3rd party independant tear down results of a failed VQ motor.
Originally Posted by KPierson
My last post was a summary of "facts" to help everyone follow along. I didn't state my opinion in the post. There were quite a few people who thought that the report posted was from Rome's motor when in fact it was Vino's motor.
I said that I understand "almost" everything for two reasons - 1. I'm fairly certain there is information that is being witheld and 2. there are some major contridictions between both parties stories.
My intentions were not to back/bash MRC or to back/bash GTM - I just wanted to reinforce that the report posted belongs to Vinos motor and that when the report regarding Rome's motor (from an unbiased independant 3rd party) has yet to be published. At the time, as I posted in a later thread, I was under the impression that Vino's motor had ran 4 to 4.5 quarts low on oil simply for the fact that Sam posted this information and nobody contested it. Once Julian posted that that wasn't true I changed my original post to reflect that.
I said that I understand "almost" everything for two reasons - 1. I'm fairly certain there is information that is being witheld and 2. there are some major contridictions between both parties stories.
My intentions were not to back/bash MRC or to back/bash GTM - I just wanted to reinforce that the report posted belongs to Vinos motor and that when the report regarding Rome's motor (from an unbiased independant 3rd party) has yet to be published. At the time, as I posted in a later thread, I was under the impression that Vino's motor had ran 4 to 4.5 quarts low on oil simply for the fact that Sam posted this information and nobody contested it. Once Julian posted that that wasn't true I changed my original post to reflect that.
allow me to say this...
A) it is not your thread...
B) it is not your motor(s)
C)it is not your issue
D) it is not your place to "assist" in stating the facts and summarizing for us...
I cant help but notice your replies are in this thread are 100% in reply to mine, not GTM. No please do us a favor, stop candy coating what your intentions are, we all know the real deal and what YOUR agenda is..
STOP POSTING we dont need your input.
Originally Posted by KPierson
My last post was a summary of "facts" to help everyone follow along. I didn't state my opinion in the post. There were quite a few people who thought that the report posted was from Rome's motor when in fact it was Vino's motor.
I said that I understand "almost" everything for two reasons - 1. I'm fairly certain there is information that is being witheld and 2. there are some major contridictions between both parties stories.
My intentions were not to back/bash MRC or to back/bash GTM - I just wanted to reinforce that the report posted belongs to Vinos motor and that when the report regarding Rome's motor (from an unbiased independant 3rd party) has yet to be published. At the time, as I posted in a later thread, I was under the impression that Vino's motor had ran 4 to 4.5 quarts low on oil simply for the fact that Sam posted this information and nobody contested it. Once Julian posted that that wasn't true I changed my original post to reflect that.
I said that I understand "almost" everything for two reasons - 1. I'm fairly certain there is information that is being witheld and 2. there are some major contridictions between both parties stories.
My intentions were not to back/bash MRC or to back/bash GTM - I just wanted to reinforce that the report posted belongs to Vinos motor and that when the report regarding Rome's motor (from an unbiased independant 3rd party) has yet to be published. At the time, as I posted in a later thread, I was under the impression that Vino's motor had ran 4 to 4.5 quarts low on oil simply for the fact that Sam posted this information and nobody contested it. Once Julian posted that that wasn't true I changed my original post to reflect that.
And plus, the results aren't even in yet, and tons of people are jumping in here pointing fingers already. Can we act a bit more civilized here and let them handle this between themselves?
Last edited by dofu; Oct 28, 2008 at 04:50 PM.
Originally Posted by dofu
Exactly my point. We don't need anybody giving out false facts when it already seems like info is being held. And at this point, IMO the fact that the motors had defects from GTM from the gate makes this seem like it might be their fault. Keep in mind that Sam even admitted the cam was messed up (which BTW, is something that you somehow missed in your list of "facts"). But that might be wrong for all I know.
And plus, the results aren't even in yet, and tons of people are jumping in here pointing fingers already. Can we act a bit more civilized here and let them handle this between themselves?
And plus, the results aren't even in yet, and tons of people are jumping in here pointing fingers already. Can we act a bit more civilized here and let them handle this between themselves?
Originally Posted by dofu
Exactly my point. We don't need anybody giving out false facts when it already seems like info is being held. And at this point, IMO the fact that the motors had defects from GTM from the gate makes this seem like it might be their fault. Keep in mind that Sam even admitted the cam was messed up (which BTW, is something that you somehow missed in your list of "facts"). But that might be wrong for all I know.
And plus, the results aren't even in yet, and tons of people are jumping in here pointing fingers already. Can we act a bit more civilized here and let them handle this between themselves?
And plus, the results aren't even in yet, and tons of people are jumping in here pointing fingers already. Can we act a bit more civilized here and let them handle this between themselves?
I appologize for taking an interest in this public thread trying to help out as there was misinformation being thrown around quite a bit before my post. Again, the "facts" that I stated were ALL found in this thread or the my350 thread, there were no "false facts" given. If anything my summary helped MRC as it allowed them to respond to an accusation that the motor was run with no oil, an accusation I thought they agreed with. That was something Julian NEEDED to respond to and I am personally glad he did and I do believe it helps out his case tremendously.
I respect Julians request for me to quit posting so I am done.
Last edited by KPierson; Oct 28, 2008 at 07:12 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Like I said before just to be clear. I dont have the report yet.
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by r0mey
Like I said before just to be clear. I dont have the report yet.
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
I am curious about one thing. When you said that your engine did not fire on start up, do you mean it never started up at all?
It is just rare for an engine not to start at all...unless it is seized.
Originally Posted by r0mey
Like I said before just to be clear. I dont have the report yet.
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
Im anxious to find out why my second built motor didnt fire on start up. As I stated both parties agree whoever is at fault to completely 100 percent stand behind their work and get me back on the road at no out of pocket expense to me with no questions asked no EXCUSES MADE. . Both parties agreed to the shop and both agreed it was unbias. Since this motor had nothing to do with me failing apon start up. I will post the results tommorrow to whoever is at fault and what they are gonna do. I hope both parties keep their verbal agreement with me as they stated
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: League City, TX
Originally Posted by George@GTM
r0mey,
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
On a serious note, after all this stuff posted, I am pleased to see both parties making this right for the customer.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SDGeneralCounsel
It's BS. If they do anything it will be contingent upon the hurt parties remaining silent about what the problem was. More than likely no one will admit fault. Strategically, it would be idiotic for either MCR or GTM to admit fault at this point.
Originally Posted by Julian
I have never seen someone come up with so many smoke and mirror excuses in my life. When MRC ****es up, we admit it and cover it...Period.
Originally Posted by Julian
Being a professional is admitting when you make mistakes, you can not and will not ever admit error and will point the finger in every direction possible. You so far have not stood behind one single product we purchased from you including the most recent motor, that we agreed that "whover messed up, foots the bill" which I am sure you will wiggle out of that when the results come back...
Last edited by JAMEZ; Oct 28, 2008 at 11:53 PM.
Originally Posted by George@GTM
r0mey,
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
Originally Posted by KPierson
They obviously can't handle it themselves or this thread (and 600+ combined posts) never would have been made.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Canadian
Nice little attack to Julian there. According to him he has already spent $3,200+ to fix problems that MAY be YOUR fault. If they are deemed to be GTM's fault, will you reimburse Julian for any of the expenses he has from the problems?I bet my life he won't ever see a penny of that from GTM.
Originally Posted by George@GTM
r0mey,
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
If it is anything on our end, rest assured you will get taken care of 110%, I hope Julian will do the same.
-George
Originally Posted by Canadian
Nice little attack to Julian there. According to him he has already spent $3,200+ to fix problems that MAY be YOUR fault. If they are deemed to be GTM's fault, will you reimburse Julian for any of the expenses he has from the problems?I bet my life he won't ever see a penny of that from GTM.
I know our response was long and don't expect everyone to read it completely before making comments like this.
You missed the part were we contacted Zoni to verify Julians story and he is lying. They never rectified the problem with the oil squirters, the car never got repaired.
Don't believe me? Contact the owner of the car yourself. (Zoni)
Thanks,
-George
GT Motorsports