Alright, it is extremely embarrasing to have to say this, but I made a MAJOR mistake in my measurements. Things just didn't add-up as I kept on going through these numbers in both the engine build spreadsheet I have here, as well as in my build notebook.

So I went back to re-measure, for the 4th time I think and finally had the presence of mind and clarity to note that the inner step of the spring height micrometer was recessed 0.140" below the top lip and NOT 0.040" which is what I previously focused on as I used my caliper to measure it and simply read off the 0.040" from the dial indicator....grrhh....

Why does that matter? Well, the beehive spring retainer is smaller diameter, so it does NOT mate up against the top lip of the height micrometer, instead it sits against the inner mic body itself.

Therefore, here are the updated numbers for the installed height, basically an extra 0.100" shorter now:

1) I - 1.870" installed height
2) E - 1.828" installed height

Subsequently, this now means that I have approx. 130 lbs on the intake and about 150 on the exhaust and that is WITHOUT the use of any shims.

I do not want to go to a shorter spring installed height than the 1.800", which means I can toss a 0.060" shim on the intake and a 0.030" shim on the exhust and basically be set.

I suppose the only remaining question I have is this: is it OK to put those shims into the spring retaining cup (which is what I'm using) instead of under the cup? I ask b/c my initial intention was to simply drop the shims into the cup, but the more I have been reading about this and the more I have been pouring through parts catalogs the more I am discovering that the 'normal / recommended' way of doing this is to put a shim UNDER the cup. Of course that would mean I need to order a new set of shims...hmm....

Why

Primarily because this is a Comp Cams retro-fit hydraulic roller cam install and per their tech advice I've been given these range of numbers to shoot for with their lifters I'm using:

Spring Pressure/Load Capability

SEAT (closed) : 110-160 lbs
LOBE (open) : 280-485 lbs

Taking that beehive spring to 1.770" height already puts me past that 160 lbs max and nearly up to 180, co-incidentally this was the value I was already at with my original 930 springs, so going back to that point would really defeat the purpose of everything I had done so far.

Yes, puts you over their recommended seat pressure and well under max over the nose.

Absolutely do as you wish but asking here and doing otherwise defeats the purpose of asking for suggestions in this thread.

Would love to hear how the lifter can't handle 180 on the seat when it's essentially unloaded but -can- handle 485 over the nose.

The excessive range for their specs does not lend credibility. 110 on the seat, wasting your money on a roller cam as it's probably unstable by 5k unless you're running ti valves/retainers and no lift.

Open, 280-485??? What is this telling me. Throw literally any spring at any installed height at it and you'll probably land within that range.

I have the 26120 beehive check the specs on it, 1.880 install I have over 10k street strip miles on them

With all due respect...


I see the forum as a great opportunity for someone like myself (with a somewhat limited amount of engine building experience) to get my ideas vetted by those in our hobby who have done this numerous times and know where the proverbial pitfalls lie (and/or hide...LOL).

For that very reason I am absolutely NOT looking at the feedback I receive as a "must do it" prescription, and certainly for that very same reason I will never hold anyone providing a recommendation to a "paid for" work order accountability.

You concurred with fast68plymouth's recommendation to install the 26056 beehive spring at 1.770" height, this is NOT the Comp Cams design spec (if their catalog entry can be viewed as such) which means that from my perspective I will ask the best questions I can pose to better understand the reasoning behind such a recommendation.

From my perspective fast68's original recommendation was applicable to the conical spring and not the 26056 (BOLD in quote below is my own):


Subsequently my follow-up questions have been meant to understand why just a seemingly tiny 0.030" makes such a difference.

You brought up a whole bunch of excellent points regarding the Comp Cams parts and their stated operating ranges, I agree with all of them, however I still do not understand the recommendation to put more pressure (beyond the recommended max) on the lifter when on base circle, and really, we are talking 180 vs 160 lbs here??? I do however know that going that extra 0.030" shorter in installed height will cause me to spend a bunch more $$$ on additional parts...

csk,


Thank you. Yup, just looked these up, similar to the 26056 but with shorter bind height and slightly smaller spring rate, 370 vs 400.

I'm not sure if this was the original setup you went with, or whether these replaced the traditional double/triple springs, either way, how happy are you with these springs? So yeah, this is more of the "did the beehive spring bring any advantages for your intended use" type of a question?

Thanks!

I just looked at that again..... you are correct.

I’d be okay with trying the beehives @1.800.
The closed/open loads and distance to coil bind, as well as all the other variables in the valvetrain will remain stable to “x” rpm.
If that’s at a point higher than you need the motor to turn, you’re golden.
If it doesn’t quite go as high as you prefer, you’ll either have to make some changes...... or live with it.
That’s not really any different than any other untried combo of parts.

These are the only springs I have had on this engine.thats all I know.