Crash's Jezebel in for a Rebuild-Rebuilding an e46 S54 UPDATE on page 26

[Crash_Nemesis]

As mentioned. I will be uploading a video that will show how much the cams were out of alignment. It will also show the errors on the GT1 tool that the car was throwing. It will show the power steering pump installation and how skew it sat as well as the missing chain guide tensioner (Massive oversight). Lastly, it will also show the scored pump disc that is on my car (which does not belong to my car.

But for now, I leave this image with you. This is how much my exhaust cam was out of alignment. For those who do not know, the Cam tool must sit flush on the engine.

In a response to Willy. Thank you for your comment man, I appreciate your point of view and that people can make a mistake with regards to tightening a bolt for a power steering pump. You mention that no one gave Peter a chance to fix the issue. This unfortunately is untrue. I phoned Peter on multiple occassions and explained to him what had gone wrong. He simply disagreed with me and refused to believe the cam timing was incorrect or that the power steering pump was installed incorrectly. After showing him photos of the pump sitting wrong, Peter told me that the pump shaft flange of my brand new power steering pump was twisted. He refused to accept he mad a mistake. So he would not fix it. I had no choice but to let someone else help me fix it.

Here are some of Peter's responses to the issues I have had. What would you do?

This is his response when I told him his cam timing was wrong. Instead of maybe looking at the possibility, he tried to sell me the idea that it was my solenoid pack, which I already replaced because of him.

Here is his response to the Power Steering Pulley being skew.

So I appreciate your comment about giving him a chance to fix his mistakes, but that time has come and gone long ago.

 

[moranor@axis]

I have discussed this with Peter and he needs time to compete customers cars, gather evidence and properly respond on the issue

I ask that the thread be closed temporarily to avoid it spiraling out of control on speculation

Peter will respond shortly hope you understand

 

[Peter@AEW]

I have followed the thread over the past few days but have not had the time to respond and I equally wanted the emotions to subside .

At the outset I wish to make clear that the following post is made with a heavy heart for I am seeing the demise of what I considered was a budding friendship with a very talented man and valued member of this community.

In reading Christopher’s posts one may be excused in thinking that I have been dismissive and inattentive to Christopher and his concerns however in reality I have been communicative to the extent of spending many hours in deep telephonic discussions in response to his whatsap messages. Being of the old school I tend to prefer calling a person as opposed to typing on a minute keyboard and having to look for my glasses.

Should any of you doubt my word I am sure that Christopher will confirm it once he looks at it objectively, failing which I am more than willing to send you a record of calls made to Christopher’s cell number some of which lasted for as long as an hour.

The issue at hand is that the engine has lost compression and the reason for that as promoted by Christopher is that the tune file could not be completed due to the cams being misaligned.

Before I cover the above I would like to cover a number of other issues raised by Christopher namely the misalignment of the power steering pump, the missing tensioner rail, the vanos oil pump as it will be relatively quick.

In the case of the tensioner rail, which is in fact a guide rail, it is absolutely my cock up as I overlooked that it was missing when I stripped the engine as well as when I assembled it. In mitigation of my oversight I refer you to my previous post and I quote “This is the first time we have built an s54”. The omission of the guide rail did not have any adverse effect on the running of the engine as the main tensioner carries the operation of the chain and brings the chain under tension. In other words, only under extreme circumstances would the lack of the guide rail be felt. In closing me not seeing the wood for the tress which I disclosed to Christopher when he notified me.

In the case of the misaligned power steering pump and the loose bolt I again need to accept that I should have applied myself and thought it a bit more thoroughly. However my lack of hands on experience with superchargers and not tardiness was the underlying reason for the bolt vibrating loose.

The power steering pump is secured by 2 long bolts on its face against the oil filter housing. Both the pump bracket and oil filter bracket are very wide at the mounting point.
The 2 bolts are 80mm long and serve as the primary fastening bolts.
At the back of the pump there is a bracket which locates against the engine sump which takes a far shorter bolt and it is used as a stabilising point so that the pump does not deflect upwards or downwards when under load from the serpentine belt.
Under normal operating circumstances the small bolt set at 15Nm of torque is sufficient in design to withstand the loading forces and stay in place.
Given that the supercharger was fitted and a number of belt lengths were tried to get the correct set it would have been prudent to secure the bolt with some semi permanent Loctite so as to insure that the vibration induced by the belt would not back the bolt out.

For those that might be wondering as to why the supercharger would or could have an effect on that bolt consider that the supercharger is fitted with a serpentine belt that is considerably longer and it creates a lot more oscillation of the belt when it loads and unloads under boost. In other words when you accelerate and decelerate.
The movement of the belt was overcome by Christopher’s initiative in replacing the stock hydraulic tensioner idler with a mechanically sprung unit and tightening the bolt beyond factory spec .

With regard to the vanos oil pump it is worth noting the fact that I changed the complete vanos body pistons pump covers bolts and solenoid on the engine after the first set of errors we experienced with the vanos That was done and Christopher was informed of the change. The change was done at no charge for the new body .I wanted to eliminate any potential errors. Should you wish your old unit back I have it here available for you and will refit it free of charge as I cannot use it on another car as I am suspect of it.
Vanos units have an A and B oil pump disc and one cannot mix the discs with the shafts.

After that change you may recall that adaptations that were checked with you and Alex were in the -0.2 range and the firing smoothness across all cylinders was even.
That was the period prior to the fitting of the supercharger whilst the car was being run in.

With specific regard to the fitment costs associated with the supercharger it is wrong of one to propose that I undertook the task under false pretenses as when I met with Christopher I made it abundantly clear that there would be a charge for me to sort out the installation as it required stripping and correctly re installing the system.

There is a post on the forum with pics of what was accomplished in having the system fitted initially and also pics of what I accomplished.
I do not believe that I need to develop this any further as it would be entering to disclosure of parties who may have or may not have agreed to terms with you.
One is able to quickly establish that the installation in terms of completeness and neatness was of a very high level.
Equally my morning spent trying to resolve the injector issue and travelling around was time afforded on the basis of wanting the installation to be as complete and precise as possible and was not charged for.

I would now like to move to the setting of the camshafts and the allegations/hypothesis that the engine failed due to the cams being so out of alignment as to preclude the ability to perform a comprehensive AFR test under real life conditions.

At the outset I would wish to dispute the assertion that “Alain’s” car runs the exact tune file as is presently on Christopher's car.
No two supercharged cars can run an identical ALPHA N tune file if the plenums are different if the pistons are different if the head flow is different etc etc.
To propose that Alain’s car runs an identical file to Christopher’s car with such vast differences in engine and head work as well as plenum design would immediately raise alarm bells and caution.
I would almost be inclined to say that having an identical tune file on Christopher’s car and Alain’s car may well border on the irresponsible.

I shall specifically cover the cam setting a little later however for now I should like to make the following observations.

It has been stated that the cams being out of alignment did not afford the opportunity to get the base file (the start up ecu fuel commands/engine management software) developed into a proper tune file as the proper AFRs (Air to Fuel Ratio) could not be recorded .
For those in the know the car is run on an ALPHA N tune.
It is equally claimed that in early December the cams were set by someone else correctly.
I can confirm that the cams were set correctly as Christopher called on me and I checked the alignment of the cams with the factory tool and equally completed a compression test on the engine during which time it recorded 145 across all cylinders.
During our time together I stressed in no uncertain terms the need to get the correct tune on the car as running the base tune would lead to disaster as the car was under extreme over-under fueling conditions.
(My understanding is that a base file is used for the purpose of starting the car and then proceeding to “log” the car so that the tuner has sufficient information to complete the correct tune file for the specific engine.)
The question that comes to mind is as follows, if it is true that the “erroneous” cam setting was a hindrance in getting an accurate record of AFRs prior to the cams being factory set in early December what exactly was the obstacle in having the car logged and correctly tuned post the correction of the cams? Remember at the time of the timing issue being corrected compression was an even 145psi across all cylinders.

As at 26th March 2015 the correct tune file was still not on the car and I quote(08;25) “Crash I take it that the tune file is on.” And his response (12:04) “No not yet but has been logged and sent to ----- guy”
As recently as some 10 days ago Christopher confirmed to me during one of our frequent meetings that the tune file still had not been installed on the car.
For those of you who may wish to know the reason/s Christopher did not get the opportunity to ever load the correct tune file on his car please feel free to p.m. him as I am not at liberty to disclose them.

So to recap from early December when the car could have been logged, it was not.
My warning that the engine was in imminent danger of self-destruction was not heeded and that came to pass sometime in February where I did a second compression test and the engine recorded the 105 on cylinder 4 and 5.

(Christopher I wish to make it abundantly clear that I take no pleasure whatsoever in making the above assertions as the bottom line is that an engine that was put together with a fair amount of passion and dedication (your editing skills aside) was rendered into a lump of metal. Christopher I was, and still am, as disappointed and upset as you are and that was the primary reason that I committed to rebuilding the engine when we discovered in February that we had lost compression. At the time, if you recall, I said to you that who was to blame and what was to blame was secondary to us getting the engine healthy.) The offer to assist in the rebuild was motivated by a sense of kinship rather than an acceptance or admission of guilt. ( I refer you to my opening paragraph)

To the best of my knowledge and as confirmed by Christopher herewith is a copy of the AFRs as recorded with the base file tune on the car.
For those of you who may not fully understand the numbers common practice would be to have a range of 13 parts of air to 1 part of fuel on the “rich scale” and 14 parts of air to 1 part of fuel on the “lean state” The above is an oversimplification and only used for the purposes of establishing an average.
Therefore an AFR of 9:1 would mean that the engine would be fed with an excessive amount of fuel which would lead to a dilution of the oil in the sump as not all the fuel will be burned. The unburned fuel will wash the cylinders of the protective film of oil thus allowing contact between the piston and the bore thereby inducing a higher amount of friction between the rings and the bore.
A ratio of 15:1 would mean an inadequate amount of fuel leading to excessive heat on the crown of the piston as well as the top compression ring and could lead to broken rings and ring lands.

So in summary, a state of over/under fueling will lead to bore glaze broken rings broken ring lands damaged bearing surfaces etc etc etc. I expect some of these symptoms are likely to surface during the engine tear down.

This is the Full throttle AFR record

Session: Session 15
time PSR_AFR_O2 PSR_AFR_RPM PSR_AFR_RPM
(sec) (AFR) (RPM) (RPM)
0 11.58 0 870
0.08192 11.57 0 880
0.16384 11.58 0 880
0.24576 11.55 0 880
0.32768 11.57 0 880
0.4096 11.55 0 880
0.49152 11.57 0 880
0.57344 11.54 0 880
0.65536 11.57 0 880
0.73728 11.55 0 880
0.8192 11.55 0 880
0.90112 11.54 0 880
0.98304 11.55 0 880
1.06496 11.55 0 890
1.14688 11.55 0 890
1.2288 11.54 0 900
1.31072 11.55 0 900
1.39264 11.57 0 900
1.47456 11.55 0 900
1.55648 11.55 0 920
1.6384 11.57 0 940
1.72032 11.57 0 980
1.80224 11.55 0 1010
1.88416 11.57 0 1040
1.96608 11.57 0 1070
2.048 11.58 0 1060
2.12992 11.57 0 1040
2.21184 11.55 0 990
2.29376 11.54 0 940
2.37568 11.55 0 910
2.4576 11.54 0 870
2.53952 11.52 0 880
2.62144 11.52 0 890
2.70336 11.5 0 1000
2.78528 11.48 0 1110
2.8672 11.48 0 1170
2.94912 11.48 0 1230
3.03104 11.45 0 1230
3.11296 11.47 0 1220
3.19488 11.47 0 1200
3.2768 11.47 0 1170
3.35872 11.48 0 1150
3.44064 11.48 0 1120
3.52256 11.51 0 1090
3.60448 11.55 0 1060
3.6864 11.6 0 1100
3.76832 11.64 0 1140
3.85024 11.66 0 1230
3.93216 11.7 0 1320
4.01408 11.76 0 1360
4.096 11.83 0 1390
4.17792 11.92 0 1470
4.25984 12.01 0 1540
4.34176 12.17 0 1580
4.42368 12.38 0 1620
4.5056 12.36 0 1680
4.58752 12.41 0 1740
4.66944 12.47 0 1790
4.75136 12.49 0 1840
4.83328 12.48 0 1880
4.9152 12.58 0 1920
4.99712 12.69 0 1970
5.07904 12.83 0 2010
5.16096 12.91 0 2110
5.24288 13.04 0 2200
5.3248 13.26 0 2250
5.40672 13.41 0 2300
5.48864 13.66 0 2360
5.57056 13.73 0 2410
5.65248 13.89 0 2410
5.7344 13.92 0 2410
5.81632 13.97 0 2440
5.89824 13.98 0 2470
5.98016 14.02 0 2440
6.06208 14.01 0 2400
6.144 14.04 0 2330
6.22592 14.08 0 2260
6.30784 14.11 0 2150
6.38976 14.63 0 2030
6.47168 14.49 0 1900
6.5536 14.86 0 1760
6.63552 14.8 0 1700
6.71744 15.39 0 1630
6.79936 15.23 0 1590
6.88128 15.29 0 1540
6.9632 15.3 0 1500
7.04512 15.33 0 1450
7.12704 15.3 0 1330
7.20896 15.26 0 1210
7.29088 15.27 0 1050
7.3728 15.17 0 880
7.45472 14.94 0 910
7.53664 14.73 0 940
7.61856 14.79 0 980
7.70048 14.71 0 1010
7.7824 14.52 0 1040
7.86432 14.33 0 1060
7.94624 13.91 0 1080
8.02816 13.6 0 1090
8.11008 13.2 0 1100
8.192 13.01 0 1110
8.27392 12.79 0 1130
8.35584 12.67 0 1140
8.43776 12.54 0 1160
8.51968 12.45 0 1170
8.6016 12.36 0 1190
8.68352 12.27 0 1210
8.76544 12.19 0 1250
8.84736 12.02 0 1290
8.92928 12.01 0 1320
9.0112 11.91 0 1340
9.09312 11.72 0 1380
9.17504 11.48 0 1410
9.25696 11.23 0 1430
9.33888 11.05 0 1450
9.4208 10.83 0 1470
9.50272 10.69 0 1480
9.58464 10.57 0 1470
9.66656 10.42 0 1450
9.74848 10.32 0 1470
9.8304 10.22 0 1480
9.91232 10.11 0 1500
9.99424 10.05 0 1520
10.07616 10 0 1540
10.15808 9.94 0 1560
10.24 9.91 0 1560
10.32192 9.86 0 1560
10.40384 9.85 0 1570
10.48576 9.82 0 1580
10.56768 9.8 0 1610
10.6496 9.79 0 1630
10.73152 9.76 0 1640
10.81344 9.75 0 1650
10.89536 9.7 0 1670
10.97728 9.67 0 1680
11.0592 9.64 0 1700
11.14112 9.61 0 1720
11.22304 9.6 0 1750
11.30496 9.6 0 1770
11.38688 9.64 0 1790
11.4688 9.73 0 1800
11.55072 9.79 0 1810
11.63264 9.88 0 1820
11.71456 9.95 0 1860
11.79648 9.92 0 1890
11.8784 9.91 0 1880
11.96032 9.95 0 1870
12.04224 9.88 0 1820
12.12416 10.22 0 1770
12.20608 9.91 0 1830
12.288 9.79 0 1880
12.36992 10.05 0 2090
12.45184 9.92 0 2290
12.53376 9.8 0 2040
12.61568 10.07 0 1790
12.6976 9.98 0 1990
12.77952 9.97 0 2180
12.86144 9.97 0 2160
12.94336 10 0 2130
13.02528 10 0 2110
13.1072 9.97 0 2080
13.18912 9.85 0 2140
13.27104 9.75 0 2190
13.35296 9.57 0 2220
13.43488 9.47 0 2250
13.5168 9.54 0 2280
13.59872 10.11 0 2310
13.68064 10.64 0 2350
13.76256 11.3 0 2380
13.84448 11.47 0 2410
13.9264 11.69 0 2440
14.00832 11.82 0 2470
14.09024 11.98 0 2500
14.17216 12.08 0 2530
14.25408 12.29 0 2560
14.336 12.32 0 2620
14.41792 12.41 0 2680
14.49984 12.42 0 2720
14.58176 12.38 0 2750
14.66368 12.3 0 2780
14.7456 12.14 0 2810
14.82752 12 0 2850
14.90944 11.8 0 2880
14.99136 11.7 0 2920
15.07328 11.66 0 2950
15.1552 11.66 0 2980
15.23712 11.69 0 3000
15.31904 11.67 0 3040
15.40096 11.6 0 3080
15.48288 11.55 0 3110
15.5648 11.6 0 3140
15.64672 11.73 0 3170
15.72864 11.83 0 3200
15.81056 11.85 0 3230
15.89248 11.85 0 3260
15.9744 11.76 0 3300
16.05632 11.7 0 3340
16.13824 11.6 0 3370
16.22016 11.51 0 3400
16.30208 11.48 0 3440
16.384 11.36 0 3470
16.46592 11.29 0 3510
16.54784 11.22 0 3540
16.62976 11.17 0 3580
16.71168 11.17 0 3610
16.7936 11.11 0 3640
16.87552 11.13 0 3670
16.95744 11.13 0 3710
17.03936 11.16 0 3750
17.12128 11.16 0 3780
17.2032 11.16 0 3800
17.28512 11.14 0 3850
17.36704 11.14 0 3900
17.44896 11.13 0 3930
17.53088 11.17 0 3950
17.6128 11.17 0 3970
17.69472 11.29 0 3990
17.77664 11.19 0 4040
17.85856 11.13 0 4080
17.94048 11.11 0 4130
18.0224 11.08 0 4180
18.10432 11.07 0 4210
18.18624 11.04 0 4240
18.26816 10.95 0 4280
18.35008 10.92 0 4320
18.432 10.76 0 4350
18.51392 10.79 0 4380
18.59584 10.75 0 4420
18.67776 10.67 0 4450
18.75968 10.55 0 4490
18.8416 10.54 0 4530
18.92352 10.5 0 4570
19.00544 10.42 0 4600
19.08736 10.35 0 4640
19.16928 10.3 0 4670
19.2512 10.26 0 4710
19.33312 10.25 0 4740
19.41504 10.2 0 4790
19.49696 10.17 0 4830
19.57888 10.16 0 4870
19.6608 10.13 0 4900
19.74272 10.1 0 4940
19.82464 10.08 0 4970
19.90656 10.08 0 5000
19.98848 10.07 0 5030
20.0704 10.05 0 5080
20.15232 10.04 0 5120
20.23424 10.04 0 5150
20.31616 10.03 0 5180
20.39808 10.03 0 5230
20.48 10.01 0 5280
20.56192 10.01 0 5330
20.64384 10.01 0 5380
20.72576 10.01 0 5410
20.80768 10.01 0 5430
20.8896 10.03 0 5490
20.97152 10.01 0 5540
21.05344 10.01 0 5560
21.13536 10.01 0 5580
21.21728 10.01 0 5610
21.2992 10.01 0 5630
21.38112 10.01 0 5680
21.46304 10.07 0 5720
21.54496 10 0 5760
21.62688 10 0 5790
21.7088 10.01 0 5830
21.79072 10.01 0 5860
21.87264 10.04 0 5900
21.95456 10.04 0 5940
22.03648 9.98 0 5990
22.1184 10.07 0 6030
22.20032 10.08 0 6070
22.28224 10.13 0 6100
22.36416 10.16 0 6140
22.44608 10.2 0 6170
22.528 10.25 0 6210
22.60992 10.29 0 6240
22.69184 10.3 0 6280
22.77376 10.36 0 6310
22.85568 10.36 0 6360
22.9376 10.41 0 6400
23.01952 10.42 0 6450
23.10144 10.47 0 6490
23.18336 10.54 0 6510
23.26528 10.51 0 6530
23.3472 10.54 0 6570
23.42912 10.54 0 6610
23.51104 10.47 0 6650
23.59296 10.6 0 6690
23.67488 10.58 0 6750
23.7568 10.6 0 6800
23.83872 10.58 0 6840
23.92064 10.57 0 6870
24.00256 10.54 0 6900
24.08448 10.53 0 6920
24.1664 10.5 0 6980
24.24832 10.47 0 7040
24.33024 10.45 0 7060
24.41216 10.45 0 7070
24.49408 10.41 0 7130
24.576 10.39 0 7180
24.65792 10.48 0 7210
24.73984 10.42 0 7230
24.82176 10.39 0 7260
24.90368 10.41 0 7290
24.9856 10.35 0 7110
25.06752 10.29 0 6920
25.14944 10.19 0 7020
25.23136 10.14 0 7120
25.31328 10.16 0 7130
25.3952 10.23 0 7130
25.47712 10.38 0 7080
25.55904 10.51 0 7030
25.64096 10.63 0 6980
25.72288 10.73 0 6920
25.8048 10.89 0 6920


This is the Part Throttle AFR record

Session: Session 14
time PSR_AFR_O2 PSR_AFR_RPM PSR_AFR_RPM
(sec) (AFR) (RPM) (RPM)
0 19.37 0 660
0.08192 20.58 0 690
0.16384 22.31 0 710
0.24576 22.39 0 740
0.32768 22.39 0 760
0.4096 22.39 0 790
0.49152 22.39 0 820
0.57344 21.54 0 840
0.65536 19.79 0 860
0.73728 17.38 0 880
0.8192 17.18 0 900
0.90112 16.66 0 920
0.98304 15.86 0 930
1.06496 15.26 0 950
1.14688 14.73 0 960
1.2288 14.29 0 980
1.31072 13.94 0 1000
1.39264 13.63 0 1020
1.47456 13.35 0 1030
1.55648 13.04 0 1040
1.6384 12.89 0 1050
1.72032 12.63 0 1070
1.80224 12.66 0 1080
1.88416 12.51 0 1090
1.96608 12.42 0 1100
2.048 12.41 0 1120
2.12992 12.29 0 1130
2.21184 12.26 0 1140
2.29376 12.2 0 1140
2.37568 12.14 0 1150
2.4576 12.08 0 1160
2.53952 12.05 0 1170
2.62144 12 0 1170
2.70336 11.98 0 1190
2.78528 11.98 0 1210
2.8672 11.94 0 1220
2.94912 11.92 0 1230
3.03104 11.91 0 1240
3.11296 11.91 0 1250
3.19488 12.01 0 1260
3.2768 11.92 0 1270
3.35872 11.95 0 1280
3.44064 11.95 0 1280
3.52256 12.13 0 1290
3.60448 12.04 0 1300
3.6864 12.08 0 1310
3.76832 12.14 0 1320
3.85024 12.19 0 1330
3.93216 12.25 0 1340
4.01408 12.29 0 1350
4.096 12.36 0 1360
4.17792 12.42 0 1380
4.25984 12.51 0 1390
4.34176 12.6 0 1410
4.42368 12.73 0 1430
4.5056 12.94 0 1440
4.58752 13.1 0 1450
4.66944 13.27 0 1470
4.75136 13.38 0 1490
4.83328 13.57 0 1530
4.9152 13.63 0 1560
4.99712 13.7 0 1570
5.07904 13.64 0 1570
5.16096 13.6 0 1600
5.24288 13.41 0 1620
5.3248 13.35 0 1650
5.40672 13.02 0 1670
5.48864 12.92 0 1690
5.57056 12.86 0 1710
5.65248 12.86 0 1730
5.7344 12.88 0 1750
5.81632 12.88 0 1770
5.89824 12.89 0 1790
5.98016 12.88 0 1820
6.06208 12.86 0 1840
6.144 12.85 0 1870
6.22592 12.82 0 1900
6.30784 12.74 0 1930
6.38976 13.01 0 1950
6.47168 13.05 0 1890
6.5536 12.8 0 1820
6.63552 12.69 0 1980
6.71744 11.85 0 2130
6.79936 11.35 0 2220
6.88128 11.1 0 2310
6.9632 10.76 0 2130
7.04512 10.64 0 1950
7.12704 10.53 0 2070
7.20896 10.5 0 2180
7.29088 10.47 0 2290
7.3728 10.39 0 2400
7.45472 10.51 0 2420
7.53664 10.5 0 2430
7.61856 10.47 0 2450
7.70048 10.58 0 2470
7.7824 10.72 0 2490
7.86432 10.85 0 2510
7.94624 11.02 0 2540
8.02816 11.54 0 2570
8.11008 12.08 0 2600
8.192 12.41 0 2630
8.27392 12.67 0 2660
8.35584 12.66 0 2690
8.43776 12.57 0 2730
8.51968 12.38 0 2770
8.6016 12.36 0 2810
8.68352 12.35 0 2840
8.76544 12.41 0 2880
8.84736 12.45 0 2920
8.92928 12.51 0 2950
9.0112 12.55 0 2970
9.09312 12.57 0 3010
9.17504 12.49 0 3040
9.25696 12.44 0 3070
9.33888 12.42 0 3090
9.4208 12.39 0 3120
9.50272 12.44 0 3150
9.58464 12.42 0 3190
9.66656 12.52 0 3220
9.74848 12.51 0 3260
9.8304 12.58 0 3290
9.91232 12.61 0 3330
9.99424 12.67 0 3360
10.07616 12.7 0 3390
10.15808 12.79 0 3420
10.24 12.82 0 3460
10.32192 12.82 0 3490
10.40384 12.8 0 3530
10.48576 12.79 0 3570
10.56768 12.85 0 3600
10.6496 12.85 0 3630
10.73152 12.89 0 3670
10.81344 12.92 0 3710
10.89536 12.92 0 3740
10.97728 12.88 0 3770
11.0592 12.86 0 3810
11.14112 12.89 0 3850
11.22304 12.95 0 3890
11.30496 13.01 0 3920
11.38688 13.02 0 3950
11.4688 13.04 0 3980
11.55072 13.07 0 4020
11.63264 13.1 0 4050
11.71456 13.13 0 4090
11.79648 13.17 0 4120
11.8784 13.22 0 4160
11.96032 13.27 0 4200
12.04224 13.26 0 4240
12.12416 13.27 0 4280
12.20608 13.36 0 4310
12.288 13.41 0 4330
12.36992 13.44 0 4410
12.45184 13.49 0 4480
12.53376 13.51 0 4540
12.61568 13.55 0 4590
12.6976 13.66 0 4610
12.77952 13.73 0 4630
12.86144 13.73 0 4640
12.94336 13.79 0 4640
13.02528 13.83 0 4680
13.1072 13.82 0 4720
13.18912 13.83 0 4760
13.27104 13.86 0 4790
13.35296 13.83 0 4820
13.43488 13.91 0 4850
13.5168 13.89 0 4880
13.59872 13.92 0 4910
13.68064 13.77 0 4950
13.76256 13.94 0 4980
13.84448 13.98 0 5030
13.9264 13.92 0 5070
14.00832 13.97 0 5100
14.09024 13.98 0 5130
14.17216 13.98 0 5160
14.25408 14.17 0 5190
14.336 13.98 0 5220
14.41792 14.24 0 5250
14.49984 14.08 0 5280
14.58176 14.2 0 5310
14.66368 14.21 0 5340
14.7456 14.26 0 5370
14.82752 14.33 0 5410
14.90944 14.39 0 5440
14.99136 14.39 0 5480
15.07328 14.45 0 5510
15.1552 14.74 0 5540
15.23712 14.55 0 5560
15.31904 14.33 0 5600
15.40096 14.57 0 5640
15.48288 14.44 0 5660
15.5648 14.58 0 5680
15.64672 14.69 0 5720
15.72864 14.71 0 5750
15.81056 14.61 0 5790
15.89248 14.67 0 5820
15.9744 14.67 0 5860
16.05632 14.74 0 5890
16.13824 14.74 0 5920
16.22016 14.79 0 5950
16.30208 14.88 0 5980
16.384 14.91 0 6000
16.46592 14.91 0 6040
16.54784 14.83 0 6070
16.62976 14.82 0 6110
16.71168 14.95 0 6140
16.7936 15.02 0 6180
16.87552 14.95 0 6210
16.95744 14.79 0 6250
17.03936 14.71 0 6290
17.12128 14.94 0 6330
17.2032 14.55 0 6360
17.28512 14.74 0 6380
17.36704 14.91 0 6400
17.44896 15.1 0 6440
17.53088 15.08 0 6470
17.6128 15.1 0 6500
17.69472 14.74 0 6520
17.77664 14.99 0 6560
17.85856 14.96 0 6590
17.94048 14.91 0 6620
18.0224 15.1 0 6650
18.10432 15.08 0 6690
18.18624 15.07 0 6720
18.26816 14.95 0 6750
18.35008 14.86 0 6770
18.432 14.94 0 6810
18.51392 14.7 0 6850
18.59584 14.96 0 6880
18.67776 14.49 0 6910
18.75968 14.74 0 6910
18.8416 14.83 0 6910
18.92352 14.51 0 6950
19.00544 14.7 0 6980
19.08736 14.66 0 7020
19.16928 14.63 0 7050
19.2512 14.63 0 7090
19.33312 14.61 0 7130
19.41504 14.52 0 7160
19.49696 14.55 0 7180
19.57888 14.61 0 7220
19.6608 14.51 0 7260
19.74272 14.54 0 7260
19.82464 14.52 0 7260
19.90656 14.55 0 7100
19.98848 14.8 0 6940
20.0704 16.58 0 6690
20.15232 16.8 0 6430
20.23424 16.92 0 6190
20.31616 17.42 0 5940
20.39808 17.04 0 5570
20.48 17.21 0 5200
20.56192 17.15 0 5160
20.64384 17.21 0 5120
20.72576 17.18 0 5040
20.80768 17.17 0 4960
20.8896 17.26 0 4930
20.97152 17.3 0 4900
21.05344 17.43 0 4840
21.13536 17.63 0 4780
21.21728 17.86 0 4720
21.2992 17.83 0 4650
21.38112 18.24 0 4600
21.46304 18.39 0 4540
21.54496 18.71 0 4460
21.62688 18.79 0 4380
21.7088 19.15 0 4310
21.79072 19.39 0 4240
21.87264 19.8 0 4190
21.95456 20.29 0 4140
22.03648 20.61 0 4000
22.1184 21.08 0 3850
22.20032 21.39 0 3700
22.28224 21.74 0 3550
22.36416 22.14 0 3410
22.44608 22.39 0 3260
22.528 22.39 0 3130
22.60992 22.39 0 2990
22.69184 22.39 0 2860
22.77376 22.39 0 2720
22.85568 22.39 0 2580
22.9376 22.39 0 2430
23.01952 22.39 0 2170
23.10144 22.39 0 1900
23.18336 22.39 0 1830
23.26528 22.39 0 1750
23.3472 22.39 0 1660
23.42912 22.39 0 1560
23.51104 22.39 0 1480
23.59296 22.39 0 1390
23.67488 22.39 0 1340
23.7568 22.39 0 1290
23.83872 22.39 0 1270
23.92064 22.39 0 1240
24.00256 22.39 0 1220
24.08448 22.39 0 1200
24.1664 22.39 0 1190
24.24832 22.39 0 1170
24.33024 22.39 0 1150
24.41216 22.39 0 1130
24.49408 22.39 0 1120
24.576 22.39 0 1100
24.65792 22.39 0 1090
24.73984 22.39 0 1070
24.82176 22.39 0 1060
24.90368 22.39 0 1040
24.9856 22.39 0 1030
25.06752 22.39 0 1010
25.14944 22.39 0 1010


I would also like to make mention of the allegation that the engine was in a closed loop operating cycle and over fueling due to the cams being out of alignment.
It is important that one takes into consideration that the engine ecu upon startup will go into a pre-programed pattern where a specific amount of fuel is used to idle the engine with no particular reference to sensors.
Once the engine has warmed up it then relies on the following to determine what quantity of fuel will be required:
Crank position
Exhaust cam position
Inlet cam position
Throttle position
MAF
Air intake temperature sensor
Coolant temperature sensor
Exhaust gas temperature sensor
On the proviso that the engine has gone out of the “fast idle” cycle it settles down from its preset running to an active monitoring program where info from all the sensors is used to record the engine load and air intake and thus, the appropriate fuel.

So provided the cams and crank are within a range recognized by the ecu the ecu will supply the fuel for that specific operating range.
The assertion that the engine was in a constant closed loop state is erroneous for as soon as the engine warmed up it would naturally seek signals and reference markers from the cams crank O2 sensors as well as throttle and in the ALPHA N cars the air temp sensor
If the signal from the cams did not correlate with the crankshaft, the engine would go into fail safe mode and the EML would shine like a beacon….that would obviously preclude the car from annihilating a Porsche as well as an SRT V8 Chrysler as well as many other unfortunates including a normally aspirated car that belonged to an active member.

In closing I have oversimplified the operation for the sake of keeping it simple however the substance would be the same even if I were to go into the minutiae of the monitoring/fuel supply.

In closing this will be my last post on the matter and I invite those of you who have questions to contact me via p.m. sms whatsap e-mail telephone or a visit to my home. You shall be most welcome irrespective of who it is and I will to the best of my ability address your concerns.

On my next post I shall cover the question of the cam setting however I need to gather a number of photographs to illustrate my point. I ask for your indulgence in affording me the opportunity to do so.

 

[Jizza24]

Peter can u work on toyota?

 

[RAArmstrong]

Peter can u work on toyota?

Please make your own separate thread or privately contact Peter as this isn't pertinent to this thread :thumbs:

 

[Crash_Nemesis]

Response pending.

 

[Willy]

This was a good read.

And as I said, there is a very slim chance a guy in another country can tune a car for our fuel and our conditions, it will never be perfect.

And also as I stated to many people worked on this car to point fingers.

 

[Burgy]

Im going to step in here, not to add to this thread, back anyone up or challange anyone, but to say:

Willy, stop poking the fire. Your comments are not helping in any way.

Oh, and 80% of tuning companies in this country get their files from overseas. They also have much success with them. Remote tuning is do able and done by many people.

The tuners tune for our conditions, ie Fuel etc. So please stop posting rubbish, it shows your complete lack of understanding of how tuning works.

/Rant over

 

[Crash_Nemesis]

Thank you Peter for your in depth response.

Firstly, you simply admit to not putting in a chain tensioner guide rail as if it wasn't important. You are crazy to just think that admitting your mistake absconds you from ridicule. Ofcourse it is important, regardless of your rpm, your chain needs to me tightened. The whole thing with the tensioner guide rail is that, its their to take up the slack. If your crank is turning faster than the cams, the chain needs to keep the cams in sync, and when you suddenly take your foot off the acceleration, the crank will spin slower than the cams, and there is going to be slack that needs to be accounted for. This could lead to a catastrophic failure if timing were to be out of sync. If it wasn't important, BMW wouldn't have sought fit to installed the guide rails. Seeing the forest for the trees or not Peter, this is unacceptable as you say only under extreme stress would it pose a problem. What did you think we were going to do with the car? It was being supercharged? It was going to see ample amounts of stress. It absolutely needed the guide rail.

In response to your power steering excuse. You said "However my lack of hands on experience with superchargers and not tardiness was the underlying reason for the bolt vibrating loose." - What rubbish. The power steering pump has absolutely nothing to do with the supercharger setup. You install is exactly the same way you would whether a supercharger is installed or not. This is a poor excuse, even by your standards. I do not care what you say Peter, once the bolt was tightened correctly, the belts never came off again. Try use fancy words or blame the supercharger all you want, this is unacceptable. But, the main reason I was annoyed with the power steering pump scenario, was the way you treated me. You refused to accept the possibility of the pump not being installed correctly. Can you not understand this? Is this how you treat all paying customers? When you make a mistake, you tell them over a 1 hour phone call how their eyes are skew, or that the brand new pump they have bought is broken/faulty and it is impossible that the pump was installed incorrectly? I'm sorry Peter, but blaming it on your lack of working with a Supercharger will not work. No one here is that dumb to believe that story.

Secondly, with all due respect Peter, you are wrong about the car throwing an EML light when an exhaust cam is out of alignment. Even if one were to remove the exhaust cam sensor and the o2 sensor, the car will not throw an EML light. I know this because I tried this on the car. I disconnected my cam sensor from the ECU loom and the car still did not throw an EML light. All that will happen is the car will remain in OPEN LOOP, not closed loop as you said so above, and the car will over fuel.

Also thank you for updating us with the first set of AFR's that were logged in the car in June of last year. I was so hoping that you would. This only proves that the car was running rich, and not why it was running rich. No one is disputing that the car was overfueling, that is the one thing that everyone is in agreement on here. Its like saying we both agree that the car is carbon black.

Let me remind everyone that these AFR readings that were posted are before the car had cam timing adjusted. At this time, the car was throwing o2 sensor and vanos adaptation errors. By peters admission, the Alpha n tune file needs information from the o2 sensors to make adjustments to the air fuel mixture. Without those adjustments, the tune file is blind. The car remains in OPEN LOOP, not closed loop as Peter mentioned above, this just goes to show Pete actually does not know what he is talking about.

Those AFR readings only prove what I have said all along, that the car was overfueling.

But let me also mention something, because Peter said "Therefore an AFR of 9:1 would mean that the engine would be fed with an excessive amount of fuel which would lead to a dilution of the oil in the sump as not all the fuel will be burned. A ratio of 15:1 would mean an inadequate amount of fuel leading to excessive heat on the crown of the piston as well as the top compression ring and could lead to broken rings and ring lands." What is your source? Where did you read that 9:1 will cause these effects to an engine? Please post sources to back your claims? I have read hundreds of threads that state different opinions on AFR ratings and what is considered too rich and what is considered too lean.

AFR of 10:1 is what is considered safe rich, and is used to keep an engine from detonation during forced induction application. It will not cause borewash. Many tuners use such low AFR's to keep an untuned car safe during logging. But, I digress, driving a car with such low ratios for a lengthy time is probably not a good idea, but that brings me back to the point I made in a previous comment. The car could never get a revised file because the o2 sensor were not working because the cars timing was out. Let me say it a third time so people like Willy who read to respond, and not read to listen. The car could not get a revised tune file because the cam timing was out and this caused o2 errors.

I can back up these claims. Here is one source, which takes its explanation from Bosch.

"Bosch state that most spark ignition engines develop their maximum power at air/fuel ratios of 12.5:1 - 14:1, maximum fuel economy at 16.2:1 - 17.6:1, and good load transitions from about 11:1 - 12.5:1. However, in practical applications, engine air/fuel ratios at maximum power are often richer than the quoted 12.5:1, especially in forced induction engines where the excess fuel is used to cool combustion and so prevent detonation."

"In the engine operating range from peak torque to peak power, a naturally aspirated engine should be slightly leaner at about 13:1, with the forced induction factory engine about 12:1 and an aftermarket supercharged engine staying at about 11:1." - Source 1 - Source 2

Now, I have some logs that I would like to share with the forum. These logs are from after the cams were timed correctly. I never shared these logs with Peter when we did them in December of 2014. I will share them with you below.

7.45472,12.73,0,1980
7.53664,12.29,0,1970
7.61856,12.01,0,1980
7.70048,12.13,0,1990
7.78240,11.55,0,2070
7.86432,10.72,0,2150
7.94624,10.19,0,2110
8.02816,9.78,0,2060
8.11008,9.29,0,2110
8.19200,9.11,0,2160
8.27392,9.00,0,2210
8.35584,9.03,0,2260
8.43776,9.17,0,2290
8.51968,9.54,0,2320
8.60160,10.13,0,2340
8.68352,10.78,0,2360
8.76544,10.89,0,2400
8.84736,11.14,0,2440
8.92928,11.20,0,2470
9.01120,11.23,0,2500
9.09312,11.25,0,2540
9.17504,11.35,0,2580
9.25696,11.48,0,2660
9.33888,11.57,0,2730
9.42080,11.51,0,2760
9.50272,11.60,0,2790
9.58464,11.45,0,2830
9.66656,11.26,0,2870
9.74848,11.07,0,2900
9.83040,10.85,0,2930
9.91232,10.79,0,2970
9.99424,10.75,0,3000
10.07616,10.70,0,3030
10.15808,10.66,0,3060
10.24000,10.61,0,3100
10.32192,10.64,0,3130
10.40384,10.75,0,3170
10.48576,11.07,0,3210
10.56768,10.98,0,3250
10.64960,10.98,0,3280
10.73152,10.95,0,3310
10.81344,10.86,0,3340
10.89536,10.80,0,3380
10.97728,10.75,0,3420
11.05920,10.69,0,3470
11.14112,10.69,0,3520
11.22304,10.67,0,3550
11.30496,10.66,0,3580
11.38688,10.64,0,3620
11.46880,10.66,0,3650
11.55072,10.66,0,3700
11.63264,10.66,0,3740
11.71456,10.70,0,3780
11.79648,10.69,0,3810
11.87840,10.67,0,3840
11.96032,10.69,0,3870
12.04224,10.69,0,3920
12.12416,10.67,0,3970
12.20608,10.60,0,4010
12.28800,10.66,0,4050
12.36992,10.60,0,4100
12.45184,10.60,0,4140
12.53376,10.58,0,4180
12.61568,10.54,0,4210
12.69760,10.48,0,4250
12.77952,10.42,0,4290
12.86144,10.38,0,4340
12.94336,10.36,0,4380
13.02528,10.36,0,4420
13.10720,10.34,0,4460
13.18912,10.24,0,4510
13.27104,10.26,0,4550
13.35296,10.28,0,4590
13.43488,10.26,0,4630
13.51680,10.22,0,4720
13.59872,10.21,0,4810
13.68064,10.19,0,4820
13.76256,10.17,0,4830
13.84448,10.15,0,4860
13.92640,10.17,0,4880
14.00832,10.14,0,4920
14.09024,10.18,0,4960
14.17216,10.15,0,5000
14.25408,10.13,0,5030
14.33600,10.15,0,5090
14.41792,10.12,0,5140
14.49984,10.09,0,5190
14.58176,9.88,0,5230
14.66368,9.89,0,5280
14.74560,9.85,0,5320
14.82752,9.90,0,5370
14.90944,9.95,0,5420
14.99136,9.97,0,5460
15.07328,9.99,0,5500
15.15520,9.80,0,5560
15.23712,9.82,0,5610
15.31904,9.85,0,5640
15.40096,9.83,0,5670
15.48288,9.88,0,5720
15.56480,10.03,0,5770
15.64672,10.01,0,5810
15.72864,10.02,0,5840
15.81056,10.04,0,5900
15.89248,10.03,0,5950
15.97440,10.05,0,6000
16.05632,10.06,0,6040
16.13824,10.07,0,6090
16.22016,10.09,0,6140
16.30208,10.11,0,6190
16.38400,10.13,0,6240
16.46592,10.13,0,6290
16.54784,10.19,0,6340
16.62976,10.22,0,6380
16.71168,10.28,0,6420
16.79360,10.28,0,6460
16.87552,10.36,0,6500
16.95744,10.50,0,6560
17.03936,10.35,0,6610
17.12128,10.45,0,6650
17.20320,10.50,0,6690
17.28512,10.53,0,6750
17.36704,10.60,0,6800
17.44896,10.60,0,6800
17.53088,10.61,0,6800
17.61280,10.94,0,6860
17.69472,10.73,0,6910
17.77664,10.80,0,6940
17.85856,10.89,0,6960
17.94048,10.89,0,7000
18.02240,10.94,0,7040
18.10432,11.04,0,7090
18.18624,11.07,0,7140
18.26816,11.13,0,7200
18.35008,11.11,0,7250
18.43200,11.35,0,7290
18.51392,11.25,0,7320
18.59584,11.29,0,7360
18.67776,11.29,0,7400
18.75968,11.13,0,7490
18.84160,11.85,0,7570
18.92352,12.20,0,7290
19.00544,12.29,0,7010
19.08736,12.07,0,6700 - End of run.
19.16928,12.14,0,6390
19.25120,12.11,0,5800
19.33312,11.92,0,5200
19.41504,11.92,0,5270
19.49696,11.85,0,5340
19.57888,11.72,0,5310
19.66080,11.66,0,5280
19.74272,11.75,0,5070
19.82464,11.78,0,4860
19.90656,11.85,0,4690
19.98848,11.92,0,4510
20.07040,11.97,0,4350
20.15232,12.10,0,4190
20.23424,12.23,0,4020
20.31616,12.30,0,3840
20.39808,12.48,0,3680
20.48000,12.60,0,3520
20.56192,12.75,0,3390
20.64384,12.91,0,3250
20.72576,13.05,0,3120
20.80768,13.19,0,2980
20.88960,13.39,0,2850
20.97152,13.57,0,2710
21.05344,13.70,0,2590
21.13536,13.88,0,2460
21.21728,14.04,0,2340
21.29920,14.54,0,2220
21.38112,14.83,0,2100

One can see during this run, the car reaches an AFR of 12.29:1 at 7010rpm. I am not sure why we only ran to 7000rpm, but I would imagine that once the car hit 8000rpm, we would be 12.5:1 which is smack bang exactly what you want for best performance on a supercharged application. This is an improvement over the AFR reading of 10.19:1 at 7020rpm before cam timing was done.

After cam timing was done, the car was running predominantly 10:1 - 12:1. Exactly as should be with a base file. But when the cam timing was out, the car ran 9:1 to 11:1, as one can see in Peter's post. Still within acceptable AFR readings, as mentioned in the source above. Is it too rich to cause bore wash? Maybe, but the point I am trying to make here is that A) the cam timing issue did cause the car to run more rich and that B) I could not get a revised tune file from the tuner until we fixed the issue with the 02 sensors and cam timing.

Peter, I invite you to actually read the second source so you can actually understand fuel ratios, tuning and what 02 sensor and temperature sensors are used for during tuning. You called it closed loop when the car fails to use the sensors, when in actually fact, it is called OPEN LOOP. This shows you don't know what you are talking about.

In simplification, what I am posting here just proves that the cam timing caused the car to run more rich. If it is proven that the car did infact suffer from bore wash (I still believe this is unlikely) I would like it to go down on record that as admitted by Peter, the car ran more rich before the cams were correctly timed.

I invite all of you to research the sources I have provided and study to effects of OPEN LOOP on a car.

---

Video of Cam timing issue, the errors found on the car, and chain guide tensioner missing.

[align=center][video=youtube]

---

Also, I wish to mention the second set of AFR's that peter posted, session 14, are during partial throttle. Which is every day driving conditions. Not driving the car hard, but instead, driving the car as one would during a normal commute to their destination.

You can see that the car is not overfueling in these conditions. Only once the car runs hard acceleration, did it overfuel. This leads me to believe the tune file was safe to drive with, even when the cam timing was so badly out of alignment.

I still find this story of bore wash to be unlikely.

Needless to say, the engine is now out of the car as of today. Tomorrow morning we open her and discover what horrors await.

 

[Crash_Nemesis]

And also as I stated to many people worked on this car to point fingers.

Willy.. two people worked on this car before the cam timing was sorted out. One being Peter who was responsible for building the engine and all maintenance, the other being Burgy, who installed the supercharger and tune file. No one else touched this car.

Please know the facts before you comment. Thanks.

 

[zaleonardz]

Fuck this is so sad.

 

[flyitlikearental]

Chris, running at 10:1 is considered safe for an occasional drag run bro, run it like that continuously will cause a bit of bore wash. I am of the, possibly corrupt, opinion that you could have broken a ring land caused by detonation on the cylinders that lost compression. Where was your ignition timing? These things run hell of an aggressive spark lead, so without retarding the spark timing you are playing it a bit dangerous. Just my 2c


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Crash_Nemesis]

Could possibly be that. Like I said, I am open to any possibility, not just Peter's bore wash story. Have a read on some forums about what some guys are running. Many have 10:1. Depending on what the temp sensor reads, sometimes more fuel is required to keep a slow burn and keep ignition cool. It's a kak way to save an engine but it works. But the likelihood of detonation at such a rich AFR is unlikely. It can happen, but the car has knock sensors for a reason and will pull back timing, especially on a base file. I was assured of this and asked about detonation and timing. None the less, we'll find out in the morning.

PS. Read my previous post again, when the cam timing was fixed, the car was running between 10-12:1 AFR at wide open throttle.

Had the cams never been set incorrectly, would we be in this situation? No, because I would have got an accurate AFR on the first logging attempt and I would have got my proper tune file right away. Instead we sat messing around with Vanos and power steering pumps trying to figure out why the car was throwing serpentine belts and codes. But, if the car has broken a ring land, or bore wash, who is responsible? The tune file? Or the engine builder? If the cam timing caused the 02 sensors to not function correctly, which in turn causes the tune file to not do its job and make the correct air fuel mix, who do I blame?

Lastly, I work from home, the car barely gets driven as is. In a year and 8 months the car has done 9000km since the rebuild, of which less than half of that was supercharged. As seen in Peter's post, when the car is driven in normal conditions (Partial throttle), the AFR's are more than safe (between 12-14:1 AFR). You make it sound like I raced the car nightly. I think I have a few witnesses that will testify that the few BMW runs that I did attend, the car never saw high rpm pulls. Instead, she would tuck into formation and just follow. If there were 4 races in my time of being supercharged, they were alot.

Thanks Fly.

 

[Lysis]

At this stage I'd like to post in the hopes of receiving more input from Chris. Before I proceed, I'd like to make it clear that I have not been associated with Axis for just over a year and a half and the views that I post here in no way reflect those of Axis. I'd also like to point out, in the interest of avoiding confusion, that I have requested a username change which is at the time of writing still being processed.

Chris, just so you know I'll be writing this post in the style of quoting from certain posts and giving my input below. I do this to make the flow of the discussion easier for all to follow.

It is easy for someone to call me biased after reading the following, but please trust me that I am honestly being unbiased and factual.

You ask here for trust that you are being unbiased, yet many of your posts indicate the opposite. I submit the following as proof:

What rubbish. The power steering pump has absolutely nothing to do with the supercharger setup. You install is exactly the same way you would whether a supercharger is installed or not. This is a poor excuse, even by your standards. I do not care what you say Peter, once the bolt was tightened correctly, the belts never came off again.

This would indicate that you are in fact posting from a position of bias, the bias of having made your mind up about exactly who is to blame. This is well within your rights, but please do not try to pass it off as impartial. I think we should all understand from the start that you are not posting from a coldly analytical position.

Again I submit:

The videos immortalized Peter
...
Spiro's eyes lit up...

This is emotive language and has no place in a discussion of facts. Again, you are within your rights, provided you are not trying to pass your posting off as 'merely stating fact'.

Can you please explain to me why Burgy's offer of restitution is praised when similar offers from Peter are cast aside, ignored and cast (by you) in the mold of being underhanded?
For example you complained in a post of yours that the Vanos unit on your car was not the original one. This was addressed by Peter where he stated:

With regard to the vanos oil pump it is worth noting the fact that I changed the complete vanos body pistons pump covers bolts and solenoid on the engine after the first set of errors we experienced with the vanos That was done and Christopher was informed of the change. The change was done at no charge for the new body .I wanted to eliminate any potential errors. Should you wish your old unit back I have it here available for you and will refit it free of charge as I cannot use it on another car as I am suspect of it.
Vanos units have an A and B oil pump disc and one cannot mix the discs with the shafts.

You go on in your video above to accuse Peter of dishonestly fitting a Vanos unit belonging to another member on your car. Clearly this is not the case as you were:
1) Made aware of the change before it occured
2) Were not charged
3) Were just now offered your original unit back and fitted at no cost to yourself

Somehow you seem to have missed all this, but I suppose that it shouldn't come as a surprise seeing as you have also omitted other pertinent facts. I give to you an example of what I'm talking about.
You posted a Whatsapp conversation with Peter addressing the initial discovery of cam timing issues and held it up as evidence of mistreatment. What you failed to mention was that immediately after that message you conversed telephonically with Peter and during that conversation Peter offered to come out and see the car as it sat and either rectify the timing himself or pay your mechanic for his labour to do the same. You also omitted that you declined this offer.

Incidentally, posting private telephone conversations on a public forum without first consulting the other party is some poor form. I'm sure that had you asked, Peter would have been more than willing to oblige your request to post it up nonetheless.

Next, you are bringing forth your evidence to support mistimed cams causing overfueling. On your assertion that overfueling from misaligned cams could cause the car to lose compression you are accusing Peter of being responsible for your engine's failure. However, in your last post you state;

If it is proven that the car did infact suffer from bore wash (I still believe this is unlikely)…

It seems to me that you are not making a consistent argument as you remain unconvinced of it yourself.
In fact, would you mind elaborating on what exactly you believe the cause of the failure to be? I think it fair to say that building a case which you are unconvinced of yourself, without offering up your own thoughts on the cause of failure, could be construed as accusatory at best and pernicious at worst.

Finally Chris, I don't make a living from working on people's cars and neither have I asked compensation from working on other's cars for a very long time so I consider myself to be amatuerish in my understanding of the intricacies of O2 sensor operation. So I took you up on your invitation to Peter and read from both your sources.
Can you tell me why it is that you believe the stock BMW Bosch O2 sensors will be able to provide accurate AFR readings when your second source says :

The stock narrowband (a.k.a. NBO2) O2 sensors used on Miatas (and most other cars for that matter) are designed to operate in a narrow temperature and air/fuel ratio range close to stoichiometric combustion. Once a car using forced induction starts making boost, the exhaust temperatures and corresponding air/fuel ratios get high enough to make the reading from the O2 sensor inaccurate.

Can you please also explain why it is that O2 error codes on your car would:
1) Prevent you from correctly logging your AFRs (my understanding being that Alpha-N AFR logging is usually done through the use of an exhaust sniffer independent of the car’s O2 sensors).
2) Prevent you from loading the correct tune file once completed, or for that matter not cause you to stop driving the car after realising that there was a mapping issue.
You have not elaborated on why it might be that the engine would lose compression only after having allegedly corrected the timing and rich running. Nor have you elaborated on why it was that after correcting the rich/lean running issue you still as at April this year not uploaded the correct tune file.
On that note, and this is my final question, what is it that makes you think the partial load map was safe to drive the car on? Let us for a minute set aside the rich running condition and focus on the lean running spots in that log. Running the car lean, I’m sure, is universally agreed to be far more dangerous than rich running. This being due to the heat generated with insufficient fuel in the cylinders. That initial partial load log has AFR values running into the 20s, this would have been a cause of much concern for me if the car were mine. I certainly would have parked it until I was certain I’d resolved any issues. Setting aside the fact that the AFRs were not correct, why would anybody be so careless as to perform multiple wide open throttle drag races against other vehicles when the car had a base map?
I look forward to hearing from you, Chris, as I’m sure you will be able to provide us with your insight.

---

At this stage I'd like to post in the hopes of receiving more input from Chris. Before I proceed, I'd like to make it clear that I have not been associated with Axis for just over a year and a half and the views that I post here in no way reflect those of Axis. I'd also like to point out, in the interest of avoiding confusion, that I have requested a username change which is at the time of writing still being processed.

Chris, just so you know I'll be writing this post in the style of quoting from certain posts and giving my input below. I do this to make the flow of the discussion easier for all to follow.

It is easy for someone to call me biased after reading the following, but please trust me that I am honestly being unbiased and factual.

You ask here for trust that you are being unbiased, yet many of your posts indicate the opposite. I submit the following as proof:

What rubbish. The power steering pump has absolutely nothing to do with the supercharger setup. You install is exactly the same way you would whether a supercharger is installed or not. This is a poor excuse, even by your standards. I do not care what you say Peter, once the bolt was tightened correctly, the belts never came off again.

This would indicate that you are in fact posting from a position of bias, the bias of having made your mind up about exactly who is to blame. This is well within your rights, but please do not try to pass it off as impartial. I think we should all understand from the start that you are not posting from a coldly analytical position.

Again I submit:

The videos immortalized Peter
...
Spiro's eyes lit up...

This is emotive language and has no place in a discussion of facts. Again, you are within your rights, provided you are not trying to pass your posting off as 'merely stating fact'.

Can you please explain to me why Burgy's offer of restitution is praised when similar offers from Peter are cast aside, ignored and cast (by you) in the mold of being underhanded?
For example you complained in a post of yours that the Vanos unit on your car was not the original one. This was addressed by Peter where he stated:

With regard to the vanos oil pump it is worth noting the fact that I changed the complete vanos body pistons pump covers bolts and solenoid on the engine after the first set of errors we experienced with the vanos That was done and Christopher was informed of the change. The change was done at no charge for the new body .I wanted to eliminate any potential errors. Should you wish your old unit back I have it here available for you and will refit it free of charge as I cannot use it on another car as I am suspect of it.
Vanos units have an A and B oil pump disc and one cannot mix the discs with the shafts.

You go on in your video above to accuse Peter of dishonestly fitting a Vanos unit belonging to another member on your car. Clearly this is not the case as you were:
1) Made aware of the change before it occured
2) Were not charged
3) Were just now offered your original unit back and fitted at no cost to yourself

Somehow you seem to have missed all this, but I suppose that it shouldn't come as a surprise seeing as you have also omitted other pertinent facts. I give to you an example of what I'm talking about.
You posted a Whatsapp conversation with Peter addressing the initial discovery of cam timing issues and held it up as evidence of mistreatment. What you failed to mention was that immediately after that message you conversed telephonically with Peter and during that conversation Peter offered to come out and see the car as it sat and either rectify the timing himself or pay your mechanic for his labour to do the same. You also omitted that you declined this offer.

Incidentally, posting private telephone conversations on a public forum without first consulting the other party is some poor form. I'm sure that had you asked, Peter would have been more than willing to oblige your request to post it up nonetheless.

Next, you are bringing forth your evidence to support mistimed cams causing overfueling. On your assertion that overfueling from misaligned cams could cause the car to lose compression you are accusing Peter of being responsible for your engine's failure. However, in your last post you state;

If it is proven that the car did infact suffer from bore wash (I still believe this is unlikely)…

It seems to me that you are not making a consistent argument as you remain unconvinced of it yourself.
In fact, would you mind elaborating on what exactly you believe the cause of the failure to be? I think it fair to say that building a case which you are unconvinced of yourself, without offering up your own thoughts on the cause of failure, could be construed as accusatory at best and pernicious at worst.

Finally Chris, I don't make a living from working on people's cars and neither have I asked compensation from working on other's cars for a very long time so I consider myself to be amatuerish in my understanding of the intricacies of O2 sensor operation. So I took you up on your invitation to Peter and read from both your sources.
Can you tell me why it is that you believe the stock BMW Bosch O2 sensors will be able to provide accurate AFR readings when your second source says :

The stock narrowband (a.k.a. NBO2) O2 sensors used on Miatas (and most other cars for that matter) are designed to operate in a narrow temperature and air/fuel ratio range close to stoichiometric combustion. Once a car using forced induction starts making boost, the exhaust temperatures and corresponding air/fuel ratios get high enough to make the reading from the O2 sensor inaccurate.

Can you please also explain why it is that O2 error codes on your car would:
1) Prevent you from correctly logging your AFRs (my understanding being that Alpha-N AFR logging is usually done through the use of an exhaust sniffer independent of the car’s O2 sensors).
2) Prevent you from loading the correct tune file once completed, or for that matter not cause you to stop driving the car after realising that there was a mapping issue.
You have not elaborated on why it might be that the engine would lose compression only after having allegedly corrected the timing and rich running. Nor have you elaborated on why it was that after correcting the rich/lean running issue you still as at April this year not uploaded the correct tune file.

On that note, and this is my final question, what is it that makes you think the partial load map was safe to drive the car on? Let us for a minute set aside the rich running condition and focus on the lean running spots in that log. Running the car lean, I’m sure, is universally agreed to be far more dangerous than rich running. This being due to the heat generated with insufficient fuel in the cylinders. That initial partial load log has AFR values running into the 20s, this would have been a cause of much concern for me if the car were mine. I certainly would have parked it until I was certain I’d resolved any issues. Setting aside the fact that the AFRs were not correct, why would anybody be so careless as to perform multiple wide open throttle drag races against other vehicles when the car had a base map?

I look forward to hearing from you, Chris, as I’m sure you will be able to provide us with your insight.

 

[BillyBob]

Chris, for starters, my heartfelt condolences for your troubles.

A few observations though, if I may...

If there was an issue with the honing or the rings seating, you'd have known about it early on after the rebuild - the car would have been smoking excessively.

You're cherry-picking AFR's from your "after-timing-was-corrected" log - that 12.29 figure at 7010 RPM was on coast down already... you can't seriously be quoting it as an improvement? End of run was the moment they hit 7500 RPM - if your next reading is a lower RPM figure, your run's over, and you've come of the throttle either partially or altogether.

If anything, on the second AFR log, the car is in fact running richer overall, staying in the 10's (and briefly dipping into the 9's) all the way between 3000-7000 RPM... whereas the AFR's held in the 11's till past 4000 RPM before the timing was corrected.

Now, even if the ECU wasn't switching into closed loop mode due to O2 sensor and vanos adaptation errors, by your own admission, the AFR curve for partial throttle seemed perfectly safe (barring the initial lean state at low RPM, but be that as it may)

The moment you put your foot down and go WOT (wide-open-throttle), the car switches into open loop, on a set map and functions determined by the map - reading values from load sites and running compensation maps... Vanos / cam timing issues aside, it was clear that the car was over-fueling - if nothing else, the tuner should have sent you an interim file to at least get the AFR's into the mid-to-low 11's at WOT and then fine tuned it from there once you got the Vanos / timing issues sorted.

You're also cherry-picking and taking liberties with regards to your interpretation of air-fuel ratios... 10:1 is not "perfectly safe", especially not throughout the bulk of the rev range. It's rich - only applicable under high boost situations, at high RPM, to combat detonation in the most extreme of circumstances.

Compression rings seal better with high loads - as such, a brief 1500-2000 RPM stint of 10:1 is permissible at high RPM when you're boosting at crazy levels- and only as a safety margin, because knock sensors don't really work from 5500 RPM upwards.
Running 10:1 between 2000-5000 RPM? It's loading a slow-spinning motor where the rings aren't fully sealing... It's asinine of your tuner to allow that - regardless of what Vanos / O2 errors the car was throwing.

A) You have a knock sensor to pull timing or add fuel if it detects knocking
B) It's a centrifugal charger, making relatively tame boost at those RPMs
C) There are ways of upping the octane - water meth, race fuel, octane booster...

Why the hell run that rich?

Go look at forums... Scoobies or Evo's as a prime example - both motors that demand octane and rich AFR's... guys will tell you to aim for low 11's, and that 10's are too rich, ruining gas mileage and killing piston rings. Very aggressive builds with silly boost will advocate running 10's, but only from 5000 RPM upwards.

I'm not going to debate the number of races or the way in which you've driven the car... but suffice to say that 3500-4000 km while supercharged and running super rich at WOT is more than sufficient to stuff up bores & rings, and quite possibly the rings as well in the event that you don't at least do an oil change.

Ultimately, the onus was on you to sort out tuning and AFR's as speedily as possible - and Peter wasn't the only one to tell you this... 10:1 is not suitable for your car, in any way, shape, or form. The fact that you believe it to be, is in itself pretty damning to your case.

Wait and see what comes of the motor teardown... but in the meantime, if you haven't already done so, get your oil analyzed - it will tell you the amount of fuel dilution (which will point back at running rich being the main culprit), as well as checking for metal shavings in the oil from bearings, which would explain the knocking sound.

Oh, and lastly --- whether your engine teardown reveals failure to be directly Peter's fault or not, your name-calling and blatantly combative attitude has probably cost you his willingness to assist in repairing the car - but moreover, it's downright distasteful... You chose to go public with it, which I can understand and respect, but at least wait for a conclusive mechanical report before you blatantly attack and disrespect the man for all to see.

Bawb

---

*** Edit in 4th last paragraph: and quite possibly the bearings as well in the event that you don't at least do an oil change.

 

[Crash_Nemesis]

Alex, thank you for joining the conversation. I will be happy to answer your questions. To keep things simple, I will answer in a similar fashion.

Here we go.

You ask here for trust that you are being unbiased, yet many of your posts indicate the opposite. I submit the following as proof:

What rubbish. The power steering pump has absolutely nothing to do with the supercharger setup. You install is exactly the same way you would whether a supercharger is installed or not. This is a poor excuse, even by your standards. I do not care what you say Peter, once the bolt was tightened correctly, the belts never came off again.

This would indicate that you are in fact posting from a position of bias, the bias of having made your mind up about exactly who is to blame. This is well within your rights, but please do not try to pass it off as impartial. I think we should all understand from the start that you are not posting from a coldly analytical position.

Again I submit:

The videos immortalized Peter
...
Spiro's eyes lit up...

This is emotive language and has no place in a discussion of facts. Again, you are within your rights, provided you are not trying to pass your posting off as 'merely stating fact'.

But these are all still facts, no matter how emotive I may be. I have given visual proof on every account. No accusations without proof. You are a smart kid, but please don't try twist my words. Everything I said was still factual. Now suddenly because I said I wish to be unbiased, everything I said must be non emotive? I guess everything I have said must now be ignored? This is a public forum, we are not submitting university assignments. Secondly, no, I have not made up my mind who is to blame. To assume that is equally as emotive. Do you assume that I have made up my mind on who to blame based on the fact that the center of this argument is about my experience with your father? I will say it again Alex, I stated these facts so that everyone on the forum would be on the same page before the engine was opened. I purely believe the cam timing was a contributing factor to the car running richer. You cannot deny the facts presented before you, irrespective of how they were presented. You can say whatever you like, the proof is in the pudding, and I have already served it.

Can you please explain to me why Burgy's offer of restitution is praised when similar offers from Peter are cast aside, ignored and cast (by you) in the mold of being underhanded?
For example you complained in a post of yours that the Vanos unit on your car was not the original one.

I'm sorry but that is rubbish. I clearly mentioned that your father offered to rebuild the engine for free. If that is not mentioning his offer for restitution, then I am baffled.

Regarding your example given, I never stated that a Vanos unit not belonging to my car was installed. I stated that a "damaged Vanos Pump disc" was installed on my car. This is the part that I stated was not my original one. Please do not try to confuse the issue.

Speaking of Spline shafts, did you know your father installed the spline shafts incorrectly on my car too? It may be a bit late for me to mention that at this time, but he did. I do not have photo proof of this as I wasn't aware of it, but Bahnstormer (the gentleman who aligned my cams correctly) brought it to my attention after the engine was closed and reminded me recently of it. I omitted this from my original post, but now I think it is time to mention that.

You go on in your video above to accuse Peter of dishonestly fitting a Vanos unit belonging to another member on your car. Clearly this is not the case as you were:
1) Made aware of the change before it occured
2) Were not charged
3) Were just now offered your original unit back and fitted at no cost to yourself

Somehow you seem to have missed all this...

1) No, I did not accuse Peter of fitting another Vanos unit. I accused him of fitting another forum members pump disc. There is a difference between the two. Maybe take notes before you make assumptions. I can see that you also read to respond, instead of reading to listen to what I had to say. But yes, I was made aware that he would fit a new Vanos from the UK which I bought.
2) I was charged for the vanos unit that was flown in from the UK. I have the invoice and proof of payment. Might I add, a Vanos unit that was clearly not needed, as after fitting this new Vanos, my car still had vanos adaptation errors and 02 sensor errors.
3) I would like my disc back thanks, and my money for the vanos unit I did not need to buy. I don't trust Peter to install anything on my car. Thank you for the offer though.

You posted a Whatsapp conversation with Peter addressing the initial discovery of cam timing issues and held it up as evidence of mistreatment.

This is not evidence of mistreatment, nor did I ever call it mistreatment, but rather an insight into Peters attitude over the 10 months of the rebuild. That he does not believe anything I tell him. That he is always so certain he is correct and that anyone else is an idiot, it just goes to show that he thinks so highly of a trained BMW master tech's opinion (which was right by the way). If you look again at that whatsapp picture you will clearly see Peter say and I quote "You are being told rubbish. I am willing to put my head on a block it is not a mechanical timing issue". Obviously, he was proven wrong, again. This is the point I was trying to make. Not that I was being mistreated, but that Peter would never listen to my reasons for why the car doing the things it was doing. He always had his explanations why I had to replace the vanos or the solenoid pack or other parts, when it was the cam timing all along. Cam timing that Peter, your father, knew he set wrong all this time. How do I know he knew he set them wrong, because Moranor told me that Peter had told him he set the cams "hot" on purpose. This was his performance mod. Anyway, the picture I posted was just to prove that point. Moranor, sorry to drag you in buddy, but the gloves are now off.

What you failed to mention was that immediately after that message you conversed telephonically with Peter and during that conversation Peter offered to come out and see the car as it sat and either rectify the timing himself or pay your mechanic for his labour to do the same. You also omitted that you declined this offer.

Honestly, I declined the offer because I didn't want to hear Peter's excuses. I had grown tired of being told that what I can clearly see is wrong with the car, is impossible according to Peter and that only he can fix it. I got tired of being sent on endless wild goose chases because Peter was guessing again. I am pretty sure anyone in my shoes would have done the same.

It seems to me that you are not making a consistent argument as you remain unconvinced of it yourself.
In fact, would you mind elaborating on what exactly you believe the cause of the failure to be? I think it fair to say that building a case which you are unconvinced of yourself, without offering up your own thoughts on the cause of failure, could be construed as accusatory at best and pernicious at worst.

That is exactly it Alex, I don't know what has caused the failure, nor do I pretend to. What I was stating, was that if it is proven that the car did indeed suffer from bore wash due to overfueling, is it not fair to ascertain that the car ran richer before the cams were timed correctly? Is it not fair to say that because of the cam timing issue that gave us 02 sensor errors, we could not get a correct afr reading for a new tune file? Is it not fair to maybe possibly say shit, Peter, maybe if you didn't get my cam timing wrong, we may have been able to get correct AFR readings and get my tune file sooner? But, as I stated in a post a few days ago. There are many possibilities. I just wanted to set the record straight and that IF, it should be proven that over fueling did cause this failure, that the tune file is not the only thing to blame. Why do I believe this? Well I find it odd that my car throws 02 sensor pre cat errors when the cams were timed incorrectly, but once the cams were timed correctly, the o2 errors went away. Also, I find it odd that the AFR readings after the cams were timed correctly, are no longer as rich. Look at 7000rpm before cam timing and after cam timing. Before cam timing was done, the AFR was 10.19:1. After cam timing, the AFR was 12.25:1. That is a massive improvement man, you cannot ignore that. I am sorry. But, back to o2 sensors for a second. I asked the BMW technician why the 02 sensor errors went away after timing was corrected and he said the car will throw that error if the timing is out. Why? I don't know? But if the car cannot read the 02 sensors, it will run in open loop. What is so hard to understand about this? How many times must I repeat this point?

I am honestly to God hoping it is just a failed head gasket. REALLY REALLY. That is what I am praying for.

Finally Chris, I don't make a living from working on people's cars and neither have I asked compensation from working on other's cars for a very long time so I consider myself to be amatuerish in my understanding of the intricacies of O2 sensor operation. So I took you up on your invitation to Peter and read from both your sources.
Can you tell me why it is that you believe the stock BMW Bosch O2 sensors will be able to provide accurate AFR readings when your second source says :

The stock narrowband (a.k.a. NBO2) O2 sensors used on Miatas (and most other cars for that matter) are designed to operate in a narrow temperature and air/fuel ratio range close to stoichiometric combustion. Once a car using forced induction starts making boost, the exhaust temperatures and corresponding air/fuel ratios get high enough to make the reading from the O2 sensor inaccurate.

Because my car is not a miata. oh... And BMW e46 m3 o2 sensors are wide band, not narrow band sensors. You guys work on these cars but you don't know this? -- Source

Can you please also explain why it is that O2 error codes on your car would:
1) Prevent you from correctly logging your AFRs (my understanding being that Alpha-N AFR logging is usually done through the use of an exhaust sniffer independent of the car’s O2 sensors).
2) Prevent you from loading the correct tune file once completed, or for that matter not cause you to stop driving the car after realising that there was a mapping issue.

1). Because Alpha N does actually use your o2 sensor and intake temp sensor. As mentioned countless times before, and I am getting tired of typing this, without the 02 sensors, the car remains in open loop and does not maintain correct air fuel mixtures.
2). Because the AFR readings under partial throttle were deemed safe. I could use the car to drive normally. At the time, were were still figuring out why the car was throwing belts and the vanos codes. The tune file was the last issue on my mind.

You have not elaborated on why it might be that the engine would lose compression only after having allegedly corrected the timing and rich running. Nor have you elaborated on why it was that after correcting the rich/lean running issue you still as at April this year not uploaded the correct tune file.

First, let me correct you there. We did not allegedly fix the timing. We positively without a doubt matter of factly fixed the timing. Did you not watch that video? Did you not see how bad the timing was? Are you trying to detract again from what is evident, that you guys did a massive cock up and are now trying to divert from your mistake by asking me questions designed to confuse other readers?

To answer the second part of your question Alex, we discovered the car had lost compression a month after correcting the timing. Why it has lost compression I do not know. There are many possibilities as to why it could lose compression after the timing was done, but one thing I am very positive about, is that the car ran richer before the cam timing was corrected. You cannot argue with the facts Lysis. The AFR readings are there for you to compare. In regards to why come April I still had not loaded the file. That would be because we found out end of January that the car had lost compression and required a rebuild. Why would I pay money and load another file onto the car when we have already decided to park the car, remove the charger and rebuild the engine? What difference would it have made to load the new file. Nothing. The car had lost compression already?

On that note, and this is my final question, what is it that makes you think the partial load map was safe to drive the car on? Let us for a minute set aside the rich running condition and focus on the lean running spots in that log. Running the car lean, I’m sure, is universally agreed to be far more dangerous than rich running. This being due to the heat generated with insufficient fuel in the cylinders. That initial partial load log has AFR values running into the 20s, this would have been a cause of much concern for me if the car were mine.

Sigh, Alex, dude... Seriously? Maybe look at the RPMs at the time where it shows the AFR in the 20's, you will notice that the RPM's are dropping, thus indicating that the car is no longer under load/accelerating and that the throttles are closed. All cars will do this. The AFR's will spike when your foot is taken off the pedal and the throttles close. Simple. Even an NA car will spike this high.

I eagerly await your fathers reasons for why my cams were timed so badly?

---

 

[922-ZN]

Im going to step in here, not to add to this thread, back anyone up or challange anyone, but to say:

Willy, stop poking the fire. Your comments are not helping in any way.

Oh, and 80% of tuning companies in this country get their files from overseas. They also have much success with them. Remote tuning is do able and done by many people.

The tuners tune for our conditions, ie Fuel etc. So please stop posting rubbish, it shows your complete lack of understanding of how tuning works.

/Rant over

+1000000000000

 

[DieselFan]

Guys I'm going to make a suggestion, that you lock the thread or refrain from posting until the engine has been stripped and the cause identified and documented. At the moment you're all speculating as to what the problem may be.

____


Edit: guys we've decided to lock the thread for the time being until the engine is opened and the cause identified. Things are getting emotional and everyone is speculating. Chris please PM me or one of the other mods or admin once the engine is opened should you wish to post the cause.

 

[Nick]

Thread open.

Please take note it will be closely monitored and moderated if necessary.

 

[Rommies]

So whats the verdict? Did you guys manage to open her up today?