Moderator: Ranchero50
) If you're going to stroke it you might consider using the 4.25 stroker kit from Survival Motor Sports. FE Specialties seems to know their stuff and I think you're engine is finally in the right hands. 70_F100 wrote:Robroy, this has now, in my opinion, turned into something new. NO WAY, in 10 minutes running, did all of this happen!!!
Regarding:
A) A camshaft WILL NOT wear lobes flat in that time. IMPOSSIBLE!!! Used cam???? PROBABLY!!!
B & L) The cylinder walls will NOT score so badly in that time that the engine needs to be bored just because a windage tray contacted the crankshaft. That metal stayed in the oiling system/crankcase, both of which are pretty much isolated from the combustion chambers.
C) Valve guides will NOT wear enough to require replacement. Guides never repaired/replaced??? DEFINITELY!!!
D) Valve lifters (tappets) WILL NOT wear that quickly. NOT A CHANCE!!!
I know you are a patient man, as I am. However, YOU GOT SCREWED!!!!
Honestly, I would take this to a lawyer and SUE THE PANTS (being EXTREMELY nice!!) OFF of the previous builder. FORGET your ethics. FORGET the terms of the warranty. He knows how long the engine was run. He knows it sat, unturned, for the length of the warranty.
If you question ANYTHING I've said in this post, run it by Tom. If he disagrees, all I can say is that he, also, is trying to sell you something that you don't need.
As you already know, I am VERY experienced with engines, albeit not the FE, but in the case of these defects, an FE is NO DIFFERENT than any other internal combustion engine!!!
That's SWEAT from all that HORSEPOWER!! 
Are you saying that Tom is screwing him as well? I'm not sure i am reading it correctly. I think you are saying that Tom is most likely being truthful and the previous builder put used parts in Robroy's engine, but this point makes it seem that Tom might not be truthful in the condition of the block70_F100 wrote:Robroy, this has now, in my opinion, turned into something new. NO WAY, in 10 minutes running, did all of this happen!!!
Regarding:
A) A camshaft WILL NOT wear lobes flat in that time. IMPOSSIBLE!!! Used cam???? PROBABLY!!!
B & L) The cylinder walls will NOT score so badly in that time that the engine needs to be bored just because a windage tray contacted the crankshaft. That metal stayed in the oiling system/crankcase, both of which are pretty much isolated from the combustion chambers.
C) Valve guides will NOT wear enough to require replacement. Guides never repaired/replaced??? DEFINITELY!!!
D) Valve lifters (tappets) WILL NOT wear that quickly. NOT A CHANCE!!!
I know you are a patient man, as I am. However, YOU GOT SCREWED!!!!
Honestly, I would take this to a lawyer and SUE THE PANTS (being EXTREMELY nice!!) OFF of the previous builder. FORGET your ethics. FORGET the terms of the warranty. He knows how long the engine was run. He knows it sat, unturned, for the length of the warranty.
If you question ANYTHING I've said in this post, run it by Tom. If he disagrees, all I can say is that he, also, is trying to sell you something that you don't need.
As you already know, I am VERY experienced with engines, albeit not the FE, but in the case of these defects, an FE is NO DIFFERENT than any other internal combustion engine!!!
I'm just trying to understand this and follow along, because i may be having my 390 worked on by Tom in a couple weeks.B & L) The cylinder walls will NOT score so badly in that time that the engine needs to be bored just because a windage tray contacted the crankshaft. That metal stayed in the oiling system/crankcase, both of which are pretty much isolated from the combustion chambers.
70_F100 wrote:sideoilerfe, thanks for the reinforcement!!!!
I was hoping I wouldn't be the only one with this viewpoint!!
Actually, we were typing at the same time! I hate it when honest people get ripped off like this. Especially almost $9000 spent on an engine that was essentially spray panted and sold as new.
you cant prove that. but its seems possible.ToughOldFord wrote:Wow, did untrained monkeys rebuild that engine?
I am going to take issue with this. Not everyone always agrees on this type of stuff, that is apparent even from our exchanges and in fact I'll say it is very possible to ruin a flat tappet cam in 10 minutes, happens every day.70_F100 wrote:If you question ANYTHING I've said in this post, run it by Tom. If he disagrees, all I can say is that he, also, is trying to sell you something that you don't need.
DuckRyder, I don't mean to discredit Tom, nor anyone else who has posted under this topic.DuckRyder wrote:I am going to take issue with this. Not everyone always agrees on this type of stuff, that is apparent even from our exchanges and in fact I'll say it is very possible to ruin a flat tappet cam in 10 minutes, happens every day.70_F100 wrote:If you question ANYTHING I've said in this post, run it by Tom. If he disagrees, all I can say is that he, also, is trying to sell you something that you don't need.
Tom has been nothing but helpful and completely transparent here, he has spent a great deal of time already and is willing to take on an engine someone else built when he could easily not have involved himself and built motors from scratch. In addition he has an excellent reputation in FE circles.
Tempers are high, but I will not tolerate more of this.
That's SWEAT from all that HORSEPOWER!! 
I've still never seen one ruined that quickly, but let's look at it from that perspective. The engine was run-in at the previous builder's shop. Hopefully, he ran it more than 5-10 minutes (of course, that's iffy..). That would have been the initial run, and from the video, he revved it quite high soon after it was cranked. Again, from this perspective, the damage would have been done at that point, and not when Robroy fired it up and pretty much let it idle during the 10 minutes he ran it.DuckRyder wrote: To the point of ruining a cam in 10 minutes, again I think it is a matter of degrees, and "gone flat" is a relative term. However, I submit that a cam that has lost a few thousandths is probably no less ruined than one that has a round lobe, the damage is done... I've personally seen one fail in less than 15 minutes, I'm sure it was well and truly ruined at 10 minutes...
Remember the SBC camshaft debaucle? The cams were apparently made from a metal that was too soft, and the lobes would wear completely round. First one I saw like that was a 58 model with a 283. Then, I bought a 64 Biscayne with 283 that had an intake lobe worn off. If you got into it hard, it sounded like a popcorn popper under the hood. I worked at a GMC dealership from 72-75, and there's no telling how many I either replaced or saw replaced during that time. GM claimed that it came from improper service intervals and dirty oil. I think they finally relented in the late 70's/early 80's and admitted it was their fault.DuckRyder wrote: A few (5?) years ago when Johnson lifter went out of business and everyone was scrambling to get them from someone else and finding that Johnson made most if not all of the "good ones" cams were failing right and left. It SEEMS like Comp had an inordinate proportion of the failures although admittedly they have a large market share. It seems that the removal of EP additives from street based oils may have played into it.
That's a possibility, maybe.DuckRyder wrote:I'm wondering if perhaps an old stock cam and lifter kit got installed that had some of the suspect lifters?
That's SWEAT from all that HORSEPOWER!! 
Yes (to your final question). When I presented all the information I had up 'til then to Steve at Proformance Unlimited, I heard that I should just flush it out externally and it would be fine. He stuck to that recommendation even after I expressed my concern about grinding the engine up and everything. So that's why I wound up taking it to another place.fordman wrote:wait a minute. how did i miss soemthing here? i thought the original builder was going to redo the engine? i was wondering wehy this thread was contiuing on . i knew the engine couldnt have been redone this soon. so you took the engine to this other builder and he found all this crap wrong?
Interesting! You could certainly be right about this.70_F100 wrote:Robroy, this has now, in my opinion, turned into something new. NO WAY, in 10 minutes running, did all of this happen!!!
This is a good point. Perhaps detailed photos of the cam and further conversation with Tom will reveal the likelihood of this being the case!70_F100 wrote: A) A camshaft WILL NOT wear lobes flat in that time. IMPOSSIBLE!!! Used cam???? PROBABLY!!!
This makes sense. Perhaps if the camshaft were being ground up (or coming apart on its own somehow), metal from that could have scored the cylinder walls?70_F100 wrote:B & L) The cylinder walls will NOT score so badly in that time that the engine needs to be bored just because a windage tray contacted the crankshaft. That metal stayed in the oiling system/crankcase, both of which are pretty much isolated from the combustion chambers.
Could be!70_F100 wrote:C) Valve guides will NOT wear enough to require replacement. Guides never repaired/replaced??? DEFINITELY!!!
Very interesting!70_F100 wrote:D) Valve lifters (tappets) WILL NOT wear that quickly. NOT A CHANCE!!!
I can certainly understand your reasons for saying these things. I can imagine how frustrating it would be to watch a good-natured beginner like myself get in to this kind of situation!70_F100 wrote:I know you are a patient man, as I am. However, YOU GOT SCREWED!!!!
Honestly, I would take this to a lawyer and SUE THE PANTS (being EXTREMELY nice!!) OFF of the previous builder. FORGET your ethics. FORGET the terms of the warranty. He knows how long the engine was run. He knows it sat, unturned, for the length of the warranty.
I think you've made compelling points and I'll certainly ask for Tom's opinion on them!70_F100 wrote:If you question ANYTHING I've said in this post, run it by Tom.
I see! I know that you're a super experienced guy and I truly appreciate your excellent advice!!!70_F100 wrote:As you already know, I am VERY experienced with engines, albeit not the FE, but in the case of these defects, an FE is NO DIFFERENT than any other internal combustion engine!!!
I can understand your reasons for saying this! I'll present them with a detailed explanation of my situation next week and see what their response is (this time, I'll get the response from The Boss, Doug).sideoilerfe wrote:I'm sorry to hear about this however I am not surprised. Performance Unlimited screwed you over and I still think you should at least send them an email with a link to this tread. As I said in a previous post they might be more reluctant to cut corners and be more professional in their business practices if they knew that there is a 21 page thread on how sloppy their work is.
Those are interesting options! And yes, I'm very happy that the engine's at FE Specialties now. Tom presents me with ALL of the information about the engine in a very patient, detailed way. In terms of behavior to expect from an engine builder, I honestly didn't know what I was missing before this experience!sideoilerfe wrote:At least you can have it rebuilt to 4.13 bore. With the 390 crank it gives you a 406 CI engine (well, a poor mans 406
Good to know!fordman wrote:no i had edited my post. i think it may have been the previous build also. i cant see running it for ten minutes to cause all that damage.
Based solely on a hypothetical scenario, it makes sense to question this! Since you haven't met Tom, I can understand how you'd be open this possibility. This said, I'm convinced that Tom's telling the complete truth about the parts--here are my reasons:fordman wrote:but i edited it because i cant tell if this other guy is telling the truth about engine condition of the old parts either.
I see what you mean! As for whether the engine will be fixed up, I'm sure it will. From what I've heard, it's in such sorry shape at the moment that it would make no sense whatsoever to put it back together as-is.fordman wrote:so it is a decision that will have to be made. and i do not want to influence any desicions made abotu wheather to get a used engine and forget it. or rebuild this one.
Good points. I'm certainly not inclined to ask Tom to devote any time to becoming involved with my situation with Proformance Unlimited. As much as is possible, it's my aim to keep the Robroy<->Proformance Unlimited and Robroy<->FE Specialties relationships completely separate.fordman wrote:or even to think about a law suit. you will need photos of the damage and the old damaged parts. plus a builders professional court opinion. will he go to court for you and state the same thing.
In this context, what does a bill of goods mean? I searched on the web but couldn't figure it out.fordman wrote:is he tring to sell you a bill of goods?
Could be! Although ten minutes was my estimate, that was a fairly liberal estimate. It could have been as short as five minutes. I'm certain though that it definitely wasn't over 15, partly because most of its running time was video recorded, and the recordings don't add up to much.fordman wrote:did the other guy screw up. was it more than 10 minutes?
Indeed! Thanks for your excellent response Fordman!fordman wrote:now back with the saga of the new engine for your truck................
Your concern's understandable! It seems that 70_F100 didn't mean to imply this though. Everything Tom has done indicates that he's being completely honest, and for the reasons listed above, I remain convinced you'll be taking your 390 to the best FE shop possible!1971ford wrote: Are you saying that Tom is screwing him as well? I'm not sure i am reading it correctly. I think you are saying that Tom is most likely being truthful and the previous builder put used parts in Robroy's engine, but this point makes it seem that Tom might not be truthful in the condition of the block
...
I'm just trying to understand this and follow along, because i may be having my 390 worked on by Tom in a couple weeks.
Yes, this could be! Once I've documented all the facts, I'll have a talk with the boss of Proformance Unlimited and see what he's willing to do. Since I haven't had the facts until now, I haven't spoken directly to the boss, and I haven't directly asked them to help me, I definitely want to give them this chance! It's entirely possible that I'll be pleasantly surprised with their response.DuckRyder wrote: I slept on this a bit. I personally believe that you might want to start documenting things with an eye to trying to recover some of your investment from the previous builder. Perhaps see if Tom would be willing to write a statement attesting to what he has found to go along with your pictures. And you could get a lawyer to write a letter to the prior builder. It seems apparent that you did not receive what you paid for.
Indeed, that's my understanding.DuckRyder wrote:Let us remember that the builder ran the engine and the cam break in should have been complete when you received the engine. It probably has 30-40 minutes total run time on it (at least it should).
What I heard from Tom supports this. I heard that a camshaft could easily come apart like that if the break in weren't done at the right RPM(s).DuckRyder wrote:It is certainly possible to ruin a camshaft in 30 minutes with improper break in particularly when one considers incorrect valve springs.
This could be true! It makes me curious to understand what formula Proformance Unlimited used to arrive at the numbers they provided to me (436 horsepower and 463 ft/lbs of torque at 4,000 RPM).DuckRyder wrote:This obviously is not what you paid for, it would never produce the kind of power you were told with stock heads.robroy wrote: [*] The motor was basically a stock motor with an upgraded cam, roller rockers, timing set, and a few other parts that I forget. The heads were completely stock.
Hey, I like this!!! Tom did mention several times that it's an unusually good block.DuckRyder wrote:This is not common for 390 blocks and it is good news in light of the other items. Turning it into a 428 would require a crankshaft, but would be a good option.robroy wrote: [*] He had the block sonic checked, and it showed that it could be safely turned in to a 428. (Or perhaps bored to a displacement of 428, while retaining the 390 crankshaft--I wasn't completely clear on that point.)
Very interesting!DuckRyder wrote:Without knowing which cam and the open pressure its hard to say much here, I think it is safe to say that if Tom says they are too strong, they are too strong. They certainly could contribute to cam failure. Many folks break in flat tappet cams with the outer spring only when the cam requires dual springs.robroy wrote: [*] The valve springs had way too much pressure on them. He measured the seat pressure on one at 132 lbs.
I'll find out exactly which cam during my visit next week. It's quite interesting to note that this particular cam has been known to fail in the past. Perhaps that's the source of all the spare metal around the heads--the cam might have already begun to fail before I even received the engine.DuckRyder wrote:Xtreme Energy is a Comp Cam. It is no secret I am not a fan of them and they had quite a rash of failed cams several years back. It would be interesting to find out exactly which cam it was.
I see what you mean. I do indeed feel lucky about the "105" block!!!DuckRyder wrote:I'd be hesitant to bore any Ford block over .30 without a sonic check, which I feel certain the prior builder did not do. As it is it sounds like you did get lucky with the "105" block.
Interesting! I had a feeling that I'd probably gotten the manufacturer name wrong (Hypertech versus Hypereutectic).DuckRyder wrote:Hypereutectic pistons are not in and of themselves bad, they are better than plain cast and are more dimensionally stable than older forged pistons which often slapped when cold. Hypereutectic pistons are somewhat fragile and unforgiving of tuning errors or boost. With the current state of forged piston development there really is not a reason to go with Hypereutectic other than saving cost.
That's an interesting option! I'd be curious to understand more about the different characteristics are larger displacement engine would have, and what impact it would have on performance.DuckRyder wrote:And probably crankshaft. Depending on what the rods look like you might consider a SCAT stroker Crank with different rods. you can get up to 454 CID depending on overbore that way.robroy wrote: [*] Due to the cylinder wall damage, he'd have to bore the cylinders out quite a bit to make them perfect again. By the time he was done he'd be using 428 pistons and rings.
This is quite an idea! After pulling the old 360, I foolishly left it outside, where it got rained on all Winter. I did a halfhearted attempt at covering it with a tarp, but that didn't hold up very well.DuckRyder wrote:Depending on what you are willing to spend (no option at this point is going to be inexpensive) you might ask Tom if he'd prefer to start with your other engine (the one that came out of #50) if it is unmolested. That would preserve the "evidence" and he might have less work (sometimes it is much easier to do something than re-do something). Although it sounds as if the new block is a good one and any money you spend making it into a 428 would be in my opinion well spent.
Yes, could be! At the moment, it does show up on the first page if a search is made for "Proformance Unlimited" and "problem." Interestingly, at least one other page comes up from some guy with a story similar to mine.DuckRyder wrote:I'm sorry to hear about all of this. I hope this thread is coming up on google hits for the previous builder and your experience at least saves someone else the same experience.
Indeed. And since many of the components will need to be new, I look forward to an engine design that might better match my application.DuckRyder wrote:I'm sure you realize it at this point, but Tom is going to have to build you a "new" motor, the good side of that is that it will them be an FE Specialties engine, not just reassembled by FE Specialties.
Yes, this does sound like a good route to take. I'll present as many facts as possible to the boss of the previous builder and see what they're willing to do.70shortwide wrote: I agree with the people saying you should attempt to recover your investment. I dont know Tom, but it seems he is well respected and if you can get his professional statement you may have a good chance at it.
Thank you! Yes this is a classic experience for sure.70shortwide wrote:terrible thing to happen to such a great guy. I imagine your patience is getting tested to the limit. (very high limit IMO) I am impressed with how youve been (seeming) to take it.
It's true that in the future, I'll be much more careful about buying such an expensive thing from a shop that's so far away. Nothing can compare to the value of face-to-face time, when it comes to evaluating an engine builder--I know that now!70shortwide wrote:real bummer that the monkeys at PROFORMANCE UNLIMITED are so far away, might be easier to recoupe if they were within the state.
You could be right about this! I'll certainly organize the facts and get in touch with the previous builder.70shortwide wrote:Im sure with the right help you can get back some of the investment. youve got a pretty good log on here about everything that youve done with the entire truck, im sure you have your documentation in order at home too, which will help immensely. good luck, sorry youve had so much trouble.
100% true!DuckRyder wrote:Tom has been nothing but helpful and completely transparent here, he has spent a great deal of time already and is willing to take on an engine someone else built when he could easily not have involved himself and built motors from scratch.
This doesn't surprise me. During my visit to his shop, it was plain to see that he takes the engines personally, and is a true FE enthusiast.DuckRyder wrote:In addition he has an excellent reputation in FE circles.
Thanks for the explanation, and of this I'm sure! You're a super helpful and experienced guy--thanks for all your great advice!70_F100 wrote:My post was not meant to offend anyone.
I see what you mean! The detailed photos will be of great interest!DuckRyder wrote: To the point of ruining a cam in 10 minutes, again I think it is a matter of degrees, and "gone flat" is a relative term. However, I submit that a cam that has lost a few thousandths is probably no less ruined than one that has a round lobe, the damage is done... I've personally seen one fail in less than 15 minutes, I'm sure it was well and truly ruined at 10 minutes...
Indeed, I'm looking forward to all the outstanding advice I'm sure to receive!DuckRyder wrote:I do await additional pictures and Tom's proposal.
