Hey fellas, as some of you may know.. I had a cam lobe go flat.... So picking out a new cam and in doing find that The springs I have are garbage, so new springs.. Then I see The valve spring pocket in The head have been machined so there is no "pocket" to ratain The bottom of The spring. is that a higher horsepower thing to worry about..?
The 289 Hi-po heads were the only SBF heads that had cast-in valve spring pockets. What you've got will work fine without em. It's good that you've got screw in studs and guide plates, plus PC valve seals. Cam lobes can and do go flat, but weak springs is not the cause. Weaker springs on the break-in run are what you want to prevent excesssive lobe and lifter wear. Once the cam is has broken in, then install the stronger springs.
I was starting to think that maybe i was over thinking it.. I believe that at higher performance levels they are needed... the current dual valve springs are at the installed height of 1.825 at 75# and with the new cams lift of .497 they are at 210#.. isn't that on the weak side for a "performance app"?? i can't tell from the markings, but the suspicion is that this was a edelbrok performer kit.. as the valve springs match the performers springs in physical dimension and pressure..
Dual springs with only 75# / 210#? That's very mild flat tappet territory. Wonder why dual springs for that little bit of pressure? Are you sure about the installed height, sounds high to me?
I think they are the edelbrock performer springs.. they seem to have the same physical dimensions and pressure.. which, I think, is weak for a "performance app"... at just before coil bind (1.115) they are at 260# the installed height was measured with a height mic twice.. the retainer seems to be of the +.100 variety.. camera kept focusing on the letters of the mobo box..lol
I don't doubt that's what you measured, I meant I think they should have been installed tighter, maybe 1.170", which would increase the pressure some. Oh wait, only 260# at coil bind? That's pretty crappy!
Yes they are... I am still in shock that edelbrock recommends those pressures.. Thats like stock pressures
Two lighter springs are easier on camshafts than a single heavy spring. Better harmonic control of the valve train. Still......they seem kinda puny.
Don't remember what we put them at off hand without digging up my build sheet. Edelbrock was trying to hit a happy medium to use the same springs with a hydraulic flat tappet cam or a mild hydraulic roller. The Ebrock springs turned out to be +4 lbs on the seat and + 9 lbs over the nose compared to the springs Comp recommended for my XE roller cam.
As the others said, those are pretty weak, even for a stock roller cam, be that as it may, they're not the cause of the wiped cam lobes. If you had one or two lobes go south, I'd suspect bad lifter machining or failure of the lifter to spin in it's bore, I've had two cams do this, but both were done for after twenty minutes run time. More lobes failing, that would possibly be due to a lack of zing aditive in the oil or a cam that's made from a too soft material.
