Here is the valve train of my 496. This is the engine that is using the Gaterman lifters. I have the Comp conical springs and the stainless RAS rocker arms. The conical valve springs are lightweight and use a very small and lightweight retainer. The conical springs also have different internal physics so they don't require a damper.

Andy is it possible to set up a beehive spring to 1.95. On the TF heads with shelf cups and retainers. Or would the spring seats have to be machined.

The Comp 26915 beehives should work for most hyd roller cams. They are good to 0.600 lift.

That is what is on mine. edit,, 26120 is what I am using.

Imo, the Comp conical spring 7228 and the beehive spring 26915 are not designed for the same application.
The loads and rates aren’t really very close to each other.

7228- 136@1.800/399@1.200, 438lbs/in

26915- 105@1.800/293@1.200, 313lbs/in

I look at the 26915 as a spring suitable for a lighter weight valvetrain(like a small block) that’s using lobes that are very smooth.

For a typical BB Mopar hyd roller application where someone wants a beehive spring I generally use the 26120, which is 155@1.880/377@1.280, 370lbs/in.

Yes you are correct, the 26120 is probably a better choice for a big block. I used the 26120 springs on my Duster engine and they worked fine. I took a look at my notes and it appears that I also used the 26055 beehives on a 505 engine and I used the 26056 beehives on the 427 inch SB Mopar that I did a few years back. I've never had any lifter noise issues with any of the engines when I used beehive or conical springs. Every time I've ever run into a clattering hyd roller lifter was with a conventional dual spring with a damper. May or may not be related but that is my experience.

What are the advantages/disadvanteges of Beehive springs? I don't really know anything about them.

There should be multiple threads on that topic here, or over on Speedtalk and YB.

As with anything in this hobby, there is no universal answer.
We’ve actually taken them out of some BBC marine builds were they just weren’t up to the job.

Well, I had done some research and they sort of seem like a variable weight spring that offers light weight and control advantages. The reason I ask is that I have read lots of claims for speed products over the years that ultimately turn out to be snake oil.

If you go through the forums, just as with the hyd roller lifters...... you’ll find they are not universally loved.

I'm Sorry the 26120 is what I have, brain dead moment

Hydraulic should only make noise (caused by the roller leaving the lobe and landing again) when the spring pressure + lift rate exceed the hydraulic pressure in the tappet, and the plunger compresses. The lifter's leak rate may be too high, oil supply volume in the gallery too small, or viscosity or oil pressure too low.
Am I missing something?

Some beehive failures are from using a light spring believing that the design simply replaces a heavier cylindrical spring.
The design saves some reciprocating weight (less wire mass, smaller retainer) but the advantage is multiple progressive rate (instead of linear) - but if harmonic float isn't a problem you may not have enough pressure.

Well, my friend and I had a long discussion on this and we have decided to go with the same custom grind solid FT that Dwayne spec'd for my 493 and several others on here. It will be nitrided and use the edm lifters. I have been running solidFT's for many years with zero issues, both at the track and on a couple of Power Tours and road trips to Woodward. I think this will be the best compromise for a reliable, low maint, street toy. Thanks to all, and especially Dwayne for all of the advice!