Discussion in ''Da Nailhead' started by Deadsled59, Jan 4, 2016.
See Will, one of my recommendations pop up. Been there done that.
Your advice is taken and adhered to, Tom.
The Competition Plus seem to be the best ones Ferrea has to offer.
How about those Hollow stems?
Have you researched which alloys end up harder vs tougher?
Your not going to see anywhere around 7500-8000RPM's where the use of ANY of the higher performance valves will be of any benefit in your application. I feel others who have responded will also agree. JMHO I've been using the 5000 series with good results. I DON'T think you really need to go any more costly then those. AGAIN JMHO Stock valve weights are Intake approx. 115-122 grams Exhaust 96-104 grams The 5000 intakes ALL were 114 grams 1.900" Exhaust were ALL 94 grams 1.500". A 1.940 cut down to 1.92" would likely weigh a few grams more as well as the exhaust 1.600" cut down to 1.520"-1.550" would be a few grams more. I didn't weigh them after cutting the tips or valve faces of the 1.900" or the 1.500" but would "assume" they would be even lighter than the stock length. Now you have the options of valve locks at standard, +.050" or - .050" which brings installed heights of 1.650", 1.700" & 1.750". After ALL was said & done I ended up with close to 1.700" give or take. Don't forget as I mentioned the margin, especially on the exhaust, is quite thick so you have options there also. I think for the cost they are the best valve/value for the $$$$ for our applications. Just not very many doing R&D/experimenting with our "Nails" to the point that I have.
On another subject I was contacted today, again, about doing a "Nail" book.
There is SSSSSOOOOO much I could talk about it would takes me weeks typing with one finger.
Hope I've given you more info in your quest to make your "Nail" the best as possible.
LOTS to update.
Ill try to be as concise as possible.
I received the Comp Springs.
Comp apprantly addressed the issues that existed in the past with the 26918 springs breaking.
This spring seems to be a re-packaged PAC 1518, which I personally have my eyes on.
PAC does their own Nitriding and peening of the 1518 springs for longevity.
They seem like the springs ill use, and are WIDELY recommended in the LS forums online.
The 26915 has a lighter spring rate, and slightly smaller OD at the base. Not much difference.
EDIT: PAC no longer offers the 1518, as I just went to order one for test-fit.
The Comp 26918 I have in my hands is basically its replacement.
PAC said they have all encountered issues with Nitriding, and stopped production a while back.
Sounds like comp really did get those springs from them.
Now however, Comp seems to do their own 26918 spring and peening, but who actually knows...
The OD of each was not exactly what was specified but thats the least of the problems.
They were actually a touch smaller than specified, but NOT enough smaller to combat how badly the pushrod is in the way of them now!
The pushrod is in the way of the spring when using the 5/16 adjustable pushrod,
while utilizing the .220" spacers I mentioned to simulate the taller valves to improve the sweep.
It'd be great if I could move the whole rocker assembly "back", read outboard, to move the sweep without getting taller valves, losing ratio etc and to keep the spring and pushrod farther away from each other simultaneously.
Ive uploaded a video attached to this post.
With NO spacers, and the stock pushrod installed (.250" OD NOT 5/16") things look OK. CLOSE to scrubbing, but OK except the sweep which im determined to move.
Most all of the Pushrod companies sell 5/16 as their smallest OD, and using stock pushrods with these spring pressures is not of interest to me.
Thank you for the lengthy reply here.
Based on the RPM range i should expect, I completely agree that the 5000 series will get the job done.
At the moment, Im taking your advice and planning to use a 1.94 and 1.6 Valve to cut down to some 1.92 and 1.550 +/-
This has to be discussed with Mike when I get a moment to relay some of this to him.
Picking out a valve seems easier than deciding what to "live with" at this point.
The sweep still bugs me a bit, as I don't want the guides ( or work on these heads $$$) to wear ANY quicker than they already have to with these modifications to spring pressures etc,
but the Pushrod to Spring clearance issue seems to be far more pressing than slightly off center sweep patterns!
Again, this is with 5/16 Pushrods that im seeing this issue!
I FULLY understand your rockers, TOMS Rockers, are designed to work predominately with stock parts (.250 pushrods)
This is where my build deviates, and where im running into an issue with them/my springs hitting the pushrods.
I had a feeling id end up asking what you meant here! haha.
Still rotating the engine and closely watching clearances, etc. while I have a moment.
I CANNOT find a strong, custom, aftermarket .250 pushrod anywhere.
Even if I did, I do not at this point think I can use much taller valves, so id have to forget about moving the sweep with these Rockers.
This is, I believe what Mike was referring to, and he didn't even have a block on hand...
If my video properly uploads, theres obviously the checker spring, and a stock spring I cut, to clarify.
I hope this all makes sense, especially with the video showing what I'm trying to achieve, and the issue at hand.
Excuse the makeshift-ness of the washers simulating the Taller Valves.
Its steady, and returns to Zero each time, and shows what taller valves (5" approx. overall) would actually do.
LINK TO VIDEO
As of this moment Will NO VIDEO. We still need to talk more.
Yessir, Id greatly appreciate your input on how to move forward.
I fixed the link above
why r u trying to use the 26918 anyways
The 26918 has been shot-peened where the 26915 has not.
You can see the difference in the photos I loaded above, and they described it in the bulletin I also uploaded.
This is how they're claiming to get longer life and durability out of the springs with less fade even.
They OD of them is basically the same, and the rates are quite similar.
So to answer your question, im not 100% sold on the 26918.
I do like the slightly higher rate of them,
but overall these were simply what ive order so far to check the spring pocket clearance since again, im deviating from stock,
and there are MANY options on the table.
Comps 26915 and 26918 just happen to be what i got here quickly from Summit.
However, PAC offers the...
1211X which has been shot-peened
1218X which has also been shot-peened
1219X up to .625 lift @ 1.8 installed, but the OD is considerably smaller than the spring pocket.
1518, out of production due to nitriding issues
PSI also offers...
1511ML ML stands for Max Life- peened and is also nitrided apparently.
PAC SPRING LINK
PSI SPRING LINK
The PAC-1211X seems like a winner, but again...
LOTS to accommodate for, and build around. Spring selection seems like a breeze.
Going to try to link up with Tom and Mike on the phone again asap.
Not to introduce an element that makes other builders and designers of parts cringe...but if need be dowel holes can be moved, stands can be altered, heads can be moved, holes enlarged, etc..
I can feel the frustration building...
Moving the Dowel Holes in the two ends of the Rocker Stands roughly .050" "Inboard" would center up the "Sweep" to make me a bit happier, and simultaneously clear up a little extra space for a 5/16" pushrod. The Pushrod and spring clearance are obviously more of an issue than the slightly off center sweep. By all accounts, the sweep is livable, actually.
I just want to move it, and if the dowel-trick may help 5/16 pushrod clearance as well, then im definitely considering it.
Attached is pt 2 and 3 of my shaky videos trying to illustrate this.
Also, a picture of my spring height mic, which doubles as a valve height mic.
This picture hopefully shows that the 1.540 Buick spec for Valve Height is from the valve cover rail.
The ACTUAL valve tip height (on these heads) is just over 1.8", MUCH like ALL the springs that have either been suggested, or ive been looking at as well.
+.050 Retainers and locks for the springs won't help me because the Valve TIP would be lower than the retainer, and the rocker arm would hit it before the roller makes contact with the valve tip.
Also, the valve height truly doesn't seem like it can move much from the ACTUAL height shown, unless I get SLIGHTY taller valves (+ .120 or so) , which induces a sweep thats wider than .080", AND Id have to re-drill those dowel holes .050" like I mentioned.
Seems like what I have to do...
Ill be on the phone tomorrow to bounce ideas.
gsgtx, you used Comp 26915 at 1.8 installed height I assume.
How was this accomplished?
If I have the spring pocket drilled deeper, its going to worsen the pushrod-spring interference.
Per usual, thanks in advance for either reading along, or chiming in.
VIDEO PT. 2
VIDEO PT. 3
i think mine our at 1.7 height i will check on it.
I would greatly appreciate that, sir.
Pictures too, if at all possible!
Anything to help me understand how these springs have been installed at that height or 1.8 with valve height being what it is. (1.8'' stock")
Thanks in advance!
Valve spring installed height stock is 1.600" from the outer spring pocket. !.540" + or - .050 from the valve cover sealing flange.
mine our 1.695 to be exact, stock is 1.60. Will i don't understand what you are trying to do with valve springs, push rods,moving rocker stands and the whole valve train for that matter ?
So apparently on these heads (not the ones Mike has in Fresno) the valves have either been sunk quite a bit in their seats.. some .200" from the stock 1.6" as measured from the spring pocket, or they're taller than stock valves. These are just the valves im using to eyeball things- got them from Russ Martin quite a while ago.
That would make sense, but what doesn't is the 1.7 Valve Tip Height gsgtx mentioned for springs that call for 1.8 install height to keep from Coil Bind with the amount of lift im looking at... which is seen in those videos- close to .600 with the adjuster screwed in just a bit.
If my lift were much less (which I obviously don't want), and the springs had less pressure AND room to account for/allow a lower install height/lower "open" height of my valves WITHOUT COIL BIND, Id have already sorted this.
Minus the pushrod rubbing/being too close with this lift..
SO, what im trying to do is make room for a modern 5/16 pushrod which will be much stronger than the stock pushrod to go hand in hand with my higher spring pressure without flex/failing. Moving the stands "outboard" about .050 as described would do that, and simultaneously move the sweep outboard with it, which would kill two birds with one stone and make me happy.
What that DOESNT/WONT remedy this or make sense to me, is the spring installed heights im looking at (1.8 or so) and how to make that work with valve tips that are seemingly going to end up being 1.6 - your height of 1.7 or so.
THATS what is busting my brain.
And I can't have the spring pocket drilled deeper because of the pushrod issue.
All I can assume without your response, is that your lift is much less than mine, and the 26915 doesn't bind for you because of that.
Im curious what height your 26915 is installed at to say the least, and what its height is at max lift, without coil bind.
AKA, whats your spring installed height with a valve thats 1.695, and your max lift?
Refer to the chart I attached. the 26915 and 26918 are side by side.
Not combative/argumentative here.
Simply trying to understand how to make a spring that accommodates my lift WORK at such a taller required height than the valve tip actually is!
Hope this all makes sense...
And thanks again guys.
i never had more then 530 lift
they make a stock like double spring, 1.6 installed height. .970 coil bind. 125-130 on seat and 290-300 open. going have more weight then behives spring and retainer.