Forced Induction Discussion of turbos , superchargers , and nitrous upgrades on the G35

3rd party independant tear down results of a failed VQ motor.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:02 PM
  #286  
escobar929's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,074
Likes: 3
From: Hollywood, FL
this is getting crazy. i will hold off further comments till the WHOLE story is out, somehow i feel there is still more info out there
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:10 PM
  #287  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
I will say this in conclusion:
This whole ordeal got way out of hand, and the attention got diverted in several directions. As usual GTM skates blame on any quality control issues and failures. GTM has avoided to make good on several issues thus far with motors we have had, and never addressed once the fact we posted in the first post of this thread.

The summary: on our end is we will absorbe the cost of removing and reinstalling Romeys New motor at our facility for any potions that we feel we were liable for, and we will request that GTM makes needed repairs to their brand new engine that went in Romes car, and split the cost of our labor to do the removal and reinstall.
I do not expect GTM to make good for their end and will say that a 8-15% leakdown and loss of 35psi compression on a rebuilt motor is 100% normal. Or possibly find a way to blame us. This is what I fully expect.

Romey: will pay us our agreed upon labor for the initial install of the open dumps, test pipes,heat wrap,tuning time,ect. He will also pay us for the removal,and installation of the first motor to go bad including our teardown,shipping costs, injector inspection services at our agreed upon labor rate. (the rate is very low and we will not make a penny from it, only cover my mechanics hourly rate.) He will also pay us for any parts material utilized on the first removal and reinstall..

GTM: Will most likely divert all responsability and avoid taking any action to remedy the situation.



I will say that I have learned a valuable lesson in all of this.
1) Do NOT mix business and friendships.
I was fairly good friends with Romey, and he has been at my house, gone to Atlantic City bi-monthly with me, hang out till 3-4 in the AM at my shop. I have done alot for him, I even loaned him my Mazda Speed6 for a week when we were diagnosing his issue with the clutch he ordered from Clutchmasters last year. I will as a man of my word, honor fixing Romeys car for what I fell we are liable and responsible for, and we will turn the car over to him with a break in map, and no longer conduct business together. We will remain friends, just no more transactions with his car, as I feel he has not been 100% honest and upfront with us from day one.

2) Never outsource engines
There simply is not the quality control and liability control on things like this. To find a person to stand behind a mail order motor despite the chest pounding "were the best everyone else is amature" propaganda...I would rather do it 100% and if we F up we know we F'd up..
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:12 PM
  #288  
monokuroboo's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by evslo
Hi many of you don't know me. My name is Tommy I'm an admin on the local NJ boards where julian is a member and r0mey is another admin.

I was one of the people there that night that Rome took possesion of the car. I am writing this as unbiased as possible and just stating my point of view of the events occuring that night.

We we arrived rome was not in a huge rush to pick up his car. Especially since we were coming from a house party that night to pick up the car. We were in no rush due to all the minor problems Rome was already iffy about picking up it up.

Julian already had the assumption that the heads were in fact lifting... and already expressed his concerns to rome. Matt tried to keep Rome calm and described other possibilites for why the car was overheating. But advised that Rome just drive the car how he would normally drive it.

Julian took the car for a test drive, and as we were leaving we clearly heard the dumps opening up from full boost. Julian was gone for a good 25 minutes and fully "tested" the car. He came back and mentioned how LOUD the dumps were when he hit it next to other cars and how they sound like gunshots. Julian also drove this car the way it was meant to be driven even with the possibility of head lift.

When he pulled back into the lot the coolant was boiling, and julian again expressed his concerns but told rome to just "drive it". Matt refilled the coolant and meth, and let us off on our way.

Rome definately drove the car hard that night but he did so under the assumption of the knowledge of his tuner.

Edit: oh yeah this is motor 1 not the one julian started this thread over blaming sam. The car moves as you see in the video. Too bad his "friend" lifted his head on the dyno then gave him his keys
Thanks for giving a more detailed insight into the situation Jacket<3
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:12 PM
  #289  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by JAMEZ@CiNcity
Julian, why would you give a knowingly give a customer a car back that is not in proper running order, which motor 1 definitely was not? If Sharif gave me back my car KNOWING it had headlift, I'd be beyond pissed.
Regardless of what he says, i have at least 2 people that can confirm he wanted the car back to go to a car show.It drove fine out of boost and on low boost, the heads would only lift at 18psi. We can not keep a customers car from him.He was given advice to "just drive it dont beat on it" he chose not to listen to me as he has not in the past. A good friend of his advised me that the night he raced it it was turned up to 19.2 Psi. Rome often turned the boost settings up on his car..

He is a grown man, no one held a gun to his head and made him street race a hurt car.
 

Last edited by Julian; Oct 29, 2008 at 07:20 PM.
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:15 PM
  #290  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RudeG_v2.0
And furthermore... Why wasn't this fuel and/or spark issue diagnosed by MRC prior to starting this sh*tstorm on the forums???
We went straight for the compression test.The compression showed 145psi on one bank and 110 on the other bank.We immidiately figured it was an issue with the engine. The leakdown tests confirmed this to be the case. The fuel and spark issue only kept the car from "running" on all 6 cylinders, it does NOT negate the fact that a brand new motor had low compression on one bank out of the box.

The issue that will fail to prevail is GTM's motors..We know for a fact they inspected the heads, cause they installed their new cams in his heads when the motor was out there, they also sandblasted the intake and exhaust ports of the heads, I honestly HOPE they did not do this without dissasembling the heads. Had they dissasembled the heads, they would have rectified a leak down in the valve train at the time. Unless the heads were dissasembled at GTM and the valves mixed up and not put back in the correct positions on the heads.
 

Last edited by Julian; Oct 29, 2008 at 07:23 PM.
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:18 PM
  #291  
Joaquin03's Avatar
Staff ALUMNI
Staff Alumni
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,635
Likes: 2
From: Texas/Afghanistan
This is some great information. Glad its been kept professional.



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 82 (43 members and 39 guests)
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:23 PM
  #292  
motormouth's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
so, anyone going to explain what this fuel and ignition issue was?

could the compression results not have happened due to the fuel or spark 'issue'? and if so, did the engine need to be removed?

and if the car already had headlift, why is Romey being charged for labor to remove the motor? that makes no sense. regardless if he drove it, the engine was already defective right and needed to be inspected/replaced? I don't understand this point of contention. what did GTM decide was wrong with engine #1?
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:26 PM
  #293  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by evslo
Hi many of you don't know me. My name is Tommy I'm an admin on the local NJ boards where julian is a member and r0mey is another admin.

I was one of the people there that night that Rome took possesion of the car. I am writing this as unbiased as possible and just stating my point of view of the events occuring that night.

We we arrived rome was not in a huge rush to pick up his car. Especially since we were coming from a house party that night to pick up the car. We were in no rush due to all the minor problems Rome was already iffy about picking up it up.

Julian already had the assumption that the heads were in fact lifting... and already expressed his concerns to rome. Matt tried to keep Rome calm and described other possibilites for why the car was overheating. But advised that Rome just drive the car how he would normally drive it.

Julian took the car for a test drive, and as we were leaving we clearly heard the dumps opening up from full boost. Julian was gone for a good 25 minutes and fully "tested" the car. He came back and mentioned how LOUD the dumps were when he hit it next to other cars and how they sound like gunshots. Julian also drove this car the way it was meant to be driven even with the possibility of head lift.

When he pulled back into the lot the coolant was boiling, and julian again expressed his concerns but told rome to just "drive it". Matt refilled the coolant and meth, and let us off on our way.

Rome definately drove the car hard that night but he did so under the assumption of the knowledge of his tuner.

Edit: oh yeah this is motor 1 not the one julian started this thread over blaming sam. The car moves as you see in the video. Too bad his "friend" lifted his head on the dyno then gave him his keys
if you do know Rome, then you do know he is stubborn and thickheaded and do not listen to reason at times. You story is almost correct, despite me advising rome to run low boost and NOT TO RACE the car. The car did not lift the heads on low boost even on the dyno. If your insinuating that we blew Romeys motor on the dyno negligently then your incorrect. The TQ ratings on the headstuds were all over the place, out of all the motors to come from GTM we had issues with the headgaskets with the exceptions of the shortblocks we got and installed the heads on at our shop.
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:32 PM
  #294  
motormouth's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
I thought you admitted that your method to check the TQ on headstuds was incorrect and useless? or are you just basing it because there were varying results?
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:34 PM
  #295  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by motormouth
so, anyone going to explain what this fuel and ignition issue was?
We do not know at this time, he did send his ECU out for a reflash, but that should not have cause an issue with his Fcon.
Originally Posted by motormouth
could the compression results not have happened due to the fuel or spark 'issue'?
No, however the engine could have not fired due to the vavles not fully closing.
Originally Posted by motormouth
and if so, did the engine need to be removed?
If you purchased a freshly rebuilt motor and had a 30psi compression difference between banks, and an 8-15% leakdown in the valves, would you ASSUME the engine is not all well? I would. Yes it did need to come out, since fuel and spark were never an issue discussed. GTM accused us of mistiming the motor and bending valves, this was NOT the case. as seen by the report.

Originally Posted by motormouth
and if the car already had headlift, why is Romey being charged for labor to remove the motor? that makes no sense. regardless if he drove it, the engine was already defective right and needed to be inspected/replaced? I don't understand this point of contention.
Failed headgaskets are never warrantied, by any shop or vendor on this site.
Originally Posted by motormouth
what did GTM decide was wrong with engine #1?
Perhaps GTM will reply, possibly without the slander and answer some actual questions this time.
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:36 PM
  #296  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by motormouth
I thought you admitted that your method to check the TQ on headstuds was incorrect and useless? or are you just basing it because there were varying results?
The method is acceptable practic to give you an idea, just not in GTM world. It will vary slightly, perhaps 5 ft lbs, however we were seeing 10-20-30ft lb variences.
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:36 PM
  #297  
motormouth's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
thanks for the replies MRC!

the compression was checked before starting the new motor and so the 30psi drop on the one bank is isolated, I got it.
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:37 PM
  #298  
motormouth's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Julian
The method is acceptable practive, just not in GTM world. It will vary slightly, perhaps 5 ft lbs, however we were seeing 10-20-30ft lb variences.
wow, that is a lot of difference.
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:38 PM
  #299  
Julian's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by motormouth
thanks for the replies MRC!

the compression was checked before starting the new motor and so the 30psi drop on the one bank is isolated, I got it.
Your welcome,

Can you ask some questions of GTM who has yet to respond to anyhting in this thread...
 
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 07:45 PM
  #300  
motormouth's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
no, because... they don't answer questions :P

just a joke. I just don't have any questions that others haven't already asked, and subsequently been ignored by GTM.

the only one I have is what was the diagnosis on the problem of Romeys first motor.

(Hi Sean)
 

Last edited by motormouth; Oct 29, 2008 at 07:50 PM.


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.