Go Back   Corvette Forum > C6 Corvette, 2005 - 2013 > C6 Z06 Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C6 Z06 Discussion
General Z06 Corvette Discussion, LS7 Corvette Technical Info, Performance Upgrades, Suspension Setup for Street or Track Sponsored by
PFYC

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-25-2013, 02:58 AM   #1
Dirty Howie
CF Senior Member
 
Dirty Howie's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2004
Default WCCH Track Data !!!!

Well I promised I would give some feedback after getting in my first track day with my reworked WCCH LS7 heads (guides, dual springs and SS valves)

I am very familiar with the track (Auto Club Speedway in Fontana California). I was hoping to give accurate data feedback. The weather didn't completely cooperate. There was huge wind on the track which no one can ever remember occurring before.

Anyways I can tell everyone that the dual springs and SS valves do not rev slower than stock (at least not perceptible to me). In fact I think they may rev quicker as I hit limiter 2-3 in 2nd and 3rd times today which I hardly ever do. The wind was blowing very hard across the high speed straight which made it a little uncomfortable and certainly inhibited top speed. But I did gut it out for the Forum and made sure the car would still get up to 156 mph down the straight before going into Nascar turn 1.

So bottom line is wether on the street or track there is NO PENALTY running SS valves and dual springs

Here is video of the day:






DH

Last edited by Dirty Howie; 02-25-2013 at 08:11 PM.
Dirty Howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 03:04 AM   #2
Jawnathin
CF Senior Member
 
Jawnathin's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2009
Default

Thanks for sharing your videos Howie. I'm in the middle of watching them now.

You mention banging on the rev limiter, so you had no problems getting it up to 7100rpm? Car felt good?
Jawnathin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:32 AM   #3
'06 Quicksilver Z06
CF Senior Member
 
'06 Quicksilver Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Howie View Post
Well I promised I would give some feedback after getting in my first track day with my reworked WCCH LS7 heads (guides, dual springs and SS valves)

I am very familiar with the track (Auto Club Speedway in Fontana California). I was hoping to give accurate data feedback. The weather didn't completely cooperate. There was huge wind on the track which no one can ever remember occurring before.

Anyways I can tell everyone that the dual springs and SS valves do not rev slower than stock (at least not perceptible to me). In fact I think they may rev quicker as I hit limiter 2-3 in 2nd and 3rd times today which I hardly ever do. The wind was blowing very hard across the high speed straight which made it a little uncomfortable and certainly inhibited top speed. But I did gut it out for the Forum and made sure the car would still get up to 156 mph down the straight before going into Nascar turn 1.

So bottom line is wether on the street or track there is NO PENALTY running SS valves and dual springs

Here is video of the day:






DH
Excellent report Howie and great videos.

You won't be able to perceive any difference between running the stock valves and the solid stainless valves

Hopefully it helps dispel some of the "stainless steel valves slaughter your redline" talk and "upset the valve train" nonsense.

One can only imagine how many of the naysayers in here will be disappointed that your report was not worse than it was, or that you didn't go out there, suffer valve float and end up with a hole in your block.

But do know, that there are more of us in here happy to hear the good news that your car ran as it did, than there are those who are unhappy about it.

You mention hitting the stock rev limiter. I have done the same thing at the track, so yes Jawnathin and others, the car will still spool up to it's 7100 RPM redline with no trouble.

Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 02-25-2013 at 08:34 AM.
'06 Quicksilver Z06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:37 AM   #4
Random84
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: Cincinnati OH
Default

Random84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:08 AM   #5
briancb1
CF Senior Member
 
briancb1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2011
Default

Good times but who's saving you'll have valve float? Or even worse, rev slower? Who in the hell made told you that, Lol!

A dual spring can handle a 90+ gram exhaust valve on hyd. Roller lobes if it has a decent amount of spring rate. It's been done for decades already.

Beyond that looks awesome, I can't wait to get mine out on a road track too!

Thanks for sharing.
briancb1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:59 AM   #6
Mark2009
2009 Corvette Z06
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mark2009's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by briancb1 View Post
Good times but who's saving you'll [...] rev slower? Who in the hell made told you that, Lol! [...]
Probably nobody, or it was simple uninformed speculation. There is a form of argument called the "strawman", where the proponent of the argument misrepresents something that someone else said or simply makes up something ridiculous, then argues against it. Since what they are arguing against is something they essentially made up (the "strawman"), they are arguing against themselves which makes it rather easy for them to 'win' the argument.

The whole idea of the driver being able to tell the difference between the two valvetrain setups, or that the car revs slower or faster, is ridiculous on its face and does not require any proof of such. Therefore using it as the basis of an argument, either for or against, is rather pointless or intended to sway the uninformed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by briancb1 View Post
Good times but who's saving you'll have valve float? [...] A dual spring can handle a 90+ gram exhaust valve on hyd. Roller lobes if it has a decent amount of spring rate. [...]
Well yes, the point in bold is key. Of course balancing that choice of spring rate against cam profiles and other valvetrain component specification is, as they say, the devil in the details. Beyond that, everyone should know that there is an upper RPM at which the spring will lose control. Additionally, there is an RPM at which a dual spring may resonate (something a beehive spring seems to be resistant to). The valid concerns about heavier valves and springs have been stated a sufficient number of times for all the 'players' here to know what they are, and to wisely ignore them when making their arguments 'pro' (since they are difficult to disprove). Of course making fun of them is not particularly wise (speaking in general terms here; not your specific post), but I suggest everyone judge those posts accordingly.
.

Last edited by Mark2009; 02-25-2013 at 10:41 AM.
Mark2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 10:50 AM   #7
Dirty Howie
CF Senior Member
 
Dirty Howie's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark200X View Post
Probably nobody, or it was simple uninformed speculation. There is a form of argument called the "strawman", where the proponent of the argument misrepresents something that someone else said or simply makes up something ridiculous, then argues against it. Since what they are arguing against is something they essentially made up (the "strawman"), they are arguing against themselves which makes it rather easy for them to 'win' the argument.

The whole idea of the driver being able to tell the difference between the two valvetrain setups, or that the car revs slower or faster, is ridiculous on its face and does not require any proof of such. Therefore using it as the basis of an argument, either for or against, is rather pointless or intended to sway the uninformed.


Well yes, the point in bold is key. Of course balancing that choice of spring rate against cam profiles and other valvetrain component specification is, as they say, the devil in the details. Beyond that, everyone should know that there is an upper RPM at which the spring will lose control. Additionally, there is an RPM at which a dual spring may resonate (something a beehive spring seems to be resistant to). The valid concerns about heavier valves and springs have been stated a sufficient number of times for all the 'players' here to know what they are, and to wisely ignore them when making their arguments 'pro' (since they are difficult to disprove). Of course making fun of them is not particularly wise (speaking in general terms here; not your specific post), but I suggest everyone judge those posts accordingly.
.
Well I can't remember the actual members who were concerned about ability to reach 7100 rpm and the rate of ramp up to redline but it was definitely discussed by many. I feel I adequately addressed this and no longer feel it is a valid concern.

I will let Ricky address this names and instances if he wishes as he can do a much better job of it than me


DH
Dirty Howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:19 AM   #8
'06 Quicksilver Z06
CF Senior Member
 
'06 Quicksilver Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Howie View Post
Well I can't remember the actual members who were concerned about ability to reach 7100 rpm and the rate of ramp up to redline but it was definitely discussed by many.I feel I adequately addressed this and no longer feel it is a valid concern.

I will let Ricky address this names and instances if he wishes as he can do a much better job of it than me


DH
Yes, you are right. It was certainly discussed by many.

One other thing to point out, is that often times, some will make a poor argument, have that argument debunked by actual "testing" and then try to say, "well we never said that", after their argument has been shot down by actually putting it to the test.

It's disheartening for some of them, when the GM high tech performance article, using the wrong springs with heavier valves in what was essentially a rigged test, has holes poked into it.


But there is no need to call individuals out on it, because we both know that this was the sentiment among some in here.

At any rate, I'm just glad to see yet another actual owner, dispell that myth and prove that there continues to be no report of practical disadvantage to running these valves as long as the right springs are used along with them.

Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 02-25-2013 at 11:28 AM.
'06 Quicksilver Z06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:21 AM   #9
Mark2009
2009 Corvette Z06
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mark2009's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Howie View Post
Well I can't remember the actual members who were concerned about ability to reach 7100 rpm and the rate of ramp up to redline but it was definitely discussed by many. [...]
That may be true but it would
a) fall into the category of uninformed speculation, and
b) I'd still like to see the posts.
I see a lot of stuff claimed that turns out to be internet myth... I heard it, I read it, somebody told me, somebody told someone that told me, but when you go look for the original source you can't find it -- often because it does not exist or it does not exist in the form it has morphed into. Unfortunately that's just the nature of word-of-mouth information; it is no one's fault, except those trying to exploit it.

Anyway, don't mean to hijack the thread, just trying to sort out some of the oft-repeated speculation and myth. I'm glad you're back on the track and the car is running good. Wish I could be out there running with ya... maybe one day not too far distant
Mark2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:33 AM   #10
SilveradoSS500
CF Senior Member
 
SilveradoSS500's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2009
Location: DFW
Default

Love it! I had ferrea exhaust valves in my last engine and it for sure reved
slower at 6500-7000. What valves are these ?

Now when I'm on track, I short shift around 6000, unless
Someone needs to be passed!!!
SilveradoSS500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:54 AM   #11
Mark2009
2009 Corvette Z06
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mark2009's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by '06 Quicksilver Z06 View Post
Yes, you are right. It was certainly discussed by many. [...]
While I do recall it being discussed in some fashion, there are two issues that causes your claim of validation to be invalid:

First, any claim that a heavier valve would cause the engine to rev slower can be dismissed by intellectual analysis. Does anyone intend to claim that 8 valves, weighing a total of about 200 grams (1/2 lb) more than the OEM valves, will have any ability on a 505 HP engine to make revolutions? An engine that can move a 3100 lb car from 0 to 60 in some 3.8 seconds is going to be slower to rev by an additional half pound of valves that it has to reciprocate? Come on....

And how does one tell it is revving slower? Because it sounds slower?

Second, a driver is not going to be able to tell either way. Let's say the valves do slow the engine down, so it takes 3.9 seconds to go 0-60 instead of 3.8 seconds. Is any driver going to claim that they can, seat of the pants, tell the difference between a 3.8 and a 3.9 0-60 time? Come on....

So, the moral is, some claims do not need any testing -- they don't make sense to start with. Furthermore, some types of testing -- such as seat of the pants -- usually won't mean anything.

Last edited by Mark2009; 02-25-2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason: inserted text in bold
Mark2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 12:34 PM   #12
jedblanks
CF Senior Member
 
jedblanks's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Fe TX
Default

I think the slower rev is your "strawman"

The real issue with heavier valves is valve bounce/valvetrain stability.
jedblanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 12:35 PM   #13
04_Z06_CE
CF Senior Member
 
04_Z06_CE's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Westlake Village, Ca
Default

Thanks for info DH, I will be redoing my heads at the end of this year as well. I find it sad that we have to but I guess peice of mind is what we live for.
04_Z06_CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 12:44 PM   #14
'06 Quicksilver Z06
CF Senior Member
 
'06 Quicksilver Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2003
Default

Thanks again for the update Howie as many in here have followed your progress detailed in your prior threads on your visit to WCCH and CMS.

Good luck in the future with the build and I know that you like to keep up with the following too.

The count is at 174 now and with your post on the results you got with hour WCCH heads, I'm sure that many others who wish to take steps to avoid a stock exhhast valve drop episode, will take note.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...st-valves.html
'06 Quicksilver Z06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 12:57 PM   #15
lt1z
CF Senior Member
 
lt1z's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark200X View Post
That may be true but it would
a) fall into the category of uninformed speculation, and
That can be said about 90% of the posts in this sub forum....
lt1z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 01:33 PM   #16
Michael_D
CF Senior Member
 
Michael_D's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by '06 Quicksilver Z06 View Post
Yes, you are right. It was certainly discussed by many.

One other thing to point out, is that often times, some will make a poor argument, have that argument debunked by actual "testing" and then try to say, "well we never said that", after their argument has been shot down by actually putting it to the test.

It's disheartening for some of them, when the GM high tech performance article, using the wrong springs with heavier valves in what was essentially a rigged test, has holes poked into it.

But there is no need to call individuals out on it, because we both know that this was the sentiment among some in here.

At any rate, I'm just glad to see yet another actual owner, dispel that myth and prove that there continues to be no report of practical disadvantage to running these valves as long as the right springs are used along with them.

Feel free to blame me, or to call me out. I can distinctly remember a thread about a year ago where the collective CF brain trust of keyboard jockeys who have gained decades of engine building experience vicariously through the written word of others on the internet gave me a bunch of crap for a comment I made.

The comments I made was, “Redline CAPABILITIES will be reduced with a heavier valve”.

Of course a few CF valve train engineers took exception to that statement and posted brilliant arguments in an attempt to disprove simple physics 101 crap.

This GM High Tech article you continue to speak of that has done so much damage to the credibility of solid stemmed valve usage is actually a pretty damn good article, IF you actually read it with the intent to learn something. It is a very good, real world, actual test that clearly illustrates why choosing the correct spring for the intended application is so important. Or, you could simply ignore this, call it “nonsense” or a “myth” and take the advice from others on internet forums.

This moronic argument over peak rpm has gone on long enough. Only those who have their heads firmly inserted into their *** has made any statement to the effect that this engine could not spin 7100 rpms with a heavier valve and CORRECT spring rate. What has been stated - by me, and others who actually have a basic understanding of valve train dynamics, is that without CONTROLLED testing, you will not know what the PEAK rpm capabilities will be for any given combination of valve train components. I for one want to be reassured that my engine can spin to NO LESS than 7600 rpm. I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the valves will not start to float, or bounce at NO LESS than 7600 rpm. My reasoning is based on my personal experience with my car and missing shifts which resulted in over revving the limiter and seeing 7600 rpm on the HUD. Don’t tell me this can not happen, as I’ve seen it first hand, with my own eyes. Without testing this engine on a spin rig, or engine dyno, it is damn near impossible to know exactly what’s going on unless it’s bad enough to feel in the seat of the pants – and at that point, some damage is more than likely already occurred. Just because someone says that they spin their engine to 7600 rpm, “and nothing bad happened”, dose not validate that “something bad” is not happening.

Hopefully, the testing that Katech is preparing to do with aftermarket valves and springs will give those who are sitting on the fence the confidence they need that their choice in valve train components was / is the right choice. And I do mean that sincerely. With this information, end users will then know exactly what the hell is going on, and if they should move the rev limiter down, or up, or leave it where it is.
Michael_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 01:51 PM   #17
'06 Quicksilver Z06
CF Senior Member
 
'06 Quicksilver Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_D View Post
Feel free to blame me, or to call me out. I can distinctly remember a thread about a year ago where the collective CF brain trust of keyboard jockeys who have gained decades of engine building experience vicariously through the written word of others on the internet gave me a bunch of crap for a comment I made.


The comments I made was, “Redline CAPABILITIES will be reduced with a heavier valve”.
I recall something about redline "slaughter".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_D View Post
Thanks Paul, will do.

I can go on with discussing lobe side weight, but will save that for another day, another thread. In short, my personal opinion is to use a railroad tie for a pushrod if it improves stability, and to hell with the weight as I do not think it matters as much as conventional wisdom would have one believe.

I am in complete agreement with you on the valve weight, as is my head guy. The lightest solid SS valve is 20 grams heavier than the OE ex vlv. That slaughters revs at 7K. Any idiot with a calculator can figure that out...... But if doing that gives folks a piece of mind, then more power to them.I hope to here back today what my hollow stem options are. Most of the blanks come from Argentina, and apparently, there's some unrest in that part of the world that has hindered supply, so there is a six week min lead time on a custom piece. I may have to move to a 5/16" stem if I want to move away from OEM. And I'm inclined to stay OE at this point....
Damn. I guess Howie forgot to take his calculator with him.

And after I told him to be sure that he did, before he went out there.

Quote:
Of course a few CF valve train engineers took exception to that statement and posted brilliant arguments in an attempt to disprove simple physics 101 crap.

This GM High Tech article you continue to speak of that has done so much damage to the credibility of solid stemmed valve usage is actually a pretty damn good article, IF you actually read it with the intent to learn something. It is a very good, real world, actual test that clearly illustrates why choosing the correct spring for the intended application is so important. Or, you could simply ignore this, call it “nonsense” or a “myth” and take the advice from others on internet forums.

This moronic argument over peak rpm has gone on long enough. Only those who have their heads firmly inserted into their *** has made any statement to the effect that this engine could not spin 7100 rpms with a heavier valve and CORRECT spring rate. What has been stated - by me, and others who actually have a basic understanding of valve train dynamics, is that without CONTROLLED testing, you will not know what the PEAK rpm capabilities will be for any given combination of valve train components. I for one want to be reassured that my engine can spin to NO LESS than 7600 rpm. I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the valves will not start to float, or bounce at NO LESS than 7600 rpm. My reasoning is based on my personal experience with my car and missing shifts which resulted in over revving the limiter and seeing 7600 rpm on the HUD. Don’t tell me this can not happen, as I’ve seen it first hand, with my own eyes. Without testing this engine on a spin rig, or engine dyno, it is damn near impossible to know exactly what’s going on unless it’s bad enough to feel in the seat of the pants – and at that point, some damage is more than likely already occurred. Just because someone says that they spin their engine to 7600 rpm, “and nothing bad happened”, dose not validate that “something bad” is not happening.

Hopefully, the testing that Katech is preparing to do with aftermarket valves and springs will give those who are sitting on the fence the confidence they need that their choice in valve train components was / is the right choice. And I do mean that sincerely. With this information, end users will then know exactly what the hell is going on, and if they should move the rev limiter down, or up, or leave it where it is.
Ah, yeah, well Howie didn't touch his, and a lot of the rest of us haven't either and thus far with no penalty.

I like the results and reliability of Howie's "testing" until we do get results from Katech.

The "test" done by Howie, shows results that those of us looking at this matter from a practical standpoint as opposed to a "theoretical" standpoint, can point to and put stock in.

Again, good results and thanks for the report Howie.

Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 02-26-2013 at 01:52 AM.
'06 Quicksilver Z06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 02:15 PM   #18
Mark2009
2009 Corvette Z06
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mark2009's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by '06 Quicksilver Z06 View Post
Ah, yeah, we'll Howie didn't touch his, and a lot of the rest of us haven't either and thus far with no penalty. [...]
Mark2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 02:37 PM   #19
C_Williams@RPM
Supporting Vendor
 
C_Williams@RPM's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Valencia Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by '06 Quicksilver Z06 View Post

The "test" done by Howie, shows results that those of us looking at this matter from a practical standpoint as opposed to a "theoretical" standpoint, can point to and put stock in.

Again, good results and thanks for the report Howie.
For everyone's information or data banks - we've been running the che guide/solid stem/proper spring rate in this Corvette Challenge Series for over 4 years- and on at least half a dozen vehicles - and that includes the last three championship cars in the series. Combined, that's a lot of laps.

We've aslo gathered data on engine acceleration rates from our chassis dyno and see zero difference - acceleration ramps were run at release points of 300 RPM per second.
__________________
Thanks,

Charlie



►► RPM Motors - WebSite ◄◄
C_Williams@RPM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 02:52 PM   #20
Rock36
CF Senior Member
 
Rock36's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: Clarskville TN
Default

Great videos DH, and I'm glad you are happy with the results. I can't wait to cross over from drag racing into actual road tracks. If I wasn't on the other side of the world, I'd hit you up for some driving tutelage.
Rock36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 02:52 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C6 Corvette, 2005 - 2013 > C6 Z06 Discussion
Reload this Page WCCH Track Data !!!!
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auto x in so cal may 3&4 2014 Ryan T 997 C6 Corvette General Discussion 0 05-02-2014 08:51 PM
FIXED Heads Red Lined at Track !!! Dirty Howie C6 Z06 Discussion 88 01-29-2014 03:46 PM
Most fun road course track in Cali? C6ROLLER C6 Corvette General Discussion 14 12-29-2013 02:16 PM
Update on my WCCH track/street car! Dirty Howie C6 Z06 Discussion 40 08-15-2013 05:47 PM
NASCAR Fontana Race Corvettes Needed? Vintagevetter Southern California 8 02-27-2013 04:51 PM



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Emails & Password Backup