| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Greg Fletcher |
|
||||||||||||||
| Valve Springs | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: 06-28-2007 02:56 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Jim Ketcham Member
|
I am in the midst of doing a 2.2 liter conversion with 107 cams and have discovered that the "competition valve springs" are no longer available from Delta or DBean. Does anyone have a source? Are 2.2 liter (912) valve springs suitable? Thanks, Jim
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 06-28-2007 04:56 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Jensen Healey Super Moderator 
|
It's my understanding that you can use stock 907 valve springs with the 107 cams. I'm sure the stock Lotus spring from the 2.2 will work since that engine had 107 cams. Kurt
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 06-29-2007 06:48 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joel Member
|
How about West Coast Heads?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 06-30-2007 02:17 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
normv Member 
|
Any of the performance spring makers or good head builders can match up what you need you just need to give them the diameter of the coil instaled height compresed height and seat preasure. Ferrara had suitable item for my race engine on the shelf. Sorry but the part number would not be any use as the whole valve train was custom, Longer valves different retainers etc. As Joel sugested I belive someone like West Coast Heads would know what you need without any info being provided
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-06-2007 03:53 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Sylva Member
|
I'm using some high lift cams from Garry Kemp, and pulling a lot of revs (9,000). I have some special 'open' springs that do not bind. These were supplied by Paul Matty Sport Cars in the UK. They where expensive but good, I would recommend Paul Matty for any parts you need, I know you can get bits cheaper in the US, but Paul's ranfge is extensive, It is worth down loading his parts list from the web site, as it is a good source of what is available (at UK costs), Kelvin
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-06-2007 10:34 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Jim Ketcham Member
|
Thanks to all for the tips and advice. I was able to get a nice (but expensive) set from Dave Bean. They found me a set good to .440 lift. I checked them and they appear to be of very high quality, all very consistent readings compared to the stock springs I have with no chance of binding. While it appears the stock springs could work, my tester came withing 20 thous. of coil to coil binding at .380 lift. I have had no luck finding pin bushings. Source in UK says they are back ordered at Lotus until September 2007. It appears I will have to have some machined. I am still wondering how others have been doing rebuilds without pin bushings. Is it not common (good) practice to replace these when rebuilding? Jim
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-07-2007 02:17 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Ron Earp Member 
|
Jim, how is the height on the springs? I got a set from Dave Bean as well and there was no way to get them to work, the height was incorrect. R
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-07-2007 01:40 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jim Ketcham Member
|
Ron, Free length is less than the stock spring, but I do not see how that matters as long they offer proper load at valve seated height. Load at valve seat height was a little more that stock and more consistent Load at .380 lift height was roughly 10% greater than stock and more consistent. Spring rate was a little more than stock springs and very consistent. Pitch was greater than stock springs, thus allowing for greater valve lift. It was interesting that the small inner spring had a lower spring rate than the small inner stock springs. Jim
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-07-2007 03:36 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Judson Manning Member 
|
The stock springs are fine for a road car using C, D, E or 107 cams. I've been running .388" lift cams for years in both 2.0 & 2.2 configurations without complications. 104 cams are a different story. Valve float can become a problem at higher RPMs, but the 'E' and 107 cams aren't exactly high RPM cams anyway so it's somewhat of a moot point. Alternatively, if you are blueprinting an engine for maximum efficiency & power, by all means the 16 spring rates need to be consistant!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-07-2007 08:43 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Ron Earp Member
|
Jim, As I recall the ones I got from Dave were taller than normal, by about 0.10", and resulted in bind, or too close to it, when the cam was at full lift. They were marked with white paint too, I do remember that. Maybe they sent me the wrong springs for the application, not sure. I ended up not using them and Judson re-used my stock springs on the head the 2nd time around. Ron Last edited on 07-07-2007 08:45 pm by Ron Earp |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 07-07-2007 11:18 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Jim Ketcham Member
|
Ron, Definitely sounds like mistaken springs. DB is usually very good. I do not know the make of the springs they sent me. They were orange and marked with a tag stating that they were good to .440 lift. While I could have used my stock springs with the 107 cams (.380 lift) I felt a little uncomfortable with just .020 binding clearance and liked the consistency of load at lift height of the DB springs. That said, I've run the stock springs for years (since 1974) in my 2.0 with stock cams with no problems as Judson also indicated. Jim
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:02 pm | |
| > Jensen Healey & Jensen GT Tech > Engine & Transmission > Valve Springs | Top |
