Beehive Valve Springs. What if any are the downfall of these springs??
04-23-2015, 08:30 PM
#21
Registered
I really like the beehive concept and theory behind it. Comp selling a bad batch of them early on hurt their rep a lot I think. GM has used them in stock applications. I think they are probably best for mild to medium cams but aren't enough for the most extreme lobes.
04-23-2015, 09:38 PM
#22
Registered
iTrader: (1)
I'm running a set with Comp XFI lobes in a sbc in a boat. Those EFI lobes are pretty hard on parts, but, a SBC is not too hard on valvetrain. IE: weight of parts, geometry, etc.
Duration @ .050'' Lift: 218° Intake / 224° Exhaust
Valve Lift w/1.6 Rockers: .570'' Intake / .565'' Exhaust
Duration @ .050'' Lift: 218° Intake / 224° Exhaust
Valve Lift w/1.6 Rockers: .570'' Intake / .565'' Exhaust
Last edited by SB; 04-23-2015 at 09:43 PM.
04-24-2015, 06:51 AM
#23
I'm running a set with Comp XFI lobes in a sbc in a boat. Those EFI lobes are pretty hard on parts, but, a SBC is not too hard on valvetrain. IE: weight of parts, geometry, etc.
Duration @ .050'' Lift: 218° Intake / 224° Exhaust
Valve Lift w/1.6 Rockers: .570'' Intake / .565'' Exhaust
Duration @ .050'' Lift: 218° Intake / 224° Exhaust
Valve Lift w/1.6 Rockers: .570'' Intake / .565'' Exhaust
04-24-2015, 08:56 AM
#24
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Yup. I used heavier rate beehives than the norm, along with Comp Cams Hi Tech pushrods to (hopefully) make things stabile. But, motor does not go over 5500-5600 anyway...so that helps.
The XM (marine) lobes are a lot gentler and what I'd recommend for most.
The XM (marine) lobes are a lot gentler and what I'd recommend for most.
