What valve springs did you use with your Isky E-4?

[toolmanmike]

I used some 340 springs with my Isky E-4. I looked up what Isky recommends (#6005) and found they are a double spring with dampner. What did you use?
tmm

 

[Hipo65]

Im not sure of the maker of mine to be honest,but i did check there spring psi @ the installed hight & @ the now .435 ish lift ( with the lash) & installed was 120 lbs & open was right @ 280 ish lbs. with plenty of room before coil bind. They looked new so i checked them & sure enoph good to go! singles with dampers. If i had to guess id say comp 901's.

 

[perfacar]

hi, depends on installed heights. comp springs that work are , 901 @ 1.65,
942 @ 1.70, 972 @ 1.800. all are single with dampners. I've used all on various small mopars. 901 is 101 #, 942 is 115 #, 972 is 125 #.

 

[toolmanmike]

I think a lot of guys run the 901's. I just found it interesting that Isky recommends a dual spring for a cam as mild as the E-4. Schneider has a cam a little bigger than the E-4 and they have duals for theirs too. tmm

 

[Hipo65]

TMM, i thought the same thing too with the spring psi. so i called them to see what the deal was with the high spring psi (thats like the comp 995's i ran on my old 340 with there xehl 545 lift cam!) & isky told me thats there max spring psi for that cam is what iskys tech poeple told me.

 

[OldmanRick]

No hands on here Mike, but I can't believe you'd really need a dual spring in that application with a fairly mild ramp cam and the lightweight of the small valves.....unless it for a big rpm race application.

The 901 comp's spec at 104 seat/259@1.25 height, and a 387lb rate.
I'd personally would have no problem running those on a engine that didn't require "max" rpm's.

For a serious 273 build, I still think a single could get the job done even with a larger "milder" ramp cam. If I was going to step up. I think the Crane 99835 with a 113 seat/280@1.25, and a 412 rate, should cover what's needed for any hot street/bracket engine.

Just my thoughts...

 

[toolmanmike]

No hands on here Mike, but I can't believe you'd really need a dual spring in that application with a fairly mild ramp cam and the lightweight of the small valves.....unless it for a big rpm race application.

The 901 comp's spec at 104 seat/259@1.25 height, and a 387lb rate.
I'd personally would have no problem running those on a engine that didn't require "max" rpm's.

For a serious 273 build, I still think a single could get the job done even with a larger "milder" ramp cam. If I was going to step up. I think the Crane 99835 with a 113 seat/280@1.25, and a 412 rate, should cover what's needed for any hot street/bracket engine.

Just my thoughts...

Good info Rick. What's your take on beehive springs. They seem to be "the'' spring. tmm

 

[OldmanRick]

I had to think on the Beehives a few minutes, since they are kinda past my prime.

Personally, they just don't look right to me. I know they come on some of the newer engines these days, but for what most here do with these engines, i don't know that it's worth the fitment issues to go that route. The only advantage I see is a little lighter retainer and maybe a little extra rocker clearence. Back in the day we just used titanium pieces. Pricey, yes, and I don't know what the comparison would be vs converting to beehives today. I'd still use the "old school" springs if I was to build a engine today.

One thing to consider with the Comp/Crane springs mentioned earlier, is that depending on the cam lift, they can be shimmed for more seat pressure if it's needed without getting into coil bind.

 

[toolmanmike]

The beehives are supposed to cancel out much of the harmonics that cause valve float at higher rpm. They are more stable at higher rpm because of their variable rate. I just saw a harmonics comparison graph today but can't find it now. Retainer clearance would be a plus too.

 

[OldmanRick]

It is amazing what valve springs go thru. In my opinion, the're the most stressed part in a performance engine. I put together a lot of SBC's for people years back, and they were always the first to fail...lol.

I guess I can see how the design could work, for a variable ratio. As far as the harmonics, the big boys with some real data would know way more then me.

As far as the Mopar small block heads, with close to a 1.5 dia and a short 1.65 installed height, are there many off the shelf beehive springs available.....I really don't know?

 

[toolmanmike]

I found the thread but not the comparison graph yet. Here's the Comp Beehive numbers. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-26986-16

 

[toolmanmike]

Here's a chart. The blue line is the conventional springs and the red line is the Beehives.

 

[OldmanRick]

I found the thread but not the comparison graph yet. Here's the Comp Beehive numbers. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-26986-16

Comp springs, retainers, And 10* locks.....about $250.....

A little steep to me? But I am a real cheap skate...lol.

 

[toolmanmike]

Yep. That's what I was thinking. Those Comp 901's look pretty good from here. LOl

 

[OldmanRick]

Here's a chart. The blue line is the conventional springs and the red line is the Beehives.

I admit it looks a little shaky for the standard springs ...But I wonder what size valves that test was done with. I'm guessing 2.02's. I think the 1.78's might be a lttle more stable with the standard springs due to their lower weight?


I just want to thank you Mike for having a nice discussion about this. I really enjoy threads like this when we can all have a good debate about the newer trends. I really learn a lot from you and everyone that posts on topics like this. :thumbrig:

 

[perfacar]

hi we use comp 926 in 340, very tough spring. 140 seat, 345 open, will pul 7500 rpm easily and last.last set went 790 runs, turning 7400 in the traps on very aggresive cam lobes. never had any valve float issues!!! done with hyd lifters also.

 

[toolmanmike]

What's not to like there. Sounds like a tough spring. Thanks for the info.