Trick flow heads

-
7

71scamp78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
312
Location
terre haute indiana
Looking to buy trick flow 240 heads for a 512 stroker. Just curious why heads for a roller cam don't come with some beehive springs. Figure it would be better ...are you guys running them like that or swapping springs out to match cam. I was going to use the smaller trick flow cam.
 
You said:
I was going to use the smaller trick flow cam.
Click to expand...

I only see one cam offered for the BBM from TF.

The heads come with 3 spring options.
HFT, HR, SR.
 
71scamp78 said:
Just double spring option no beehive
Click to expand...

Get bare heads and built them how you want them. That’s what I’m going to do for my 340 stroker project when the day comes...

As for beehives, a few months back helped my buddy with a 5.7 hemi rebuild / swap, as a beehive exploded, dropped a valve and then ate the whole engine up, the thing was F***ed badly. So yeah, beehives can go to the Chevy guys, with their cheap *** rebuilds...
 
Last edited:
71scamp78 said:
Looking to buy trick flow 240 heads for a 512 stroker. Just curious why heads for a roller cam don't come with some beehive springs. Figure it would be better ...are you guys running them like that or swapping springs out to match cam. I was going to use the smaller trick flow cam.
Click to expand...


How is the beehive better? I’ve used them and won’t again until someone else pays for the build. They were less than impressive.
 
Rat Bastid said:
How is the beehive better? I’ve used them and won’t again until someone else pays for the build. They were less than impressive.
Click to expand...

Better harmonics from what I've read. I'm not against using the dual I was wondering if the beehive would be better that's all. Just want to make sure. I would think if trick flow offers a cam with the heads package it would be ok
 
If the cam manufacturer thinks the beehive is the spring for a cam, they'd recommend it.
Harmonics isn't something I'd worry about with a tf240 head on a 512, you'll most likely not even rev it over 6800 rpm since that cam isn't going to make power that high with a 512 probably closer to 6400. Is this a street car or a race car?
 
MOPARMAGA said:
If the cam manufacturer thinks the beehive is the spring for a cam, they'd recommend it.
Harmonics isn't something I'd worry about with a tf240 head on a 512, you'll most likely not even rev it over 6800 rpm since that cam isn't going to make power that high with a 512 probably closer to 6400. Is this a street car or a race car?
Click to expand...
Street car
 
I recently built a 440 with TF 240 heads & switched to BH springs. I have been using them for over 15 yrs. GM, Ford, Chrys knew what they were doing by going to BH.

BH springs require less spring tension, which reduces valve train stress. They are also less prone to spring surge because each coil is a different diameter & has a different natural resonant frequency. They do not need a damper like parallel springs which have the same size coil which causes the NRF to become additive in amplitude.
 
Bewy said:
I recently built a 440 with TF 240 heads & switched to BH springs. I have been using them for over 15 yrs. GM, Ford, Chrys knew what they were doing by going to BH.

BH springs require less spring tension, which reduces valve train stress. They are also less prone to spring surge because each coil is a different diameter & has a different natural resonant frequency. They do not need a damper like parallel springs which have the same size coil which causes the NRF to become additive in amplitude.
Click to expand...

Great explanation. My buddy swears by them. Lighter valve train is always a better thing
 
Bewy said:
I recently built a 440 with TF 240 heads & switched to BH springs. I have been using them for over 15 yrs. GM, Ford, Chrys knew what they were doing by going to BH.

BH springs require less spring tension, which reduces valve train stress. They are also less prone to spring surge because each coil is a different diameter & has a different natural resonant frequency. They do not need a damper like parallel springs which have the same size coil which causes the NRF to become additive in amplitude.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that’s not true. I have never used a beehive spring with less pressure. In fact, at the same pressure the beehive had way less valve control. The locks and valve stems were ruined in 2 races. They look good on paper but out in the world the results are uninspiring.
 
Yes it is true. Smarter people than you have proved it. Ruined valve stems & locks doesn't mean that it was a spring problem.
D. Vizard quote from his BBC book:
[1] 'All this [ BH spring ] adds up to to a spring that needs less of it's own spring capability to control itself & therefore has more to control the valve train'.
[2] 'Typically, you can drop 15 lbs on the seat & as much as 40 lbs over the nose & achieve the same RPM as a good conventional spring. Also even with the reduced spring forces, the valve train is better controlled through out the rpm range.'

Four Stroke Performance Tuning by A. G. Bell.
On BH springs:
'Its reduced diam at the top allows for a lighter retainer. ...it allows a spring pressure reduction at full lift of of around 10-20% without any reduction in safe engine speed.....cutting both parasitic losses due to friction & valve seat wear. This is possible because of the BHs superior harmonics....Each coil increases in diam compared with the coil above, so each coil has a different natural frequency which helps dampen spring surge'

There was a bad batch of Comp Cams BH springs I believe about 15 years back, which CC acknowledged.
 
I don’t see what the issue is.

Very few factory assembled aftermarket big block heads, for any brand of engine, come supplied with beehive springs.
If someone wants them, just swap them out. No big deal.
 
Bewy said:
Yes it is true. Smarter people than you have proved it. Ruined valve stems & locks doesn't mean that it was a spring problem.
D. Vizard quote from his BBC book:
[1] 'All this [ BH spring ] adds up to to a spring that needs less of it's own spring capability to control itself & therefore has more to control the valve train'.
[2] 'Typically, you can drop 15 lbs on the seat & as much as 40 lbs over the nose & achieve the same RPM as a good conventional spring. Also even with the reduced spring forces, the valve train is better controlled through out the rpm range.'

Four Stroke Performance Tuning by A. G. Bell.
On BH springs:
'Its reduced diam at the top allows for a lighter retainer. ...it allows a spring pressure reduction at full lift of of around 10-20% without any reduction in safe engine speed.....cutting both parasitic losses due to friction & valve seat wear. This is possible because of the BHs superior harmonics....Each coil increases in diam compared with the coil above, so each coil has a different natural frequency which helps dampen spring surge'

There was a bad batch of Comp Cams BH springs I believe about 15 years back, which CC acknowledged.
Click to expand...


Yeah tell that to the guy writing the checks. That was with Ti retainers. Of course the spring manufacturer said Ti retainers are bad and stuffed some tool steel retainers up his rear. Same issue. Then they said to drop the seat pressure. Did that and it laid over half way down the front stretch and pounded the seats out. And he had Ti valves. I can’t remember who he was getting those springs from but I ended up with PAC non beehive springs at the same seat pressure and it stopped. So what you or Vizard says means nothing to me. You are a professional big mouth that hasn’t seen the performance side of anything. A beehive spring might be ok for low rpm, low performance stuff but anything other than that they are a waste of money.
 
PRH said:
I don’t see what the issue is.

Very few factory assembled aftermarket big block heads, for any brand of engine, come supplied with beehive springs.
If someone wants them, just swap them out. No big deal.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The beehive spring is not new. The 215 Buick came with them and a couple of others did too. But nothing that was performance oriented.
 
Rat Bastid,
If you knew anything about Ti you would know there is 'cheap' & 'expensive' Ti. I can only guess what grade you were using.....
 
71scamp78 said:
Great explanation. My buddy swears by them. Lighter valve train is always a better thing
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Regarding the op, go with bare heads.
My plans call for bare heads, then conical, not beehive springs and tool steel retainers and ductile iron rockers to reduce valve train mass and moving parts. Lifters are more and more looking likely to be some sft edm hole tool steel by comp. They weigh in a touch over 80 grams if I remember right.
 
RB,
I am only a loud mouth fool to you because you cannot win an argument with logic & facts. When you have facts, you don't need to do name-calling.

I have read LOTS of your posts on this website that are just absolute bullsh*t, but I didn't respond & just let then go. If you like, in future I can respond....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top