my EJ257 engine failure
on my 2.5
27 May 2009, 01:57 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Area 52 Autosport have asked me to remove my comments as they felt that they were libelous regarding their company and the work done by them and in particular about the block supplied by them.
My 'allegation' is based on assumption and supposition and is in fact unfounded and that the conclusions drawn are based on a misinterpretation of what has been seen and assumptions based upon that.
I am moving on - life is too short to argue - I have an engine to get in the car for the weekend and run in.
My 'allegation' is based on assumption and supposition and is in fact unfounded and that the conclusions drawn are based on a misinterpretation of what has been seen and assumptions based upon that.
I am moving on - life is too short to argue - I have an engine to get in the car for the weekend and run in.
Thanks for that Duncan, I openly acknowledge the degree of integrity you have exhibited in having been compelled to admit that you'd made such serious errors in interpreting what you were looking at.
If only you'd spoken to us before setting off all guns blazing, we would have happily advised at that point and stopped you ending up with egg on your face?
As this "non-event" as far as we're concerned seems to have slid into your "engine failure" thread, I think a little perspective would be helpful for anyone else reading this.
We supplied you with an engine which has survived with ease everything you've thrown at it over the last 13 months, you've repeatedly mentioned 550bhp and 600lb/ft torque, multiple Nurburgring trips, many track days, many hours on the Dyno and over a full season of Time Attack, (in excess of 16,000 hard miles I believe) with it finally failing only as a direct result of having fitted an aftermarket sump conversion which has "known fitting/failure issues"?
In all fairness, I'd suggest there isn't a single other EJ257 engined car out there with a similarly good reliability record at that level.
I hope the new Zen engine, (with our Blueprinted block and liners) is a similar success for you?
Mike.
27 May 2009, 02:12 PM
#34
We supplied you with an engine which has survived with ease everything you've thrown at it over the last 13 months, you've repeatedly mentioned 550bhp and 600lb/ft torque, multiple Nurburgring trips, many track days, many hours on the Dyno and over a full season of Time Attack, (in excess of 16,000 hard miles I believe) with it finally failing only as a direct result of having fitted an aftermarket sump conversion which has "known fitting/failure issues"?
The aftermarket Lateral Performance sump is/was the solution - the damage was caused before this (as explained in post 1). Running it in an already compromised condition cannot repair the damage caused by extreme oil surge running on the STANDARD sump.
27 May 2009, 02:18 PM
#35
Mike's explanation of the damage:
block main bearing surface wear:
main shells:
I will get a photo of the rear of these shortly.
Pitting:
Possible Pressing damage:
Water Pump Area Damage:
[Mike Tuckwood]
Main bearing marks. These are a result of normal running at the power level you are running against mileage done and are to be expected. Rally cars which are pulled open after the end of a season from a brand new engine at start of season exhibit similar markings.
Nothing has been "dressed" or otherwise on the main bearings. If you inspect the mating faces on the main bearings, you will most likely also see witness marks which correspond with marks on the main bearing journals. It's just normal wear.
[Mike Tuckwood]
Water pump. That's a little more confusing as we're not certain exactly what we're looking at there either? We are aware that certain coolant types have been known to cause material erosion compounded by cavitation at the pump impellors so close to the impellors and have several "service bulletins" from other main dealer systems advising on this matter. There is also a possibility of casting issues? During QC at the factory, areas which are not performance critical which play no part in either strength, alignment or sealing are not viewed as being sufficient reason to scrap an otherwise perfect factory engine block.
The condition around the water pump shows no likely cause which could be related directly to ANY kind of component failure or "heavy handedness" either at assembly or disassembly as far as we can see? We will be looking at some of the brand new blocks we keep in stock at some point to see if any of the deformities are present in a similar fashion.
[Mike Tuckwood]
Pitting/marks adjacent to main bearing. Again, as this engine has NOT suffered any major mechanical failure and was not "used", whatever the marks are can only be as a result of its use so far to this point?
The deeper marks are more likely to be casting anomalies, the smaller ones possibly the same, possibly impact marks from bearing material and crank debris from the recent failed big end issue? Also, the method of installation of our liners requires heating the block and then clamping it as the liners are interference fit installed; without taking the pictures up to our engineers, it may be that they are simply marks from the clamping process?
Regardless they are in a non sensitive area so are almost academic?
Main bearing marks. These are a result of normal running at the power level you are running against mileage done and are to be expected. Rally cars which are pulled open after the end of a season from a brand new engine at start of season exhibit similar markings.
Nothing has been "dressed" or otherwise on the main bearings. If you inspect the mating faces on the main bearings, you will most likely also see witness marks which correspond with marks on the main bearing journals. It's just normal wear.
[Mike Tuckwood]
Water pump. That's a little more confusing as we're not certain exactly what we're looking at there either? We are aware that certain coolant types have been known to cause material erosion compounded by cavitation at the pump impellors so close to the impellors and have several "service bulletins" from other main dealer systems advising on this matter. There is also a possibility of casting issues? During QC at the factory, areas which are not performance critical which play no part in either strength, alignment or sealing are not viewed as being sufficient reason to scrap an otherwise perfect factory engine block.
The condition around the water pump shows no likely cause which could be related directly to ANY kind of component failure or "heavy handedness" either at assembly or disassembly as far as we can see? We will be looking at some of the brand new blocks we keep in stock at some point to see if any of the deformities are present in a similar fashion.
[Mike Tuckwood]
Pitting/marks adjacent to main bearing. Again, as this engine has NOT suffered any major mechanical failure and was not "used", whatever the marks are can only be as a result of its use so far to this point?
The deeper marks are more likely to be casting anomalies, the smaller ones possibly the same, possibly impact marks from bearing material and crank debris from the recent failed big end issue? Also, the method of installation of our liners requires heating the block and then clamping it as the liners are interference fit installed; without taking the pictures up to our engineers, it may be that they are simply marks from the clamping process?
Regardless they are in a non sensitive area so are almost academic?
main shells:
I will get a photo of the rear of these shortly.
Pitting:
Possible Pressing damage:
Water Pump Area Damage:
Last edited by dynamix; 27 May 2009 at 02:21 PM.
27 May 2009, 03:25 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 May 2009, 09:21 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The right side of 30psi
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relighting the fire a little bit, this is the engine Area 52 built last year for my brothers car, after just 200 miles of him getting the car back this happened.
Area 52 are still unable to offer any reasonable suggestion on how this occured other than they are not at fault, and he must have over revved / over boosted the engine, the info on the Mxl datalogger proves other wise.
The car had been run in and mapped by another top uk Subaru tuner.
The customer care level post engine failure given by Area 52 has to be regarded as non existent, they were happy to take his money but after that he was on his own.
Area 52 are still unable to offer any reasonable suggestion on how this occured other than they are not at fault, and he must have over revved / over boosted the engine, the info on the Mxl datalogger proves other wise.
The car had been run in and mapped by another top uk Subaru tuner.
The customer care level post engine failure given by Area 52 has to be regarded as non existent, they were happy to take his money but after that he was on his own.
Last edited by SSCJAY; 27 May 2009 at 09:43 PM.
28 May 2009, 12:35 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pictures Duncan has repeatedly posted have ZERO, absolutely nothing at all in any way shape or form, to do with the topic of this thread, namely his engine failure!
He chose to go onto a wide range of public BBS's and post unfounded and incorrect allegations that he'd been supplied with a second hand engine, but had been carged for a new one, without even speaking to us at all. He jumped to wild conclusions then just started shooting. He was wrong throughout in this matter.
We left it for a while, but felt it necessary to clarify the situation Duncan was wrong in saying what he said, and has agreed.
Jase has discussed this with Duncan on the phone today. Nobody has been done a dis-service in this matter by us in any way at all.
----------------
SSCJay, as you well know, the reason for the failure of your brothers engine was that he or someone else managed to subject it to such conditions that it lifted the heads and hydrauliced, bending the gudgeon pin and managing in the process to quite literally explode the combustion chamber element of one of our high strength cylinder liners! His mapper (I believe) ran the car in for in excess of 1000 miles while he tuned it with no apparent problems.
As madwrx says, its impossible to "warrant" this kind of thing but I can only say that Duncans engine has consistenly turned out way more power and torque for 13 months, with no such issues. It's also in a good enough condition to go back in to his car!
It's rather odd that when the facts don't match up to what certain people WANT to hear, that those certain people cry bad PR or poor customer service, when none of these issues fall remotely into those categories?
It's also rather strange that someone decides to hurl misdirected racial abuse/name calling and aggression towards us, and has not the first actual clue about us and is involved in this in no way at all?
Mike.
Last edited by Mike Tuckwood; 28 May 2009 at 12:42 AM.
28 May 2009, 01:30 AM
#46
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was obviously involved with the strip down of this engine, so would just like to point out a few observations.
In no way are any of the defects, (however they were created) in the block being connected with the failure.
We have always considered the engine to be on borrowed time, after a few cracked oil pickups and oil surge on the previous sump when Duncan was testing at Snet this year. The fact it has lasted this well is a sign of what a stout build it was.
Given the use of the engine, the age and mileage covered and the nature of the failure, we would never warrant an engine in this situation. Although in a perfect world it would been great to refresh the engine at the first sign of a step change in the oil pressure, probably saving all the internals and only requiring new shells, seals and gaskets. Such is life/motorsport.
The bores were perfect, and in much better condition than I would have expected given the work the engine has done.
There is no sign of any problems with the head gasket sealing.
The main bearings do not share the wear/damage present on the main bearing journals, I am at a loss to explain how the main bearing surface can be damaged without subjecting the bearing shell to any damage, no dents, wear or other damage exists on the bearing shells corresponding to the areas of damage in the block.
The backs of the main bearing shells show evidence that there were areas not in contact with the block for what must have been a significant amount of time, as they are stained with oil in the same way that the area of the shell exposed to the oil groove in the block is similarly stained. It suggests that there are areas of the main bearing that have never touched the block where they would normally.
The damaged areas on the main bearing tunnel show signs of impact/blunt force, as the material has been formed outward at the point where it appears "squashed".
There is damage to the inside of the engine block caused by a failed big end bearing on cylinders 2 and 3 and 4 the ribs on the big end cap being the actual part hitting/cutting/scraping the block (as seen in some of the above pics). In addition there is the usual marks from the parts of bearing shell that would no doubt have been flying around.
Duncan's engine only had a big end bearing fail on cylinder 4.
I hope anyone reading this would understand why Duncan drew the conclusions that he did.
Paul
In no way are any of the defects, (however they were created) in the block being connected with the failure.
We have always considered the engine to be on borrowed time, after a few cracked oil pickups and oil surge on the previous sump when Duncan was testing at Snet this year. The fact it has lasted this well is a sign of what a stout build it was.
Given the use of the engine, the age and mileage covered and the nature of the failure, we would never warrant an engine in this situation. Although in a perfect world it would been great to refresh the engine at the first sign of a step change in the oil pressure, probably saving all the internals and only requiring new shells, seals and gaskets. Such is life/motorsport.
The bores were perfect, and in much better condition than I would have expected given the work the engine has done.
There is no sign of any problems with the head gasket sealing.
The main bearings do not share the wear/damage present on the main bearing journals, I am at a loss to explain how the main bearing surface can be damaged without subjecting the bearing shell to any damage, no dents, wear or other damage exists on the bearing shells corresponding to the areas of damage in the block.
The backs of the main bearing shells show evidence that there were areas not in contact with the block for what must have been a significant amount of time, as they are stained with oil in the same way that the area of the shell exposed to the oil groove in the block is similarly stained. It suggests that there are areas of the main bearing that have never touched the block where they would normally.
The damaged areas on the main bearing tunnel show signs of impact/blunt force, as the material has been formed outward at the point where it appears "squashed".
There is damage to the inside of the engine block caused by a failed big end bearing on cylinders 2 and 3 and 4 the ribs on the big end cap being the actual part hitting/cutting/scraping the block (as seen in some of the above pics). In addition there is the usual marks from the parts of bearing shell that would no doubt have been flying around.
Duncan's engine only had a big end bearing fail on cylinder 4.
I hope anyone reading this would understand why Duncan drew the conclusions that he did.
Paul
28 May 2009, 07:30 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is damage to the inside of the engine block caused by a failed big end bearing on cylinders 2 and 3 and 4 the ribs on the big end cap being the actual part hitting/cutting/scraping the block (as seen in some of the above pics). In addition there is the usual marks from the parts of bearing shell that would no doubt have been flying around.
Duncan's engine only had a big end bearing fail on cylinder 4.
Duncan's engine only had a big end bearing fail on cylinder 4.
We'll discuss this at much greater length with the engineeriing company who install our liners and see if we can shed any light on it, (Paul/Duncan) if you have any high res pictures, please send them across to me?
Mike.
Last edited by Mike Tuckwood; 28 May 2009 at 07:34 AM.
28 May 2009, 07:55 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The right side of 30psi
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
----------------
SSCJay, as you well know, the reason for the failure of your brothers engine was that he or someone else managed to subject it to such conditions that it lifted the heads and hydrauliced, bending the gudgeon pin and managing in the process to quite literally explode the combustion chamber element of one of our high strength cylinder liners! His mapper (I believe) ran the car in for in excess of 1000 miles while he tuned it with no apparent problems.
As madwrx says, its impossible to "warrant" this kind of thing but I can only say that Duncans engine has consistenly turned out way more power and torque for 13 months, with no such issues. It's also in a good enough condition to go back in to his car!
It's rather odd that when the facts don't match up to what certain people WANT to hear, that those certain people cry bad PR or poor customer service, when none of these issues fall remotely into those categories?
It's also rather strange that someone decides to hurl misdirected racial abuse/name calling and aggression towards us, and has not the first actual clue about us and is involved in this in no way at all?
Mike.
SSCJay, as you well know, the reason for the failure of your brothers engine was that he or someone else managed to subject it to such conditions that it lifted the heads and hydrauliced, bending the gudgeon pin and managing in the process to quite literally explode the combustion chamber element of one of our high strength cylinder liners! His mapper (I believe) ran the car in for in excess of 1000 miles while he tuned it with no apparent problems.
As madwrx says, its impossible to "warrant" this kind of thing but I can only say that Duncans engine has consistenly turned out way more power and torque for 13 months, with no such issues. It's also in a good enough condition to go back in to his car!
It's rather odd that when the facts don't match up to what certain people WANT to hear, that those certain people cry bad PR or poor customer service, when none of these issues fall remotely into those categories?
It's also rather strange that someone decides to hurl misdirected racial abuse/name calling and aggression towards us, and has not the first actual clue about us and is involved in this in no way at all?
Mike.
The fact the Duncan's engine did so well and my brothers didn't bearing in mind he was running well under 500 bhp would further prove that there was a blatant error with the engine build or flaw / fault with the liner installed to the block, if you had bothered to take the time to look at the Data from the Datalogger you would know that the boost did not exceed 1.7 bar and the engine failed at around 4000 rpm, there was no mis-use of the engine and there was no hydraulic lock.
As if this wasn't bad enough you caused several hundreds of pounds worth of damage to the engine on disassebly, then after all that waited until my brother arranged for a recovery truck to collect his car then said you wouldn't realease the car until he has paid for the work inspecting the damaged engine.
Sorry Mike seeing as you were just guessing at the cause of failure which should have in no way occured at the level of tune, this was a bit out of line.
28 May 2009, 10:27 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
The fact the Duncan's engine did so well and my brothers didn't bearing in mind he was running well under 500 bhp would further prove that there was a blatant error with the engine build or flaw / fault with the liner installed to the block, if you had bothered to take the time to look at the Data from the Datalogger you would know that the boost did not exceed 1.7 bar and the engine failed at around 4000 rpm, there was no mis-use of the engine and there was no hydraulic lock.
As if this wasn't bad enough you caused several hundreds of pounds worth of damage to the engine on disassebly, then after all that waited until my brother arranged for a recovery truck to collect his car then said you wouldn't realease the car until he has paid for the work inspecting the damaged engine.
Sorry Mike seeing as you were just guessing at the cause of failure which should have in no way occured at the level of tune, this was a bit out of line.
The fact the Duncan's engine did so well and my brothers didn't bearing in mind he was running well under 500 bhp would further prove that there was a blatant error with the engine build or flaw / fault with the liner installed to the block, if you had bothered to take the time to look at the Data from the Datalogger you would know that the boost did not exceed 1.7 bar and the engine failed at around 4000 rpm, there was no mis-use of the engine and there was no hydraulic lock.
As if this wasn't bad enough you caused several hundreds of pounds worth of damage to the engine on disassebly, then after all that waited until my brother arranged for a recovery truck to collect his car then said you wouldn't realease the car until he has paid for the work inspecting the damaged engine.
Sorry Mike seeing as you were just guessing at the cause of failure which should have in no way occured at the level of tune, this was a bit out of line.
Your brother was told to get it to us, if it was anything that we had done incorrectly, we would resolve it at no cost, but if it wasn't anything we were responsible for, that he would need to pay for our time stripping and assessing the damage.
There was absolutely no indication of any kind of build or component quality issue whatsoever.
Yes, we did cut off the bolts holding the AVCS cam sprockets on during disassembly, they regularly tighten up during use and drilling them off is more difficult than cutting them off, not pretty at all but sometimes necessary.
I don't want to give the impression that we are unconcerned when anything goes wrong, but if there is a build issue, they usually show straight away, and unlike some, builds of this nature while carrying no "warranty", if we have done anything to cause or directly contribute to any kind of problem, we would always stand by our work and rectify any such issue (if one occurred).
Similarly, where an issue has occurred and is NOT causal from work carried out by us, time spent in dealing with it is charged to the relevant customer.
Mike.
28 May 2009, 10:35 AM
#50
Let me know if you need even higher res pictures.
28 May 2009, 12:39 PM
#52
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can't draw any firm conclusions.
It's entirely possible that the damage from rods has been caused by the addition of debris, of which there would have been a lot. The damage to the main bearing tunnel may even have been created by Mike's subcontractor at the point of machining.
Unfortunately the opportunity for pictures has passed for the moment, I hope for a long time too! Although the bearings are available for inspection.
Either way, I hope it's clear that Duncan had cause to be alarmed, although I agree he should have gone about this in a different way.
It's entirely possible that the damage from rods has been caused by the addition of debris, of which there would have been a lot. The damage to the main bearing tunnel may even have been created by Mike's subcontractor at the point of machining.
Unfortunately the opportunity for pictures has passed for the moment, I hope for a long time too! Although the bearings are available for inspection.
Either way, I hope it's clear that Duncan had cause to be alarmed, although I agree he should have gone about this in a different way.
28 May 2009, 01:19 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Worcester
Posts: 2,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to Dynamix he is not the only poster who has gone this route with the said company
I am sure all the major tuning specialists have issues with customers yet don't find the need to have lengthy public debates as their after sales and customer services skills are at a required level ( I can think of one other)
Dynamix
I have watched your build for some time and always been really impressed
(Reason why I went for a built 2.5 \ std position rcm500 turbo
)
Do you think the new spec will give you anything extra over the old one?
I am sure all the major tuning specialists have issues with customers yet don't find the need to have lengthy public debates as their after sales and customer services skills are at a required level ( I can think of one other)
Dynamix
I have watched your build for some time and always been really impressed
(Reason why I went for a built 2.5 \ std position rcm500 turbo
) Do you think the new spec will give you anything extra over the old one?
Last edited by WRX_Rich; 28 May 2009 at 01:21 PM.
28 May 2009, 01:57 PM
#54
In fairness to Dynamix he is not the only poster who has gone this route with the said company
I am sure all the major tuning specialists have issues with customers yet don't find the need to have lengthy public debates as their after sales and customer services skills are at a required level ( I can think of one other)
Dynamix
I have watched your build for some time and always been really impressed
(Reason why I went for a built 2.5 \ std position rcm500 turbo )
Do you think the new spec will give you anything extra over the old one?
I am sure all the major tuning specialists have issues with customers yet don't find the need to have lengthy public debates as their after sales and customer services skills are at a required level ( I can think of one other)
Dynamix
I have watched your build for some time and always been really impressed
(Reason why I went for a built 2.5 \ std position rcm500 turbo
) Do you think the new spec will give you anything extra over the old one?
The pauter rods I had were incredibly strong - in fact the one that suffered the big end failure could, with some attention, be run again. However they are quite heavy. The new Crower rods from Lateral are about 7% lighter. This should mean it will rev better/more eagerly as well as cope with the power. I doubt whether it would be noticeable though.
The valve clearances as measured when the heads were still on prior to removal were extremely large on occasion (i cant remember the exact figures) but now that they are all shimmed to the right clearances the cams should open the valves more and help it flow more air.
The compression ratios will also have increased marginally I believe due to the attention given to the block halves - this will suit E85 better.
In all though, I was not looking to gain extra from this spec change - it just had to be done.
28 May 2009, 06:45 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The right side of 30psi
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine had hydraulic'd, the gudgeon pin of the cylinder in question was/is bent! It can be seen clearly with a straight edge against it. It is also the only way a strengthened liner could be caused to explode in the manner it did. The force required to bend a gudgeon pin and explode the thickest part of a custom high strength liner can only occurr in a hydraulic lock condition.
Your brother was told to get it to us, if it was anything that we had done incorrectly, we would resolve it at no cost, but if it wasn't anything we were responsible for, that he would need to pay for our time stripping and assessing the damage.
There was absolutely no indication of any kind of build or component quality issue whatsoever.
Yes, we did cut off the bolts holding the AVCS cam sprockets on during disassembly, they regularly tighten up during use and drilling them off is more difficult than cutting them off, not pretty at all but sometimes necessary.
I don't want to give the impression that we are unconcerned when anything goes wrong, but if there is a build issue, they usually show straight away, and unlike some, builds of this nature while carrying no "warranty", if we have done anything to cause or directly contribute to any kind of problem, we would always stand by our work and rectify any such issue (if one occurred).
Similarly, where an issue has occurred and is NOT causal from work carried out by us, time spent in dealing with it is charged to the relevant customer.
Mike.
Your brother was told to get it to us, if it was anything that we had done incorrectly, we would resolve it at no cost, but if it wasn't anything we were responsible for, that he would need to pay for our time stripping and assessing the damage.
There was absolutely no indication of any kind of build or component quality issue whatsoever.
Yes, we did cut off the bolts holding the AVCS cam sprockets on during disassembly, they regularly tighten up during use and drilling them off is more difficult than cutting them off, not pretty at all but sometimes necessary.
I don't want to give the impression that we are unconcerned when anything goes wrong, but if there is a build issue, they usually show straight away, and unlike some, builds of this nature while carrying no "warranty", if we have done anything to cause or directly contribute to any kind of problem, we would always stand by our work and rectify any such issue (if one occurred).
Similarly, where an issue has occurred and is NOT causal from work carried out by us, time spent in dealing with it is charged to the relevant customer.
Mike.
You cannot categorically state why the engine failed in this way or who is at fault, your explanation of how hydraulic lock occurred would surely bear some relation on how the engine had been assembled to say it has no relation would be impossible to conclude either way and this is why you have chosen the path you have.
For hydraulic lock to have occurred the cylinder would have had to have been at least 80% full of fluid, and you do not appear to have given any consideration as to how this large volume of liquid could have entered the cylinder at the load and speed of the engine at the time of failure. The cylinder was under positive boost at the time of destruction so theres no way any fluid from the coolant system could have got in there via the head gasket.
Any damage sustained to the gudgeon pin most likely occurred after the initial failure when the piston ring snagged on the broken part of the cylinder liner.
Although you may pride yourself on the quality of your previous work there was an error here which you are keen to ignore, you checked all of the components of the car and know what it was being used for and roughly how much power it would be running you assured my brother of a reliable build, unfortunately this is something you failed to deliver.
One thing that is puzzling is that if you were so adamant you were not at fault why you made an attempt to repair the damaged block?
All of this added to the blatant disregard towards a customers property, grinded EXHAUST cam wheels (not AVCS ones you mentioned, the bolts were missing so you must have done a good job drilling them ones off) snapped camshaft which I suspect occured when you tryed to hammer an air impact socket on the cam wheel bolt just before you reached for the angle grinder, none of which you offered to replace, it all just doesn't add up and sadly do not appear to be the actions of a proffesional outfit.
28 May 2009, 08:45 PM
#59
