and sodium filled exhaust valves have been used since the 1920's in lots of applications and trusted to be used in aircraft. :D

But your right, not every valve will perform the same. We saw this clearly with Katech's results when comparing the OEM valves to the SS valves.

The problem here is SS valves in the LS7 as you pointed out have not been tracked for their success. The new list of cars as you know shows little other than a collection of cars rather than proof of success. While the SS valve has been used in the past by LS7 owners it is up until recently that this trend is catching on to attempt to fix the problem. Lots of cars, very little miles, very little post result to examine or observed.

The same could be said for the hollow Ferrea valves in the LS7 as well. I agree. However, being lighter does give it a significant advantage over the SS valve. Its lighter but still more durable than the OEM valve. Of course the stability needs to be proven which is why it is important to get them on the spintron and verify. As you pointed out sometimes what appears to be a great idea turns out to not be such a good fit. We shall see.

I go with what has proven to work in this application after the issues have been addressed. I dont care much for voodoo. I'm not that type of guy. :thumbs:

You guys and your two piece valves... where did the SS valve break in madsens car? At the head..... just like the two piece valve. :rofl: :yesnod:

and that's funny?

:lol: I knew you weren't smart enough to get the "two-piece" valve comment but that's ok we'll let it slide :rofl:

My somewhat oblique point was that dissing a competitors product without giving the competitor a chance to air his side of the issue does not really paint a picture of balanced journalism.

And who claimed or inferred that they have not? No one, of course. Too much hot air in your posts, Quick... just like those pesky "new" valves :rofl:

and I knew you were a mindless troll with a BS "proprietary build". I give your mindless dribble about as little thought as possible. You are merely a little speed bump on this forum. You offer very little.

Troll on little man and keep us all informed on your awesome secret "proprietary" build. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

This forum..... :ack:

Wrong again, Howie:

The deal was not to address me, which is the tendency amongst a few (address me instead of the content of my posts). I'll always address misleading posts. The way to avoid that is to not make them :thumbs:

No it wasn't. It is a transparent, concerted effort by a few to scare people by insinuating that the valve is new and untested. Fear is always the goal in those arguments... fear the stock valve, fear the stock guide, fear the new valve, fear any data from certain vendors, fear any work from anyone but the anointed vendor(s), fear, fear, fear :willy:

As noted above, that was not the deal. Accuracy, Howie, accuracy is what I ask of myself and others. Get that right and I'll have no need to address your posts.

Hahaha....if you only knew. My little proprietary build has been done for years and could probably mop up the track with anything you have in your stable :cheers:

How the heck do you know who "inferred" it?

Or do you not know the difference between "infer", "imply" and "claim"?

Based on the wording in your above post, I'm going to infer that you don't.

You have "implied" and yes, "claimed" that you were proceeding towards and had plans of addressing the valve issue in your own car.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...post1585308587

I have "inferred" from your prior defense of them, etc., that what you have planned involves the use of the Ferrea hollow stemmed exhaust valve.

Also, I think that most of the "hot air" typically comes from your posts.

Your "point", and I use the term generously as it is a stretch as to if one can even call it that, was more "obtuse" than it was "oblique". :D

Well we seem to be agreeing to some general principles.

Here's a question for you.......

Why doesn't Ferrea add sodium to their valve. Then it would be a robust version of what the GM engineers had in mind. Heavier than stock, lighter than SS and removing heat as designed.

:cheers:
DH

Mark

I'm glad you feel you are infallable. I'm sure the forum and world is rejoicing to know that finally human kind has produce a mere mortal who never errors :lol::lol::lol::lol:

We all want accuracy Mark. We should all just shut up and let you tell us whats true and what not. :crazy2:

You couldn't make it a couple of days with out sterring the pot after telling the forum that you needed to run to the MODS cause you didn't want to deal with me. I made a good faith effort that any one can read to end the pissing. I intended never to address you or your posts. Very petty the way you have rationalized this magnanimous offer.

:cheers:
DH

The same way we monitor our group of bronze guided OEM or SS valved cars. First come the miles and the monitoring, then we have data to work with and share amongst ourselves. If we see any data that plots differently than what an OEM or SS valved car shows with bronze guides (sample group with controlled variable on the guides), we'd know. Nothing we've seen shows heat to be an issue, so I think we can all put this theory to rest unless someone has a credible argument supported by data. These valves will perform right up there with the OEM and the SS valves, there is no reason to assume otherwise.

As for the question of the sodium and why Ferrea didn't use it, I would imagine cost being one issue.

While we don't know what the true impact of the oem sodium is, its likely it has some effect otherwise it wouldn't be there. While most of us agree that the garage queens with 8,000 miles and out of spec heads is likely a machining issue, maybe the cars with 200,000 miles and no machining issues are a result of everything working as designed? Maybe an OEM head with everything to spec makes it to 200,000+, but without the extra cooling from the sodium things would wear out at 50,000/100,000 or 150,000?? Who knows, we just don't have the information to truly understand it.

Ill take my stable over your one car any day. :rofl:

However if 9 seconds is the best you got I think you better keep digging. :thumbs:

Not sure really. I bet its an engineering decision though. Its not that hard to gun drill out some material. A bit more complicated to hollow the valve out, cut it, add sodium and then weld back together. If that is even the process.

However, I would imagine adding that sodium would bring the weight up again. I wonder how much weight the sodium adds to the OEM valves.

Well I am sure that were one to peruse this forum, they would find no shortage of "criticism" on how we as a group "monitor our group of bronze guided OEM or SS valved cars".

While I'm not knocking the "technique" of using absence of failure reports as a method of "monitoring" the "success" of the cars on this forum with the modifications that you list above, it is hardly the ideal method of monitoring, and is only "acceptable" due to the impracticality of any other methods within the constraints of this forum.

While what many of us are doing in terms of "monitoring" the success or failures of cars in this category is a start, especially in light of the limits of this forum, there is still work to be done. Work which could take years even for the long standing method of bronze and SS valves. Let alone the new upstart method of bronze and Ferrea hollow stemmed exhaust valves.


What "monitoring"???

If you're talking "wiggle tests", then those are technique sensitive, and errors can be made in the very few which are done in the cars that you point to in the "group of bronze guided OEM or SS valved cars".

We have a "few" wiggle test results from bronze and SS valves cars. But no wiggle test results that I can find of bronze and stock exhaust valves, and no results of bronze and Ferrea hollow stems as of yet that I can find.

What other method of "monitoring" are you referring to?

I think that Hib gave us reason to assume otherwise, when he mentions:

However, out of curiosity, I wonder how big of a sample size would be required to obtain adequate "data" to aid in arriving at the conclusion that you seem to have already drawn.

To large extent, aside from anecdotal references, and reliance of absence of failure reports, there is little data in terms of mileage or time for these cars done with bronze guides and SS valves.

Considerably less data in terms of mileage or time for cars done with bronze guides and stock exhaust valves, such as your own.

Finally, there is virtually no data in terms of mileage or time for cars done with these new Ferrea valves.

So I think that it is more than a bit early to conclude that "These valves will perform right up there with the OEM and the SS valves,.... there is no reason to assume otherwise"

Hib just gave a very good reason why they might not.

Could be.

But if that cost cutting move ends up resulting in an exhaust valve which is prone to overheat in these cars, those who were first in line, will of course be the first to find out..........the hard way.

Overheated exhaust valves can be as big, if not an even bigger problem than "valve bounce" due to "excessive" weight.

http://www.aa1car.com/library/ar1192.htm
http://www.bassoassist.com.ar/ingles/esrecom02.htm

When you say that "we" don't know, are you speaking of the members of this forum, or are you talking about everybody?

I'm sure that someone knows. Hopefully the GM engineers know, or knew.

But either way, you seem to agree that it has "some" affect.

The question then becomes if whatever "effect" that it did have, will be "missed" in it's absence.

Well again, these cars with "200,000 miles" on them, have they actually been checked or examined???

Or are we using absence of failure as a determinant of "success" and that they "must be devoid of whatever this "machining issue" is?

Not knocking that method, just asking.

:iagree: And that is why the concern that Hib brings up, I see every bit as concerning a matter as "weight" when if comes to one of these aftermarket choices.

It's hard to change one thing in the stock setup without impacting another.

Now whether that "other" thing which you affected, will be significant enough to matter is something that only time and mileage can truly and accurately reveal.

And thus far, we have the SS valves bronze guides with the longest record or most tenure, and even with the impressive record in terms of absence of failure reports, that this method has, several of our members want or need more "data" or "proof" that the method is safe and effective.

The same "demand" should, and no doubt will be made of any technique which is non stock, or even stock for that matter.

Well, if they left the sodium out to "save weight", then to me that adds up to sacrificing some heat transfer capabilities in the name of saving weight.

Shortcomings in one category "heat transfer" don't seem to be any better, than in the other "weight" and very well could be worse.

Whatever is the case though, hopefully, the LS7s out there currently serving as "guinea pigs" and "test mules", having recently started running them will give us an indication in a few years.

I never said they left it out to save weight. I believe its a complicated procedure that would add to production costs that they didn't want to take on. What I did say was given the valve has more material on the walls and is heavier if they added the sodium it would increase the weight. As well there might not be enough room for the sodium to have the intended effect so they might have needed to remove more material to make room for it thus negating the thicker wall and its intended design.


Quick your discomfort with the lack of sodium in the Ferrea hollow valves also exists with the lack of sodium in the SS valves. If your concern is to run with what the engineers at GM had in mind SS valves are even further away from that than the hollow Ferrea valves.

Hib gives an opinion and you have latched onto to it like a hungry child to its mommy. Yet Katech shows you plotted data and you discount it. I am really confused sometimes by how your thought process works when it comes to anything that doesn't agree with your agenda or opinion. You seem like you latch on to any excuse no matter how far fetched or unsubstantiated when it presents itself. Conversely you throw away hard evidence when it does support your theories. :crazy:



Now your getting it. The same could be said about the SS build yet you seem to trust it enough to run in your own car and continue to defend them tooth and nail on this forum.

The same could be said for Katech and its use of OEM valves. However, they seem to be churning out cars for track use rather than garage queens with little to no miles. Lots of hard use. No reports of failure. Those are things I look for as far as monitored results. Not garage queens.

I disagree that the SS valves have been put through their paces in the same way since most on this forum have very little miles since they have installed them. I think Howie is one of the only people who have driven this mod hard and had no issue. Sadly he has refreshed his heads resetting that clock.

With all that in mind I feel the use of these valves or the SS valves are on equal ground as far as being in a testing phase. I see no difference in the selection of either. However given that the hollow valve is lighter and therefor will be more stable it would seem the obvious choice if your not going OEM would be the Ferrea valve.

I don't think there but one or two manufactures that have the capability to manufacture a sodium stemmed valve. Eaton and Mahle are the only manufactures that make them that I am aware of.... It's not like they are all that popular with the aftermarket product buyers, who generally believe OEM parts are junk.