Valve springs 340 Stocker Engine

[Mike Coe]

Thanks Bob. Anyone else with any suggestions? Come on go fast guys, I just need alittle spring pressure, that's all. LOL

[TurboBuick6]

Mike,

Why exactly will the 1409X work? Need to know so I have an idea what to look for.

[dartman]

Originally Posted by Mike Coe

Thanks Bob. Anyone else with any suggestions? Come on go fast guys, I just need alittle spring pressure, that's all. LOL

Brad Van Lant will sale you what you need

573 346 1360

he's a go fast small block mopar guy

[Mike Coe]

Thanks for the replies.. Turbo, the reason the 1409X won't work is, the inside diameter of the spring is too small, I need at least 1.00 inch and when you squeeze that spring down to 1.680 installed height and then collapse it down .520 for cam lift and coil bind clearance it is at 1.16 and it says it coil binds at 1.19 inches. Kelly, thanks for the advice, I'll call Brad tomorrow and see what he says. If you don't care about the rule book, lots of springs can be made to work, but it says the head cannot be modified in anyway to install a valve spring. To me that says I can't cut the step off from the guide out to the valve spring pocket to accept a smaller inside diameter spring.. Also the valves must be stock demensions, so that leaves out installing a longer valve, which would also make things easier. The mopar short spring and installed height is just a big problem. Thanks for the replies and if anyone else knows what others are using, let me know, something has to work!! Mike

[GTX JOHN]

Mike:
I have fooled around with the expensive NASCAR springs and latest Beehive spring
with the new trick camshafts.
I went back to my 25 year old profiles and the ISKY springs again about
170 on seat and run just as well or a little better

That being said......My boy runs a complete Van Lant engine with all the new tech stuff ( We both believe Brad is the premier small block mopar guy to go to!) and is about .03 to .04 slower any given pass each time out (with identical twin Demons) which is still pretty good. He doesn't mind working constantly on his car and may find something someday.....Just not the last year or so.

I am too old and my back is too bad to struggle with all the valve train problems that the big spring pressures/ new cams profiles / Ceramic lifters generated for me for little or no perceptual gain and a LOT of money!


As Always you results may vary!

[GTX JOHN]

xx

[Mike Coe]

Thanks for the reply John, see you in Vegas. Mike

[James L Miller]

Originally Posted by Mike Coe

Thanks for the replies.. Turbo, the reason the 1409X won't work is, the inside diameter of the spring is too small, I need at least 1.00 inch and when you squeeze that spring down to 1.680 installed height and then collapse it down .520 for cam lift and coil bind clearance it is at 1.16 and it says it coil binds at 1.19 inches. Mike

Sorry if I am ignorant on Stocker engine builds, but the spec I have for a 1969 340 calls for a .462" intake and .473" exhaust lift. Are people using a "square" lobe to loft the valvetrain off the lobe to get the .520" lift? I have an old Cam Dynamics 340 Stocker cam from the 1970s and it has a flattened nose on the lobes. I have some newer cams from Lunati and Bullet that have a more regular lobe appearance.

[Jim B]

Originally Posted by James L Miller

Sorry if I am ignorant on Stocker engine builds, but the spec I have for a 1969 340 calls for a .462" intake and .473" exhaust lift. Are people using a "square" lobe to loft the valvetrain off the lobe to get the .520" lift? I have an old Cam Dynamics 340 Stocker cam from the 1970s and it has a flattened nose on the lobes. I have some newer cams from Lunati and Bullet that have a more regular lobe appearance.

He did say the .520" number was for lift AND coil bind. Allowing .060" for coil bind clearance would put the lift number at about what you had....

[Greg Reimer 7376]

Originally Posted by James L Miller

Sorry if I am ignorant on Stocker engine builds, but the spec I have for a 1969 340 calls for a .462" intake and .473" exhaust lift. Are people using a "square" lobe to loft the valvetrain off the lobe to get the .520" lift? I have an old Cam Dynamics 340 Stocker cam from the 1970s and it has a flattened nose on the lobes. I have some newer cams from Lunati and Bullet that have a more regular lobe appearance.

The earlier cams had a more square nose profile like you describe because there was a maximum allowable duration rule in effect then.The valve started to open later,and it had to close sooner,so the lobe characteristics were more brutal. Parts breakage,valve bounce, bad stuff happened very frequently,especially on the go fast setups.The more recent stocker cams look more conventional because the ramp starts sooner,arrived at maximum lift about when it did, then closed later. Valve action was a bit smoother, and the engine would run at a higher rpm with out all that uncontrolled motion,Also,breathing started sooner and ceased later,making more power. DON'T EVEN THINK of using a square nose cam with a ceramic lifter. Get a set of Trend or Sherman tool steel lifters,fork out the bucks and do it right the first time.