Review: Comp Cams New Conical Valvesprings for LS Engines
#1
Review: Comp Cams New Conical Valvesprings for LS Engines
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.
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.
Last edited by KCS; 10-20-2014 at 01:09 PM.
#3
Trending Topics
#8
11 Second Club
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.
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.
#10
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!
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!
#11
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
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
#12
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.
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.
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.
#13
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
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
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!
#15
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.
#16
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
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...
#17
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
I found another article about these springs
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...s/godbold.html
This quote caught my eye
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...s/godbold.html
This quote caught my eye
improving valve control with better springs has resulted in dramatic improvements in power even when the engine did not appear to be suffering from valve float. It sounds crazy, but we’ve seen 50-plus hp on a flat tappet small-block just by adding a better set of valvesprings.
#19
TECH Senior Member
You do realize this thread is over 2 years old.....