Logo
FULL SITE MENU

M440 Lifters

N

noelct

Regular Contributor
I have a lifter noise in my M440 that I haven't been able to cure with oil change and witches brew remedies. I am now committed to replace lifters. Question: Is there any difference between automotive 440 lifters and marine? My experience with marine would say no, but I have no crossover experience with 440 auto. Any recommendations for most economical quality brand of lifters. My research showed that "Johnson" was a major manufacturer and supplier to other name brands. I'll likely purchase from a local hot-rod shop, rather than AutoZone type stores. Thanks for help, Noel.
 
I'm not aware of any difference. Make sure you pay attention to the orientation of the rocker shafts and individual rockers. Mark them before disassembly. They will only work correctly if reinstalled correctly. I've seen Summit Racings brand for three bucks a hole and Jegs has Mopar Performance for eight. Do you get what you pay for? Lots to choose from. Don't forget the break in lube. You may also want to check each rockers push rod ball socket and valve tip area as these will be wear areas that will add to valve clatter. Take a good look at all the cam lobes for wear or scuffing.
 
Noel, are your 440 rocker arms adjustable in that you can properly set the cam follower (aka lifter) hydraulic plunger depth?
The goal is to set the plunger at XX distance between full bottom out and full top out.




IOW, new followers may not necessarily cure your issue if the plungers are topping out causing valve stem/rocker arm noise from excessive clearance.

Just a thought!


.
 
Nope. Stock non-adjustable rockers. I'm swapping 'em out this Sat. If I go through effort of removing intake, I'm not going to short-change job by trying to clean or rebuild lifters. One bad apple spoiled the bunch. They all must go. I'm convinced culprit is #8 exhaust. I hear a huff-every few beats, letting excess exhaust out because valve is not opening fully. I'm currently going over my list of tools/supplies to clear out of my garage. I'm doing job on water. Road work like this stinks if you forget something simple like an alignment stud, or hack saw to make a new one.
 
Suggestions:

Run a test/check on your camshaft to eliminate the possibility that the cams may be wearing down... (I.E., flat camshaft).

Install adjustable rocker arms so that you can properly adjust/set the hydraulic cam follower plunger depth.



.
 
RicardoMarine said:
Suggestions:

Run a test/check on your camshaft to eliminate the possibility that the cams may be wearing down... (I.E., flat camshaft).

Install adjustable rocker arms so that you can properly adjust/set the hydraulic cam follower plunger depth.



Why reinvent the wheel? Stock is fine, they are car parts so just go to NAPA and get a set for a 440 Charger or truck and dump them in. Look at the cam while you have them out but 440s don't usually have cam problems like the 454s.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
tolly_family said:
RicardoMarine said:
Install adjustable rocker arms so that you can properly adjust/set the hydraulic cam follower plunger depth.
Click to expand...

Why reinvent the wheel? Stock is fine,
Click to expand...
Dan, here is what I was suggesting:

These are hydraulic cam follows (aka lifters), correct?
The cam follower's internal "plunger" or "piston" has .XXX" distance of usable travel..... correct?
(I do not know what this dimension is for the 440 engine..... it's about .100" for the GM V engines)
Nonetheless, basically all hydraulic flat tappet cam followers function pretty much the same.

Here's a neat little GIF file that shows the plunger travel, how the body is charged with oil, the check-disc function, etc, during one cycling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lorANZ1Tptw
(the GIF gets sticky at one point, so you may need to move your cursor over it a bit)



Chrysler designed their cam followers and their non-adjustable rocker arm system to take this plunger travel into account.
The goal is to place the plunger at mid distance between bottoming out and topping out, as to offer the hydraulic function within this range.

If when all components are assembled, these components (via the push rod) place the plunger at the desired depth (as per Chrysler's engineers), and then ZERO valve stem/rocker arm lash can be achieved...... would you agree?

Now..... what if normal wear, a worn cam, or a change here and there, causes the OEM dimensions to become somewhat out of range?
IOW, if the plunger is now topping out, it may no longer be able to maitain ZERO lash between the valve stem and rocker arm tip..... hense the rocker arm rattle or noise that the OP describes!
New cam followers may not completely solve this issue.

If the non-adjustable system was taken out of the equation in lieu of an adjustable system, the user can now custom adjust the plunger depth for each cam follower.


Just to be clear... there's nothing wrong with the OEM non-adjustable system as long as all factory dimensions are being held.
Ford has used this, Chrysler has used this, and I'm sure that others have also.

Personally, I prefer being able to adjust these.



.
 
Noel asks "Any recommendations for most economical....". IMO, converting this system to adjustable could get into some big dollars for rockers, spacers, special push rods, and possibly rocker shafts, with virtually no performance gain. The only real benefit would be less noise. If the objective was to make up for a worn cam lobe then the cam really needs to be replaced also.
 
daves69 said:
Noel asks "Any recommendations for most economical....". IMO, converting this system to adjustable could get into some big dollars for rockers, spacers, special push rods, and possibly rocker shafts, with virtually no performance gain. The only real benefit would be less noise. If the objective was to make up for a worn cam lobe then the cam really needs to be replaced also.
Click to expand...
Dave, I have no disagreement with you at all. Your points are well taken.
And I fully understand Noel's original question.

My point was.... what if the new cam followers (assuming that the plunger travel is identical to previous ones) do not correct the issue?
Any noise that is produced is a sign of excessive valve stem/rocker arm lash...... (of which is the hydraulic cam follower's job to eliminate in the first place.)
Excessive lash will eventually lead to worn parts.


And BTW, I was not making this suggestion for a performance gain.
 
Swapped out lifters yesterday. Cam lobes look fine. This engine has very few hours. But since it was not rebuilt by me, I have no history of parts used internally.

Anyway, I also found 2 slightly bent push-rods; #1, and #2 exhaust. I had a sudden stop event earlier in season in some real snotty conditions and must have taken in water then.

Engine is straight inboard but I had to plumb water so risers are forward and aim aft because of space constraints. That is why 1 and 2 cylinders saw water, not 7 and 8 as would be in a conventional set-up. (This engine is shoe-horned into my 23' Mako center console.)

The bottom line is she now runs like a Swiss watch, a vibration that I had is also gone, and I have confidence in my work and parts used.

As for making any engine modifications, I have great faith in the engineers and designers at Chrysler who put this robust engine package together. I wouldn't expect those guys to perform my job better than me, nor I doing theirs better than them. ...but if you were running one of those engines with a bow-tie on it, I can see need for aftermarket parts. Now, can we all just play nice. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::):rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
First and foremost.... good for you. :D It's a good feeling when a problem has been solved.

noelct said:
Anyway, I also found 2 slightly bent push-rods; #1, and #2 exhaust.
.......................

That is why 1 and 2 cylinders saw water, not 7 and 8 as would be in a conventional set-up.
Click to expand...
Question:
Initially, which cam followers did you suspect were bad....... by chance were they the ones under the bent push rods?



.
 
Ricardo, No. I initially suspected #8 based on trying to trace by sound - a very difficult way to make accurate diagnosis.

But digging into problem was definitely beneficial. Actually, right now I do not believe that lifters contributed to issue, as I did not see collapsed lifter. But for pennies on the dollar, I have piece of mind for the next time I'm offshore and plan on getting back without incident.

Cheers, Noel.
 
Back
Top