I said early on in public (and privately to Jake) I'd need to watch and see the number of cars done and their mileage before I'd be able to tell the success of the program. And I said this while pointing people to look at the Charles/Jake products/programs so you know I'm not anti..just skeptical as I feel we all should be of any maker/supplier's claims.
I was once responsible for producing a complex product and I know that testing a large number of units can reveal parts quality variation problems. And length of use testing/monitoring can revel suitability issues...in the case of cars, suitability over a wide range of conditions from 2 mile Walmart runs to racing, from Alaska cold to Death Valley heat, from every 3 months (!) oil changes to every year.
Lets use those numbers cited in the quote below and assume he has been doing these for ~10 months. 15 done. Average 1.5 per month. 82.5 estimated months of use. 2k miles per month. Translates to maybe 165k miles of testing. Pretty darn good. Especially considering that there are another 85 out there of some approximately similar longevity done somewhere else by someone else.
Consider that the IMS failures are normally at the 20k-60k miles point according to the way I read the stories and don't occur in all the factory units. We haven't achieved enough cars with IMS mods getting well through that mileage. We have more than enough units tested. But not in miles per unit tested. Once that number gets much higher than it now is, I think we'll be able to say for certain that the replacement design is better than the original. Until that time, the theory sounds good (and I'd go that route if I needed to) but my intellectual jury is still out.
This gets even more complicated because every car is different in the number of mods that get done to it and the individual mods change over time. So there are many combinations...many one of a kind.
And is the success truly perfect? We haven't heard of a single product failure, have we? (IIRC there was an engine that failed but it was not one of their products that failed) Is that normal?
And as for value added in the resale market by these improvements, I somehow doubt they will bring back much of their cost considering almost no other mods do. I've seen people say you get 10-15% back on the cost of your mods if you are lucky and sometimes the mods make it harder to sell the car.
Suppose the average potential buyer sees 2 cars advertised:
car 1: complete history, no major problems and no unresolved problems
car 2: major internal engine improvements to improve reliability
Is car 2's advertising confidence building or doubt creating? I know when I was looking for a Porsche, I originally thought of the 928 but the number advertised with very extensive rework told me this would not be an easy/cheap car to keep for a long time. So which car will the average buyer pay more for? Be looking at first?
I certainly wish the original thread poster good experience with his mods. And hope this discussion hasn't thrown too much cold water on his increased enjoyment and confidence in the reliability of his engine. I certainly think he did the mods at the right time when the clutch needed to be done too so the total expense was minimized. And he got a nice trip out of it.
Trust but verify.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gschotland
Jake told me over 100 had been done and that mine was the 14th he'd done; number 15 arrived from CA the day I picked my car up.
|