NA 3.1L=>head & camshaft questions. No shortcuts, max

[zredbaron]

Wow, lot's of parallel topics! 

 

Thanks Joe! I think we've successfully honored and even pushed the envelope of the head and cam's intent (displacement!). "Optimized for my sport" -- music to my ears!

 

Thanks Leon, 300hp *is* stout! I have to keep reminding myself... It's easy to get caught in the pursuit of big numbers, but flat curves and mid-throttle driveability are worth more to a driver in autocross than peak hp numbers.

 

Steve-- The E31 head has had extensive port work, yes. All references to Jim Thompson, Sunbelt and John Coffey's R&D dollars are crediting their achievement. The first page this thread shows JohnC offering a phone number to a very young and naive version of myself.  Most of us recognize that true power is made in the head... and in 2004 I was very fortunate to have landed a head and camshaft that were both optimized for one another's flow characteristics. JohnC wanted a wide torque band 3.0L engine with minimal drivetrain loss. This resulted in an outer-springs only profile (less seat pressure -> friction) with a rev limit of 7700 rpm. He chose an N42 head and ran Megasquirt. I believe in the end he had 285hp and 250 ft-lbs to the wheels. Anyone remember?

 

I had Jim Thompson apply what he learned to my E31. Initially I chose his less aggressive camshaft with .525" lift and nominal high performance duration since I was running flat top pistons and a 3.1L stroke. Once I started using forged pistons with reliefs I was able to upgrade to the full head-profiled .565" lift with super-wide duration of 326/315 in/ex. Again, this was designed for a 3.0L bottom end. The 3.1L kit has a positive deck height of .025". Not sure about 3.0 setups.

 

It should be highlighted and credited that Jim Thompson / John C.... and now Joe / Mark were able to achieve 300hp without the use of adding more RPM to create power, without exceeding .600" lift, and without full race compression. The exhaust that I'm so proud of was also what JohnC ran, with extra emphasis on exhaust scavenging. He helped me further optimize the merge collector angle to aid low and midrange torque at the cost of peak hp. I also made the same compromise with header primaries, which Stahl helped me select.

 

There's a lot that goes into the big picture, and when I recall all of that... 297 hp is a great start before an optimized tune!

 

Ryan, I agree about seeking different air horns. The 40s had the short air horns which I like inside an air box. I'll have to look into the T3 horns, thanks for the tip!

 

I'll get back to you guys on my jet settings and final timing in a few days. Unless Joe remembers off hand? My MAP sensor was not installed at the dyno, either.

Edited October 9, 2016 by zredbaron

[zredbaron]

Congrats Mark!  

 

A couple of questions:  

 

1.  Looks like all of your exhaust valves were hitting the pistons (looks like hitting them hard).  Did you conclusively determine the cause?  Was your timing chain off one tooth, like happened to me?  Or, were the Ex. valves hitting the pistons for another reason?

 

I have learned that the Sunbelt cam we are both using (the .565" gross lift one) was developed for use with titanium valves.  My engine builder knows the guy that owned Integral Cams and worked on the development of our camshaft with Jim Thompson (formerly of Sunbelt).  As you know, the AVG3E-L6SPR spring from Jim Wolf Technologies is the correct valve spring for use with the cam, and it has a very light (by comparison with most others) installed and max compressed loads.  This spring is handling the additional weight of stainless steel valves, and chrome moly retainers if you are running those. Perhaps valves were floating and hitting the pistons?  

 

2.  What ever happened regarding the "reversion" area of the rpm band?  Were you able to address it at all?  When I was trying to do my dyno pulls (chassis dyno), the operator was telling me to go full throttle from 2k RPM in 4th gear and the engine simply wouldn't do that.  It would just choke up and go dog rich.  Same thing in third.  How were you able to do "full range" RPM pulls to get your power charts, and do you have any of the AFR charts for those runs?

 

3.  Are you running stock main cap bolts?  My engine builder doesn't care for them.  He says they are too big and don't stretch like they should to achieve proper fastening.

 

4. You are still running race fuel, right?

 

5.  And I guess I missed it, but what was the most direct cause of the latest engine failure - debris sucked into chamber #1?

 

Garrett

 

Thanks Garrett!

 

Joe, please feel free to add comments or correct me if I'm off base!

 

1. Yes, valves were contacting pistons. This is primarily due to incorrect rocker ratio of CNC rocker arms not noticed by my previous builder, combined with a very intolerant camshaft duration.

 

Joe had issues achieving the desired seat pressure map with the above springs from Wolf Creek Racing. He ended up selecting the outer-springs he uses in his own race motor, as they were closest specs to desired. He'll have to comment beyond that. I still don't speak valve geometry.

 

2. Reversion falls into the "carb theory" category and that post and all its details are still to come.

 

3. I use ARP stud bolts.

 

4. Yes, pure race gas. 105 octane unleaded.

 

5. The rocker arm ratio is the presumed culprit of the engine failure. Undue fatigue caused by contact of valve / piston. Spring able to absorb impact, rocker moves with impact. Failure imminent.

Edited October 9, 2016 by zredbaron

[JMortensen]

I believe the final jetting was 185/185. I thought they should have gone up one more step on the pilots, but time was limited. I have a feeling you'll be working with the emulsion tubes for the chassis dyno to get the bottom end leaned out a bit.

 

Want to say John's motor made 287whp. As he used to say though, every dyno is different and you really can't compare numbers from one to the next. I know he had another dyno that said 270 or right around there for the same motor. He also had FI and Motec IIRC, which adds a lot more tunability (can adjust each cylinder individually, etc).

 

What impressed me most about the day was 27 hp increase with the swap to the bigger carbs, and really no bottom end loss at all. That's a 10% gain! HUGE! That and we all thought the 40mm chokes would get Mark over 300, but just moved the curve up 500 rpm. I remember that comparison dyno graph differently. We did a number of pulls, I wonder if Arnie pulled out a different one. The one I recall had a fairly smooth round top on the 36mm pull, and then the 40mm pull topped out right at 7250, and there really wasn't a dip on the far side, and you were giving up more power under the curve. Might just be remembering wrong.

 

Anyway, it was a bit nerve wracking for me. I was way more nervous than Mark. LOL. He was pretty zen about the whole thing. Good to meet Joe too!

[toptechracing]

Lots of questions:

Previous engine failure was caused by a lack of attention to detail,  primary issue was spring crash which broke retainer sent a valve head through a piston.

 

Exhaust valve contact was a combination parts improper piston pocket depth and several of the pistons in the wrong holes

 

Dyno information, First they are JUST NUMBERS that mean nothing unless you have several engines and combinations on the sameday same dyno same conditions...I don't race dynos because they have really bad understeer..

 

My goals for using an engine dyno are always to break the engine in a controlled environment. 

second is to jet as reasonably close to peak performance as the dyno can provide.

 

After a few teething issues (which I had never seen before) we were able to start making pulls. We worked first with the 40mm carbs and 36mm chokes to get to the first numbers around 275 HP and what ever the torque number was (again just numbers to me) I did add timing all the way up to 38 degrees total after 3k and the torque really enjoyed the additional timing.

 

We put 45s on with the emulsion tubes and jets from the 40s since we were looking for data. 45s had 36mm chokes.  With the 45 we went from 165 to 175 then 190 and back to 185 for a 20+ HP gain and a good increase of the torque distance across the board. We then went to the 40MM chokes which showed a small gain up hign but a slight dip in the area that we want to run this engine.

 

At this point I felt we needed to not beat on this thing any longer and get it in the car, Mark will bring the car back to Oregon City with his headed and MAP sensor setup so I can run it on the dyno jet and maximize the power curve for what he is going to use it for. I feel I can tune the dip out of the 40mm chokes with a different emulsion tube and play with the ignition curve to make this thing make more HP and Trq. That is also why I did not see any benefit in stepping up the pilot jets until we were working on drivability.

 

All in all this was a very long project that allowed me to build something different than my normal roadrace recipe that makes great power under 7500 RPM which will allow it to run forever if not abused. 

 

I would run the TWM air horns on the thing as well as a Airbox and it will pop right over the 300hp mark if the number is important.. Right now this thing pulls like an old dodge diesel and sings a nice song at 7k.

 

Mark should be commended on his drive to get this data and share it as this was a ton of work and a ton of effort on his part.

 

Photos are a modified carbon air box and air horns I build for a Vintage L24 that makes very solid HP.

Edited October 9, 2016 by toptechracing

[Leon]

Great stuff guys. I'm curious, when you swapped to 45s did you also swap intake manifolds? Where the intakes match-ported to the head, carbs, or both? Very interesting to see the huge difference going to 45s makes (keeping venturi size constant). Really nice data here!

[toptechracing]

I don't know the history of marks 40 MM setup. I ported and  matched the 45 set up and pinned it to the head. They both were cannon manifolds but I took a lot of  material out of the one I did.

[Leon]

I don't know the history of marks 40 MM setup. I ported and  matched the 45 set up and pinned it to the head. They both were cannon manifolds but I took a lot of  material out of the one I did.

 

Nice, thanks Joe.

[zredbaron]

Haha, I forgot about your understeer comment at the dyno, Joe! And thanks for entertaining my desire to collect and share data. I didn't know it going in to the engine dyno, but I now agree that the real value is breaking the motor in and having a nice and safe general tune before digging in for the real deal. My original purpose was primarily to collect data, but that only partially worked out. Worth every penny for unexpected reasons!

 

Yes, Leon. There are two complete triple weber assemblies with their own throttle linkage, their own air horns, and their own Cannon intake manifolds. Both are port matched, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a comparison.

1. Previously, the 40mm Cannon manifold was port matched to the head and to the 40mm DCOEs.
2. Joe received a brand new Cannon manifold. All Cannon manifolds are 40mm and are very crude and rough. Joe opened up the 40mm to 45mm on the carb side and port matched the intake to the head side.

So in the comparison of 36mm venturis in 40DCOEs to 45mm DCOEs we are really comparing two main differences, the air horns and the exit diameter of the carb and the long intake runners' nozzles:

• The 40mm short air horns and the 40 DCOE's 40mm exit, which nozzles to 36mm via the Cannon manifold.
• The 45mm long air horns and the 45 DCOE's 45mm exit, which nozzles to 36mm via the Cannon manifold.

I would have preferred that both carb sets utilized the short air horns, but alas, only half of my data collection went according to plan. Again, more on that to come.

Edited October 10, 2016 by zredbaron

[toptechracing]

Actually so we are clear the manifold for the 45s was fully ported from the head side to the carbside. I missed the memo that we wanted to test crap...  the cannon manifold in raw form is a real piece of junk even on a street motor..

[zredbaron]

Thanks Joe... now *I'm* not clear! LOL. By "fully ported from head side to carb side" you mean both ends of the new Cannon manifold were port matched, correct? And the full length of the runners were therefore conically ground out to match, removing a ton of material, correct?

 

The Cannon manifold isn't junk once it's been opened up...

 

Clearly, we're all speaking *slightly* different English. I feel for the texting-Generations Y and Z behind us!

[toptechracing]

Correct. The manifold I did is fully ported and flows very nicely after my work. 

[JMortensen]

Did one for my 44s back in the day. Took A LONG time to port the entire length of the manifold, and I agree, the casting is really crappy quality out of the box.

[zredbaron]

Hey gang. I'm still here... my apologies for never getting back to this thread with the "details to come."

 

I created a lot of gorgeous, all-original graphs and typed up a long post back in November.

 

Then I stalled. It wasn't complete. A media supplement, an option. I wanted to make a video, no wait, a PowerPoint...

 

Through December, I remained stymied. I've put a lot of time, energy and money into this R&D experience.... how to share my data? How to share my lessons learned? How to share the experience itself?

 

Overthinking it, no doubt... but then again I can think of a lot of presentations that would have been a lot more helpful had the author focused his content with his purpose.

 

That's why I'm hung up. Is my purpose to share lessons learned? To share carburetor theory? To chronicle my journey?

 

Sigh. Those are three different audiences. Three different presentations. Three sets of data.

 

This isn't supposed to be a book, it's supposed to be a single post on a long thread. That's a lot for a small audience.

 

So I do nothing instead. Good job, Mark! Making real strides this year!

[ryant67]

Good to see another post. I wouldn't sweat over how you share things, as I imagine most folks are thankful for whatever information they can get. I know I am anyway!

 

Is the car back on the road now?

[madkaw]

It takes a lot of time to put together a presentation - and a lot of work . Just share your findings when you can . It seems I have too many threads going on at once myself that I can't keep up with, but I try to share . Appreciate and always enjoyed reading your posts

[zredbaron]

Thanks fellas. I appreciate the feedback and encouragement very much. After yesterday's post, having slept on it, I think I'll share one piece at a time rather than trying to tie it all together. I was trying to bite off more than ought to be chewed.

 

As for my project... I haven't accomplished much, sadly. I had the rear of the car in the air when I received the engine in October. I'm upgrading to the T3 LCAs and Wolf Creek CV axles. Found a huge crack in the differential crossmember. Shipped it for repair, shipped it back a 2nd time, etc. Will powder coat the crossmember, moustache bar and a few other pieces while I'm at it. Have had a heck of a time with the spindle pins -- I had a machine shop fabricate a tool for me, but in the end I still had to have a shop press it out.

 

Much ado about nothing, basically! Haha! So it goes...

 

Once the car is on it's own wheels, I can then wheel it out of the storage unit and back it in so I can access the engine bay.

 

I still have a long ways to go. Being ready for spring autocross is looking really, really tight and less likely each week. I have no doubt I will be waiting in line for a tig welder when I get that far along... (mandrel exhaust and strut braces)

 

So as far as the engine is concerned... turning it by hand periodically is the only action it's getting at present....

 

Hey, that's better action than the 2011 motor got right about meow! Now that's progress...!

Edited March 20, 2017 by zredbaron

[zredbaron]

This thread has been silent long enough. Life can be hard... and depression is a mother lover. 

 

The engine still rests on the floor of my storage unit, the rear of my car is still in the air. I've made significant progress, but I'm still working on the Wolf Creek CV axles and T3 rear LCAs. I've completed my differential mounts, diff crossmember repair (cracked) and upgrade (thanks Joe! Fine work.), and all parts powder-coated (including moustache bar, etc).

I pulled up my word document from November... and I just don't have the desire to create a presentation at this time. I don't even want to edit the writeup. A video is unlikely but possible. Better to share what I do have than sit on what I might have one day.

For now, I will post my write-up in three installments:

• Overview
• The Shop / The Tuning
• The Data

As always, thank you gentlemen and ladies, as this community is very, very much appreciated on my end.

[zredbaron]

1 of 3: Engine Dyno Experience Overview

 

 

Very overdue post... but then again this project has always been behind pace. Thanks for bearing with me!

 

Preface:

Now that the experience of the engine dyno is behind me, I understand much more about realistic or practical goals relative to expectations in this industry. In short, although it did not go according to my plan, in the end I have zero regrets and would still make the same choices again. The details and pros/cons are outlined below. My overall conclusion and message would be that of positive reinforcement: you get what you pay for, you can't rush a job being "done right" and, well, to quote Mario Andretti, "if everything seems under control, you just aren't going fast enough." In this case, my pursuit of pushing the envelope is, by definition, understood to “not be fully controllable.” The engine dyno day was not, as a whole, under my control by a long stretch. I recognized this early on and I quickly stood back to get out of the way throughout the experience. Would I have don't things differently? Oh hell yes. Was it worthwhile to see what would happen if I just watched? Oh hell yes. Did I confirm to myself that I can't wait to do it my way? Oh hell yes. Interestingly, I wouldn't know the last two points had I just arrogantly pressed forward and done things my way. Still might have been right, but I wouldn’t know.

 

Preface Part 2:

This post contains constructive observations and impressions regarding how it might have gone differently and how I intended it to go. This "criticism" is NOT intended to judge the shop, the owner, the techs or my engine builder. This feedback is intended as "lessons learned" for those who are considering R&D, i.e. herding cats. The "criticism" is essentially pointing back at ME -- it is constructive to other customers to ensure they ask the right questions and speak the same language as the shop. As a customer, I told my engine builder and the shop what I wanted to accomplish. I used my words. All verbally agreed. My engine builder later stated he "missed the memo that we wanted to test stuff" and the dyno shop made similar statements indicating non buy-in toward my goals of experimentation and data collection. Personally, I think the arrow points at ME. Evidently I did not use the right words or stand firmly enough. I also conclude I did not ask the right questions, and neither did the vendors. Thanks Jon, for your comment about me being zen throughout the experience. I was trying for that… admittedly part of me chose to be numb from the surprises, and, oh God!, the freeze plugs popping out so many times was quite intimidating and stressful. I chose to not “feel” the fearful what-ifs… I had enough going on in my head! LOL. Muted my excitement a bit, too, unfortunately.

 

Overview:

I did not get the data I wanted to get. As a result, the “experiment” and its results were significantly limited from an R&D perspective. Scientifically, what I set out to demonstrate or discover was not available. The environment had too many variables, not enough controls, and did NOT contain the most important data (to the R&D) -- a graph of the air/fuel ratio. As a result, I elected to skip the 38mm venturis altogether in the interest of practicality. I also placed no personal value in paying attention to the jetting and overall tuning, which was now moot in my mind. It became far more valuable to me at that point to observe tried-and- true racers and “performance carburetor practicality,” let’s say – literally to observe the industry standards that I as an amateur am questioning in 2017. The overall value of this choice was that I learned that I didn't learn anything new about tuning carburetors and was able to smile in confidence that all my time tinkering on triples since 1999 hasn't been fruitless in the slightest. In the end, the power/torque data we have is simply "food for thought" and the real value was primarily breaking-in the engine in a controlled manner and secondarily the experience itself. Worth every penny and I recommend others go for it, if able and inclined.

 

Coming soon (this week, I'm not intentionally dragging this out)...

     2. The Shop / The Tuning

     3. The Data

Edited March 20, 2017 by zredbaron

[zredbaron]

2 of 3: The Dyno Shop and The Tuning

 

The Dyno Shop:

www.loyningsengineservice.com

 

     Arnie Loyning and his shop have a long racing history. Legacy, in fact, which is part of why I chose to step aside once I was there in person. I marveled at the age of this man (80?), his continued relevance in the sport and observing the arrival of his personal racer coming back to the shop (a 50-year-old Lotus that inspired the Mazda Miata). The techs joked that the boss man gets pretty grumpy if they don't get him on the track regularly. There were fancy heads and hi-tech intake manifolds and throttle assemblies (one piece, same function) everywhere. Clearly a ton of money coming into this place, and a ton of automotive pride going out.

 

     Respect aside... it's 2016, not 1986, not 1996, not 2006. I was very disappointed that he had a wide-band O2 sensor hooked up for instantaneous display purposes but he didn't pay for the add-on to his dyno software. The dyno and its controls were built in the 1980s (insert Weber book publication date comparison!) and the computer was easily over 10 years old. The black and white printout I received was printed from an ancient inkjet printer and it's hard to read in person, let alone the scanned image. I drive an old car! By definition I can appreciate old, IF it’s no slouch or is "kept original for vintage reasons." No one uses vintage PCs for modern use and says "they just don't make 'em like this anymore!" This might seem nitpicky, but it’s also attention to detail. If the attention to detail is only in the rearview mirror, who’s driving? Yesterday’s winner, says me. Granted, you might suggest the modern cars are fuel injected and the onboard computer is a part of the dyno tune. Correct. Except for the vintage racers like myself and the owner. The shop is named "Sidedraught City" for cryin' out loud, not "Fuel-Injection City!" He doesn’t have that for his own tune? Wow. At WOT only, he might not need it *as* much. I do. And every build benefits. Respectfully, I strongly feel he is riding out decades of success and doesn't care to evolve in this direction anymore. He displayed some stubborn traits and seemed to "tolerate" his job/role rather than enjoy it. That's ok, but I don't take my child to doctors that "tolerate" what they do for a living. He's earned his lot in life, again, full respect.

 

     Just so we're clear... his fee was well worth it and he provided a service. He simply won't be earning my dollars again for the same service.

 

     All chassis dyno experiences I've had (3 locations), by contrast, provided an A/F graph, provided a color printout that's readable, and offered the raw data files if you brought a USB stick. (You can download reader software from Dynojet, for example.) Even in rural Arkansas this is true, but here at the heart of racing in downtown Portland with multiple tracks in the region… here at “Sidedraught Central” evidently “what we’ve always done” trumps all. Jon noted that the printouts Arnie selected are not what Jon remembered seeing on screen at the end of the day. He just wasn't "present." Have I made my point about lack of attention-to-detail and disregard for the value of data?

 

    Curiously and enigmatically as far as I’m concerned, Arnie was very interested in a table printout which included BSFC (pic below). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption) When I asked him about A/F ratio, he pointed at the BSFC he was so interested in and explained how I might calculate A/F ratio from the BSFC. I asked him several times, in disbelief of what I was hearing. Maybe I’m missing something, but in my opinion he has a gross conceptual error. One cannot possibly know how thoroughly fuel/air burned by watching the fuel consumption rate. You could have the ignition off, for example, and mechanically draw out this number with a reciprocating set of pistons. That said, the number is exceptionally useful when modifying port shapes, intake shapes, exhaust shapes, etc. and striving to maximize volumetric efficiency at every RPM. Less fuel for more horsepower is equally advantageous in a racecar and a Prius, albeit for different reasons and goals. To me, the efficiency or inefficiency is quite set in stone given my manifold and carburetor selection are a done deal, as is the head work and my camshaft. If I can’t adjust it and I have no intention to… it’s not worth much beyond “neato” and noting which RPMs the engine might vary efficiency… but my throttle pedal can tell you that range also. Like I said… “Neato.” (Anyone know what I’m missing?) I do intend to circle back to this after the build is complete.

 

    In the end, his shop has a reputation. He has repeat customers. Apparently they win on track, which is what matters. Some rent his dyno for a week. If I were experimenting with camshafts, port shapes, intake manifold or exhausts that fit, then I would value this facility for these purposes. This shop would be amazing for such experimentation IF AND ONLY IF fuel injection was used. None of these applied to me, so this shop did not meet my expectations or needs in terms of my expressed R&D intention and investment.

 

    In short, I would still do it all over again just for the engine break-in, especially if I had no other shop to choose from. I do not feel Arnie’s legacy experience offered my engine one single improvement detail -- this was my engine and Joe's engine; Arnie only participated in the break-in. In a way, I’m really glad I got to take my engine to a legacy shop so I can pat myself on the back for being there and giving my engine a royal break-in. That said, I'd like my money to be green AND understand when it is not. I'd like to be able to pay people to help me go the direction I want to go, not pay people to go the same direction they've gone for decades and convince me otherwise. I'd like vendors and service providers to be honest and speak up if goals and/or capabilities are not aligned. I told Arnie on the phone before any of this that I'm coming expressly to collect A/F data and I received the response of "oh sure, my dyno has that." No, actually, you have a gauge mounted near your controls but your dyno has no idea it’s there. (Pic below... the gauge is behind the glass -- red LEDs). In my opinion, good sir, you have a mentality that you know everything that is knowable and this mentality prevents new things from being discovered and prevents dialogue with sufficient understanding. I sincerely believe I told him what I wanted and he recalibrated my words silently into “you just want to come break in your engine and see what the gauges show.” Communication is a two way street, and I own up my half for not micromanaging the conversation and ensuring I spoke the correct lingo to interact with his mind. Trusting the expert and respecting my elder cost me two days of pay (I took time off during the week), plus the cost of the dyno day, plus the permanent loss of not attaining what I [believed I had] purchased -- a priceless and scientific R&D experience exploring new territory.

 

    Arrogant or not, my conclusion is that vintage racers might continue to expand the envelope in vintage ways, but not all vintage racers share the same idea of modern tools or sufficient communication. Full respect to men like Arnie, but my path is my own. Again, it was a really neat experience and I’m glad for it. Food for thought for all you enthusiasts out there

 

 

The Tuning:

 

     Joe, maybe you'd like to chime in here, but the impression I received from observing you and Arnie is that you also were deferent to Arnie's experience and the fact that we were in Arnie's shop and Arnie's hands were on the controls -- It was The Arnie Loynings Show. It seemed to me that Joe was also reading Arnie to see what he might learn from Arnie’s decades of experience. Neither Joe nor I consider the engine tuned beyond "a decent start." Joe knows carbs very well also; I observed him ask questions of Arnie that I myself knew the answer to, so I figured he was probing Arnie to see if any unanticipated fruit would fall out of the tree. None did. Arnie did make an impression on me regarding orientation of the aux venturis, so I did reinforce a good habit, but it was more like "hey it's easy to mess this up" than performance insight. (I already knew how to orient a venturi.)

 

     I felt 50% like a guest and 50% like a customer. A welcome guest! …which is nice, but confusing when paying for services. I was in my right to ask them to swap parts and spend more time, but I feel that's the only thing that I as a paying customer had influence over. I felt I was wearing out my welcome just by being a customer with custom goals (same root word, even, go figure). Really odd! This is likely a common, upside-down result of supply and demand when supply (of comparable shops) decreases. The dollar just doesn't mean much after that, people get set in their ways, and eventually “it's my way or the highway because I have more customers and experience than I can shake a stick at.” I can list a few restaurants that meet that description but offer lousy food or service and the economy still inexplicably pays them. The people at the shop were in no way rude but rather very friendly; the owner’s mentality simply resulted in a closed door for this specific customer’s purpose.

 

    No disrespect, they treated my engine very very well and broke it in wonderfully. Worth every penny. I simply thought I was coming for a different reason. Since I took time off of work to accommodate *their* work preferences, it further cost me two days’ pay to come be surprised and disappointed with what I thought I was purchasing.

 

     Ouch is right. I sacrificed a lot. Again, I own my half and do not assert blame... but I do feel my money wasn't green at the shop. We humans affect each other’s lives more than we know. It would have been nice if the other parties joined me in the desire to communicate precisely or openly. It would have been nice if I was given the CHOICE to be ok with limited R&D... instead it "happened to me" against my knowledge.

 

     And Joe, just so you and I are clear... none of this reflects my opinion and trust of you, sir. Arnie and his business alone. I do not feel you mislead or ill-advised me in any way! To the contrary. It was fabulous advice to come break in the engine at this shop. That was your advice. It was my desire to conduct R&D. That's on me.

 

 

     As always, if I am missing something, I'd love to be wrong and retract my harsh perspectives...

[steve260z]

Humm..Well written. What were your specific goals to accomplish while there? Besides tune?