Andy.F

Carefull Mark......It's torque that breaks boxes, not power......oh and remember that was the wrong gudgeon pins they supplied you with on those pistons !

Andy

AlanG

So the suggestion that PAR has changed their policy may be a reflection on the warranty returns they are seeing at their premises?

How long ago was that when they made the decision?

R19KET

WITHOUT PREDUDICE:

John,

The cars mentioned were running the dog kit. The point is, why would PAR, who have cars running 700bhp and over on their dog kits, and rate the syncro kit to 450bhp/400ftlbs, lie about the rating ?

The fact that PAR have changed their policy on selling the product, but will guarantee it if they build it, says a lot. They obviously believe the problems are build related, but are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

I was made aware of the new policy last week.

I am not in any way suggesting that your failure was due to the build.

I believe well in excess of 50 syncro kits have been supplied into the US, and the one failure that you guys posted, would appear to be due to "shavings" getting between the teeth, most likely, shavings from grinding the case.

With regard to "testing", you were fully aware of the "testing" I had done, prior to buying the kit. It has never been a secret, and IIRC, I posted about it on 22b.

Please don't forget, that you originally tried to buy the kit direct from PAR in Australia. They told you that I was the UK distributer, and you then approached me. So you had already decided on the gearkit, before we even spoke about it.

I didn't want to supply you with the kit, and you complained to PAR, who then put me under pressure to supply you.

Since you were in direct contact with PAR, you could have asked them anything you liked regarding the kit.

With regard to the gudgeon pins, you're correct, the pins that JE supplied were only rated to about 500bhp/450ftlbs. But you're right, it was torque that broke the pin, not power. You can't have it both ways guys !!!

Mark.

Andy.F

You don't seem to understand engines Mark The loading on the gudgeon pin due to rpm is massive, increasing the stroke and subsequent acceleration rates via a 79mm crank will only have exacerbated this.
There is an exponential increase in loading with RPM and only a linear increase with torque.

Andy

AlanG

I thought the wrong pins supplied were for a normally aspirated engine hence the reason for failure?

R19KET

Andy,

Pin snapped at 4800rpm, which is also roughly where max torque occured. The pins were normally supplied with the up rated low compression, turbo/nitrous pistons used in the N/A engine.

Which ever way you want to look at it, how much torque does it take to snap a gudgeon pin ?

We did try to test the pins afterwards, but when they were tested in a hydraulic press, the Farndon forged rod bent before the pin could be broken.

I'm more than happy for you to estimate my 1/4 mile time based on the 13.45 500m time, with a max speed of 126mph. Please post it here, and how you arrived at it !

Mark.

chiark

Danny,

If you have a problem with moderation, tell us straight but not on this thread. Please start a thread in scoobynet policy as I genuinely would like to address any comments/concerns that you have.

Cheers,
Nick.

john banks

I can't see the relevance of a dog box to a synchro kit whatsoever! It is possible to be misguided without lying. The number of failures amongst your customers with different gearbox builders is astonishing.

Andy.F

Mark

Is this a clever ploy to get this thread locked by dragging it off topic ?

Further revealing your lacking engineering background, The yield point is considerably less that the UTS of any material in tension.
Digging the hole deeper
Answer - none whatsoever, rpm alone cound do it, such as when hitting the wrong gear when shifting. (of course in this case the gear would have broken first )

How do you know in which plane the original stress was applied ?

No need, simple sum 0 - 128mph in 11.6 from 440 bhp car therefore 0 - 126mph in 13.45 secs req's more or less power ??

Andy

dowser

Can we open a separate thread to argue in please? I'd like this one to remain civil, and open, if at all possible.

Richard

AlanG

That comes across as if you are saying your engine was too powerful for the components inside, but at the time you blamed the supplier of totally inadequate components being fitted to your engine?

R19KET

WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

John,

Hmmm, coming from you, that's ironic. Perhaps you should have mentioned that YOUR chosen "expert" gearbox builder made a right hash of it, and Rally Collin had to get it rebuilt for you !

Is it possible that 4th had already been damaged, but any damage was missed in the rebuild ? Yes, but I'm not even taking that into consideration, with regards to the claim !!!

Andy,

I don't claim to be an engineer. However, since it let go at 4800rpm, and I'd never missed a gear, it's unlikely to be RPM related.

ROFLMFAO.....

NOW, given the thread, and coming from YOU, that's IRONIC

Ok, so work it out. I agree I can't qualify exactly what power I had at TOTB, but you can certainly estimate the time, given my figures. It's ok, I understand why you're avoiding it

Mark.


[Edited by R19KET - 1/13/2004 1:21:16 AM]

iON Performance

FYI, we've used the PAR syncro set on project Legacy, however we've since switched over to a dog gear set to provide a larger margin of safety. (this is the temporary stage) We're now looking at a 6MT conversion w/a 6MT syncro gear set shortly as well.

[Edited by iON Performance - 1/12/2004 8:00:49 PM]

Andy.F

2 very similar cars. Car 1 takes 11.6sec to 128mph. Car 2 takes almost 2 seconds longer to go 2mph slower and you can't work out which one has most power.......doh

Sorry Richard, I'll let you get back on topic, Mark seems keen to change the subject.

Andy

AlanG

Can you elaborate on what mistakes John's builder made with building his gearbox and i can allow them the right to reply?

Companies make mistakes, certainly, however the gearbox builder in question has few returns and i feel it's only fair they should be allowed the opportunity to clarify their side of the situation if they wish to do so.

R19KET

Alan,

I don't know all the details, but ask JB, or contact Rally Collin.

I specifically avoided getting directly involved, so that there was no conflict of interest.

PS. Glad to see you're getting involved

Andy,

You guys demand I qualify every thing I say, which is fair enough, and I do my best to oblige. However, it would appear you have double standards......

If you're so sure about it all, post the answer ! We all know how badly my car was going. You have evidence to it's awful fuelling on tape, or DVD, along with a few more people I expect.

Moderators, I DON'T want this thread closed, and since the question of how much power my car had during it's "test" period, my question to Andy is relevent.

Mark.

CustomScoobyIOM

My apologies Jack, I didnt realise you had changed to the dog gear set now.

Best Regards,
Jon

M0NEY

Have to say well done Mark. This thread is getting interesting and is still addressing the gear kit performance as well as other interesting points.

Glad to see points being raised

john banks

I would like you to explain this as my selector fork was mentioned as "butchered" and was not replaced, but I have a selector fork in my gearbox that is unmarked. The car also left Scotland with a fully working gearbox, albeit a sound which resembled a noisy release bearing. On the first engine build when the gearbox was first installed there was no noise. It may have been subsequent removals and refittings due to the multiple engine failures because of your inadequacies that caused the reported cause of a dowel being misplaced? Certainly this did not require a rebuild from what I was invoiced. You, I and Colin Minton all fully agreed that there were no stones unturned in the final inspection of the box, and you assured me that my warranty would stand because we agreed the builder was competent.

Perhaps you and PAR need to put the blame for problems at anywhere else than your own doors because you are dealing in a substandard product. The common feature in the failures is PAR, not any one gearbox builder. To suggest that a company such as Neil Engineering who have more years experience building Subaru gearboxes (including for dealers and many successful rally cars) than you have even been a Subaru enthusiast let alone a specialist, made a hash of a build without qualification is a cheap shot. Perhaps if you hadn't made a hash of three engines my gearbox would never have had a noise, but it was agreed that there was no reason to suspect the gearbox after Colin Minton's inspection.

It is novel for a company such as yours surrounded by so many product failures, false advertising and allowing your customers to continually test all your product claims rather than you being discerning enough for you to do it yourself to accuse all the ills of your products as being due to someone else's failures.

I've never experienced anything quite like it!

EvilBevel

I know this thread isn't really about information anymore, but as a complete novice to engines Mark, it could be that the pins were damaged at higher RPM and only decided to give up later at max torque.

Not meant as a dig, but needless to say my gears failed at 50 km/h. We all came to the logical conclusion (garden gnome or not) that damage must have occured at an earlier stage. Why should this be different for other "engine internals" ?

I posted something on 22B.com quite a while ago about a race class where gearboxes were completely OK (no failures, never) with a certain max torque, then RPM was increased (rules changed) and suddenly most gearboxes went pop... one by one. I had no replies </Bily no mates> It's a true story though, and rather interesting.

RPM will increase temps for example, so you don't have to be an engineer to at least suspect RPM does play a part in all this.

(and yes, I did read Maximum Boost)

Maybe 300 lb/ft at say 6000 RPM does put more "stress" (not load) on a gearbox than 400 lb/ft at 4000 RPM ? Thermal stress ?

Not trying to prove a point, or as the German dude says "participate in a wich hunt" You know me better than that Craig.

AlanG

On the contraary Mark,I'm not taking sides. In your eyes at the moment though, you think there is a big vendetta out to get you from everyone in Scotland for some reason.

My input to this thread is in relation to comments made on your own posts which you have spoken with me about in the past.

With reference to the gearbox builder of John's box, we spoke at length about their capablilities and experience in gearbox building which you approved were capable enough of building gearboxes using PAR components, but now because of this situation it comes across to me that the builder is being made out to be a scapegoat.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm led to believe that PAR will only honour warranty claims on their goods subject to an "approved builder" being used.
You, as an official and (i believe) exclusive UK agent for their goods have the power to determine who the "approved builders" are for the purposes of warranty claims outwith Australia, so why is it that the claim for parts failure has to go back to the manufacturer and not an official distributor of the kits?
Sounds like they don't trust your judgement Mark.

Alan

R19KET

WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

Alan,

The JE pistons were ordered, and supposed to be spec'd to "run" 550bhp/550ftlbs.

The pins that were supplied were spec'd to circa 500bhp/450ftlbs. After the pin snapped, I spoke directly to JE techical, and they said they weren't surprised, because they weren't up to the power I'd got on the engine bench dyno.

I totally agree that at TOTB, my car wasn't performing anywhere near it's potential. However, I can only assume that after a few weeks of remapping the fuel, it was there, or there abouts.

So, yes, the supplier sent inadequate pins for the job, which he put his hand up to, and sorted it out, and yes, I guess my engine was too powerful for them.

John,

I don't know about a fork. I do know that the noise was caused by an incorrectly fitted bearing (IIRC).

I also said quite clearly, that none of this had any bearing (sorry) on your claim.

Theo,

Of course you could be right. However, the main problem I had, is that the poor fuelling was preventing the engine to revving very high, and the RPM limit had been set to 7500rpm anyway.

Mark.

M0NEY

Ion, what power was the Project Legacy running with the PAR syncro kit in??

R19KET

WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

Alan,

There was a "smiley", and I didn't take your post as having a go. You're getting more paranoid than me

I'm going to say this for the last time. It was in responce to John's comment about failures, and gearbox builders.

What do you want me to say about the original build ? I took advice, I agreed to approve them on the advice, and with hind sight, I may have made a mistake !

It has NObearing on John's claim, just that even people who are considered as reliable in their field, can sometimes make mistakes !

PAR have blatantly been having "build" issues, and this is why they have changed their policy.

Is it unreasonable for a manufacturer to want to inspect a part with a warranty claim ? Whilst I may be a distributer, I have not studied metallography, and how would I, or the manufacturer know if the product had been misused, or was a munufacturing fault, until it had been examined ?

It may be a bad analogy, but what if for example, a patient tried to sue a doctor for "mal practice", but refused to let anyone examine him, until he's been paid out ?

Now, I'm in the middle of trying to mail John, but at this rate, it won't be until tomorrow !

So, best I go.....

Mark.

[Edited by R19KET - 1/12/2004 11:36:14 PM]

AlanG

Mark
The spec of the pistons/pins on your engine being 550/500 and 500/450 respectively.
Would it not have made sense at the time to have engine components specced to suit the higher value stated for the pistons, since if you exceeded the target spec, then the pins would become the weak link in the chain? At that level of power i would be concerned.
Could J.E. not supply strong enough pins to suit their piston spec?

Certainly i wouldn't like to run components to their absolute limit especially at the power levels we're talking about here. Having said that though, if a supplier states for example pistons at 500BHP, i would expect them to be able to withstand this form of power on a constant basis with a reserve of capability should it exceed this figure.

What figures did you achieve on the bench dyno?
If it didn't exceed the values J.E. have rated the components for, then it sounds like you made great gains when mapped for road use, which kind of confuses me. If your experiences are anything to go by, there seems to be a big disparity between an engine dyno map and a road map, so..why map on an engine dyno along with its associated costs (read expensive), when you have to go through it all again for road use?

Alan

AlanG

Yes Mark, I agree. You took advice and that advice regards a suitable engine builder was from me.

You are basically saying in your above thread that you should never have listened to me and approved my recommended gearbox builder!! How nice.

I still stand by the company which built John's box. They don't even know me!!, so i have no personal or financial interest in them.
My recommendation of them as gearbox builders has come down to my association with numerous garages in the motor trade and in rallying circles which use this company to effect repairs/rebuilds to their customers cars and rally vehicles. Of every one that i know, not one garage owner i speak to has anything but praise for the quality of their workmanship which i have seen first hand on many occasions.
Do not get me wrong, they may have done a faulty build (i'm not blinkered to the fact), but with my experience of them over the years, i cannot remember a single failure, though of course, i don't see every build they do.
My suggestion which you should put to PAR if they wish to continue to market their product in the UK is to send one of their engineers over here to the UK and visit suitable premises in various geographical areas of the UK which will then remove any doubt as to a builders capabilities, therefore onus will be on the manufacturer of the gearkit regards any warranty issue.

Alan

[Edited by AlanG - 1/12/2004 11:33:49 PM]

AlanG

You mention PAR have been having build issues....

Hmmm.. Sounds like there are very few gearbox specialists that are capable of building their obviously specialised components.

Think they are the ones with the blinkers on that there is nothing wrong with their product!!

Alan

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Alan,

I may have missed something in what you are saying...however the point Mark is making is that the pins that were in the car were the incorrect spec, not that they had been specifiec incorrectly. The supplier sent the wrong ones.

The issues between Marks bench map and road map were that after the event the bench dyno was known to have been running lower fuel pressure than expected and so when the engine was in the car, the car was overfueling. This required remapping on the road to take the excess fuel out. This problem has been rectified on the bench dyno by adding supplementry pumps and better pressure guages.

In the normal course of events, an engine mapped on the bench will run a little rich on the road, but only by a very small amount.

Rannoch

T-uk

never heard that a bearing was fitted incorrectly, unless you are meaning release bearing?.

the gearbox with the first 2.33l engine was fine, both in selection and use. when the second engine went in there was a release bearing type noise but then the car went south and once the 2.36 engine went in the noise was still there.

JB was there any internal gearbox bearings on the invoice?, I know you got a new release bearing fitted.

AlanG

Rannoch.
Happy New year.

Thanks for clearing that up. With spending time mapping on a bench dyno, then having to map again on the road, i wondered why you would want to go down that route and incur double costs (if you're not a mapper).

Why do you not just build the engine, put it in the car and go out and map on the road, slowly making the necessary adjustments the engine will need with regards to fuelling and timing?

Surely it wouldn't take long to get the engine into a sort of ballpark figure to alow running in procedures to take place, then when that is done it can be mapped to the owners satisfaction after that?

Re: engine spec.
So pins which should have been supplied were supposed to be the same as the pistons? 550/500?.

Which leads me on to thinking what the engine did on the dyno, cause surely you would be concerned (or at least raise an eyebrow) if the engine was producing the power rated to the component spec? Would you not then be wary of any possible failure due to running so close to spec?

Alan