So my Alfa (running carbs & a dizzy) has been to the same RR set-up twice to have tuning done and twice I've come away with a broken engine. The first time it seemed like simple head gasket failure but subsequently discovered a cracked head. The second time it's a failed piston. The only det detection they have is their ears. They are a well-regarded outfit however.

What's reasonable to expect from a RR operator? The engines were both professionally built by reputable builders. Both had run (raced) for extended periods (hours rather than minutes) without issue. Ignition timing was the only variable which was set by the RR operator.

Thoughts, please.

Are you wanting to start proceedings or have a word with them first ?

Ross

Have a word, first, for sure. Without knowing the cause of the second failure until minutes ago, I've not had a chance to discuss it. But I wanted to understand what was a reasonable expectation of a RR operator/tuner and that there were no "unwritten rules"

The reason I ask is because in my experience, they can get very shirty about it all.

Basically I would have a word first, explaining where you feel the fault lies.

If to no avail, surely an independant assesment of what caused the damage would be in order, to then make a formal claim against them?

Ross

Yup - sounds reasonable - thanks.

I think I'll let the engine builder (who has diagnosed the issue) see what he finds and his position on it. It's slightly complicated by the fact that the engine came a long way short of his power expectations so he's got it back partly to fix the failure partly to diagnose the lack of power. Seems a bit tough to expect him to take the cost of the piston on the chin though. He's also going to talk to the RR operator to help him understand both issues.

I'm just wanting to be prepared for what I see coming.

I'm also a bit fed up with having had two engines busted by the same place.

Was it the same engine builder in each case? I'm just thinking about what there reply would be? |Was the failure preventable? Did they have sufficient cooling and temp sensors fitted? etc etc

Ross

Different builders - the first builder was upset that he wasn't using any det detection - but I had to fix that one myself.

So they ran an engine with no det cans on? Det can occur and you won't even hear it. If you can hear it by ear, then there is a lot of det!

I'd say the onus is on the RR to pay for the rebuild, but can see that going down like a wet fart when suggesting it to them. I'm sure they will come up with any sort of excuse towards your car to exclude them from paying any cost towards it

If I can manage it right, I can get the builder working the issue with the RR operator - at least to the point at which it's clear where the responsibility lies.

I have had this issue with an engine in my RX7, as the chap that built the engine did not do the dyno work.

Whilst I could have got the engine in the car myself I asked the chaps that would be mapping it to do it - telling them the compression figures for the engine on the bench, and asking them to make sure that they were happy with all the ancillaries on the car before they started mapping. Both tuners knew each other and had worked with each other before.

There was an issue with the rear rotor when mapping - I paid to have the engine yanked out on the spot, and I did not pay a penny for anything else. Both parties handled the issue very well, but I did make it clear that it was up to them to come to an agreement - as long as I had a working engine running high compression, to be tested in-front of me after mapping then I was happy.

How does this help Red - well next time I'll have the same chaps build the engine and map it, or at the very least they will recommend who will map the car, and have worked with them before.

To fix the situation that you have I would get the two parties talking to each other (have they spoken before the car was mapped?). Once this has happened get them to sort it out between them if you can - it will help you if you offer to pay some of the costs, but not ALL (i.e. engine in/out - transport back to builder.) If they will not talk to each other then get the engine back to the builder, and get him to make a formal statement (or an email) with pictures of the stripdown explaining where he thinks the fault lies etc. make it clear in an understanding way that he has to prove the engine has been blown on the dyno, or he owes you another build, with him paying for parts.

It wont help you now, but two N/A engines letting go on the same rollers - regardless of their reputation I would not be using them again.

Thanks Suba. Starting with the first bit last, I certainly won't be going back. I wouldn't forgive myself if I had a third failure and I also might not be responsible for my actions.

The frustrating part of this whole story is that, when I had the engine built I said to the builder I wanted him to put it on the rollers. I even told him what day I'd be turning up with the car to pop the engine in (I allowed a whole day for the install - it takes about 2 hours me doing it on my own) and a whole day for the RR session. Then I was off to Cadwell to go racing (the builder is 500 miles from me). Of course, I arrived to find the engine wasn't ready. We finally installed it halfway through the second allocated day. It then transpired that he hadn't booked a firm time with his RR guy and he couldn't fit it in (all of this was agreed a month in advance) so I ended up taking the car with the engine as-is with the timing on safety settings. It was agreed I would take it to "my" RR.

As I say, it needed to go back anyway as it isn't producing the power it should (I was promised). The degree of responsibility for the work being done now is a bit murky as the head would have needed pulling off anyhow. The piston though is a £220 Cosworth item so that alone is a cost someone needs to bear. We'll see what transpires when the two of them talk.

What's so frustrating is that these Alfa engines are usually incredibly tough. Once I finally get a running engine, it should be very reliable. As it stands right now, I missed the beginning of the 09 season due to engine build issues, the end of last season due to cracked head issues (and Charlie's cancer) and most of this season so far due to a failure of the last engine and now a failure of this engine.

Exactly as Begbie said: You can't monitor for det -sticking your head out the window'. If you can hear it outside the car it's probably already too late!

Take it from another tuner, they really should know that!

However proving that it was definitely det that killed the engine twice could possibly be difficult. Usually it's quite obvious (melted / pistons, etc.). But not always.

If you have the broken parts show a few engine builder and get their opinions. That could help your case greatly.

The builder is certain it's det (and he's extremely experienced) - busted piston and evidence on cyclinder head too. Cause still not certain though.

Hmm MSR you are in a situation similar to that of my first engine. It didn't produce great power, and the reason was not the build but the RR chap had let it run so hot the head had expaned from the seat inserts and every piston had top rings closed up. I did not know this until it started blowing by after 3 races - even in damaged form Crofty's work held together. At rebuild there was a huge amount of work to do.

Now Brunswick, all I know is what I heard PM me if you wish.

I think what Suba says is reasonable get the 2 talking, this may or may not work out though. Guy told me not to use the first RR but I did and paid the price. But it seems brunswick let you down and that complicated the issue. Your RR should have been monitoring for detonation better than they did.

If there was an issue with the engine build then Compression ratio would be the main concern i.e. so high that the timing curve would induce detonation even in a retarded postion - highly unlikely unless wrong octane fuel was used for the comp e.g. 95RON on 12.5:1. Apart from that cant see how build would be an issue - forget the issue with power just a complication of the det.

If the build is ok then next the installation - Fuel issue leading to lean condition could the fuel supply be an issue, fuel pump issue. Heat - cooling system issue? Exhaust - back pressure issue? Actually considering your experience I dont think any of these are applicable.

Leaves only the calibration, where A/F should have been monitored, det, water temp, all of this you know, they must have taken their eye off one of those balls - of never really looked at all. If they didn't monitor det properly then the advance on the dizzy could have been too much somewhere for the comp and temp. The issue I would say rests with the RR op, assuming the build, installation, fuel were correct.

I would be inclined to say to the mapper before hand, if he breaks anything on the car whilst on the dyno, he should pay for it.

How is that not reasonable? You take a working car to him, so you should leave with a working car.

It's happened too many times on this forum where you've heard about people getting their cars broken on the day of mapping, and then they have to bear the costs.

But 95% of the time, there will be an inhertient problem with the car which causes the issue, so the problem then lays with the owner of the car, not the mapper.

If you say that to someone mapping the car, who has not done any of the build work they will simply refuse to map it.

a lot of dyno operators will check around the car for oil leaks etc. before the car goes on, and they will refuse to put it on if they think there is anything visibly wrong. It's up to you as the owner of the car to make sure that it is in good condition and ready to be mapped. I think this is entirely reasonable.

If they detonate the engine, or break belts from banging it off the limiter it's a different story.

There is also the case that there is nothing wrong with the car, but that the mapper gets the fueling wrong etc, which is entirely down to the mapper.

Pero, I feel I should qualify your statement somewhat, certainly in relation to my own services. Tuning is always fraught with a certain "danger", not least for the reasons Alexis and Simon have mentioned. You simply can't know everything about a customer's car beyond what they tell you. A few basic checks and experience should help flag any obvious issues, but beyond that every engine is an unknown whether it has 100 miles or 100,000 miles.

To this day, I have not had a single engine failure on the dyno or on the road that was a result of tuning (not just Coupes, any car). Indeed this includes some cars that are really pushing the envelope i.e. 400bhp with standard pistons/conrods, but that's ok as I will make this point very salient. I'm all for pushing boundaries, especially when the process is considered and executed with good judgement and skill.

Regarding Rich's problem, if detonation has destroyed two engines (and quickly), then I would generally question the mapper first. While the engine build can be the cause of extreme detonation, it is likely that the mapper would be aware of this first and therefore advise accordingly. This could be to the extent that he/she refuses to map, or that the car is mapped, but with associated advisaries.

This wasn't directed towards you or your services Leighton!

I was actually thinking of when you had the disaster with your Coupe before you knew how to map them.

You put such a lot of time and money into a car just to have the engine destroyed by a mapper who either doesn't know the car, or makes a mistake!

Richard,i had 2 engines fail that were both unique in there build.
I am currently taking a company to court for the failure but on a performance engine or an engine thats not like for like theres no presidence to warranty.
The same goes for mapping,its a very grey area due to the in depth knowledge needed.
Unless theres a clear cut safety issue then youll struggle taking it further as i have.

In terms of losing faith in them i think its clear from your comments that both the builders and the mapper are suspect but its unfair to comment.

All i can say is that being on the same side as you it ruins what should be a pleasurable experience.Rather than a nightmare.
Good luck and i hope you stick with it,.

Its a hard lesson to learn but its the old cleche.
Find someone you know and trust,in my instance its Barbz,pay them well and make sure that if theres issues then they will warrant there work and look after the person rather than there wallet.
Then find a mapper whos well trusted.

This has been the advice I was given from day 1 on the forum and with coupes.

I can't recommend him highly enough!!

Ross

Well the damage is apparently classic det - destroyed the piston. Nothing obvious to contribute...

On the Guy Croft forum - he (Guy) thinks 42deg of advance (I took the car to the rollers with 35deg) was way too much and 35 is about right (learned a bunch of other things too).

Don't know if Dave has talked to Ricky. New piston & liner being fitted.

Certainly won't be taking the car back to Ricky.

Some constructive things said here already. I'd like to say two things on this:

1. Legal proceedings would likely be on the grounds of professional negligence.

and from the outset to succeed with that you would have to:

2. Prove fundamental cause of failure beyond all doubt.

(1) sounds easy, kinda rolls off the tongue, always a good threat. Straightforward if you have a barrister and the defendant defends himself and cannot project himself in court. Not at all straightforward if the defendant happens to be a genuine expert in which case the liability is highly unlikely to be his anyway and he should not be in court at all! (2) CAN be impossible in some cases of detonation and in every case requires a supreme expert to determine not only due cause but liability too and the latter will almost certainly require a paid 'expert witness' - quite expensive and not an easy thing to find. You may well, as has been said, find it's your fault (Rich Ellingham alluded to that)..

If you sue on the grounds of professional negligence you may well find yourself being asked why you chose that firm to do the job in the first place. Unless they claim to be specialists in the field of your particular engine they could be forgiven for making mistakes. But that is not the same as negligence! The opportunities for making the judge very grumpy indeed about the whole thing are limitless.

Not a good idea all in all. Better to find a better shop to get the stuff done. I have to say, all in all, that my biggest worries remain what the clients will do! Did they listen to my endless briefings and read my copious GC 'How To' data on this and that? Mostly not... 'Oh, is it in there? I didn't see it..' I hear that a lot. These days I do fewer engines and choose my clients with more care!

Thanks to Mario Cirillo for getting my log-in to work!

G

Thanks, Guy - not really thinking of going down the legal route (life is far too short to make lawyers wealthy) - I'm really interested to know what's "good practice" and what I should expect.

Det (for all the reasons you remind us) must be a significant hazard on a rolling road - hot air, hot engine, experimenting with fuelling and ignition advance etc

Having had the same operator break two engines in broadly the same way, I think I'd be foolish to use an operator that didn't have det detection (det cans) again.

Fortunately, the builder is going to test the rebuilt engine at his preferred RR this time which has to be the best option. It isn't foolproof (the first engine builder broke the first engine 3 times on his own engine dyno before delivering it to me on the 4th attempt) but at least there was no ambiguity as to who was responsible.

oooh - det detection!

The notion of 'knock sensing' is a minefield and - really & truly - a concept best left alone unless fitted as OE to an OE standard engine. These things can takes years of research to calibrate.

As for detecting knock, apart from aural signal (via operator's ear - if he takes his ear protectors off), the first sign on dyno test (bench or rolling-road) would be the torque readout wavering or the exhaust smoking and the engine struggling to 'pull' past a given point. That means the operator has to have a clear idea of the range where peak torque is likely to fall. That very knock could be terminal. You can picture the scene: try a power run, won't hold the torque. Try again...recalibrate and try again .. and so on. In seeking the cause of the power loss the operator can wreck the engine. So he should not proceed at that point he should check the spark plugs....

G

Yup - I've steered clear of the "Phormula" det sensors for instance - was thinking more about enhancing the operators ability to hear knock.

In my example, Guy,



peak power was a little lower in the rev range than I'd expected (based upon the previous engine). I'm not sure if there are any clues there? We did that run (the first) and then he added advance and the engine went on the second run - losing a piston to det.

I'm trying to understand what could have been done (my me, him, or the builder) to avoid this and the time before that when the same operator blew the head gasket (again to det)

Oppo should have done a spark plug check after the full power run. That would have told him more most of what he needed to know about how the engine was running.

Monitoring exhaust eg: CO would have been imperative. Most race engines like yours under load on carbs would want 3.8-4.2% CO. The HC too would have been a good indicator because high HC can point to an advance problem. Lambda if you like that sort of thing would have been a good indicator and you'd have been looking for something like 0.86-0.92 betw 5000-7000.

If the mixtures look right and if the jetting is pretty routine (and here engine type/marque experience really counts)then that engine might be giving all it's going to.

Altering jetting incrementally can compensate for incorrect mixture thought these days I shudder to hear some of the settings folk get given. In terms of 'routine' on your 8V 2 liter twincam I would expect to see mains 145-150 tops and air correctors 175-180. Anything much at variance than that would be miles out and frankly no more than a pitiful attempt to mask a problem elsewhere.

If incremental alterations to jetting give no improvement to power curve & response the chances are the jetting is right for that engine! That doesn't mean the engine is giving its best. Not the same thing. But you can't make silk purse out of a sows ear as the rather crude saying goes.

As for giving the engine more advance I have never heard of any case where a tuned-up production engine (on a conventional distributor*) needed MORE peak advance than the road version. Quote right too. Highly compressed mixtures (ie: high CR) and richer too burn quicker not slower. If you wanted to test the effect you would be wise to do it at max 2 deg intervals and pref 1 deg if your strobe is accurate enough (eg: Snap-On digital) and certainly have to have a damned accurate distr and timing mark and the means to strobe it super-accurately at peak adv and you'd have to record the power according to that setting.

But to be honest if you did not notice a power drop or gain in +2 deg or - 2 deg peak adv you'd be wasting your time resetting it. Lumping in or out 5 deg or anything like that would be, well, a pretty dangerous/stupid thing to do.

If your engine met the criteria I have indicated it should have come off the rolling road straightaway.

G