We are currently running on the new domain and server: www.Speed-Talk.com

IMPORTANT: Update your bookmarks to https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/
(Right-click the URL and select "Bookmark this link")

4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

enigma57
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by enigma57 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:25 am

Application: Street engine with occasional track use limited to tuning. Will not exceed 5,500 RPMs. Chevy 292 inline 6 using same valve train components as small block Chevy V-8 except for 1.72:1 big block rockers and 7/16" ARP rocker studs. Mild solid lifter cam grind with 0.495" valve lift. Rockers are OEM 'H' code long slot stamped steel rockers for L-78 396 engine.......

Image

Goal is to lighten valve train and keep spring pressure low whilst still controlling valves. Will be running the light, hollow stem LT4 valves with sodium filled exhaust. Considering titanium retainers as well (question on that below).

Recommended spring for this grind (Isky solid flat tappet) is #6005 - dual w/damper - Outer OD 1.430", inner ID 0.730" - 135 lb. on seat @ 1.750" inst. height - 285 lb. open @ 1.200" - 275 lb. rate per inch - 1.120" coil bind - 0.550" max lift

The #6005 spring is a chrome silicon spring material.

* Question...... Would a spring made from Isky's Tool Room spring material last longer over time (street application)?

If so, the only listing I have found that is close regarding pressure has similar seat pressure but more open pressure and increased spring rate.

Tool Room #295-D - single w/damper - Outer OD 1.260", inner ID 0.886" - 135 lb. on seat @ 1.775" inst. height - 350 lb. open @ 1.175" - 360 lb. rate per inch - 1.110" coil bind - 0.600" max lift

* Question...... If the Tool Room spring material will last significantly longer in such an application...... Will the additional spring rate and open pressure work against me regarding long term wear (cam lobe, lifter face, rocker ball and tip)?

Titanium retainers - It is my understanding that whilst the weight reduction will work in my favour and may enable me to run lighter spring pressure...... Running valve springs having a flat type inner damper will chew up titanium retainers over time (street engine).

* Question...... With a mild flat tappet cam grind and relatively low engine speeds as noted above...... Would removing the inner damper from either of the two sets of springs noted above cause valve train harmonics issues at these engine speeds?

* Question...... (Yes, I will check with Isky regarding whether the inner dampers of their #6005 and #295-D springs are the flat type and if so, can they be removed when running titanium retainers, but assuming that is the case)...... Isky's online catalogue lists a #57-Ti retainer for the #295-D spring, but it only shows to accommodate 5/16" valve stem size (mine are 11/32"). Any other sources for a titanium retainer that might work with that spring and 11/32" valve stem? Isky steel retainer for #295-D spring with 11/32" valve stem is #707-STA...... Cannot find cross reference to titanium retainer for same spring with 11/32" valve stem.

(see page 43 of pdf file...... http://www.iskycams.com/downloads/2018IskyCatalog.pdf ).

Thanks in advance. Any help or guidance greatly appreciated,

Harry

bob460
Member
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:19 am
Location:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by bob460 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:03 am

You might want to look into the CONICAL valve springs.

enigma57
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by enigma57 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:08 am

Will do, Bob. These are somewhat different than beehives, I take it? Would PAC be the best choice there?

Thanks,

Harry

bob460
Member
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:19 am
Location:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by bob460 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:17 am

enigma57 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:08 am
Will do, Bob. These are somewhat different than beehives, I take it? Would PAC be the best choice there?

Thanks,

Harry
Yes different, but better IMO.

COMP cams make a good conical, just not the best choice for beehives............yes pac also a good option.

Also look into tool steel for retainer's if it's longevity your after, and almost weigh's the same as titanium one's and cheaper also.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by CamKing » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:04 am

enigma57 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:25 am
Question...... Would a spring made from Isky's Tool Room spring material last longer over time (street application)?
The Isky Tool Room springs are Chrome Silicone. "Tool Room" is just a marketing name Isky uses for the springs they have made by PSI.

I have a lot of circle track customers that have to run a 1.250" diameter spring. These are engines with a max rpm in the 6,500-7,500rpm range. In these engines, the 295-D lasts twice as long as most of the cheaper 1.250" springs.

The issue for you, would be the added open pressure, is more then you need, and may wear out the cam sooner. There are no P55 style cores for your engine, so you're stuck with a core that's made for mild spring pressures.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs

Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449

PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6052
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by PackardV8 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:38 pm

enigma57 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:25 am
Street engine with occasional track use limited to tuning. Will not exceed 5,500 RPMs. . . . . Would a spring made from Isky's Tool Room spring material last longer over time . . . . Considering titanium retainers as well ?
CamKing wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:04 am
The issue for you, would be the added open pressure, is more then you need, and may wear out the cam sooner.
For a 5,500 RPM street build, you may be vastly overthinking the valve train parts selection.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering

Roundybout
Pro
Pro
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:09 pm
Location: NH

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by Roundybout » Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:04 pm

Is that 0.495” valve lift calculated with the 1.72:1 big block rockers?

What is the goal with using light weight valve train components? To be able to use less spring? HP gain? Durability? All the above?

With your self-imposed 5500 RPM or so limit I think you’d be fine using a steel retainer and wouldn’t lose sleep over the few grams difference from titanium. I agree with using just enough spring for the job. Going to more seat/open pressure would just be defeating your goal and cost you some HP and durability. I’d make some calls, you should be able to find a single spring that can do the job and I’d also go with whatever the suggestion is as far as the best material for durability. You can’t go wrong there. If that valve lift is calculated for a 1.5:1 rocker and you use the 1.72:1 then that might change things a bit.

enigma57
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by enigma57 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:11 pm

There is method to my madness, Jack. After some time researching the matter, I have come to the conclusion that valve spring (open) pressure 300 - 315 lb. or less will make a world of difference for the better regarding bleed down rate and noise with the Rhoads lifters. So I am looking at lightening the valve train components to make sure I can control the valves without exceeding that open pressure. Would also like to use springs, retainers, etc. that will last a long time on the street.

Isky specs their #6005 springs for the cam grind I am using. And if they will last a long time on the street, I have no problem running them.

Looking at PAC springs today. So far, have found only a #PAC-1212X which is a single spring listed as a 604 crate motor 'cheater spring'. This is the older 604 spring...... Not the beehive type in current usage. The 1212X has closest pressure (seat and open) and installed height as compared to the #6005 spring Isky spec's for my cam grind. Not sure how long this 1212X spring will last on a road car, so need to look into that. Anyone here have any experience with the PAC-1212X springs?

---

Thanks, Bob. I am looking at conical springs. So far, have only found one from PAC for big block Chevy and pressure exceeds what I need but will continue looking at these as I check out other manufacturers' springs.

---

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the info. Have you any experience with the #PAC-1212X springs on 604 crate engines? If so, what is your opinion of them for what I am doing? Also...... Given the limitations on cam core choice for this engine (I already have the cam)...... I expect that it is parkerized...... Would it be beneficial to nitride the cam? I realize this would only surface harden it, though. Just wondering.

---

Thanks, Roundybout. Yes, the 0.495" lift is calculated with 1.72:1 big block rockers. Yes, I am looking at using lightweight valvetrain components in order to use less spring, enhance long term durability and optimize the function of Rhoads lifters I will run. And yes, I will run tool steel retainers rather than titanium now that I have looked into long term durability of each.

---

Thanks to you all. Much appreciated,

Harry

Roadknee
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Washington

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by Roadknee » Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:14 pm

bob460 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:03 am
You might want to look into the CONICAL valve springs.
Can you recommend a part number?

bob460
Member
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:19 am
Location:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by bob460 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:23 pm

Roadknee wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:14 pm
bob460 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:03 am
You might want to look into the CONICAL valve springs.
Can you recommend a part number?
Best to call comp cams, pac or psi springs to get best information on exact needs for the build.

But these could work comp conical SKU 982-16, but i would get them coated or polished.

wyrmrider
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6933
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:52 pm
Location:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by wyrmrider » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:46 am

I run isky 6005 springs on my 250 chevy 6 Marine engine 1.94 intake maybe cut down- i forget
light retainers
many many hours over many many years
no ti retainers for that spring as you know
my motor goes 6500 sometimes but shorter stroke than yours
Sissell head 305 pistons side ground and shot peened rods with good bolts
jones cam for through the prop exhaust
straight cut gears from pontiac iron duke-----this is important
if you find a beehive please post
and imho you are overthinking kiss

Geoff2
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by Geoff2 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:21 am

Harry,
The conical springs seem to have a higher rate than beehives & I think for your rpm imposed limit, BHs would be better. The Comp 26986 or 26995 [ or equivalent ] might be a good fit, with a 280lb rate. Don't forget that the valve train sees a significant weight reduction with BH/conical springs, requiring less seat pressure & rate. Benefit is less cam/lifter wear. D.Vizard has written some good info on the benefits.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by CamKing » Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:55 pm

enigma57 wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:11 pm
Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the info. Have you any experience with the #PAC-1212X springs on 604 crate engines? If so, what is your opinion of them for what I am doing? Also...... Given the limitations on cam core choice for this engine (I already have the cam)...... I expect that it is parkerized...... Would it be beneficial to nitride the cam? I realize this would only surface harden it, though. Just wondering.
We've run the 1212X on a lot of 604 circle track engines. We run as much as .544" lift with very aggressive hydr roller cams, and turn as high as 7,400rpm. The springs don't last very long at that RPM, but would last a long time in your application.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs

Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449

enigma57
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by enigma57 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:46 pm

Thanks for the info, wyrmrider. Nice build with the 250 marine engine. You're right. I do tend to overthink things. This being my 'last build' and having never worked on inline 6's...... Thought I would experiment and try a few things I have not done before. The Rhoads lifters being one. That is the main reason I thought I would put together a light valvetrain and use less spring pressure.

The Isky 6005 springs are the ones Isky recommends for the cam grind I spec'd. That spring will be my fall back in the event I do not find anything more promising in a PAC spring or conical or beehive with similar seat pressure, open pressure, installed height and spring rate.

The 6005 spring takes Isky #507-ST steel valve spring retainer - 1.750" inst. height...... And they do have a #60-TI titanium valve spring retainer for the 6005 spring, as well. However, I have decided that for long term durability on the street, I will probably stay with lightweight steel retainers. The 6005 springs are a dual with damper. If the damper is a flat type, those are supposed to chew up titanium retainers over time. On the other hand, being a dual spring, the 6005 inner spring being wound in the opposite direction as the outer spring might provide some dampening effect if the actual damper is removed?

---

Thanks, Geoff. Appreciate the CompCams spring info. I'll check them out. The conical and beehive springs would have smaller, lighter retainers even in steel and the upper 1/3 of the spring would have less mass so that is a plus. As you say, the conical springs seem to have a higher spring rate than do a good many of the beehive type.

I will be running lightweight LT4 valves. These are the same valves used in Fast Burn heads and the '604' sealed circle track engines. The original versions of the Fast Burn heads as used on the serial numbered 500 limited production engine run of ZZ430 engines and original '604' crate engines used LT4 springs.

In recent years, the Fast Burn heads and '604' crate engines have been fitted with beehive springs sourced from the LS3 engine. I have looked into both the GM springs and the PAC spring upgrades for these yesterday. Will check out the ComCams beehives wyrmrider mentioned, as well.

---

Thanks, Mike. That's very helpful. Appreciate the info. As you see it...... From a durability standpoint, which would you expect to last longer in my application...... The PAC-1212X (single), the Isky 6005 (dual with damper) or Isky 295-D (Tool Room, single with damper) springs? (Assuming the added open pressure of the 295-D would not pose a problem).

Appreciate all the help, guys.

Best regards,

Harry

ProPower engines
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7905
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: 4 Questions - Isky Tool Room Springs VS Chrome Silicon & Titanium Retainers On Street Engine

Post by ProPower engines » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:28 pm

There is lots of 6 banger guys here and that 295D spring will do the job just fine
Not a ton of extra machine work besides screw in studs and they last a good long time.
I have several limited sm blk sprint engines on their 4th and 5th season and still within 10 lbs of new pressures.
Groove the lifter bores for extra oiling as well as an edm lifter and you should be fine.I install them at 1.800. with a comp
10 degree retainer and locks.
Real Race Cars Don't Have Doors

Post Reply