I think I know the answer to this but thought I would check.
Does rod bearing orientation matter in terms of the larger bearing chamfer with respect to large radius side of rod/crank or towards rod center?
 I don't think I paid attention to this when I first assembled engine a few years ago.  I noticed 6 bearings had a larger chamfer on the side closest to the registration tab and 10 were the other way on the removed set from the old days.  The new set of bearings appears to be 8 larger chamfers closest to registration key and 8 on opposite side, so technically I can install them as top and bottom sets so to speak with larger radius towards crank in all cases or towards center.  Wondering it if really matters though, I have plenty of side play either way so no interefence sideways.  Preference for oiling or ?
Just curious.  Thanks.

Since I had trash in my oil from my crank thrust bearing wear issue I am wondering if there is a way to flush Morel lifters?
I don't think you can take them apart as the pushrod seat will not clear the rivet.

I can rotate the seat pretty easily but takes a lot of force to compress, do not have a great way to test ease of and free travel so to speak to make sure they are not sticky for some reason.

Thanks.

What am I doing wrong?
I'm logged in and do not see any paper clips or images, links are there.

Not having much if any experience in evaluating bearing and cylinder surfaces what do you all think about what you see here?
There are some minor scratches on cylinder walls, there is only one (shown in picture) where I can barely catch the edge with a finger nail, looks worse in image than it is I think.
All others are not detectable by hand, Can I just clean this all up and run with new bearings or ?
Cam bearings look like new to me, rods also look good to me but will replace rods and mains for good measure.
I know it is hard to tell in images but everything is super smooth save that one scratch, while there is obviously something there on most surfaces I can not feel it in all other cases.
Thanks again for all of the help, will try and post rod bearing pictures tonight.
By the way engine has ~3k miles on it, some of them pretty hard.

Ring is on trans side, you are looking at flywheel and ring from trans side so not a spacer between crank and flywheel, just a doubler but that doubling pushes bolts farther back and they contact center of converter.  The indent if you will in flex plate is towards trans as well which I think is proper.  Aftermarket flex plate, do not recall manuf..

Fyi, this is a C6 in a 65, 65's normally had green dot trans, 66 tbirds did have c6 though, so new trans, converter, and flex plate combination tied to scat crank.

If converter is bolted hard to flywheel anyways, just makes contact in different area, looking to understand dynamics of the failure, this setup was just worse case for being able to handle any balloning or something else or ?

Is this where a flex plate gets its name? converter pushes on outer diameter of plate, plate absorbs some of that by deflecting and less load on crank then or ?

Sorry for miilion questions, trying to learn and not make same mistake twice.

Thanks.

The fun begins.  Pictures will tell most of the story but still need some help on root cause.
Trans side of main thrust bearing is toast, worn into what I suspect is a steel backing material.
This looks to be the source of that shaved off piece of steel, see image for similar piece of flash still stuck to bearing.
Unfortunately there is a deep groove worn into that side of crank thrust surface.  Is this crank toast?
No evidence of flywheel bolts touching back side of engine but torque converter to flywheel interface may be where my problem lies.  It looks like flywheel bolt heads bottomed out on center part of converter so there was no contact between flywheel and converter on the raised ring or at the outer ears of converter.  This is where I need the collective experience here to guide me.  I feel like the center of the converter is most prone to ballooning and expansion so since I did not have any clearance there even thoough I had overall converter movement/clearance installed, say .1"  that is not enough in this condition?  Wondering if I was not supposed to use the doubler ring when installing afttermarket flywheel?  The doubler thickness is surely enough to have caused flywheel bolt heads to protrude enough on converter side to bottom out in center before perimeter was seated.  Have not check all bearings yet, obviously the motor had trash in it, what I can see of cylinder walls looks good so far, main bearing of course shows some wear as that is where teh concentration of debris would have been, more to come on that front.  What do you all think?

I know I was aware of flywheel bolt length when I assembled, can't get eyes on that until I seperate trans..
(only motor is coming out at this point and have not gotten there yet)

I did try and measure torque convertor clearance, rough estimate is .160" of convertor travel before it bottoms out in trans when crank is pulled all the way forward and .1" of travel when crank is all the way back, this is indicaiting roughly a 60/70 thou. crank runout, hard to get a great # while in car.  Of course no way to know which side is worn yet so not sure what nominal crank posiiton is wrt the convertor clearance.

In the worst case crank all the way back scenario is that .1" enough torque convertor clearance?  I am guessing I do run a lot of trans pressure, harding shifting C6 from Broader, have made probably 50 to 75 informal 1/8 miles with it, redlinging at ~5600 to 6000 rpm.

For now, is there anything else I can/should observe/measure before I seperate motor from trans?
Maybe I'll try and lift motor just enough to get pan off while still in vehicle so I can get a bottom side view.

Thanks.