Valvetrain survey

[Rootus]

Anybody here use any of these products? I'd be interested in hearing your experience with them.

1. Comp Cams "Beehive" springs (part# 26915 or 26918)
2. Comp Cams Pro Magnum OR Magnum rockers
3. Comp Cams high energy lifters

Thanks,
Dave

 

[331 cobra]

I'm planning on getting a set of those springs. Muscle Mustangs and fast fords used a set in an article about 10 months ago. They called it Flyer five-oh or something like that.

It was a dss short block with ported windsor jr (lights?) heads and a carb intake. It made 463 hp with ~11.9-1 compression, and it reved to ~7500 with a quiet roller solid cam.

They also used comp's titanium retainers, but they had to machine them to work with 11/32 valve keepers.

If you find any more information, let me know because it's pretty scarce.

 

[SorsCode]

Both Lifters and Rockers... Lifters were quiet when i was running my stock heads now with the AFR and the Pro Magnums theres a little valve train noise but as soon as i shut my hood its gone... Plus side to the rockers is that fit under stock covers.

 

[Rootus]

There's a new article in MM&FF (March issue) that goes over the beehive springs again, as well as other valvetrain components. Amazing stuff!! I'm trying to solve a valvetrain noise issue as well as a horsepower issue, and I'm entertaining the idea of getting the high energy lifters & beehive springs (as a minimum. Also thinking about magnum or pro magnum rockers to further quiet this damn thing down). I also read that aluminum rockers have a finite lifespan, which is something I did not know. Didn't say how long, though. Just that the steel rockers have an indefinite lifespan when used within specs.

Dave

 

[GTJake]

Dave, I thought you got the upgraded springs from AFR? Why do you have your old dyno in your sig now?

Jake

 

[stang_gt_1994]

I think Beehive springs are the best idea Mustang performance parts have came out with in a lond time. They can take high RPM's and are light. Also the Pro magnum rockers are good peices from what I heard. I would get some linked roller lifters if you can.

 

[Rootus]

Dave, I thought you got the upgraded springs from AFR? Why do you have your old dyno in your sig now?

I do have the upgraded springs. That might be a little bit of the problem -- it sounds to me like the lifters are bleeding down a bit, due in part to the spring pressure.

That's my new dyno .

My original dyno was 309 rwhp, on an AWD Mustang dyno. The shop that did the test stands by the results. . I did another test on a Dynojet, and got 273 rwhp. That test showed the torque curve was skewed towards the bottom, and Ed Curtis suggested I explore possible exhaust restrictions. So I ditched my shorty headers, which *were* a bit smooshed on the passenger side collector, and got the longtubes & X-pipe. So I went to the dyno this past Saturday hoping that I picked up the missing horsepower and was in the neighborhood of 300. I figured I was, because when I did the longtubes & X-pipe I gained 3 mph consistently at the track, which equates to roughly 25-30 horsepower. But the new dyno test claims I'm only putting down 278 to the wheels, and again the torque curve is *really* skewed towards the low RPM. Grrrr.... And before anybody mentions it, the cam was degreed correctly and I've double checked it .

I did a rough comparison of my numbers to Paul's (Killercanary), since we have roughly similar combinations (slightly different cams, though). Here's the comparison:

See what I mean? Something just ain't right. And part of me thinks it might have something to do with all my valvetrain noise (which gets quite loud, audible clearly inside the car, after a high RPM run).

 

[GTJake]

So why would you want to replace the springs? Seems like just getting the lifter might cure your problem. What does Ed think? You have FMS lifters, right?

Jake

 

[Rootus]

So why would you want to replace the springs? Seems like just getting the lifter might cure your problem. What does Ed think? You have FMS lifters, right?

I would replace the springs to 1) lighten the valvetrain considerably, and 2) reduce/eliminate bouncing of the valve on the seat. Grab the March issue of MM&FF, there's a wonderful article in there about valvetrain dynamics.

I sent Ed an e-mail this evening, hopefully he'll be able to point me in the right direction.

I do have FMS lifters (basically stock replacements) right now. I'm thinking that I may do this in steps -- rather than replace the whole damn valvetrain, I'm going to do the lifters first, and while I have it apart I'm going to check the cam settings for a third time, and I may re-degree the cam to the lighter setting just to see how it works. Then if I get SOTP changes, I'll run back to the dyno and see where I'm at. If I'm still having trouble, I may then opt for the valve spring swap. At least that part will be pretty easy, don't have to tear the intake off .

Dave

 

[stackz]

So why would you want to replace the springs?
Jake

he could be preparing for a different power band or wanting to use more of his available powerband since he might not be getting max efficiency from having to shift too soon for fear of valve float, lifter collapse, etc.

I used the magnum roller rockers on my last 5.0 along with crane triple springs/retainer set, I had lunati valves and hardened pushrods and solid roller lifters though. i was running an f303 cam in the car.

I tried compcams springs but they liked to walk around in the seat on the head which didn't set right with me so that's why I swapped over to the crane springs. I didn't try the beehive springs though so they might be different.

 

[GTJake]

he could be preparing for a different power band or wanting to use more of his available powerband since he might not be getting max efficiency from having to shift too soon for fear of valve float, lifter collapse, etc.

But he already bought the upgraded spring from AFR, which are suppose to prevent valve float when using a cam with fast ramp rates.

Jake

 

[Rootus]

But he already bought the upgraded spring from AFR, which are suppose to prevent valve float when using a cam with fast ramp rates.

It's not just a matter of having heavy enough springs. The beehive springs are progressive rate, which presents several advantages. The article in MM&FF does a decent job explaining it, or you can find some stuff online. Here is an article by the author (David Vizard) who wrote the piece for MM&FF:

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/eb50354.htm

Dave

 

[stackz]

But he already bought the upgraded spring from AFR, which are suppose to prevent valve float when using a cam with fast ramp rates.

Jake

well then he's either not happy with them and wants something different or just because they're upgraded and "supposed" to prevent valve float...doesn't mean they will with his desired combo.

ramp rate isn't the only thing that contributes to valve float. overall lift of the cam lobe as well as duration of the lobe affects valve float against the spring itself.

if he exceeds the tensile strength and/or tension of the spring overall with his cam specs and rpm then its going to float regardless of it being adamantium or plastic. If it's rated for a .550" maximum and he's got a .560" cam (z303 comes to mind) then he's going to need a bigger spring unless he stays in a safe rpm range.

probably just wants a different spring though if I had to bet since he's looking at all one company's stuff.

 

[331 cobra]

The whole idea behind the beehive spring is that it is much lighter than a conventional spring, so the valve train mass is less and it needs less spring pressure. With less spring pressure, your hydraulic lifter will not bleed down as soon, so your valves will not float at the same RPM.

Then there is the issue of harmonics, but that is a tricky one because I once saw a test where a set of heavier pushrods was able to rev higher because they damped some harmonic. These springs are suposedly good at damping harmonics, but I would like to see a little more science and figure out which harmonics come in to play on the 5.0. It's better to treat the problem instead of the symptom.

 

[zenboy99]

I have pro magnum rockers on my car with Ed's custom cam. The car should be running this weekend and then I'll dyno it once I get a chip. I"ll let you know the results.

 

[GTJake]

Ed recommened Eaton lifters to me. You might want to try those for $125 before you spend the big bucks on Comp Cams hydraulic roller lifters.

Jake

 

[94DreamGT]

Something ain't right here Dave.

You dyno'd 309rwhp on a MUSTANG dyno, which are load dyno's and are typically output numbers 10% lower than a Dynojet??? Then you do mods, strap it on a Dynojet and only get 278rwhp...31 horsepower down from your first dyno and if corrected to dynojet figures...a lot more.

Am I missing something here?

Sounds like maybe a bigger issue than valve springs.

 

[94DreamGT]

Ed recommened Eaton lifters to me. You might want to try those for $125 before you spend the big bucks on Comp Cams hydraulic roller lifters.

Jake

How many miles does your car have Jake?

Reason I ask is because I specifically asked Ed about using my stock lifters. I was totally willing to buy the Eatons, but he said with my mileage (65,000), it would be pointless...only if I was over 100,000 or so and even then, he said something about guys and racers using the stock Ford Hydraulic Lifters and spinning them to 7k with no problems.

Saved me $125 and I seem to have no problems so far...(now where is that wood for me to knock on )

 

[GTJake]

How many miles does your car have Jake?

Reason I ask is because I specifically asked Ed about using my stock lifters. I was totally willing to buy the Eatons, but he said with my mileage (65,000), it would be pointless...only if I was over 100,000 or so and even then, he said something about guys and racers using the stock Ford Hydraulic Lifters and spinning them to 7k with no problems.

Saved me $125 and I seem to have no problems so far...(now where is that wood for me to knock on )

Woah, didn't know that. Ed just told me Eaton lifters, you know he's pretty brief with his responces. And the car has 18k miles on it, so yeah....lol...I guess I'll save some money. What timing chain did you end up getting, Jeremy?

Jake

 

[Rootus]

Something ain't right here Dave.

You dyno'd 309rwhp on a MUSTANG dyno, which are load dyno's and are typically output numbers 10% lower than a Dynojet??? Then you do mods, strap it on a Dynojet and only get 278rwhp...31 horsepower down from your first dyno and if corrected to dynojet figures...a lot more.

Am I missing something here?

The Mustang dyno was one of their newest AWD dynos, and it was not the "typical" Mustang dyno we are accustomed to. It was able to do load testing, and accelerometer testing (what a Dynojet uses). The 309 rwhp figure was in accelerometer mode. It was something like 280 in load mode, don't have the graph from that particular test anymore though so I can't check to see what it was exactly. I have every belief that the Mustang dyno was just dead wrong, even though the dyno operator denies that vehemently. If I can find my Mustang dyno graph, I'll post it -- it's self explanatory why I think it's a BS dyno run.

My combo hasn't made "correct" power in my opinion, from the day I put it together. This is just a continuation of my earlier problems, which I honestly believed were solved with the new exhaust (based on the 3 mph trap speed increase ). On the bright side, it does make excellent torque down low, which makes it a blast to drive on the street. Now I want it to keep making torque up top...

Dave