toddalin

I am thing of replacing the valve springs with the conical valve springs offered by Comp Cams. These have a 1.25" OD at the base and 1.75" installed height so should be a direct replacement. (I measured a stock 1.25" base and ~1.7" - 1.75" installed height of the stock springs.)

OK, on conical and beehive springs the spring typically gets narrower toward the top to reduce the weight over the valve.

So... Who can tell me what's wrong with this picture?



http://www.jegs.com/i/Comp-Cams/249/982-16/10002/-1

toddalin

I've expanded the search to include beehive valve springs and came across these from Trick Flow with a base O.D. of 1.25" (size of the spring pocket on a stock SBC head) and an installed height of 1.75".

Once again, what's wrong with this picture, or what am I missing here, and this is even weirder?



http://www.trickflow.com/partdetail....6&autoview=sku

Mr. Wizzard

I think your eyes are what's wrong with the pictures. These springs, whether conical of beehives use a small-diameter retainer at the top and sit on a conventional seat below.
These springs are not new technology. They were used extensively back as far as WWI in aircraft engines.

BTW, most springs aren't absolutely straight when free-standing.

Scott Marzahl

I dont see anything wrong, they are single coil, no inner dampener used.

toddalin

You guys just aren't "seeing" it because you're not looking at the specs. The springs are shown upside down and the "fat" area is at the top of the valve.

Look at the specs. They both show 1.250" OD at the base (for a stock Chevy seat), but 1.454" OD at the top.

Think I'm crazy? Look at the picture with the retainer that is obviously sized for the bigger OD. Also note that they have it shown correctly in this picture.

It seems to me that if the bottom starts at 1.25" and stays at 1.25" for its length, it should weigh less than a spring that gets fatter thereby requiring more wire and a larger diameter retainer both adding weight. So unless they have something else going on (e.g., reduced harmonics), I just don't see an advantage to this arrangement, especially for beehives which would attain the greater diameter closer to the base.

TCracingCA

I have to ask what spring pound are you needing based on the cam your are chosing? If you were trying to go all heavy duty on old school sized seats, then go for it, but I have found straight up dual springs in lighter pounds that would fit the seats and alot more heavier ones that would probably wipe your cam lobes on a vintage based cam grind ! Thus why go all fancy dancy! These have a fit in the world, but I think they are more sells gimmick!

toddalin

Crane Vintage Muscle (327/350 hp, #151) cam card calls for 90# on the seat and 265# open with max RPM at 5,200 RPM and valve float at 6,500 RPM.

I make max power at ~5,500 RPM so my combination does a bit better. But my valves seem to be floating well before 6,500. These are the Crane springs and lifters installed with the cam at the time of rebuild >25 years ago.

Looking at the receipt, I note that they did use TRW FORGED pistons. Cool. Was $3,203.15 for a complete rebuild (with machine work AND Flow Technology "pocket porting and port matching the heads and manifold" for $125) back in the day.

65tripleblack

These springs are a solution for those that don't want to have their original spring pockets machined for larger diameter springs.

A beehive spring in reverse, but with none of the advantage of the beehives lighter retainer.

rfn026

The best valve springs in the world are mad by PSI Inc. in Michigan. They're also the most expensive springs in the world. They use VIMVARVAR steel. This has just about replaced all the Japanese Kobe steel that was previously used.

You also need to ask about surface treatments.

"By diffusing nitrogen into the surface of the spring, the surface is made harder and stronger. Polishing is another technique that can eliminate small surface imperfections and extend spring life. Springs can also be cryogenically treated to improve their metallurgy and longevity."

All of this is explained here.

Richard Newton

TCracingCA

If going to rpms of 6500, then I would cut spring pocket and step up to a dual. I have one pair of heads where I upgraded to a GM bowtie 330585 and I believe I cut to 1.5X (either it was 1.52 or 1.55). I have some catalogs out so I look for a smaller spring if you absolutely have to keep those stock pocket sizes. The 585.s were designed to run the 140 cam to 7000rpms. But every cam mfr should be supporting 1.55 sizes in decent offerings!

Donny Brass

I run a good replacement spring, nothing fancy, and I see higher RPMs between shifts than 6500...........

no issues, no fancy ubertainium stuff...........

watch the shift light, it comes on at 6200

toddalin

Actually, the more digging you do, the more you find that keeping the stock valve spring seat diameter, installed height, and approximate spring tension/rate for the cam, the number of choices for conical, beehives, oviate wire, etc. is limited to just a couple offerings in total from all of the manufacturers.

jerry gollnick

What problem are you trying to solve? I run my beehive springs in the race motor to 7500 pretty regularly, and I use stamped rockers so I need to softer start of the Beehive and the lower upper mass. If your not racing not sure what you are looking to change.

toddalin

You are missing the point. The spring is shown upside down requiring a larger retainer adding to the "upper mass" over a spring that is just vertical.

babbah

Beehive springs have small retainers on the top of the spring. The spec photo is obviously incorrect - As with many other spec photos posted online these days.

If you really are bored here is some additional info regarding beehive springs with pictures of them installed with the small retainers. They did confirm that they are a benefit at 9000 RPM! I'm not sure why anyone with a street car would even consider running these springs?

At the bottom of this article read comments #1 and #4.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tec...-work-for-you/

toddalin

No babbah, you and Mr. Wizard are mistaken in these cases.

In these two cases the small end goes at the bottom against the seat and the large end gets the retainer and locks. This is supposed to provide the harmonic benefits, but still allow the user to retain the existing 1.28" spring seat without cutting them wider.

But making it fatter at the top increases the size of the retainer and amount of wire at the top and therefore its weight.

From Comp Cams web site:

Conical Valve Spring: 1.454" O.D. Top, 1.250 O.D. Bottom, 1.070 I.D. Top, .866 I.D. Bottom

Conical Valve Springs from COMP Cams® have a unique cone shape. They were specifically designed for Small Block Chevrolets with up to .500” lift but require no machining to the spring pockets. Extensive quality assurance testing ensures your new Conical Valve Springs are free of any microscopic surface defects for optimum strength and durability. These Conical Valve Springs work with Titanium (part #730) and Steel Retainers (part #740, 743).

And from Trick Flow on their Beehive valve springs:

Product Line: Trick Flow® Track Max® Pacaloy Valve Springs
Part Type: Valve Springs
Valve Spring, Single Beehive, 1.250 in. Diameter, 362 lbs./in., 1.100 in. Coil Bind Height
Number of Springs Per Valve: Single
Outside Diameter of Outer Spring (in): 1.250 in.
Coil Bind Height (in): 1.100 in.
Damper Spring Included: No
Spring Rate (lbs/in): 362 lbs./in.
Inside Diameter of Outer Spring (in): 0.880 in.
Valve Spring Style: Beehive
Coated: No
Quantity: Sold as a set of 16.
Notes: The o.d. at top of spring is 1.454 in. and i.d. at top is 1.071 in.

babbah

Let us know how they work out for you..........

AZDoug

I found the stock GM valve spring worked well up past 6500 RPM with no float.

The red/brown spring 3927142 has 110# seat, 260# open.

I always liked stock parts when available.

Doug

toddalin

Actually, the GM springs spec out much like some of the aftermarket springs I could consider. That's is they have a higher seat pressure (110# vs 90# on the cam card), and a lower spring rate (358#/in vs 415#/in on the cam card). At full lift (0.45") the GM spring comes to 271# and the cam card calls for 277# so is a pretty good match in this respect.

The Trick Flow 15106 spec at 105# on the seat with 281# at full lift (0.45") (392#/in), so is a slightly better "fit" and uses the ovate wire. Now I'm trying to find a set of titanium retainers that fit the ovate wire.

BTW, I'm betting that both Comp Cams and Trick Flow have their springs made by the same mfg. Look at the wire size for the conical and beehive springs I've presented above. Now consider that Trick Flow doesn't even make retainers that fit their ovate wire spring (ovate @ 0.876" ID vs stock @ 0.886" ID) and refers people to the Comp Cams retainer as their ovate wire springs are the same dimensions, but a slightly different spring rate.

TCracingCA

The 142 springs were adequate for everything that a 30/30, L-79 cam etc needed, and if stepping up then they made the recommendation in their power catalogs for the 585 springs.

I didn't get to my catalogs like I had planned to find a small seat adequate spring, but it looks like you found a few.

I actually won't recommend Titanium on this level of build. The titanium isn't the ideal to run on steel. More of a drag racer, semi race thing and the longevity goes down! OK let the argument start!