In my quest to get this rebuild done, I'm shopping for valve springs. The stock springs seem a tad on the weak side, and I've had a couple people reccomend to me that I use 340 springs. The Comp 901 springs (link) look like they should fill the ticket, but I ran some numbers out of curiousity and I've gotten a little confused.

The cam I've selected (erson E470621; link) has .465 "gross lift." Does this figure reflect the actual lift at the cam, or does it measure the valve lift? I assume this number represents lift at the valve, because I don't see /any/ valve springs that would appear to work if it measured at the cam. If this is in fact valve lift, do all companies factor in the rocker ratio when claiming their lift figures?

Also, my PAW catalogue lists the load to be around 10 pounds heavier for most of the springs I looked at, and has different coil bind heights listed. I would tend to trust the Comp data, but it leaves me wondering... Anyone know about the discrepency?

Finally, if anyone has reccomendations on other valve springs, regardless of brand, I'm open to suggestions.

I'll answer what I know:


It's valve lift, and cam companies factor in the rocker arm ratio. (but don't take into consideration valve lash)

Usually it's 1.5, and in detailed specs they'll mention other ratios

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes