View Poll Results: My car is running fine (only vote if your LS7 is Ok)
Voters: 160. You may not vote on this poll
[Z06] How many are NOT having Valve issues ?
12-21-2013, 08:05 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
Had the valves checked on my modded motor and they were FINE. I chose to have them taken care of anyway.
12-21-2013, 08:24 PM
#43
Advanced
Member Since: Dec 2009
Location: Montgomery NY
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15k on the clock of my bone stock 07Z. Runs and looks new, got a veh one warranty from ken fichtner till 2019 or 85k miles. If it blows up , so be it. I enjoy every second behind the wheel of this great american scream machine!
12-22-2013, 01:42 AM
#45
Instructor
Member Since: Sep 2004
Location: Bakersfield CA
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'08, about 7,000 miles, second owner, has not been checked for excessive wear and runs with a quiet valve train. Mods: Vararam CAI and Pfadt headers, x-pipe and cats, 180 degree thermostat. I always let the oil temp reach 150 degrees before I run the car hard to high rpms. I believe not doing that could be one of the issues relating to excessive valve guide wear or dropping a valve. My car runs great, recently running 129.94 in the 1/4 mile. I still think the C6 ZO6 is one of the all time best cars ever and hands down the best bang for the buck.
12-22-2013, 12:09 PM
#48
Le Mans Master
I would like to think everyone would have enough sense to know you meant a stock Z06. But god forbid I say anything else because I might get banned. Mine is a 2013 with 7800 miles. It runs great!!! I'm having a really hard time deciding if I should put a Edelbrock supercharger on.. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK..
12-22-2013, 12:26 PM
#49
Le Mans Master
What is the purpose of this poll, since it is limited to cars that are "OK". Unless you have your car checked for the wiggle test, it may be OK--or maybe not.
12-22-2013, 01:16 PM
#50
Racer
Thread Starter
Member Since: Dec 2013
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-22-2013, 01:21 PM
#51
Right now, it's showing that 81.93% of the 83 people voting in it, who say that they do not have a valve train problem, have actually never even checked to see if they have one.
Only 18.07% who say that they have no valve train problem, have actually checked to see if they do or do not have one.
Stock heads or fixed heads, most people voting in this poll saying that they have no valve train issues, haven't performed a check to rule them out, and possibly won't.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 12-22-2013 at 01:24 PM.
12-22-2013, 01:48 PM
#53
Pro
Does that mean they failed?
Just because the valves have wiggle doesn't mean its going to fail. What is the threshold of wiggle to failure in the LS7? Many have even postulated that there is no proof valve guide wear is the reason for failure due to the lack of post failure inspections.
There have been no inspections of the SS valve modification and they seem to be running fine. Does that mean they don't have the issue? Or do they have guide wear as well and just haven't failed so everything must be ok. You cant have it both ways, even though some want to on this forum.
Just because the valves have wiggle doesn't mean its going to fail. What is the threshold of wiggle to failure in the LS7? Many have even postulated that there is no proof valve guide wear is the reason for failure due to the lack of post failure inspections.
There have been no inspections of the SS valve modification and they seem to be running fine. Does that mean they don't have the issue? Or do they have guide wear as well and just haven't failed so everything must be ok. You cant have it both ways, even though some want to on this forum.
12-22-2013, 02:03 PM
#54
Pro
2008 Z06- 19,000 miles, checked/ None out of spec.
2013 Z06- 1,600 miles. Not checked, under warranty, running awesome.
2013 427 Convertible- 6,000 miles, Not checked, not going to check, running like a Race horse with a glue truck behind it!
2013 Z06- 1,600 miles. Not checked, under warranty, running awesome.
2013 427 Convertible- 6,000 miles, Not checked, not going to check, running like a Race horse with a glue truck behind it!
12-22-2013, 02:57 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
I think it's very valuable.
Right now, it's showing that 81.93% of the 83 people voting in it, who say that they do not have a valve train problem, have actually never even checked to see if they have one.
Only 18.07% who say that they have no valve train problem, have actually checked to see if they do or do not have one.
Stock heads or fixed heads, most people voting in this poll saying that they have no valve train issues, haven't performed a check to rule them out, and possibly won't.
Right now, it's showing that 81.93% of the 83 people voting in it, who say that they do not have a valve train problem, have actually never even checked to see if they have one.
Only 18.07% who say that they have no valve train problem, have actually checked to see if they do or do not have one.
Stock heads or fixed heads, most people voting in this poll saying that they have no valve train issues, haven't performed a check to rule them out, and possibly won't.
12-22-2013, 03:37 PM
#56
The first post read:
Let us compare to how many are Not." (having issues)
Please Vote and share your Year and Mileage (if you have not had any issues)
He wants to hear from those who are Not having issues.
He goes on to put the voting options in the poll.
1. Had valves inspected and there Ok (not having issues)
2. Never inspected but my car is Ok (not having issues)
What I said was:
Of all of the voters in his poll, a poll where he is asking for the participation of people who have NOT had issues, only about 18% actually did a thorough test to determine if they do, or do not actually have them.
The poll to me, as I allude to above, illustrates, or at least leans in the direction, that people are not likely to do any further "digging" or "testing" if their cars are running fine.
Another way of putting it, they don't know if they actually have an issue going on or not, and have not tested.
I can understand this position very well, because it is the same position as taken by many people who have had their heads done.
But what separates the wheat from the chaff in that instance, is a bigger question.
And that questions is, "which sub segment, amongst those who have actually done no testing at all, but are running fine, really ought to be testing?"
Or better put, in which segment is testing most needed in order to avoid disaster?
Some will tell you that ALL of them do. The whole group needs to. That "everybody owning an LS7" ought to be testing for stem to guide clearance.
I would say only those who have setups identical to those which have developed problems, ought to be most concerned with testing.
Hope that helps.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 12-22-2013 at 09:30 PM.
12-22-2013, 03:50 PM
#57
Melting Slicks
This poll is fine for the people who have inspected and came back clean and have no issues. The other people who are voting but have not inpected are not "having issues" but also don't know if they have "the issue".
I can understand the position because its EXACTLY how I feel about the SS modification that we are being told has "no issues". However without proof of inspection and proving no wear issues it is impossible to say they have no issue or are "fixed".
argumentum ad ignorantiam
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we can say that about the SS modification we can say it about cars that have no issue but have not inspected.
I can understand the position because its EXACTLY how I feel about the SS modification that we are being told has "no issues". However without proof of inspection and proving no wear issues it is impossible to say they have no issue or are "fixed".
argumentum ad ignorantiam
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we can say that about the SS modification we can say it about cars that have no issue but have not inspected.
12-22-2013, 03:59 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
I don't follow what you're getting at.
The first post read:
So he says: "we see how many are having issues.
Let us compare to how many are Not." (having issues)
Please Vote and share your Year and Mileage (if you have not had any issues)
He wants to hear from those who are Not having issues.
He goes on to put the voting options in the poll.
1. Had valves inspected and there Ok (not having issues)
2. Never inspected but my car is Ok (not having issues)
What I said was:
So which part of what I said is inaccurate and why?
Of all of the voters in his poll, a poll where he is asking for the participation of people who have NOT had issues, only about 18% actually did a thorough test to determine if they do, or do not actually have them.
The first post read:
So he says: "we see how many are having issues.
Let us compare to how many are Not." (having issues)
Please Vote and share your Year and Mileage (if you have not had any issues)
He wants to hear from those who are Not having issues.
He goes on to put the voting options in the poll.
1. Had valves inspected and there Ok (not having issues)
2. Never inspected but my car is Ok (not having issues)
What I said was:
So which part of what I said is inaccurate and why?
Of all of the voters in his poll, a poll where he is asking for the participation of people who have NOT had issues, only about 18% actually did a thorough test to determine if they do, or do not actually have them.
12-22-2013, 04:12 PM
#59
On the same note, and to clarify what I said to you earlier Vette@71, I would agree with any member in here, who pointed out that what we are seeing is the same thing that we are seeing in the case of fixed heads.
Anyone saying that, would be 100% right on that observation.
However, when it comes to "testing" one has to ask if it is called for.
We don't generally screen women for prostate cancer. I have never seen a woman develop it.
Thus a man probably cannot make the same argument as his wife and refuse to be tested for it because his wife hasn't been tested for it. Nor can he likely insist that she go in and be tested, just because he has had to.
One would likely not expect them to be at equal risk for catastrophe due to it. We would expect that one is going to be considered more at risk for it than the other, so then testing is more likely to be indicated in one case than it would be for the other.
So just as it is absurd to try and argue that "everybody" across the board ought to be tested for prostate cancer, it is crazy to try and argue that every LS7 owner ought to be testing his cylinder heads. Not every one of them is "at risk", or at equal risk for catastrophe, and there is no strong or solid indication that they are.
That's just logic, and anyone should be able to follow it.
Conversely, because we see cars with stock setups in them developing this issue, and virtually non with fixed heads developing it, then it makes sense that those who are most at risk, are the ones who ought to be testing.
Of course one could attempt to argue that everybody ought to be tested for prostate cancer because "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence" and that since most of us have never seen a woman ever develop it, that this doesn't mean that we ought not start testing everybody for it, but I'm thinking that would be a bit extreme.
Anyone saying that, would be 100% right on that observation.
However, when it comes to "testing" one has to ask if it is called for.
We don't generally screen women for prostate cancer. I have never seen a woman develop it.
Thus a man probably cannot make the same argument as his wife and refuse to be tested for it because his wife hasn't been tested for it. Nor can he likely insist that she go in and be tested, just because he has had to.
One would likely not expect them to be at equal risk for catastrophe due to it. We would expect that one is going to be considered more at risk for it than the other, so then testing is more likely to be indicated in one case than it would be for the other.
So just as it is absurd to try and argue that "everybody" across the board ought to be tested for prostate cancer, it is crazy to try and argue that every LS7 owner ought to be testing his cylinder heads. Not every one of them is "at risk", or at equal risk for catastrophe, and there is no strong or solid indication that they are.
That's just logic, and anyone should be able to follow it.
Conversely, because we see cars with stock setups in them developing this issue, and virtually non with fixed heads developing it, then it makes sense that those who are most at risk, are the ones who ought to be testing.
Of course one could attempt to argue that everybody ought to be tested for prostate cancer because "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence" and that since most of us have never seen a woman ever develop it, that this doesn't mean that we ought not start testing everybody for it, but I'm thinking that would be a bit extreme.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 12-23-2013 at 03:32 AM.
12-22-2013, 04:24 PM
#60
How is one any better than the other?
But his poll options read:
1. Had valves inspected and there Ok
2. Never inspected but my car is Ok.
Well which of the 88 people who have voted so far, had their "valves" checked?
So if you really want to split hairs, then he seems to be talking more of "guide" issues, as opposed to outright "valve" issues, as most people who are "checking", have their "guides" checked, as opposed to having their "valves" checked.
I'm taking from his text, that he means any valve related issues.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 12-22-2013 at 05:20 PM.