EDIT
====
These initial measurements are WRONG, see updated post later on!




In short, I think the answer is YES. The exhaust valve tip is 0.040" lower than the intake valve tip (when installed in the head). I did note a wider marigin on the exhaust valve, and checking the Manley catalog shows a 0.095 (exhaust) vs 0.065 (intake). Not sure though if this has any bearing on the final measurements I'm seeing though. The O/A length is 5.255 for the exhaust and 5.240 for the intake, with the actual valve tips being the same length of 0.290".


Oh, let me be very clear about this: in no way am I suggesting that your recommendation was wrong, heck no! I totally get that in my situation this very much is an experiment.

I am curious though, why did you say that you wouldn't expect great things out of these springs if they are run in the configuration I have?

I've attached a side-by-side compare of the recommended 26986 beehive and the 26056 beehive springs. The 26056 is a much higher rate spring (400 vs 280), at each valve lift point it puts more pressure back on the lobe. So by that metric, despite the fact that it's a 1.800" installed height spring which I may run at 1.900" instead, I should still have a pretty good control over the lifter & lobe, no? Look, worst case is that I try to return the 705-16 retainers and instead get the 703-16s as that will allow me to shorten the instaled height by 0.050" and will get those 26056 springs closer to their intended 1.800" height (the extra delay won't be all that bad, I still have a pile of stuff to do in the meantime).

I guess the real big lesson learned (so far?) may very well be that one can not take the approach I tried to take with the springs purchase: can not plan too far ahead (replacing the current cam with a new higher lift grind down the road, which requires more coil bind height), and instead I needed to aim for a best-fit for the current parts?