[Z06] How Many Z06 Owners Are Running Solid Stainless Exhaust Valves?
#902
Team Owner
Thread Starter
#903
Bow-Tie Guy
Decided to take the proactive plunge at 24,942 miles. Got Rev SS exh valves & bronze guides installed at Horsepower Addicts in St. Georges, DE.
Josh had machine work done locally including .030 head milling. Also got him to add ARH 1-7/8" headers with catted X-pipe and Comp Cam with BTR spring kit.
1K miles since the build & all
Josh had machine work done locally including .030 head milling. Also got him to add ARH 1-7/8" headers with catted X-pipe and Comp Cam with BTR spring kit.
1K miles since the build & all
Last edited by Les-10; 04-18-2014 at 01:28 AM.
#904
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Decided to take the proactive plunge. Got Rev SS exh valves & bronze guides installed at Horsepower Addicts in St. Georges, DE.
Josh had machine work done locally including .030 head milling. Also got him to add ARH 1-7/8" headers with catted X-pipe and Comp Cam with BTR spring kit.
1K miles since the build & all
Josh had machine work done locally including .030 head milling. Also got him to add ARH 1-7/8" headers with catted X-pipe and Comp Cam with BTR spring kit.
1K miles since the build & all
I remember when I had mine done. It was like being released from jail.
#907
Burning Brakes
[QUOTE='06 Quicksilver Z06;1586683397 I remember when I had mine done. It was like being released from jail.[/QUOTE]
And you would know how that feels how?
And you would know how that feels how?
#909
Team Owner
Thread Starter
The 350th member of this forum that I have identified who has changed out the stock exhaust valves in the LS7 for either a Stainless Steel solid stemmed, gun drilled stem, or inconel exhaust valve. Or better put, changed out the hollow stemmed stock LS7 exhaust valves for a more sturdy option.
I'm looking forward to the next 350 members in here.
#911
Team Owner
Thread Starter
We've lost but 2 motors among members in here going this route due to dropped exhaust valves. Madsen, whose stock guides wore out. But then he had already failed a stock valve before the aforementioned mishap. And 1stZ who finally managed, through extremely diligent effort I might add, to flog his car into submission at 150mph and after a few 190mph efforts, and after avoiding maintenance which he knew it needed. He says: "I was already planning on tearing it down at 15k miles to check & refresh but delayed it cuz of lack of funds." In this writer's view, there are some cars which are just destined to fail. And that, was one of them.
However on a positive note, you guys starting the next 350, I'm going to list in red..
Symbolic of the Olympic baton because you guys are running the second leg, after all of the talk, all of the discussion, all of everything else, you guys have stepped it up. Kudos to you. The guys in black, have blazed the trail.
You're up first dkal.
Good to hear about LMR as there is another member in here going with them for his work. Thanks for the info.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 04-17-2014 at 08:21 PM.
#913
Melting Slicks
Well Chonger, that makes you #350.
The 350th member of this forum that I have identified who has changed out the stock exhaust valves in the LS7 for either a Stainless Steel solid stemmed, gun drilled stem, or inconel exhaust valve. Or better put, changed out the hollow stemmed stock LS7 exhaust valves for a more sturdy option.
Thank you Howie.
I'm looking forward to the next 350 members in here.
The 350th member of this forum that I have identified who has changed out the stock exhaust valves in the LS7 for either a Stainless Steel solid stemmed, gun drilled stem, or inconel exhaust valve. Or better put, changed out the hollow stemmed stock LS7 exhaust valves for a more sturdy option.
Thank you Howie.
I'm looking forward to the next 350 members in here.
Sorry to interrupt with all that logic nonsense. Carry on with the Olympic games...
Last edited by propain; 04-17-2014 at 10:00 PM.
#914
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Stability and reliability of these setups, either on the street or track, has not been reported anywhere that I can find as being an actual matter of practical concern, as opposed to the sometimes discussed "theoretical" matter of concern.
About the only place where the theoretical concern is discussed, is among those who hang their hats on well, "theories".
So in short, valve train stability and reliability, in real world usage of these setups, have not widely been reported to be issues with these setups.
As an aside, this technique of using SS valves in these engines, dates back to late 2005 and continues to this day.
So if valve train stability and reliability were going to be an issue, I would think that we would have seen it by now over the last 8 going into 9 now, years.
About the only place where the theoretical concern is discussed, is among those who hang their hats on well, "theories".
So in short, valve train stability and reliability, in real world usage of these setups, have not widely been reported to be issues with these setups.
As an aside, this technique of using SS valves in these engines, dates back to late 2005 and continues to this day.
So if valve train stability and reliability were going to be an issue, I would think that we would have seen it by now over the last 8 going into 9 now, years.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 04-18-2014 at 09:39 AM.
#915
Melting Slicks
There is a copious amount of proof that the lighter valves are 100% reliable when removing the inherent problem given to us by the GM head supplier. What we see is some people ignoring those facts in order to further perpetuate a stigma against the OEM valves to continue to push an agenda. In the end the real question comes down to "Why is that happening" and "What is to be gained from it" (I see a massive edit almost 12 hours later has taken place since I wrote this paragraph, What was the saying "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps - is the one you hit.")
Reliability is one thing people are looking for. Longevity is another. There is plenty of proof of longevity in the LS7 with OEM valves going over 100K miles. A fluke you say? I doubt it. The key element in the equation is missing from those cars and that is the inherent guide wear from the GM head supplier is removed. When removing that element one can enjoy proven longevity with the OEM valves.
Can the same be said about the SS valves? Do we have any examples of a SS car running over 100K miles on them? No we don't. So those looking for answers should be asking the right questions and take care not to get caught up in the propaganda.
Reliability is one thing people are looking for. Longevity is another. There is plenty of proof of longevity in the LS7 with OEM valves going over 100K miles. A fluke you say? I doubt it. The key element in the equation is missing from those cars and that is the inherent guide wear from the GM head supplier is removed. When removing that element one can enjoy proven longevity with the OEM valves.
Can the same be said about the SS valves? Do we have any examples of a SS car running over 100K miles on them? No we don't. So those looking for answers should be asking the right questions and take care not to get caught up in the propaganda.
Last edited by propain; 04-18-2014 at 10:03 AM.
#916
Team Owner
Thread Starter
There is a copious amount of proof that the lighter valves are 100% reliable when removing the inherent problem given to us by the GM head supplier. What we see is some people ignoring those facts in order to further perpetuate a stigma against the OEM valves to continue to push an agenda. In the end the real question comes down to "Why is that happening" and "What is to be gained from it"
Reliability is one thing people are looking for. Longevity is another. There is plenty of proof of longevity in the LS7 with OEM valves going over 100K miles. A fluke you say? I doubt it. The key element in the equation is missing from those cars and that is the inherent guide wear from the GM head supplier is removed. When removing that element one can enjoy proven longevity with the OEM valves.
Can the same be said about the SS valves? Do we have any examples of a SS car running over 100K miles on them? No we don't. So those looking for answers should be asking the right questions and take care not to get caught up in the propaganda.
Reliability is one thing people are looking for. Longevity is another. There is plenty of proof of longevity in the LS7 with OEM valves going over 100K miles. A fluke you say? I doubt it. The key element in the equation is missing from those cars and that is the inherent guide wear from the GM head supplier is removed. When removing that element one can enjoy proven longevity with the OEM valves.
Can the same be said about the SS valves? Do we have any examples of a SS car running over 100K miles on them? No we don't. So those looking for answers should be asking the right questions and take care not to get caught up in the propaganda.
As long as the stock hollow stemmed valves continue to fail in these cars, then there will be portions of this membership, perhaps even significant portions of this membership, and even those outside of here, who are uncomfortable with them and perceive no practical benefit from running them.
At least no "benefit" which is worth the perceived, and arguably with good reason, risk of running them. I think that one has to consider, that those who are leery of running the stock valves, may have good reason to be.
I think when it comes to "longevity" that means different things to different members.
For some, yes, "longevity" might mean 100K "miles". For others, "longevity" might be measured in terms of "time".
However regardless as to how one determines what "longevity" means to them, we can spot examples of failures of the stock hollow stemmed valves in here in an extremely short period of "miles" and "time", or however else one elects to measure "longevity".
That is what is driving this. The failures. Not the lack of 100K mile cars with SS valves in them. The battlefront is the failures.
It is difficult to tout the "virtues" of the stock valves, no matter what one may perceive these to be, as long as the stock valve failures continue.
It is difficult to convince people of how "good" one believes thinks or perceives something to be, or what "advantages" they perceive that something to offer, when that something remains in the throes of failure.
When the stock failures cease, well then so will this method.
People are motivated by positive "results". But the positive results, are tempered, or offset by reports of negative results. The negative results serving to large extent to "cancel out" any positive results.
One cannot blame people for going about it, or thinking along these lines.
So knowing this, one sees, if they are observant, cars running valve train setups such as the one being discussed in this thread, SS exhaust valves, bronze guides, and they see positive results, and very few, to non existent negative results.
They look at the setup which you support, the stock LS7 hollow stemmed valves and while they may see "positive" results in terms of those 100K mile cars you speak of,...... that's all cancelled out when the next guy shows up in here with a fist sized hole in his engine block after 15K- 20K miles from a stock valve failure.
When one takes into account, that the SS valve/ bronze guide failure reports will never approach the number of stock LS7 valve failure reports in here, well then one can easily see where this is headed.
I hope that helps to shed some light on the actual mechanics of how this matter works, and why people are taking the steps to protect themselves against failure. Sometimes very expensive failure.
People are doing what they feel that they must do in order to give them what they feel is the best chance to get the most enjoyment out of their vehicles, and avoid failure.
It really is as simple as that.
Do you have a car to add to the listing?
If not, well then I'm going to have to ask you move the debate elsewhere.
We are at 351 cars right now.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 04-18-2014 at 10:22 AM.
#917
Melting Slicks
I think that often times, when discussing this matter, some of us fail to take into account the fact that many of us have differing comfort levels.
As long as the stock hollow stemmed valves continue to fail in these cars, then there will be portions of this membership, perhaps even significant portions of this membership, and even those outside of here, who are uncomfortable with them and perceive no practical benefit from running them.
At least no "benefit" which is worth the perceived, and arguably with good reason, risk of running them. I think that one has to consider, that those who are leery of running the stock valves, may have good reason to be.
I think when it comes to "longevity" that means different things to different members.
For some, yes, "longevity" might mean 100K "miles". For others, "longevity" might be measured in terms of "time".
However regardless as to how one determines what "longevity" means to them, we can spot examples of failures of the stock hollow stemmed valves in here in an extremely short period of "miles" and "time", or however else one elects to measure "longevity".
That is what is driving this. The failures. Not the lack of 100K mile cars with SS valves in them. The battlefront is the failures.
It is difficult to tout the "virtues" of the stock valves, no matter what one may perceive these to be, as long as the stock valve failures continue.
It is difficult to convince people of how "good" one believes thinks or perceives something to be, or what "advantages" they perceive that something to offer, when that something remains in the throes of failure.
When the stock failures cease, well then so will this method.
People are motivated by positive "results". But the positive results, are tempered, or offset by reports of negative results. The negative results serving to large extent to "cancel out" any positive results.
One cannot blame people for going about it, or thinking along these lines.
So knowing this, one sees, if they are observant, cars running valve train setups such as the one being discussed in this thread, SS exhaust valves, bronze guides, and they see positive results, and very few, to non existent negative results.
They look at the setup which you support, the stock LS7 hollow stemmed valves and while they may see "positive" results in terms of those 100K mile cars you speak of,...... that's all cancelled out when the next guy shows up in here with a fist sized hole in his engine block after 15K- 20K miles from a stock valve failure.
I hope that helps to shed some light on the actual mechanics of how this matter works.
Do you have a car to add to the listing?
If not, well then I'm going to have to ask you move the debate elsewhere.
We are at 351 cars right now.
As long as the stock hollow stemmed valves continue to fail in these cars, then there will be portions of this membership, perhaps even significant portions of this membership, and even those outside of here, who are uncomfortable with them and perceive no practical benefit from running them.
At least no "benefit" which is worth the perceived, and arguably with good reason, risk of running them. I think that one has to consider, that those who are leery of running the stock valves, may have good reason to be.
I think when it comes to "longevity" that means different things to different members.
For some, yes, "longevity" might mean 100K "miles". For others, "longevity" might be measured in terms of "time".
However regardless as to how one determines what "longevity" means to them, we can spot examples of failures of the stock hollow stemmed valves in here in an extremely short period of "miles" and "time", or however else one elects to measure "longevity".
That is what is driving this. The failures. Not the lack of 100K mile cars with SS valves in them. The battlefront is the failures.
It is difficult to tout the "virtues" of the stock valves, no matter what one may perceive these to be, as long as the stock valve failures continue.
It is difficult to convince people of how "good" one believes thinks or perceives something to be, or what "advantages" they perceive that something to offer, when that something remains in the throes of failure.
When the stock failures cease, well then so will this method.
People are motivated by positive "results". But the positive results, are tempered, or offset by reports of negative results. The negative results serving to large extent to "cancel out" any positive results.
One cannot blame people for going about it, or thinking along these lines.
So knowing this, one sees, if they are observant, cars running valve train setups such as the one being discussed in this thread, SS exhaust valves, bronze guides, and they see positive results, and very few, to non existent negative results.
They look at the setup which you support, the stock LS7 hollow stemmed valves and while they may see "positive" results in terms of those 100K mile cars you speak of,...... that's all cancelled out when the next guy shows up in here with a fist sized hole in his engine block after 15K- 20K miles from a stock valve failure.
I hope that helps to shed some light on the actual mechanics of how this matter works.
Do you have a car to add to the listing?
If not, well then I'm going to have to ask you move the debate elsewhere.
We are at 351 cars right now.
When you stop using this thread to drive an agenda I will stop debating in it.
I would reply to your post above, but I see in your other post which I replied to, you edited out 90% of its content 12 hours later. I really see it as pointless if your going to play that little game.
#918
Team Owner
Thread Starter
When you stop using this thread to drive an agenda I will stop debating in it.
I would reply to your post above, but I see in your other post which I replied to, you edited out 90% of its content 12 hours later. I really see it as pointless if your going to play that little game.
I would reply to your post above, but I see in your other post which I replied to, you edited out 90% of its content 12 hours later. I really see it as pointless if your going to play that little game.
Sometimes my word choice is not as good as it should be and I rephrase things for clarity.
I hope that you understand.
#919
Melting Slicks
You are free to do whatever you like, but when you put those phrases into a post to elicit a response and then get one only to edit out those phrases it makes for a very confusing conversation for others to follow. I think tighter guidelines on edits and the amount of time allowed to do so would go a long way on this forum.
You also cant expect to make your points and then declare a cease fire on a debate for everyone else. If you wish to keep this thread clean of "debates" then you should be careful not to provoke them with opinion.
I hope you understand.
#920
Team Owner
Thread Starter
You are free to do whatever you like, but when you put those phrases into a post to elicit a response and then get one only to edit out those phrases it makes for a very confusing conversation for others to follow. I think tighter guidelines on edits and the amount of time allowed to do so would go a long way on this forum.
You also cant expect to make your points and then declare a cease fire on a debate for everyone else. If you wish to keep this thread clean of "debates" then you should be careful not to provoke them with opinion.
I hope you understand.
You also cant expect to make your points and then declare a cease fire on a debate for everyone else. If you wish to keep this thread clean of "debates" then you should be careful not to provoke them with opinion.
I hope you understand.
I see no need to protest edits. One can make his own points, and his position should be able to stand on it's own merit, irrespective of what someone else has, or had, to say. So if they "edit" what they say, then it shouldn't matter to anyone else's position.
Your position is in favor of the stock valves, mine is not. Regardless of "edit".
I think that you mistakenly see my edits as some sort of "tactic" as opposed to an effort or a tool to offer more clarity to my communication.
Few scribes, and I do consider myself somewhat of one, can be as effective as they desire in their written communications, without edits and drafts.
From a practical standpoint, that is easier to do on this forum using the edit feature.
If you see an edit, as an invitation to "debate", well then I can assure you that was not my intent.