144 with Hydraulic lifters?

[Anonymous]

Hey Guys!

I have a 62 Falcon with a stock 144 and the original Holley 1909. I have the stock solid lifters set with a .012 gap and the engine runs great, but I have that incessant pecking that is driving me nuts, not to mention that the valvetrain is taking a huge pounding from that large of a gap.

I was browsing online the other day, and I ran upon Dennis Carpenter's site and I noticed that he had some hydraulic lifters for sale for a 1963 144 head. Could this be?????!!!!????? Does anyone know if they made a 144 head in 63 with hydraulic lifters, and if so, where can I get my hands on one? I would kill not to have to adjust these solid lifters again!!!!!

Help,
Sam78

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Sam,

I don't have any answers to your questions but I don't know
of any reason you can't put a hydraulic cam and lifters in a
144 and still use your adjustable rocker assembly. I've read
that the 144 distributor is unique to that engine but I believe
the gear diameter is the same as other engines in this
family making it compatible with any cam. As far as just
putting hydraulic lifters on your solid cam, I don't think that's
advisable due to lobe profile differences between solid and
hydraulic cams.

On a side note, I run a pretty stout solid cam in a 200 and it
is amazingly quiet with .024" lash. .012" is pretty close to
factory spec. isn't it? Running out of space, bye for now!

 

[Anonymous]

The reason you can't run hydraulic lifters in a 144 is that the oil passages in the block are different than in the later hydraulic cam engines.

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the clarification ElRanchero,
I thought all 144's were solid lifters but assumed the oil passage was
still running through the lifter bores. Looking through an S.B.I. catalog
( they primarily sell valve train parts), it seems that they did have
hydraulic lifter versions of the 144 in '63 and '64 based on the valve
spring options they list but I don't know for sure. I'll bet Urk62 would
appreciate confirmation from some of the more enlightened members.

Take care,
Ron.

 

[Anonymous]

There may have been some hydraulic 144s built in 63 and 64, but why bother? If you're dead set on running a hydraulic cam, you would be best off buying a later 200 block and building that. Its hard to tell the difference between 144s and 170s, the only real difference being crankshaft stroke.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys,

El Ranchero-
Yes, the stock clearance is .016, but when I set it at that, it sounded like a diesel. I bought this car from a guy who rebuilt the motor and immediately I thought it sounded funny. It had a strange lop at idle. I pulled the valve cover and all the valves were set to zero lash. So, I readjusted them and found the .012 to be the best between pecking like crazy and not pecking at all. How is yours still running with a stock solid cam and a .024 valve lash? If I did that to mine, I seriously think that'd be risking burning a valve from not opening enough. I'd be willing to try a couple of options, including that for a few minutes, just to see, but shew....that's a large gap.

And getting rid of my 144 with 33mpg is out of the question. EVER.

Bus station -

Is it possible to put hydraulic lifters in my current head or would I need to change the entire head and the cam to gain the benefit of hydraulics? If I can use my existing head, get the lifter assemblies from SBI, and maybe change my cam, that would be the better way to go, wouldn't it?

Thanks,

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Urk,
The cylinder head has little or nothing to do with what kind of cam
you can use unless you're trying to use an aftermarket performance
cam. Then you face issues like picking correct springs and making sure
there is enough spring travel and retainer to valve seal clearance for
the extra valve lift. This is not a concern with factory spec. cams.
However, the solid cam does use a different spring than the hydraulic.
I'd have to do a little research to see if you could get away with your
springs. That being said: if "El" is right and there is no oil passage
feeding the lifter bores in the block then you could not use hyd. lifters
for two reasons. 1: no oil to make them work and 2: incompatability
with solid cam lobes. Your excessive noise may be rocker arm/ shaft
wear?
By the way, it was me running .024" lash and that is with a fairly
radical Crane solid cam. Maybe my lash caps make it quieter :

 

[Anonymous]

I'm running a Racer Brown solid cam, set at .008 in the intakes and .018 on the exhausts. You should expect SOME noise out of a solid cam, but if its excessive, you may have rocker arm oiling problems. 33 MPG is nice, but I know plenty of guys running 200s that are getting close to 30, (albeit with the help of a 5 speed...). Check out your rocker shaft oiling, and if that turns up nothing, start hunting for a post 64 block to rebuild, which will let you use a hydraulic cam.

 

[mustang6]

If I did that to mine, I seriously think that'd be risking burning a valve from not opening enough.

Keeping a valve CLOSED too long will not burn them, your engine will just lose power- it's like having a smaller cam. Keeping a valve OPEN too long (especially an exhaust valve) will burn them. I'd be most concerned that when you got the car the engine was at zero lash- as things get hot that expands slightly and then valves don't fully seat and that's when you'll burn them. If it were me I would do a compression test to confirm you still have good valve sealing (although if you had a burnt valve I doubt you'd be getting 33 MPG).