Do TTA's count?

 

well I tore it apart to go to ft cam today. But afterwards I did a little investagating this is what I found out the only way it will starve the bottom end is if the lifter comes up to far and exposes the oil hole on the side. With the stock cam it would have to come up an additional 1/8" verses the 1/16" with the ft cam. I thought there might be a oil hole in the bottom under the roller so I sacrificed and tore one down there is no hole. I also compared the grove around them at full lift they also looked about the same. So my conclusion is if you want a roller cam with no worries you may have the hole lowered a little or have the bevel welded up around the lifter hole of the block and bored out w/o it and even though the groove looked the same at full lift in the block you may could have them widen a little or do it the poor mans way with a die grinder. I'm going to look into lowering the hole if no can do i'll be going to ft cam since I need the car drivable next week. maybe in the future.

 

Nope, they're Buicks disguised as Third Gen's.....

 

K. What about the 3800 turbo-powered 3rdgen Camaro? IIRC he's in the 11's.

 

Nope, it's gotta be a V6 engine that the 3rd Gen came from the factory with....

 

The problem's not the oil groove, it's internal valving. There is a hole in the bottom of the lifter, otherwise the roller would starve. The rollers need so much oil that pressure drops in the rest of the oiling system. The cam bearings and mains starve while the lifters puke oil on the cam. I've been looking at soultions for running roller lifters in gen1 blocks for a while now and apart from modifying the oiling passages the solution seems to be changing the lifter's internal valving, or running solid rollers.

 

THANK YOU!!!!

I'm glad someone else understands the issues here.

 

not trying to argue since i'm still going to ft cam, but this is the lifter that I tore apart and there is no hole in the bottom of the lifters or at least these 3x00 lifters. Dont know how the roller needle bearings get oil, maybe from down the side of the lifter. here is some pictures not to clear though. If you all need better pictures I'll see if my wife can get the camara to zoom in better. I'm still thinking that they maybe coming up and exposing the hole in the side of the lifter.

 

Put the roller cam in if you want, just don't whine to us when the bottem end gets starved, and the bearings spin.

GM redsigned the oiling system for a reason.

 

I'm not saying that it will work, I just don't see why it won't though. I just got a good measurement the bevel in the lifter holes of the block are the same so that isn't the problem there is no hole in the bottom of the lifters so they aren't loosing any oil out the bottom. The only thing I can see is where on the one side the oil has to flow around the lifters, but when comparing the ft to roller lifters sitting in the holes they look the same.( thats looking through one lifter hole at the grove around the lifter in the other) But i'm not chancing it i'm going to order a comp 260 would like to go bigger but hate to push the valve springs to there limit.

 

I put a roller in the facrory 3.1 and it didn't last a couple days till it started knocking I thought I may not got all the metal out though. Then I put the heads on a stock 3.4 with stock cam it wasn't a day til it knocked the top off a piston due to pre detanation (how ever you spell it). Those motors were with a distrubator and stock 3.1 tune, stock injectors. Thats why I bought a ostrich 2.0 data cable and the burner and going to dis. would like to get it realiable till winter. I would like to use the 3500 block with the fwd starter but don't know what to do about the flywheel yet its a 5-speed. Thought about checking in on turning mine down to the fwd flywheel size and redrilling the pressure plate bolt holes.

 

Why go through all that trouble when you could just use a FWD flywheel, like I already said?

Does no one read my posts anymore?

 

My rwd flywheel is almost 1 1/2" thick counting the ring. How thick is the fwd? I know the s-10 is only about half as thick.

 

I think I still have a 3500 flywheel if you want me to take pics and/or measurements as proof. I'll be in the shop tomorrow for a couple hours.

 

If you don't care. Measure how thick it is from outside to outside. Thanks.

 

Flexplate. 3100s, 3400s and 3500s never used a flywheel.

The thickness is the same between the FWD and RWD flywheel, the diameter is smaller on the FWD.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

I can't tell anything from those pics. Looks like you're looking at the underside of the roller though, I'll have to punch one out and get a look at it myself. I've dissasembed the valve portion of sevral of these lifters though and there is most certainly a hole in the bottom of the lifter . Hmmm.

 

They were pictures of under the roller. Can you mic the width of each lifter to see if they may be loosing the oil down between the lifter? Here is a better picture.

 

I just know that the s-10 and camaro has different thickness in flywheels. The s-10 wieghs half as much as the camaro. There is alot of difference between them. I am takling about the manual flywheels.

 

The only possible difference in flywheel thinckness is the 3.4 flywheel, though I've heard both ways, that it is different and that it isn't different. 2.8/3.1 F-body flywheels are the same as the S-10 as far as thickness is concerned, balancing is another issue all together.

The S-10 and FWD flywheels are the SAME thickness, just a different diameter.

 

I punched the roller out of one of these and there's no oil hole like 923.4v6 said. So oiling is done by drainback from the rockers. Now my question is has anyone actually installed rollers in a gen 1 block and had an oiling issue? I recall someone on 60degreev6.com put rollers in a 2.8 fiero without a problem, but those were for a sbc.

 

Well betterthanyou said over at 60* in old post that the problem was not getting enough oil by the lifters due to no or small groove around them and some of the lifters will expose the hole in the side of them at max lift. May have the groove widened to match the ft lifter and get a custom smaller base circle cam to let the lifters sit a little lower in the holes. But after the custom cam and custom push rods to match, they will cost a pretty penny and you still may have trouble.

 

Or you could just go with a an off the shelf solid roller cam from Schnieder, but that's more of a Race cam, especialy with it's tight LSA. They do have other flat tappet hydraulics though.

 

Got a crane 272 and going to use my ls6 springs. Any ideas?

 

The s-10 and fwd are the same except for the teeth count. The camaro's 2.8,3.1,3.4 calls for all the same one my 3.1 is 1 1/2" thick. Talked to a friend today that knows a guy that tried the s-10 in a camaro due to the wieght differance but would not work. The s-10 and camaro calls for a different clutch fork which may be changed to make use of the s-10 flywheel though. I will find out as soon as this motor blows.

 

Did he actually have a failure though? According to my measurements you'd need a cam with .375" lobe lift to expose the oil hole. All the lifters I've seen from these engines have the same oil groove. I have a feeling there's more bench racing going on here than actual experience.

 

He just posted it. On my engine I put the lifters in and they varied some from one to the other. None actually exposed the hole but didn't know about it when running. I thought about trying it and touching each lifter to a grinder to widen the groove about 1/8" then use a hv oil pump. If the oil holes never expose I think it would be ok. I would like to see more than one have a oil issue but need to find the first one first, lol.

 

Thought I would let everyone know that the hybrid was installed this week. Hopefully will get exhaust and ostrich hooked up and running next week.

 

Did you end up deciding on the flat tappet cam?

I'm curoius to see the results

 

yes, went with the 272 ls6 springs. I'll post updates when I get it done.