Small block/460 lifters in FE

[chilly460]

Crower had a set of solid flat tappet lifters on clearance for $42 so I snagged them, they're small block/460 lifters which I understand can be run in an FE.  Just double checking that the only thing that needs to be done to run these in an FE is use 5/16" ball and for the lifter, versus 3/8" which was standard for FE? 

[GerryP]

They're also .125" taller at the pushrod seat, so you need to make sure your pushrods will be okay with those lifters.  Many are, but you have to check.

[chilly460]

Thanks, always figure I'll have to check pushrods anyway so just price of doing business.  I do have a good set of Smith Bros that would work in this application so hope to use them when I mock it up. 

[Katz427]

Better do a search. Blair Patrick explained how they don't work. Oil hole in wrong place, on 460 lifters, why Crower makes both 460 AND FE lifters. Blair said will pump the oil pan dry.

[chilly460]

Is it an issue if running solids with restricted lifter galley?

[jayb]

So, here's what I know about this.  The over-oiling issue has to do with the alignment of the oil hole in roller lifters.  On a 429-460 roller lifter the oil hole aligns with the oiling passage running through the lifter bores on the FE block.  This let's way too much oil up to the pushrods.  An FE roller lifter has the oil hole pointed inboards to the center of the block, not aligned with the oil passage.  This allows oil into the lifter through the clearance volume between the lifter body and the lifter bore, not directly from the oil passage.  If your solid flat tappet lifters have an oil hole to feed oil to the pushrod, that might be a problem, because of the oiling issue.  Normal FE solid lifters don't have that oil hole to feed the pushrods, and I don't remember if the 429-460 engines have it or not.

I don't know if this issue is mitigated somewhat with pushrods that don't have an oiling hole.  Obviously, you aren't going to over-oil the top end if your pushrods don't have an oil passage, but the leakage between the lifter and the pushrod at lash could be excessive and still contribute to draining the oil pan. 

I ran into this issue once when I bought some 429 roller lifters by mistake.  After being warned about the issue, I decided to try a pre-oil test with the intake off, to see just how much oil was getting through those lifters.  The first picture below shows the difference between an FE lifter (foreground) and a 429 lifter.  The second picture shows the results of a 3 second pre-oil with the 429 lifters in an FE block.  Yes, it made a huge mess    The picture doesn't show it, but I got 8 thick streams of oil, shooting up to the ceiling in the shop, if I pre-oiled for any more than a few seconds.






I wouldn't take chances on this; if you have oil holes in the top of those 429 lifters, I'd skip those and get some FE lifters.

[frnkeore]

Not all VL48 (302/429) lifters are the same. I use Eaton VL48, light weight solid lifters. They are made by Hy-Lift Johnson. The AT2000 is sometimes advertised as a LW VL48.

The light weight, Eatons have a .063 feed hole, weigh 82.8G and are .055 shorter than the other common 302/429, AT2000 that has a .094 hole and weighs 108G.

If you do the match on the .063 hole (x16), you'll fine that the total adds up to a single hole that is 1/4".

I don't see how the Eaton VL48 could leak enough to cause a problem, with a solid push rod.

See if your lifters are the 82.8G Eaton's, if so, I think you'd be fine.

Posted are my measurements of the two lifters.

[chilly460]

Hmm, did a quick check, these are 110g on my scale.  I'll have to check the oil hole once the house wakes up. 

I'll also check the restriction size drilled in the main lifter feed as that could be relevant as well. 

[blykins]

They will work just fine. 

If you have a Crower Coolface lifter, 66915X980, then it's fine.  I use them all the time in FE's.  As mentioned, the difference will be in the pushrod seat height.  These lifters will work for a Windsor, Cleveland, 385 series, and will work in FE's.

You do NOT want to run a Cleveland/429/460 ROLLER lifter in an FE because they do not spin in the bores and the oil feed hole will line up directly with the lifter feed passage in the block. 

In an FE, the lifter feed passage is drilled through the center of the lifter bore, longitudinally.  In a Cleveland and 385 series, the lifter passage runs longitudinally, but it's on the outside of the lifter bore and hits tangentially to the lifter bore.  On a solid roller lifter, you don't want the oil feed hole directly in the path of the block's oil passage.  That's why if you put an FE lifter in a 460 or a 460 lifter in an FE, you get a mess.