to the "spider" that holds the retainers onto factory rollers you'd have noticed that it's slightly thicker than tin foil. Granted it does have to have some flex so it can follow the recipricating motion of the lifters, but jeezy petes... you can probably fold it over more times than a piece of paper.

Actually, I forgot something. The older block won't work because there's nothing to bolt the retainer to. The older blocks had oil galley "slots" through the center of the lifter valley. That's were the bungs are on the newer blocks. They don't have those slots anymore.

So "yes", it'll go into the block, but you'll still have to buy the GOOD lifters with the crossbar attached, along with a cam button and timing chain cover to support the force of the cam trying to walk it's way out of the block. Aluminum IMO, is the only way to go there.

Probably just be cheaper and easier to use a hyd. cam.

AJ

 

I have a new cam type in a'n old block.........

Dont know exactly what my engine builder have done to make it work, but it works....

 

Yes you can use the late model roller cams in an early non-roller block. Lingenfelter sells what’s called their Cam Button Wear Plate kit to allow the retrofit. It consists of a modified late-model cam retainer (tabs, which bolt the retainer to the block are ground off and used as a spacer shim for the step nose of the cam between the block and timing gear), a nylon cam button (to keep the cam from walking forward and cam gear bolts. The kit sells for $32.95 from Lingenfelter. Have used this kit many times with out a problem.
What you can not use are the factory roller lifters. You will need to use a retrofit roller lifters such as Comp Cams or Speed-Pro. The lifter bores on early style blocks are not tall enough to accomodate the spider-retainer system the factory roller lifters use.

 

Size doesnt matter. In normal operation, it doesnt move. The lifter retainers or plates or whatever dont move either.

As for the cam retainer, its alot better design than a cam button. I've seen cam buttons sitting in oil pans before, never seen a cam retainer in that spot or any other spot besides where its supposed to be.

 

Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day it'll be true.

 

OK, I'm dragging this one back from the dead, but I'm wondering how the Lingenfelter kit retains the button, and why does it have different bolts?

 

The kit doesn't "retain" the button. Nothing "retains" it, it jsut can't go anywhere. If you'd ever worked with a cam button, you'd know, it just sort of hangs out between the nose of the cam and the timing cover.

The bolts are different because the late-model cam bolt pattern is MUCH smaller than the correctly-designed roller setup, in fact too small for the button to fit in the space in the middle of the bolts. The bolts would have to be something REALLY SMALL, like maybe allen-heads or something.

 

Oh. Well, that explains that.

So if I took a factory retaining plate and ground off the ears and then bolted the cam sprocket on with socket head cap screws, will a standard SB cam button fit, or is the diameter of the step nose cam sprocket hole smaller?

 

The nose of the cam is smaller, so the pattern of the 3 bolts is smaller, so the space among the bolts is also smaller. So a standard SB cam button won't fit in there. That's why there has to be a "special" one, and/or "special" bolts, in order to use the factory's Frankenstein mess in an older block.

You're correct about the ears though, all you need is to have something in there of the right thickness behind the late-model cam gear (which you have to use with the goofy roller cam.... see the comments about the bolt pattern above), to equal the factory retainer thickness. A factory retainer without its bolt ears should fill the bill quite nicely.

 

Is the correct size small button available somewhere, or should I just turn down a regular one?

 

No; the incorrect small size button is not available anywhere, to my knowledge. Since motors that use the small bolt pattern ordinarily have the retainer plate to accomplish that funcion, it is unnecessary.

The usual deal is, you either use the sensible roller system, that's been around for decades, and fits in any block; or, you use the factory's goofy stuff that only goes in the specially-equipped blocks. Using a goofy cam in a normal block is such an unusual combo, that AFAIK there's no off-the-shelf parts to support it. So if you intend to do that, I'm afraid you're on your own, as far as making parts to fit. Shouldn't be too hard though.

 

All right, thanks.

There's an oh so subtle hint of sarcasm regarding the OEM roller setups that I find interesting. It would have been nice if GM had made roller motors the same way hotrodders have. Imagine a market flooded with cheap retrofit OEM roller lifters that fit any block.

 

A subtle hint????? Noooooo...... not me... subtlety is something I'm NEVER accused of. Ever. By anyone.

The old hot-rodder system is simpler, requires no modification to the block (an EXPENSIVE proposition), and will withstand a much greater "excess" beyond its stock application than the factory's system. I simply can't find any technical superiority in the factory system over our old one; not one. Except possibly that it might be easier to mass-assemble, although as a mfg engr part of my time, I find even that hard to believe. As a good example of reduced assembly cost, look at the 1-piece rear main seal; its advantage isn't that it works any better, it's that it takes about 30 seconds to install, instead of 15 minutes, of standard labor. Multiply that by $100/hr labor over millions of units, and pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that there's a combination of IP issues, and "not invented here" mentality going on. It's certainly not better engineering.

Yeah that would suck if we could buy decent roller lifters at mass-produced prices, wouldn't it??

 

I've never understood why the OEM roller lifters/cam couldn't be made to work in a pre roller block. Other than keeping the cam in position, which it seems like there's a solution to that, it appeared all that was needed was to clearance the side of the block to allow movement of the longer roller lifters. Also, since there are no bosses for the spider retaining bols, it seems like someone would have figured a way to thread a bolt hole in the block somehow. Anyway, I've heard of this solution before, but never knew the specifics. Has anyone tried this solution?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...RK%3AMEWA%3AIT

VR<
DZcode

 

How does giving that guy your money, consist of a working solution to something?

What you just said about drill and thread, is all you're going to find out from him; it'll just cost you $30 for him to tell you that.

Which all sounds real good; until you actually LOOK AT YOUR BLOCK, and you realize, that the hump running down the middle of it, is THE MAIN OIL PASSAGE THAT OILS THE MAIN BEARINGS AND ROD BEARINGS; and he's going to instruct you to puncture that passage.

Now I'm sofakingdom I have difficulty telling smart from stupid; but even at my level of being an imbecile, I figured out a long time ago, that if there's ANY ONE PLACE you don't take unnecessary chances in a motor, it's THE OILING SYSTEM.

I've been putting roller cams in blocks since .... well, let's just say, since DECADES before the factory butchered the whole idea in the late 80s. It's worked fine for a LONG LONG time. Better than the factory's method in fact, especially for cams with profiles significantly more aggressive than weenie factory ones. You may do whatever you like; but I think I'll stick with what's known to work EVERY TIME, in this instance, and which DOESN'T require hacking on arguably the most sensitive part of the block.

 

I still want to know if there is any difference between these and a small block type. Dont crucify me but I know very little about big block lifters.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevy...spagenameZWDVW

 

BBC lifters are a larger diameter IIRC, and those ones also appear to be offset too.

 

BB Lifters and SB lifters are actually the same diameter; .842".

In roller sets, the lifter itself, is often the same, between the 2 engines. In flat tappet setups, they ARE the same.

The pair in the pic at the top of that eBay page has SB link bars; the pic of 8 pairs farther down, has BB link bars.

BB lifters aren't all in a straight row like SB ones are, so the link bars always have a crook in them like that.

Here's what they look like in real life.... the top one is a Comp 891 (solid for small base circle), the bottom is a standard Crower hydraulic for big block.

 

Here's my turned down button, clearenced for the socket heat cap screws.

 

These lifters are finally popping up. I guess someone managed to get a set from Cat as supposedly they have been backrodered.

eBay Motors: Chevy SBC Solid Roller Lifters 327 350 383 400 406 434 (item 8052596871 end time Apr-07-06 12:14:43 PDT)

 

what would have to be done to retrofit the factory roller setup out of my 88 305 in a 94 non roller 350 block? is it just drilling and tapping for the spider?

 

Did you read any of this post or just go straight to the bottom?

 

Your 94 block probably has the provisions for the factory roller stuff. So there's a good chance that you can just transplant it. At worst, the bosses for the spider might need drilled and tapped; which should of course be done WITHOUT going deep enough to hit the oil passage. Also, check to make sure the place on the top of the lifter bores where the dog bone thing rests, is machined out for that.

 

I read the entire thread, the original poster was refering to a pre 87 block, basicly what im wanting to know are the same mods required to put the factory roller setup 87+ non roller block as the pre 87 blocks?
----------
Thanks sofa, i know the block has to be drilled for the spider, I was hoping that was all that has to be done to transplant

 

just out of curiosity, why can't you drill INTO the oil passage? I know it'll leak, but I mean head bolts go into coolant passages, and you just use sealant, so couldn't you just use sealant? Or is the oil pressure too high?

I mean, people are always going to try to get around this, "retrofit" parts are hundreds of dollars more due to the "complex" link bars i'm guessing.

 

You CAN drill into the oil passage. The real question is, who IN HIS RIGHT MIND would want to do that? That's a hot-rodder's version of Russian Roulette, right there. What happens if you crack the block? or if the threads strip and the stud or whatever, pops out?

The only real reason the "retrofit" parts cost more, is because they're a much lower production volume item. If they were making a billion of them a year like they are the others, they'd be about the same price, I'm betting.

 

I would. I never have and I probably never will, but I'd give it a try.

What if your block cracks anyway and oil leaks?
What if threads strip out of your oil pressure sending unit and oil leaks?
What if your cheesy aluminum oil cooler lines crack and oil leaks?
What if, what if, what if.....
I think there is a calculated risk in trying this. I think the "retro fit roller"/link bar design is way, WAY better. But for someone w/no money, junkyard parts, motivation, and inginunity I think it's a viable option.

-Tom

 

If this is such a viable option, why did GM cast bosses in the factory roller blocks for the spider web retainer?

If it does crack and leak oil, it goes into the lifter valley instead of oiling the cam bearings or lifters or whatever. That equals a new block, plus a new whatever that got wasted as all of the metal from a lack of lubrication got sent through the engine before it locked up. I think a retro-roller setup is cheaper than fixing all of the damage if the rig-job fails.

 

1. Because GM can't afford warrenty work when putting bosses in is so cheap and easy (for them).
2. A roller set up IS cheaper than fixing all that stuff you listed. No question about it. However, Sofa asked "who would DO such a thing??" I would and I said so. I think there is a risk there (as there technically is w/any mod and anything in life). My experience tells me that the risk isn't great enough to prevent me from giving it a try. Not that I will ever have the opportunity, but if DID, and no other means to do it the "right" way...yeah, I'd go at it very carefully and try it. I think the key would be using Loc-Tite and low torque on the spider retaining bolts.

 

I see you are going to use "Corvette" heads on your 400SBC. If I'm not mistaken those heads have something like 58cc combustion chambers. You will need some "deep" dish pistons to keep the compression in check.

 

note: the origins of this thread are circa 2002.

 

We need the "beatin a dead horse" smilie!!

 

Yea, and ede is 16 years old and Mcdonalds is THE place to gain the best performance and building knowledge. Oh yea, and I'm nice and give a ****.

 

I shortened the button, reinforced the cover, and finished my install.

So far, it works good and runs great.