1953 Roadmaster - severe engine knock

[Hans1965]

Hi old-tank, thanks a lot. I will remove the rocker assembly etc tomorrow evening and make some detailed pictures and measurements (but have no idea how long the rods for a 53 engine must be compared to 56). 

 

I recall that I used some time ago when the engine was hesitant to start some starter spray for maybe 30 seconds. May that have caused some overheating or so? 

 

I went to bed. Already 11.30 pm here. I report back tomorrow. Thanks again. 

[Hans1965]

1 hour ago, avgwarhawk said:

Yes sir, you have some bent push rods.  If I were to guess and I can only guess as I have not experienced this issue, the rods began to bend at one point.  Engine sat awhile and not run.  First start with slightly stuck valves and rods bent to some degree, etc.   Not enough to cause running issues but enough to allow one or two rods to continue to bend until you heard the rapping noise.

 

Please allow Willie and others who have seen this chime in with suggestions.     

You mean the noise is caused by the movement of the rods due to the fact that they are bent and have to much space? Not from the valves? From where I remember the noise it could really come from the push rods. It is not a noise of heavy parts clashing together and really very much from the very upper part of the engine. Thank you for your advice!

Surprisingly I am not depressed from the findings so far,  but happy that I have started to deal with the problem. I want to drive my Roady so desperately! 

[avgwarhawk]

1 minute ago, Hans1965 said:

You mean the noise is caused by the movement of the rods due to the fact that they are bent and have to much space? Not from the valves? From where I remember the noise it could really come from the push rods. It is not a noise of heavy parts clashing together and really very much from the very upper part of the engine. Thank you for your advice!

Surprisingly I am not depressed from the findings so far,  but happy that I have started to deal with the problem. I want to drive my Roady so desperately! 

Yes sir. The rods are now shorter due to bends. Makes tapping noise. Engine does not run well or not at all depending on how many are affected.  

 

Key here is to find the cause.  Pull the rocker assembly so to get a good measurement of a known good unbent push rod. Also pull a lifter that rides the cam that pushes the rod. It simply comes out of the bore it resides.  We need to see the top of the lifter.  Shallow pocket where the push rod sits will tell us its a 56 lifter needing 56 rods. Deep pocket lifter is 53/54 needing a longer rod for that deeper pocket.  Hopefully this is the issue. Mixed rods and lifters between years of manufacturing.  My fear is another rebuild of a head that is treated like a Chevrolet and rebuilt same.  

[Hans1965]

I hope so too! Will do that tomorrow and post pictures and dimensions. The root cause is key, I totally agree. 

 

The good thing here is really I learn a lot, although it seems to be the hard way. 

 

Still wonder what "sticky valves" are. Would they not be totally destroyed by the pistons and the respective cylinder would be dead?

[avgwarhawk]

Sticky valve is just that....stuck in the guide.   Does not move up or down. The lifter is pushed up by the lobe on the camshaft. The lifter then lifts the push rod towards the rocker arm. The rocker arm then opens the valve.  If the valve does not move the weakest link in the process breaks or bends.  Your case the push rods.  

 

Yes, if a valve is stuck in the open position it is possible for the piston to strike it.  

[Hans1965]

Does that mean I need to take off the heads anyway? Or can sticky valves be made movable again? And if so - how?

[Hans1965]

Just found interesting info on nailheadbuick.com:

"

Cylinder Head Info ..

The 53 322 heads and pistons are all by themselves, nothing can be upgraded, it was a bad design, best to use the 54-55-56 heads and pistons (re-balance a must). Many 53’s were upgraded that way in the 50’s by the dealers.
The 54-55-56 heads all have the same castings but different machining and or valve sizes. Casting #’s do not tell you much. The 264 and 322 share the same heads in the same years.. If you have a 54 264-322 always use the larger 55-56 exhaust valves....."

[old-tank]

5 hours ago, Hans1965 said:

Just found interesting info on nailheadbuick.com:

"

Cylinder Head Info ..

The 53 322 heads and pistons are all by themselves, nothing can be upgraded, it was a bad design, best to use the 54-55-56 heads and pistons (re-balance a must). Many 53’s were upgraded that way in the 50’s by the dealers.
The 54-55-56 heads all have the same castings but different machining and or valve sizes. Casting #’s do not tell you much. The 264 and 322 share the same heads in the same years.. If you have a 54 264-322 always use the larger 55-56 exhaust valves....."

This is not your problem.  The 53 engine may not be the best design, but it is still functional.  If you need to start completely over, then consider building a 56 engine.

[Hans1965]

Just took the rocker assembly off. 

Push rods are 8.23 inches long (21 cm), diameter of the rod 0.257 inches (6.5 mm), diameter of the rounded heads 0.26 inches (9.18 mm). Hight of the rounded head ca. 0.245 inches 

Lifters are 2 inches long (5.08 cm), diameter 0.842 inches (2.14 cm), the inner parts are difficult to measure, part the half round hole is slighly larger than the push rod head.  Photos attached : 

Push rod on the left is the least bent (#1), the right one the worst of the right cylinder bank (#3). Not a huge difference but very noticeable on the photos. Lifters from the same location. 

No idea if these are correct for a 53 engine. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Hans1965 (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

Looks to be for a later valve train.  Let Willie take a look. What is curious to me is a lot of the rods are bent to some degree. It would seem the valves were installed incorrectly and it took some run time for the issue to present itself over all of the 16 valves involved.  

[avgwarhawk]

These are the rod comparisons when I had a tap issue.  The top is the 54 push rod I ordered from CARS.  The bottom push rod is what came out of my rebuilt 264.  Willie and I determined my rods in the engine are 56.  The lifter shallow pocket compensated for the shorter length of the 56.   I would say you have 56 cam/push rod/lifters.     

 

    

[Hans1965]

Thanks a lot! Did I get it right, that the 53-55 push rods are slightly longer than the 56, but the lifter design might over compensate that and the combination of rod plus lifter in 56 is longer? Or too long like in my case.  

 

Just looked for the numbers on the heads :

Left   1843840-2

Right 1843840-5

Not sure if that says something about the year. On the block left hand side between exhaust manifold V1712677. 

 

[avgwarhawk]

correct. But it appears yours was rebuilt with 56 parts for the entire valve train like mine was. The problem still looks to be in the heads. Sticky guides, etc.

Edited May 3, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[old-tank]

Those are your original 1953 pushrods, but the lifters are 1956, making the combination too long!

Get some 1956 pushrods

[avgwarhawk]

44 minutes ago, old-tank said:

Those are your original 1953 pushrods, but the lifters are 1956, making the combination too long!

Get some 1956 pushrods

Seems logical to me because all the rods are bent to some degree. If it was just one or two then I'd look at just those for the cause of the bent rod.

Remember to order the intake gaskets.

[1953mack]

6 hours ago, Hans1965 said:

Just took the rocker assembly off . . . Push rods are 8.23 inches long (21 cm) . . . No idea if these are correct for a 53 engine. 

 

2 hours ago, old-tank said:

Those are your original 1953 pushrods, but the lifters are 1956, making the combination too long!

Get some 1956 pushrods

 

1 hour ago, avgwarhawk said:

Seems logical to me because all the rods are bent to some degree. If it was just one or two then I'd look at just those for the cause of the bent rod.

Remember to order the intake gaskets.

 

Hans,

♦  Your 8.23" long push rods are not correct for your 1953 Buick V8 engine.

♦  According to your measurement, you already have shorter push rods (1956 Buick length?) than the OE 1953-1955 Buick V8 push rods (Group 0.426, Part #1343359) that are a nominal 8 3/8" (8.375") long.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

[Hans1965]

Am I right,  you are now leading me into different directions? It looks like the combo of rod + lifter is too long, but:

 

Old-tank: 53 push rods + 56 lifters currently installed -> keep the correct 53 push rod size, buy new (shorter) 53 lifters 

 

Al: not 53, possibly 56 (shorter) push rods installed + ? lifters -> buy (longer) 53 rods, keep the lifters?

 

Cannot put these comments together in my 5 a.m. in the morning brain. That seems to be contradictory to me, but maybe something else is wrong on top of that.  

I wonder if the heads on my car are 53 or possibly later model heads.

 

 

 

 

[avgwarhawk]

10 hours ago, Hans1965 said:

Am I right,  you are now leading me into different directions? It looks like the combo of rod + lifter is too long, but:

 

Old-tank: 53 push rods + 56 lifters currently installed -> keep the correct 53 push rod size, buy new (shorter) 53 lifters 

 

Al: not 53, possibly 56 (shorter) push rods installed + ? lifters -> buy (longer) 53 rods, keep the lifters?

 

Cannot put these comments together in my 5 a.m. in the morning brain. That seems to be contradictory to me, but maybe something else is wrong on top of that.  

I wonder if the heads on my car are 53 or possibly later model heads.

 

 

 

 

 

The way I read Old tanks:

 

You currently have 1956 hydraulic lifters with a shallow pocket. These hydraulic lifters accommodate a shorter push rod.   The push rods you have are 1953 that are too long for the 1956 lifters installed in your engine. 

 

 

But, Al threw a wrench in the gears!  I'm not sure at this point. 

 

   

Edited May 4, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

10 hours ago, 1953mack said:

 

 

 

Hans,

♦  Your 8.23" long push rods are not correct for your 1953 Buick V8 engine.

♦  According to your measurement, you already have shorter push rods (1956 Buick length?) than the OE 1953-1955 Buick V8 push rods (Group 0.426, Part #1343359) that are a nominal 8 3/8" (8.375") long.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

 

 

Question for me is where did the incorrect push rods come from?    The rods look OE.  

[Hans1965]

I mixed it up, sorry! But still not consistent to me!

 

Old-tank: 53 push rods + 56 lifters currently installed -> buy new shorter 56 push rods, keep 56 lifters 

 

Al: not 53, possibly 56 (shorter) push rods installed + ? lifters -> buy (longer) 53 rods, keep the lifters

[old-tank]

56 lifters + 56 pushrods will give the same overall length as 53 lifters + 53 pushrods.  You need new pushrods:  buy 56 pushrods.

Post the engine number and head casting number...you may already have a later 322.

In the meantime apply penetrating fluid to the valve stem/valve guide interface daily and then light oil before starting in case there are sticking valves.

[60FlatTop]

Better pop the heads off. It is hard to believe "sticky" valves could be that sticky. The sticky valve I have seen are the ones that were open after years of sitting and had the stems coated with rusty scale.

You are only a few bolts away.

 

And once you drain the oil, the oil pan is just an inspection cover. Do some empirical data collection.

Bernie

[avgwarhawk]

12 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

Better pop the heads off. It is hard to believe "sticky" valves could be that sticky. The sticky valve I have seen are the ones that were open after years of sitting and had the stems coated with rusty scale.

You are only a few bolts away.

 

And once you drain the oil, the oil pan is just an inspection cover. Do some empirical data collection.

Bernie

 

 

The odd thing here is the engine was running ok from my understanding.  It developed a tap after increasing the RPM.   First post there is a link to a video of the offending noise.  Hans pulls the intake to discover several bent push rods.  Not just one or two.  It seems odd that all would bend to some degree.   For me it appears the rods are to long for the lifters that are installed. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

18 hours ago, Hans1965 said:

Just looked for the numbers on the heads :

Left   1843840-2

Right 1843840-5

Not sure if that says something about the year. On the block left hand side between exhaust manifold V1712677. 

Just called a few parts companies for the push rods. They insist they are all the same length 53-56 (20.95 cm, close to my 21 cm). One guy even got angry with me when I said it is not correct!!!! 

One more question,  is the diameter of a 56 push rod the same as of 53? 

 

Still worry about Al's comment. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Hans1965 (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

11 minutes ago, Hans1965 said:

Just called a few parts companies for the push rods. They insist they are all the same length 53-56 (20.95 cm, close to my 21 cm). One guy even got angry with me when I said it is not correct!!!! 

One more question,  is the diameter of a 56 push rod the same as of 53? 

 

Still worry about Al's comment. 

 

 

Sure...the rods on their shelves are all the same.  We find that they are not.  Reference my picture above.  Definitely different and I can only wonder what would happen if I installed the longer 54 rod with the 56 lifter.

 

    

[Hans1965]

They all looked in their computers in US catalogues.

But that might be the reason why the wrong rods are on my car. That in some parts catalogues rods for 53-56 are all the same and the rebuilder of the engine did not know. 

[avgwarhawk]

4 minutes ago, Hans1965 said:

They all looked in their computers in US catalogues.

But that might be the reason why the wrong rods are on my car. That in some parts catalogues rods for 53-56 are all the same and the rebuilder of the engine did not know. 

 

This is what I experienced.  My rebuild has a 56 cam/rods and lifters. I drive a 54!   However, I think I got a 54 push rod(to keep on hand) from CARS.  Glad I did because  on a whim I looked at the length of the 54 rod I purchased with the rod I pulled from my engine.   Different lengths!       

[Hans1965]

Amazing! But what kind of problem did your car develop with the too short rod/lifter combo? A tapping noise out of the valve cover area as well? 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Hans1965 (see edit history)

[Beemon]

14 minutes ago, avgwarhawk said:

 

This is what I experienced.  My rebuild has a 56 cam/rods and lifters. I drive a 54!   However, I think I got a 54 push rod(to keep on hand) from CARS.  Glad I did because  on a whim I looked at the length of the 54 rod I purchased with the rod I pulled from my engine.   Different lengths!       

Did you also change the gear on your distributor to the same material as the 56 cam, by chance? If I recall, one is forged and the other is cast and mixing them is recipe for disaster, as well.

[avgwarhawk]

18 minutes ago, Hans1965 said:

Amazing! But what kind of problem did your car develop with the too short rod/lifter combo? A tapping noise out of the valve cover area as well? 

 

The rod/lifter combo is fine in my car.  It is all 56 parts.  My tap was not related to the lifters or rods.  It was a valve problem,   I first experienced smoking at the tailpipe that progressively got worse.  Then a tap in the head similar to yours.   I though a lifter went bad.  Replaced the lifters in the area of the noise.  No change.  Ended up replacing all the lifters.  No change.  Looked at the rods.  All were straight.  Compared the rods in the engine to the rod I had on hand for a 54.  Different!  Found that I had 56 rods and lifters used in the rebuild.  

 

Anyway, the tapping was a failed hardened valve seat installed by the rebuilder.  Not good. Not needed in a hailhead head.  I had  replacements rebuilt correctly.  Reused the 56 lifters and rods.  Runs fine.           

Edited May 4, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

11 minutes ago, Beemon said:

Did you also change the gear on your distributor to the same material as the 56 cam, by chance? If I recall, one is forged and the other is cast and mixing them is recipe for disaster, as well.

 

I believe the gear on the distributor is not changed.  I have over 10k miles on the rebuild.  Other than the failed incorrectly installed hardened valve seat there has been no issues.  Runs great.    

Edited May 4, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

So finally you had solved that problem. Congratulations! I would not wonder that at the end in my case it is a valve problem with a hardened seat as well. No idea if such were built in. 

[avgwarhawk]

I went to the CARS website.  I looked up push rods for our Buicks.  53-55 have the same part #.   The part# changes in 56.   I would image because the length was changed.  If your lifters are in fact 56 then you need 56 rods as Willie stated.  

[avgwarhawk]

Hans,

 

Check this link below.  It explains in detail the differences in the lifters. 

 

     https://www.hometownbuick.com/1956-buick-engine-maintenance/

Edited May 4, 2017 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[old-tank]

9 hours ago, Beemon said:

Did you also change the gear on your distributor to the same material as the 56 cam, by chance? If I recall, one is forged and the other is cast and mixing them is recipe for disaster, as well.

In theory there should be a problem with compatibility, but in practice there apparently is not a problem.  Maybe it is the superior lubricants available now.

Edited May 5, 2017 by old-tank (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

6 hours ago, old-tank said:

56 lifters + 56 pushrods will give the same overall length as 53 lifters + 53 pushrods.  You need new pushrods:  buy 56 pushrods.

Post the engine number and head casting number...you may already have a later 322.

In the meantime apply penetrating fluid to the valve stem/valve guide interface daily and then light oil before starting in case there are sticking valves.

 

Hi old-tank, do I  have a later 322 of 1953? And if so what is the  consequence? I will certainly buy the 56 rods. Thanks a lot!

[old-tank]

45 minutes ago, Hans1965 said:

 

Hi old-tank, do I  have a later 322 of 1953? And if so what is the  consequence? I will certainly buy the 56 rods. Thanks a lot!

Post the engine number and head casting number to find out if you have a later engine.  Any later engine will be better than and look like a 53:  more power and internal parts are more available. (the 53 is not a bad engine, and will serve you well ...the later ones were just better)

[1953mack]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:03 PM, Hans1965 said:

 . . . Just looked for the numbers on the heads :

Left   1843840-2

Right 1843840-5

Not sure if that says something about the year. On the block left hand side between exhaust manifold V1712677. 

 

 

Hans,

♦  The casting number for the cylinder head is actually 1343840 . . . not 1843840. It's an original 1953 Buick casting number for a  322 c.i. V8 engine cylinder head with 1.75" ø intake valves and the smaller 1.25" ø exhaust valves.

♦  Your Engine Serial Number falls within the range for a June-built 1953 Buick 322 c.i. V8 engine originally installed in a 70-Series Roadmaster. 1953 engine blocks were the only year for the 1"x1" access hole for ignition timing purposes.

 

Are you considering replacing your 8.23" long push rods with the same nominal length push rod for a 1956 Buick V8 engine without determining what caused them to bend? IMHO you might want to do a thorough inspection on your 'rebuilt' engine before spending any more euros. OE 1953 Buick pistons were a one-year only design and it would be interesting to see what the rebuilder used, whether the block was decked or the heads shaved, deck clearances, etc. The top end sounds suspicious to me. Good luck.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint" 

 

Edit:  1953-1954 Buick V8 engine owners prefer the 1955-1956 cylinder heads due to the larger 1.375" ø exhaust valves. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by 1953mack (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

On Friday, May 05, 2017 at 1:38 AM, 1953mack said:

 

 

"Are you considering replacing your 8.23" long push rods with the same nominal length push rod for a 1956 Buick V8 engine without determining what caused them to bend? IMHO you might want to do a thorough inspection on your 'rebuilt' engine before spending any more euros. OE 1953 Buick pistons were a one-year only design and it would be interesting to see what the rebuilder used, whether the block was decked or the heads shaved, deck clearances, etc. The top end sounds suspicious to me. Good luck.

 

Hi Al, thanks for the identification! Appreciate that!

 

I have just learned that the 56 push rods are slightly shorter than the 53-55.

My understanding is that the "53 push rod + 53 lifter" and the "56 push rod  (shorter than 53) + 56 lifter (longer than 53)" works. So on my car I need to replace the too long push rods (cause of the clapping noise) against 56 push rods that fit to the 56 lifters I have in the car. (Or I do all in 53 style).

 

Al, you are commenting that I have already shorter push rods than for '53 in the car which already could be for '56? Due to the fact that they are dent in my car it seems the already shorter ones are still too long. That is really confusing to me! 

 

My plan would be to change the too long rods, try to loosen the valves by oil and try first. If this is not eliminating the noise and make it run smoother I would take off the heads. I completely understand your comment and I assume sooner or later I have to explore the block and check what is built in. But I am just too much a rookie and to mess up this original engine would be a tragedy. Unfortunately I have no other Buick engine to start with and learn. So I better go step by step only for now. Probably it is not rocket science, but I have a lot of respect. 50th anniversary in 1953 means already 50 years of engineering and thought process and if I just start dismantle it I would not really know what I am doing....

 

Thanks for your help! Appreciate every comment. 

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Hans1965
Correction (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

22 hours ago, Hans1965 said:

Probably it is not rocket science

It's harder than rocket science. No reciprocating parts in a rocket. And that is what's messed up in yours. Once you fix it you will be looking down your nose at those mere rocket scientists.

 

A friend of mine and I used to have dinner at the same restaurant every Tuesday night. The young waitress had overheard our conversations many times over a few months. Finally, she asked us "Are you guys really rocket scientists?" We laughed and I told her no, we do hard stuff.

Bernie

Edited May 6, 2017 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)