fast68plymouth,
...
A couple of suitable modern choices would be:
Comp Beehive 26056 - 160@1.800/392@.580 lift
Comp conical 7228 - 136@1.800/390@.580 lift
The conical shimmed up to 150-155 on the seat(about 1.770), would put you at just over 400 open, with a big reduction in spring/retainer weight.
That’s right where I’d wanna be with that combo.
You know, I have only superficial knowledge of the conical spring design (having never even considered such a spring before). But given that I'm basically looking at having to spend the $$$ for: springs, retainers and locators again I might as well consider that option.
So I did a pile of research into this over the last couple of days...my only question is: why hasn't everyone completely gone to this type of spring already? Or to put it another way: so what's the disadvantage of going that route?
A general question to all who know their parts catalogs, can you point me to a vendor who has a spring locator with an ID of .640" that will accept a spring with a base ID of .795" (which is that conical spring in our conversation)?
Why does this matter? Well, my guides are cut down for .530" positive seal, but the last .100" of the guide is actually .640" wide for the current locators I had intended to use. If I go down the route of the conical spring I'd have to machine down the guides further and that's yet another expense and worse yet a definite delay given the current situation out there.
