When my hyd. roller 383 was on the dyno we noticed that it hit the
valve float wall at 6100rpm with Comps #987 springs on it.
So before stickin the 383 in my work truck I swapped to Comps new #120
"bee hive" springs in hopes of getting a few more rpm out of it.
So I'm glad to say that now the 383 revs to 6500 nicely. I hit it enough to
see where its poppin and banggin, 6600-6700 seams to be the spot.
At least we know that these spring do add some rpm - 500rpm aint bad,
and 6600 is plenty for a work truck. Now its gonna be time for a base line at
the drag strip, to see how slow this pig is, but 1st I gotta get it track ready.

6500 rpm is more than you`ll probably need too!
Are you using titanium retainers? if not, there`s a couple more 100 rpm there also.

Keep us up to date.

Where the other springs brand new as well? Just curious to see if it was an apples to apples comparison. If the standard springs you used first were not new that couls account for some of the RPM difference.

Thinking about it, the bee hive springs have a pretty small retainer as is, I`m sure that helped get a few more revs out of it.

No titanium retainers, but the steel ones are the size of a nickel and weigh about
the same as regular sized titanium retainer.
Yea, the 987s were new, (the 383 was all new going on the dyno) so its a good comparison,
I checked all the pressures and set the spring height too, so its all set up right.
Its all about loosing mass, the retainers a light and youre only moving one spring
instead of 3 springs like on the 987s, (double spring with a damper) graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Bottom line!!

What's the price difference between the beehive spring kit and the 987 spring kit?? (Apples to apples here too!)..

And then ask yourself if 500 to 600 more rpm is worth the extra money??

pdq67

We've used the "beehive" springs on the Viper since we redesigned the engine three years ago; not for high rev capability (fuel shutoff is at 6200 on a Viper), but for reduced valvetrain weight, friction, and elimination of harmonics issues with the previous dual-spring design (the plate across the top is an assembly aid to hold the pushrods in position while installing the rocker arms).

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-2/13522/CIKKMYRNOMSLSHTIEZTG-ValveGear.JPG
graemlins/beers.gif

Rafel,
good to hear they worked out for you, you guys were looking at the engineering perspective of those springs for a while.

Good luck with the intial passes on the new springs.

I think I got them for around $135, plus the retiners and locks, it wasnt cheap but it was a must, since the 383 made peak power @ 5900 and was floatin at 6100, I'll need to shift it at around 6300 or so I think, sure beats doing a rev kit. The lobe intensity is what makes for valve float, as my 502 goes 6800-7000 and with much heavier valve train - the soft ramps must help it do so. The 383 has just a 224/224 smooth idle work truck cam, but the lobes are fast.
Hope this helps anyone doing a hyd. roller set up.
there are other things to consider, like the titanium retainers, hollow stem valves, and a lobe that isnt so agressive, 7000+ shouldnt be a problem then. Heck if I had all that on my 502 it would go 7500 I bet, but would cost some $$$. :thumbsup

pdq67- I had thought about getting the behives when I was first putting my mouse together. Talked to Comp Cams and at that time to get the springs to go with my 270h, the springs alone would have been $220. I was interested in trying them as the dyno results that had been listed and checked by CHP and CC had shown an increase of up to 20hp with them. Still may head down that road if when more $$ shows up.

Brandon J.

Just another example:
In the new Car Craft they're messin around with a LS1, and have run it to 7200rpm with Comps bee hive springs... if anyone is interested.
But remember they use hollow stem valves also, so there is less mass.
So you can make them hyd. rollers rev... graemlins/thumbsup.gif

seem to work well on the LS1's also

wonder if comp has or is going to have for solid roller applications?
a few more rpm out of the 396 LT4 would be fun

Is it just a mass difference? I've done a lot of testing on dyno with a GM V6 coming out and we found that the beehive spring's resonant frequency is much different than standard diameter springs. I've recorded high speed video and strain measurements on both types. We thought it was also a mass issue when the standard spring wouldn't let the motor rev. The spring was surging quite bad. We actually pushed the motor higher with a motoring dyno and when the spring passed the surge condition the motor pulled once again. The beehive surged at a much higher speed - just above our rev limit eliminating our problem. Maybe I'll grab some video footage for you guys to see....It is plan amazing what springs go though at high rpm! So is it just a mass thing or.....?

Tski