What happened to beehive springs?

-
I’ve tried them on a few various BB applications(not all mopar), to see if they show improved upper rpm stability or power on some builds that weren’t performing at 100%........ I never really got anything out of them.
They weren’t any worse, but no better either.
When those hyd lifters (flat or roller) start acting up....... lighter springs and retainers don’t do anything.

If you dig up the old Mopar Muscle article “mild mannered mauler”, that’s a good illustration of what my experiences have been.

They help in some situations....... but not always.

We freshened a SBC oval track crate motor last year, and it used the Chevy hyd roller “hot cam”, and the matching beehives, which are pretty soft..... both on the seat and the rate.
That thing went 6500rpm without even a hint of float.
That’s an engineered system........ not just a randomn substitution of beehives for conventional springs.

In the last few years, we’ve actually removed them from some BBC marine engines that didn’t have them originally, where someone installed them at some point, and they weren’t a good match for the cam....... and they either failed(broke), or lost a bunch of load, allowed the valves to float, and then killed some lifters.
We put some duals back in, very similar to what the engines left Mercruiser with....... no more problems.
 
Last edited:
the whole idea of beehive springs is to reduce weight in the spring and off the retainers! spring pressure still needs to match cams suggested numbers tho!
 
dirty white boy said:
the whole idea of beehive springs is to reduce weight in the spring and off the retainers! spring pressure still needs to match cams suggested numbers tho!
Click to expand...

And yet the claims are:

BAAEDFD5-5AB1-4E3C-A2E9-D8ED9A2363C4.jpeg


For example, the Comp 26995 is recommended as the premium beehive upgrade for the 995 dual spring.
Yet the spring rates are quite different.
402lbs/in for the 995, 280lbs/in for the 26995.

Both installed at 1.700, at .500 lift the beehive would have 277lbs open load, the 995 would have 316.
That’s a 14% increase in open load for the dual spring.

If you started out with the seat pressures equal between the two(we’ll call it 137 for this comparison) and looked at the open load @.500 lift, then it’s 277 for the beehive and 338 for the dual...... which is 22% more open load for the dual over the beehive.
 
Last edited:
RustyRatRod said:
hoover hoover,blah blah blah. lol I know they work, I am just bein contrary. Now hush up and lemmie have my fun. lol

I did use some in a phord 5.0 roller motor once. Does that count?
Click to expand...
Not really, nothing on a ford counts !! lol
Of course u probly know, they were called battleship springs back then ----------not much diff. in design .
They were supposedly to have better dynamics, same as the current thinking .
 
The old MP “Battleship” spring (p3462887) was a traditional 1.57” dual spring with a damper.

Not at all a beehive spring.
 
dirty white boy said:
the whole idea of beehive springs is to reduce weight in the spring and off the retainers! spring pressure still needs to match cams suggested numbers tho!
Click to expand...
It's more than that.. it is a progressive rate spring, not a single rate spring like the standard straight coil.

Progressives 'should be' inherently less prone to internal vibrations; single rate springs are made with heavy rates partly for that reason, which most folks don't realize: keeping the internal spring vibrations under control that are caused by the accelerations at valve opening and closing. And dual springs are really for the reason of having 2 separate resonant frequencies in the valvetrain 'system'; that is an aid in the valve float problem over the nose of the cam. Beehives don't want to resonate with the system at one frequency. The beehive/progressive idea was to try to put those 2 features into one spring.

Beehive spring rates change across their movement range. The rate reaches its highest at the peak lift that the spring can support. That rate ought to be 'peaking up' adequately around max lift to give the needed 'reverse acceleration' force at that time, to best make the valvetrain follow over the nose of the cam. That is the 'engineered' aspect that PRH refers to.
 
PRH said:
The old MP “Battleship” spring (p3462887) was a traditional 1.57” dual spring with a damper.

Not at all a beehive spring.
Click to expand...
Was referring to the overall shape -------
 
famous bob said:
Was referring to the overall shape -------
Click to expand...

Sooooo, a traditional dual spring with a damper....... that has the beehive shape.

Hhhmmmmm.

Maybe someone has a set on some heads, or sitting on a shelf somewhere that they could take a pic of.
 
Never used a behive or conical spring in any of my dirt track engines. My sbm 383 could easily spin to 7500 rpm's or higher... rebuilding that engine and it will get a newer design cam but i'm using the same springs.
 
Krooser said:
Never used a behive or conical spring in any of my dirt track engines. My sbm 383 could easily spin to 7500 rpm's or higher... rebuilding that engine and it will get a newer design cam but i'm using the same springs.
Click to expand...
Just curious as to what pressures and lifters and rocker are being used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top