Search



Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
Sponsored by Weld Racing
Click Here

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2012, 10:08 PM   #1
Supreme Member
 
skinny z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,257
Car: 86 Sport Coupe

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Comp valve springs 987-16 vs 26918

I've got new heads coming. The supplied springs are Comp 987-16.
Specs: 121 lbs @ 1.8", 343 lbs @ 1.2". (370 lbs/in)
I also have Comp 26918 (Beehive).
Specs: 125 lbs @ 1.8", 348 @ 1.2" (372 lbs/in)
While the spring rates are almost identical, the question comes down to valve train control and rpm. I'm staying with my .535"/.544" cam (using 1.6 rockers). I'm using the Beehive springs in the current setup and have bounced off 7 grand a couple of times with no ill effects (other than scaring the crap out of me!)
What are the limitations going to be with the heavier 987 spring and retainer? I shift at 6500 (1st -2nd) and 6000 (2nd -3rd).
The last thing I want to do is float a valve into a piston.
Any experiences out there? They're both very common springs so I figure somebody has some hard data.
Thanks.
__________________
86 Sport Coupe, gunmetal grey, black interior, IROC rims, GlassTek cowl hood, 355, RHS ProTorker heads, roller valve train w/ custom hydraulic cam, Air Gap intake, 750 BG VS, MSD Ignition, Canton pan, Hedman LT headers, Griffen rad, 700R4 w/10" convertor, TransGo Stage 2 kit, Hurst Dual Gate shifter, 1350 u-joints, 3" steel shaft, Dana 44 w/3.73 TracLoc, LS1 front brakes, PBR rear, Intrax 2" drop springs, poly bushings throughout, Del-Alum bushed front A-arms, on board data logger, full AutoMeter gauge cluster. 12.7/107mph. 3650lb.
skinny z is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 06:53 PM   #2
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 6,481

Classifieds Rating: (0)

Re: Comp valve springs 987-16 vs 26918

The beehives and their much smaller retainers shave a fair bit of weight off the valvetain where it counts most- the valve side. Weight is the enemy of RPMs. And their design is inherently better at reducing spring harmonics (it isn't a single diameter the entire length). Much of the time they don't require as much pressure to get the job done as a standard spring for those reasons (and probably othe reasons that are beyond my knowlege). But they are more expensive (the downside).

If you got 'em why not keep using 'em?
Damon is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 07:56 AM   #3
Supreme Member
 
skinny z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,257
Car: 86 Sport Coupe

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Comp valve springs 987-16 vs 26918

All of what you've said is true.
As it turns out, there's a comprehensive test comparison (between these two exact springs) done by David Vizard and Comp Cams.
The Beehive is the hands down winner. Valve control is extended by several hundred rpm and this is in an range that has resonable applications. In a cam with .544 lift the conventional spring became unstable at 5500 rpm and a final crash at 5700. The Beehive doesn't lose control until 6750 rpm.
While I do have a set of 26918's, they're installed in my Vortecs and I'd like to keep them complete. Looks like that won't be the case.
__________________
86 Sport Coupe, gunmetal grey, black interior, IROC rims, GlassTek cowl hood, 355, RHS ProTorker heads, roller valve train w/ custom hydraulic cam, Air Gap intake, 750 BG VS, MSD Ignition, Canton pan, Hedman LT headers, Griffen rad, 700R4 w/10" convertor, TransGo Stage 2 kit, Hurst Dual Gate shifter, 1350 u-joints, 3" steel shaft, Dana 44 w/3.73 TracLoc, LS1 front brakes, PBR rear, Intrax 2" drop springs, poly bushings throughout, Del-Alum bushed front A-arms, on board data logger, full AutoMeter gauge cluster. 12.7/107mph. 3650lb.

Last edited by skinny z; 02-18-2012 at 08:02 AM.
skinny z is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2012, 07:56 AM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine

Tags
16, 26918, 987, 98716, comp, heads, lift, locator, machine, rpm, specs, spring, springs, top, valve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright 1997 - 2014 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details