Jer82Z28

well i have a set of those beehive springs on my vortec heads trying to get an LT4 cam to work with them, the way these springs work it seems that compression among the coils is not uniform but starts at the bottom and stacks its ways up.
now aparantly when installed at .800" these springs should good for .550 lift on a vortec head with retainer-to-seal clearance being the only hinderance after that.

I have my springs installed a bit higher (.8125") and yet its looking like they are binding with my lt4 cam and 1.6 rockers

I have borderline enough clearance (.060") on the top two coils only and the rst of the coils are binding.

do you think i should worry about this?

todd200

I would call comp or a machine shop familiar with the Beehive springs. I know in HOT ROD when they tested them, they mentioned something similar. "Allowing progressive stacking of the bottom two or three coils during valve lift, like planned coil bind". They said this helps stabilize the upper half of the spring. HOT ROD also mentioned that that trick is better left to profesional builders, so I would at least contact Comp and see what they say.

cwalsh

iTrader: (9)

I am using these springs with my LPE 219* .565 lift cam just fine on my 113 al Vette heads. I also had a good shop assemble them to.

Jer82Z28

did you happen to check what your springs looked like after the engine shop finished with em?
I called up comp cams and told them the situation, I'm a little short of what they want for an install height but the guy said dont worry about it so I don't knw. he kinda rushed me off the phone so im not sure if i should trust his judgement.

I think I'll take some pics and show everyoe what I'm talking about.

Jer82Z28

well I sent some pics to comp cams and it turns out I have the wrong retainers in there. funny how I went with the ones some magazine used on their vortec heads figuring it would be ok.

moral of the story is talk to the manufacturer about application before you buy parts from em!



im hoping this solves the issue anyway

JPrevost

What is the part numbers and where did you get them? I'm looking into a cam swap but having vortec heads it seems like my options all require machining or living with low lift roller cams (defeats some of the benifits).
My friend was just telling me about these springs for the Lt1 crowd. I figured it would work with vortecs if Lt1 heads are using them.

todd200

Even with springs that will handle the lift I believe Vortecs can only handle about .480 lift without machining. You would be better off in the long run to just pull the heads and have the guides, the spring seats, and the stud bosses all cut so you can run higher lift cams with real springs and lose the press-in studs. I like the beehive springs but IMHO thier cost to benifit ratio on a street car just isn't worth it.

cwalsh

iTrader: (9)

Jer82Z28,

What retainers did you use? I used a 77416 retainer and 64816 lock. Did they give you a recommendation on retainers?

Jer82Z28

umm actually those 774-16's are what I was told were the wrong ones, I was told to get the 787-16s as the 774s are a metric LS1 retainer. The locks sit up out of the retainers at least 1/16" though..

cwalsh

iTrader: (9)

Very interesting! My machine shop guy never siad anything about any clearance problems. Might be question worth asking him. I installed them in my #113 AL heads with new Manley valves. I have about 7500 miles on them. I was on Manley site and looking at the valve stem sizes that a LS1 valve is roughly .028" smaller therfore the 774 retainer should give a shorter installed height. I can see that I will be ordering a set of retainers

Jer82Z28

well I plopped those different retainers in and it looks like they will work now! i probably gained about 0.07 of an inch with those proper retainers which now gives me that .060 clearance between the coils like comp cams wants.

Im still limited to about .560 lift though so if i want to go higher than .525 I will have to work the heads a bit.

this will work for now tho....