KCS

iTrader: (20)

As everyone knows, valve springs are kind of a big deal when building a high performance engine. The wrong springs combined with a bad combination of valvetrain components can lead to not just poor performance, but a catastrophic engine failure. The valve springs are a part you really want to get right.

So what's the "right" spring? Well, that depends on the rest of the valvetrain and the application. To help you decide what's right for your combo, I'm writing this to share the information I have on a product that is relatively new and not yet widely used.

I purchased Comp Cams' Conical valve springs (PN: 7228-16) from an LS1Tech sponsor, Colorado Speed. This, BTW, is an independent review and I am in no way being compensated to write this or to say nice things about them, however I have no complaints with either company. Anyways, these springs are a new design however similar to the beehive springs that are used by both the OEM's and aftermarket and are suitable as a "drop in" replacement, compatible with stock locks, retainers, and even the one piece valve seals. They actually taper from the bottom to the top, like a trapezoid, rather than just tapering at the top like a beehive. Below is a photo of the Conical spring (left) next to a stock Beehive spring (right).



Without getting into the physics of why this shape works, it's basically intended to resist bad harmonics in the spring that can occur at certain points in the RPM range of the engine. According to Comp, the ratio at which the spring tapers was actually tested and was actually shown to have a major influence on the spring's ability to resist these bad harmonics. You can read more about them Here.

The down side to most Beehive springs is relatively low spring pressure. Many engine builders prefer dual springs because they typically have higher spring pressure to help control the valve. Unlike the Beehive springs, the Conical spring actually has very good spring pressure for a hydraulic roller, with about 125lbs @ 1.80" and 420lbs at 1.20" as seen on the spring tester. Coil Bind was at 1.130", so this specific spring can handle about .620" valve lift depending on your installed height.



Unlike the dual springs, the Conical and Beehive designs are much lighter. Reducing mass on the valve side of the rocker arm is a very important endeavor when you are trying to turn considerable RPM or run aggressive lobes. Compared to a popular dual spring, the conical spring was more than 30 grams lighter, and about 20 grams lighter than a Beehive spring!





I'll be using these on a set of 799 heads with stock solid stem valves and a relatively mild Comp Cams camshaft. I don't plan to set the world on fire with these, but it shouldn't have any problems turning up to 7000RPM and I'll be sure to update the thread with the results.

hiltsy855

iTrader: (35)

What dual springs do you have on the scale and are the retainers steel or titanium?

KCS

iTrader: (20)

The dual spring retainers are titanium. I'd rather not mention the name of the company, but it's a pretty popular brand and the weight is pretty typical of a LS specific dual spring. Another dual spring kit with smaller titanium retainers were within 3 grams.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

interesting, thanks for sharing.

p.s. - the link you provided seems to be broken

KCS

iTrader: (20)

Thanks. It should work now.

01ssreda4

iTrader: (96)

Are these springs previously available for other applications or are they a new design?

KCS

iTrader: (20)

Well, they did make conical springs before, but it was meant to be installed with the smaller ID in the spring pocket. The increase in OD towards the top gave the spring more pressure, but also a heavier retainer. This is essentially the opposite.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Posting the weight of the dual spring is not negative but rather informative, happen to know how much heavier a steel retainer would be? I think the declining to post who sold it gives many of us a good idea.

I think the beehive/conical advantage weight wise is greater than the scale tells us because the the end that does all the moving losses most of that weight.

whatsa347

iTrader: (6)

I'm curious to see how heavy the "lightweight" steel retainers are.

COSPEED

iTrader: (331)

BTW, where do you want me to send that check to again? I deleted your last PM.

FYI, COMP CAMS has come out with the 7228-KITS on these if you are interested.

COMP CAMS Conical Valve Springs
http://www.coloradospeed.com/comp-ca...s-p-30760.html

COMP CAMS Conical Valve Springs w/ Chromemoly Retainers (GM LS)
http://www.coloradospeed.com/comp-ca...s-p-35365.html

COMP CAMS Conical Valve Springs w/ Titanium Retainers (GM LS)
http://www.coloradospeed.com/comp-ca...s-p-35366.html

Thanks again for the awesome review!

squalor

iTrader: (3)

Looking on Comp Cams site I see a part # 982-16 for a very low price. Is that the old style that was larger at the top ? Why couldn't we buy those and flip them over ?
So the 7228-16 works with stock retainers and 7* locks ? It is 16 springs only ?
How do you think they would compare to PSI 1511ml springs ?
I have heard the Comp tool steel retainers are 7 grams, Ti retainers are 6 grams and stock GM are 11 grams. I don't know about the CroMo retainers.
Thank you for the great review and pictures KCS

KCS

iTrader: (20)

I don't know how much a steel retainer would add on the dual spring, but if I had to guess, I'd say another 5-10 grams. The reason I've withheld the name is to keep the comparison as a design vs. design and avoid brand vs. brand. Anyone knowledgeable enough to be able to identify these springs understands that I wouldn't be bashing a product and that it really doesn't matter anyways. Judging by your wording, "who sold it", I'd say you understand this.

I agree about the weight. Reducing the weight near the top of the spring is akin to reducing the weight of the valve by using hollow stem steel or titanium. Just that alone will increase the RPM capability of the engine.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

The 982 springs wouldn't fit, first of all. The larger OD is 1.460" and tapers down to about 1.290". The valve spring pocket in the LS head is only about 1.30", so they would have to go in upside down as well, which means a large heavy retainer.

Even if they did fit, those springs were not deigned and tested like the new springs have. The link I posted earlier has an interview with one of Comp's engineers that explained that the ratio at which the spring tapers is specifically designed to dampen harmful harmonics throughout the entire RPM range. The taper they have is actually very specific and performed best amongst other ratios.

Haha, anytime!

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I have been curious about these springs for a while. Nobody seems to have any experience with them, so I will be looking forward to your report.

On a side note, do you really want 400+ nose pressure? Are you using stock rockers?

KCS

iTrader: (20)

I was hoping they would be closer to 400lbs, but the last springs I had used were like 460lbs open. My cam has .598" valve lift and my installed height is 1.820", so it should end up with a little less open pressure. I will be using stock rockers with the trunnion upgrade.

A.R. Shale Targa

iTrader: (2)

The original 982s were for circle track guys where the rules stated unmachined spring pockets (1.26") on gen I SBC. I've used plenty of these upside down on Olds heads. With 14g vortec retainers I was getting 115 seat and 275 open for a .490" lift and 5500 rpm setup.
I think you're right on to think that these are the hot new spring and I'm certain I'll be using them on dirt track stuff which now states "no beehives". As you mentioned, once you understand the reduction of the higher order harmonics and how that essentially allows an air pump to spin faster/higher while under control.....it makes more power...

squalor

iTrader: (3)

I found another article about these springs
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...s/godbold.html

This quote caught my eye

acpm

So... how'd it go? Did everything run well? Did you learn anything worth mentioning?

G Atsma

You do realize this thread is over 2 years old.....

A.R. Shale Targa

iTrader: (2)

IIRC one of them broke and caused catastrophic failure but I'm sure he'll chime in soon enough