Originally Posted by KPierson

I wouldn't say that that is GTM's official stance, but that is the facts as they have been presented. Obviously my statement was based around what I feel a "typical" engine builder would feel about the situation.

Originally Posted by IIQuickSilverII

so in the spirit of helping rome, the one true victim to all this, can we get an answer to this ?

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
This entire situation is confusing because of the way the information has been presented.

The engine report posted is Vino's motors inspection. This engine ran for an unspecified amount of time 4 quarts low on oil. I'm not an engine builder, but I do have a mechanical background and I know that when you run a high performance machine with almost no oil things heat up, change size, and rub. To what degree I don't know, but this HAS to be taken in to consideration when looking at the component measurements and pictures in the report that Julian has posted. Julian also hand picked the inspector on Vino's motor (assumption) so there "may" be some bias in that report. The inspector for Rome's motor was picked by Rome and is considered an unbiased third party by both GTM and MRC.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Kevin,
I must step in and correct you at this point. The Motor from the first post is Vino's motor. The motr was NEVER RAN 4QT of oil low. I said "The motor burned/consumed 4QT of oil between oil changes" Meaning oil was constantly being added.. Even if the motor had run 4qt low, which it did not, the reason for the motors failure would be obviously OIL CONSUMPTION. Something Nissan themselved admitted they had a problem with and warrantied engine after engine for far less oil consumption. From the start this motor was doomed, due to faulty and poor craftmanship.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
Although Julian posted the report on Vino's motor most of the conversation has been centered around Rome's car. There is NO 3rd party information available about Rome's car (yet). The reason why the 3rd party information about Rome's car is important is because Rome's car was NOT driven X amount of miles 4 quarts low on oil. The results of this inspection will have much more merit, as there are far fewer unknowns.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I can tell you this much about Romes new motor. The ONLY thing we did to this fully assembled long block is time the cams and engine and put the front cover on. The heads and bottom end were done by GTM and Sam insisted that Romey utilize his new GTM cams, otherwise he would not stand behind the engine..Rome should have asked Sam exactly HOW FAR BEHIND the engine he would be standing.. The only thing, and i repeat the ONLY THING that Sam had in question for the new motor was our timing of the motor. I have spoken with the 3rd party as little as 10 mins ago he would not release any of his findings to me, except to verify the timing on the motor was 100% correct. Case closed on our end.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
In Vino's case it is easy for GTM to point fingers, and honestly I can't blame them. If I'm an engine builder and I hear one of my motors has been ran without oil I would fight tooth and nail to not warranty it, as that is considered abuse/neglect. No engine builder has control of what the internals of a motor will do running 4 quarts low on oil. In fact, dealerships won't offer warranty on your stock motor if you take it in for repair and they find it has no oil! Now, if the motor is burning oil, that is a COMPLETELY different subject, but as the owner of a boosted car it is the owners responsibility to check and maintain oil levels. The burning oil issue should have been fixed by GTM BEFORE it was able to cause more substantial damage.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Once again, the motor never RAN 4 qts low. The oil was checked and added daily by the owner and us due to his close proximity. We kept tabs on monitoring the oil with him. IT NEVER RAN 4 QTS LOW...Period..Thats the 3rd time you insisted on that.
Also Sam spent more time asking me for the invoice number for this motor than he did offering to repair it. What the hell does he need an invoice for it was the first and only motor he had prepaired for us in 2008, and to be quite honest, i dont think he ever sent a legible invoice to us..Why would he simply offer to fix it? He wasted time passing the busk around and holding merrit on the silly invoice topic..

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
Romes 2nd GTM motor, on the other hand was never driven. It would be much harder for GTM to "wash their hands" of this motor. There is no way one could perceive that the motor was abused. It was never tuned and never street/track driven by MRC or the customer.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This will be proven 100% GTMs fault and they will still find a way to twist it around on MRC..
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
The oil squirter issue isn't confusing at all. There was an obvious mistake made in the assembly and GTM has offered to send replacement squirters (although, I too wonder about what will keep the piston from breaking the replacement squirter - are they a low profile design or something???)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sam never offed to fix the motor and suggested changing the squirters while the motor is in the car.. Now ask yourself, who is the REAL amatuer?
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" itxtvisited="1">Originally Posted by KPierson
I have been accused of being "biased" in my posts already and hope that my efforts to clearify these points is not seen that way. I haven't chosen sides, I've just summarized the information posted in an attempt to inform people what is what in this thread. I, like many others, have no horse in this race, and I stand to gain/lose nothing if either shop were to close their doors tomorrow. To the best of my knowledge these are "facts" documented in this thread (besides where noted as assumptions).
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Actually, since you specialize in electronics, you really can not hold a valuable point in this topic or convesation IMPO...

Originally Posted by Sam

I received a phone call from Julian claiming that the customer brought the car back complaining about engine noise. They checked the oil and found it to be 4-4.5 quarts low on oil. This is what Julian called his oil consumption report.

Originally Posted by Motormouth

Kpierson is confused because Sam stated the engine was down 4qts:



Like I said, depending on who's info you are going off of, you get two distinct versions, as usual.

Originally Posted by r0mey

I will be recieving the report. I can say this its not as open and shut as some people think. They will explain the cause of my motor problem to me and what needs to be done to fix it. And as both parties agree who ever is at fault for whatever the problems may be will fix them. That is what ive been told this whole time so that is what I expect moving forward. Now that this third party as completed their report that again BOTH shops agreed to. I hope to be up on the road soon.

Originally Posted by doug

yo Rome.. maybe you should have Maury open the report on TV

Originally Posted by go-fast

post that report ASAP!

Originally Posted by r0mey

i dont have it yet but i will let it be known

Originally Posted by r0mey

Now that this third party as completed their report that again BOTH shops agreed to. I hope to be up on the road soon.

Originally Posted by zoni19

^yes Sam said it was defected pistons so it is something i will mention to him ! now one other detail 4 engines where sent out to GTM all around the same time from MRC 3 came back with the heads on and 2out of 3 failed/mine came back with the block and heads apart and Rob the old MRC engine assembler put my engine together now my car is the only one still running! thats something that might be usefull to Sam and julian to figure out this whole mess!

Originally Posted by go-fast

whatever the outcome,i'm glad your near the end.

Originally Posted by SlideFox

Just goes to show that you should have the same shop that builds the motor, do the tuning and install as well.

One source, One place to blame if something goes wrong!!