I quit dealing with comp cams about 4 yeras ago . They have no customer service whatsoever . When you call them they act like your bothering them.
and one guy on the tech line who I will tell his name if you wont to know is a total know it all jerk.They will never get any of my money again.

 

Hell, never mind the aftermarket people, what about the people who designed the F-Body Lt1 to begin with? Examples: Opticrap, no room to change plugs (or do anything else unless you are a contortionist or a midget) heat sink intake manifold, outdated head configuration, 2-bolt mains, 10 bolt rear end, too freaking heavy, mechanical waterpump, etc.

The manufacturer must have been keenly aware of the problems when the first one came out----and I'm sure that they had the LS1 already done long before 98--first one came out with the vette in 97.

That's show business, but it would really be nice if they would consider those who would be buying their products. For example, if you take a gander at any Consumers' Guide, New Car ed. always said the same thing verbatum, each year when it came to the F-Body, be it Carmaro, or Transam, etc. To wit: Typical Muscle Car, too heavy to be nimble ----basically designed to go straight ahead---i.e. don't expect a sports car. Furthermore, what's with the back seat---it's there, but only big enough for legless dwarfs.

Now I ask ya---what's the point of even building a poor man's corvette? The only difference between a vette and an F-Body (with and Lt1) is the vette is much lighter and and you can't haul midgets.

On the other hand, I love my 97SS---if it only had an LS1 type design engine, weighed 500 pounds less, had a 12 bolt rear end, "real" leather, bigger brakes, came with headers and full duals and....

Oh wait....that's what this site is for.

 

i'm going to GMPP for my parts from now on. if they're working in the lt4 and ls6/7 then they're good enough for me.

i'll be doing all my own work except machining from now on. i'll be doing all my own clearancing, specifications, measurements, and installations.

i'm done toying with 'professional' people that ignore you when you have a problem and are your best friend when you flash the cash. within the next few months i'll be breaking down 2 ltx engines, 1 lsx engine, and 3 4l60 trannies, and a t-56. i also have to rebuild a 700r4, and an AOD4E ford trans. i'll be selling most hopefully to make some bucks...and i pray i dont end up like some shops and mass marketers.

 

The design is very ingenious, allows the coils to get mashed down further without binding since each coil is wound in a smaller diameter than the previous coil. There's are many other makers of "beehives" besides Comp that are not having any problems with them, ie PAC to name one. The original Comp beehives have not had any problems either, thats why they were the choice spring of almost everyone....but then Comp changes manufacturers..probably to cut cost and make more profit....and the problems begin....
The beehive concept/design allows you to run much higher lifts without bind and no special pocketing of the valve cups in the heads.... all the pictures of the broken springs shows they are breaking at the tops where the spring is flattened out and not in the "beehive" portion...all springs have this flat spot at the top so it could have happened to any spring that was made cheaper or with substandard metals.

 

I have also experienced this with another comp product. Their customer service department definately needs improvement. Who else makes Bee Hives that are good? If I don't see a responce it looks like I will also be buying from someone else.

Thanks

 

Sounds reasonable to me, however seems that since the top is smaller that you'd better be on the mark with the rockers because perhaps striking the valve tip at just the wrong angle could cause the weakest part of the spring to break. Hell, I obviously don't know. I do get the idea of allowing higher lifts because of the inability of the coils to bind-----just not too sure about the christmas tree effect. On the other hand, if the material is inferiior and can't take much of a hit on the top, I can see where they might break at that precise point----so hopefully a stronger material/better quality will be the fix.

 

PAC makes them, PAC1218 is the exact same size as the Comp918. It does not appear to me to be a design flaw because beehives were sold for years with no problems...them Comp changes manufacturers and the problems begin probably because the new manufacturer does not use the same spec material.. I beleive the PACs are made by the same manufacturer that Comp USED to use.

 

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

I'm willing to bet that when they changed suppliers, a few details about QA evaluation processes were lost in translation.

 

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head - look at all the flat tappet hyd. cam problems that are surfacing recently - can you say "China"....

 

SMW is right ,China is the problem. Not only is comp cams outsourcing but scat cranks just got sued over it.Its a problem we are all faced with.

 

The reason I liked the design of the beehive was for high RPM stability. With less weight on the top of the valve due to the smaller retainer and less spring weight up top makes it more stable at higher RPMs. Springs becoming unstable at high RPMs I believe is a common cause of "valve float".

I myself would be skeptical of any company until they have earned your trust in their designing/manufacturing abilities.

How long has PAC been out? I haven't seen anyone use one of their springs until the whole Comp Cam problem came out, hope they dont run into similar problems (make lots of money, want to cut costs, ship manufacturing capabilities to mexico, china, wherever). I really liked Comp since I started working on LT1s. I think their off the shelf cams give a very good starting point for anyone new to adding a cam in any car. My first cam was a comp, and I believe that Brett and Lloyd at least used to have comp manufacture their custom cams.

Hopefully Comp will get these things worked out before the whole LT1 and LS1 field batter them to death.

 

LS1s come from the factory with beehive-style springs, so that should tell you something about soundness of the basic concept. Another big advantage is that the smaller top portion of the spring allows a smaller (read: lighter-weight) retainer to be used.

 

PAC is who used to make Comp's beehives, until they started getting them from Mexico to make a few more bucks.

Rich

 

I recently called Comp about a custom ground LT1 solid roller cam my builder got from them. I also mentioned that I purchased many other Comp parts to compiment the cam such as rockers, lifters, push rods, and their LT1 solid roller timing chain. I had a few simple questions about my cam specs and how it would drive on the street. The guy could not get me off the phone fast enough. If someone has no passion in their job they should not be doing it, especially when it comes to welfare of other people.

 

BTW it's the 2006+ beehives that are the problems, not previous to that.

And by problems it's very few, but that is much more than zero that I've had with PAC being their supplier.

Bret