# MGT Engine Report Shows RK Engine Build Was a Poor Job and I'm Stuck In The Middle



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

I received a surprising call today from Simon who bought my R32

He was not very happy saying that the 32 is sitting at MGT and the cars engine requires a full rebuild due to the very poor rebuild that has recently been carried out !

Now as you will all know I bought the car from HKS Mel on the understanding that RK Tuning had fully recently built the engine and it was in fact still in its running in period and still on the running in oil with a rev limit put on it to stop any damage during this time. 

Instantaneously on my purchase I took the car back to RK to have the running in oil changed and the Rev limit removed with the car having covered just the 500 required miles.

Having read that RK are one of the foremost or supposed to be GTR experts in the UK and with me knowing little or nothing about these cars technically I had full faith that I had bought a good car with a rebuilt/brand new engine so what was to worry about?

As with all of these things there can always be two sides to a story? MGT in simple terms say it's a poor job with pictures to prove it and have all the parts laying on a bench if anyone wants to inspect them. Some parts are reported to be either not as described or not representative of the quality you would expect from a car with a dyno print out having just been rebuilt and prepared to run nearly 700BHP.

The new owner is intimating he will pursue me for the costs, so in turn I would be forced to part 20 Mel HKS the previous owner into any legal action. I am sure he will then be forced to part 20 RK ?

In order to short cut this I went to see Ron today to see what his opinion was and if he felt he was at fault in any way or wanted to get involved to avoid costly legal action. His reply was nothing to do with me, anyway MGT's my friend and there's nothing wrong the engine or parts in it.

Having spoken directly with MGT today after hearing from Simon the new owner about the problems MGT have told me that in their opinion there are many major issues ? Rons lack of response and concern is at the opposite end of the scale to MGT's findings.

It appears again that those who are paying customers are left with the tuners mess, short cuts and lack of interest in putting things right.

As most of you will know I only did about 200 miles in the 32 as I bought the Hosaka 34, being a mechanically sympathetic driver I can't see anything other than poor workmanship being to blame unless of course this story is not as it appears to be unfolding?

I look forward to your thoughts

Baz


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

I doubt that the new owner has any recourse as long as you did not, to the best of your knowledge, misrepresent the vehicle in any way in your advert or while selling. Caveat Emptor applies. Very harsh, but very true.

Why did the new owner take it to MGT? As the result of a failure? And how long after purchase?

You say it needs a rebuild, but then say it's already on the bench in bits?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

He took it there so I am told to have it prepared for track work and the possibility of a more modern ECU. One thing lead to another and they say they found low compression in two cylinders and then oil in the water? Possibility of a cracked head. The crank is very bad also and all this within minimal miles of a recent RK rebuild ?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Ironically, you could use Simon Oldfield (solicitor) with MGT, instead of against them, that would make good reading.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Regardless, you sold it in good faith so you cannot be pursued for costs. Sorry the buyer has to bear this himself, as a private seller you have no liability.

He might take it up with RK himself if it's proven parts are not on the engine, but it would be a hard job to prove it.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

As I have shown in all my posts since getting into the 32's and 34's I am a non technical enthusiast who is more of a driver than spanner man! I only sold the 32 because I jumped to the 34 and preferred the newer car. To my knowledge I was in the good hands of a very recent RK rebuilt engine and I don't have x ray vision so as you point out was totally unaware of any problems. However I do feel bad and also let down by RK if it is shown that they have not done this work as expected ?


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

Yep, it's nothing to do with you.

MGT says one thing, RK says another. How do you know the new owner didn't drive it home in 1st @ 8k rpm after purchase? How do you know the guy you bought it of didn't swap parts before selling? Too many variables.

Bad for the new owner, but there's no onus/culpability on you.

I know neither tuner by the way.


----------



## keithmac (Mar 1, 2014)

Private sale, sold as seen as far as you go.

You haven't knowingly mislead anybody so don't worry about legal action.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Few things to consider baz, how can Rk be blamed for low compression that could be many things what can cause that. If the car was beeing prepped by mgt have they recently mapped it? 

The cylinder heads cracking is a common fault and a just caused by wear and tear so can't see how rk can be blamed for that. 

I don't personally think you have much to worry about


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Few things to consider baz, how can Rk be blamed for low compression that could be many things what can cause that. If the car was beeing prepped by mgt have they recently mapped it?
> 
> The cylinder heads cracking is a common fault and a just caused by wear and tear so can't see how rk can be blamed for that.
> 
> I think all


Whilst I would like to agree with everything you say so as I am not in the firing line I'm not sure about wear and tear less than 500 or so miles after the running in period after a re build? and you haven't seen the crank, not that I really understand what im looking at but MGT told me you don't use a crank like that in a 700 BHP Motor?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Few things to consider baz, how can Rk be blamed for low compression that could be many things what can cause that. If the car was beeing prepped by mgt have they recently mapped it?
> 
> The cylinder heads cracking is a common fault and a just caused by wear and tear so can't see how rk can be blamed for that.
> 
> I don't personally think you have much to worry about


Sorry no they didn't get as far as mapping it !


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

It doesn't matter. You bought it in good faith and sold it in good faith. End of.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

guys. I'm struggling here. You didn't pay for RK to do the work and you no longer own the car. This thread is potentially damaging without being party to all the facts. Has the NEW owner asked MGT to discuss the build with RK?

As it stands, whilst I can see your frustration, either the person who owns the car now or the person who paid for the build should be the ones seeking answers from each tuner. You as the middle man, are merely a spectator I'm afraid. 

Not trying to side, but it's all a bit 'third hand'

Mike


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

i suppose the engine will need sending away for analysis wouldn't it? So it can be determined were the damage has been done or built like that? Either way you didn't build it can't see it being your problem to be fair been through to many hands since beeing built to


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Completely agree with mook, as baz or new owner have also not paid rk for any work to be carried out they havnt really got a leg to stand on surely? Anything could have happened in the cars past 3 owners


----------



## cormeist (Jan 2, 2013)

Anyone that buys a high HP RB needs to know there will always be a risk of this may happen.

New owners needs to stop crying and get on with sorting it out. 

You sold it with NO known issues right? So wash your hands of it. Or else your be middle man all the way to court dude.

Engine should of not been stripped in my eyes, what's the new owner expect you to do!


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> guys. I'm struggling here. You didn't pay for RK to do the work and you no longer own the car. This thread is potentially damaging without being party to all the facts. Has the NEW owner asked MGT to discuss the build with RK?
> 
> As it stands, whilst I can see your frustration, either the person who owns the car now or the person who paid for the build should be the ones seeking answers from each tuner. You as the middle man, are merely a spectator I'm afraid.
> 
> ...


No I am the one who is being threatened with court action so from my point of view I am very involved. 

If I do get taken to court trust me I WILL part 20 to protect myself as far as I can be protected. 

I also bought the car within the running in period and returned it to RK to release the rev limit and change from running in oil to normal oil. 

I agree with everyone that I could have had no prior knowledge of what was going on or what had gone on inside the engine. 

All I was assured on purchasing the car was that a top GTR specialist (RK) had fully rebuilt the engine with all the best parts after his son blew it up. From my limited knowledge and the pictures I have seen this may well not be the case ? 

I have also been told that these two tuners are friends so it shouldn't take more than five minutes for one or both of them to get on here and explain what's going on, quite simple with the Worldwide web and a keyboard ?

Having spoke to both today in an attempt to mediate or find out the truth RK were not interested and MGT were blaming of RK


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

I don't dispute any of the above and whilst I'm sure the new owner is threatening legal action I'm sure once he takes advice it'll be clear his chances are limited

However I would first urge MGT to speak to RK to explain thier findings.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

OK I can agree and understand your advice but lets just say a county court summons arrives through my letter box circa £10K plus loss of use etc, do I just ignore it?

No obviously I cant because if a judge wants to hear it he will, therefore all I am trying to do is stop the possibility before it gets out of hand. As I have said if I do get taken I will part 20.

In the meantime I could just wait and see if the new owner is serious or not and how interested a judge might be


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> I don't dispute any of the above and whilst I'm sure the new owner is threatening legal action I'm sure once he takes advice it'll be clear his chances are limited
> 
> However I would first urge MGT to speak to RK to explain thier findings.


RK told me today they have? RK says there is no problem?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Of course you don't ignore a summons Baz.
You just explain the situation.

But you sold a 20+ year old car privately to the owner.
It was sold as seen with no warranty given.

They may not like it, they made threats of legal action.
But ultimately all that is going to do is waste more of their money.

You didn't tune it, you didn't build it.
You just sold them an old car. Privately.

You have no liability at all.

Ultimately any of us buying a tuned car privately on this forum or anywhere else would be in exactly the same position if anything broke.
Forced to fix the old girl out of our own pockets.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

CT17 said:


> Of course you don't ignore a summons Baz.
> You just explain the situation.
> 
> But you sold a 20+ year old car privately to the owner.
> ...


Rich I totally agree with you and hope your right but these things can sometimes turn funny. 

I have learned from past experience if you do get a summons DONT defend it if you are not the guilty party, pass it along to the next in line until you reach the guilty party. In the case of an outright defence you could win or could loose ?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

I've had this happen to me via jdm garage assured of a pro rebuild that was infact junk thrown together. Nothing you can do take it on the chin and deal with it, I broke Mine for parts and recouped most of the money. 

It made me wiser and helped spur me on to buy Ryans r35 as I knew it was built correctly and tuned correctly.


----------



## CSB (Nov 15, 2007)

Everyone's nightmare. As far as I see, you have done nothing wrong as long as you have no misrepresented anything when selling the car.

Everyone has their individual thoughts about 'running' in the car. People will even tell you its fine to dyno the the car straight after. Don't believe any bs that says 500 run in period or whatever. 

Was the engine even mapped to full potential when you got it? I'd be keen to see pics of the quality. 

But then again we all know this thread will be locked. So much for being a 'community' and helping other enthusiasts eh...


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

BAZGTR530 said:


> Rich I totally agree with you and hope your right but these things can sometimes turn funny.
> 
> I have learned from past experience if you do get a summons DONT defend it if you are not the guilty party, pass it along to the next in line until you reach the guilty party. In the case of an outright defence you could win or could loose ?


My point is that you are blameless, so it's not going to end up as your problem financially to sort out.

The buyer bought an old, used car from a private individual.
In the eyes of the law, that leaves them pretty screwed as far as I am concerned.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Any run in bull is a cop-out, it may accelerate a very small amount of wear but it won't blow up, it's a load of twoddle that old chestnut!


----------



## MINTER (Mar 29, 2006)

As long as you weren't misleading in your advert then the new owner should accept the shit and sort the car himself,I bought a just rebuilt r33 gtr go pop on me a number of years ago from a tuner garage,though sold through private sale off the owner and unfortunately for me there was jack shit I could do about it, 
Next time he contacts you tell him to **** off!


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

CSB said:


> Everyone's nightmare. As far as I see, you have done nothing wrong as long as you have no misrepresented anything when selling the car.
> 
> Everyone has their individual thoughts about 'running' in the car. People will even tell you its fine to dyno the the car straight after. Don't believe any bs that says 500 run in period or whatever.
> 
> ...


I only described the car as the car was described to me!


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

CSB said:


> But then again we all know this thread will be locked. So much for being a 'community' and helping other enthusiasts eh...


There is no need to lock this thread.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Honestly chap, you just say you bought and sold it in good faith. Unfortunately for him the buyer has no grounds for suing you - you are a private seller, not a business and not a mechanic. The law is on your side, trust me I am someone who has been in your position and paid for the legal advice.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

But I do hope that RK and MGT can both get on here to explain this, at least that way we could get to the bottom of it and I could be out of the equation ?

Why would there be any need to lock the thread when as above RK and MGT are free to come on here and explain the differences in opinion?


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

That's all up to the current owner of the car, not you. It's no longer your problem, you sold it. You are already out of the equation!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

The new owner should insist on an independent inspection before taking any further steps.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Neither are likely to be online until Tuesday. It needn't be locked so long as the discussion remains sensible. At the moment the facts are you sold a car privately and the buyer has no comeback. Even IF he did, you in turn have no comeback with RK as you didn't pay for the build. 

The service you did pay for was by all accounts, satisfactory.


----------



## LongRat (Apr 9, 2012)

I think it is quite clear here that you have no responsibility here. Seems to me there is one big hole in the conversation: the new owner. RK are well known and respected. Same goes for MGT. RK are not known for building crap engines and MGT are not known for BS. So as far as probability is concerned, I'd say the new owner had delivered, shall we say, a different car to MGT to the one you sold him...


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Neither are likely to be online until Tuesday. It needn't be locked so long as the discussion remains sensible. At the moment the facts are you sold a car privately and the buyer has no comeback. Even IF he did, you in turn have no comeback with RK as you didn't pay for the build.
> 
> The service you did pay for was by all accounts, satisfactory.


Well to tell the truth I kept the peace, I was told when buying the car that the oil change was included in the re build cost and just drop it back but when I got to RK I got charged so paid it as was hoping to use RK in the future.


----------



## CSB (Nov 15, 2007)

I'm sure the owner is a member on here?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

LongRat said:


> I think it is quite clear here that you have no responsibility here. Seems to me there is one big hole in the conversation: the new owner. RK are well known and respected. Same goes for MGT. RK are not known for building crap engines and MGT are not known for BS. So as far as probability is concerned, I'd say the new owner had delivered, shall we say, a different car to MGT to the one you sold him...


Interesting thought ?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

CSB said:


> I'm sure the owner is a member on here?


I believe he is


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Neither are likely to be online until Tuesday. It needn't be locked so long as the discussion remains sensible. At the moment the facts are you sold a car privately and the buyer has no comeback. Even IF he did, you in turn have no comeback with RK as you didn't pay for the build.
> 
> The service you did pay for was by all accounts, satisfactory.


I am sure MGT and RK have previously posted at weekends ?

Should I share the pictures or is it not prudent now?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

BAZGTR530 said:


> Should I share the pictures or is it not prudent now?


Are they yours to post?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

matt j said:


> Are they yours to post?


MGT sent them to the new owner who in turn sent them to me after phoning and requesting I pay the £9200 rebuild cost as the pictures show all is not as it should be? 

Just to add in MGT's and his opinions as I do not have the mechanical knowledge to know what I am looking at.


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Feel free to post them up.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

BAZGTR530 said:


> MGT sent them to the new owner who in turn sent them to me after phoning and requesting I pay the £9200 rebuild cost as the pictures show all is not as it should be?
> 
> Just to add in MGT's and his opinions as I do not have the mechanical knowledge to know what I am looking at.


Both MGT and RK are involved, I personally wouldn't entertain either of them.
As I said earlier, the new owner should be instructing a 3rd party independent professional inspection and then take it up with RK, not you.

I'd say feel free to post the pics as they're quite meaningless if they're from MGT as they're not impartial, can you even confirm they're photos of the engine in question? All just IMHO though.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

matt j said:


> Both MGT and RK are involved, I personally wouldn't entertain either of them.
> As I said earlier, the new owner should be instructing a 3rd party independent professional inspection and then take it up with RK, not you.
> 
> I'd say feel free to post the pics as they're quite meaningless if they're from MGT as they're not impartial, can you even confirm they're photos of the engine in question? All just IMHO though.


No there's no way I could actually know if it is my old engine? but you wouldn't expect pictures from a trusted professional to be anything else, would you !


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

BAZGTR530 said:


> No there's no way I could actually know if it is my old engine? but you wouldn't expect pictures from a trusted professional to be anything else, would you !


Well, there's a story about a gearbox..........


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Here we go they are what they are or what I am being told they are. Please wait for all 11 as they are on my phone so one at a time!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

BAZGTR530 said:


> No there's no way I could actually know if it is my old engine? but you wouldn't expect pictures from a trusted professional to be anything else, would you !


Trusted by you? Only photos I trusted in my case were taken by an independent inspection.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Engine pics


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Baz what crank did the engine have? Do you have pictures of it? Any of the rods and Pistons?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

No2


----------



## CSB (Nov 15, 2007)

Post them up, curious to see what they look like.

Here's a thought, say if there was different rods/pistons in there from what baz advertised (unknowingly) going off the guy he bought it from (Mel hks?) Who's at fault?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Number 3


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Number 4


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Picture 5


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Picture 6


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Number 7


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Number 8


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Picture 9


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Picture 10


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

And No11


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Looks like similar damage to what happened to Saifs engine.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CSB said:


> Post them up, curious to see what they look like.
> 
> Here's a thought, say if there was different rods/pistons in there from what baz advertised (unknowingly) going off the guy he bought it from (Mel hks?) Who's at fault?


Why is Mel at fault? He didn't build the engine.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

That's all of them and please talk in plain English as I am not the technical !

These are the images that I am being told are of my old engine as it has been stripped by MGT for inspection. Mileage to my knowledge less that 1000 from re build ?

All open to dispute !


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> Why is Mel at fault? He didn't build the engine.


Mels not at fault no more than I am but in law if I get summons I will pass it along as a part 20 claim, I am sure he would do the same?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> Looks like similar damage to what happened to Saifs engine.


See you have lost me already!!!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Personally I wouldn't expect either RK or MGT to come on here and get too involved.
Because they'll be cross examined by internet experts, it'll go round in circles and just turn into a circus.

Such is the way of internet forums.

But that's just my opinion.

MGT and RK are both respected RB26 tuners.
They have little to gain from a public forum slagging match, even though this thread pulls both of them into the frame in one way or another.

Would be interesting if the engine isn't the one built though.


----------



## CSB (Nov 15, 2007)

FRRACER said:


> Why is Mel at fault? He didn't build the engine.


Didn't say he was at fault, but the buck has to stop somewhere? Probably with the new owner as no tuner would admit liability.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

CT17 said:


> Personally I wouldn't expect either RK or MGT to come on here and get too involved.
> Because they'll be cross examined by internet experts, it'll go round in circles and just turn into a circus.
> 
> Such is the way of internet forums.
> ...


RK and MGT have already spoken today so surely they would cover that off ???


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

BAZGTR530 said:


> RK and MGT have already spoken today so surely they would cover that off ???


For clarification, my point was that they have little to gain from publically answering questions from a bunch of internet experts.
Means some of the people on this forum.

Hopefully they are talking to each other and will work out what has really happened.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

CSB said:


> but the buck has to stop somewhere? Probably with the new owner as no tuner would admit liability.


Not admitting liability doesn't automatically rule out a valid case.
Ultimately, if done properly through a 3rd party independent, then if proven negligent or poor workmanship, there would be a case against the builder.
It's very similar to a case I had, the only difference is the car has exchanged hands.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

CSB said:


> Didn't say he was at fault, but the buck has to stop somewhere? Probably with the new owner as no tuner would admit liability.


The buck, as it were, is with the new owner. I keep saying it....they bought a second hand car, privately. The very second they pull away the seller has no liability, and certainly not the seller before that! It's a hard life lesson, but there it is.

If things were advertised on the car but weren't, seller still is not liable, he merely has to answer any summons with a statement that he believed what he sold at the time was right due to the information he was given. I am sorry but the law is very clear.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

tonigmr2 said:


> The buck, as it were, is with the new owner. I keep saying it....they bought a second hand car, privately. The very second they pull away the seller has no liability, and certainly not the seller before that! It's a hard life lesson, but there it is.


Not true if it can be proved there was negligence or poor workmanship - IMHO.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

matt j said:


> Not true if it can be proved there was negligence or poor workmanship - IMHO.


Try it, trust me, have been there. I sold a car that ultimately I had trusted was fixed but blew up 10 days later. It was obvious the trader bodged it after the fact, but still no liability on my part. He went after the trader but as you know it's a difficult and expensive process and quite difficult to prove. For all the court knows the new owner thrashed the car and put crap oil in it. Very, very hard unless you pay a lot for a professional inspection. Still, even then, the private seller is not liable....


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

I'm not saying the private seller is liable and granted it is expensive to pursue the builder but it is possible...


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

If everyone in the chain would be liable that would be a very dangerous thing! Imagine I sell my car and the next owner then sells it and it blows up in the hand of the new owner would I entertain someone calling me holding me responsible? I'd tell them where to go! We're talking private to private sales. But even then if I did get a garage to do the build would be very hard to prove.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Absolutely. Private is strictly no liability. But can take a lot of money and time to pursue a trader. Its no easy thing.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Baz. Above all else neither tuner has to post on this forum. It's catch 22 because as CT17 they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I would suggest, if you fear legal action yourself, you instruct your own legal team to act accordingly. However I cannot see that this thread will achieve anything if, as you say, you have already spoken to both parties involved. 

Get an independent inspection as Matt says and go from there.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Mook, that's what the New owner needs to do. BAZ hasn't got to do anything.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

tonigmr2 said:


> Absolutely. But can take a lot of money and time. Its no easy thing.


As the new owner is already faced with a £10k rebuild cost, I know what I'd be doing. A good 3rd party independent engineer for starters and then a good solicitor. 

Ultimately, an engine was rebuilt and then the car exchanged hands, that doesn't automatically wash the builders hands if he's negligent or there is poor workmanship.

I'd certainly seek legal advice and follow through with it. Oh and reserve the right to fully publicise the outcome :chuckle:


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

As Toni alluded to, problem is who can prove the owner didn't think, woohoo, 700bhp and spend a week bouncing it off the rev limiter doing donuts at McDonalds... With less than 1,000 miles on it.

Very difficult to prove it's down to the builder, although theoretically possible.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Baz. Above all else neither tuner has to post on this forum. It's catch 22 because as CT17 they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I would suggest, if you fear legal action yourself, you instruct your own legal team to act accordingly. However I cannot see that this thread will achieve anything if, as you say, you have already spoken to both parties involved.
> 
> Get an independent inspection as Matt says and go from there.


Its not for me to do any more other than to hope I don't get a summons If I do I will react accordingly then, Thanks to everyone for advice. Nothing been said definite as far as I can tell about the engine pics so I am none the wiser ?


----------



## MGT Motorsport Ltd (Aug 19, 2005)

Have just read this about Simon's car.
I now need to put a few things right here 


The car came to us and we were asked to map the car but before we do that could we give the car the ones over and a health check which we did comprising of the following.

Compression test
Compression test wet
Leak down test
We did these tests and found that that two of the cylinders were lower than the rest one be nearly 60psi down from the rest. We then did a wet test and when this test was done all the compressions came up but still the two were lower than the rest. 

I then call the customer and told him the findings of this test we explained this could only be from the rings in the engine or possibly leaking valve seats but the would need to come apart. He then asked us to take the engine out and inspect with pictures. When we took the motor apart this was what we found.

1- a lot of oil in the water (possibly cracked head)
2- ground 2.8-billet crank- .25 over size
3- marks on the Rods looking like corrosion make unknown 
4- some scoring on some of the big end bearings 
5- two of the main bearings had two deep scores on them
6- clutch completely worn out
7- the way the crank had been balanced did not look a nice job
8- knock sensor wires broken off the loom at the front 

These were some of the things we found with the car. We have not stripped the head yet or done a leak test with fluid on the valve seats as that is yet to be done.
At no point have MGT accused RK-Tuning of poor work some of the untidy workmanship could done from previous owners all we have done is what was asked by the customer 

I called Ron at RK about the crank and he explained that the crank balancing was nothing to do with them. That was done before Steve owned the car and was like that when he build the engine.

Mgt






BAZGTR530 said:


> I received a surprising call today from Simon who bought my R32
> 
> He was not very happy saying that the 32 is sitting at MGT and the cars engine requires a full rebuild due to the very poor rebuild that has recently been carried out !
> 
> ...


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

MGT Motorsport Ltd said:


> He then asked us to take the engine out and inspect with pictures.


This was a mistake. Engine should have gone straight to RK.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

MGT Motorsport Ltd said:


> Have just read this about Simon's car.
> I now need to put a few things right here
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for coming on to help clear things up particularly as I am in the firing line.

One thing worries me though, Ron said to me he re built the engine but then he says to you "the crank had nothing to do with him it was already like that" even though he built the engine "that's how it was", so its ok then? I am confused now ???


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

MGT Motorsport Ltd said:


> These were some of the things we found with the car. We have not stripped the head yet or done a leak test with fluid on the valve seats as that is yet to be done.


If you haven't finished the inspection, why is the customer already pursuing BAZ?
I would have thought it prudent to identify ALL issues before hand.

It's fine that you removed and inspected the engine on the customers instruction but if the customer intends to go legal, any legal representation would automatically insist on a 3rd party independent inspection and report. 

I would suggest that your customer hasn't actually got legal representation as yet and you need to follow the correct protocol as you're pursuing the wrong person.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

*MGT* Just to clarify if RK are building an engine and they find faulty parts in it, if they didn't do it in the first place then it doesn't matter. Don't you think non technical people like us who pay the bills would expect that a rebuild means its been re built with all items requiring attention having been dealt with ?

I called Ron at RK about the crank and he explained that the crank balancing was nothing to do with them. That was done before Steve owned the car and was like that when he build the engine.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

MGT Motorsport Ltd said:


> Have just read this about Simon's car.
> I now need to put a few things right here
> 
> 
> ...


Just found this post looking back, it's definitely a rebuild and reading this there appears to be no doubt about pitons or rods so why are you unsure about rods ?


----------



## KING (Jul 10, 2002)

Is there any build pics/ proof with dates etc from when it was built 'recently' buy the named garage BEFORE Baz bought the car? 
Baz did you by any chance ask to see proof of rebuild or did you just splash the cash?( I mean that in a nice way mate )


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Farndon Crank Apparantly ?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

KING said:


> Is there any build pics/ proof with dates etc from when it was built 'recently' buy the named garage BEFORE Baz bought the car?
> Baz did you by any chance ask to see proof of rebuild or did you just splash the cash?( I mean that in a nice way mate )


No I took their word for it but it seems these two previous posts seem to confirm the rebuild and Ron doesn't deny building it and his Son personally told me it blew up on him and it had been fully re built by RK. 

It now appears if what MGT says is true in his conversation with Ron then RK don't particularly care what's in your engine if they didn't do it in the first place? Don't matter just leave it as is but tell you its been re built?

I am amazed unless that's not what MGT and RK meant ?


----------



## KING (Jul 10, 2002)

Also starting reading this 
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/246297-small-r32.html

Read just a above the picture 'bottom end rebuild'etc etc!


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Baz. Above all else neither tuner has to post on this forum. It's catch 22 because as CT17 they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I would suggest, if you fear legal action yourself, you instruct your own legal team to act accordingly. However I cannot see that this thread will achieve anything if, as you say, you have already spoken to both parties involved.
> 
> Get an independent inspection as Matt says and go from there.


Well MGT seem not to mind ?


----------



## nickedclogs (May 14, 2011)

Because this thread needed more uniformed opinions...

A 'full engine rebuild' doesn't mean all new parts and carte blanche to spend ten(s) of thousands of pounds. Putting an old crank in a block isn't worth a lynching, if the owner has instructed them to do so. 

This is going to go nowhere as far as legal recourse is concerned. OP shouldn't be worried, the tuners shouldn't be worried. As has been said, if you buy a car privately (especially something "tuned") then you accept the risks. Lots of us have been there; learn the lesson and move on. Unless you get off on wasting your time ensuring blame is correctly attributed, forget it!


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

Whenever a full rebuild is said to have been carried out it is surely implied that the motor has been built to the standards that the builder is happy with and that includes all the parts in the engine.

Liability however is a completely different matter.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

nickedclogs said:


> Because this thread needed more uniformed opinions...
> 
> A 'full engine rebuild' doesn't mean all new parts and carte blanche to spend ten(s) of thousands of pounds. Putting an old crank in a block isn't worth a lynching, if the owner has instructed them to do so.
> 
> This is going to go nowhere as far as legal recourse is concerned. OP shouldn't be worried, the tuners shouldn't be worried. As has been said, if you buy a car privately (especially something "tuned") then you accept the risks. Lots of us have been there; learn the lesson and move on. Unless you get off on wasting your time ensuring blame is correctly attributed, forget it!


*Just to confirm as far as I am aware!*

The car was owned by RK's son Steve and it blew up on him.

The car was then purchased by Mel, now I don't know if he bought it from RK direct or Steve but he did buy it on the basis it has just had an engine build.

Mel then sold it to me and RK confirmed to me that it had had a full engine build and was still being run in and I would need to return it to them to change the running in oil to normal oil, which I did.

Mel appears to have bought the car and sold the car with the information being passed that RK which was confirmed by RK to me had definitely rebuilt the engine. 

So there's no doubt what happened as far as I can see?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Liability apart and from what those of you with technical knowledge can see from the pictures is this a good or bad build and did the things you would have expected to have been dealt with on an engine build get dealt with correctly.

Do you think the remedial work quoted for by MGT at £9200 is reasonable and required ?

As I have said I do not have the technical knowledge to know otherwise!


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Have you got a copy of the quotation baz? £9200 sounds a lot to me but then all depends what's included


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Have you got a copy of the quotation baz? £9200 sounds a lot to me but then all depends what's included


This is what I have been asked to pay by the new owner 

Here is a break down of the parts required to reassemble your engine.


1-2.8- Billet-CRANKSHAFT £2150+vat
1-Set of 2.8-pistons £695+vat
1Cylinder Head oil Mod £450+vat
1-Postage-£80+vat -------£40 each way
1-Engine boring-£108+vat -£18 each bore
1-Set of Valve Stem oil seals-£57.60+vat
1-Block decking £60+Vat
1- Cosworth Head Gasket-1.5mm-£165+vat
1-Set Of ACL Mains & Big End Bearing-£185+vat
1-Nissan Oil Pump Gasket-£5.31+vat
1- Nissan Oil Filter Housing gasket-£2.43
1- Running in oil £28+vat
1-Motul 15-50 engine oil after running in on Dyno-£64+vat
1-X2 -Oil Filter £15.22+vat
1-Extreme Full Twin Plate Clutch kit-£760+vat
1-Antifreeze-5Lt £15.65+vat
1-Running in on Dyno-£300+vat
1-Mapping F-Con-Pro after running in-£400+vat 
1-Labour 40-Hours £55ph £2200+vat
£7741.21+vat=£9289.45

It seems a lot of work since RK supposedly did all this or something like it less than 1000 miles ago ???


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

Tell him to get bent.


----------



## moddingdog (Mar 31, 2008)

Did the new owner not sign a sold as seen receipt?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

F1Carbon said:


> Did the new owner not sign a sold as seen receipt?


Yes he did ! but as I said that doesn't stop someone pursuing you legally and it all depends on the judge on the day !


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

I'd say they're pursuing significant betterment.


----------



## moddingdog (Mar 31, 2008)

So what's to stop the new owner, bouncing it off the rev limiter as it leaves your possession into their custody? What's to stop another component, not relative to the build causing a failure? Possabilities are endless, wouldn't of thought it would stand up in court with a used engine.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

matt j said:


> I'd say they're pursuing significant betterment.


That's a good point for sure, IMO MGT could use the position to gain further additional work ?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

F1Carbon said:


> So what's to stop the new owner, bouncing it off the rev limiter as it leaves your possession into their custody? What's to stop another component, not relative to the build causing a failure? Possabilities are endless, wouldn't of thought it would stand up in court with a used engine.


Forget this, a professional independent inspection will tell you exactly what is up with the engine and what caused it.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

F1Carbon said:


> So what's to stop the new owner, bouncing it off the rev limiter as it leaves your possession into their custody? What's to stop another component, not relative to the build causing a failure? Possabilities are endless, wouldn't of thought it would stand up in court with a used engine.


Yes that's all very possible but when the history on forums and e mails show new Pectel Rods and Cosworth pistons, it doesn't help when the customers new tuner says I don't know what the rods are and cant identify them? 

I bought a car in good faith which I believed had a full engine build including these parts. I am now worried that might and only might not be the case which is not good for any of us in the hands of tuners ?


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

BAZGTR530 said:


> This is what I have been asked to pay by the new owner
> 
> Here is a break down of the parts required to reassemble your engine.
> 
> ...



A few things what wouldn't be down to previous engine build. 

Head oil drain mod 
New clutch 
Running in on dyno 
Mapping 

And what's wrong with the Pistons? They look ok


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

From the damage looks like the bearings have been scored along with a crank so at minimum a new crank is needed as this has already been ground to .25 by reading the comments from MGT. New bearings, what other damage? Sometime cams and cam bearings can also get scored, also oil pump? Again depends on what the total damage is. 

To give you an idea it cost me 7k to get my engine built and I bought absolutely everything new except block and head.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

BAZGTR530 said:


> Yes that's all very possible but when the history on forums and e mails show new Pectel Rods and Cosworth pistons, it doesn't help when the customers new tuner says I don't know what the rods are and cant identify them?
> 
> I bought a car in good faith which I believed had a full engine build including these parts. I am now worried that might and only might not be the case which is not good for any of us in the hands of tuners ?


MGT does knows who and what PEC is/are.


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

moleman said:


> This was a mistake. Engine should have gone straight to RK.


Bingo


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Simonh said:


> Bingo


This is wrong, you don't take the engine back to the builder for them to inspect if you suspect it may be an issue with the build, you get an independent inspection - I know, I've been through this before. Who's to say RK wouldn't just look at it and say, 'nothing to do with me mate'?
The owner had the right to get MGT to inspect it but they're not independent as has already been identified earlier. Following MGTs inspection, the first port of call is an independent inspection and full report. It is that simple.


----------



## LongRat (Apr 9, 2012)

I still can't understand why there's so much of a spotlight on these two tuners, when both have excellent reputations and there seems to me to have been no evidence to the contrary yet presented. The guy who sold you the car or the one you sold it to could have treated the car with any degree of contempt or replaced any parts with worn out or inferior parts. I really don't think either of these businesses are out to screw anyone. Their success depends on reputation and word of mouth largely.


----------



## Darbo (Nov 2, 2003)

the new owners taking the piss 
you cant expect to buy a 20 year old high performance car and expect every part in the engine to be brand new or as new condition
hes living in a dream land
clutch for one is a consumable 

ok its very unlucky that its oiling the water but it happens when your cars more than double the power it left the factory


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

You're missing the point:

The fact is that whilst in Steve's possession, the engine let go. RK rebuilt it and as they're deemed the subject matter expert, the build should be up to the job as described, not just last until it's ready to map and irrespective of it changing hands. 

If it was me, I'd seek legal advice and pursue the builder IF the independent engineers report showed negligence or poor workmanship - I don't see why people aren't getting this. 

You cannot fault the new owner for trying to recover costs, many would do the same if the show was on the other foot. A decent an honest company would be on this like a rash, ensuring it wasn't a fault of their workmanship. They are after all, the subject matter experts and should be able to identify the issue and what caused it.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

So far it looks like it has been built at least twice already with a third rebuild coming soon. Just very sad because no one should have to go through this not the 1st, 2nd or the current owner. From the pictures it looks like it's in a bad state.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

LongRat said:


> I still can't understand why there's so much of a spotlight on these two tuners, when both have excellent reputations and there seems to me to have been no evidence to the contrary yet presented. The guy who sold you the car or the one you sold it to could have treated the car with any degree of contempt or replaced any parts with worn out or inferior parts. I really don't think either of these businesses are out to screw anyone. Their success depends on reputation and word of mouth largely.


LongRat you are having a laugh mate, my cars don't go out in the wet, only do very limited mileage, are cleaned underneath as well as on top, have all service work done by the best specialists, never go near a track as I will only use race cars for track, only run on V -Power, live in a garage or Carcoon, etc etc. 

This car has not covered 1000 miles and your taking the P155 suggesting a mechanical numpty like me has switched the parts and ragged the car. I think if you check my profile you will find out you are well off Piste.

Why are you deflecting the issue away from the Tuners, they built it not me or Mel ?

My disgustingly abused GTR34


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

But

If Steve was RKs customer and he 'paid' for the build then unless he decides he is unhappy there can be no comeback on RK from any subsequent owner. BAZ himself raves about what an amazing g car it is and how well it pulls and if he bought it "sold as seen" it's going to be bloody difficult to pursue.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

LongRat said:


> I still can't understand why there's so much of a spotlight on these two tuners, when both have excellent reputations and there seems to me to have been no evidence to the contrary yet presented. The guy who sold you the car or the one you sold it to could have treated the car with any degree of contempt or replaced any parts with worn out or inferior parts. I really don't think either of these businesses are out to screw anyone. Their success depends on reputation and word of mouth largely.


Sorry LongRat I may have interpreted your post that I abused the car so please ignore my previous post i9f that's the case 

BazRat


----------



## Turbodailydan (Mar 1, 2012)

4th piston 1st and 2nd compression ring end gaps look awfully close in that pic, hopefully they weren't gapped like that when installed lol. wouldn't expect something like that from such a reputable tuner though. Bearing wear/scoring looks like some crap has got in there from somewhere, either during the build or something has failed during running in period and put out some shit. The crank does look like it's been balanced with an angle grinder as well, abit suspect looking, even if the customer asked to have that installed in their build I would have to refuse to use it, if it was my name/reputation going on the engine. 

Need to establish wether the loss of compression is piston related or cylinder head also.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Turbodailydan said:


> 4th piston 1st and 2nd compression ring end gaps look awfully close in that pic, hopefully they weren't gapped like that when installed lol. wouldn't expect something like that from such a reputable tuner though. Bearing wear/scoring looks like some crap has got in there from somewhere, either during the build or something has failed during running in period and put out some shit. The crank does look like it's been balanced with an angle grinder as well, abit suspect looking, even if the customer asked to have that installed in their build I would have to refuse to use it, if it was my name/reputation going on the engine.
> 
> Need to establish wether the loss of compression is piston related or cylinder head also.


Just to point out the car was owned by Steve at RK when the build was done, the car was then sold to Mel HKS as a car that RK had just rebuilt the engine on!

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

A leak down test would have shown were it was leaking


----------



## Turbodailydan (Mar 1, 2012)

Tbh I looked at the pics and made some assumptions at what could have caused that damage but I can't help but think a reputable tuner like rk would build a dodgy engine. I'd be more inclined to think something has failed to cause the bearing scoring, and the compression issue is too early to say without the head being leak tested. 

So I would say it's not really fair to make any assumptions on their engine building skills just yet until the causes have been identified


----------



## simplysideways (Apr 17, 2007)

BAZGTR530 said:


> Just to point out the car was owned by Steve at RK when the build was done, the car was then sold to Mel HKS as a car that RK had just rebuilt the engine on!
> 
> Hope that makes sense!


It doesn't really matter , it's not your problem ! The new owner is wasting his time chasing you!!! As long as your for sale advert is truthful he has nothing apart from a big legal and engine rebuild bill


----------



## cormeist (Jan 2, 2013)

Baz, that photo of the ground crank lots awful mate...


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

cormeist said:


> Baz, that photo of the ground crank lots awful mate...


I wouldn't know, it looks bad but then some say that's how its done ?


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Baz your R34 was built up by a top tuning company in Japan so of course it is going to stand out and amaze people by its performance and build quality.



BAZGTR530 said:


> LongRat you are having a laugh mate, my cars don't go out in the wet, only do very limited mileage, are cleaned underneath as well as on top, have all service work done by the best specialists, never go near a track as I will only use race cars for track, only run on V -Power, live in a garage or Carcoon, etc etc.
> 
> This car has not covered 1000 miles and your taking the P155 suggesting a mechanical numpty like me has switched the parts and ragged the car. I think if you check my profile you will find out you are well off Piste.
> 
> ...


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> Baz your R34 was built up by a top tuning company in Japan so of course it is going to stand out and amaze people by its performance and build quality.


Yep but I had to get under it for a couple of days and do the cleaning, tough job! Building it was the easy part Lol


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> But
> 
> If Steve was RKs customer and he 'paid' for the build then unless he decides he is unhappy there can be no comeback on RK from any subsequent owner. BAZ himself raves about what an amazing g car it is and how well it pulls and if he bought it "sold as seen" it's going to be bloody difficult to pursue.


It always pulled well for me but that's not the issue, the issue is the possibility of the new owner pursuing me as the longevity of the engine didn't meet the expectation? Most people think I am in the clear which is good to know so not much more I can do ?


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

I think you should sit back and let the new owner do his thing. It's sad for him, but sometimes life sucks. It's not your problem ultimately.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Must be very stressful time for Baz and it's something that no one should have to deal with when a car is sold in good faith. Toni is right your not a dealer, you didn't build it you should wash your hands of it. When you buy a used car privately do your due diligence get history of it, what were the past issues, who maintained it etc etc if any doubt walk away or if you buy it accept the risk.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> But
> 
> If Steve was RKs customer and he 'paid' for the build then unless he decides he is unhappy there can be no comeback on RK from any subsequent owner. BAZ himself raves about what an amazing g car it is and how well it pulls and if he bought it "sold as seen" it's going to be bloody difficult to pursue.


The car went back for another rebuild with Mel, therefore it had yet another rebuild which again would seem unsatisfactory. Best to get that independent inspection done IMHO. The history is on here. Fact is, if the engine met its demise through negligence or poor workmanship then it's easy to pursue.


----------



## Mel HKS (Mar 12, 2007)

You only know what TRUE reputation a tuner has when things go wrong as others quietly come forward. 
In any court case you cannot seek betterment.

The engine was just rebuilt when I bought it.

Yet they knowingly sold me (Ron and Steve) a car with a known problem. Unless obviously theyre blind and stupid.
Ron assured me the smoke on test was because "I must have over filled it"
(Engine rebuilt, knowingly using sub standard parts?)

The bit missing here is that Ron Then rebuilt it again (after many months of fobbing me off and many many excuses) in the apparent previous build just before my purchase he did not check valve stem seals or even change piston rings.

I got told " yeah it must be the turbo.... Not my problem". 
RB's are special they dont even need valve stem seals
I just dont know what it could be..... I'm very busy right now
This is all after he verbally guaranteed me of his quality engine build in the first instance.

Saif on here bought a GTR with a few hundred miles on .....built by Ron around the same time.... Blew to pieces and was fobbed off
Morley on here bought a car with a few hundred miles on from new build ..... Again blew to pieces and was fobbed off...... The familiar story goes "my contract wasn't with you it was with the guy who paid for the build"
Thats the only line he couldnt use for my old 32.

Because I constantly checked my car I lickily never blew the engine but he had the balls to tell me I dont drive it hard enough. Reasoning ...... I didnt blow it up like they thought I might.

They ruined a year of my time with the car and I finally drove it down there and left it with a few hints on here of how it might turn. Ron reluctantly said he took the decision himself to open it up and fix the problem and it was the piston rings. He said that he had changed the valve stem seals before opening it up also.

This is obviously not in line with what MGT are saying.

People generally do not bother anymore regarding writing on here the rather large problems that occur in this small World. Mainly due to the fanboys and the non factual assumption loving retards that comment away saying I love Ron he has a wonderful reputation.

I can name quite a few disgruntled customers if you all really want.

To sum up a person who gets consistent bread and butter income from a Company that imports cars then turn around to me as a ready buyer of a GTR and tell me their cars are rubbish because "I see them when they come in" is beyond belief and does indeed some up the man who seems so quiet and caring.

Ron sent me the pictures of engine open and undertook the work for which We agreed I was not paying.... i said I'll pay for the parts however.

When Ron found out that I had sold the car whilst running it in he asked me for money for the rebuild as in for the labour and all. So blind, stupid and amnesia 

He then told me (as I menioned before) that £100 mot was for checking the car over, taking it to the garage etc..... Very funny as the car never moved, the indicator didnt work, the horn didnt work and the seatbelts were not installed.

During the run in period I drove up to boost kick in point and off the throttle not using boost and took the revs slightly higher when getting to the 500 mile mark.
Having run it in I drove it to Baz where he got it ready for changing oil and driving it properly. However as you all saw the car was acting like a big kangaroo on boost and luckily Baz never drove it till he got it looked at ....
Turns out the wastegate was put on back to front..... On purpose..... A sort of guarantee.

The car was compression tested by another independent garage before it was sold and it was all ok oddly.

In a part of my business I tell staff when making something... "If you think to yourself "that'll do" well then it isn't good enough.
Ron and others should perhaps think the same as knowingly rebuilding with a sub standard part is beyond belief. 
If Ron truely cared about his reputation rather than what he can get away with maybe I'd be a bit sympathetic...

Example: a few years ago i went to Ron for an oil change in my R33, he couldn't figure out what oil filter went on my relocation kit so he opted for the "that'll do" approach
As it happens I made it home, I parked and returned a few days later to see oil dripping. It never leaked oil.
I checked the level and it didnt lose much and I told Ron and he said "not sure" I drove a few miles and luckily I spotted all the oil behind me on the road. This could have been devastating if I hadn't spotted it. I had hours of waiting around. Theres a post from me on here on a Sunday looking for Rons number. This was the day, then I had to pay additonal money to store the car then get it towed/flatbed to Ron's. No apologies and couldnt really wait to get me out just in case I asked anything more of him. 

Tuners? They are mechanics not degree educated engineers. Its not rocket science, RB's are great but they are an engine ... Full stop. Ron calls Rod Bell and Abbey for help on things as I'm sure they all do, its a small following. 
All the pricing is generally the same..... Oddly

Talking of pricing. I would also tell MGT to shove it as they are trying to cream the current owner too. They should not have opened it all up to find the problem. But thats how you guarantee the customer cant walk away.

A guy selling parts got a call from a tuner two years ago because the Godfathers thought this little lone rat was selling parts too cheaply. 

I'll finish with this:
For those who spend thousands with Ron.... Of course he treats you like gold..... You are!
So much so that when you contact someone else for parts, said tuner will chase and hound you to stop, you dont need to do that.....

Such a good character of a man would never slate another person in the industry (parts seller) just to try and keep business .... Would you Ron?

For those that spend money (like we all do) changing/upgrading parts, going for fluid changes etc..... Of course you havent had a bad experince, we could all find 17 year old trainee mechanics to bolt these parts on and off.

Yes there are plenty of people that moan and are way ott about rather petty things or perhaps they just are not reasonable people. I was very reasonable with Ron over several months and he tried every avenue to fob me off.

There is no come backs to me or to Baz. This is the World of tuning, the car is practically a race car and as everyone has said, who knows how its been driven.

It would be nice for someone to follow through and go down the legal route ... All the way to the end against the engine builder. I think some of you might be surprised.

Unfortunately (and most tuners know this), we all live busy lives and as much as we'd like to ruin people that ruin our fun, we just dont have the time.

I have emails, texts, pictures (of my 33 too) of most of the above events.

Its a shame that these wonderful cars that I have enjoyed since 1998 have to be spoilt and tarnished by so many cowboys. They are everywhere but more so here.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Wow and I thought I was in the hands of an Expert, glad I didn't take my 34 to him, I had planned to give him all my work until this situation with my old car manifested itself this week


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Thanks for being so honest there Mel HKS!

I once tried quite hard a few years ago now to buy a Super Clear Red 500bhp - RK Tuned BCNR33 from HJA but I got no where because Ozz proved impossible to contact and He eventually told me said vehicle had been sold when He did reply weeks later via email to me. _Maybe I had a very lucky escape from some serious financial pain after reading about what's happened to this R32 and to Saif's R33 too...._

JM2PW!


----------



## BigBen (Aug 18, 2012)

BAZ my advice would be to keep shtoom now mate.


----------



## Mel HKS (Mar 12, 2007)

There is nothing for anyone else to say

I trusted Ron twice, waited till the car was fixed properly before selling.
Baz nor me are to know whether Ron did actually put new rings in, new valve stem seals in. We certainly are not to know the condition of the parts when the engine is open etc. 
If MGT are right and the pictures prove some things seem right then RK are fully responsible.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Mel HKS said:


> Yet they knowingly sold me (Ron and Steve) a car with a known problem. Unless obviously theyre blind and stupid.
> Ron assured me the smoke on test was because "I must have over filled it"
> (Engine rebuilt, knowingly using sub standard parts?)


Mel, were you totally happy with the running condition of the car when you sold it to Baz or did you breathe a sigh of relief as you'd offloaded a dog? Just wondering, that's all.


----------



## Mel HKS (Mar 12, 2007)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Mel, were you totally happy with the running condition of the car when you sold it to Baz or did you breathe a sigh of relief as you'd offloaded a dog? Just wondering, that's all.


Whats to wonder Tazz?
i just wrote the story in full for your very eyes to read correctly.
It had a brand new build and I ran it in and sold it with a complete clear conscience. Unlike many, I do have a conscience.
I also spent over 6k on cosmetics and handling. 

After a whole year of getting fudged around, I hated the car, I wanted rid of it ....yes .... Well done Sherlock .... i fell deeply out of love


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Well, it was certainly an interesting read alright.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

BigBen said:


> BAZ my advice would be to keep shtoom now mate.


Mate I get what your saying but I bought a car that had a top to toe wish list of work just carried out at the point of purchase by who I thought was one of the foremost UK's tuning experts, I am amazed about the grief he caused Mel. Just glad I haven't continued to go there with my 34!

Reading this all I can say IMO is when things go wrong people like this need to step and climb out from under their rocks and put things right !!!


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

It is so hard to know where to take your pride and joy frankly. :/


----------



## YokoAE86 (May 23, 2007)

Thanks Mel for your input.

I thought RK was good as a few import companies use them to prep their cars.


----------



## YokoAE86 (May 23, 2007)

matt j said:


> The car went back for another rebuild with Mel, therefore it had yet another rebuild which again would seem unsatisfactory. Best to get that independent inspection done IMHO. The history is on here. Fact is, if the engine met its demise through negligence or poor workmanship then it's easy to pursue.


whats the point of getting an independent inspection done when MGT has already opened the engine up and replied to this thread. The photos answers everything!

The fault is pointing at RK.


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

I've just read this whole thread, and before anyone gets there knickers in a twist, be very careful what you read and believe. Unfortunately in these kind of situations, the "Anti Tuner" crew will all pop up. All will take great pleasure in seeing a tuner get slated and blamed with hope that it will tarnish there reputation for good! 

There's clearly been a issue with the engine, but what that issue is will be revealed. 

My 2p, you have no idea what conversations went on between the previous customers and the tuner. If the customer supplies parts and tells the Tuner to "build this" that's all that will be done. The build is only really warranted for the bolts he tightened. 

Greg


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

minifreak said:


> I've just read this whole thread, and before anyone gets there knickers in a twist, be very careful what you read and believe. Unfortunately in these kind of situations, the "Anti Tuner" crew will all pop up. All will take great pleasure in seeing a tuner get slated and blamed with hope that it will tarnish there reputation for good!


Pot, kettle, black. Coming from someone who seemingly took great pleasure in snipe shots at Rob. I take it RK is your tuner of choice?



minifreak said:


> There's clearly been a issue with the engine, but what that issue is will be revealed.


Exactly. And that's why the new owner needs an independent inspection. 



minifreak said:


> My 2p, you have no idea what conversations went on between the previous customers and the tuner. If the customer supplies parts and tells the Tuner to "build this" that's all that will be done. The build is only really warranted for the bolts he tightened.
> 
> Greg


I cannot see any customer in the world telling an expert engine builder, "it's alright, you built the engine and it let go, please have another go but don't replace anything that's broken. But make sure it's warrantied when you're done."

More likely any conversation resulted in the engine builder, being the expert, advising the customer firstly why the engine failed and secondly what he recommended to return the engine to it's former condition and power. Anything less and you're directly criticising the former owner and his intentions.

Any resultant negligence or poor workmanship in the build, even bad advice, would allow anyone with the inclination and funds to pursue legally.


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

I knew you'd pop up Matt! My issues with Rob and TR have zero to do with this thread so let's nip that in the bud straight away! I am no way impartial here, I've always used RK and always will if I had a Skyline. But i am looking at some of the recent comments and it's only a matter of time before it turns into a full blown witch hunt! 

As for the customer ignoring the Builders advice, that's a conversation that we cannot comment on, however it's not completely unheard of is what I'm suggesting. You know as well as I that there are a lot of people out there with the horrible attitude of "I'm selling it anyway" The tuner may advise that this or that should be changed but untimatly the customer has the final call as he's the one paying the money. 

I've seen it many times on this forum with big HP cars being sold with Stock gearboxes as they destroyed there strong one, knowing that it will survive the test drive and a few weeks after, at that point it's no longer there problem.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

minifreak said:


> I knew you'd pop up Matt!


I didn't pop up Greg, I've been contributing to thread from the start. It's you who has 'popped up'.



minifreak said:


> My issues with Rob and TR have zero to do with this thread so let's nip that in the bud straight away! I am no way impartial here, I've always used RK and always will if I had a Skyline.


So it's ok for you to pass comments that could tarnish a man's reputation but not for others? You are full of double standards.



minifreak said:


> But i am looking at some of the recent comments and it's only a matter of time before it turns into a full blown witch hunt!


A 'witch hunt' would suggest that there was ambiguity regarding who built the engine; there is not. 



minifreak said:


> As for the customer ignoring the Builders advice, that's a conversation that we cannot comment on, however it's not completely unheard of is what I'm suggesting. You know as well as I that there are a lot of people out there with the horrible attitude of "I'm selling it anyway" The tuner may advise that this or that should be changed but untimatly the customer has the final call as he's the one paying the money.


What you're suggesting is that Mel was dishonest in some way and that there is no comeback for negligence or poor workmanship. Irrespective of all of this, to err is human nature, we all make mistakes but it's how we handle those mistakes that sets apart the best. Being a trader, I'm sure RK has insurance anyway, or at least they should have.



minifreak said:


> I've seen it many times on this forum with big HP cars being sold with Stock gearboxes as they destroyed there strong one, knowing that it will survive the test drive and a few weeks after, at that point it's no longer there problem.


That's selling a vehicle with a known issue, that's not similar at all to this particular set of circumstance IMHO.

I'm not biased in any way, I'm just saying it as I see it.


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Just to clarify what appears to be some misunderstanding. 

As far as I am aware the car was sold to Mel HKS as a car with a fully re built RK Engine. Mel HKS did not specify the build or get involved with the build specification, he simply bought a car with a just built RK engine still being run in. He as I would actually have no idea as to exactly what was done ither than what he was told by RK.

As you are all aware I bought the car just at the end of the running in period and thought that gave me some good security and peace of mind in that I had a virtually brand new engine? 

Other than getting the safety running in lock taken off and oil change done by RK I have to say the engine was extremely powerful. However it's not the power the new owner is complaining about its the longevity of the build?

i can't vouch for what's happened with the car in the last few months with its new owner and don't know the reasons for its recent loss of compression. All I can say was it didn't show any signs of loss of compression at the time of sale. I took the new owner on a 40 to 50 minute test drive covering every style of road, he was amazed at the performance as was I.

Again the current issue is not about the performance then but the longevity?

As Matt says only a full independent technical inspection will get to the bottom of it and may point to either a build error or even user error? who knows?

In the meantime we have the pictures to go by

Hope this helps


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Greg, Matt, neither of your last posts are adding value to this thread.
Only 1 side of this saga is known an ultimately it's none of our business.
Personally I cannot see the point in saying anything else. The 1st 10 pages went well without getting personal.
If you can't be say anything nice, don't say anything at all. There is so much history to pop at tuners.


----------



## LongRat (Apr 9, 2012)

I think that's a fair point. There is still the matter of the knowledge gap from when Baz sold it to when MGT opened it. Nobody knows what was done to the car in that time and that could well be the cause of much of the issue. Either way it is the concern of the current owner alone.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

At the end of the day if the owner of the car has no leg to stand on then this is all pointless, so is a independent inspection off the engine as it will just cost the owner more money. 

He might aswell bite the bullet and just have it rebuilt. 

For the record there's lots of Rk built engines doing very well including mine, ct17 (Richards) what gets more hammering than most skylines out there. So why would this one be built any diffrent!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> At the end of the day if the owner of the car has no leg to stand on then this is all pointless, so is a independent inspection off the engine as it will just cost the owner more money.


It's the independent inspection that will identify which leg Dan, that's the whole point you're missing.



Dan ep3 turbo said:


> He might aswell bite the bullet and just have it rebuilt.


Why? If the engine let go due to negligence or poor workmanship then he should expect a resolve. IF it's proven via the inspection it's his own fault then sobeit.



Dan ep3 turbo said:


> For the record there's lots of Rk built engines doing very well including mine, ct17 (Richards) what gets more hammering than most skylines out there. So why would this one be built any diffrent!


Because quite simply, people, everyone, without exception make mistakes.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Yes everyone makes mistakes I understand that Matt. 

I don't personally think the new owner has a leg to stand on even if it is build quality at fault as it's now on its third owner since work was carried out. So much could of happened there's no actual proof how many miles it's done since and how it's been treated. 

I'm not a solicitor so I don't no for sure, the owner would have to go see his solicitor and ask them what case he has and his chances of winning or he could just throw more money down the drain.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> So much could of happened there's no actual proof how many miles it's done since and how it's been treated.


An independent inspection will tell you exactly what is wrong with the engine and what caused it.

The inspection on my engine was some 27 pages long and very thorough, there was no getting away from the results even after 10 months and 1000 miles post final mapping.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Guys
Whilst you'll note no content has been removed, I'm not going to allow a cyclical thread going over the same points again and again. None of us are legal experts but the general consensus is let the current owner take advice and react accordingly. 

I am an RK customer and I know and like Ron a lot. Seeing a thread like this is disconcerting and without knowing all sides looks bad. But what has been said and discussed so far is perturbing, if the thread keeps going over the same ground and turns into an slanging match I will lock it. 

It's extremely difficult to moderate these things and extremely difficult to know how best to allow people to present thier dissatisfaction with tuners without destroying legitimate reputations or allowing users to treat the forum as a form of blackmail. 

So, just keep the conversation to the original topic please. 

Mike


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

Matt, I don't have time to sit there and break down a post and comment on every little bit. However I will just leave this here...


matt j said:


> I'm not biased in any way, I'm just saying it as I see it.


Yet....




matt j said:


> Both MGT and RK are involved, I personally wouldn't entertain either of them.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

minifreak said:


> Matt, I don't have time to sit there and break down a post and comment on every little bit. However I will just leave this here...
> 
> 
> Yet....


Context dear friend.

One built the engine and the other is looking to rebuild it, it's what's know as a conflict of interest; who's to say one may be less scrupulous than the other...

As I suggested numerous times, get an independent inspection, neither MGT or RK can be deemed independent as they are now directly involved, surely it's not that hard to understand?


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Guys
> Whilst you'll note no content has been removed, I'm not going to allow a cyclical thread going over the same points again and again. None of us are legal experts but the general consensus is let the current owner take advice and react accordingly.
> 
> I am an RK customer and I know and like Ron a lot. Seeing a thread like this is disconcerting and without knowing all sides looks bad. But what has been said and discussed so far is perturbing, if the thread keeps going over the same ground and turns into an slanging match I will lock it.
> ...


Mook your the Boss but before you lock it just incase Rons not reading it and as he is your friend I suggest you contact him and give him the chance to respond!

If he can't see what's wrong from the pictures or talking to MGT and explain what's gone wrong or who's gone wrong then he's in the wrong business?

I did personally go to see him and explain this and his attitude was NOTHING TO DO WITH ME 

Forget all the BS he built this thing I would estimate and only be able to estimate not much more than a 1000 miles ago, the paperwork he has will verify the exact mileage anyway

I didn't build it neither did Mel neither did the new owner!

He built it MGT are condemning it and they are both seen on here as respected traders

My thoughts are if two professionals on here can't get together and sort this sort of stuff out then you shouldn't allow them on here!

We as the public entrust ourselves to them and use forums like this to measure the good from bad

Thanks

Baz


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

matt j said:


> Context dear friend.
> 
> One built the engine and the other is looking to rebuild it, it's what's know as a conflict of interest; who's to say one may be less scrupulous than the other...
> 
> As I suggested numerous times, get an independent inspection, neither MGT or RK can be deemed independent as they are now directly involved, surely it's not that hard to understand?


Hang on, RK built it and there was a problem so it was taken to another tuner for assessment. MGT did the independent assessment. What your suggesting is that's not good enough? That MGT are just after the work? 

MGT are only directly involved because that have provided the independent inspection! Before that they were completely independent! Surely that's not hard to understand is it!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Been there with TR and Abbey, neither could be classed as independent. 
The same applies here.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Baz I i know what you are saying but you approached Ron about a build he did for a guy who sold you the car and you then sold the car on. I can't imagine he would want to get involved because there are two more owners since he built it.
Whatever the circumstances of the build or the failure, I can fully understand why he would not want to get involved due to the sheer number of people and parameters now involved. 

I'm not justifying it but consider him the first owner, Mel the second, you the third and this guy the fourth. And it's coming back to him after how long?

He doesn't have to post. If Mel wants to go legal in him then so be it. If this new owner goes legal on you and you go legal in Mel then so be it. Until then there's little more to be discussed.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Mook you might aswell lock this thread now or it will go onto 30 pages of the same people saying the same stuff. 

Baz for the owner of the car it will be cheaper for him to buy a rips rb30


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Is the new owner of the car on this forum? Not sure if it would do any good hearing from him but it might add a bit more context.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

I'm not locking it until everyone agrees that it has run its course. I'm not impartial and don't want to be accused of any agenda. 

Hopefully BAZ will seek legal advice having garnered opinion on here and the due process will follow.


----------



## simplysideways (Apr 17, 2007)

Mookistar said:


> Baz I i know what you are saying but you approached Ron about a build he did for a guy who sold you the car and you then sold the car on. I can't imagine he would want to get involved because there are two more owners since he built it.
> Whatever the circumstances of the build or the failure, I can fully understand why he would not want to get involved due to the sheer number of people and parameters now involved.
> 
> I'm not justifying it but consider him the first owner, Mel the second, you the third and this guy the fourth. And it's coming back to him after how long?
> ...


this ^^^^^
Painfully for you unless you receive a solicitors letter regarding x amount for the engine rebuild this has very little to with you in the sense that RK and Mgt have no obligation to talk to you. Ron's initial contract for the rebuild was with Steve and Mgt's contract as such is with the new owner .
unfortunately with the change of owners, I'm not surprised about not wanting to warrant the work but if you had a compression check done when you sold it and it was good then I wouldn't stress


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Baz I i know what you are saying but you approached Ron about a build he did for a guy who sold you the car and you then sold the car on. I can't imagine he would want to get involved because there are two more owners since he built it.
> Whatever the circumstances of the build or the failure, I can fully understand why he would not want to get involved due to the sheer number of people and parameters now involved.
> 
> I'm not justifying it but consider him the first owner, Mel the second, you the third and this guy the fourth. And it's coming back to him after how long?
> ...


Mook if I by a 9 month old 458 with 4 owners are Ferrari free from warranty ?

All I'm saying is Ron can see the evidence, he either says yes I made a mistake or no it's wear and tear, what's so difficult?

If I were in his position and as its only about a 1000 miles since the rebuild I would most certainly want to show beyond doubt to maintain my integrity it's either defiantly nothing to do with my build or driver error! 

That's the only way I can see the trader in any such situation can come out looking professional with customers having confidence in the future. If they don't it smacks of give us your money and to hell with you afterwards.

Also what's it got to do with having a couple of more owners, the engine and internals would be none the wiser I am sure? None of us are spring chicken boy racers we are enthusiasts that care for our cars.

Burrying his head in the sand just says to me I have no faith in my work ?

Baz


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Mook you might aswell lock this thread now or it will go onto 30 pages of the same people saying the same stuff.
> 
> Baz for the owner of the car it will be cheaper for him to buy a rips rb30


How much for a RIPS RB30 ?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

BAZGTR530 said:


> Mook if I by a 9 month old 458 with 4 owners are Ferrari free from warranty ?
> 
> All I'm saying is Ron can see the evidence, he either says yes I made a mistake or no it's wear and tear, what's so difficult?
> 
> ...


Again Baz I don't dispute this but speculating, questioning and wondering why a tuner won't reply on here is moot. If that's how they want to be that is thier prerogative. For all you know Ron disputes the stories on here and is taking legal advice himself. Therefore posting could be damaging to HIS case. 

I suggest you seek your own legal advice to be sure if your position and wait for the story to play out through the correct channels. 

Sorry

Mike


----------



## BAZGTR530 (May 19, 2011)

Mookistar said:


> Again Baz I don't dispute this but speculating, questioning and wondering why a tuner won't reply on here is moot. If that's how they want to be that is thier prerogative. For all you know Ron disputes the stories on here and is taking legal advice himself. Therefore posting could be damaging to HIS case.
> 
> I suggest you seek your own legal advice to be sure if your position and wait for the story to play out through the correct channels.
> 
> ...


Yep no more I can do and as you all say it's nothing to do with me really, just have to wait and see what happens !


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

I think, unless something further comes to light, I'll lock this now.

If you have updates Baz please let me know.


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

*My statement regarding recent posts*

Ok were do i start, its a bank Holiday Monday and i am up early being unable to sleep due to the comments made about my small family run company RKTuning.

I am deeply hurt to think that people from the skyline community would think so badly of me, I have loved and grown up with this small community since its beginning and have strived to help people get there pride and joy to be what they so badly want it to be.
Some times though things go wrong for various reasons either my fault or other and always do my best to put things right while being under pressure to pay the vast bills etc that comes with running your own company.
I have always been told by other people/tuners i don't charge enough but have carried on regardless as i am not in this to make a big profit but just to pay my way and survive.
I have always tried to save customers money on any work they have done and have always said if it was my car this is what i would do given there budget.
The correct way sometimes is not in peoples budget so the affordable way is what is done using my experience over the years.

This brings me to the car in question.

My son Steven bought the car and used it for what it was built for drag and circuit ,While drag racing a sort time after it had a engine fail due to oil pump and standard sump problems.

The engine had previously been built by Mark Mosley with parts bought from MGT ,2-8 crank rods and pistons.
The crank needed a grind on the big ends and as it was a billet crank i was happy to do this. The crank had been balanced before i assume by someone Mark uses (not a pretty job but in my opinion completely no problem)

The whole engine was reasemmbled with new deep sump , oil pump,bearings,rings, oil drain etc. As always with Steven his mind changes daily and he puts the car up for sale to fund running a junior dragster for his daughter.
The new owner (Melhks) bought the car with the knowledge it needed running in etc. Also he wanted other work done to make it as he wanted etc, The car went to another garage to have various things done.

On driving the car for a few short miles it was found by Mel to be using a vast amount of oil even though it did not smoke partically badly. To cut a long story short we pulled the engine and rehoned the bores and put another set of rings in and valve stem seals were changed. This cured the the problem and i can only persume that the running in period was not carried out satisfactory.

I also did a compression check and a leak down test in front of the customer and results were perfect before and after the work. The car was then sold on and then on again.

Bringing us to were we are now, I received a phone call from Mark at MGT saying he had this car in and it was running like shit?, OK so firstly why would someone buy or sell a car that was running shit?.
Then a phone call saying he had stripped engine because of a problem with low compressions. So i said so what did you find wrong Mark and his reply was the crank was looked shit who the hell balanced that and its ground -25, my reply was 'but thats not the issue is it are the bearings fine?' and the reply was a few marks but yes. So what caused the low compressions Mark, 'don't know yet have'nt checked the head'.

So in my eyes a engine was stripped down without knowing if it was a head problem or rings.

To me the bill for new pistons and Crankshaft are completely uncalled for as they are still in a condition that i would use in a big horsepower engine.

As these events happened so quickly coming up to a Bank hoilday weekend i have not been contacted by the new owner of the said car or been asked to comment on findings.
Weather this helps people understand a few facts on the matter i don't know but my love for this community and some so called friends has been badly damaged i will learn from this


----------

