Comp 919 spring issues?

[Robert Kane]

Anybody have any issues with Comp Cams springs? A customer brought in a set of Comp 919 springs for a build I'm doing. They're supposed to check at 194# ! 1.950" installed, and 579# open @ 1.250". These aren't even close. At 1.950 they're @ about 145# or so, and @ 1.250 they're @ around 460#. These are brand new never out of the box, even had the cellophane wrapping on the box. He bought them from Summit. I know they'll take them back, but I'd hate to have them ship another box of bad springs. Has anyone else had issues recently?
Thanks.
Robert

[Racerrick]

I prefer not use them. I use PSI, PAC and ISKY.

[Walter R. Malik]

Anybody have any issues with Comp Cams springs? A customer brought in a set of Comp 919 springs for a build I'm doing. They're supposed to check at 194# ! 1.950" installed, and 579# open @ 1.250". These aren't even close. At 1.950 they're @ about 145# or so, and @ 1.250 they're @ around 460#. These are brand new never out of the box, even had the cellophane wrapping on the box. He bought them from Summit. I know they'll take them back, but I'd hate to have them ship another box of bad springs. Has anyone else had issues recently?
Thanks.
Robert

I have used 919's in the past and they all checked correctly within a few pounds.

I have seen spring boxes labeled wrong at times from Comp Cams but, I don't know of any Comp Cams springs having the pressures you say which also physically resemble those 919's; (a 1.540" O.D. counter-wound double with no flat damper).

Personally, I prefer the slightly tougher 943's which are very close; (pretty much is like a PAC 1243).

[ProPower engines]

Anybody have any issues with Comp Cams springs? A customer brought in a set of Comp 919 springs for a build I'm doing. They're supposed to check at 194# ! 1.950" installed, and 579# open @ 1.250". These aren't even close. At 1.950 they're @ about 145# or so, and @ 1.250 they're @ around 460#. These are brand new never out of the box, even had the cellophane wrapping on the box. He bought them from Summit. I know they'll take them back, but I'd hate to have them ship another box of bad springs. Has anyone else had issues recently?
Thanks.
Robert

Just wondering how you are testing them. I have to ask but are you setting the tester up with the retainer included?
I have seen that more times then I can count. But also what tester are you using? Rimac? And has it been recalibrated lately?

My thoughts are a bad batch as I seen some a few months back that were testing close with the retainer but about 15 lbs shy of spec. Both sets were new but I prefer Isky Tool Room springs for any serious roller or FT builds.

I have used the 943-16 spring with a 1.950 installed height and the seat pressure was very close to what you need. the open would be right there as well but the spec in your post is for .700 lift. The other question is are you right at the springs max for lift? If not you may want to choose a different spring with a tighter max load height to get some extra pressure at lower max lift. The rate per inch is with in 1 lb when compared to the 919-16 spring so it could be a better deal although the spring OD is +.010 larger so that would need some attention if using an OD locator but the 943-16 spring is about .002" smaller on the ID of the inner spring then the 919-16 spring's inner and for that matter unless you are using a spring cup the extra .010 OD would not concern me to use if you went with an ID locator unless the guide post needs to be corrected.

[Robert Kane]

Springs were checked w/o the retainer. Also checked my tester with the calibration spring, and 2 springs from other sets, and they checked good, so I know it's not my tester. As for PAC, I like their stuff, but I was told they are the supplier for Comp as well as Lunati. I'm gonna have to look at some others before I have him reorder another set.
Robert.

[bigjoe1]

The inner step in the retainer will add some to the overall pressurize- do it over again



JOE SHERMAN RACING

[FastBuick]

You will not get an accurate reading if you are not using the retainer when testing the springs. I would use the retainer for those springs and test them again. I think you will get different results.

[Robert Kane]

I should have clarified. Yes the retainers were on top of the spring when tested, but not subtracted to the overall height. In other words, the retainer was on and the spring was compressed to the installed height. I think these were boxed wrong.

[ProPower engines]

did you use height mic and set the mic to the desired height then put the retainer on top of the mic then put them in the tester set the stop then put the retainer on the spring and retest.

Just looking at your post and it suggests some error in the test. I may be unclear in reading the post as you intended but better safe then sorry.

[Keith Morganstein]

PAC made comps springs some years ago, but comp switched suppliers. Insiders say Associated and/or Mubea makes their springs now... (But I'm not that insider).

The PAC spring ( they made for comp ) are the in the PAC 12 series so the PAC 1243 has the spec of the comp 943.

And I agree with Randy M. Go with PAC 1243 or Comp 943

[FastBuick]

I should have clarified. Yes the retainers were on top of the spring when tested, but not subtracted to the overall height. In other words, the retainer was on and the spring was compressed to the installed height. I think these were boxed wrong.

Ok, yes then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. In that case, I would have to agree that they are either boxed wrong or a defective set. If you decide to change companies and go with PAC Springs, let me know I can get you what you need for a very good price.

Thanks