Hi Everyone,

Starting to make some progress on my W2 long valve stroker SB build.

I had originally acquired Comp Cams #930 springs for this setup, given that with the long valve W2 config (with my Manley valves 11702-8 intake and 11703-8 exhaust) I was aiming for a 1.900" spring installed height.

Well, as it turns out the actual installed height (since I'm using spring locators to positively center off of the guide) gets me in the range of 1.860 - 1.870" on the intake side and 1.810-1.820" on the exhaust side. Subsequently the 930 spring pressure at the lower end of this (so 1.810) is a hefty 180 lbs, I think that's just seems like too much.

In my previous conversations with them I was given the following range of pressures the lifter could handle:
SEAT (closed) : 110-160 lbs
LOBE (open) : 280-485 lbs

I called Comp Cams yesterday, the guy I spoke with agreed, it was a bad idea to run that much pressure on the seat with their hydraulic roller lifter.

Before I splurge on replacement parts (978 and matching retainers) I'm curious what you guys make of it? There is always that chance that Comp Cams just wants to sell more parts, right?

Yes, phone people are supposed to encourage solving problems with purchases.

The maximum seat pressure is greatly affected by how well the gallery pressure keeps the tappet inflated (removing slack from the VT and preventing crash landing of the roller on the lobe). This varies between engine models (those never built with hydraulic tappets are suspect), oil viscosity, the fit of the tappet body in the bore, and pump pressure.
I wouldn't run it with 180, because my OCD will keep me listening for crunchy noises. To me, being comfortable with the decision is really important.

If your open pressures are not above 485 Lbs. now I would run it
I built a pump gas 426 Hemi motor for a local customer years ago using a Comp Cams hydraulic roller and their lifters, those lifters sounded horrible no matter how I set the preload on them or ran it with zero preload I couldn't get it to be quite and the customer said to forget about them and he lived with it, which made me feel horrible about those lifters I had set them, spring pressures, at around 180 lbs. on the seats and around 475 lbs. opened
I heard several years that they ended up sending back 1500 sets of their brand hydraulic roller lifter back to the manufacturer do to being noisy
I'm sure it is way better to have 30 Lbs. more pressure than needed than 3 lbs. to less on any roller lifter, solid or hydraulic
Have you ever heard of a cam going flat on the heel or back side of the lobes

The only time I use seat loads that high for hyd rollers is when they’re being used with higher end lifters specifically designed for those operating conditions.

I wouldn’t put the std Comp hyd rollers in that category.

If you’re using Comp regular steel retainers, the tool steel or Ti retainers will add some height(.030 +/-).

When I called Gaterman about spring pressures he told me 150 on the seat and no more than 350 on the nose for the retro-fit hydraulic lifters.

Gus

Have you ever heard of a cam going flat on the heel or back side of the lobes

That's where they get chatter marks from multiple hard landings. That shock is what breaks the needles.

Alright, thanks for all the responses you guys.

Couple of things I want to consider as a (perhaps) viable Plan-B type approaches:

1) run a different set of valve locks, something that's offset by 0.050" to give me that extra installed height, my only problem so far is that looking at how well the Harland Sharp 1.6 rockers line up with the valve stem I am already a bit off on the exhaust valve since it's a tad shorter than the intake, tossing a lash cap on there brings the geometry back in...unfortunately I can't do lash caps with the offset locks

2) find a different set of pring retainers that actually give me that extra 0.050-075" room, challenge there is that the 930 springs are already pretty wide (1.565") and that's putting the retainer pretty close to the rocker body, I'm worried that trying to find that extra 0.050" room to grow taller just isn't going to happen, I need to toss the rockers back on there and starting measuring closely beyond just eye-balling it

3) find a different set of spring locators that are thinner than the 0.060" set I have right now

Anyways, at least a few options. I tell you though, looking at specs only at the moment the 978 springs do fit in real nice with the goals of the project...so it may be one of these situations where as much as I hate to just spent the extra $$$ on the parts, it may just be the right thing to do here...grrhh!!!

I can only provide my personal experiance...but my motor has 190 on the seat with 440lbs open.

Stock magnum rollers....

I even shimmed them up last time I had it apart for "short travel" (only .030" of total plunger travel, set at .015" preload) but it didn't change anything that I could tell in the quest for more RPM

I will say this is on a bullet cam core though...but the lifters themselves have been fine.

I have a ?.. why run a 2.00 valve when your in the 1.88 range.. I run the 2.00 stuff and set them
up for 2.00

I suppose I have a slightly different opinion on this.

I'll start by saying most of my experience is with ls engines but have some experience with others.

Would say I've seen far more problems/damage caused by too little spring pressure than too much. Valve bounce on seat and/or loft equals major power loss and destruction

Seems to me many recommend too little pressure for hyd lifters, in my experience.

I've ran many LS engines reliably at 200lbs on the seat with hyd roller. Zero problems. Would run a spring with lower rate so it would end up around 450 over the nose with .600 lift.

Consider as well an LS with 200lb seat and a 1.7 rocker puts more load on the lifter than a lesser rocker ratio.

Well, so these are never used before W2 long valve heads, MP P4529995. The MP intake valve for these was P5249195, which was a 5.280" long valve. They called out a spring installed height of 1.95-2.02". They are a 3/8" stem valve and mostly no longer available, at least when I was looking for them I could no longer find them. Either way, even if I could get them I wanted to go to a 11/32" stem valve anyways.

So the Manely valves are a tad shorter, that being 2.240", which in turn meant that I most likely could not do a longer spring, short of running some offset locks and/or retainers that allow me to gain some height.

When the heads went to the machine shop I had asked for a 1.900" installed height setup which included the spring locators (0.060" thick). When they measured things out it turned out we were short and the advice I got was NOT to machine the springs seats in the heads given the water passeges beneath. The other option was to re-do the valve seat, sink them a tad to gain on the upper end, but that just seemed like an idea not worthwhile pursuing. It is cheaper to go the route of a new set of shorter installed height springs than it is to machine new seats.

That is basically how I got to where I am today.

I suppose another option would be to do away with the spring locators, after all this is an iron head. However, given the cam I'm running and the .580 lift I wanted to keep the valve centered as much as possible to do away with any guide side-loading (in case of spring walk). Now, that maybe a BS worry, I simply do not have the experience to know any better, however from a theory perspective that made sense.

I am running a set of W-2s with out spring locators without any issues.. they have been on my
416 for about 6 years now... and I put 11/32 valves in them

Since the valve lift isn’t very high(.580...... assuming that’s the net lift), and the spring rate of the Comp 930’s is also not very high(354lb/in), the 180 on the seat is a little less of a concern.
Even at 180 on the seat, the open load would still be under 400lbs open.

It’s not how I’d “prefer” to have it set up........ but not “unusable” either.

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.

fast68plymouth,


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.

As with just about anything involved with using parts that aren’t specifically designed for your particular application..... some reworking is often necessary.

Comp has 3 spring seats that fit the conical spring being discussed here, and one spring cup that’s close enough that I’d use it.
All have an ID smaller than .640.

So, the choices are...... modify the head to fit the parts(machine guide to .570)......modify the new parts to fit the head(bore ID to .640)...... use different springs/parts that don’t require any mods.

The beehive spring and cup combo is a drop in.

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


fast68plymouth, everyone...

Bringing this thread of mine back b/c I have a couple of updates and am looking for some further feedback.


As fast pointed out (and graciously spelled out the part#) I went ahead and decided to "think forward" a tad, that being:
1) get something into place that would not require any further head machining
2) make best use of all the parts I currently have
3) give me a little "room to grow"

...and given that perspective I went ahead and ordered the Comp Beehive 26056 - 160@1.800/392@.580 lift, but instead of using the 703-16 spring retainers I opted for the 705-16, which are basically 703s with 0.050" extra installed height.

The parts finally came in yesterday (springs were on backorder), I measured stuff out today and so here is what I currently have:

1) I - 1.970" installed height
2) E - 1.928" installed height

I could shim the Intakes to get me to the matching 1.930" height, but that means the beehive springs would show only 100 lbs on the seat. That seems awefully low (and it looks like my effort to give me some room sort of backfired, should have probably stuck with the 703 retainer and would have had 0.050" installed height less today - alas, these were even further backordered and I figured I could always shim a bit more).

OK, so what now?

Well, the springs shows 120 lbs on the seat at 1.900" installed height, and that's actually not such a far cry from where I am. I have a decent assortment of shims and so I can get there easily.

My question to you guys is: will 120 lbs on the seat be enough? I ask since many of you previously responded with what felt like "you better have more than not enough seat pressure". However, the recommended beehive spring for this retro-fit roller is actually the 26986, and that only shows 109 lbs on the seat. So on the surface it looks like my 120 lbs @ seat should be fine.

What is confusing is that the Comp Cams recommended springs are:

1) 978, DUAL
127 @ seat
369 @ 0.600

2) 26986, BEEHIVE
109 @ seat
277 @ 0.600

...and my choice:

3) 26056, BEEHIVE
120 @ seat
360 @ 0.600

So while my spring feels like an "alright" fit, I am simply not sure what to make of the big difference in their recommended DUAL & BEEHIVE spring pressures???

Based on the reading I've done up-to-date it seems like the beehive springs allow you to run less pressure and yet control the valvetrain equally well, is that what you guys have experienced?

Imo, you’re looking for an answer other than “it depends”, when in reality....... that is the answer.

Every different combination of lobe design, rocker ratio, valvetrain weight, rocker geometry, pushrod stiffness will have its own requirement for spring load.
Unless you are exactly duplicating a known good combination...... then to some degree you’re “experimenting”.
“Generally”, beehive springs provide better performance when they are run “closer” to coil bind(as opposed to not that close).

To answer your question though........ I have not personally experienced any “magic” happen with beehive springs.
I certainly haven’t seen them solve any type of valvetrain harmonics issue that was plaguing a conventional spring set up, and I’ve seen where they have been used in some BBC marine applications as an “upgrade” from the previous dual springs, and failed miserably.
Usually in this scenario, the replacement beehive spring has less closed/open load than the conventional dual spring it’s replacing...... and it simply isn’t enough to control the mass of the valvetrain...... especially for extended periods of higher rpm use.
Again, it ended up being an “experiment” instead of duplicating a known good combo...... and the experiment failed.

If they are a good match for your combination of parts, they’ll be fine.
If not...... you’ll find out by a lack of higher rpm performance.

But the same will be true for whatever spring package you end up going with.

Just curious.....

Are the tip heights as different as the installed heights?


Edit- I looked at the 26056 specs.
I wouldn’t expect great things out of those springs if they're being run at .200” from coil bind.

They were offered as a suggestion based on the previous info that the installed height was going to be around 1.800.

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?

It’s too far away from coil bind with 1.900 IH and .580 lift(.220”).

Will that necessarily create a problem in your motor?
Only one way to know for sure.
Well..... two ways.

Run them and see what happens....... or invest in some spintron time.

My suggestion was to install the 26056’s at 1.770, which would have put them within .100 from coil bind at .580 lift...... along with having more closed/open load.
————————————————————-
That’s a fairly typical situation with the valve lengths and margins.
Someone just not really paying attention during the design phase.
For an in line head, unless there is some specific reason the in/ex seating surfaces can’t be on the same plane....... the valve oal difference should be exactly the margin thickness difference.
That way, the seats can be even, and the tip heights will also be even.

With the dimensions of the valves you have, “in theory” the ex tips should sit .015” lower than the intakes(ex valve is .015 longer, but margin difference is .030).
The fact that you’re seeing an additional .025” difference indicates the intake seats are that much lower than the exhaust.

Iiwii...... just an observation.

When possible, I try and find valves where the oal/margin relationship is correct(Manley numbers 11559 and 11556 for example)...... then I look at how the tip height situation is when I’m cutting the seats.

I like this as well fwiw. I feel like people think they are saving things by not doing this (running closer to coil bind) without understanding the consequenses.