Ford 289 Valves for /6 - what a deal!

csheehy said

Rob, OCG said that - maybe Ken - not sure, I don't have a relationship there to know. Seemed high to me too, what do you think of my 280# beehive plan? Keeping in mind inertia losses at the top & bottom of the stroke will also be reduced with lighter lifters & valves.

BTW, Reher Morrison did a rather large flow study in relationship to valve stem diameter and concluded it doesn't make all that much difference. But the loss in weight/mass made the change worth it (usually). I'm doing it for the latter.

Thanks for all the feedback!

Click to expand...

There are many things that don't show up on the flowbench that make power, less mass at the valve is one of them, larger pockets(not Yours, the heads) is another. There are times where digging around the pocket roof doesn't reward You with any CFM candy, but still improves output. Control of the valve mass always improves output, the degree depends on how bad it was, & how much the improvement net is. Right now My plan is based around 8mm stems w/LS tool steel retainers & 26918 beehives, 1.81/1.48, the intake valve combo actually weighs less than the stock puny combo.