My grief with SCS and Harvey Gibbs
24-08-2006, 04:37 PM
#121
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
SORRY FOR CAPITALS 
. AS I SAID NOT ON THE ROLLERS, THEY CAN'T LOAD THE CAR UP ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THE BOOST.
No bother
but if i had no boost control, surely it wouldnt need loading up to produce the boost ?
Of course it does you muppet. However, instead of the wastegate opening to hold it at the boost limit set in the chip, because there is no control over this with the air injectors disconnected, it keeps climbing, and climbing and climbing to basically the amount of boost the turbo can produce (around 40+psi at a guess 
). However, for the turbo to produce boost, it has to be loaded up in the normal way.
HOW CAN HE NOTICE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE ANYMORE? ONCE IT'S STOPPED DETTING DUE TO THE BOOST CONTROL BEING RECONNECTED, AHMED WOULDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING. THE ONLY WAY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TELL YOU IF IT WAS DETTING WAS TO RUN IT WITH THE BOOST CONTROL DISCONNECTED AND THEN CHECK IT. BUT IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH THIS DISCONNECTED, AS IT WAS GETTING UNLIMITED BOOST. AS THIS WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN HAPPENING IN SHORT BURSTS (DEPENDING ON YOUR DRIVING STYLE), IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO LEAD TO AN INSTANT CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (UNLESS THE CAR WAS HELD FLAT OUT).
But surely, if i have no boost control, it wouldn't drive properly at all which i would notice IMMEDIATELY if i put my foot down which is a rare occasion for me, but it does happen..
It would drive TOTALLY normally, accept you would notice the needle of the boost gauge go off the end of the scale and it would feel VERY quick (just before the point of nipping up)
WE KNOW THAT IS NOT STRICTLY TRUE, AS YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED HE ALSO CHANGED THE CODING IN THE CHIP TO DISPLAY "ENGINE ADVANTAGES" ON THE CHIP, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE HE DID AND NOT JUST THE FUEL CHECK, AS THIS CAME UP ON AHMED'S PECTEL
. WHY WOULD HE ENTER ANY INFO IN THE CHIP IF HE JUST DID A FUEL CHECK .
Erm, no, no values in the ECU were changed at any time, fact.
So why change the start up code then However, I believe you, as I'm sure Ahmed would have mentioned it if anything had been changed 
.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU THINK HE WOULD BE ABLE TO?
As in between getting the fuelling checked and mapping was a short time, but enough for the engine to go bang if it was hitting silly boost when it was driven.
ONLY if the car was held flat out for a long time in the higher gears would you get a catastrophic failer. Short bursts would just be accumalative.... However, you SHOULD have noticed your boost gauge needle bending round and trying to do another lap 
.
HE HAS BEEN ADVISED TO RETAIN THEM AS EVIDENCE, AS THEY SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE ENGINE HAS BEEN RUN LEAN AT SOME POINT. WHETHER THIS WAS DUE TO THE UNLIMITED BOOST OR THE FACT THAT THE SENSORS OR LOOM WAS AT FAULT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY. HOWEVER, IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS ENGINE BUILD.
Thats fine, if he refuses to give the pistons back which as i say are legally mine, then thats another string to my bow.
WELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME ABOUT THE INLET CAM JUMPING BACK A TOOTH WHEN THIS NUT IS REMOVED, ASK ANY OTHER TUNER ON HERE....
Its not a case of disbelieving you Mike, it may well happen, i just find it VERY hard to believe knowing the guy that changed it for me !!
Well the timing was checked before the head was stripped and that is what was revealed. So obviously when your man changed the nut, he didn't check to see if it had jumped back a tooth.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM, YOU HAD FOUR SEPERATE ISSUES:
1. UNLIMITED BOOST
2. FAULTY TPS SIGNAL
3. FAULTY PHASE SIGNAL
4. INCORRECT CAM TIMING OUT BY ONE TOOTH
TRYING TO PIN THE BLAME ON ONE PARTICULAR THING IS IMPOSSIBLE, AS THEY ALL COULD / WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR PROBLEM.
Like i say, the car was fine when it left Ahmed, everything was perfect, so it seems VERY suspect that all the above was wrong when it was given a clean bill of health.
[b]It may well have been perfect when Ahmed saw the car, but 9,000 miles later the TPS (which controls the wide open throttle fuel enrichment) AND the phase sensor were playing up and could have caused or partially been responsible for the leaning out of the fuelling. Harvey believed this was down to the loom, hence his recommendation to getting this changed ASAP before bringing the car back for testing .
SO WHY DID YOU NOT ALLOW HARVEY TO TAKE THE CAR BACK WHEN HE OFFERED TO PICK IT UP FREE OF CHARGE? YOU SEE WHEN HE BELIEVES THE PROBLEM COULD BE DOWN TO HIM, HE REACTS TO IT. WITH THE SENSORS, BOOST CONTROL & CAM TIMING, HE KNEW IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ENGINE BUILD....
. AS I SAID NOT ON THE ROLLERS, THEY CAN'T LOAD THE CAR UP ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THE BOOST.No bother
but if i had no boost control, surely it wouldnt need loading up to produce the boost ?Of course it does you muppet
. However, instead of the wastegate opening to hold it at the boost limit set in the chip, because there is no control over this with the air injectors disconnected, it keeps climbing, and climbing and climbing to basically the amount of boost the turbo can produce (around 40+psi at a guess ). However, for the turbo to produce boost, it has to be loaded up in the normal way.HOW CAN HE NOTICE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE ANYMORE? ONCE IT'S STOPPED DETTING DUE TO THE BOOST CONTROL BEING RECONNECTED, AHMED WOULDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING. THE ONLY WAY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TELL YOU IF IT WAS DETTING WAS TO RUN IT WITH THE BOOST CONTROL DISCONNECTED AND THEN CHECK IT. BUT IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH THIS DISCONNECTED, AS IT WAS GETTING UNLIMITED BOOST. AS THIS WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN HAPPENING IN SHORT BURSTS (DEPENDING ON YOUR DRIVING STYLE), IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO LEAD TO AN INSTANT CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (UNLESS THE CAR WAS HELD FLAT OUT).
But surely, if i have no boost control, it wouldn't drive properly at all which i would notice IMMEDIATELY if i put my foot down which is a rare occasion for me, but it does happen..
It would drive TOTALLY normally, accept you would notice the needle of the boost gauge go off the end of the scale and it would feel VERY quick (just before the point of nipping up)
WE KNOW THAT IS NOT STRICTLY TRUE, AS YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED HE ALSO CHANGED THE CODING IN THE CHIP TO DISPLAY "ENGINE ADVANTAGES" ON THE CHIP, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE HE DID AND NOT JUST THE FUEL CHECK, AS THIS CAME UP ON AHMED'S PECTEL
. WHY WOULD HE ENTER ANY INFO IN THE CHIP IF HE JUST DID A FUEL CHECK .Erm, no, no values in the ECU were changed at any time, fact.
So why change the start up code then
However, I believe you, as I'm sure Ahmed would have mentioned it if anything had been changed .PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU THINK HE WOULD BE ABLE TO?
As in between getting the fuelling checked and mapping was a short time, but enough for the engine to go bang if it was hitting silly boost when it was driven.
ONLY if the car was held flat out for a long time in the higher gears would you get a catastrophic failer. Short bursts would just be accumalative...
. However, you SHOULD have noticed your boost gauge needle bending round and trying to do another lap . HE HAS BEEN ADVISED TO RETAIN THEM AS EVIDENCE, AS THEY SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE ENGINE HAS BEEN RUN LEAN AT SOME POINT. WHETHER THIS WAS DUE TO THE UNLIMITED BOOST OR THE FACT THAT THE SENSORS OR LOOM WAS AT FAULT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY. HOWEVER, IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS ENGINE BUILD.
Thats fine, if he refuses to give the pistons back which as i say are legally mine, then thats another string to my bow.
WELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME ABOUT THE INLET CAM JUMPING BACK A TOOTH WHEN THIS NUT IS REMOVED, ASK ANY OTHER TUNER ON HERE....
Its not a case of disbelieving you Mike, it may well happen, i just find it VERY hard to believe knowing the guy that changed it for me !!
Well the timing was checked before the head was stripped and that is what was revealed. So obviously when your man changed the nut, he didn't check to see if it had jumped back a tooth
.THAT IS THE PROBLEM, YOU HAD FOUR SEPERATE ISSUES:
1. UNLIMITED BOOST
2. FAULTY TPS SIGNAL
3. FAULTY PHASE SIGNAL
4. INCORRECT CAM TIMING OUT BY ONE TOOTH
TRYING TO PIN THE BLAME ON ONE PARTICULAR THING IS IMPOSSIBLE, AS THEY ALL COULD / WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR PROBLEM
.Like i say, the car was fine when it left Ahmed, everything was perfect, so it seems VERY suspect that all the above was wrong when it was given a clean bill of health.
[b]It may well have been perfect when Ahmed saw the car, but 9,000 miles later the TPS (which controls the wide open throttle fuel enrichment) AND the phase sensor were playing up and could have caused or partially been responsible for the leaning out of the fuelling
. Harvey believed this was down to the loom, hence his recommendation to getting this changed ASAP before bringing the car back for testing .SO WHY DID YOU NOT ALLOW HARVEY TO TAKE THE CAR BACK WHEN HE OFFERED TO PICK IT UP FREE OF CHARGE? YOU SEE WHEN HE BELIEVES THE PROBLEM COULD BE DOWN TO HIM, HE REACTS TO IT. WITH THE SENSORS, BOOST CONTROL & CAM TIMING, HE KNEW IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ENGINE BUILD....
As I said, I nor Harvey cannot comment about the gasket going, as he never saw the car, but if it had gone, that is one of the things that he would have done FOC, as he was last person to touch car
. I have known caps/cams to snap randomnly and for no apparent reason. JC's did it just before ND and that was after a full rebuild .
24-08-2006, 04:39 PM
#122
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the way i am reading it is this nut change is getting the blame for knocking the timing out but was this nut changed before it went to harvy for mapping because if it was then if the timing was out harvey would have noticed so no blame can be put onto his mate...........
24-08-2006, 04:41 PM
#124
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Honeywell
Sorry to hear all your grief m8
but you aint gonna win on this board..
Just one thing though how do you know that the pistons he is keeping as proof are the ones that came out of your car????
Whats he do mark em with a felt tip pen when he 1st put them in
And as for the air inj wire being loose??
for all we know it may of been lose for what 5 mins or 3 weeks
but you aint gonna win on this board..
Just one thing though how do you know that the pistons he is keeping as proof are the ones that came out of your car????
Whats he do mark em with a felt tip pen when he 1st put them in
And as for the air inj wire being loose??
for all we know it may of been lose for what 5 mins or 3 weeks
24-08-2006, 04:45 PM
#127
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lawnsy
But the way i am reading it is this nut change is getting the blame for knocking the timing out but was this nut changed before it went to harvy for mapping because if it was then if the timing was out harvey would have noticed so no blame can be put onto his mate...........
And to the other question, i never let it get hot enough to overheat it was getting hot but pulled onto the hard shoulder and turned it off and waiting for the RAC (again).
24-08-2006, 04:46 PM
#129
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: benfleet, essex
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am a bit confused
so can someone clarify this.....my cossie cam belt tensioner nut only had to slacken and the belt jumped.....but when it happened when i drove it the belt snapped, then a camshaft followed suit and exited stage left and tore 2 studs out of a cam cap on piston valve impact when the cam snapped
so if this nut was loose whilst it was running how on earth did it not throw the belt.....or
is it the bolt that holds the cam gear on the camshaft itself we are talking about here.....as the owner does say nut on the camshaft in his opening post....and the tensioner is not actually on the camshaft is it?
so could somebody clarify this point for me?
pugo
so can someone clarify this.....my cossie cam belt tensioner nut only had to slacken and the belt jumped.....but when it happened when i drove it the belt snapped, then a camshaft followed suit and exited stage left and tore 2 studs out of a cam cap on piston valve impact when the cam snapped
so if this nut was loose whilst it was running how on earth did it not throw the belt.....or
is it the bolt that holds the cam gear on the camshaft itself we are talking about here.....as the owner does say nut on the camshaft in his opening post....and the tensioner is not actually on the camshaft is it?
so could somebody clarify this point for me?
pugo
24-08-2006, 04:46 PM
#130
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Rich,
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
2. Holding 26/27 psi.
24-08-2006, 04:48 PM
#131
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by reality
Aha.. so it did get hot.. was this before the cam problems?
Pugo, i'll take a picture, im getting confused now, lol
24-08-2006, 04:48 PM
#132
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: lincolnshire
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive never ever had a problem with any of harveys engines ive had 3 now and hes building my fourth as we speak . maybe you should of let harvey do all the work ie fitting it in your car and all the after work. including mapping ahmed will travel to harveys and map your car there and then you have two very experienced tuners looking at your vehicle thats what i have always done . when a problem accurs then he knows no one else has touched it . i personally wouldnt trust EA as far as i can kick them from my previous experience . i personlly will keep using harvey and ahmed for many years yet .
24-08-2006, 04:50 PM
#134
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike has just said everything that Harvey has said to me...
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time, 1 person got lucky, me and the remaining other one didnt
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time, 1 person got lucky, me and the remaining other one didnt
24-08-2006, 04:52 PM
#135
20K+ Super Poster.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex... and Birmingham!
Posts: 21,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryan
personally i think sensors and looms should be changed on all new build, as it then rules them out of the equation.
I do agree though.
24-08-2006, 04:54 PM
#137
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Rich,
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
2. Holding 26/27 psi.
and 26/27psi after.How do YOU know this?
24-08-2006, 04:56 PM
#138
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Mike has just said everything that Harvey has said to me...
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time, 1 person got lucky, me and the remaining other one didnt
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time, 1 person got lucky, me and the remaining other one didnt
.Your maths sucks - what about the the third person
?
24-08-2006, 04:57 PM
#139
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: four oaks estate, sutton coldfield
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by jameswrx
So the real issue here is.. "faulty ancillary destroyed my Ł8,5k engine"
Surely you have a boost gauge?
It's a bit like blaming a builder your house burnt down because of a faulty gas fire you put in after the build
Surely you have a boost gauge?
It's a bit like blaming a builder your house burnt down because of a faulty gas fire you put in after the build
like i say contact me if you need some firepower.
24-08-2006, 05:00 PM
#140
The most common issue we see here with detted cosworths is 95 ron unleaded, commonly the petrol sation hadn't got any super so i filled it with unleaded and i forgot I had filled it with 95 ,or super unleaded is to expensive it runs fine on this cheap stuff ,!!
24-08-2006, 05:01 PM
#141
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richie - genuine question, but one bit I don't get?
If you took your car to EA for a fueling check, what is Paul Hills doing opening up the ECU and putting stickers on chips?
If you took your car to EA for a fueling check, what is Paul Hills doing opening up the ECU and putting stickers on chips?
24-08-2006, 05:01 PM
#142
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Rich,
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
2. Holding 26/27 psi.
and 26/27psi after.How do YOU know this?
you need to know ALL the facts Mike !
24-08-2006, 05:01 PM
#143
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike R said: Your maths sucks - what about the the third person ?
But the maths IS correct Mike:
Ritchie said:
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time,
a. 1 person got lucky,
b. me
c. and the remaining other one didnt
But the maths IS correct Mike:
Ritchie said:
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time,
a. 1 person got lucky,
b. me
c. and the remaining other one didnt
24-08-2006, 05:03 PM
#144
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in a way i got unlucky, 3 of us had similar spec engines done by Harvey at the same time, 1 person got lucky, me and the remaining other one didnt [/quote]
Well that's because he is telling the truth, if he was lying, he would forget what he said and tell me something slightly different, as he does so many engines that he wouldn't be able to remember if he told lies.
Your maths sucks - what about the the third person ?[/quote]
Lol, no it doesn't i was a Grammar school boy i'll have you know
One persons engine was fine = 1
My engine kept falling apart = 2
The other person has also had grief which is not my place to talk about = 3.
Sorted ?
[/quote]Well that's because he is telling the truth, if he was lying, he would forget what he said and tell me something slightly different, as he does so many engines that he wouldn't be able to remember if he told lies
.Your maths sucks - what about the the third person
?[/quote]Lol, no it doesn't i was a Grammar school boy i'll have you know
One persons engine was fine = 1
My engine kept falling apart = 2
The other person has also had grief which is not my place to talk about = 3.
Sorted ?
24-08-2006, 05:05 PM
#145
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cahzz
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by jameswrx
So the real issue here is.. "faulty ancillary destroyed my Ł8,5k engine"
Surely you have a boost gauge?
It's a bit like blaming a builder your house burnt down because of a faulty gas fire you put in after the build
Surely you have a boost gauge?
It's a bit like blaming a builder your house burnt down because of a faulty gas fire you put in after the build
like i say contact me if you need some firepower.
24-08-2006, 05:06 PM
#146
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Richie - genuine question, but one bit I don't get?
If you took your car to EA for a fueling check, what is Paul Hills doing opening up the ECU and putting stickers on chips?
If you took your car to EA for a fueling check, what is Paul Hills doing opening up the ECU and putting stickers on chips?
24-08-2006, 05:06 PM
#147
PassionFord Post Whore!!
FAO mike rainbird, no offence but why are you getting involved if you had nothing to do with this? As far as i can see a customer got a rough deal and surely everyone is glad he posted it up so they can reconsider their own options. As been said its all secondary infomation to you.
Surely the only sides been told should be from Harvey and from Richie. The fact that a tuner can build good engines does not mean they can do shoddy work and treat someone like crap one day.
I just can't understand why you are try to blacken his story. Too many times we read someone post a horror story up then the tuner comes along and sweeps it up nicely but we don't know which side is true and who is making their end look good. Let alone someone who wasn't actually involved?
At this stage i can only see Richie is in the right and has been unlucky, no one has said anything to prove/decide otherwise.
Surely the only sides been told should be from Harvey and from Richie. The fact that a tuner can build good engines does not mean they can do shoddy work and treat someone like crap one day.
I just can't understand why you are try to blacken his story. Too many times we read someone post a horror story up then the tuner comes along and sweeps it up nicely but we don't know which side is true and who is making their end look good. Let alone someone who wasn't actually involved?
At this stage i can only see Richie is in the right and has been unlucky, no one has said anything to prove/decide otherwise.
24-08-2006, 05:06 PM
#148
As I keep stating, the failure can only be attributable to:
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO).
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO)
.
24-08-2006, 05:08 PM
#151
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: lincolnshire
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i personally think you have made thing worse for yourself posting on here . you should have left thing until you had done thing properly legally . im 100% shaw that when in the hands of legal boffs you will get no where with this two many people have tampered with your engine .im sorry for whats happen but you cant put the blame harveys way
24-08-2006, 05:13 PM
#152
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
As I keep stating, the failure can only be attributable to:
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO).
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO)
.
24-08-2006, 05:13 PM
#153
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Worcsetershire
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO there is no smoke without fire
After hearing this and whats happend and gone on and whoever was
in the wrong i wouldnt take the chance taking it to Harvey Gibbs.
Luckily Andy Fisher maintaines my cossie
Hope you get something sorted buddy
After hearing this and whats happend and gone on and whoever was
in the wrong i wouldnt take the chance taking it to Harvey Gibbs.
Luckily Andy Fisher maintaines my cossie
Hope you get something sorted buddy
24-08-2006, 05:14 PM
#154
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by r5jame5
i personally think you have made thing worse for yourself posting on here . you should have left thing until you had done thing properly legally . im 100% shaw that when in the hands of legal boffs you will get no where with this two many people have tampered with your engine .im sorry for whats happen but you cant put the blame harveys way
24-08-2006, 05:15 PM
#155
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: In front of computer
Posts: 3,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will have no baring on a small claims court case and none of you who have posted with the exception of Turbosystems would be considered an expert witness.
24-08-2006, 05:15 PM
#156
Originally Posted by skeg
FAO mike rainbird, no offence but why are you getting involved if you had nothing to do with this? As far as i can see a customer got a rough deal and surely everyone is glad he posted it up so they can reconsider their own options. As been said its all secondary infomation to you.
Surely the only sides been told should be from Harvey and from Richie. The fact that a tuner can build good engines does not mean they can do shoddy work and treat someone like crap one day.
I just can't understand why you are try to blacken his story. Too many times we read someone post a horror story up then the tuner comes along and sweeps it up nicely but we don't know which side is true and who is making their end look good. Let alone someone who wasn't actually involved?
At this stage i can only see Richie is in the right and has been unlucky, no one has said anything to prove/decide otherwise.
Surely the only sides been told should be from Harvey and from Richie. The fact that a tuner can build good engines does not mean they can do shoddy work and treat someone like crap one day.
I just can't understand why you are try to blacken his story. Too many times we read someone post a horror story up then the tuner comes along and sweeps it up nicely but we don't know which side is true and who is making their end look good. Let alone someone who wasn't actually involved?
At this stage i can only see Richie is in the right and has been unlucky, no one has said anything to prove/decide otherwise.
Everything I have said is exactly as Harvey has stated to Richie (Richie has even confirmed that). I am just posting up Harvey's side of the story.
The reasons being:
1. He can't type for shit and would still be doing a 1 fingered replay to the first post even now.
2. He hasn't got time to post, he has explained his position to Richie as best he can and Richie still thinks it is Harvey's fault and Harvey still thinks it is down to the loom / sensors.
3. Legal reasons, he shouldn't reply as it will be sorted in court.
24-08-2006, 05:17 PM
#157
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: lincolnshire
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by r5jame5
i personally think you have made thing worse for yourself posting on here . you should have left thing until you had done thing properly legally . im 100% shaw that when in the hands of legal boffs you will get no where with this two many people have tampered with your engine .im sorry for whats happen but you cant put the blame harveys way
24-08-2006, 05:19 PM
#158
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
As I keep stating, the failure can only be attributable to:
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO).
1. Unlimited boost.
2. Faulty TPS signals.
3. Faulty phase sensor signals.
4. Incorrect inlet cam timing.
None of which can be attributed to Harvey's engine build, hence why in Harvey's opinion Richie had to pay.
When the cam cap failed, obviously an issue to do with Harvey's parts supplied as part of his build - HARVEY PAID FOR THE REPAIR.
IMO, any court case will fail purely because of the fact that the failure can be DIRECTLY attributed to one or all of the items listed above. And after in excess of 9,000miles, even if it was the sensors that failed and NOT the loom as Harvey suspects, it could not be attributable to faulty workmanship or negligence on Harvey's part. The fact that the car is running a 15 year old loom that could cause the issues, and the fact that Richie fitted the engine himself and connected it to the old loom, will be the undoing of any court case (IMHO)
.When my crank sensor went U/S, it would only show up when driving the car hard and then randomnly. Luckily my monitor is in the car permanently and so I have always got it to refer to.
24-08-2006, 05:22 PM
#160
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by Richie Russ
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Rich,
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
So how much boost was it running before it went to Pauls, compared to after?
And then once Ahmed set it up, how much boost was it running then?
2. Holding 26/27 psi.
and 26/27psi after.How do YOU know this?
you need to know ALL the facts Mike ! . You can be honest here as well... .