I installed an isky roller cam, roller rockers, roller lifters into my '63 430 (bored.60 over). I saw a post on another forum that stated interference issues with cylinders 3,4 lifters hitting the valley pan baffle. Has anyone any knowledge of this ? My next question is with this is are the stock spirngs acceptable for this cam (.505 lift), knowing that this motor isn't going above 5000 rpm? Are there other pitfalls to my project before I have the motor installed? Thanks, Lincparts

Have run this setup and had no problems. Use bb chevy valve springs and good retainers. With a tri power set up and decent electronic ignition set at 33 degrees total and it should catch RPM real quick.

.....the orig. lift is about 0.411" max I think. Add all the years these springs have worked and you'll get an idea how likely these tired ones will invite valve flow on a 0.5" lift cam. I don't kmow about the Chevy springs, just make sure your springs arte good for the 0,5" lift.

You must slightly relieve the pan where those lifters hit (if they do on your application).

If using an ISKY roller, one can also use FE roller LIFTERS (aftermarket) and springs. Also, FE adjustable rocker arms and solid lifter rocker arm shafts. Check springs for bind according to lift of cam.

I have installed roller lifters,roller rockers, custom pushrods and such, just didn't get to the springs, so i guess new springs in order. How will i know if i have interference with the vally pan without firing up motor? I dont have the intake on yet and don't want to remove it after install.

...the engine while observing any tappet interference with the baffle. There is an earlier post here regarding this. I believe the poster only had contact on two cylinders.

Hey guys,,,,I need help. I have a NOS Isky 5 cycle roller cam for a 58-60 430. I also have a 63 430 engine. I intended to use the cam in the engine. However, I now know that the bearing journals on the cams are different sizes between the 58-60 and the 61-66 models. On the 58-60 models the journals were all the same size (2.265). On the 61-66 models the journals were stepped down in size from front to back. What to do, what to do? Thanks for any help

The very first production camshafts (before 12/57) had same size journals. They then went to stepped sized journals as MEL had a lot of engineering troubles with the valvetrain and it took them a few months to correct them.

You must have a very early cam design meant to fit the very early blocks. I would suggest having the cam journals turned down to fit the later cam bearings.

Let us know how this comes out.

Thanks for the response. A little background on my MEL experience. We ran the 430 Lincoln engine in our dragsters and coupes as early as late 1959 and as late as 1965. Our first engine came out a a totaled 1958 Mercury station wagon. We used Isky cams almost exclusively. That was back when Isky, under the old mans operating skills and personality, was a real cam grinder and a real hot rodder. Today, under Isky Jr. is another story altogether. That being said, here's my story.
To my knowledge, we used 58, 59, 60 blocks out of Mercury's and Lincolns. Some were 383 blocks and some were 430 blocks, but all were the same blocks. As I said, our first engine was a 58 Mercury 430. Our second block came out of a 59 Lincoln. We were in Amarillo, TX at the big AHRA races there and broke. We went to the junk yard a jerked an engine out of a 59 Lincoln. Worked all night installing the racing junk. Our third engine came out of a 60 Lincoln. All year models had to have the same size cam bearing journals. I am sure of this because we were able to switch the cam back and forth between year models with no issues. I know that we never used a later model than 1960, because in mid 1960, my dad had a very serious accident in the dragster and it took a long time to recover and to build our first AA/F coupe. We used the same engine out of the dragster and it had the 60 Lincoln block. This engine had 540 CI's. I currently have on hand a 1962 Lincoln block and a 1959 Mercury block. Both are 430 CI. I know the years and models because I saw the cars. These blocks have different size cam bearing journals. Hmmmmmmmmm, sounds like a may be screwed!!!!! I could, and will if I have to, use the early Mercury block. I don't want to because there are others differences between the blocks as well such as the bellhousing bolt pattern and the emmisions set up in the block. In addition, there are some modifications required within the oiling system to make the 430 live that I have already completed on the new block. As to the recommendation to grind the early cam journals down to fit the new block,,,can't do that because that is going the wrong way. The newer block has the larger journals. What I need is a set of cross over cam bearings.....like there is such a thing....

I have here a 1958 MERC MAINT MANUAL and the funny thing is it gives only one size journal size on the cam itself but lists different size (progessively) on the actual cam bearings. I also have 1958 TSB's that describe in detail the troubles FORD had with the valvetrain and subsequent fixes.

I am dumbfounded that they would make a cam without different size bearings (to prevent cam walk), but I have no reason to disagree with your description (in fact I appreciate it as I thought only early production cams had all one size journal).

Please let the board know what you decide to do.

Hey thanks for the response. Thanks to Vintakes (John Olsen) I have been saved. He has an identical camshaft for the later 430 (61 to 66) and will trade me even. Now that's a drag racer for ya. I am no expert of course, but I did run these MELS from about 58 to 64 full time and from 64 to 66 part time or so before the army decided they needed me more than AHRA or NHRA. To the best of my knowledge, the MEL's did have a great deal of valve train issues. The very worst parts were the huge valve springs and the long pushrods. I don't think it was the cam walk that caused them to change the bearing sizes. With the bolted on cam gear etc like the FE, cam walk wasn't that bad except to the front. A spring and a button would have stopped that. Racers (like Isky) figured that out real quick and we didn't have much of an issue here. Spring and button,,,no sweat. We were smarter than Ford in those days. I think the reason they changed was that it was almost impossible to install the camshaft, even at the factory. The bearing bore alignment had to be near perfect and you had to be very accurate while trying to put it in. There was nearly zero tolerance available or the cam would not fit. Back in those days, zero tolerance was hard to come by. We spent many a day with a pocket knife and sand paper trying to get the frigging cam into the blocks. Why the hell Ford decided to change the diameter of the bore in the block was a real mistery. Why didn't they just change the inside diamter of each bearing like GM and Chrysler did? Like I said, we were smarter than Ford in those days. We, drag racers, changed to the smaller FE valve springs and went to larger pushrods years before Ford did. I think in 61 Ford changed the valve springs at the same time they changed the heads. Now, having said all that...thanks to Vintakes, I'm good to go.

"Why the hell Ford decided to change the diameter of the bore in the block was a real mistery. Why didn't they just change the inside diamter of each bearing..."

I understand now why the bearing kit is shown graduated in size and the cam journals are not. The actual bores were different sizes and not the bearings.

I wish someone could explain the purpose/rationalization of this. So, the block casting was changed in 1961 to accept a graduated camshaft journal size?

The only tearing down of a MEL I have done is on paper.

Don't leave this forum as you are a plethora of info... :)

Yes, the block was changed in 61. The cam journal bore is stepped as is the journal on the cam. Now ain't that the ****s? However, that was not the only change in the block made in 61. The older engines had a vapor breathing system that ran through the back of the block through a hole, down through the flywheel/clutch area and out the bottom of the engine. This allowed the engine to breath vapors down under the car. The lifter valley cover did not have a breather tube coming out of it like the later models. The 61 to 66 models changed this due to emmisions issues. The breathing was accomplished through a breather tube coming out of the lifter valley cover at the rear to an early type PCV valve to the intake manifold. In addition, they also changed the bellhousing at this time. The older 58 to 60 models were the exact same as the early FE's. Therefore you could swap to a stick shift by using FE stuff. The later models 61 to 66, kept the FE bolt pattern, but the starter position changed. Why? beats the hell outta me. My understanding is that in 65 this changed again. The bolt pattern changed to allow the 460 tranny to fit.

1) Yes, the block was changed in 61. The cam journal bore is stepped as is the journal on the cam.

I know the MPC gave a block change for 63 also and elimintated the lower thermostat useage (but inlets remained).

2) The older engines had a vapor breathing system that ran through the back of the block through a hole, down through the flywheel/clutch area and out the bottom of the engine. This allowed the engine to breath vapors down under the car. The lifter valley cover did not have a breather tube coming out of it like the later models. The 61 to 66 models changed this due to emmisions issues. The breathing was accomplished through a breather tube coming out of the lifter valley cover at the rear to an early type PCV valve to the intake manifold.

Was this first setup a bolted on sheet metal affair, running down the rear of the block? So the external road draft tube was introduced in 1961 (along with PCV in CA I would presume)?

3) In addition, they also changed the bellhousing at this time. The older 58 to 60 models were the exact same as the early FE's. Therefore you could swap to a stick shift by using FE stuff. The later models 61 to 66, kept the FE bolt pattern, but the starter position changed. Why? beats the hell outta me.

So, even though the FE mounting pattern was retained, it would not interchange due to starter mount position?

I wonder if one could use the earlier bell and flywheel?

4) My understanding is that in 65 this changed again. The bolt pattern changed to allow the 460 tranny to fit.

1966 with the 462. The earlier starter mount position will not allow an FE FX or C6 on the 462? I understand now. The 462 did have it's unique C6 66/68 and I believe it was carried over to the 69 460. The later 385 Series (rounded bell) would also fit the 462. The 462 also had a separate external mounting bracket for starter mount.

I wish I could get pictorial evidence of all thses changes. One also needs the MPC for these periods as well as TSB's.

"In addition, they also changed the bellhousing at this time. The older 58 to 60 models were the exact same as the early FE's. Therefore you could swap to a stick shift by using FE stuff. The later models 61 to 66, kept the FE bolt pattern, but the starter position changed."

I bet the starter relocation had something to due with the LINC chassis change (different chassis design) made in 1961 (slab side). Most ownwers complain (LCOC Message Board) of the difficulty of starter R&R on the later models.

This will also explain while the 61/68 430/462 still having the basic FE bell mounting, the FE bell (or convertor housing) will not fit to the later pattern. I wonder if one uses an earlier bell (58/60), the FE manual setup and possibly the FE C6 can be adapted to the later blocks?

This also explains the hesitancy of the manufacturer of the FE/AOD conversion kit claiming MEL fittage.

You learn something everyday regarding MEL power. I thought I had most of it down, but this proves I haven't even scratched the surface.