408 hyd roller, too much spring pressure?

[Aussie Charger]

All Springs run best when ran close to coil bind

Correct. But not everyone does it.

And no-one is butt hurt about anything. At least not me. I use what I use but I'm happy to use something else if it's better and within my budget.

On that note, I would love to see your source for the claim that "beehives used in mass produced automobiles...the beehives have a very high breakage rate compared to the standard".

What is "standard" in your opinion, and what % of failures are there compared to beehives?

As Bewy mentioned earlier, there was a bad batch of Comp 918 springs when they stopped buying them from Pac, but apart from that, I would like to see real evidence. People (like me) reading this thread should at least be able to make their decisions based on facts instead of conjecture.

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Correct. But not everyone does it.

And no-one is butt hurt about anything. At least not me. I use what I use but I'm happy to use something else if it's better and within my budget.

On that note, I would love to see your source for the claim that "beehives used in mass produced automobiles...the beehives have a very high breakage rate compared to the standard".

What is "standard" in your opinion, and what % of failures are there compared to beehives?

As Bewy mentioned earlier, there was a bad batch of Comp 918 springs when they stopped buying them from Pac, but apart from that, I would like to see real evidence. People (like me) reading this thread should at least be able to make their decisions based on facts instead of conjecture.

Many 4.6 fords were in the shop for a broken no.7 int spring-beehive 5.7 hemis have had there share.
Maybe ford bought the springs from comp..lmao..
If I went and researched to list 10 more examples/ motors in production 'past or present' would it change your view some? Probably not. So use what you like and remember...if you just going on a defense for something you like... it's a fruitless venture. People use what they like.. and we sometimes like different **** . Its okay.

 

[Rat Bastid]

You asked if I bothered to read this thread – not the entire forum!

And what do you expect me to find? Racers breaking beehive springs at 9000rpm or whatever? Is 8000+rpm a realistic goal for the average street-driven musclecar? Because if you are focussing purely on the hard-core racing community, you are missing the much bigger picture of all those people on the street trying to build what they can within their budgets to suit their daily or weekly driving habits with maybe a few squirts down the track each year.

Again, with respect, we are not all full-time (or even part-time) racers.

And just like 99.999% of us are NOT full-time racers with unlimited budgets for exotic titanium valve gear (or whatever), I wouldn't be bold enough to say that 99.999% of the time the issue of retainer to rocker clearance is rocker geometry, as there are always exceptions. I had one myself a few months ago where my machining instructions weren't listened to and I was forced to go to +0.050" locks because the only other alternative was to machine the spring pockets on an iron head to use the springs that I had matched to a custom cam.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

I’m bold enough to say it. 99.999999999999% of the time when a rocker and a spring hit the geometry I wrong. Simple as that. It’s not bold. It’s a fact.

You can run a 1.525 spring diameter (and probably 1.550 but it’s even awhile since I’ve used anything that needed a spring that diameter) IF the geometry is correct. You can run a 1.640 spring IF the geometry is correct AND you use offset shafts and stands.

So please explain how a guy running a 1.450 spring has the rocker hitting the spring. It don’t happen.

And my point about RPM killing BH springs was ONE example of where they don’t work, even though the asshat that ground the cam said it would. The company that made that springs said they do NOT work for things like that. So they aren’t the do all, be all, end all of springs. They are God’s gift to performance.

I didn’t expect you to read the ENTIRE forum. There is a search feature. Just type in beehive spring and like magic (or voodoo on your point of view) a ton of threads will pop up. Then instead of going off half cocked, you can read for yourself all the times when a BH spring was said to be the fix, when the fact is the geometry was wrong.

Beehive springs aren’t new or new technology. They’ve been around for decades and decades. The aluminum 215 Buick had them. So they ain’t new or trick.

They have a place. I just can’t think of what I would ever build where THAT spring type would be a benefit.

 

[Rat Bastid]

I certainly wouldn’t be afraid to run beehives on a street strip deal. I did that very thing for the 4 years I raced( quite a bit) and street drove the motor below in a 71 Duster.
It saw 6400/6500 every pass it made.
Knowing nothing about beehives before this, I now know they are very capable to satisfy the needs of a great many, like myself, who race/ raced a piece at this level.

Iron-Headed Mopar 318 Magnum Engine- Popular Hot Rodding Magazine

So let’s think about this. You build your engine with the correct straight spring, and use a quality retainer and such.

Then switch to a beehive. What do you gain? If you gain RPM then I would go back and look at what was wrong with the straight spring.

Because I have weighed a 1.500 Ti retainer, a lightweight steel retainer and a beehive retainer that was suggested for the same cam and there wasn’t 10 grams between them.

I can tell you that dropping to a .310 stem from a .342 valve is far more important than that little weight you may save with a BH spring and retainer.

And then you have the option of Ti valves. Valve weight is far more critical than retainer weight (within reason) and what the top of a BH spring weighs.

That’s why I always ask what do you gain. I’ve probably already read the ST links above but I will go back and read them to refresh my memory. I’m betting they didn’t just drop on a set of beehives and rotate the earth.

 

[B3422w5]

So let’s think about this. You build your engine with the correct straight spring, and use a quality retainer and such.

Then switch to a beehive. What do you gain? If you gain RPM then I would go back and look at what was wrong with the straight spring.

Because I have weighed a 1.500 Ti retainer, a lightweight steel retainer and a beehive retainer that was suggested for the same cam and there wasn’t 10 grams between them.

I can tell you that dropping to a .310 stem from a .342 valve is far more important than that little weight you may save with a BH spring and retainer.

And then you have the option of Ti valves. Valve weight is far more critical than retainer weight (within reason) and what the top of a BH spring weighs.

That’s why I always ask what do you gain. I’ve probably already read the ST links above but I will go back and read them to refresh my memory. I’m betting they didn’t just drop on a set of beehives and rotate the earth.

I think they ran beehives on that because of the stout cam and Chevy style Magnum rocker weaknesses

 

[Rat Bastid]

You had a bad experience with beehives. Fine. Englert Racing ran Comp beehives on a 2.3 Ford to 9200rpm without issue: Ford Lima 2300 cam help please - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

On the subject of beehive vs conical rpm, there appear to be a few people out there getting decent rpm on beehives (see below).

I know you told me to do my research, but have you?

That's the trouble with talking in absolutes ("99.999% this, 8K that" etc) – you will always find an example that does not conform to your own experiences or opinion. Just sayin'

10K rpm on beehives here: How high can you REV on these Beehive valve springs? (9K+ fine?) - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

9K here: Beehive valve springs: benefits?

8-9K here: Single valve springs upgrade and rev limit

8+K here: Beehive spring performance ? - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Ok lol…your first link is about a slightly hotter than stock cam. You can run ANY spring on that junk and it will be fine.

The second link you posted had the correct answer in post 3. Depends on the lobes. An engine Turing 9k with easy lobes is one thing, and it won’t make much more power than it did at 8k.

Put lobes on it that make power at 9k and it will bust springs.

You had a bad experience with beehives. Fine. Englert Racing ran Comp beehives on a 2.3 Ford to 9200rpm without issue: Ford Lima 2300 cam help please - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

On the subject of beehive vs conical rpm, there appear to be a few people out there getting decent rpm on beehives (see below).

I know you told me to do my research, but have you?

That's the trouble with talking in absolutes ("99.999% this, 8K that" etc) – you will always find an example that does not conform to your own experiences or opinion. Just sayin'

10K rpm on beehives here: How high can you REV on these Beehive valve springs? (9K+ fine?) - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

9K here: Beehive valve springs: benefits?

8-9K here: Single valve springs upgrade and rev limit

8+K here: Beehive spring performance ? - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Your first link was about a cam that was pretty much stock. So about any spring would work on that.

The second link had he correct answer in post 3. Lobes matters. You can have two cams that both pull to 9k and one won’t make any power there and will be easy on the springs. The other cam will make power up there and be harder on the springs. Horsepower IS RPM and RPM is hard in springs. That’s life if you want to run with the big dogs.

The third link is again about stock junk where virtually there are a dozen or more spring choices that will work.


The next link is a Supra forum. Post 6 nailed it. More RPM with a double and Ti retainer. I haven’t seen anyone post they found extra power and/or life with a BH.

And I remember the ST thread. No one except Vizard was exalting BH springs. Some said they only use a single spring (I assume they were including straight springs in that comment as well) on anything unless class rules mandated it.

There was one post where they were using a HR and BH springs and they made it to 7200. I was going to ask why they were using a BH, and if they tested anything else. But I didn’t, because that place is a **** show if you question a standing paradigm.

God forbid you suggest to someone there to use another than 45 degree seat or that maybe a back cut isn’t a good thing. You’ll have 8 dudes come out of the woodwork claiming it can’t be done.

So I read the links and I don’t see a single example of someone saying a BH was an improvement over a straight spring in power, reliability or both.

I’m not opposed to anyone running a BH spring. I am diametrically and adamantly opposed to telling anyone to use a BH spring when they have a geometry issue.

That will NEVER change. I don’t like cobbling **** and I don’t like the cobblers who do it.

 

[Bakerlite]

All Springs run best when ran close to coil bind

Although this may be the go for "beehives" because of the way they are designed, I've found it's not always the case for a normal spring..

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Although this may be the go for "beehives" because of the way they are designed, I've found it's not always the case for a normal spring..

1st time I heard it...one of the old Chrysler books I remember it said to run them .050 to cb. I wanna attach crane to that statement as well for some reason.
For harmonics that's probably the best thing as opposed to running a spring far shy of its usage and letting it boogaloo.
But crediting your statement...itsback to.. depends what we're doing.

 

[Aussie Charger]

Many 4.6 fords were in the shop for a broken no.7 int spring-beehive 5.7 hemis have had there share.
Maybe ford bought the springs from comp..lmao..

That's not proof of OEM beehives breaking at a greater rate than "normal" (whatever they are) springs.

If I went and researched to list 10 more examples/ motors in production 'past or present' would it change your view some?

No, but actual evidence would.

How many OEM's have stopped using beehives/conicals due to excessive failure rates?

If the answer is "none" then what does that tell us? Indeed, why did OEMs go to beehive/conical springs in the first place if they are such a poor design?

 

[Aussie Charger]

So let’s think about this. You build your engine with the correct straight spring, and use a quality retainer and such.

Then switch to a beehive. What do you gain? If you gain RPM then I would go back and look at what was wrong with the straight spring.

Because I have weighed a 1.500 Ti retainer, a lightweight steel retainer and a beehive retainer that was suggested for the same cam and there wasn’t 10 grams between them.

I can tell you that dropping to a .310 stem from a .342 valve is far more important than that little weight you may save with a BH spring and retainer.

And then you have the option of Ti valves. Valve weight is far more critical than retainer weight (within reason) and what the top of a BH spring weighs.

That’s why I always ask what do you gain. I’ve probably already read the ST links above but I will go back and read them to refresh my memory. I’m betting they didn’t just drop on a set of beehives and rotate the earth.

Us arguing is probably not helping the OP or anyone else trying to decide what to use.

But disinformation doesn't help either.

You weighed the retainers but you forgot about the springs themselves: spring coils have mass and inertia that has to be controlled along with the rest of the valve train.

And your suggestion that we should all be using Ti or exotic light-weight steel retainers in addition to swapping out our valves and re-lining the guides and having those parts in the machine shop simply to accommodate a spring is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

If a beehive/conical spring saves weight and does the job – which I know they do, because I use them – then they are an economical solution with the added benefit of being easier on the valve-train.

They exist for a reason.

As for your first point, why would you swap out a perfectly good spring? If you build an engine with a spring and then arbitrarily swap it out, then what was the point? You should know what springs you will be using before you build. And if that doesn't work, then you go to a different spring until you find what works (if indeed the problem is the spring).

Beehives and conicals are just another tool in the box. But they wouldn't be in that box if they didn't work.

 

[Aussie Charger]

I’m bold enough to say it. 99.999999999999% of the time when a rocker and a spring hit the geometry I wrong. Simple as that. It’s not bold. It’s a fact.

It's not a fact. It's a foolish statement. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, I'm simply going to point you to an engine build and a T&D article which both address this very issue. You can argue with those guys:

620hp SBM
How To Build A Pump-Gas 620hp Small-Block Mopar - Car Craft Magazine

Frequently Asked Questions - T&D Machine Products
WHY ARE PLUS RETAINERS OR KEEPERS ARE AN ISSUE?
When a cylinder head is assembled with the correct spring, retainer and keeper the tip of the valve protrudes past the top of the retainer. If a plus retainer and/or keeper is used, the valve tip becomes recessed in the retainer. The rocker arm will contact the retainer prior to the roller contacting the valve. To make the roller contact the valve tip, clearance must be cut into the rocker and can cause the rocker to break prematurely.

In the past we have seen and heard of some customers raising the stand to clear the spring, unfortunately this sacrifices geometry for clearance and can now lead to guide wear issues. The best fix for this issue is to eliminate the plus retainer and/or keeper or add a lash cap.

WHY ARE BIG SPRINGS AND LOW RATIOS A BAD COMBINATION? (DRAWING)
This is typically an issue with the small block Chevy, Ford and Mopar engines.

When a large diameter spring is used with a “low“ ratio rocker arm, it can create a clearance issue between the pushrod and the cylinder head. The large spring requires a longer rocker to keep proper clearances. The longer rocker requires the adjuster to be further away from the fulcrum, increasing the overall length of the rocker even more.

Some people machine the rocker arm for clearance, but this is NOT anything we recommend.

WHY ARE MAXIMUM SPRING DIAMETERS SPECIFIED?
Spring diameter is a big factor mainly on small block Chevs, Fords and Mopars. Many engine builders stick with a relatively low ratio rocker arm and make up the lift with the cam lobe. The rocker arm itself is short so that if a 1.50 thru 1.60 ratio is used there is pushrod clearance. Because this rocker arm is “short” there is a limitation on the spring diameter that can be used. For 1.450” fulcrum length rockers the maximum spring diameter is a 1.550”. If the geometry is correct, the rocker will have plenty of clearance to the spring and retainer. If a 1.450” long rocker is hitting a 1.550” diameter spring and retainer combo, the usual reasons are the stand is too low or a plus height keeper or retainer have been used to increase installed height.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Us arguing is probably not helping the OP or anyone else trying to decide what to use.

But disinformation doesn't help either.

You weighed the retainers but you forgot about the springs themselves: spring coils have mass and inertia that has to be controlled along with the rest of the valve train.

And your suggestion that we should all be using Ti or exotic light-weight steel retainers in addition to swapping out our valves and re-lining the guides and having those parts in the machine shop simply to accommodate a spring is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

If a beehive/conical spring saves weight and does the job – which I know they do, because I use them – then they are an economical solution with the added benefit of being easier on the valve-train.

They exist for a reason.

As for your first point, why would you swap out a perfectly good spring? If you build an engine with a spring and then arbitrarily swap it out, then what was the point? You should know what springs you will be using before you build. And if that doesn't work, then you go to a different spring until you find what works (if indeed the problem is the spring).

Beehives and conicals are just another tool in the box. But they wouldn't be in that box if they didn't work.

Read what I said. If this is an argument you’ve already lost. I’m hoping this is a discussion.

I’ve already said that yes, the top of a BH spring is lighter. My answer is who cares? What are we talking about? 10 grams? I don’t know. I’ve never seen any published data on that.

But what I can tell you an indisputable fact and that is valve weight is far more critical than what a retainer and the top of a spring weighs. And that’s not even close. Regardless of RPM.

You could do your BH springs and retained and I could drop the stem size from 3/8 (Chrysler junk valves) to 11/32 and get a far better return on valve train stability and life than you will with BH’s and smaller retainers?

Do you understand what I’m saying? So there is no misunderstanding me I’ll spell it out.

1. Using a BH spring to gain retainer clearance is F’ing stupid. Just like grinding on a rocker for clearance. It should NEVER be done. Ever. And to suggest that as a remedy is doing a disservice to people who don’t know any better.

2. As far as saving weight goes, you can save far more weight and win far more advantage with lighter valves than anything you’ll ever see with BH’s and those smaller retainers.

So, IMO I can’t think of a reason to use them. Unless I get to a place where I have a valve train issue that can’t be corrected with a lighter valve or a better lobe or both, then I might go down the rabbit hole of BH springs.

Other than that, I don’t do **** because Comp, or Vizard or whoever says they are cool.

 

[Aussie Charger]

What costs more – replacing a set of valves with associated machining costs and liners, or buying a set of springs that saves valvetrain weight and has better harmonics?

Two solutions to the same problem. Which is more economical for the man on the street?

 

[Aussie Charger]

You really don't get it, do you?

 

[Rat Bastid]

It's not a fact. It's a foolish statement. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, I'm simply going to point you to an engine build and a T&D article which both address this very issue. You can argue with those guys:

620hp SBM
How To Build A Pump-Gas 620hp Small-Block Mopar - Car Craft Magazine

Frequently Asked Questions - T&D Machine Products
WHY ARE PLUS RETAINERS OR KEEPERS ARE AN ISSUE?
When a cylinder head is assembled with the correct spring, retainer and keeper the tip of the valve protrudes past the top of the retainer. If a plus retainer and/or keeper is used, the valve tip becomes recessed in the retainer. The rocker arm will contact the retainer prior to the roller contacting the valve. To make the roller contact the valve tip, clearance must be cut into the rocker and can cause the rocker to break prematurely.

In the past we have seen and heard of some customers raising the stand to clear the spring, unfortunately this sacrifices geometry for clearance and can now lead to guide wear issues. The best fix for this issue is to eliminate the plus retainer and/or keeper or add a lash cap.

WHY ARE BIG SPRINGS AND LOW RATIOS A BAD COMBINATION? (DRAWING)
This is typically an issue with the small block Chevy, Ford and Mopar engines.

When a large diameter spring is used with a “low“ ratio rocker arm, it can create a clearance issue between the pushrod and the cylinder head. The large spring requires a longer rocker to keep proper clearances. The longer rocker requires the adjuster to be further away from the fulcrum, increasing the overall length of the rocker even more.

Some people machine the rocker arm for clearance, but this is NOT anything we recommend.

WHY ARE MAXIMUM SPRING DIAMETERS SPECIFIED?
Spring diameter is a big factor mainly on small block Chevs, Fords and Mopars. Many engine builders stick with a relatively low ratio rocker arm and make up the lift with the cam lobe. The rocker arm itself is short so that if a 1.50 thru 1.60 ratio is used there is pushrod clearance. Because this rocker arm is “short” there is a limitation on the spring diameter that can be used. For 1.450” fulcrum length rockers the maximum spring diameter is a 1.550”. If the geometry is correct, the rocker will have plenty of clearance to the spring and retainer. If a 1.450” long rocker is hitting a 1.550” diameter spring and retainer combo, the usual reasons are the stand is too low or a plus height keeper or retainer have been used to increase installed height.

Oh brother. Really? It’s an F’ing pain in the *** to move a rocker with a stud. It used to be even a bigger pain in the *** with a Chrysler because you had to mill the stands off and use blocks to relocate the shafts.

Mike at B3 Racing Engines made it really simple to correct geometry. And it’s cheap. And it works.

Evidently you just don’t know what you don’t know. If we are now talking about stud mounted rockers (which is what happens all the time…guys like to change up the discussion to muddy up the facts so I’m not surprised you did it) then that’s a different discussion.

I’m talking about ANY single shaft mounted rocker system that the shaft sits in a saddle.

So I’ll ask you a silly question. Who do YOU KNOW, personally that uses a 1.550 spring on a flat tappet cam? Not many that I know of. I don’t even do it. Part of the issue is the installed height of the Chrysler system is too low to get much spring height in there.

Of course, we can use longer valves but whooooooops, you’ve now altered the geometry. And, you probably added lift from the factory .450 or so lift and…wait for it…you’ve changed the geometry. And maybe you added a roller tip and guess what? That’s right…you changed the geometry.

Now the rocker is hitting the springs and you want me to say hell yeah! Just throw a BH on there and send it.

I can tell you that will NEVER EVER HAPPEN. Wrong is wrong and that is wrong.

 

[Rat Bastid]

What costs more – replacing a set of valves with associated machining costs and liners, or buying a set of springs that saves valvetrain weight and has better harmonics?

Two solutions to the same problem. Which is more economical for the man on the street?

Well wait, now you want to budget ****?

Ok, I’ll go there. Most aftermarket heads come with 11/32 stems. So that’s in the cost of the new heads.

Rebuilding what you have, aluminum or CI?? You’ll need guides anyway. Same cost for .500 X .310 or .342 guides and it is for any other guide. So you lose there.

Valves? Yep, valves cost a bit of money. Let’s say they are 20 bucks each. That’s 320 dollars US. Cheap assed replacement valves are what, 12-13 bucks each? So uh-oh, at worse, we are talking about 8 valves at 8 bucks each. 64 dollars. 64 dollars on a what??? 5k build?? Not much.

So you look for every excuse to NOT a fix a geometry issue. That’s a YOU problem.

 

[Aussie Charger]

Well wait, now you want to budget ****?

What do you mean "now I want to budget ****"?

Do you live in the Oval Office? We ALL have budgets! But many (if not most) of us street guys don't have the budgets for exotic valve gear that can be addressed with simpler, cheaper parts.

What if I just want to leave the heads alone and put a bigger cam in with matching springs? Why do I need to do all the things you suggest?

You talk like money's no object! And you forget not everyone lives in the USA where you manufacture parts and get things a lot cheaper than we do once it's been shipped and taxed! Not to mention the availability.

If anyone is wondering why there are so many Aussies on this forum it's because we have A-bodies too, but we don't have the luxury of OEM and after-market manufacturing like you do.

 

[Aussie Charger]

Evidently you just don’t know what you don’t know. If we are now talking about stud mounted rockers (which is what happens all the time…guys like to change up the discussion to muddy up the facts so I’m not surprised you did it) then that’s a different discussion.

Back-pedalling much? You said it, not me. And now you want to quantify it by saying "But, but, but . . . I was only talking about shaft-mounted rockers"?

Why not just leave the blanket statements alone and stick to the facts? Anyway, this is all getting a bit silly and personal now.

 

[Rat Bastid]

What do you mean "now I want to budget ****"?

Do you live in the Oval Office? We ALL have budgets! But many (if not most) of us street guys don't have the budgets for exotic valve gear that can be addressed with simpler, cheaper parts.

What if I just want to leave the heads alone and put a bigger cam in with matching springs? Why do I need to do all the things you suggest?

You talk like money's no object! And you forget not everyone lives in the USA where you manufacture parts and get things a lot cheaper than we do once it's been shipped and taxed! Not to mention the availability.

If anyone is wondering why there are so many Aussies on this forum it's because we have A-bodies too, but we don't have the luxury of OEM and after-market manufacturing like you do.

It was 64 dollars for valves. If that breaks you then save your money and do it right or go play golf. No wait…skip the golf. That **** ain’t cheap either. How about checkers??? Yeah, so that.

Surely I jest. I can’t help with your budget. Of the budget anyone else has.

And to a great extent, the vast majority of times going over budget is poor planning. Here is an example I’ve seen more than once right here on FABO.

A guy builds something really nice. Good heads, shiny rockers…all the ginger bread you can think of. And, he buys pushrods out of a catalog. And, he doesn’t pre-assemble the engine the 7 or 8 times it takes to do the job correctly.

And then he bolts down his rockers and they hit the springs. Had he not bought pushrods already, he’d be out a little over 200 bucks to buy a kit from B3 and fix it. But now he needs the kit AND pushrods.

And this happens over and over.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Back-pedalling much? You said it, not me. And now you want to quantify it by saying "But, but, but . . . I was only talking about shaft-mounted rockers"?

Why not just leave the blanket statements alone and stick to the facts? Anyway, this is all getting a bit silly and personal now.

No backpedaling at all. YOU are on a CHRYSLER site. Unless you specify you want to talk about stud mounted rockers the discussion is about shaft mounted rockers.

I must say there is a propensity for you Australians to pull this ****. Be offended if you want, but there are now four of you here who do the same **** all the time.

Stay on topic, or start another thread about beehives and stud mounted rockers. The sad thing is Chrysler stayed with shaft mounted rockers when the entire racing world said a stud was better. Now, all the Chevy guys run shaft rockers and Chrysler went to stud mounts.

Once again, Chrysler went backwards. There is NEVER a reason to use flexible stud mounted rockers.

 

[Rat Bastid]

What costs more – replacing a set of valves with associated machining costs and liners, or buying a set of springs that saves valvetrain weight and has better harmonics?

Two solutions to the same problem. Which is more economical for the man on the street?

I forgot to mention you have ZERO PROOF that anyone did nothing but swapping in a BH spring and fixing anything. Not a single link you posted did that.

 

[Aussie Charger]

No backpedaling at all. YOU are on a CHRYSLER site. Unless you specify you want to talk about stud mounted rockers the discussion is about shaft mounted rockers.

I must say there is a propensity for you Australians to pull this ****. Be offended if you want, but there are now four of you here who do the same **** all the time.

Stay on topic, or start another thread about beehives and stud mounted rockers. The sad thing is Chrysler stayed with shaft mounted rockers when the entire racing world said a stud was better. Now, all the Chevy guys run shaft rockers and Chrysler went to stud mounts.

Once again, Chrysler went backwards. There is NEVER a reason to use flexible stud mounted rockers.

Yes, this is a Chrysler website. And Magnum heads have . . . wait for it . . . But you made the blanket statement about geometry, not me.

US$64 for 8 valves (assume we're only swapping the intakes). The last set of Manley intake valves (x8) I bought cost around US$150 plus delivery and tax. The last set of heads I had re-lined and valve-cut with additional work to narrow the valve guides cost around US$450 – and that was considered a decent price.

You guys have no idea what we pay for parts and machining over here. Not to mention the OP, who lives in Sweden.

You appear to have a very narrow view of the world. And I'm not offended. In Australia, we tend to call it like it is. Which is all I have done.

Now, you go back to your gilded workshop with its exotic Ti valve gear and US$8 valves and I'll keep working on my cars with the resources I have. As I said earlier: horses for courses.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Yes, this is a Chrysler website. And Magnum heads have . . . wait for it . . . But you made the blanket statement about geometry, not me.

US$64 for 8 valves (assume we're only swapping the intakes). The last set of Manley intake valves (x8) I bought cost around US$150 plus delivery and tax. The last set of heads I had re-lined and valve-cut with additional work to narrow the valve guides cost around US$450 – and that was considered a decent price.

You guys have no idea what we pay for parts and machining over here. Not to mention the OP, who lives in Sweden.

You appear to have a very narrow view of the world. And I'm not offended. In Australia, we tend to call it like it is. Which is all I have done.

Now, you go back to your gilded workshop with its exotic Ti valve gear and US$8 valves and I'll keep working on my cars with the resources I have. As I said earlier: horses for courses.

I never said you can buy an 8 dollar valve here. I said the difference in COST between a cheap assed replacement valve and a decent valve is 8 bucks. A replacement valve (as an example) is 12-13 dollars. A good valve is 20 bucks. 20 minus 12 is 8. Simple math.

Your economy is YOUR issue. If you can’t afford to do it right, cobble it up? I guess so, but I don’t work that way.

So I’ll assume the next time someone has a rocker hitting a spring you’ll be on here telling the dude to drop some BH’s on there and I’ll explain (as I always do) how stupid that is.

Use what you want, but I haven’t seen a single report that a BH has “better harmonics”. Better than what?

Unsubstantiated claims are just that.

 

[Phreakish]

Indeed, why did OEMs go to beehive/conical springs in the first place if they are such a poor design?

One spring is cheaper than a double plus a damper. Simple as that.
A BH spring has fewer resonant frequencies, but not "none". They avoid surge and bounce for less cost.
OEM engines are built to price point.

Spring life depends largely on the mass of the material involved. A smaller spring is stiffer, but can't take as much stress. Larger wire diameters can take more stress and increase stiffness. For heavy use applications, a BH would be going backwards. Multiple nested springs will always have more mass. Once a BH is made from thick enough wire, it won't fit..

BHs thus require lighter valves, and rely on their lighter retainers. Then the lobes have to be engineered along with the rockers to control the load and unload rate to prevent spikes which might exacerbate surge.

All that changes when one moves into high output builds. Bigger valves, faster ramps, higher lift - they all work against a BH design..

 

[Bewy]

^^^^ Read post #64. BHs do not require lighter valves more than other type of spring. Of course, one would use the lightest valves & valvetrain possible in the interest of VT stability & VT life; only a fool would use parts heavier than necessary.

Production vehicles have multi year warranties. The fact that OEMs use BHs while warrantee-ing their engines for 3-5 yrs speaks volumes about BH reliability.

Isky said it best in Tech Tip: Is extra exh duration necessary? Habit, he said.
I think it is the same here. Folks get into a habit, & will not accept new technology. Some are probably using crank handles to start their engines...