LT5 John

Hey Ricky, you are using CHE rockers...I would think the rockers would help with valve train stability? The test that were done, weren't the stock OEM rockers used?...Just wondering, don't know??

'06 Quicksilver Z06

I don't see how the rockers would matter.

From my standpoint, I see this testing as an interesting exercise, but not much more.

Several things working against it, not the least of which are the numerous cars running fine with setups deemed unstable in this testing.

That and the numerous cylinder head builders and many cars out there running heads from companies such as Mast, PRC, etc.

But as mentioned before, those who are concerned about it, are only a valve spring change away from being more "comfortable", if they believe in the accuracy of the results and the consistency in gathering the data.

But with regard to the testing, perhaps the most toxic thing working against it, are the continued episodes of stock exhaust valve failure in the LS7.

It becomes harder to convince people that they are running something which is supposedly more "stable", and which will prevent "valve bounce", but which includes the utilization of the stock exhaust valve, when so many of them are dropping.

There are 2 active threads in here right now discussing two cars with the issue. One in a 2009 model.

I'm thinking that fewer people in here, are concerned with the prospect of "valve bounce" on a "Spintron", than they are with "dropped valves" occurring as they drive down the road in their own vehicles.

I think to some degree, that it will come down to this:

You will have several in here praising and pointing to the results of this testing.

But when it comes time for them to actually make a move to address the issue, or when they decide to have that cam installed, or those mods done ...it will be interesting to see which valve many of them actually select..... or will they sell and move to another car entirely as opposed to even having to deal with it.

z0sicktanner

I'm pretty sure what Richard will say we will see when hes back from vacation. I guess "brodix" "mast" "prc" "allpro" got it all wrong. by the way the world record holder uses allpro with duel springs an ss valves. another flipflop from quess who? mybe Richard will stop doing heads for them now after he just got hit from the K bus. this is crazy engines are dropping valves by the day in cars that are in a low 1% posted by quess who? they helped design the egine that keeps failing in mass numbers, yet now it's valve bounce to worry about?..very small number? hmm an look who did the test . I said I wouldn't post but couldn't help myself on this one

LT5 John

Hey Chad, As you know I have Brodix heads that Richard @ WCCH did for me...Speaking for myself, I have no concerns about bounce on my SS valves. My concern has always been to prevent my Z from dropping a valve and ending up with a windowed block...Those concerns are put to rest as far as I am concerned...My heart goes out to those who are still experiencing dropped valves...

Mark2009

IT'S ALIVE ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Come on guys, enough with the same old spew. You must have it on a macro by now, but we've all heard it before. Let's make the one above #7. So instead of posting the Katech/GM conspiracy, you can just post "#7". We'll all know what it means and it saves a lot of reading and typing... plus it will make the forum look a lot less nasty and hateful

93Polo

This is ancient LS1tech but the rocker can have an impact. I remember Phil97SVT's C5 build on LS1tech year ago. He was getting valve float with Yella Terras. The theory was the rocker wasn't flexing and/or more weight over the tip. The same cam was not floating on stock rockers. He moved from Comp 987 springs to 977s, and solved the float problem. Some of the BBC guys go to hydraulic roller lifters with ceramic rollers such as Schubecks in order to reduce weight. As I've posted in the past everything is a package.

propain

Quick 90% of all Z06's are fine. Does that mean there isnt a problem? No.

Katech does a lot of work with oem valves. Haven't seen a katech failure yet.

Katech offers real data as opposed to lip service bs that has been force fed on this forum for a long time as you call it an "Interesting exercise" what the hell is your agenda? Piece of the sales? Discounts off your purchases. Blind hate for katech?

You are given data and you dismiss it and make excuses. Like the quick of old but different agenda. I guess it will take you a long time to come around to this. But like it or not this data from katech has people paranoid again about what you have been shoveling with no proof of data and will change what people choose from here on. If I had to guess I'm betting you will change your springs too. Lol.

Mark2009

Let's dispense with the hypotheticals and look at the data right here staring us in the face:

Clearly the solid SS valve has double the bounce of the OEM valve. Not some single digit percentage (.001") or whatever.

If you're only comparing springs instead of valves then with the OEM cam and the solid SS valve it doesn't seem to make much difference which spring is used, but it should be noted that for this test the dual spring was set up much 'tighter' than the typical WCCH setup (i.e., with much more seat pressure). In other words I would expect the typical WCCH setup to perform worse than what we see with the dual spring above (but it should be noted that we're talking about valve springs so stranger things could happen).

Here with the Torquer cam the first two examples do have essentially the same amount of bounce, but the OEM valve makes it to 7700 RPM before hitting that number while the solid SS valve only makes it to 6800 RPM. Clearly that also is not 'comparable' or within some small margin of error or tolerance.

In the last example the solid SS valve bounce is twice that of its value with a single spring.

So, wherever this .001" hairsplitting came from it makes no sense when looking at the data.

DON T.

Jeezzz, Cant we all just get along! .. NO! Oh sh t..

'06 Quicksilver Z06

The stock valves have developed a reputation in these cars propain and there is no undoing that. It is a reputation which has been 8 years in the making.

It has headed into other fora and onto the streets. And neither Katech, with their Spintron, nor anyone else will be able to stanch it.

http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/foru...d.php?t=176682

Attempts at quelling the situation and telling people that everything was alright, failed.

The latest attempt which basically says; "OK, you don't want to believe that the stock valves are OK? Fine. You can go ahead, fix your heads, but unless you keep the stock exhaust valves in them which are notorious for failure, and are still failing right in front of you, then your car is going to burst into flames from an unstable setup", well, that is not going to work either.

People aren't going to be "scared" into keeping their stock exhaust valves while they see other failures around them, any more than you can scare people into staying inside of a burning building.

It's hard to argue to people, that they should stay inside of a burning building, because if they run outside of that same blazing structure, that there is a "chance" that they might get shot by Bloods and Crips when they exit.

Those people are going to get out of there. And take their chances. And depending upon circumstances, many are going to feel good about their chances vs staying inside a blazing building.

So telling people "Don't fix your heads with those, you might get valve bounce", is going to fall on a lot of deaf ears.

One of the biggest problems faced by Katech, or anyone else embracing this "data", and touting it, is the absence of rampant failure amongst cars which they indicate, and have indicated over the last 5 years, have unstable setups.

If we were coming in here reading about one after another car with SS valves in it failing, well then this might gain some traction. We aren't, and it isn't.

If what they are saying, is of significant concern, well then where are all of the failures? We've come full circle now. We are being told, through the results of this "testing" that "the sky is falling" or going to fall, on anyone without a #1,#4, #7, #8, or #9, setup, setups they either offer/sell, or were instrumental in developing, or who doesn't lower their rev limiter or even more drastic steps. Seriously, this is where we are right now.

Listen, as far as "blind hatred for Katech", I have nothing of the sort. But I don't call that unbiased research.

But when you talk about "Data", I'm taken back to one of your comments from awhile back about "trust".

You said; "I don't believe anyone, long standing member of this forum or not."

At the time you made that comment, I thought .

But then as I thought more about it, I realized that you were not totally wrong in that opinion.

It is especially significant when someone is trying to sell something, and crush their competition.

So when you talk about data, of the type we are discussing, and how you say that I "dismiss it and make excuses", basically what I am doing is what you describe above, in a situation where that data is offered by a vendor with active and very capable competitors in his marketplace.

I also look at the utility of what you are describing, when I take into account that the numbers don't seem to "add up".

In other words, the fact that one setup, yields nearly the same results as a different setup, and from years ago, but at the same time, the same setups yield entirely different results, I go back to, and consider the gravity of what you said; "I don't believe anyone, long standing member of this forum or not."

And then when, for lack of better terminology, the story changes, first it was a Torquer cam, and now, it is not, then it gives me great reason to pause and think about it.

Now, why the story changed, why the data seems unusual, there could be several reasons for that, and at the top of my list would be error.

As already mentioned we are all human, and thus subject to error.

Things aren't matching up here, there is no denying that, and from where I sit, the most logical reason for that, is error, or errors.

But all in all, this is really a dying, if not already dead, issue. People are making up their minds every day as to what to do about it. And I very highly doubt that the results of this testing, let alone our discussion of them, are going to sway many, one way or another.

But if this were anybody else besides Katech, a lot of you would be taking the same attitude with regard to this entire matter.

LS9Drew

He's talking about it being just .001 over Katechs acceptable amount of bounce and how that would actually affect the car

Mark2009

That's the problem with being biased; you project that upon others who are not biased, but simply live by the adage that data talks and bull**** walks.

But the major failure in your argument(s) is that it relies upon glaring logical fallacies, such as that above -- shoot the messenger / appeal to authority / guilt by association.

By the way... what does your milkman look like?

Mark2009

Oh

Still a faulty approach, as valvetrain stability is not a binary proposition (above/below some exact arbitrary limit). If one configuration is .030 bounce and the other is .015, then obsessing over .001" is essentially a red herring (arguing something that is not an issue in order to detract from the elephant in the room -- the .015 difference or the 800 RPM difference).

'06 Quicksilver Z06

All of the above attempts to "pigeon hole" my approach to this matter, won't work, and have nothing to do with my prior comments.

People have been, and still are, continuing to enjoy success and peace of mind with setups which Katech indicates are unstable.

Something that SSMOKE said a few posts back caught my eye:

So true.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...post1584402746

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...e-blew-up.html

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...py-ending.html

As long as these stock valves keep breaking, as long as these motors keep breaking, this matter, will take care of itself. Just like evolution.

Funny you ask. I'm the milk man in my neighborhood.

Mark2009

Very nicely done. I'm thinking I might have walked right into that

propain

All of the above was meaningless Quick. I honestly think you type in walls of text just to get as far away from the questions or statements made at you on purpose at this point. Nice tactic and probably stops most from reading or debating but I am not buying it.

No one is talking anyone out of doing the head work. The point since you seemed to miss it was you talk about SS valves and dual springs and how wonder they are because they aren't failing. 90% of your list are new installs with no time to even come close to failures. Ths is hardly conclusive data. Its back to the point the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

The stats FOR SS valves in dual springs are as good as running your stock heads and not doing a thing as 90% of Z06's are still on the road and haven't spontaneously combusted yet.



A tiny list compared to the amount of Z06's in production that havent failed. Again, by that synopsis there is nothing wrong with the stock Z06 heads. You also refuse to acknowledge that 90% of your SS list are recent additions and of course would not be failing at this point. Show me that list in a few more years after these cars get some miles on them.

Again, same old diversion tactic. We are talking about Katech and the data. Not the same old BS argument you have been spewing for for to long on this forum.


Same old same old. You simply don't have the numbers, milage or data on these cars to come to a conclusion. You knew this and posted it a few months ago but suddenly its the staple of your argument.

I disagree and you know I am right. You have been gunning at Katech for a long time now. Man up about it already. Why act like this is some innocent unbiased research. This is yours and your buddy Chads PERSONAL problem with Katech and your spewing it onto the forums.

Again, this is your agenda. Should I call you Robin hood from now on? Katech USES WCCH. If everyone who came to Katech wanted SS valves and dual springs the work would currently go to WCCH to get done. If they wanted TI valves the work goes to WCCH. How is this crushing their competition? They came out with the TI to calm people who were scared to run OEM.

You are taking that comment out of context I believe. What I was saying with that is I trust data... not opinion.

Again Robin hood, who is this competition? Also what you are saying is Katech is fabricating the results and lying to everyone so they can push their own agenda and crush the competition and continue to send the work to WCCH..... Is that what you're saying? These Katech results are fabricated? Lies? Manipulated?

'

As opposed to the number that dont exist from the people you are protecting against the big bad Katech who is looking to crush them.

This is your invention... and I am sure others feeding it to you... I haven't seen enough evidence of this and quite honestly you are reaching.

This is probably the only thing you have to stand on. I honestly don't know why there is error or confusion in what was tested in 2008. It doesn't flaw the entire test though. The test is still the test. Unless of course you are stating that error is actually conspiracy. It seems you are.

Back to old faithful. I hope they are paying you well Quick.... sorry.. Robin Hood. Why are you doing their dirty work? Why aren't they defending themselves against the tyranny of Katech?

Its not a dead issue anymore. I know you and chad wish to wrap it up in a neat little box and walk away with some type of victory. Chad wasnt going to post here anymore... nothing more to discuss.... the writing on the wall. You were going to back off... no reason to post here anymore... your job is done. Yet here you both are because you both know new data has arrived and now you must defend it.

If this was dying and you were so confident that everyone has the message and they know what to do you wouldnt be posting in this thread defending your position yet again.

Make no mistake Quick. This is more data than anyone has seen on this issue since the wiggle test. If this data on the dual springs does not change their minds well I guess you did a good enough job brain washing them. But somehow I think the data will speak for itself.. PSI springs are the way to go SS valves or not. As I said before I bet even you will be silently swapping out soon enough.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

Out of curiosity and nothing else, what do you hope to accomplish at this point through further discussion of this matter?

People aren't keeping score anymore. It is known very well now, that valve train problems in the LS7 exist. Furthermore, it is known that people have, and continue to, use SS valves in these cars successfully. So there is nothing here to be won.

I can tell you that I have no beef with Katech. It's the truth, but there is really no need for me to attempt to prove that to you. How would one do do so, and why would it be important anyway?

But really, as I said earlier, as long as stock exhaust valves continue to drop in these cars, this matter, will take care of itself. And it won't much matter what either of us says about it.

Every time one of these cars fails a stock exhaust valve in here, and because so many valve failures have occurred, the issue has actually snowballed to the point to where even if the failure was not valve related, it erodes any of whatever little confidence is left in the stock valves in here. And that bleeds outside of these fora as well, and into the populace.

There is no reversing that. There is not even any slowing it down. Why? Because the stock failures continue.

As these cars show up on the used market, and fall into the hands of younger buyers, valves will continue to drop, and young owners will react by continuing to replace the valves in them before they drop if they can. For many gear heads, it probably won't much matter the results of this testing, the bounce plots and such, in their decision making process.

The deciding factor will be based upon, "what works", and "what fails". And right now, people have seen quite a lot of "what fails".

So winning hearts and minds here, when it comes to this matter, we're long since past that. And neither this testing exercise, nor anything else is liable to change that.

Rock36

I have the stock OEM camshaft, so those were the tests I personally was concerned with. Imagine the results of the OEM camshaft/SS valve bounce if a PSI beehive spring with more seat pressure was used instead of the OEM LS7 beehive.

No, I don't consider the Katech bounce limit of 0.015" as strictly a "binary proposition" either but I also doubt the Katech and COMPCAMS limits were established "arbitrarily" . I may buy some PSI 1511 springs from Katech in the future, so perhaps their test generated at least some revenue out of me.

Anyway, my main concern is staying within the parameters using an OEM camshaft, so this is all I needed to see:

Dirty Howie

I don't think you will be surprised when I say that I am supporting Ricky's investigation in this matter.

I see it in very simple terms......

PREVIOUS TESTING USED INCORRECT PARTS AND WE ARE ONLY NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT IT. NEW TESTING IS THEREFORE JUST AS LIKELY TO HAVE USED INCORRECT PARTS. SO HOW CAN ANYONE TRUST THE RESULTS


DH

Dirty Howie

Why are you talking about .030 bounce? No one has that setup

I don't care about the Torquer cam, I have a stock cam and it will stay that way. I don't see much difference (.001 between #3 and #4 setups) in bounce between the the Torquer cam set up and my setup through the RPM range that my car sees. So I don't think I should be worried. I'm not concerned with mechanical over rev and RPM safety margins either.


DH