DON T.

your supporting Ricky's investigation? I did not know Ricky had spintron equipment at home!!!! Damn we could have saved a sh_t load of time here. I dont know much about engineering, But i know Jason would not walk blindly into quicksand on this matter. GM Fu-ks up a couple hundred sets of heads and the world as we know it is ending..

Bink

Opinions- everybody has one.

Accomplisments, achievements, records, awards and reputation in the automotive world:

http://www.katechengines.com/about/

Wulverine

Only on 2009-2011 cars though, right?

LT5 John

GM's position is 2008-11

Mark2009

I dunno if you're not reading the posts or if you're being intentionally obtuse:

But I do know that when some refuse to acknowledge that there is a valve or valve guide problem, the stemmers rightfully accuse them of being in denial or having their head stuck in the sand.

Yet, now that we have some Spintron data on the stemmer's 'fix', they are the ones denying it and sticking their heads in the sand.

glenB

Until further notice, the pissing contest will continue

JohnRR

Thanks Katech for the technical info.
This thread is no longer productive.
Bye.

John

propain

WCCH recommends SS valves with dual springs. 2008 data, 2013 data both say otherwise...

So how can anyone trust WCCH?

propain

Exacty. When you step back from the whole thing and realize you are arguing with a dentist and someone else who works in the medical field and you wonder why there is any debate to begin with other than pure entertainment.

They talk well, they debate well, but they dont and never will have the answers. They are merely doing the dirty work of the small guy against the big bad machine called Katech.

propain

Thread winner...


Howie did a root canal yesterday and Ricky well.... who knows what Ricky does. Chad at least does heads for a living.... The 3 merry men however seem to know something Katech doesn't or feel their opinion has more value than Katech's experience.

propain

Bad_AX

I had to go back almost to the beginning of this thread (post #24) to remind myself of why the testing was done. I don't see this having anything to do with failure of stock valves. I think it is safe to assume anyone having head work done on an LS7 is going to have the factory guides replaced with bronze. I also don't recall reading of any failed stock valves where the failure was not associated with badly worn guides. I would appreciate anyone correcting me on this if I am wrong. Having read (suffered?) through seemingly endless threads on this topic, my take is that valve failure is a consequence of faulty guides and/or incorrect machining.

Out of 9 combinations tested, only a couple are not recommended.

Prior to this test by Katech, my plan was to have the guides replaced, and go back with stock valve train components with the exception of CHE rockers. In light of the test results, I now have confidence in going with different components.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

In all honesty, I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse, because right now, you are indicating that any "research", or anything posing as research, is better than none, and that is simply not true, and a man of science such as yourself should know better than that.

This exercise is saddled with problems from the get go which erode it's credibility as far as it being legitimate research, the first of which is that a vendor is doing it, with no oversight by any independent entity, and "studying" the efficacy and "safety" of products that he had a hand in developing or outright sells or has intentions of selling, vs those of his competitors.

The potential for bias, intentional or otherwise, is enormous.

Secondly, it very closely ties in with prior "studies" done by the same vendor, and portions of it, were said to have been a repeat of that prior "study", but when asked about the materials and methods used in the prior "study", the chief investigator, or chief spokesperson on these supposed ground breaking research efforts, apparently had difficulty accurately identifying one of the materials utilized in the prior "study".

A huge problem, especially when results of what were said to have been a "repeat" of a prior test, using identical materials and methods, are remarkably different this time around, but at the same time prior results, which were extremely poor in one setup, are in line with "new results" obtained from a competitors very popular offering.

Finally, the fact that the prior study offered a "prediction" that setups yielding results which the investigators observed, would result in failures, has apparently not come to fruition, further erodes at the effectiveness of this "study" and the one prior to it.

Suffice it to say that I know how to critique what is referred to as, or implied to be "scientific research".

And this......ain't it. Not by a long shot. Being asked what materials you used in a previous "study" and prior to publication of your current results, and coming out and equivocally saying that one portion of your testing is a "repeat" of your prior testing........and when the numbers don't come out right, changing what you earlier said was one of the materials used in a prior test.

You'd be laughed off the podium presenting something like that. And I can tell you for a fact, if you were "selling" something vs what a competing pharmaceutical company was selling, that your "research" certainly would not be taken seriously.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

This testing is an extension of a prior test done by Katech back in 2008, the results of which are published here.
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...n_performance/

Part of the testing's intent is in it's use as a predictor of failure.

The ultimate result of which would be to imply that any setup, which did not show a "favorable result", would be a prescription for failure.

The data obtained from it, is used to "predict".

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...e/viewall.html
"It is apparent the valve is out of control at this point-so much so at 0.030-inch of bounce off the seat that failures will result if you operate in this range periodically."

When you make that kind of "prediction", and "support" it with what the lay person reflexively interprets, as a result of being mesmerized by fancy plots, charts and graphs, as "research", then the implications are clear.

The problem is, the "research" is being conducted not by an independent laboratory, nor independent investigators, nor even any oversight by an independent entity, or entities, nor apparently any strict adherence to commonly accepted research guidelines, and I say that because they go 5 years and cannot even accurately tell you the materials used in prior testing, which they did and which ties in to this current testing, but it's done by a vendor selling products which he is comparing against offerings from his competitors.

Seriously, you present "rotten" results when you tested what your competitors were offering back in 2008.

Then 5 years later, come out and say that you used a non production part in that testing.

And now 5 years hence, you present "rotten" results for what your competitors are popularly offering now, and again obtain those same rotten results, which look remarkably similar, eerily similar to the ones you say you found 5 years ago.

Katech_Zach

From now on we will keep our research to ourselves.

Vette_DD

Closed at OP's request.