rebuilding LS6 for chevelle
 

Original LS6 carin my car is tired pulled it to bring in for rebuild. my engine builder is trying to steer me toward a hydraulic roller . Someone along the way put a flat tappet hydraulic lifter cam. I drive the car maybe 2-300 miles a year Id like to go to a solid roller to be more correct but hes really trying to steer me toward hydaulic just getting others thoughts

If you don't plan to twist the engine to it's limits, I would go with the hydraulic roller in a heartbeat. Less maintenance for you and just as reliable. The hydraulics would still work fine at 6,500 anyway...:grin:

I’m in the process of rebuilding my 1969 L89 and I’m going to go with a hydraulic roller.
I’m going to follow One Stop Restoration’s advice and go with Erson Cams.

I just love a good flat tappet solid. Be careful with a solid roller on the street. Some of them don't do well. I had one in my car for a few years and I got tired of replacing distributor gears and the rollers in the lifters were going bad.

Just remember, it's YOUR decision. Don't let someone talk you into something that you don't really want.

A flat tappet solid should be no problem. The engine builder needs to check for proper rotation of the lifter in the bore to begin with. EDM lifters have improved the landscape of the flat tappet discussion significantly.

My parting thought on the conversation is this......
These are getting to be very expensive cars. I myself, want the car to be authentic. That includes the sound of solids.:dunno:

Flat tappet cams have been an issue for many years now but I would try and find one of the few people that are grinding their own cams. There are names out there that can be trusted who are making good cams right now but don't use any of the major cam manufactures as I have had no luck with any of them. The solid lifter sound is what makes the LS6 Chevelle stand out. Quieting that cam ruins it for me. Like taking the whine out of an M22 or the sound of an Rolls Royce Merlin. Silence it and its just another engine.

Get a GM NOS LS6 cam.

Don't know if there are any left out there, but a close second to NOS, would be an NOS Federal Mogul cam made in the last 15 years.

Believe it or not, I bought a FM LT-1 Cam and Lifters from RockAuto in 2012. It has performed flawlessly even though I seldom drive the car. I did not use EDM lifters. I used the FM lifters that came with the cam. Use a half bottle of GM EOS with each oil change.

I have checked the lash multiple times, and have never had to adjust since initial break in.

I use a hydraulic roller on all the daily driver engines I build, but the sound of the LT-1 blows everyone away. I have another LT-1 FM camshaft that will go in my 70 Corvette LT-1 when I put it together.

If using a flat tappet cam, just don't go nuts with spring pressure.

Interesting discussion from 2013. Don't know how one would verify everything stated.

Camshaft Machine Company (CMC) located in Jackson, Michigan was established in 1942 and is probably the largest designer and manufacturer of automotive camshafts in the world. CMC produces cams for GM, Ford, Chrysler, Comp Cams, Lunati, Edlebrock, Crane, Wolverine and many others.

Most (but not all) of the automotive camshafts produced today are produced at one of the Big Three cam manufacturers all located in Michigan. CMC of Jackson, MI., Engine Power Components (EPC) of Muskegon, MI., and Waver Bartel Cam Company, of Grand Haven, MI.

CMC purchased Wolverine approximately 1990/1991.

Crane Cams purchased CMC around 1995 and Wolverine was included in this purchase. During this period Crane owned both Wolverine and CMC.

Crane sold CMC to Federal Mogul about April or May of 1999. Crane did not sell Wolverine to Federal Mogul and Crane still owns Wolverine. Federal Mogul also owns the Waver Martel Cam Company.

CMC was the OEM supplier for most of the muscle car cams for GM, Ford, Chrysler and others back in the muscle car era. This included the infamous 9779067, 9779068, 9779041 etc. CMC currently supplies many cams to the OEM manufacturers and holds copyrights for many OEM grinds. If you purchase a Pontiac original muscle car grind like the 068 for an example, no matter whom you purchase it from it will be made by CMC.

Another interesting tid bit is that some time prior to 1990 when Crane and Wolverine were competitors Crane developed their own version of the Pontiac 9779068 (and maybe others) but advertised it as a computer enhanced version and not an exact duplicate. The reason that Crane did not produce an exact duplicate is because CMC still holds copyrights to this cam and many others.

Wolverine does not have their own cam grinding shop. CMC supplies most of the grinds to Wolverine. Crane also grinds some of Wolverine cams.

Even though Crane has their own cam grinding shop CMC still grinds some of the cams sold under the Crane name. Crane currently has the contract for the Summit brand cams. Crane also grinds some cams sold under the Wolverine name. Those Summit cams could be produced by CMC or Crane, hence the rumored Wolverine Summit connection.

It has been rumored that Crane makes all Wolverine Cams and this is not true. Most of the cams sold under the Wolverine name are produced by CMC. It is true that a small percentage of cams sold under the Wolverine name are produced at the Crane manufacturing facility. To complicate things further it seems that certain grinds could be purchased under the Crane or Wolverine name that are the exact same grind, and CMC or Crane depending on the grind could have produced the cam.

It’s interesting that most people have not heard of CMC, EPC, or Waver Bartel even though they have been around for a very long time, longer than a lot of us have.

Not much will change now that Federal Mogul owns CMC. They will still produce the same cams and will pretty much supply them to the same customers sold under various nameplates. Federal Mogul recently acquired the TRW automotive products division also. The infamous TRW forged pistons that are so popular with we Pontiac folks are still produced at the same factory as when they were owned by TRW. Federal mogul also now owns seal Power. Federal Mogul also purchased the Clevite Bearing company. This gave Federal Mogul an almost airtight grip on the automotive bearing industry. This created an unfair marketing advantage and the Federal trade Commission (FTC) required Federal Mogul to sell Clevite, which they have done.

So the next time you buy your new Comp Cams, Lunati, Ultradyne, Iskenderian, Engle, or other cam there is a good chance it was actually made in Michigan at one of the top three cam makers. What the cam companies do is have their proprietary grinds (design, lob profile etc.) and have them ground by one of the big three. Very few cams are actually ground by a name brand cam company, Crane is one exception but they don’t grind all of theirs either.

My builder won’t even use flat tappet hes been building motors for some high end mustang people for a few years and has had to tear down and rebuild quite a few. He’s specifically not used comp in a few years on any build for that reason. I guess I need to either find an nos piece if I want to keep it authentic.

Talk to BTR , Brian Tooley Racing in Bardstown, Ky.. I put one of their camshafts in a 5.3 LS engine and so far no issues. Pretty sure they are grinding their own camshafts. Not sure if they’re into BB Chevy stuff.

Like Rick said: "The solid lifter sound is what makes the LS6 Chevelle stand out. Quieting that cam ruins it for me. Like taking the whine out of an M22 or the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin. Silence it and it’s just another engine."

My last NOS LS-7 crate engine ate a NOS solid LS-6 camshaft due to excessive valve spring pressure on the new GM Aluminum heads I used on it. I then installed a Comp Cams hydraulic roller, and it never was the same, performance nor sound. Bill

Is Crane still in business? Seems like I heard Comp bought them out. I know their restoration blueprint cam business is gone. i bought a LT-1 cam https://www.summitracing.com/parts/crn-110951/overview
in 2016 and it has the CMC logo and "Proferall" cast into it. Said it was Made in the USA. Hopefully it is the good stuff.

How many miles are on the original cam/lifters? I would most likely reuse what you have.

If you had to send out the current lifters for a recrown/polish.

I've had a high frequency hearing loss since infancy, so I have never, truly, heard a solid lifter camed engine. I could hear certain levels of ticking when I was younger, but that deteriorated over time and they all sound alike to me now anyway...:frown:

Look at a Crower solid roller,they use a large lash that sounds like the old school solids.

The cost is not that much more, and dam near 100* you will not have to remove it on the same weekend you fire it up.

I’m also a big fan of the clattering of a solid lifter car., I’d do anything I could to run at least a solid roller as it’s the easiest to do the initial startup but if you can find a good solid flat tappet solid lifter supplier, I’d try that route.

I spoke to one engine builder and he ONLY uses USA made Johnson Lifters for his builds…..but it looks like they only make roller lifters. So if you decide to go with a solid roller, maybe check them out.

Kurt

yeah im aware ive just been using this family to build motors for over 20 years and hes never steered me wrong. this is the first stock motor hes done everything has always been improved over stock

I responded to a thread here not long ago explaining the issues with most cam failures these days but no one seemed responsive ??
Oh and I work at BTR and do all the custom cam work as well as run the Spintron and engine dyno from time to time when help is needed .
We are grinding cams inhouse but aren't doing anything BB although I spec and have them ground for customers all the time
Nick E.

Here’s the thread from 10/23 w/ comments as Pg.#2 Post 14 and on…
https://www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?t=177064

:beers:
~ Pete

.

Nick, i’m glad you posted here. I was looking for your other post you mentioned to ad to this thread. it’s one of the main reason these problems exist in flat tap at cams. Deviating from the cam core shape when changing centerlines and lobe shapes making hardness treatment very thin in some areas.

If you can find that post it’s worth reposting here. It’s very insightful and worth reading. thanks, Rob.

Nick’s post:
The issue IMO is more to do with insufficient case hardened depth on the cam cores being used. The issue is when the case depth on the nose isn't enough and this is magnified because of spring psi being highest at over the nose of the cam, than on the base circle of the cam .
Certain companies use the same UGL( unground lobe ) cam cores for a multitude of cam valve events, pt numbers , etc . The issue lies in that you harden the lobes during heat treat, but when you try to cut the more than one cam profile, using multiple centerlines or lobe lift( base circle) on the same core ,you end up grinding away too much or even going through the heat treat in some spots.
If the use a specialty UGL for each specific cam then the case depth is set at XX mm of what it needs and you after final grinding you are left with sufficient heat treat depth.
We see it all the time here .
Thanks

Best post I've seen on this subject. On the subject of sound, I even wanted forged pistons in the 350 Chevy motor I put in my CJ5 because of the noise. Solid lifters, a cam lope, intake whoop, an M22 whine, the list goes on. Without it, you could be driving anything, and I'd rather stay home.

Sounds like me back in highschool except I also added a Pete Jackson gear drive to my LT-1 to really make some noise.