When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There’d be no reason to shim them any further if you’ve already got 120 pounds on the seat.
I wonder if the machine shop might have measured at the wrong installed height?
If you’d like, you can send me a few springs and I’ll check them for you. I’ve got some OEM springs as well as some other brand new beehives that I can do an A-B comparison with.
Thank you. As I mentioned it’s the e55 heads and you mentioned the n/a heads.
They are all assembled already, so I will take one valve assembly apart and measure at the documented installed height. If it’s lower then 120 then I know he may have measured it at a lower height. He also had to tip the valves a bit for the exhaust side as the valve seats did have some bad corrosion/wear. I will double measure the installed heights to verify everything.
it could also be true that they Springs are a bit tighter as manufactured than the the ones you had access to (same part number, Same company however).
i don’t see it as that big of a deal. Everyone wants lower spring tension for lower friction but it’s not saying this won’t be fine for another 100k. Especially with roller rockers.
They also tip the valves when a valve job is done on the heads to compensate for the distance that the valve has been sunk into the head when the seat/valve lip are machined. That way you end up with the same preload on your lifters that you had before.
And while it’s true that one batch of springs might differ slightly from the next, a few % discrepancy either way could be expected, but not 30%. Either you’ve got something unusual going on with your heads, or the shop measured wrong.
Eveyone wants lower spring tension? Valve spring tension?!?
Originally Posted by BC928
Thank you. As I mentioned it’s the e55 heads and you mentioned the n/a heads.
They are all assembled already, so I will take one valve assembly apart and measure at the documented installed height. If it’s lower then 120 then I know he may have measured it at a lower height. He also had to tip the valves a bit for the exhaust side as the valve seats did have some bad corrosion/wear. I will double measure the installed heights to verify everything.
it could also be true that they Springs are a bit tighter as manufactured than the the ones you had access to (same part number, Same company however).
i don’t see it as that big of a deal. Everyone wants lower spring tension for lower friction but it’s not saying this won’t be fine for another 100k. Especially with roller rockers.
Yes, that’s what I meant - the seats were cut and the exhaust top obviously rose up a bit against the required installed height.
Nothing else was changed. He cut the seats, did new guides on the exhaust, surfaced the head, and gave him all the parts to assemble.
He also cut the spring seats for the larger ID of the beehive. Everything looks great - thanks for the info from your other thread.
All else staying the same, it’s possible there is something off on the springs compcams
now makes, or more simply, they were measured at the wrong installed height. But the intakes were not tipped, so they did not do the work on the heads with the incorrect installed height - if that makes sense the way I wrote it.
I’ll take one assembly apart this weekend to check.
Still need to find out if there are some good cams that will make any real difference or I’ll just use stock.
Originally Posted by Sir-Boost-a-Lot
They also tip the valves when a valve job is done on the heads to compensate for the distance that the valve has been sunk into the head when the seat/valve lip are machined. That way you end up with the same preload on your lifters that you had before.
And while it’s true that one batch of springs might differ slightly from the next, a few % discrepancy either way would be expected, but not 30%. Either you’ve got something unusual going on with your heads, or the shop measured wrong.
Eveyone wants lower spring tension? Valve spring tension?!?
Modern engines are using lower spring tension so reduce rotating resistance. To compensate they are reducing mass and reducing spring tension. Allows thinner oils, knock on effect. All the while Chevy guys are still trying to act like atlas and put massive spring pressures in. Just a side point.
Spring pressures can can be made lighter if the rest of the valvetrain components that the springs keep in check are also lightweight.
The lighter springs are more for reduced valvetrain mass than for rotating resistance. I used to think heavy valve springs would make an engine hard to turn over, but for every spring that’s bring compressed at any given time, another spring is expanding, offsetting the resistance.
For this engine, (specifically that heavy exhaust valve) spring pressure is your friend. A little extra pressure won’t hurt anything , but too little will hurt a lot when the valves float.
Originally Posted by BC928
Modern engines are using lower spring tension so reduce rotating resistance. To compensate they are reducing mass and reducing spring tension. Allows thinner oils, knock on effect. All the while Chevy guys are still trying to act like atlas and put massive spring pressures in. Just a side point.
I’m not sure what you meant by them doing the work on the heads with the incorrect installed height...
Tipping the valves doesnt affect anything except the preload on your hydraulic lifters.
Originally Posted by BC928
All else staying the same, it’s possible there is something off on the springs compcams
now makes, or more simply, they were measured at the wrong installed height. But the intakes were not tipped, so they did not do the work on the heads with the incorrect installed height - if that makes sense the way I wrote it.
I shouldn't post after a 10 hour day and 2 hour commute.
I simply meant that they could have measured the open pressure at some other installed height. Separately, they obviously have the measurement of where the valve tip SHOULD be, and since they sunk the exhaust and not the intakes, they seem to also know the correct number there.
The only thing that is left is for me to measure myself. And I need to, let out the spring cup somehow by shaving the cup, and the bottom of the spring, or buying different cups.
I hear you. I’ve been burning my candle at both ends as well and had to re-read your last post to make sure I wasn’t just wonky and incomprehensive.
Quick note- the spring’s pressure at its installed height would be the seat pressure. The open pressure is the measurement at peak valve lift.
And where the tip of the valve sits is of no consequence to the spring’s pressure. That’s a function of installed height, which is affected by everything underneath the lock groove in the valve, not above it (like the tip)
What makes you think they only sunk the exhausts and not the intakes? Didn’t they do a complete valve job?
Maybe their exhaust valve job involved changing the seat angle which might remove more material than than the intakes which usually get a 5 angle cut , but keep the original 45’ seat angle. (I’m just speculating)
Ive still got a lot of 55k stuff sitting around. If you want I can send you another Comp beehive spring you can test against the others you have.
Originally Posted by BC928
I shouldn't post after a 10 hour day and 2 hour commute.
I simply meant that they could have measured the open pressure at some other installed height. Separately, they obviously have the measurement of where the valve tip SHOULD be, and since they sunk the exhaust and not the intakes, they seem to also know the correct number there.
The only thing that is left is for me to measure myself. And I need to, let out the spring cup somehow by shaving the cup, and the bottom of the spring, or buying different cups.
yes. I use seat pressure and closed interchangeably. Just some cultural changes in wording.
The intakes were not bad at all after 100k. Barely much wear on both the seats and the valves. Slight coking but that was it. Exhausts were worse. Putting on both the seat and the valve. So since I saw the tip machined a bit and the intake was not, this where I ended up.
I should get into the heads this weekend - I’d like to put them on with the studs. We will see. Honey Dos all day so far.
I’ll at least disassemble a few and test.
Originally Posted by Sir-Boost-a-Lot
I hear you. I’ve been burning my candle at both ends as well and had to re-read your last post to make sure I wasn’t just wonky and incomprehensive.
Quick note- the spring’s pressure at its installed height would be the seat pressure. The open pressure is the measurement at peak valve lift.
And where the tip of the valve sits is of no consequence to the spring’s pressure. That’s a function of installed height, which is affected by everything underneath the lock groove in the valve, not above it (like the tip)
What makes you think they only sunk the exhausts and not the intakes? Didn’t they do a complete valve job?
Maybe their exhaust valve job involved changing the seat angle which might remove more material than than the intakes which usually get a 5 angle cut , but keep the original 45’ seat angle. (I’m just speculating)
Ive still got a lot of 55k stuff sitting around. If you want I can send you another Comp beehive spring you can test against the others you have.
However the installed height with the existing hardware and the Ti retainers and Nissan keepers is more like 1.43. And 1.43 is more towards 120 pounds. Which would make sense as that is what the machinist said.
So am wondering if anyone has the original books or data that states what the installed height is supposed to be - it could possibly be different then what is noted here for the 2006? Low percentage option really. I’ll fire up the VM with the Mercedes wsm and check if it’s in there.
Options are to leave it, try different spring seats/cups, or go back to stock.
we are taking about a millimeter or so, which is interesting when you think about it.
And just to clarify because it’s 2020 and the internet is a place of extreme judgements - I tested this all before (Springs, keepers, locks, etc) and found the same numbers that sir boost did. The different installed height is the surprise.
So where to get the millimeter extra for the spring within the existing installed height.
I could shave down the bottom of the spring (not the top - the Ti is sensitive to the raw steel of the springs) AND shave the existing spring cups/seats. I could see if there are better thinner seats that work with the springs.
If you’d like, I can send you another spring, seat, retainer, and valve lock so you can check to see where your discrepancy lies.
This shouldve been a drop-in upgrade once the spring seats were clearanced.
I appreciate the offer. It IS drop in. Just like you suggested. The locks are a bit loose in the valve groove, but they do "lock up" enough to not worry about it too much with the hydraulic fingers only touching the valves obviously.
The installed height is simply different, and this affects the much stronger springs (320 or so lb spring rates) - And I basically need 1mm or so.
The spring cup has MASSIVE meat on the bottom. At least a few MM of metal that is just sitting there, ready to be machined. Spring seats, as you mentioned, are available in .030 and .060. That is less than 1mm to just over 1mm.
The spring seats have plenty of meat, meaning that the other options would need major shimming to even get back to 1.47 installed (BTW - 1.47 is the installed height for the spring in its original usage).
Hmmm. These are from an 06 E55 as well. I’ve got at least six sets of 55k heads here and they’re all the same. I’ve seen those thicker seats before but I cant remember where..
Are the part numbers on your heads
113 016 24 01
113 016 25 01?
Originally Posted by BC928
2006 e55. Looks like the refresh possibly changed more then the center console,etc.
Hmmm. These are from an 06 E55 as well. I’ve got at least six sets of 55k heads here and they’re all the same. I’ve seen those thicker seats before but I cant remember where..
Are the part numbers on your heads
113 016 24 01
113 016 25 01?
It’s simple. Bunch of meat on the spring cups/seats. So I get them machined to the correct height. Probably will be a bit more than if I had them do it before but pretty straight forward.
Not many people are this ***** deep in changing **** on these cars so it’s not so much like we are warning future modifiers, lol. But if you find this thread - like all German OEMs - they changed something mid year or between production runs and didn’t tell anyone.
Your block and heads look immaculate BTW. Were they solvent tanked? Media blasted?
Originally Posted by BC928
It’s simple. Bunch of meat on the spring cups/seats. So I get them machined to the correct height. Probably will be a bit more than if I had them do it before but pretty straight forward.
Not many people are this ***** deep in changing **** on these cars so it’s not so much like we are warning future modifiers, lol. But if you find this thread - like all German OEMs - they changed something mid year or between production runs and didn’t tell anyone.
Last edited by Sir-Boost-a-Lot; Jan 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM.
There’s two different height springs used with corresponding thicker or thinner seats. So you’ve got to either get a set of the thinner seats (.196 overall height) or machine yours down from .290 to .196.
I put more details along with some pics in the beehive spring thread.
I remember where I saw those thicker seats before, they were in a set of NA 113 heads that I put on a built 113k. The NA heads have longer valves though and required a decent shim stack even with the thicker seat to get to 1.47 installed height.
Last edited by Sir-Boost-a-Lot; Jan 27, 2020 at 03:37 AM.
Yep. As biggie said “so if ya don’t know, now ya know...”
yes, the heads were media blasted by the shop. They have always done all my machining for many years. Since they are already familiar with my chicanery on these heads I may just have them machine the spring seats for the 1.47 height and reassemble.
Bummer - stupid that I didn’t measure everything like I normally do. Oh well.
Looks like you posted on your other thread for posterity as well.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
Mercedes Teases Updated EQS With Steer-By-Wire and a Yoke
Slideshow: The 2027 update adds a fully digital steering system, revised styling, and potential charging upgrades as the company looks to revive interest in the luxury EV.
Slideshow: From problematic air suspensions to early dual-clutch transmission issues, these specific models and years stand out as the least dependable modern Mercedes vehicles.
