Good Saturday Morning Tim, 70_F100, Robert, 70ShortWide, SideOilerFE, and 71PA_Highboy! Thanks for your fantastic replies!
OldRedFord wrote:I think the timing set is closer to the $50 to $100.
The double roller timing set I got was about $50.
Oh okay, thanks for letting me know!
OldRedFord wrote:Even 7 gs would be fair I think.
Agreed! If this were an insurance settlement or something like that, I think "fair" would mean that after corrections were made, I'd be returned to the exact financial situation I was in before the incident. But as long as this scenario can be resolved strictly between Proformance Unlimited and myself (as long as I don't need a lawyer, which I doubt I will), I'm ready to forget about what it cost me to drive to Tom's and other related expenses.
70_F100 wrote:
Robroy, I think the number you’ve come up with is close to fair. However, I think I would deduct the price of the block, crankshaft and heads, also.
I see! I may not follow what's meant in this context by deducting them. Do you mean that I shouldn't have the small amounts of cash value for those parts in my list of usable parts, because they had to be re-done? I'm guessing that even heads, a crankshaft, and a block that need to be re-done have a small amount of value.
You're right. And if I need to resort to legal means to make the situation right, all these tiny expenses will be added in.
70_F100 wrote:Personally, I think that your final cost of the engine should come up to exactly what you paid for it originally.
Yes perhaps that makes sense!
70_F100 wrote:PU (man, I like the reference posted earlier
) committed to providing an engine without defects for a cost that was pre-negotiated. What they provided was far less than what they promised.
Agreed. Your final point here seems indisputable now, after all the evidence that has been discovered!
70_F100 wrote:Even though the time ran out on the warranty, they know the engine wasn't run during that period (come to think of it, maybe they were counting on that when they sold you the engine!!
).
The thought did cross my mind! I'm fully aware that while on the phone with them, they wouldn't have had difficulty determining that I'm a beginner who doesn't know a lot about engines. Based on what I've learned up until now, it's comical to think back and remember all the questions I
didn't ask before buying the engine!
70_F100 wrote:Once Tom has finished the engine and you have it re-installed and running correctly, determine your cost including Tom’s cost, cost for any fluids (like coolant, P/S fluid, etc) that you have to purchase during the re-install, mileage cost, and a fair cost for your labor (in this case, I would use $20/hour as a base, since you are an “amateur” mechanic [read, “not your primary area of expertise
]). All of these are legitimate costs. This will, undoubtedly, be more than the number you arrived at above. Therefore, PU (there it is again!!
) will end up losing money on the parts they supplied, but that’s business.
This sounds like a pretty reasonable plan! Although it could be some time before the new engine's all installed and running, and my inclination is to contact Pro-formance Unlimited this coming week to talk the situation over. Do you think I should delay in contacting them until I've collected a final figure regarding what this scenario cost me? That could be a multi-month delay.
70_F100 wrote:That being said, if you could get $6000-$7000 from them, I think any number in that range would be an acceptable compromise.
Yeah I agree.
70_F100 wrote:Their reputation is at stake here, and a good-faith refund would DEFINITELY go a long way toward showing that they run a reputable organization.
Sure would! This is really a big opportunity for them to restore some trust with a significant group of people.
70_F100 wrote:Any less, and I think I would consult an attorney and sue PU (what, AGAIN???
) for the full amount you paid them. Then, either post a link to this thread on your website, or create a new page on your website (include a LOT of pics and documentation) that chronicles the entire ordeal.
I hope it won't come to that, and I suspect it won't. I'm guessing that once they're presented with all the information, they'll respond in a caring and helpful way. I sure know I would, if I were running an engine shop! We'll see!
70_F100 wrote:A side benefit to that would be that your website gets extra traffic that may generate additional business for you!!
Good point! Yet I'm not certain whether or not this would create a positive public impression, or the simple impression that "Robroy sues people," or "Robroy has a problem." I tend to think that people make simple associations between pieces of information they gather, and I wouldn't necessarily be subject to the "benefit of the doubt." But you've made an interesting point that I'll have to think over.
DuckRyder wrote:
There are several ways to look at it, I'll try to organize my thoughts this evening and detail some options. But as I see it there are really two issues.
1) The engine was not usable as delivered.
Indeed, it seems like this was most probably (almost certainly) the case.
DuckRyder wrote:2) I do not believe any reasonable person would expect an FE with the specs that were found to make 426 HP. (that was the figure right?)
I think you're right here too! The figure was 436 HP (thanks 70ShortWide for pointing this out), but like you're saying, that wasn't a reasonable figure. And that wasn't the only thing that I was told that turned out to be false.
Just one tiny preview of my upcoming review of my visit with Tom yesterday: Tom determined the compression ratio of the Proformance Unlimited engine--it was between 8.7:1 and 8.9:1. Steve at Proformance Unlimited told me very clearly, and on
several occasions that I was buying an engine with 10:1 compression.
As I understand it, Tom arrived at the 8.7:1 to 8.9:1 range because he discovered that the combination of pistons and heads ought to have yielded a 9:1 ratio, yet several of the valves had significantly recessed seats, creating more combustion chamber volume. Okay, more on this in my official review!
DuckRyder wrote:Also, as I mentioned earlier, robroy, I would not be very fast to fall on my sword over the windage tray. If Proformance Unlimited agreed to provide an engine suitable for a 2WD F250 and provided it with the wrong pan (and I believe that is what they agreed to) then they were responsible for getting the pan changed for you. When they agreed to allow you to do it, they assumed the responsibility for providing the needed guidance unless you declined it.
Your thinking here seems very reasonable! It would have been equitable for them to have hired a shop to replace the pan for me, but they had me replace it instead (which was a LOT of work, since I'm a beginner). And furthermore, what I've heard from Tom makes me all the less convinced that my windage tray incident had anything to do with these major problems.
And perhaps the strongest related point of all: I heard from Steve at Proformance Unlimited, on several occasions, and most convincingly, that as long as I sprayed the engine out with brake cleaner, my windage tray mistake couldn't have caused any real damage to the engine. So in order for them to claim that the big damage
was caused by my mistake, they'd have to un-do this decision and claim that they already made.
sideoilerfe wrote:Just a thought semi related: Robroy, you should get the old 360 out of the weather. Someone could use it. It'd be a shame to throw something usable away.I know it's not usable right now however maybe Tom could use it as a core. Maybe he'd give you $50-$100 for it and he could use it and build a nice motor fore someone else.
Hey SideOilerFE, you're absolutely right. It was foolish of me to leave the engine out in the elements. At the time, I didn't think a 360 had any desirable parts in it--now that I've learned more about FEs, I understand how many parts are common to all of them.
The engine's difficult to access at the moment, but I will definitely cover it up (and spray it down with WD-40) when I'm able to.
71PA_Highboy wrote:robroy wrote:Too bad it's not legal to record a conversation unless it's made known during the conversation itself
Actually, the law states only 1 party has to be informed that the conversation is being recorded. If you know the conversation is being recorded, then it meets the requirements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
And even if you did record it and it failed to meet the legal requirements for submission to court, that has no effect on your sharing it with us.
Thanks for this information! I watched the video!
Then I thought it over. And I realized that even if it's legal, I wouldn't feel right about doing it. I have every intention of treating Proformance Unlimited well--I won't behave towards them in any way I wouldn't want somebody behaving towards me. And if somebody recorded a conversation with me without telling me, and posted it on the web I'd feel a little put off by that. Not so much that I'd be worried about a large number of people hearing my conversation; I'd feel like I'd been deceived by the guy who recorded it, and wouldn't trust him easily from then on.
71PA_Highboy wrote:BTW, I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I see!
Tim, 70_F100, Robert, 70ShortWide, SideOilerFE, and 71PA_Highboy, thanks again for your excellent replies!
Robroy
(Just kidding!!)
