JoeDirtPharmD

iTrader: (9)

I sought the advice of some vendors on this site requesting break in process (i.e. a start up, first 20 mins, oil changes, how much throttle, boost, etc.) and followed the collective advice accordingly. I had directly asked Todd for a break-in method via PM, but that information was never provided.

There were a few vendor responses that stated they break in the car on a load-bearing dyno for 20 minutes, at which point it is safe to perform full boost/WOT runs. Since I didn't have the luxury of a load-based Dyno, the Loop 303 was my test track so I could methodically break in the motor without placing anyone at risk. I was referred onto a wealth of readily available information online that supports an reasonably aggressive break-in method in favor of a conservative method - I believe there is supportive information which was posted in the form of a link in the other thread. This is not to be confused with hammering it off-the-line and hitting full boost, which I have yet to do That part I miss... The time I did attempt a WOT out there, it stumbled and I was monitoring the AFR, which had dipped into the very low 10's. That was the last WOT until DynoComp got it.

Boost was on spring pressure (~10psi.) at DynoComp. During the second tuning session at DynoComp, they attempted higher boost but did not see an improvement in horsepower. A few runs into it, that friggin' line to the WG burned through because it was too close to the downpipe, so home I went. I believe Richard had the motor up to 6,200 rpms by the second tuning session - I'll know tomorrow once the Dyno charts are distributed. He's also privy to the situation and has voiced some counterpoints to findings, though he will not participate in online forums.

So - dunno if that answers your questions? There was no reluctance to deal with Todd as inferred, I've been pretty open through both posts and PMs regarding the management of the car.

Mike - I don't feel you stepped on any toes - more than happy to answer questions regarding my participation in the break-in and installation process of the car, and what I observed at DynoComp. The 500+tq was on the old motor at 12psi with water/meth injection and nitrous on the intercooler. Kindof a 'bragging rights' run, I that's what it's called? DynoComp couldn't squeeze more than about 390rwhp/400tq out their attempts. That's when they encouraged me to perform a series of checks and found a possible contributor.

And believe me Todd, I'll definitely be doing a happy dance in the upcoming weeks (months?) when she's back on the road. Despite the contentions between the parties (BZM/GTM), each have been very considerate in getting ZNFUL to an enjoyable state.

IIQuickSilverII

iTrader: (13)

1st you came out of no where, not you come with even more ridiculous assumptions all that were already heavily discussed in previous threads that you still refuse to read

IIQuickSilverII

iTrader: (13)

actually not because as Don posted there is more than 1 method for breaking in an engine and will work, and each shop has their own method... so for you to just read and say you broke it in wrong is just plain...foolish

Ultimate_tune

i dont wana read it

its a tuning problem.

IIQuickSilverII

iTrader: (13)

and this coming from a guy that just tryed to get involved in the process and you know everything???? its ridiculous, i understand if you wanna support your builder but at least don't come out of no where misinformed and assuming "the flys that are in your head are planes"

i dont even think you read OPs report which is lenghty and well written.

ZU L8R

iTrader: (84)

what if we don't wanna read your uninformed posts?

IIQuickSilverII

iTrader: (13)

+1

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

The more I wait patiently to hear what GTM has to say, the more I can't help but think...

If there is indeed more previously obtained information regarding what went wrong with this engine; measurements, tests, any data in general, why is it a secret? Why wasn't it disclosed a few weeks ago? Our findings are very objective and apparent and it seems that for GTM to now come out and say they are "preparing a rebuttle" is humorous. Being that Sam has demonstrated his business ethics to the community, what makes him think that his after-the-fact information will be even considered truthful?

Unfortunately, if someone's integrity is questionable, they can make anything say anything. And the opposite is true for me, I'm suprised I haven't been accused yet of fabricating our findings.
Again, all I can say is that the research that was posted on the first page of this thread is 100% fact. I was ready to find something that blatantly exposed our presumed machining/assembly error and did not. All I can assure the 350z community is that we have been 100% honest in our reported findings, and that the findings were checked several times over to ensure accuracy.

Either way, I am curious to see what else can be described.. a few things that remain are:
-disassembling the heads and checking spring rates to back up heating symptoms
-checking each rod for stretch
-checking all other dimensions of pistons for deformation

The one thing that we can not definitively say is why the piston hit the head. Possibly an isolated incident at high rpms and extreme unatural heats allowing fatigue and stretch of the rotating components?
Stretching of the rod? Deformation of the piston?

After GTM's report, I assumed that we had made the error in decking a block that had been decked before excessively without our knowledge, allowing the pistons to stick out of the head .020"+, but I doubted this as I would have seen this upon initial assembly. even the .001" piston protruding above the deck height when the piston was rocked is consistant with two other freshly machined/ freshly assembled shortblocks here... but upon inspection, the piston do not sit any higher than any other shortblock we have built, and willing to bet all other engine builders on this forum could back me up with similar findings.

I await.

-TODD

Weqster

Im just going to re-iterate something to condsider. Both in GTM and BZM's findings. Alot of conclusions are based on assumptions. Assumptions tainted by vested interest.

GTM assumes worst - bad motor, and finds reasons to support.
BMZ assumes good motor, tuner/user error , and finds reasons to support.

The fact that each person comes up with a conclusion without testing every inch of the engine, says to me that they are both just looking for a quick excuse and wipe there hands clean.

The only part of the build that cant be defended because it cant be substanciated is user error and tune. What if JFD come sin and says the motor never oveheated once. And GTM comes in and says it added timing (increasing EGTs) because the motor was not making power to start with.

What about all the other signs of an overheated motor?? Sunken deck? Cracked/fractured head? Scuffed walls and piston skirts?

And the last point, BZM and GTM agree on one thing. Contaminated oil. BZM blames oil cooler, GTM blames contamined assembly. None can be proved wrong. None can be proved right.

It a never ending battle. Cut ur loses people. Sht happens.

My last point. Stop lieing guys. NONE of you have your customer's (JFD) best interest in mind. NONE.

craigo'sznprgrs

iTrader: (35)

WOW, I don't honestly believe any type of response could rebute these findings. Unreal.

I just spent a good hour reading this and honestly, this is the best defensive or rather conclusive thread that i have ever read.

Good luck to all parties, I would say very conclusively that Todd, your reputation is completely untarnished after this, and should remain as such!!!

mr. sparco

iTrader: (13)

I did read the original post by JoeDirtPharmD early on when he first made the post. I was commenting on his first experience and frustration.

Seb-Specialty-Z

iTrader: (2)

Hey Joe

What happened to the last motor you had in there before BZMs?
Did it fall apart? What failed? Sorry if I missed that part....
If that motor let crap get through to the oil lines\oil cooler the cooler needs to be professionally sent out to be cleaned or replaced entirely along with cleaning out the lines. This could explain material in the pan not caused by the BZM motor.

good luck

JoeDirtPharmD

iTrader: (9)

The old motor had developed a rather disturbing case of piston slap at 2500-3500 rpms to warrant changing the motor. Really, I had wanted a built motor for a longggggggggg time and was waiting for an excuse to cut loose

There is no oil cooler on the car. I cannot say what the material was in the pan. To me, it looked to be similar to the material found atop the piston head. The car underwent a total of 4 oil changes before landing at GTM - if there was debris outstanding from the oil lines/turbo/sump/etc., I'd figure it would have been sufficiently filtered out? That's purely an assumption on my part, however?

Conceyted

iTrader: (7)

what is GTM waiting for?

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

Hey Don,
When I say oil cooler, I am not referring to an aftermarket oil cooler, but rather the oil cooler that comes on these engines from Nissan, it attaches to the upper oil pan and circulates coolant through an area to cool engine oil. You do have one, unless you removed it.

And regarding debris in an engine, when you change oil on a new engine, opening the drain plug WILL NOT clear out debris. The debris has the tendancy to predominantly sit on the bottom inside of the lower oil pan. A good recommendation in the future for new engine oil changes would be to COMPLETELY remove the lower oil pan to remove any initial debris (first oil change after some miles).

The debris in your engine was not normal/initial debris, as I stated. GTM blames us, claiming we didn't clean the core, I'm sorry, but that would not fly around here.

-TODD

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

they are fabricating, i mean gathering their data. I'm waiting too, I bet it will post at like 2am, and demand that I invest yet more time debating their opinionated "findings".

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

You really think that we just "threw a bunch of findings together"??? I went out of my way to present detailed pictures and explanations of EXACTLY how we inspected the engine. This was as factual and unbiased as we could get.

And the comment about not having the customer's interest at hand. My interest at this point is primarily to defend our name that has been unjustifiably slandered by an unethical opponent- anyone can appreciate that based on what I have been accused of in the past weeks.

And, I would like to see JoeDirtPharmD happy and able to move on (and admit that he was misled by a $$$ motivated snake).

Weqster

Dont mis-quote me or twist my words. I never, ever said your findings were not reasonable for the tests you you conducted. You did not, however, conduct exhaustive tests OR find other collaborative evidence to support your findings. You mearly gave a CONVIENIANT and BIASED explanation as a single conclusion based on results you did gather.

Thank you. Admitting you are out to purely defend your name is the first step. It just sickens me when GTM and yourself use JFD's name to justify your reponses. "We just want him back on the road". Its never been that way, from either partys perspective. You whiped your hands clean the day the block left your shop.

Your oil contamination theory holds little merit. Firstly, the reason the old engine was replaced offered no chance of contamination for the likes in which we have seen. No oil cooler was employed on the setup. If infact a oil feed line was contaminated, not only oil would turbocharger bearing damage be apparent (from the look of those big ends) but these contaminents would also have to pass the oil filter once again. Take those bearings to any unbiased machinist and watch see who the experts blame.

TruBluZ

iTrader: (30)

Wow....just wow! Great write up.

And a VERY interesting quote since he did the original analysis:

S12 driver

Definitely agree with that. Once you paid the money it's hard to get warranty service on any aftermarket parts. If I'm in the same situation I would just sell everything and be done with it.