26918 Bee Hive springs

[Donny254]

I've been using these for a while now and they seem to be working great. But so far I've only used them with a lower lift cam. (a very aggressive .425 lift)
I just tried a set in a vortec engine with a .535 lift cam (dirt track engine) which will be tunning around 7000. On the dyno I didn't notice any problems or hear any evidence of valve float. I've made close to 30 dyno pulls this week on the engine and everthing looks good.
I was just wondering what others had to say about these springs. I know their's been several articles written on these. I guess what I'm looking for is real world, long term experience with these springs. The last few sets have been the updated springs.
Thanks ahead of time for any imput.
Donny

[automotivebreath]

Hi Donny,
No experience here, however I say hives are here to stay. Anytime you
can reduce valve train weight it's a good thing and thats just what bee
hives do with the small valve retainer.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by automotivebreath

Hi Donny,
No experience here, however I say hives are here to stay. Anytime you
can reduce valve train weight it's a good thing and thats just what bee
hives do with the small valve retainer.

well thats just half the story

[automotivebreath]

Don't hold back Dusty, tell us the other half.

[1989GTA]

I had one of the early sets of the 26918 beehive valve springs. Probably right after Comp switched to another company from PAC. My 26918 springs had no paint on them. I bought them to go with the Comp XFI268 cam.

Anyways at 1.800" they measured right around 115 pounds out of the box. When new on the dyno the car would go into serious valve float around 6200-6300 rpm. Anyways over a period of time I kept loosing horsepower. The consenus was the valve springs were doing some floating.

So I replaced them with a set of Manley beehives with 150 pounds on the seat. They were right on spec. Anyways we remeasured the old 26918 valve springs and they were down to between 95-100 pounds on the seat at 1.800". We cranked the spring down to 1.750" the installed height and the gage did not hardly move. It was after this point that the gage finally started climbing again.

No more valve float and I can rev the motor to 6500 rpm with no problems. Regained my lost 25 horsepower. End of story.

[Donny254]

The springs I'm using on the current engine are the latest ones from Comp.
The only thing that worries me is the horsepower drops a little at 6000 and levels out till around 6500 and then takes a jump up again. I think I'm running out of cam and head at this point. In this class we can't port the heads.
My concern is, even though I'm not hearing any valve float, Maybe the power drop is evidence of it. I agree the bee hives are here to stay and we used them to take care of a valve float problem in the .425 lift rule engine. We even picked up some power in that application. Even though these are rated up to .600 lift I'm just a little nervous in this instance.

[DavidVizard-GFN]

Donny 254

Beehives are the way to go as long as the quality control is up to spec. I have several sets that are now about 3 years old and have seen extensive dyno time. A set of the Pac 918's are still good for 7500 on a street roller ligfting to about 0.530.

Tho get the best out f this type of spring they need to be set sot hat they run close to coil bind. When this is done the bottom 2 -3 coils are already coil bound. This leaves only the stiffer top coils in operation and as such the resonent frequency goes up by a bunch. The result is that any resonance that was about to happen is quenched more effectivley. Note - these srings are not proof anganinst resonance but they are a lot leasss likley to do so. I belive that both pac and Comp have a vidio clip of the 918 spring at it's most resonant point. also note that with these test the spring was far from coil binding so you see them at close to their worst not best. The bottom line here is do note be affraid to set them up with a little more seat pondage if it allows them to run nearer coil bind at full lift. that said don't compromise a flat tappet cam with to much seat poundage.
With only a 0.425 lift you may not be using the spring in it's best operating range. They may be going into a resonace at the flat 6000 or so RPM poit you spoke of. Try shimming then so they have another 15-20 seat ppunds.

1989GTA

glad the Manley springs are working for you (you might want to see if Comp will replace your other springs) Got a part # on the Manley items?
I would like to check these out.

Is your 89 GTA the V6 one????
Thanks
DV

[Donny254]

David,Thanks for the info.
The cam I'm using in this engine is .526/.535 lift with a 4/7 swap. I have the springs set up at 1.800". I went back and pulled some dyno sheets on an earlier engine from a little over a year ago that we used the same grind in and it had the same drop and then recovery at basically the same rpm points. I did use a traditional double spring setup in the earlier engine. I knew you had done a lot of testing on these springs and figured you would know better than any one else what works.
We've been using the same spring in a lower class engine with a .425 lift rule and have great results with them.
BTW... about 12 years ago I attended a 2 day class that you held in Charlotte NC. I learned a lot in those 2 days. I remember you had a bad cold but you kept going and finished out the weekend.
Thanks
Donny

[DavidVizard-GFN]

If you had the same shape curve with differnet springs it might not be surge related but check it out anyway.
Glad you enjoyed the lecture - actually it turned out I had Pneumonia.

DV