When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Retainers effect valve closing time. Heavier retainers effect open/close pressures of the spring itself. When the springs are tested for pressure, it is without a retainer. They also add momentum during the open/close events, so lighter retainers help with harmonics and resonance. The same goes with the actual valves. Their entire mass is being shifted by the valvetrain, therefore their weight is a big factor. The heavier the valve, the more it also effects the springs open and close pressures.
The spring itself is supported by the head. Its true that the weight of the spring can effect opening/closing time, but since its entire mass is not supported by the valvetrain, it doesn't play nearly as big of a role.
Retainers effect valve closing time. Heavier retainers effect open/close pressures of the spring itself. When the springs are tested for pressure, it is without a retainer. They also add momentum during the open/close events, so lighter retainers help with harmonics and resonance. The same goes with the actual valves. Their entire mass is being shifted by the valvetrain, therefore their weight is a big factor. The heavier the valve, the more it also effects the springs open and close pressures.
The spring itself is supported by the head. Its true that the weight of the spring can effect opening/closing time, but since its entire mass is not supported by the valvetrain, it doesn't play nearly as big of a role.
I'm curious who told you spring pressure isn't tested with a retainer. You could probably get away with that on a single spring, but not on a dual/triple spring.
I know guys that have used 918's with a Torquer V2 and had no issues. You can definitely use a beehive spring with that cam. I just put PSI1511's in my motor, but I have a cam with slightly less lift (.569). They replaced some old Comp 987's, which were HUGE!
I got everything I needed from Brian Tooley...including his ridiculously light titanium beehive retainers!
Here's a photo showing old vs. new
Last edited by Tang2; Jul 15, 2016 at 01:10 PM.
Reason: Added a note
Sure. I wasn't looking at max lift..kinda my point though I didn't say that specifically. By over-springing I meant more pressure than needed. I've talked with Brian before and have probably bought 7 or 10 sets of his "platinum" duals. For the V, using those springs with a LLSR. I guess my point is that if they will stand up to a solid, they could be overkill for some hydraulics. I have no dog in this fight; just having a discussion.
I think it worth noting that TSP literally states that the V2 is beehive or dual friendly and the V4, with a more aggressive lobe design, requires duals. So nothing inherently wrong with running duals with the V2 but if you can get away with a lighter spring with lower pressure, you have more power potential. How much? I don't know. Will that potential be realized? I also don't know. Is it worth giving up the safety of duals? Also up for debate.
I'm personally looking for relatively high RPMs with a stock short block out of this next build and so even spring weight(duals weigh more) has been on my mind.
For reference..open pressure is not that different but seat pressure is very different %-wise:
Tsp no longer uses XER lobes...before they made the switch I believe they quit recommending them. Remember the guy that had the 6.0 swap in his BMW? 228r with some 1518 PACs that broke with low mileage. One sales guy at TSP said they were fine, but then a TSP sponsor chimed in saying they normally recommend duals for that lobe. Then I remember Brian Tooley posting that his duals give up no HP to a comparable beehive and you get the added insurance of the inner spring.
BTW I am reading this as a civil discussion so no need to keep stating that you are not arguing or just having a discussion...I get it. This topic has been brought up many times in the past and can get heated so I know why you making it a point to be mentioned.
Again I have no issue with beehives...I am just convinced after reading posts from and talking with Brian Tooley that duals were the right choice for me. I am by no means a expert so carry on.
Tsp no longer uses XER lobes...before they made the switch I believe they quit recommending them. Remember the guy that had the 6.0 swap in his BMW? 228r with some 1518 PACs that broke with low mileage. One sales guy at TSP said they were fine, but then a TSP sponsor chimed in saying they normally recommend duals for that lobe. Then I remember Brian Tooley posting that his duals give up no HP to a comparable beehive and you get the added insurance of the inner spring.
BTW I am reading this as a civil discussion so no need to keep stating that you are not arguing or just having a discussion...I get it. This topic has been brought up many times in the past and can get heated so I know why you making it a point to be mentioned.
Again I have no issue with beehives...I am just convinced after reading posts from and talking with Brian Tooley that duals were the right choice for me. I am by no means a expert so carry on.
All good, man. I've been told that my conversational communication can get a little pointy so I default to stating that I don't mean it that way. And so much gets lost in straight text. Half the time I'm over here with a smile on my face making a light-hearted remark and the guy on the other end 3,000 miles away thinks I'm punching him in the face.
I've run both and respect both. And respect your decision to run what you run. I so wish I had a few piles of money sitting around here and could put together an engine dyno. I would run so many back-to-backs I'd probably look like Tom Hanks at the end of 'Cast Away' by the time I saw daylight again.
There is an article somewhere that did a direct comparison between factory LS3 beehives, aftermarket beehives, and one of the dual spring kits. The LS3 beehives made 4 more hp than the others on the stock cam, but the aftermarket beehives and duals made identical power. With that, even as someone who'd normally recommend beehives whenever possible, I'd suggest the BTR Platinum .660 kit. It's fairly inexpensive, and per Brian, will drop in with no worries.
All good, man. I've been told that my conversational communication can get a little pointy so I default to stating that I don't mean it that way. And so much gets lost in straight text. Half the time I'm over here with a smile on my face making a light-hearted remark and the guy on the other end 3,000 miles away thinks I'm punching him in the face.
I've run both and respect both. And respect your decision to run what you run. I so wish I had a few piles of money sitting around here and could put together an engine dyno. I would run so many back-to-backs I'd probably look like Tom Hanks at the end of 'Cast Away' by the time I saw daylight again.
All good! I left this forum for awhile because everything always turned into attacks and arguments. Its nice to have a good group of guys here that can have civil discussions. You and KCS have more experience then I do with this stuff. So I have no issue being corrected if something I say is incorrect.
It surely illustrates that there isn't much difference in a controlled test with a certain set of parameters/parts...heck; less than 1%.
A few things that occur to me:
Comp 918 vs. BTR .660 is like the Kia of beehives vs. the Cadillac(well; in my price range at least) of duals.
Were the 918s run with a steel or titanium retainer package? Can make a difference.
Spring rates change after break-in AFAIK. What do these springs look like at 10K miles?
Do you guys know how heavy is the 918 itself compared to, say, a PSI 1511?
A friend and i just did 1.85 roller rockers and spring swap on a ls3. Went from oe ls3/ls6 spring to ti retainers and psi 1511 and took about 1lb out of the valvetrain. That's pretty huge i think.
It surely illustrates that there isn't much difference in a controlled test with a certain set of parameters/parts...heck; less than 1%.
A few things that occur to me:
Comp 918 vs. BTR .660 is like the Kia of beehives vs. the Cadillac(well; in my price range at least) of duals.
Were the 918s run with a steel or titanium retainer package? Can make a difference.
Spring rates change after break-in AFAIK. What do these springs look like at 10K miles?
Do you guys know how heavy is the 918 itself compared to, say, a PSI 1511?
Yep, that's the article! I found it just as I was nailing down the decision on which springs to go with myself.
Based on the photos, it looks as though the 918's were run with the factory steel retainers.
The question of a change in rates/pressures with break in is valid, but even if the pressures change after some usage and they free up a few hp, I'd bet the 918's and BTR duals would still be similar to each other.
Found another, very similar article in which they weighed what looks like 918s. I've got some 1511's loose in the box I'll weight when I get home.
I feel a bit nit-picky bringing up such slight differences, but at less than 1% HP difference in an environment that is not real-world, we're already in nit-pick land I think.
A friend and i just did 1.85 roller rockers and spring swap on a ls3. Went from oe ls3/ls6 spring to ti retainers and psi 1511 and took about 1lb out of the valvetrain. That's pretty huge i think.
Now his ls3 revs cleanly to 7100 rpm
This is good data you might not find on an engine dyno. In a vehicle in the real world, things are very different.
A friend and i just did 1.85 roller rockers and spring swap on a ls3. Went from oe ls3/ls6 spring to ti retainers and psi 1511 and took about 1lb out of the valvetrain. That's pretty huge i think.
Now his ls3 revs cleanly to 7100 rpm
Mine revs clean to 7k with 22x XE cam, SLP 1.85 rockers, PAC 1904 duals, ti retainers, and lightweight valves. It revs quicker then it did with stock 02 cam, 1.85, 918's, and stock 241 valves. Actually it revs quicker to 7k now then it use to rev to 6k. The stock tach lags about 400rpm behind according to data logs. It feels like it wants to go higher but I do not want to push the SBE.
Last edited by kinglt-1; Jul 19, 2016 at 03:54 PM.
Reason: Wrong part number on springs
Another thing on dual springs. Same friend with ls3 had a grand am cup 346 years ago. Used dual springs on it and popped the head off the valve....i would not use them at all with a hollow type valve.
Another friend wanted to try my 1.7 harland sharp rockers on his car so i let him barrow them. Keep in mind i had thousands of miles on them with my stock ls6 springs. He had dual springs......didn't take long and they started breaking.
I've had psi 1511 and 1.8 harland sharps on my ls6 for quite a while now with no issues. I've even did the dreaded money shift one night (3rd into 2nd @ wot) and it never missed a beat.
The only thing better than a beehive to me is a conical. Take some good advice and don't try to save $ in your valve train by using a inferior dual spring.
Btw....the psi 1511 has more taper than a oe ls6 spring. It don't look quite as beehivey more conical if that makes sense.
Last edited by HioSSilver; Jul 15, 2016 at 03:51 PM.
There's where your faster revving comes in then. Better heads, more compression and lighter valves.
Its not the pressure that beaks them....it's more violence /harmonics in the valve train.
Who knows you may be fine. They may never break on you. But to me any time i can get 1lb or so out of my valve train it's a good thing.....not to mention added stability.
good read http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/140...xhaust-valves/
Makes me wonder if some of these broken spring failures we read about are caused by
sloppy mechanics who find a spring compressor, throw different springs on, without as much as even a tape measure, button it up, head to the dyno.
Ha j/k no one does that.
good read http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/140...xhaust-valves/
Makes me wonder if some of these broken spring failures we read about are caused by
sloppy mechanics who find a spring compressor, throw different springs on, without as much as even a tape measure, button it up, head to the dyno.
Ha j/k no one does that.
There's where your faster revving comes in then. Better heads, more compression and lighter valves.
Its not the pressure that beaks them....it's more violence /harmonics in the valve train.
Who knows you may be fine. They may never break on you. But to me any time i can get 1lb or so out of my valve train it's a good thing.....not to mention added stability.
"who knows I may be fine" - I trust that companies like TEA and BTR know what they are doing. They have probably set up a 1000 sets of LS6 heads with dual springs and no failures. If my valve train was not stable, it would not rev the way it does. Yes getting weight out of the valve train is a good thing, but if my valve train is stable, revs where I need it to, and does it reliably, I really do not see a issue.
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Slideshow: From wobbling harmonic balancers to failed EBCMs, these are the issues that define long-term C5 ownership and what repairs typically involve.
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Slideshow: A modern Camaro transformed into a retro icon, this limited-run "Bandit" build blends nostalgia with brute force in a way few revivals manage.
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Slideshow: Cadillac didn't just crash the high-performance luxury vehicle party, it showed up loud, supercharged, and occasionally a little unhinged...
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Slideshow: A one-off sports car that looks like a vintage Italian exotic-but hides a C6 Corvette underneath-just sold for the price of a new mid-engine Corvette.
