X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:13:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nskntmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.168.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3637679 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 May 2009 08:52:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.168.143; envelope-from=frederickmoreno@bigpond.com Received: from nskntotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com ([121.221.140.179]) by nskntmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090510125211.JXZA426.nskntmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com@nskntotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com> for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 12:52:11 +0000 Received: from Razzle ([121.221.140.179]) by nskntotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090510125207.GYMQ20107.nskntotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com@Razzle> for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 12:52:07 +0000 From: "Frederick Moreno" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mail" Subject: Performance Engines - Creating More Pain X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 20:52:00 +0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <119D7E09100F4B4BA5FC86DE0422504B@Razzle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C9D1B1.2C5F27E0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcnRVtgWdfwqRj73SKutWb9DNeGRyAAATVOw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A150205.4A06CDFB.0074,ss=1,fgs=0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C9D1B1.2C5F27E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 "Bill, Yes I feel your pain, I suggest that you start posting complaints = on all the builders' web sites and ask those members to send Performance a = note asking for them to make good on their promise. ." =20 Apparently I will need the same support. =20 =20 Here is the latest pain report - Promise of warranty support, apparently hollow. We shall see. =20 My IO-550 from Performance Engines (PE) came with 10:1 pistons. At 60 = hours it was pumping lots of oil on the belly. Steve Colwell had a similar problem with his PE IO-550 and pointed me in the right direction. =20 =20 Cause: the forged PE pistons have lower silicon content than cast = pistons (from ECI, for example) and have a higher expansion coefficient than = cast pistons. When installed with insufficient piston to bore clearance, the forged pistons rub which also scores the cylinders. =20 =20 The rub also damages the ring lands, widens the ring grooves, and leads = to "ring flutter" on descent when the combustion pressures are not enough = to hold the compression ring down at the top of piston stroke. Result: = rings flop up and down (flutter) in the excessively wide grooves creating = heavy blow-by at reduced manifold pressure (below 18-19 inches) exactly as reported by Steve Colwell here some time ago. The blow-by is large = enough that it overloads the air oil separator and oil pukes out during = descent. =20 As suggested, we measured crank case pressure and saw pressure rise dramatically at the beginning of descent. We then pulled the cylinders = and confirmed the problem. Six scrap pistons, and six scored cylinders. =20 =20 I did a lot of research, wrote a summary report with excerpts from = articles and papers addressing pistons, silicon content, expansion, clearances, = etc and sent a copy to PE. I can post it here if anyone is interested.=20 =20 It was clearly a PE assembly screw up: forged pistons installed with = cast piston clearances. The failure was per text book, and 100% = predictable. =20 Being halfway around the world, I sent photos of pistons and cylinders = to ECI (cylinder manufacturers) and PE. ECI suggested honing the cylinders = to see if score marks would come out of the CermaNil cylinder coating. =20 =20 I proposed the following warranty settlement with PE: PE buys me new = pistons and rings (this time they will be ECI stock compression ratio cast = pistons) and will pay for the hone and cylinder repair. I will pay for labor at = my end and shipping. =20 =20 Ron agreed.=20 =20 I bought the special ECI diamond hone kit (about $500 plus shipping), = honed per instructions, and took more photos sent to PE and ECI. Some score = marks remain in all cylinders. ECI inspected the photos and said ship all the cylinders back for repair. Also I will need new pistons. I wrote ECI = and PE, notified ECI about PE's agreement to pay for pistons, rings, and cylinder repair, and asked for an ECI RMA number. =20 ECI has been terrific, responding promptly and completely to every = email. I tried to make arrangements to have ECI do the work and charge PE as PE = has agreed.=20 =20 Friday I found that ECI has legal action against PE for non-payment. =20 Understandably, ECI does not expect that PE will pay for piston = replacement and cylinder repair because of PE history of non-payment. I have = written Stuart (again; many, many emails have been exchanged) for guidance, and = he has responded that he is contacting Ron, yet again. I am prepping = cylinders for shipment across the Pacific and awaiting a reply from PE. =20 =20 Should PE have used additional bore clearance for the high compression pistons? Of course. Somebody screwed up and used the wrong clearance = spec. The engine shows other signs of being hastily built. =20 =20 Will they provide the promised warranty support? We shall see. I may = be asking the Lancair group for referrals to US lawyers who have dealt with = PE in the past.=20 =20 Note: Stuart responds to emails, but does not have any authority. He forwards emails to Ron. Only once has Ron replied to Stuart, to give an = OK to my request for warranty support. Ron does not communicate. = Apparently he does not pay his bills. He needs a business manager, badly. Let's = hope PE does not go down the tubes leaving a lot of customers high and dry. = The signs are not good. We shall see. =20 I will keep everyone posted on my success in getting the promised = warranty support.=20 =20 Fuming Fred =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C9D1B1.2C5F27E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

“Bill, Yes I feel your pain, I suggest that you = start posting complaints on all the builders’ web sites and ask those = members to send Performance a note asking for them to make good on their = promise. …”

 

Apparently I will need the same support.  

 

Here is the latest pain report - Promise of = warranty support, apparently hollow.  We shall see.

 

My IO-550 from Performance = Engines (PE) came with 10:1 pistons.  At 60 hours it was pumping lots of oil on = the belly.  Steve Colwell = had a similar problem with his PE IO-550 and pointed me in the right = direction. 

 

Cause: the forged PE pistons have = lower silicon content than cast pistons (from ECI, for example) and have a = higher expansion coefficient than cast pistons.  When installed with = insufficient piston to bore clearance, the forged pistons rub which also scores the cylinders. 

 

The rub also damages the ring = lands, widens the ring grooves, and leads to “ring flutter” on = descent when the combustion pressures are not enough to hold the compression = ring down at the top of piston stroke.  Result: rings flop up and down = (flutter) in the excessively wide grooves creating heavy blow-by at reduced manifold pressure (below 18-19 inches) exactly as reported by Steve = Colwell here some time ago.  The = blow-by is large enough that it overloads the air oil separator and oil pukes out = during descent.

 

As suggested, we measured crank = case pressure and saw pressure rise dramatically at the beginning of = descent.  We then pulled the cylinders and confirmed the problem.  Six scrap = pistons, and six scored cylinders. 

 

I did a lot of research, wrote a = summary report with excerpts from articles and papers addressing pistons, = silicon content, expansion, clearances, etc and sent a copy to PE.  I can = post it here if anyone is interested.

 

It was clearly a PE assembly = screw up: forged pistons installed with cast piston clearances.   The = failure was per text book, and 100% predictable.

 

Being halfway around the world, I = sent photos of pistons and cylinders to ECI (cylinder manufacturers) and = PE.  ECI suggested honing the cylinders to see if score marks would come out = of the CermaNil cylinder coating.  

 

I proposed the following warranty settlement with PE: PE buys me new pistons and rings (this time they = will be ECI stock compression ratio cast pistons) and will pay for the hone and cylinder repair.  I will pay for labor at my end and = shipping. 

 

Ron agreed.

 

I bought the special ECI diamond = hone kit (about $500 plus shipping), honed per instructions, and took more photos = sent to PE and ECI.  Some score marks remain in all cylinders.  ECI = inspected the photos and said ship all the cylinders back for repair.  Also I = will need new pistons.   I wrote ECI and PE, notified ECI about = PE’s agreement to pay for pistons, rings, and cylinder repair, and asked for = an ECI RMA number.

 

ECI has been terrific, responding = promptly and completely to every email.  I tried to make arrangements to = have ECI do the work and charge PE as PE has agreed.

 

Friday I found that ECI has legal = action against PE for non-payment.

 

Understandably, ECI does not = expect that PE will pay for piston replacement and cylinder repair because of PE = history of non-payment.  I have written Stuart (again; many, many emails have = been exchanged) for guidance, and he has responded that he is contacting Ron, = yet again.  I am prepping cylinders for shipment across the Pacific and = awaiting a reply from PE.   

 

Should PE have used additional = bore clearance for the high compression pistons?  Of course.  = Somebody screwed up and used the wrong clearance spec.  The engine shows = other signs of being hastily built. 

 

Will they provide the promised = warranty support?  We shall see.  I may be asking the Lancair group for referrals to US lawyers who have dealt with PE in the past. =

 

Note: Stuart responds to emails, = but does not have any authority.  He forwards emails to Ron.  Only once has Ron replied to Stuart, to = give an OK to my request for warranty support.  Ron does not = communicate.  Apparently he does not pay his bills.  He needs a business manager, badly.  Let’s hope PE does not go = down the tubes leaving a lot of customers high and dry.  The signs are not good.  We shall see.

 

I will keep everyone posted on my = success in getting the promised warranty support.

 

Fuming Fred

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C9D1B1.2C5F27E0--