Need Quick info... Hydraulic VS Mechanical Lifters

Hi all, I'm going to be looking at a complete 350 today that a guy had in his '55 Chevy. I'm just wondering if theres any way to tell the difference between hydraulic and mechanical lifters just by looking in the area under the intake manifold. Since the engine was in such an old vehicle 2 owners ago, I was wodnering if the 350 sb was even available at that time. If it was I know it would have had mechanical lifters, but since its been rebuilt about 1000 miles ago, I'd assume it to have been replaced with hydraulic. It's got the block numbers: 3982388 (Maybe 3932388) the link to see the engine is:CLICK HERE (http://rochester.craigslist.org/pts/255300407.html). Thanks!

It's probably hydraulic. The 350 first was introduced in the 1967 Camaro, 1968 for all other models, so if it is indeed a 350, it is a retrofit.

To answer your specific question, there's no easy way to tell by looking at them as they look the same. What you can do, if the engine has been out of use for some time, is check the rocker arms to see if they're loose, and if they are, push down on the pushrods - if it pushes down, then you have hydraulic lifters - but if it doesn't, that does not mean you have solid lifters.

Solid (mechanical) lifters must have a certain amount of valve lash in them - so the rockers on these will be loose when the engine is off and cold. Hydraulics won't have this lash unless there's wear or a collapsed lifter.

Cool, thanks... When I see the engine, and the actual owner tonight, I'll know more.

Its confirmed, they're hydraulic lifters... I got one of them to squish down a little bit. Should I just go for this engine... I talked him down to 800, and he said he'd throw in a holley double pumper and old mechanical distributor. I'd end up selling the carb and distributor on eBay since I have no use for them, but thats a little cash back, y'know. Its a 350 4 bolt main manufactured on Nov. 20 1968. (block casting codes) It's got a .42" lift cam, 2.02 intake 1.6 exhaust 63cc heads (Got that from the casting number) with unknown cc domed pistons...so he says. Not exactly what I was looking for, but when it was put together 2000 miles ago (5 years) it dyno-ed at 319.3 HP and 376.1 Ft/Lbs of torque (he had readout the sheet). During the dyno it had a set of shorty headers going into two mufflers and nothing more. The only accessories it had was an altenator, water pump and fan during the dyno. If I get this motor, I'll have also a power steering pump and A/C compressor (Yes, I'm most definately keeping the A/C) He ran '89 (middle grade) octane in it, and had no detonation or pinging problems. What do you guys think? No go, or good deal?

If it's an undisturbed 1968 engine, I'd definitely rebuild it. Having said that, it's likely to have flat-top pistons in it if it is indeed a 1968 incarnation motor.

If the block is rebuildable, get it. Although, I'd stay away from eBay to sell that stuff - it's decent demand quality stuff and I'd throw it on Craigslist. I threw an Edelbrock AFB clone on Craigslist for $100 - it was gone in 2 hours. To a guy who was going to put it on his 1963 Impala.

You can tell if it is an unmolested 1968 engine by looking at the cylinder heads - if there are bolt holes on the end for accessory mounting / brackets / alternator etc, it's not a true 1968.

Then again, if I'd learn how to read, I would have seen that this engine was built two years ago. If it was built properly and broken in properly, it'd be a good buy. You can always swap things like camshaft (get new lifters and run that Rotella-T oil if it's a flat tappet cam you get), intake, things like that. The 2.02/1.6 valves might cause low-end to suffer a little bit, but will move the power band higher on the RPM scale, so you don't really lose anything.

One more thing - on my setup, I can run 87 octane gas and the ESC doesn't even kick in.

According to Mortec, that engine is a 1969 model year, 350 if it has 4 bolt main caps. 3932388. The heads he has wrong in the ad - they are 3782461 not 481 (there ain't no such thing). It doesn't have the accessory bolt holes, so you can't use it with the accessories you have unless you swap heads.

Quote:"2.02/1.6 valves might cause low-end to suffer a little bit, but will move the power band higher on the RPM scale, so you don't really lose anything"

Would a 2200 RPM stall torque converter solve that?

in 55, the stock engines had hydraulic lifters anyway.
not sure of the displacement, but i think it was a 265.
actually, you can tell it is a 55 because there is no cast in boss for an oil filter.

if he says its a 350 and was the stock engine in his 55, then he is either just ignorant and dosent know what he's talking about or he is trying to pull something over on you.





and i just read your post and realized that what i said made very little sense.
however, i'm not deleting what i wrote, so there....

It's definitely a 350 if it's a 4-bolt block ... the casting number confirms that.

Well, I bought it... I ran it on the stand to be sure I didn't get screwed before putting it into the car (still not in). I'm gonna change the cam in it. the one it has now is too agressive for what I want. The thing doesn't idle well, it's pretty rouch actually... Its really cool, and If I didn't want to keep the luxury car type thing going, then I'd keep it that way. It sounds like a dragster waiting on the line of a 1/4 mile track. Of course it's probably always going to be loud with the edelbrock headers I've got for it, but I'll tone it down with a set of flowmaster mufflers.

Hold onto the cam anyways. I used to race stock cars on a tight budget, I mean we went to the track broke lots of times. I had a favorite cam, lifters (always solids), rockers, intake, carb, etc that I moved from motor to motor.

I'd pick up a "good" engine from a wrecked car and if it sounded ok and wasn't smoky, we ran it. If we got lucky it would run 6300 RPM and hold together for at least 10 races. Of course we didn't keep up with the 7200 RPM motors but we'd get a top 5 out of it often enough.

Bob

I'm actually considering putting the cam into my '89 GMC if it'll work. That engine always runs high RPMs anyways with the TH400 and 3:42 gears

Back in '77 my brother picked up a '68 Impala fastback that supposedly had a seized up engine. The car was amazingly clean and ended up having a jammed starter drive. We gave it a look on the tow truck, he went under and gave the starter a huge whack with a big hammer. Problem solved, but he did put a new starter in it.

Anyway, we had this Crane Fireball cam laying around, from a friend that upgraded his cam. The Crane cam was installed into the 327 and the car was quite a stormer. Didn't idle worth a dime, but it went like a scalded dog.

Bob

I may be mistaken, but I think:

1969 and newer passenger car heads have accessory holes as that's the first year for the long water pump style brackets which needed holes in the heads (and alternator on passenger side).

1968 and older passenger car heads have no accessory holes, short water pump, and alternator on drivers side.

Corvettes had short short water pumps until?? I'm guessing into the eighties.

PS. One of my buddies has an original 67 ss camaro with 350. He bought it in the early seventies and hasn't drivem it in about 25 years. It's always been garaged though!!

Yes. Corvettes had short (original SBC style) water pumps at least through 1982.

Pete, with 64cc heads and flat top pistons, that engine you bought is 10:1 compression. If it has different pistons in it with any dome at all, you're way into the 11/12:1 compression ratios, so make sure you run premium in it. As far as the heads, I believe 1968 pontiac is correct as to the accessory bolt holes starting in either 69 or 70. The 69-older heads all used gasketed spark plugs, and all 70-up's use tapered seat spark plugs, which may help you in deciphering the year of the engine. It is definitely not the original from the car it was in, as the 350 wasn't produced until 1967.