New Engine QA and Paul Shinn's Concerns

[JRLampl]

New Engine QA and Paul Shinn's Concerns

As we work through this process with Paul Shinn and his videos/block measurements etc., I wanted to share details on the block manufacturing and verification process.

Factory Verification of the "New Engine" Cylinder Block

The factory in China we are using to manufacture the new Model A cylinder block has a dedicated inspection room to verify dimensions and ensure that the CNC machining programs produce parts within drawing tolerances.

The inspection room has its own HVAC system to maintain 72 degrees F and slightly higher air pressure than the rest of the factory. The higher air pressure keeps dust out when someone opens a door.

The inspection room has a computer-controlled Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), a large granite surface plate, and other precision tools used for inspection.

A cylinder block needing verification is placed in the inspection room and allowed to stabilize for 12 hours before any measurements are taken.

After stabilization, the cylinder block is placed on the surface plate, not restrained in any way, and measurements are taken using the CMM to verify compliance with the drawing dimensions.

For every "production run", the first cylinder block is inspected as described above.

Every cylinder block during a production run does not receive a full inspection with the CMM in the temperature-controlled room, but cylinder blocks are regularly pulled from the production line and measured as a part of the QA process.

Those cylinder blocks that don't receive a full CMM inspection still have their critical dimensions verified during the final inspection before receiving a serial number.

The attached picture was taken in the inspection room of the factory making the new cylinder blocks.




Paul Shinn's 2 New Engine Kits

A recap of the issue: Paul Shinn and his engine builder Willie stated they found dimensional problems with the 2 "New Engine Kits" in their possession and the first YouTube video published by Paul said that it will take $4800 to correct the problems if parts were taken from both "New Engine Kits" to make one running engine.

In the first video, Paul and Willie said the crankshaft and camshaft are not parallel by 0.007 inches, the crankshaft has a 0.005-inch runout, and the main bearing caps cannot be shifted sideways because they have dowel pins to locate them.

As many who monitor this forum know, Paul's video created a lot of backlash from those familiar with the "New Engine Kit", and it generated a lot of comments questioning his approach from those familiar with proper measurement techniques. Due to this backlash, Paul removed that video from his YouTube channel.

Paul created a second video – here is the link: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU_G1AAkefQ ). In this video there was no further information regarding measurements, data, technique, etc. He stated he was committed to working with us (the manufacturer of the Burtz Block) by taking new measurements of the parts he believes are out of spec and posting his findings along with the original Ford engine drawing specifications. We agree with this approach; we asked that he identify each block and take specific measurements. To date, are still waiting to see his findings or response on the forums.

In response to Paul’s comments on the forum that he wanted to be rid of his block kits, I did offer a full refund to him via email sent on August 30th and asked for pick up information for the block kits. He replied that he wanted to work with us to make this outcome a “win-win” for the Model A community. We are still waiting for information regarding his measurement data and information related to the measurement technique.

It cannot be overstated we are very concerned about QA and if there is a problem, we need to know about it as soon as possible. Paul and Willie, please reply to this thread and post your measured dimensions, or let everyone know what your plans are for the 2 "New Engine Kits" in your possession.

[Fullraceflathead]

I've worked in quality control and also have operated the “CMM” Coordinate Measuring Machine for more than 30 years and I will say this, they are capable of measuring within Millionths of an inch. They will definitely measure any deviation compared to the drawing requirements.

[Bob Bidonde]

Ditto fullraceflathead's comment. During my rotation in Production Engineering, I saw and depended upon CMM. There is no way a human can compete with the accuracy of CMM.

[duke36]

Since these new blocks aren't turnkey completed and delivered to the customer as short or long blocks, how does a warranty actually work?

[Terry, NJ]

I saw that video and I wondered if he might have trusted "Willie" a little too much. I can't say right now what the items were, but there was maybe acouple. However, The .007 runout of the crankshaft was not one of them. This is inexcusable! I believe it was in the boring of the cylinders. But lets try to go back to 1928-1931 and ask ourselves, was Henry really holding the perfect machine dimensions that we seem to think are necessary? Remember, that's what tolerances are for.
Terry

[alexiskai]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by duke36

Since these new blocks aren't turnkey completed and delivered to the customer as short or long blocks, how does a warranty actually work?

In most states, the UCC (uniform commercial code) says that items sold have an implied warranty of merchantability, meaning the item is fit for the "ordinary purpose" for which a consumer would buy that item. In this case, the ordinary purpose is "to build a working, reliable Model A engine," so any defects in workmanship would be assessed according to their impact on that purpose. That's above and beyond any express warranty stated in the product materials by the manufacturer. Manufacturers can disclaim the implied warranty, but I don't think that was done here.

[JRLampl]

Originally Posted by duke36

Since these new blocks aren't turnkey completed and delivered to the customer as short or long blocks, how does a warranty actually work?

In general, our parts are warranted to conform to the engineering documentation including material, dimensions, surface finishes, heat treating, balancing, and appearance.

[Kurt in NJ]

Where is this engineering documentation found, is it published online?

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Originally Posted by Kurt in NJ

Where is this engineering documentation found, is it published online?

Kurt,

The engineering documentation is proprietary information.

Most of the engineering documentation consists of SolidWorks files created by me to model the "New Engine Parts".

The interface dimensions for attaching original parts are not proprietary and can be found on the original Ford drawings available from the archives.

If you have a specific question about anything, I will be happy to answer your question.

[alexiskai]

I think his question is, if the parts are warranted to conform to a spec which is a trade secret, how would a consumer know that they could invoke the warranty?

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

I think his question is, if the parts are warranted to conform to a spec which is a trade secret, how would a consumer know that they could invoke the warranty?

Alexiskai,

There are no trade secrets regarding material, dimensions, surface finishes, heat treating, balancing, or appearance. These items are what is covered by the warranty.

The above items have been discussed in detail at the MARC and MAFCA National Meet seminars in a 90-slide show presentation. The slides include all drawings from China that specify the material requirements, GT&D dimensions, tolerances, surface finishes, heat treatment, depth of heat treatment in various areas, and the balance requirements.

The specifications are on the drawings from China. If a consumer like Paul Shinn has a problem, we will ask Paul for measured dimensions. If the dimensions do not agree with the drawing from China, we will have the questionable part sent to a modern qualified machine shop to double-check the questionable dimension.

The SolidWorks files are the "Creative and Unique" part of this project and are worthless unless you or someone else wants to send them to a third-world country for production. The drawings also have some proprietary information like the location and angles for the drilled lubrication passages.

The SolidWorks files do not specify material, tolerances, surface finishes, hardness, balancing, or surface finish for appearance. If I sent the SolidWorks files of the cores for the new cylinder block to you, what information would be of value to you?

[Ernie Vitucci]

Good afternoon...I have one question...other than Paul, has anyone else with a new block found that they could not build a quality engine from the parts Terry and RL supply? Ernie in Arizona

[duke36]

The initial warranty question was not in any way to diminish all the effort expended
in producing new engines for our A's. If for example ,the Burtz package was sold to one of the Model A vendors who sell parts including the new 5 bearing engine and warrants their assembled engine for say 90 days or longer, then the warranty is fairly clear with the vendor sole source. But if the package is sold to a lay consumer who hires a shop to put the short or long block together, how is that warranty, if implied or otherwise, addressed?

[nkaminar]

Terry, NJ,

I agree that Paul trusted Willie too much. The runout of the crankshaft journals is not real. What Willie measured was the runout of the center holes which could have been damaged or the crank could have been ground without relying on the center holes. As many people have stated, the end journals need to be set up on V blocks and then the runout of the rest of the journals taken.

Paul has helped many people in the Model A hobby through the years. But he is a journalist by training and not a machinist or automotive engineer. In my opinion he needs to get a second or third opinion by taking the parts to other machine shops.

Regarding the precision in the plant that built the Model A's: I am constantly amazed at how accurate the original parts were. Even the Model T was built to very close tolerances. Ford invested heavily in the tooling to produce his cars. The precision in today's cars is greater, of course.

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Originally Posted by duke36

The initial warranty question was not in any way to diminish all the effort expended
in producing new engines for our A's. If for example ,the Burtz package was sold to one of the Model A vendors who sell parts including the new 5 bearing engine and warrants their assembled engine for say 90 days or longer, then the warranty is fairly clear with the vendor sole source. But if the package is sold to a lay consumer who hires a shop to put the short or long block together, how is that warranty, if implied or otherwise, addressed?

duke36,

Our parts are warranted as stated in previous posts. If your builder finds a problem with our parts during assembly, please have him contact us and we will work with him to solve any problem.

If your builder does not follow the "Builders Guide", or modifies our parts, your builder assumes all responsibility and our warranty does not apply.

A 90-day warranty is nothing. Please look for an engine builder that can warrant his workmanship for a much longer period of time. Dennis Kliesen, a home builder has over 22,000 miles on his new engine, and Dave Gerold (Durable Performance) a professional engine builder has over 18,000 miles on his new engine.

[Billybob57]

It baffles me that a company that is in the process of promoting a new product would be so critical of concerns identified. Personally it makes me think your trying to hide something. Welcome to the buisness world!

[Richard in Anaheim CA]

I believe the offer of full money back refund in return of the two blocks is the gold standard. Why won't he take the offer? Has he done machine work on the blocks?
Is he only out to discredit Terry?

Paul Shinn wants to get rid of those two blocks. He has options. Return the blocks.Take the money. Build a made by Ford original. Buy a Donovan block Take his chances with the other guy who claims on Ford Barn to be producing a similar product.

Posting on a public forum was neither honest or ethical. He should have gone directly to the manufacturer.

Richard
Anaheim CA

[TomInCologne]

Originally Posted by Billybob57

It baffles me that a company that is in the process of promoting a new product would be so critical of concerns identified. Personally it makes me think your trying to hide something. Welcome to the buisness world!

...and what sort of business world is that? There may be a quality problem with his product and Terry keeps us all informed of what happens, happened and what will happen in the future. Of course he is defensive re his product, he is, and should be, proud of it. This is how we want our suppliers to be, maybe you prefer producers who ship a product and then 'forgetaboutit'.



After this whole calamity started off on the wrong foot, why not just stay in the shadows and see how the two involved parties sort it out and you stop bitching. I have a lot of respect for Paul Shinn (i learned a lot from his videos) and Terry (i couldn't have engineered that block). I am looking forward to them keeping us informed. WE, and that obviously includes you, will learn a lot here.


Sorry for the rant.

[Billybob57]

I'm just saying name calling ( he called Paul a drunk) because someone critiqued your product is pretty childish. Buisness owners should have thicker skin than that! Folks need to grow up and act like adults! And bitching? You wrote a book!

[LeonardS]

Originally Posted by Billybob57

I'm just saying name calling ( he called Paul a drunk) because someone critiqued your product is pretty childish. Buisness owners should have thicker skin than that! Folks need to grow up and act like adults! And bitching? You wrote a book!

He NEVER called Paul a drunk. You should read that post again.

[Big hammer]

Originally Posted by JRLampl

New Engine QA and Paul Shinn's Concerns

As we work through this process with Paul Shinn and his videos/block measurements etc., I wanted to share details on the block manufacturing and verification process.

Factory Verification of the "New Engine" Cylinder Block

The factory in China we are using to manufacture the new Model A cylinder block has a dedicated inspection room to verify dimensions and ensure that the CNC machining programs produce parts within drawing tolerances.

The inspection room has its own HVAC system to maintain 72 degrees F and slightly higher air pressure than the rest of the factory. The higher air pressure keeps dust out when someone opens a door.

The inspection room has a computer-controlled Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), a large granite surface plate, and other precision tools used for inspection.

A cylinder block needing verification is placed in the inspection room and allowed to stabilize for 12 hours before any measurements are taken.

After stabilization, the cylinder block is placed on the surface plate, not restrained in any way, and measurements are taken using the CMM to verify compliance with the drawing dimensions.

For every "production run", the first cylinder block is inspected as described above.

Every cylinder block during a production run does not receive a full inspection with the CMM in the temperature-controlled room, but cylinder blocks are regularly pulled from the production line and measured as a part of the QA process.

Those cylinder blocks that don't receive a full CMM inspection still have their critical dimensions verified during the final inspection before receiving a serial number.

The attached picture was taken in the inspection room of the factory making the new cylinder blocks.




Paul Shinn's 2 New Engine Kits

A recap of the issue: Paul Shinn and his engine builder Willie stated they found dimensional problems with the 2 "New Engine Kits" in their possession and the first YouTube video published by Paul said that it will take $4800 to correct the problems if parts were taken from both "New Engine Kits" to make one running engine.

In the first video, Paul and Willie said the crankshaft and camshaft are not parallel by 0.007 inches, the crankshaft has a 0.005-inch runout, and the main bearing caps cannot be shifted sideways because they have dowel pins to locate them.

As many who monitor this forum know, Paul's video created a lot of backlash from those familiar with the "New Engine Kit", and it generated a lot of comments questioning his approach from those familiar with proper measurement techniques. Due to this backlash, Paul removed that video from his YouTube channel.

Paul created a second video – here is the link: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU_G1AAkefQ ). In this video there was no further information regarding measurements, data, technique, etc. He stated he was committed to working with us (the manufacturer of the Burtz Block) by taking new measurements of the parts he believes are out of spec and posting his findings along with the original Ford engine drawing specifications. We agree with this approach; we asked that he identify each block and take specific measurements. To date, are still waiting to see his findings or response on the forums.

In response to Paul’s comments on the forum that he wanted to be rid of his block kits, I did offer a full refund to him via email sent on August 30th and asked for pick up information for the block kits. He replied that he wanted to work with us to make this outcome a “win-win” for the Model A community. We are still waiting for information regarding his measurement data and information related to the measurement technique.

It cannot be overstated we are very concerned about QA and if there is a problem, we need to know about it as soon as possible. Paul and Willie, please reply to this thread and post your measured dimensions, or let everyone know what your plans are for the 2 "New Engine Kits" in your possession.

Thank you for your update! Moving this #1 post so it easier

[Billybob57]

https://youtu.be/gU_G1AAkefQ

[Phil Brown]

Originally Posted by Richard in Anaheim CA

I believe the offer of full money back refund in return of the two blocks is the gold standard. Why won't he take the offer? Has he done machine work on the blocks?
Is he only out to discredit Terry?

Paul Shinn wants to get rid of those two blocks. He has options. Return the blocks.Take the money. Build a made by Ford original. Buy a Donovan block Take his chances with the other guy who claims on Ford Barn to be producing a similar product.

Posting on a public forum was neither honest or ethical. He should have gone directly to the manufacturer.

Richard
Anaheim CA

My thoughts from day one, wonder if theres more to this story than we know

Originally Posted by LeonardS

He NEVER called Paul a drunk. You should read that post again.

Yea, asking if that box might have had anything to do with the measurements IS a far cry from calling someone a drunk

[Billybob57]

Seriously? Insinuating someone has a drinking problem is simply wrong!

[jeepguy1948]

I have been seriously interested in The Burtz block since it came out, butt.... This donnybrook only reinforces what I planned all along. I will not be buying one until somebody with a good reputation is offering them as a ready to go “Crate Engine” this would save me having to deal with any of these issues, the machine shop, engine builder, engine assembler would have to deal with any QC issues and I’m sure that if there were issues the factory would be eager to eliminate them for future blocks. Just my $0.02

[denis4x4]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

For jeepguy1948, I think that Steve Becker at Bert’s Model A has sold several turn key Burtz engines. You can call him at 1-800-321-1930

[wwirz]

I think that Terry Burtz will sort this matter out. Suggest letting the dust settle and await his findings.
I have not heard of anyone with problems with the BURTZ engines.
If or when I need a new engine, I plan on using the BURTZ. A 5 main, counterweighted engine. takes care of a few problems with the HENRY design.
However, I must say the HENRY design suits me just fine. DOn't drive it like a race car and change the oil every 500 miles.

[JRLampl]

Background and Update on this thread, “Where is Paul Shinn?”

On August 27, Paul Shinn released a Youtube video showing his engine builder, Willie Baechler, measuring the machined surfaces of the two new engine kits that he purchased from us in early 2022. Many of the measurements were reported to be severely out of tolerance, and the conclusion was that extensive machining at a substantial cost would be necessary to produce one good engine. There were many forum posts from both engine builders and owners that disagreed with the way Willie measured the parts and the negative posts caused Paul to take down his video shortly after it was posted.

It was imperative that we determine if there was a problem or not because it would be an indication that the entire production of engine kits could have a problem resulting in a costly recall. We have not seen any such problems to date. Our parts are manufactured on automated machines, and if one part has a problem, it is likely that all parts in the production run will have the same problem.

In October, we posted "Where is Paul Shinn" on the forums. He responded and agreed to get his 2 engine kits (#111 and #123) evaluated by a 3rd party engine builder/machinist. At Paul’s request, we provided 4 builder recommendations and suggested he interview and pick one of the 4. Hanford Auto Supply in Hanford, CA was selected by Paul after his conversations with the owner (see https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057543524018).

Paul brought the two engine kits to Hanford Auto Supply and he posted on Nov 4th: “Spent almost all day in Hanford with Tim yesterday, shot hours and hours of video of our work. Lots of information was gathered and learned, and I'm excited to share it soon! Video will be in post production for a week or two.”

The crankshafts and cylinder blocks were each measured with regard to critical specs and the report from Hanford Auto Supply follows:

We checked the main bore diameters, and crankshaft journal diameters, and runout. The main bore diameters all measured to within 0.001” of specification (2.125”) and the crankshafts were all within correct journal specification with 1 having a measured runout of less than 0.002” and the other at around 0.001”. The bore diameter measurements are as follows:

Block# 111
Main: #1: 2.1245 #2: 2.1250 #3: 2.1247 #4: 2.1250 #5: 2.1255

Block# 123
Main: #1: 2.1240 #2: 2.1250 #3: 2.1240 #4: 2.1250 #5: 2.1252

The crankshafts were installed, the main caps torqued, and we used Plastiguage to check clearances:

Block# 111
Main: #1: 0.0015” #2: 0.0020” #3: 0.0015” #4: 0.0020” #5: 0.0015”


Block# 123
Main: #1: 0.0015” #2: 0.0020” #3: 0.0015” #4: 0.0020” #5: 0.0015”

Both crankshafts rotated freely; #123 has a spot where rotation is slightly snug. Both blocks will be built as they are; we feel all the machining and runout are within acceptable tolerances and the blocks can be built as they are - out of the box.

A video showing how the crankshafts rotate in cylinder blocks #111 and #123 can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDP6ExdsRrc


The measurement data from Hanford Auto Supply has shown the blocks to be within spec for build. We had hoped and expected that Paul would post his video of the detailed measurements taken at Hanford Auto Supply, however, Paul has advised us that he does not intend to publish the video report.

[Dan McEachern]

Can anyone open the link above?

http://bit.ly/3OLpLlz

[Jim/GA]

Originally Posted by Dan McEachern

Can anyone open the link above?

http://bit.ly/3OLpLlz

I can not open it.

It takes me to a Login page.

[4bangerbob]

Originally Posted by Dan McEachern

Can anyone open the link above?

http://bit.ly/3OLpLlz

It takes me to a microsoft log in page, no video. but it maybe this video I seen on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHU72ono93w

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

4bangerbob,

Thanks for the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDP6ExdsRrc) that was filmed at Hanford Auto Parts and shows how the crankshafts rotate in the cylinder blocks of the 2 "New Engine Kits" that Paul Shinn claimed to be defective.

[CWPASADENA]

John,

It is good to have some information that we can rely on about the 2 engine kits Paul Shinn purchased.
To date, I have completed 9 Burtz engines. The findings in the video are very consistent with what I have experienced with the engines I have put together.

Chris W.

[BrianH]

That you tube link cuts to a page that says video not available.

[Aretino]

China is our enemy

[alexiskai]

The video was uploaded for use on another forum and was not authorized for wide distribution. It's about a minute long and just shows what John says above: "Both crankshafts rotated freely; #123 has a spot where rotation is slightly snug." That's all.

[wrpercival]

Sorry about the problem with the link provided for the video that summarizes the results of the remeasured tolerances on the blocks owned by Paul Shinn.

The following link works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDP6ExdsRrc

[ampico-kid]

This is definitely good news. I'm especially happy since I recently purchased the block, head, cam, and flywheel which were just delivered to the builder who is anxious to start work on it.

This debacle has surely cost the Burtz Block people sales and money over the past several months, and I for one am happy that it's finally been cleared up. The question I have is how did Paul Shinn's builder Willie Baechler come up with the measurements that started all of this in the first place?

[ampico-kid]

Originally Posted by wrpercival

Sorry about the problem with the link provided for the video that summarizes the results of the remeasured tolerances on the blocks owned by Paul Shinn.

The following link works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDP6ExdsRrc

Works good....thanks!!!

[Fhane]

I am confused.

One of the large venders gets a bad reputation, mostly because of problems they created them selves. Other venders get burned, sometimes due to no fault of their own, but due to uninformed end users.

If we lose any of the big venders we may lose more than we think.

Some of us say we will never buy or use a product from a certain vender. That certain vender may manufacture a part that you buy from another vender but now you are happy because you like and trust the vender you purchased from. If the “bad” vender goes under, it is very possible no one else if going to manufacture the particular parts.

We have beat the “bad” vender to death on this and other forums.

Now the Burtz engine comes into production after years of design, testing and money spent. It has been road tested, assembled by experts and novices alike. I have heard nothing but praise for the engine except for the crank run out by the reporter.

Now the reporter comes along, observes run out on the crank and claims it is unacceptable. The builder and the reporter agree on a third party to investigate. Third party says engine is in spec. Reporter will not respond. Some of the forum contributors want the subject dropped.

Will we ever find out from the reporter what really happened?

Will we miss the Burtz engine if the builder gets disgusted and quits building the engines?

We have beat almost every vender half to death over simple things like replacement grease fittings that would not fit, poorly machined heads and on and on.

Don’t you guys want to get to the bottom of this? I do.

If the reporter can’t respond maybe he is not a reporter but rather a pot stirrer.

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by Fhane

We have beat the “bad” vender to death on this and other forums.

Now the Burtz engine comes into production after years of design, testing and money spent. It has been road tested, assembled by experts and novices alike. I have heard nothing but praise for the engine except for the crank run out by the reporter.

Now the reporter comes along, observes run out on the crank and claims it is unacceptable. The builder and the reporter agree on a third party to investigate. Third party says engine is in spec. Reporter will not respond. Some of the forum contributors want the subject dropped.

Will we ever find out from the reporter what really happened?

Will we miss the Burtz engine if the builder gets disgusted and quits building the engines?

Don’t you guys want to get to the bottom of this? I do.

If the reporter can’t respond maybe he is not a reporter but rather a pot stirrer.

Given the subtle hostility that this post demonstrates, I don't find it at all surprising that Mr. Shinn does not wish to post the results here. Over the course of the last several months this subject has gone from an apparently legitimate question of quality control to attacks on the individuals involved.

I did not see the initial video showing Mr. Shinn's concerns so I cannot comment on it. Whether that was the proper forum or not to raise the question is not under discussion. Regardless of that, a path forward involving a third party inspector was agreed upon by John Lampl (representing the manufacturer) and Mr. Shinn, it was followed, and the results made known here by Mr. Lampl (and I thank you for that). We all can draw our own conclusions.

But to describe Paul Shinn as "pot stirrer" is out of line both on the face of it and as a discussion item. Mr. Shinn has been the President of his local MAFCA chapter, President of the Northern California Regional Group of MAFCA, and continues to produce videos helpful to Model A buffs everywhere. I cannot think of anyone who is more dedicated to the Model A hobby, especially as to how we engage the next generation, than he is. I don't know him personally but I've heard him speak on several occasions, and he seems in person just like his videos portray him - a genuinely nice guy.

If you want to discuss the issue (quality of the Burtz engine), fine. But let's knock off making it personal. That demeans everyone and makes this forum sound like Twitter.

My $0.02 as a grumpy old man.

JayJay

[GeneBob]

I really wanted to see the original video to hear what the original statements were. I was disappointed that an off-hand comment was made in poor taste regarding the original video. I would like to know Paul's response to the 3rd party inspection. I would really like to see Paul Shinn and J. Lampl or Terry Burtz (whoever made the comment about the beer) admit their errors (as appropriate) and put this whole thing in rear view mirror. There seems to be a lot of success stories with this engine and there is definitely a lot of trust in Paul.

[brokenspoke]

It appears to me that the ball is in Pauls court

[old31]

Jay Jay, very well said.

[nkaminar]

Not Paul's fault. He just picked the wrong person to do the initial inspection of the parts. Seems that has been resolved by finding a better shop. I put my Burtz engine together without problems and it runs great. I hope the production of these engine continues and I would like to see the same treatment for the Model T, although not as high priority as the Model A because of the way Model T cars are used.

[Bob Bidonde]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

nkaminar! Thanks for your post. It's a breath of fresh air re the Burtz engine. It should put this topic to bed I hope.

[ampico-kid]

Originally Posted by nkaminar

Not Paul's fault. He just picked the wrong person to do the initial inspection of the parts. Seems that has been resolved by finding a better shop. I put my Burtz engine together without problems and it runs great. I hope the production of these engine continues and I would like to see the same treatment for the Model T, although not as high priority as the Model A because of the way Model T cars are used.

I am in total agreement. Thanks for stating it so clearly and succinctly!!!

[LeonardS]

Originally Posted by nkaminar

Not Paul's fault. He just picked the wrong person to do the initial inspection of the parts. Seems that has been resolved by finding a better shop. I put my Burtz engine together without problems and it runs great. I hope the production of these engine continues and I would like to see the same treatment for the Model T, although not as high priority as the Model A because of the way Model T cars are used.

I disagree. Paul has some fault for posting the results without double checking them or checking with Burtz engines to see what their thoughts were. He went ahead and started this mess and now is not going to apologize. Time for him to man-up and let the Model A community know that the results he posted were incorrect. Absolutely he has fault.

[Herb Concord Ca]

I agree with LeonardS. Paul should have discussed his results with Terry Burtz first, before posting his video. He owes Terry Burtz and the Model A community an apology.

[CWPASADENA]

Originally Posted by LeonardS

I disagree. Paul has some fault for posting the results without double checking them or checking with Burtz engines to see what their thoughts were. He went ahead and started this mess and now is not going to apologize. Time for him to man-up and let the Model A community know that the results he posted were incorrect. Absolutely he has fault.

I totally agree,

Paul is held in very high regard as a Model A "expert" by many in the hobby.

Paul posted a video which made some very disparaging remarks about the Burtz engine. His machinist pointed out many "faults" that would require several thousands of dollars to correct before these engines could be used. These "faults" were not at all consistent with the experience of other builders who collectively had assembled well over a hundred of these engines with very good results. Several of us questioned the methods that Paul's mechanist was using to make these measurements and arriving at his conclusions. Paul failed to do additional investigation or even contact Terry Burtz before he posted his video.

Terry suggested the 2 engine kits in Paul's possession be taken to an agreed upon qualified third party for re-evaluation, the results of which (good or bad) would be posted for all to see. Paul agreed to this and also agreed to the person to do the re-inspection. The results of the re-inspection did not at all support the "findings" of Paul's original machinist.

Paul needs to apologize to Terry and the Model A Community for his "mistake" in posting such a video before being sure that the information was correct. I do not think Paul did this intentionally, he just picked the wrong mechanist.

Terry Burtz went to great lengths to defend the quality of his product. Terry was willing to have a third party evaluate the 2 engine kits in question and have the results of this inspection posted for all to see.

It is now up to Paul to publicly recognize he made a mistake. Even a Model A "expert" is not immune from making a mistake but in order for Paul to retain his credibility, he really needs to acknowledge this mistake.

Paul started this mess, and it is about time Paul steps up and puts this to bed.

Chris W.

[P.S.]

All I'm going to say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCAq...ature=youtu.be

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by nkaminar

............... I hope the production of these engine continues and I would like to see the same treatment for the Model T.............

I'd go one step farther and say I'd like to see Terry Burtz get new block castings of the 59AB Flathead also

Lots of these little buggers running around with cracked blocks! I think there would be a good demand for them just like Model A but I realize the casting work on these would be a nightmare. They could take the place of the earlier Flatheads heck everybody wants the 239 cube 24 stud Flattie anyway!

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by P.S.

All I'm going to say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCAq...ature=youtu.be

[nkaminar]

Paul, Thanks for letting us see that video.

I am trying to think of why the crank in the video would have a "tight" spot but then revolve freely past that location. The only thing I can think of is the type of lubrication used for assembly. Or one tab on the insert bearings not fitting correctly. The clearance measurements published above all look good. If it was my engine I would build it as is after checking to see if the tabs fit well.

I don't think a "quick pass" with a line hone is a good idea, especially if the bearings are installed. The Babbett is very thin on the insert bearings.

Was assembly lube used? Was the crank runout checked with the end journals supported on V blocks?

One note: My hearing is very bad and it is hard for me to follow the conversation in the video. So it is very likely that I missed something.

[CWPASADENA]

Originally Posted by P.S.

All I'm going to say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCAq...ature=youtu.be

Paul, why not post the entire original video so everyone can see what started this whole thing? Just posting one small segment does not give the whole story.

I saw the original video before you took it down, and it gave a much different impression than what you have posted here.

Chris W.

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by nkaminar

Paul, Thanks for letting us see that video.

I am trying to think of why the crank in the video would have a "tight" spot but then revolve freely past that location. The only thing I can think of is the type of lubrication used for assembly. Or one tab on the insert bearings not fitting correctly.

I think Tim McMaster would know if a bearing tab was not fitting properly. After all, he does own/drive the "World's Fastest Y-Block in the World at Bonneville.

[LeonardS]

There was a lot more said and insinuated by Paul than that short video shows. Way to try and make yourself look like a victim. It didn’t work.

[denniskliesen]

Originally Posted by P.S.

All I'm going to say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCAq...ature=youtu.be

Experienced builders file the corners of the bearing inserts where they are close to the studs at #1 and #3 main bearings. I’ve seen similar situations of this having happened.

“If we just ran a hone through it a couple quick passes” … NO. Inspect if there is a question in how it feels. Take loose main bearing cap one at a time until it is found which main bearing may be cause for concern.

[Big hammer]

When I was watching the video and saw the tightness, I thought why not one at a time remove the bearings too find which bearing is tight, then proceed with an adjustment. We are loosing good machinist/mechanic every day, so many tips and tricks are being lost !

[jack backer]

Huh, I’ll be damned..he flaked? who would have thunk it.. say it ain’t so🙄

[jack backer]

Integrity is the moral of this story, one side clearly displays it.

[BrianH]

That tight spot on that crankshaft would not be acceptable to me. I'd fix it and make it right. That's early bearing failure waiting to happen.

[Ruth]

sez the guy who has been BANNED and signed up under another username.

[brokenspoke]

A real honest man would not hide from his mistakes, come on Paul put this to rest

[mctim64]

Originally Posted by Big hammer

When I was watching the video and saw the tightness, I thought why not one at a time remove the bearings too find which bearing is tight, then proceed with an adjustment. We are loosing good machinist/mechanic every day, so many tips and tricks are being lost !

Paul spent hours in my shop and we did exactly what you have suggested. You can't see everything in a one minute video.

The first time it was checked was with the "shipping studs" and nothing else, the first thing that happened when they were unloaded at my place was to pull all the caps, clean the blocks and caps then assemble and torque with the permanent studs. Then the main bore sizes were checked.

Next new bearings were removed from their boxes and all checked with a ball mic at the crown before being installed in the block. After the cranks were checked for run-out on a set of rollers supporting the end mains they were checked for size with a micrometer, not calipers. Then the crank was laid in the block with light oil on the lower bearings (block is upside down) then checked with platigauge at proper toque with permanent studs as the engine would be in final assembly. Then the crank was removed, plastigauge cleaned off and re-installed with light oil. Mains torqued to proper spec and the crank given a spin.

This all took hours of checking bearings for rub, tapping caps around to see how things might change and a myriad of other things that you don't see in one minute.

Both engines #111 and #123 are almost finished and will be run soon. #123 is going into a 1929 Fordor sedan for some hard driving and a lot of miles. We will see just how well it/they hold up. Should be a lot of fun. Remember, "Fun" is why we do this.

[mctim64]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I would also like to add that Paul was nothing but nice and a genuine good guy with me, we had a good time that day. He was just looking for facts. I don't think picking on him and backing him into a corner will help anything. I believe he intends to make a statement to clear this all up but everyone coming at him isn't helping.

[BillCNC]

Originally Posted by mctim64

I would also like to add that Paul was nothing but nice and a genuine good guy with me, we had a good time that day. He was just looking for facts. I don't think picking on him and backing him into a corner will help anything. I believe he intends to make a statement to clear this all up but everyone coming at him isn't helping.

Dragging his feet the whole way sure isn't helping matters one bit as you can see.

Regards
Bill

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by mctim64

Paul spent hours in my shop and we did exactly what you have suggested. You can't see everything in a one minute video.

The first time it was checked was with the "shipping studs" and nothing else, the first thing that happened when they were unloaded at my place was to pull all the caps, clean the blocks and caps then assemble and torque with the permanent studs. Then the main bore sizes were checked.

Next new bearings were removed from their boxes and all checked with a ball mic at the crown before being installed in the block. After the cranks were checked for run-out on a set of rollers supporting the end mains they were checked for size with a micrometer, not calipers. Then the crank was laid in the block with light oil on the lower bearings (block is upside down) then checked with platigauge at proper toque with permanent studs as the engine would be in final assembly. Then the crank was removed, plastigauge cleaned off and re-installed with light oil. Mains torqued to proper spec and the crank given a spin.

This all took hours of checking bearings for rub, tapping caps around to see how things might change and a myriad of other things that you don't see in one minute.

Both engines #111 and #123 are almost finished and will be run soon. #123 is going into a 1929 Fordor sedan for some hard driving and a lot of miles. We will see just how well it/they hold up. Should be a lot of fun. Remember, "Fun" is why we do this.

Originally Posted by mctim64

I would also like to add that Paul was nothing but nice and a genuine good guy with me, we had a good time that day. He was just looking for facts. I don't think picking on him and backing him into a corner will help anything. I believe he intends to make a statement to clear this all up but everyone coming at him isn't helping.

Thanks for your input Tim.

[rotorwrench]

There is a difference between rolling torque and break away torque. I've found this on both Timken bearings and babbit or removable shell type bearings. When they are set up to a close tolerance (journal bearings) or with a specific pre-load (Timken bearings), they can and will have a break away point when first attempting rotation. On multiple journal type bearings, there can be enough difference between journals to create a spot with more drag than the rest of the arc of rotation. If one has a tight spot in rotation then it should be marked between shaft and stationary block component with a felt marker to see if it is consistently more resistant to rotational torque in that same spot on each revolution. If it's not consistent, then it is just break away resistance. If it is consistent then it is a slight journal to crank pin offset on one or more journal bearing locations. The fact that it rotated through at all is a good sign. Once warmed up to operating temperature after the engine is complete and operational, everything grows and clearances change. There is no way of knowing if this would decrease the life of the crankshaft journal bearings or not but time will tell. A person can remove the pan at some point and recheck the clearances with plastigauge. With 5 main bearings, the crank definitely won't move around as much as a stock model A engine with only 3-mains. I'd venture a guess that it would have a long and healthy life once it's bedded in.

I've seen worse problems with V8 engines in the modern era from a cracked connecting rod to a mis-drilled lifter bore on brand new engines. These were domestic engines too. Warranty covers the expense but it doesn't cover the time wasted with such products.

[jack backer]

Originally Posted by Ruth

sez the guy who has been BANNED and signed up under another username.

Even someone of your mental acuity should see the difference between a party using his megaphone to impugn an honest man..as opposed to getting kicked out of the Mickey Mouse club for hiding the denture cream..

[GeneBob]

I have built a few (very few) 60's-70's era V8's and have felt the crank as pretty draggy. I have never done this but could you put some fine valve lapping compound on the sticky insert and turn the crank several times to take the high spots off? Of course, you would have to clean everything before trying the crank hand spin test again. Would this be a reasonable approach?

[denniskliesen]

Very bad idea.

[GeneBob]

Originally Posted by jack backer

Even someone of your mental acuity should see the difference between a party using his megaphone to impugn an honest man..as opposed to getting kicked out of the Mickey Mouse club for hiding the denture cream..

Do we need to separate you two?
Don't make me pull this car over!

[GeneBob]

Originally Posted by denniskliesen

Very bad idea.

Why? If you are willing to file the edges of the inserts, why not lap them in?

[denniskliesen]

Originally Posted by GeneBob

Why? If you are willing to file the edges of the inserts, why not lap them in?

Not the bearing surface, on the backside where the clearance is tight next to the stud. The procedure is in the online builders guide download at modelaengine.com

[denniskliesen]

Another area that should be checked is the thrust surfaces of the crankshaft. A bad spot will show up on the thrust bearings.

[johnneilson]

Originally Posted by denniskliesen

Another area that should be checked is the thrust surfaces of the crankshaft. A bad spot will show up on the thrust bearings.

or, maybe a bearing edge riding on a fillet...

J

[GeneBob]

Originally Posted by denniskliesen

Not the bearing surface, on the backside where the clearance is tight next to the stud. The procedure is in the online builders guide download at modelaengine.com

OK. I will accept that. Thanks.

[jack backer]

Originally Posted by GeneBob

Do we need to separate you two?
Don't make me pull this car over!

One for my fathers best skills was to swing his arm around and smack the child seated directly behind him in the 65 country squire.. all while maintaining perfect lane control.

[jack backer]

Gene, “time saver” compound is preferable to lapping compound when seating babbit.

[ModelA29]

Originally Posted by BillCNC

Dragging his feet the whole way sure isn't helping matters one bit as you can see.

Is he "dragging" his feet or waiting for the final outcome. You have a fit and say he didn't fully investigate on the first video and now you are b*****n that he is providing an hour by hour video.

Paul's video is far more informative than the other one posted and includes the fact that both builders thought the spot where the crank drags should be addressed.

Remember this is his hobby not his career. Priorities of family, job, hobby have to be balanced.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by Y-Blockhead

Thanks for your input Tim.

X2. Yes thank you Tim!

[BillCNC]

Originally Posted by ModelA29

Is he "dragging" his feet or waiting for the final outcome. You have a fit and say he didn't fully investigate on the first video and now you are b*****n that he is providing an hour by hour video.

Um, no.

What I said was, IF there is a problem with quality control, Terry needs to shut down and figure it out before continuing.

Regards
Bill

[CT Jack]

I have not read all the back and forth claims, accusations, and insulting comments relative to the claim by Paul Shinn etal stating that the crank and cam shaft engine kit parts he received from Terry Burtz etal are out of spec. I am an engineer with many years of automation and manufacturing engineering experience. It appears Tery Burtz's Chinesse engine foundry and component machining resource is producing the Burtz engine with modern methods of manufacturing and quality control. The entire Burtz engine design has been developed using Solid Works design system. Solid Works is widely used domestically and internationally and is the accepted engineering design software used by many US manufacturers. This design system not only is used for the product design but can also be applied to product manufacture.
In my view the professional way of handling any type customer-supplier product quality related dispute is to have both parties share their disputed claims by each formally documenting their respective supporting data. It appears Terry Burtz's supplier uses cnc controlled machining methods with components mounted in precision fixtures. Their component inspection methods for quality control is performed in a seperate controlled area. They also use coordinate measurement machines (CMM) which are very accurate, repeatable, and well established automated gauging systems. The cycle or frquency of inspections appear to be made based on statistical performance/confidence data.
I recommend Paul Shinn etal andTery Burtz etal each prepare a written document indicating what the disputed quality issues are, show how these items are or were inspected, mutually share this information, and meet to make recommendations for resolution.
Once this excersize has been completed they can then share the results with this forum.

[Terry Burtz, Calif]

Originally Posted by CT Jack

I have not read all the back and forth claims, accusations, and insulting comments relative to the claim by Paul Shinn etal stating that the crank and cam shaft engine kit parts he received from Terry Burtz etal are out of spec. I am an engineer with many years of automation and manufacturing engineering experience. It appears Tery Burtz's Chinesse engine foundry and component machining resource is producing the Burtz engine with modern methods of manufacturing and quality control. The entire Burtz engine design has been developed using Solid Works design system. Solid Works is widely used domestically and internationally and is the accepted engineering design software used by many US manufacturers. This design system not only is used for the product design but can also be applied to product manufacture.
In my view the professional way of handling any type customer-supplier product quality related dispute is to have both parties share their disputed claims by each formally documenting their respective supporting data. It appears Terry Burtz's supplier uses cnc controlled machining methods with components mounted in precision fixtures. Their component inspection methods for quality control is performed in a seperate controlled area. They also use coordinate measurement machines (CMM) which are very accurate, repeatable, and well established automated gauging systems. The cycle or frquency of inspections appear to be made based on statistical performance/confidence data.
I recommend Paul Shinn etal andTery Burtz etal each prepare a written document indicating what the disputed quality issues are, show how these items are or were inspected, mutually share this information, and meet to make recommendations for resolution.
Once this excersize has been completed they can then share the results with this forum.

Jack and many others,

Thank you for your comments

Paul Shinn has never published a list of dimensions from Willie that he thinks are out-of-tolerance. In Pauls's retracted video, he stated several measurements that he believes to be out-of-tolerance. The most notable out-of-tolerance dimensions can be found in post #1 of this thread. One of Paul's assertions in his deleted video was that his 2 "New Engine Kits" could be combined with $4800 of machine work to make one new engine.

Post #1 in this thread also describes how the "New Engine" cylinder blocks (and other parts) are verified at the factory using a CMM in a dedicated temperature-controlled room.

Those that are familiar with SolidWorks and automated machining know that if you have a discrepant part, there is a likelihood that all parts in the same production run will have the same problem.

We never doubted that Paul Shins's parts had a problem, but needed to know because the problem may have resulted in a costly recall.

After 2 months of prodding, Paul Shinn agreed to take his parts to a 3rd party for evaluation.

Paul chose Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts to be the 3rd party and evaluate his new engine parts.

Paul spent an entire day at Hanford Auto Parts taking videos and condensed those videos into one that is just over an hour in length.

The measurements taken by Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts and recorded by Paul Shinn are in Paul's video that he won't publish. We have the measurements in a separate document from Tim McMaster, and they are published in post #28 of this thread.

We cannot post Paul's deleted video with Willie and his video taken at Hanford Auto Parts for legal reasons.

If Paul wants to present himself as an unbiased reporter, he needs to let everyone see his complete video that was deleted where Willie states that for $4800, he can combine Paul's 2 "New Engine Kits" to make one new engine, and the entire condensed video taken at Hanford Auto Parts where Tim McMaster made measurements that Paul recorded and where Tim stated that there are no problems with the 2 "New Engine Kits" that Paul brought for evaluation.

Our sales are to individuals and engine builders. Paul was denied being a distributor because we don't need middlemen that will increase the price for consumers. This may be a factor in Paul's reporting.

Paul either needs to "man up" and say he made a mistake, or continue with his assertations that the "New Model A Engine" has many problems.

[brokenspoke]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Terry Burtz, Calif

Jack and many others,

Thank you for your comments

Paul Shinn has never published a list of dimensions from Willie that he thinks are out-of-tolerance. In Pauls's retracted video, he stated several measurements that he believes to be out-of-tolerance. The most notable out-of-tolerance dimensions can be found in post #1 of this thread. One of Paul's assertions in his deleted video was that his 2 "New Engine Kits" could be combined with $4800 of machine work to make one new engine.

Post #1 in this thread also describes how the "New Engine" cylinder blocks (and other parts) are verified at the factory using a CMM in a dedicated temperature-controlled room.

Those that are familiar with SolidWorks and automated machining know that if you have a discrepant part, there is a likelihood that all parts in the same production run will have the same problem.

We never doubted that Paul Shins's parts had a problem, but needed to know because the problem may have resulted in a costly recall.

After 2 months of prodding, Paul Shinn agreed to take his parts to a 3rd party for evaluation.

Paul chose Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts to be the 3rd party and evaluate his new engine parts.

Paul spent an entire day at Hanford Auto Parts taking videos and condensed those videos into one that is just over an hour in length.

The measurements taken by Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts and recorded by Paul Shinn are in Paul's video that he won't publish. We have the measurements in a separate document from Tim McMaster, and they are published in post #28 of this thread.

We cannot post Paul's deleted video with Willie and his video taken at Hanford Auto Parts for legal reasons.

If Paul wants to present himself as an unbiased reporter, he needs to let everyone see his complete video that was deleted where Willie states that for $4800, he can combine Paul's 2 "New Engine Kits" to make one new engine, and the entire condensed video taken at Hanford Auto Parts where Tim McMaster made measurements that Paul recorded and where Tim stated that there are no problems with the 2 "New Engine Kits" that Paul brought for evaluation.

Our sales are to individuals and engine builders. Paul was denied being a distributor because we don't need middlemen that will increase the price for consumers. This may be a factor in Paul's reporting.

Paul either needs to "man up" and say he made a mistake, or continue with his assertations that the "New Model A Engine" has many problems.

I'm beginning to think that lawyers may have gotten involved

[Aretino]

Chinese Lawyers?

[P.S.]

Terry,

Your business partner started threatening legal action. In fact, he demanded that I NOT publish the full video, and wants it to never be seen, and that's where people start wondering why I am silent. It's because there are lawyers involved now.

A few points you have incorrect-

In the first video, neither Willie nor I ever said we wanted to combine the two kits to make one motor for $4800. We also never said anything negative about you or the motors. Willie took measurements and told me what they were and then what we could do to make the small adjustments (which we ended up making several at Tim's shop) so we could build the motors. I pointed out in that video some of the things I liked about your design. I like the pressure oiling to the cam, as one example.

I never wanted to be a distributor. Where did you get that from? I never, ever want to become a distributor for any product. Never have, never will.

Let me say this- I am very sorry things went down the way they did. I am sorry that the Model A community is hurt by this in any way. That is sincere. With that said and meant- May we please move on?

If your business partner will stop the legal action direction he is headed, I would like to publish the video showing all the work Tim and I did to those blocks to make the cranks spin. John's video shows the cranks spinning, but not how we got to that point. There is a lot of good info in there, and Tim taught me a LOT that I really want to share with others.

For the sake of the Model A hobby, can we please put this behind us and go back to being friends?

Paul

Originally Posted by Terry Burtz, Calif

Jack and many others,

Thank you for your comments

Paul Shinn has never published a list of dimensions from Willie that he thinks are out-of-tolerance. In Pauls's retracted video, he stated several measurements that he believes to be out-of-tolerance. The most notable out-of-tolerance dimensions can be found in post #1 of this thread. One of Paul's assertions in his deleted video was that his 2 "New Engine Kits" could be combined with $4800 of machine work to make one new engine.

Post #1 in this thread also describes how the "New Engine" cylinder blocks (and other parts) are verified at the factory using a CMM in a dedicated temperature-controlled room.

Those that are familiar with SolidWorks and automated machining know that if you have a discrepant part, there is a likelihood that all parts in the same production run will have the same problem.

We never doubted that Paul Shins's parts had a problem, but needed to know because the problem may have resulted in a costly recall.

After 2 months of prodding, Paul Shinn agreed to take his parts to a 3rd party for evaluation.

Paul chose Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts to be the 3rd party and evaluate his new engine parts.

Paul spent an entire day at Hanford Auto Parts taking videos and condensed those videos into one that is just over an hour in length.

The measurements taken by Tim McMaster at Hanford Auto Parts and recorded by Paul Shinn are in Paul's video that he won't publish. We have the measurements in a separate document from Tim McMaster, and they are published in post #28 of this thread.

We cannot post Paul's deleted video with Willie and his video taken at Hanford Auto Parts for legal reasons.

If Paul wants to present himself as an unbiased reporter, he needs to let everyone see his complete video that was deleted where Willie states that for $4800, he can combine Paul's 2 "New Engine Kits" to make one new engine, and the entire condensed video taken at Hanford Auto Parts where Tim McMaster made measurements that Paul recorded and where Tim stated that there are no problems with the 2 "New Engine Kits" that Paul brought for evaluation.

Our sales are to individuals and engine builders. Paul was denied being a distributor because we don't need middlemen that will increase the price for consumers. This may be a factor in Paul's reporting.

Paul either needs to "man up" and say he made a mistake, or continue with his assertations that the "New Model A Engine" has many problems.

[Ernie Vitucci]

I have only one question at this point. Does anyone know of any running problems with any of Terry's engines that are on the road? I have not seen any such comments...so to me this adventure is born out by the use of the product. It seems to me that real world testing has proved that these engines are as good or better than the ones designed and built for the 1928 Model A Fords. Ernie in Arizona

[denniskliesen]

Over 24,000 miles and running smooth as the day it left the garage.

[Model A Ron]

Originally Posted by Bob Bidonde

Ditto fullraceflathead's comment. During my rotation in Production Engineering, I saw and depended upon CMM. There is no way a human can compete with the accuracy of CMM.

Bob
I have spent 25 years in automotive and non-automotive Quality Engineering/Supplier Quality Management and I assure you that a CNC can and should keep up with the engineering tolerances measured with a CMM. I am not going to get into a pissing match as I thing what Terry did is amazing. Some people are having issues and they may be related to supplier development needs and or issues related to launching a new design. Things like this are not uncommon and they are in no way related to the design of the product.

[Richard Knight]

What Terry has delivered to us is amazing piece of work. It is up to the assembler to confirm the specs before assembling. You don't have to be a professional to assemble an engine successfully but it may help. If you take on the responsibility of assembling the engine and you are a first timer or have only worked on As you might expect to have some challenges.

[CWPASADENA]

Originally Posted by Richard Knight

What Terry has delivered to us is amazing piece of work. It is up to the assembler to confirm the specs before assembling. You don't have to be a professional to assemble an engine successfully but it may help. If you take on the responsibility of assembling the engine and you are a first timer or have only worked on As you might expect to have some challenges.

Richard,

I think this really sums it up and is very well stated.

As I have said before, "Terry's new engine, while it is not perfect, it is pretty damn good". The few issues I have run into have been easily resolved and the end product is outstanding. The Burtz engine folks have been very responsive to the issues that I have encountered.

Terry has done an amazing job bring this option to the hobby. Just think about what our options were before the Burtz engine kit became available.

I also agree that a first-time engine builder may encounter some issues that could be challenging. This may also be true for any engine assembled by a first timer that is made up of individual new components that had never before been a complete running engine.

Chris W.

[rotorwrench]

I wouldn't care so much about watching the video that was recorded & edited of the 3rd party action. A video recording is what started all this in the first place. I would only want to know what action, if any, was taken during the crankshaft fitting process at Hanford Auto Parts. Everything else is irrelevant.

Builders of kit products need to know what to watch out for. If every kit can be built up by an experienced mechanic then that is great but if any machine shop work may be necessary then the home shop builder may want to at least know what to be checking for before they start any assembly.

In times past, folks didn't resort to legal action for every little problem that may come from the purchase of a new product under warranty but things are different in the modern era. Both purchaser and seller of products need to handle their problems privately before going the public or legal route. I don't like our over litigious society but there is no way to put that cat back in the bag.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by denniskliesen

Over 24,000 miles and running smooth as the day it left the garage.

I saw Dennis' Tudor with his new Terry Burtz engine up at Sharon, Wisconsin a couple years ago and heard it running. He had just driven in from California.

All I can say is.... WOW

[cars2cool]

If anyone can figure out why the crankshaft has that one spot of resistance, it will be Tim McMaster. A few short years ago when I had my engine work done on my babbit bearing A block. The machinist had to check the runout of the crankshaft for the timing gear set i had yet to order. He told me how he measured the runout, it was by supporting the shaft on the journals and not by how the previous machine shop had used the shaft centers as used on modern day crankshafts. He said it was very critical to get that right other wise I would have a very slight noise and a little vibration.

[Richard in Anaheim CA]

Check my post on September 9th First page #17

This long dissertation is not about a problem, or not, with the Burtz engine.
It is about publicly trashing a manufacturer's name prior to even contacting him.

The dark cloud remains and will persist.
A sign of our times, I'm afraid.

[mctim64]

#111 and #123 have been built with no extra work other than assembly with no problems. Both have ran on our run-in stand and now are being installed into cars for many miles of driving. Being these are the first two we have built I feel the Burtz engine is a fine product, they do need care and attention to detail when they go together but in my experience I've become a fan. Cheers!

[P.S.]

Originally Posted by mctim64

#111 and #123 have been built with no extra work other than assembly with no problems.

Are you sure? The video footage of you and I spending nearly 5 hours on those shows grinding on the caps, polishing the cranks and the journals, some material being removed from the thrust bearings, adjusting torque on the caps to free up the crank rotation, even you suggesting that if they were yours, you'd give them "a couple strokes on the line boring machine, and good to go". I wish John would give the OK to share that video with everyone.

I agree the Burtz blocks are needed in this hobby, and the work they have accomplished to bring these to us is appreciated. I'm really glad that this whole situation has greatly increased your shop's business and reputation! I mean that sincerely.

[Ryan]

Once again, I’m not interested in hosting this drama. Obviously there’s some beef between parties… it would be far more appropriate for you all to handle it some place else. It’s not welcomed here.