Thinking about putting them on a 302/351W.
Not really planing on revving more than 6500RPM's.
I read an article in Car Craft (or was it Hot Rod?) and they claim 29ft.-lbs and about 20HP on a 454 Chevy that revved to about 5600RPM w/ a Hyd. roller
with the type springs.
I read the article also - what's missing is how well the springs they tested against were doing their jobs in the first place. I don't think it's appropriate to look at the test and conclude the beehive springs are worth 20+HP, although I'm sure CompCams would love us all to believe that. Apparently where the Chevy was losing power with the original springs was having the intake valve bouncing off the seat on closing which was reducing cylinder fill/pressure. While CompCams new springs solved the problem, I'm not sure that a proper selection of a standard set of springs wouldn't have solved it too. Seems to me that where the real benefit may be is being able to reduce spring/retainer mass allowing more true cam following at higher rpms. But with most of us running hydraulic lifters, the rpms aren't that high in the first place.
Mike ... 'zackly!! but the conical springs used on the 5.0s has one HEAVY retainer!! It might be small in dia, but they are huge!! the spring sets in a 1.95 ( that is plus +.150 ) to make the correct pressures... on a chavy the stock small retainer fits and then there is a lot of weight off the top of the spring... but on the 5.0s... I can see ANY benifit!!?? ( as far as weight reduction is concerned.) Also right on on the tech and the selective reading... !! Have a killer new year..!!