Proformance Unlimited 390FE for #50: a complete disaster.

[BobbyFord]

What do you guys think of Robroy sending the pictures of the cam and lifters to Comp?
And asking them what their opinion is on what caused the cam failure?

Alvin in AZ

My opinion is that incorrect valve spring pressure combined with improper break-in procedure (including lack of zinc/phosphorus additive) caused the camshaft to fail.

[r71f250]

The cam was toast from the start because of valve spring pressure regardless of additives. They should have matched the valve spring with the springs that come with the comp cam kit or removed the inner spring on break in first and the replace inner springs after break in. Comp Cams will not respond to cam failures because of liability and using their response in forums or websites. I still think in my opinion that cam manufactures are using foreign core steel or cast that is not what we use to have here in the USA (look up in google of DART chineese engine block). I am thinking of going roller after seeing what I have seen. I am going to ask Tom when my engine goes to him the end of January to do a build maybe simuliar to RobRoy. We will see. My budget is only about 6K or 6500 max so may not be the case. Blessings to everyone for the new year and I hope and pray that RobRoy gets most, if not all his money back from ProFormance Unlimited....

Blessings,
ALAN

[Alvin in AZ]

All Comp would have to write in a letter is "improper break-in procedure" and reference the photos.

Alvin in AZ

[DuckRyder]

Last time I spoke with Steve, I had called him to ask what to do about the windage tray to crankshaft clearance issue and all the metal flakes I'd discovered in the oil pan and on the heads. Steve's advice to me at that time was to clean the engine as well as I could externally.

I am not sure “externally” is the correct word, it is more like “internally, without disassembly”. At any rate, I am sure he and we know what you mean.

Steve replied that it was his understanding that I ran the engine for a period between 30 seconds and two minutes, and no longer than this. He followed that up with the statement that if he'd known I ran the engine for about ten minutes, he would have recommended that I return the engine to him for them to re-do it.

Where does he get this? You told us you ran it for around ten minutes, I have no doubt that you told him the same thing.

I explained to Steve that because I had asked him for his advice two times in a row, and both times, he told me, in a convicted manner, that an external engine cleaning would suffice, I would decided to take it to a California-based builder to have it pulled apart and cleaned out. I said that the amount of metal flakes I saw looked pretty significant, and explained how much of the engine's paint had come off by coming in contact with the brake cleaner.

Steve let me know right then that my actions were not appropriate, and that the proper action would have been to call him right away. He reiterated that if he had known that the engine ran for about ten minutes, or if he had heard that I had discovered significant metal flakes, he would have offered to have re-worked the engine for me.
I acknowledged his objection but didn't counter it, because I didn't see any point in arguing over that.

If the run time (or amount and size of debris) was a significant factor in his advice, why did he not question you thoroughly about it?

As far as the appropriateness of your actions, you called him on two occasions for advice, he offered advice to clean it as best you could and did not offer assistance. You decided that you were not comfortable with that and pursued having another engine builder do it for you. Sounds appropriate to me.

Steve then explained that brake cleaner takes ALL paint off, even "ceramic" paint.

Pardon my French but: Horsehockey. Brake cleaner does not remove “all” paint, and it does not remove Duplicolor Ceramic engine paint properly applied. As a former steering, brake and suspension guy, I have sprayed an awful lot of stuff with brake cleaner too.

He mentioned that ceramic paint does not hold up in hot tanks either, and that it changes color as the hot tank chemicals come in contact with it.

O.K., what does that have to do with brake cleaner?

I asked Steve if this engine was painted with ceramic paint, and he said that it was, and that all Ford blue engines are painted with ceramic paint. I reminded Steve that this engine was yellow, and he said that he would have to go look up the details on the paint.

I then reminded Steve that I had previously heard that this engine was rattle-canned with Duplicolor paint. He told me that he did not remember the specifics, and that he would have to "look it up." Note that the previous time, he looked it up by asking Doug, and Doug responded based on his memory of what they did. So I don't have much confidence that they actually kept records of what they did..

It is academic at this point; my guess is that the engine was not clean, or that they painted over “cast blast” from the machine shop. In the grand scheme of what is wrong with this engine the paint is a minor detail.

Before I had even let Steve know about the fate of the camshaft or cylinders or anything, he began explaining that if the engine ran for ten minutes, the metal flakes would be pumped all through it, and it would ruin the bearings, camshaft, and so on. He sounded provoked, possibly nervous. I had the distinct sense that I might have been hearing a prepared defense, since I had not mentioned anything about severe engine damage yet!

Sounds like he either has been reading the thread or is afraid of what Doug is going to do to him when he finds out he did not do a better job of finding out what the deal was when you called (twice), maybe a little of both.

Then I gave him the main points. I explained how one of the camshaft lobes and several of the lifters had come apart. He assured me that this was all caused by the windage tray, and reiterated that he heard from me that I ran the engine for a duration of 30 seconds to two minutes. He added something like (paraphrased), "When most guys say they ran the engine for two minutes, they really mean 30 seconds."

This 30 second to 2 minute duration kept coming up, but I am really not sure where this came from. I am convinced that I told him I ran the engine for about ten minutes.

See above…

I explained that in addition to the ruined camshaft and lifters, the cylinder walls had been severely scored. He told me that this was caused by the windage tray problem.

I disagree, the particles from the windage tray would be softer than the ones from the camshaft.

I mentioned that the crankshaft turned out to be bent. He did not have much of a response to that, if I remember correctly.

As mentioned, this is probably due to the crank or engine being dropped. It should have been grossly apparent when balanced or turned. Who knows at what point it happened.

I mentioned that several of the valve seats were significant recessed, and that they were recessed enough to change the compression ratio on those cylinders. I added that for some of the valves, several shims had been added under the valve springs to try to counteract the recessed seats. He told me that this is a normal situation, and that this type of thing is done to accommodate the inevitable differences that naturally appear between valves on heads.

It might be a normal situation for them, but it is not for any serious engine builder.

I mentioned that the valve stems were quite loose in the guides. He replied that they replaced the guides, and he specifically remembered that because he ordered the new guides himself. I said that although the guides were new, they were not sized to match the valve stems. Steve said that the only way to know if they are the right size or not is to measure their inside diameters. I let him know that Tom did this measurement. Then Steve asked for the specific measurements. Since I did not have those in front of me, we moved on to the next point.

Tom gave these measurements in the video, there was quite a variation, which should not be. Valves should be reasonably tight and should not have play as yours did in the video. The exact clearances can vary with the guide material and builders preferences, but there should not be a wide variation between the clearances in a given engine for valves in the same tract. Exhaust clearance is wider due to increased heat.

I visited the problem with the head surfaces for the exhaust manifolds, and that they were rough had not been re-surfaced. I asked him if he would explain to me (again, since I already asked him a while back), why they had not put new surfaces on the heads. I reminded him that before, I had heard that they did not have the equipment in their shop to do this work. He said that they did not put new surfaces on there because modern gaskets are so effective at sealing that there is no point in re-doing those surfaces. He said that they never re-do those surfaces.

FE’s are not even supposed to have exhaust gaskets. The factory set up is to surface both the head and manifold and install without a gasket. In my opinion this is sloppy at best, lazy at worst.

I mentioned that although I'd been promised that the engine would produce at least 400 horsepower, a detailed inspection of the engine revealed that to be a technical impossibility, and that when the numbers from everything I had were entered in to Dyno 2000, it said something around 350 horsepower. Steve said that Doug came up with those numbers, and that they have their dyno (I am assuming he meant software, since my engine was never physically dyno'ed) figured out so well that they were always within 5 horsepower of their estimates. He said that he would never doubt Doug on those numbers. Then he said that if I provided him with the numbers I came up with, he would enter those in to their dyno software again to see what the results are.

Doesn't that seem funny that he would want the measurements to enter in to the dyno software from me? Do they not have them written down themselves?

What numbers does he want?

An 8.9:1 FE with stock valves is not going to make 436 horsepower, I do not care what the software says, or how big of a cam you stick in it. I do not see how any reasonable person would expect it to.

Here is just one example of a 390 build to make ~436 hp:

http://www.hotrod.com/webonly_january/index.html

In addition, what is this engine designed to make, 400hp, 425hp or 436hp, 36hp is an appreciable discrepancy. As mentioned when you get over one hp per cubic inch, those 36hp start getting harder and harder to get and cost more per hp.

I touched on the compression ratio issue. I mentioned that on many occasions, I heard that this engine would have a compression ratio of 10:1, yet a measurement of the actual ratio yielded a much lower number (under 9:1). Steve said that he does not know about this, and that only the engine builder knows about the specific ratio an engine is designed to run. I was surprised to hear this from Steve, since he let me know, in a most convicted fashion and on several occasions, that this engine ran 10:1 compression.

Maybe you should just talk to the “engine builder”.

I mentioned that the pistons had their intended cylinder numbers written on them with a marker, and that was still legible when the engine was pulled apart. I added that although the numbers were written on the pistons, they were not installed in the corresponding cylinders! Steve said that those numbers are not used to map the pistons to the cylinders. He said that although he does not know exactly what the numbers mean, he suspects they are used during engine balancing.

So, he does not know what they are for, but he knows what they are not for, and they are not for what they are always for? I reiterate, I think I would stop talking to Steve and talk to the “engine builder”.

I brought up the issue of the oil drain-back passages being the stock size. I asked Steve if he remembered the conversation I had with him months ago asking whether they'd increased the oil drain-back passages in the heads, to make sure the oil flow would keep up with the high volume oil pump. I reminded him that at the time, he let me know that they had increased the diameter of those passages to cope with the HV pump. Steve said that they do normally increase those passages, or do something to increase the oil-drain back flow. I mentioned that not only had the drain-backs not been enlarged, but the oil inlet areas were not restricted. Steve said that they NEVER restrict oil flow anywhere in the engine.

You really cannot increase the size of the drain back holes because the head bolts restrict them on a FE. It works O.K. in stock configuration, but when you remove the rocker drain trays, increase flow volume and use roller rockers that require less oil you really do need to restrict the flow.

Steve’s response is typical of what one would expect from someone unfamiliar with FE’s and tends to reveal he is not very experienced with building FE’s.

Although Steve said that they normally do something to the heads to enhance the oil drain back, he would not respond to my statement that this work had not been done on these heads. I am not sure whether the topic naturally changed before he had a chance, or whether he was intentionally avoiding the issue.

It does not really matter- see above. Some folks do radius the hole on the top to smooth the transition, which is about all that you can really do.

I mentioned that the deck was done incorrectly on the engine, and that it had to be re-decked. Steve asked me for the specifics, which I didn't have ready, so we went on to the next topic.

I mentioned that the main bearing saddles were tapered, so that the main bearings had uneven wear on them. He said that he was not sure what I was talking about when I said that they are tapered. So I elaborated. I said that the surface that supports the top half of the main bearings, known as the saddles, had not been machined correctly, and that instead of supporting the bearings evenly, their tapered shape put uneven force on half of the bearing faces. I mentioned that it was clearly visible in the photos I took of the main bearings. Steve did not have much of a response to this.

It is my understanding that most block machining operations index off of the main bearing bore. I will leave specific comments to those who may be more familiar, but I would be inclined to relate the block machining issues to each other.

I mentioned that the connecting rod bushings were over-sized and out of specification. Steve said that that is the way they always do it. He said that they machine lots of tolerances larger than spec, to avoid the build-up of heat in the engine. He said that many of their customers really run their engines hard, and that tight tolerances can generate excessive heat.

At some point (I think it was around this point in the conversation, but it might have been mentioned earlier), Steve said that when another builder pulls apart an engine they built, that it's normal for them to provide undue criticism on their work, simply because they do things differently.

There is some truth to the theory that an engine run hard might like increased clearances, it’s a bit old school, but many people tend to build performance engines to the loose end of tolerance. Opinions on this sort of thing do differ, again though, they should be consistent and uniform, not tapered or tight on one piston and loose on another.

I am curious how much experience Steve has with other folks tearing down their engines. One would hope it is not a common occurrence and if it is, something is wrong somewhere.

I think that most builders know there is more than one way to do things and would not provide undue criticism for simply a difference of opinion.

I told Steve that the new builder had provided me with an estimate of about $8,500 to not only repair the engine, but to bring it up to the approximate performance that I'd been promised originally (400-436 horsepower). I said that I had called to ask for their help with the bill. I mention that both the new builder, and many other guys I consulted with had the opinion that most--if not all--of the engine's problems had already been established by the time I originally received it.

That is my opinion, it seems that they chose the heavier of the two recommended springs and as far as we know, no one has said that they broke it in with single springs.

Steve urged me to return the engine to him, so that they could re-do it for me. I explained that the work had already begun at the new shop, and that I had paid the new guy in advance for the work, so I could not pull out. I re-stated that I was asking for them to pay the ~ $8,500 bill.

Steve said that he would bring this up with Doug, and that Doug was out of the office today. I told Steve that I would send him an e-mail with a list of all the things we found in the engine, including high definition photos of everything. Steve said that would be good, and he gave me his e-mail address.

Then I asked for Doug's e-mail address, so I could CC him on the mail. Steve said that to reach Doug, I could send the mail to info(at)proformanceunlimited.com. I said something like, "So Doug doesn't have his own e-mail address huh?" And Steve said that Doug uses the info(at)proformanceunlimited.com address as his primary address.

That was it!!! I asked him when I would hear from him again, and he said that he would call tomorrow, when Doug was back in the office. I thanked him for taking the time to speak with me and the phone call was over!!!

I really do think you should try to talk to Doug, if he needs to talk to Doug about it, you need to talk to Doug about it.

In summary, I heard these main points from Steve:

1. The camshaft, cylinder, and lifter problems were caused by my mistake with the windage tray.
2. The loose tolerance were done that way on purpose, to avoid undue heat in the engine.
3. I should have returned the engine to them instead of taking it to a new place.
4. It's normal for a different builder to put down their work.
5. He's not familiar with very many specifics of the engine. Only the designer of the engine (I'm guessing that's Doug) knows about this. So he can't respond to any specific statements about measurements, performance or tolerance problems.
6. He'll talk to Doug, the owner of Proformance Unlimited, to decide on their next steps.

Thoughts?

I think I covered most of it, but to reiterate, it is not “YOUR” mistake with the windage tray. If they sold you a “turn key – drop in” engine for a 2wd F250 they should know what kind of oil pan they need to supply.

[Ranchero50]

Robroy, one thing that often gets overlooked, gasoline engines are just air pumps and as such the efficiency is based on how effectivly they move air through the engine. There are books and research papers on this subject, hydrodynamics, I understand very little even after reading a lot of them. Visualize the path the air needs to follow from the air cleaner through the carb to intake, to head, to valve seat, through the valve and into the cylinder. Ideally you want smooth bends with a constant area that tapers as it gets closer to the valve to increase the final velocity through the open valve. If the area changes or the port changes direction abruptly the velocity drops, if the velocity drops the fuel tends to fall out of the airstream (less efficient, A/F varies cylinder to cylinder etc.). Every step in an air port causes turbulence, gross turbulence reduces flow. Folks port match the head port to the intake port for this reason. Also the valve seat contour is very important. Think, the valve is only opening .536" at the most and it spends a lot more time at .250" vs. .500" so if the valve seat is recessed .100" (as in some of yours) you are losing a huge amount of low lift flow. That's one reason why Tom is saying your motor could not perform. Add the loss of compression and it gets worse. Another issue is on most Ford heads the exhaust port is undersized vs. the intake so usually you see cams with mismatched lift and duration specs. I do 302's and don't know much about the FE's so take the port stuff with a grain of salt.

What truely scares me about P-U is they seem to be a catalog engine shop. With all the bling on the web site engines and the money it costs to buy said bling you almost know they are skimping on the internals. You lost more power via the poorly done head's airflow than the high dollar intake and performance pulleys combined 'gained' you. Much less a mismatched cam (which is the brain of an all mechanical engine) As Tom knows, a couple hours with the die grinder in the ports getting them to compliment the cam (mild though it may seem) will give excellent results. Even the money spent on the ignition was wasted on such a dog of an engine. Oh BTW, make a note somewhere to always unhook the battery before welding on your truck or you WILL blow apart the MSD box.

Jamie

[70shortwide]

heard anything back?

[robroy]

Good New Year's Day, Jeff W., 70_F100, Alvin, Robert, BobbyFord, Jamie, and Alan! Thanks for your fantastic replies!

used your fancy "wayback machine" I believe that this is the motor you ordered?
http://web.archive.org/web/200804170420 ... 425hp.html

Indeed, as long as it's from that time frame, then that's the one!

notice that H beam rods are included with that motor. they owe you for H beam rods no matter the fate of the engine. they sold you a motor with H beams, you should have a motor with H beams! while this is rather insignificant with everything else, it proves without doubt that you did not get something you paid for.

That seems accurate to me!

I looked it up on august 5th, 2008. the day you ordered the motor.

Indeed, and it also shows up on the invoice I received from them in PDF form after ordering (which includes my $8,955 payment).

Even though I heard from Steve that this was a simple mistake, it makes me wonder why the mistake wasn't indicating a part of lesser quality and cost than what I actually received. After all, if an error is going to be made, isn't it important to underestimate the value of what's delivered, rather than overestimating it?

There are two things to consider here, IMHO.

1) If the crank had been bent PRIOR to engine assembly, it either had to be done before or after the crank was turned. If it was bent prior to being turned, then there is no way that it's concentric. That bend would throw everything off, including the mains, rods and balance. This COULD potentially have been at least part of the source of the irregular wear on the main bearings. If it was bent AFTER being turned, it means that they most likely dropped it at some point prior to installation.

Interesting!

2) If the crank was bent AFTER assembly, it was most likely done between the time the engine was assembled and when it was crated. However, it could have happened during shipment, but there would definitely have been damage to the crate. Robroy, was there any indication of damage to the original shipping crate?

Good thinking! Yet you know, the shipping crate looked OK to me. I didn't see any bashes in it or anything--it seemed like it was packed pretty well.

I just followed the link and noticed a couple of things:

1) "Edelbrock 750 CFM Carburetor W/ Electric Choke (Upgrade To A Holley Or Demon For $300 " So, a Holley is $300 more than an Edelbrock???

Is it nonsensical for a Holley carburetor to cost $300 more than an Edelbrock? I suppose it's hard to say, without having specific part numbers, right?

2) "A Set Of Cast Iron 390 Cylinder Heads (We Hand Assemble Each Head To Achieve The Proper Spring Pressure & Installed Height To Match The Exact Application Designed For Your Engine.)" NO WAY did they check the installed height with the condition those valves are in!!

Interesting, perhaps not!

3) "As We Assemble Your Engine We Take Several Pictures Throughout The Building Process. And Then We Send Them To You Via E-Mail, So You Can See The Quality Of Parts And Workmanship That Goes Into Your Engine." Robroy, did they send the photos, and do you still have them? If so, those should provide additional evidence of some of the sloppy workmanship.

Indeed, I have all the photos I ever received! I'll post them in this thread to see if anybody finds anything interesting in them. Thanks for this great idea!

I sent pictures to Comp, but never received a reply.

Thank you very much for doing this Robert! Maybe it would be worth a shot for me to send them also, and call them to see if they're willing to look at the photos with me on the phone. It would be interesting to see if they'd have a strong opinion as to what caused the failure!

My opinion is that incorrect valve spring pressure combined with improper break-in procedure (including lack of zinc/phosphorus additive) caused the camshaft to fail.

Could be! This part we'll probably never know for sure. I heard from Steve that they're very careful to break in cams with the proper spring pressure. Then again (and I don't mean to imply that I doubt him), what other response could I possibly expect? Naturally every engine shop would have this ideal.

The cam was toast from the start because of valve spring pressure regardless of additives. They should have matched the valve spring with the springs that come with the comp cam kit or removed the inner spring on break in first and the replace inner springs after break in.

Could be! Yet I haven't heard from Proformance Unlimited that they actually broke in the camshaft with those springs installed. All I heard on this topic was that they're very careful to break the camshaft in with the proper spring pressures (they do it perfectly, in other words). And maybe they're right!

I also heard lots of doubt from Steve regarding the method Tom Lucas used to measure the spring pressure! But more on that in an upcoming post.

Comp Cams will not respond to cam failures because of liability and using their response in forums or websites.

I see! Interesting.

I still think in my opinion that cam manufactures are using foreign core steel or cast that is not what we use to have here in the USA (look up in google of DART chineese engine block). I am thinking of going roller after seeing what I have seen.

That makes a lot of sense! My MAIN reason for going roller was to decrease the chances of something like this happening to the new engine. I like reliability (who doesn't)!

I am going to ask Tom when my engine goes to him the end of January to do a build maybe simuliar to RobRoy.

Fantastic!

We will see. My budget is only about 6K or 6500 max so may not be the case.

Perhaps not, but I'm sure you'll wind up with a top quality engine either way.

Blessings to everyone for the new year and I hope and pray that RobRoy gets most, if not all his money back from ProFormance Unlimited....

Thanks Alan!

Steve's advice to me at that time was to clean the engine as well as I could externally.

I am not sure “externally” is the correct word, it is more like “internally, without disassembly”. At any rate, I am sure he and we know what you mean.

Great point! "Externally" reflects a level of ease and feasibility that was certainly not present during this event.

Steve replied that it was his understanding that I ran the engine for a period between 30 seconds and two minutes, and no longer than this.

Where does he get this? You told us you ran it for around ten minutes, I have no doubt that you told him the same thing.

True. I can understand a person remembering something differently from how I remember it, for sure! And since this part was all over the phone, there's no written record of it. Yet to respond after the fact, by saying that an important deciding factor regarding the advice I received was based upon this misunderstanding, did surprise me.

And what added to it was that this defense came out in a highly assertive fashion before I'd even told the whole story on the phone!

If the run time (or amount and size of debris) was a significant factor in his advice, why did he not question you thoroughly about it?

Indeed. And I did make a genuine effort to communicate regarding the quantity and type of debris I found. I even went back a second time to make SURE the advice remained, despite finding more debris as I kept looking around.

As far as the appropriateness of your actions, you called him on two occasions for advice, he offered advice to clean it as best you could and did not offer assistance. You decided that you were not comfortable with that and pursued having another engine builder do it for you. Sounds appropriate to me.

Good point.

Steve then explained that brake cleaner takes ALL paint off, even "ceramic" paint.

Pardon my French but: Horsehockey. Brake cleaner does not remove “all” paint, and it does not remove Duplicolor Ceramic engine paint properly applied. As a former steering, brake and suspension guy, I have sprayed an awful lot of stuff with brake cleaner too.

That's the impression I have as well. If brake cleaner stripped off paint THAT aggressively, how could it possibly be used around the vehicle? Even spraying it on installed brake parts would destroy the chassis paint in the area. It can't believe that paint is really that sensitive to this stuff.

He mentioned that ceramic paint does not hold up in hot tanks either, and that it changes color as the hot tank chemicals come in contact with it.

O.K., what does that have to do with brake cleaner?

I suppose it was just an informative thought that came to mind! I can't blame somebody for not staying entirely on-topic, but this a little funny. It was as though a parallel was being made between brake cleaner and hot tank fluids.

I asked Steve if this engine was painted with ceramic paint, and he said that it was, and that all Ford blue engines are painted with ceramic paint.

It is academic at this point; my guess is that the engine was not clean, or that they painted over “cast blast” from the machine shop. In the grand scheme of what is wrong with this engine the paint is a minor detail.

Indeed.

Sounds like he either has been reading the thread or is afraid of what Doug is going to do to him when he finds out he did not do a better job of finding out what the deal was when you called (twice), maybe a little of both.

Could be!

I explained that in addition to the ruined camshaft and lifters, the cylinder walls had been severely scored. He told me that this was caused by the windage tray problem.

I disagree, the particles from the windage tray would be softer than the ones from the camshaft.

Interesting!

I mentioned that the crankshaft turned out to be bent. He did not have much of a response to that, if I remember correctly.

As mentioned, this is probably due to the crank or engine being dropped. It should have been grossly apparent when balanced or turned. Who knows at what point it happened.

Is it possible that the characteristics of the crankshaft were such that it was OK, but it could not be turned again without it degrading to a state where it couldn't be balanced any more?

I mentioned that several of the valve seats were significant recessed, and that they were recessed enough to change the compression ratio on those cylinders. I added that for some of the valves, several shims had been added under the valve springs to try to counteract the recessed seats. He told me that this is a normal situation, and that this type of thing is done to accommodate the inevitable differences that naturally appear between valves on heads.

It might be a normal situation for them, but it is not for any serious engine builder.

Interesting! On this topic, I heard a new explanation from Steve last time we spoke (more on that in a future post).

I mentioned that the valve stems were quite loose in the guides.

Tom gave these measurements in the video, there was quite a variation, which should not be. Valves should be reasonably tight and should not have play as yours did in the video. The exact clearances can vary with the guide material and builders preferences, but there should not be a wide variation between the clearances in a given engine for valves in the same tract. Exhaust clearance is wider due to increased heat.

Indeed, beyond the loose fit of the valves, it was the variation between the valves that impressed me the most!

He said that they did not put new surfaces on there because modern gaskets are so effective at sealing that there is no point in re-doing those surfaces. He said that they never re-do those surfaces.

FE’s are not even supposed to have exhaust gaskets. The factory set up is to surface both the head and manifold and install without a gasket. In my opinion this is sloppy at best, lazy at worst.

I know what you mean! As I understand it, a basic element of machining an engine part is making all the mating surfaces nice and pristine.

Doesn't that seem funny that he would want the measurements to enter in to the dyno software from me? Do they not have them written down themselves?

What numbers does he want?

I didn't ask! I guess I should have asked for exactly what he was looking for.

An 8.9:1 FE with stock valves is not going to make 436 horsepower, I do not care what the software says, or how big of a cam you stick in it. I do not see how any reasonable person would expect it to.

Here is just one example of a 390 build to make ~436 hp:

http://www.hotrod.com/webonly_january/index.html

I see exactly what you mean!

In addition, what is this engine designed to make, 400hp, 425hp or 436hp, 36hp is an appreciable discrepancy. As mentioned when you get over one hp per cubic inch, those 36hp start getting harder and harder to get and cost more per hp.

Good point! I heard a total of three different numbers. The first one was 425 horsepower, which appeared in the web site URL for this specific engine (I'm not sure if it still does or not). The second one was 400 horsepower, which was the spec advertised on the page I ordered the engine from. And the third was 436 horsepower, which I heard directly from Steve. Specifically, I heard, "436 horsepower and 463 ft/lbs of torque at 4,000 RPM" from Steve.

I heard that this engine would have a compression ratio of 10:1, yet a measurement of the actual ratio yielded a much lower number (under 9:1). Steve said that he does not know about this, and that only the engine builder knows about the specific ratio an engine is designed to run.

Maybe you should just talk to the “engine builder”.

True! Although so far, I've heard that he hasn't been in the shop very much. Of course, that could just be because of the holidays and all.

I added that although the numbers were written on the pistons, they were not installed in the corresponding cylinders! Steve said that those numbers are not used to map the pistons to the cylinders. He said that although he does not know exactly what the numbers mean, he suspects they are used during engine balancing.

So, he does not know what they are for, but he knows what they are not for, and they are not for what they are always for? I reiterate, I think I would stop talking to Steve and talk to the “engine builder”.

Exactly! Yeah maybe I should try talking directly to the boss/engine builder, Doug.

Steve said that they NEVER restrict oil flow anywhere in the engine.

You really cannot increase the size of the drain back holes because the head bolts restrict them on a FE. It works O.K. in stock configuration, but when you remove the rocker drain trays, increase flow volume and use roller rockers that require less oil you really do need to restrict the flow.

Steve’s response is typical of what one would expect from someone unfamiliar with FE’s and tends to reveal he is not very experienced with building FE’s.

Very true, on this point especially. I also heard from Steve (in the latest phone call) that although he's not 100% certain, he thought that the 428 engine had the same crankshaft throw as the 390, and that only the cylinder bore was different between the two. Of course I like to be very forgiving and I understand that people can make mistakes, but I also know that if somebody really knew FEs, this is a mistake that they'd never make.

As I understand it, the different crankshaft throw between 390 and 428 engines is considered part of the "ABCs" of the FE engine (not even part of the "DEFs").

Although Steve said that they normally do something to the heads to enhance the oil drain back, he would not respond to my statement that this work had not been done on these heads.

It does not really matter- see above. Some folks do radius the hole on the top to smooth the transition, which is about all that you can really do.

Interesting, thanks for pointing this out!

It is my understanding that most block machining operations index off of the main bearing bore. I will leave specific comments to those who may be more familiar, but I would be inclined to relate the block machining issues to each other.

Oh I see! That's quite interesting--so a single thing that may have been "off" could throw off many parts of the machining process, right?

There is some truth to the theory that an engine run hard might like increased clearances, it’s a bit old school, but many people tend to build performance engines to the loose end of tolerance. Opinions on this sort of thing do differ, again though, they should be consistent and uniform, not tapered or tight on one piston and loose on another.

Agreed! Besides however loose the things were in there, they were also quite inconsistent.

I am curious how much experience Steve has with other folks tearing down their engines. One would hope it is not a common occurrence and if it is, something is wrong somewhere.

Indeed! Although this is something I wonder about also, I did hear from Steve recently that they produce something in the range of 250 to 300 engines per year. So with that volume of production, I can imagine a "fresh" engine "falling in to enemy hands," so to speak, from time to time.

I think that most builders know there is more than one way to do things and would not provide undue criticism for simply a difference of opinion.

Could be! I'm not sure about this particular point.

But one thing I do know, is that Tom Lucas is NOT a harsh guy. I've spent hours hanging around talking with him. He just doesn't have that type of rough, put-down type of personality that a lot of guys seem to have. Even when he feels that it's prudent to criticize something, he does it with a light, easy touch--he does it in an easy-going way. I don't think he enjoys putting people's work down at all. He doesn't seem to have that type of competitive personality at all.

That is my opinion, it seems that they chose the heavier of the two recommended springs and as far as we know, no one has said that they broke it in with single springs.

Indeed. I've heard from Steve since then that they make certain the spring pressures are perfect for the break-in, but that type of general statement is similar to saying, "we do things perfectly, at all times." And that type of statement is less believable than a patiently detailed, technical account of exactly how they broke the camshaft in.

I really do think you should try to talk to Doug, if he needs to talk to Doug about it, you need to talk to Doug about it.

Okay, thanks for this advice! I'll give that a whirl--it can't hurt.

I think I covered most of it, but to reiterate, it is not “YOUR” mistake with the windage tray. If they sold you a “turn key – drop in” engine for a 2wd F250 they should know what kind of oil pan they need to supply.

Indeed, I'm inclined to agree. In my last call with Steve, I heard words to the effect that when they supplied the correct oil pan for the application (after the fact), their responsibility ended there. At least that's how I interpreted what I heard from him. I'll post more details on that when I review my notes from the last call and make a full post!

Robroy, one thing that often gets overlooked, gasoline engines are just air pumps and as such the efficiency is based on how effectivly they move air through the engine. There are books and research papers on this subject, hydrodynamics, I understand very little even after reading a lot of them. Visualize the path the air needs to follow from the air cleaner through the carb to intake, to head, to valve seat, through the valve and into the cylinder. Ideally you want smooth bends with a constant area that tapers as it gets closer to the valve to increase the final velocity through the open valve. If the area changes or the port changes direction abruptly the velocity drops, if the velocity drops the fuel tends to fall out of the airstream (less efficient, A/F varies cylinder to cylinder etc.). Every step in an air port causes turbulence, gross turbulence reduces flow. Folks port match the head port to the intake port for this reason. Also the valve seat contour is very important. Think, the valve is only opening .536" at the most and it spends a lot more time at .250" vs. .500" so if the valve seat is recessed .100" (as in some of yours) you are losing a huge amount of low lift flow. That's one reason why Tom is saying your motor could not perform. Add the loss of compression and it gets worse. Another issue is on most Ford heads the exhaust port is undersized vs. the intake so usually you see cams with mismatched lift and duration specs. I do 302's and don't know much about the FE's so take the port stuff with a grain of salt.

Extremely interesting stuff! I remember Tom mentioning similar things regarding the valve seat contours, and what you're saying also justifies the $900+ dollars in Tom's estimate for porting and port-matching work.

What truely scares me about P-U is they seem to be a catalog engine shop. With all the bling on the web site engines and the money it costs to buy said bling you almost know they are skimping on the internals. You lost more power via the poorly done head's airflow than the high dollar intake and performance pulleys combined 'gained' you. Much less a mismatched cam (which is the brain of an all mechanical engine) As Tom knows, a couple hours with the die grinder in the ports getting them to compliment the cam (mild though it may seem) will give excellent results. Even the money spent on the ignition was wasted on such a dog of an engine.

Very good points, and based on everything we've seen so far, they seem quite justified!

Oh BTW, make a note somewhere to always unhook the battery before welding on your truck or you WILL blow apart the MSD box.

Ah, good to know, thanks! I don't know how to weld and I don't own any welding equipment, so I'm safe for now, but I'll certainly remember this should I hire somebody to weld on #50!

heard anything back?

Indeed Jeff! On Wednesday, December 30th (the day before yesterday) I spoke with Steve again for 30 minutes. I need to review the notes I took during the conversation to post a detailed and accurate review of that conversation here. Steve made some interesting points and I'm looking forward to hearing your evaluations of them!

Jeff W., 70_F100, Alvin, Robert, BobbyFord, Jamie, and Alan, thanks again for your super fantastic replies!
Robroy

[DuckRyder]

I did hear from Steve recently that they produce something in the range of 250 to 300 engines per year.

So there are about what ~260 working days in a year, perhaps a bit less so that is in excess of one engine a day by the "engine builder"?

[Ranchero50]

Steve sounds like the typical commission salesman... Full or promises without any compulsion to come through with them...

Jamie

[robroy]

Hey Robert and Jamie, thanks for replying!

I did hear from Steve recently that they produce something in the range of 250 to 300 engines per year.

So there are about what ~260 working days in a year, perhaps a bit less so that is in excess of one engine a day by the "engine builder"?

That seems a little extreme doesn't it! Well maybe they have a few guys building them--or one guy working 23 hours per day?

Steve sounds like the typical commission salesman... Full or promises without any compulsion to come through with them...

Could be!

Yet to Steve's credit, he is willing to spend time with me on the phone explaining things, even after reading this thread. So far he has spent over an entire cumulative hour on the phone with me since I ran in to all this major trouble.

Okay, now for the big update! I spoke with Steve on Wednesday, December 30th. Here are some main points I heard from him.

1. Even though I'd already explained to Steve that the engine was in the process of being rebuilt by FE Specialties, he mentioned that Doug asked him to re-state the offer that they'd fix it for me (for free) if I sent it back to them.
2. If I didn't want to send it back to them, they'd pay me $1,000 as a "good faith" type of offer. This number is based upon their estimate of how much the parts would cost to fix the engine, based on their evaluation of the photos I sent.
3. Steve is certain that they did not cause the big problem that scrapped the engine--he certain that I caused it by failing to check clearances around the windage tray after installing it.
4. In support of Steve's belief that they didn't cause the problem, he made what seems like a strong point (to me). In the live run video I received, the vacuum gauge is completely steady at idle. I heard from Steve that if the engine were experiencing a failure that profound, the idle would definitely have been moving around, because the valves wouldn't be operating properly.
5. I also heard from Steve that in addition to the steady vacuum in the live run video, the engine isn't making any funny sounds in the video. Steve thinks that if something that bad were going down in the engine, you'd hear something in the video.
6. I heard that if Steve knew I ran the engine for ten minutes, he would have asked me to send it back for them to fix it.
7. Regarding spring pressure, I heard from Steve that the photo I sent shows FE Specialties measuring the pressure in an improper way. The proper way is to use a "Remick tool." Or at least that's what I thought I heard! I Googled this tool but couldn't find much--I'm probably spelling it wrong. I heard that the method FE Specialties used that involved putting the spring in a vice isn't the proper method, and won't give you accurate pressure readings.
8. Regarding the recessed valves and shims under the valve springs, I heard that this isn't a problem with this type of valve train, because the rocker arms are adjustable. I heard that with non-adjustable rocker arms, this is a major concern, but it's not very important here because they can simply adjust the rocker arm to compensate for different valve seat heights.
9. I heard that if the engine used a non-adjustable, bolt-down rocker arm assembly, then the out of tolerance valve seats would "over-preload" the lifter. But with the adjustable rocker arms, they can manually set how deeply the pushrods push in to the lifters, so the valve seat thing is no longer critical.
10. I heard that Steve and Doug reviewed the cylinder scratch photos, and they don't think the scratches look very deep--they think that the scratches could be honed out by removing about one thousandth of metal. And after doing so, the original pistons could be re-used.
11. Regarding the bent crankshaft, I heard that it couldn't have been bent unless it were dropped, and that if it were bent, you would be able to see the balancer wobbling in the live run video.
12. I heard that if the valve guides were really excessively loose, it would have caused the vacuum to fluctuate in the live run video, yet the vacuum looks very steady in the video. I also heard that he doesn't have a lot of confidence in the method used to measure the guide tolerances.
13. I heard that Proformance Unlimited usually charges between $1,700 and $2,300 to rebuild an engine. Because of this, he thinks that the FE Specialties estimate is way too high. This said, he wasn't able to open the estimate and check out its details, so he'll look at that when he's able to.
14. Regarding measuring to ensure that the saddles are straight (not tapered), I heard that Doug has a special tool for measuring that, and measures it carefully on all engines.
15. I asked him if he thought that different machinists would have different ideas about the proper way to do these things, and if that could account for a lot of the stuff I've heard about things being wrong. Steve strongly agreed with that, and added that there's a huge variety in engine building techniques between different shops. I also heard that if Proformance Unlimited received an engine build by another shop, they would also criticize a million things about it, simply because it would be built differently.
16. Regarding the paint, I heard that Steve thinks that engine was painted with "John Deere yellow." And that because it's what John Deere uses for their own engines, it must be good paint.

Of all these points, I find the point about vacuum to be of the most interest. Is it true that an engine that was experiencing a camshaft failure would be very unlikely to show such steady vacuum at idle? If it is true, then that sounds like pretty strong evidence suggesting that my windage tray mistake did cause the major trouble here.

And regarding the cylinder scratch point, perhaps I should ask FE Specialties for measurements they took of how deep the scratches were. If I provided Steve with that, he might understand the need for these expensive, 428-sized pistons.

What do y'all think of these points?

EDIT: I forgot to say how I responded to the $1,000 offer! I didn't accept it. I said that it due to the high cost situation I was in, it wouldn't help me in a significant way (I think I mentioned something about it only being enough for a few tanks of gas). I heard from Steve that he'd bring it up with Doug again next week.

Thanks very much for all the superb guidance!
Robroy

[Ranchero50]

Ok, my take on that...

A. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It was on them to make sure that if you were doing the windage tray and oil pan swap that you knew what you were doing. How would you know that they actually did more than repaint it and put it back together with a new cam?

B. Is go away money, a simple quick settlement that gets them out of any legal wrangling down the road. You did god.

C. Since he had two months before the parts showed up at his shop from Jegs (yeah right) he could have written up some stuff on changing them out correctly. He should have ate the $200 to ship the motor both ways to make it right.

D. On vacuum gauges... A normal guage has a pulse restrictor in the port to keep the needle steady. A diagnostic gauge doesn't so the needle will move a lot. What do they have on their jackleg engine running stand? I don't remember from the video, but even if it's an Autometer gauge they have the restrictor (it's so the mechanism doesn't wear out quicker)

E. He's right, it didn't sound bad, possibly because you couldn't hear the engine over the exhaust leaks...

F. Salesman pitch... If he cared enough to listen to what the customer was actually saying instead of rolling his eyes while hearing some poor kid who doesn't know what he's doing try to describe a problem... Prejudice is bad in all it's forms...

G. Regarding spring pressures, nonsense. Set the spring to the installed hieght and measure the guage, set it to the valve open height and measure again. Pro stock guys can check the valve pressure in the car in about ten minutes.

H. Do yourself a favor read up a little on incorrect rocker arm geometry and the effects on valve trains and guides. Heck copy the links and send them to Steve so he can explain them to you with his twisted logic. While explaining ask him how the recessed valve seats effect flow.

I. This is called cheating. See above about the valve train geometry which is the most important thing with the roller rockers. With the seats all screwed up they should have used different length pushrods so the geometry stays correct. Once again, it shows that they don't know what they are doing, plain and simple.

J. Hey, what's another 20,000 miles of wear on a brand new motor?

K. Bent is relative, bent where? If it's the snout and it's .030" you wouldn't see it on the balancer, but the grinder and balancer would have a fit over it. I almost suspect they had this crank laying around the back of the shop turned down and it either fell of was left lay on it's side. I'm also pretty sure they didn't balance your engine. Were the base of the rods caps ground down to get the same weight? If not then I doubt it was balanced.

L. Hmmn, if he doesn't trust the valve pressure and doesn't understand the gauge... My blown 302 had rock steady idle and vacuum with guides that smoked horribly because the builder had honed them too far. Granted I took them to him because I had dimples on the pistons and the valves had galded into the guides. Still I could move the valve side to side when it was .5" open which is no flippin good. If the valve moves sideways that's no good, period. If he argues, go find another builder, I did.

M. So where did the other $6500 go for your motor? Ask him that, loudly. Perhap you could look up some other motors keith craft, etc. that have excellent street reps for comparison.

N. Moot point. It's out of Tom's spec and he's building you a real 436hp engine not a peice of paper with numbers on it...

O. How ironic, I didn't see Tom criticizing a lot, just pointing out what wasn't to spec or sloppy (which is the same thing really). Thinking out loud here, how do you think he could even check the deck for height and squareness. You put a ground round bar in the mains saddles and measure off of it. It's technical and I don't think I could get repeatable numbers. I remember reading a MMFF last year where they showed a block getting the deck machined, no bar through the saddles and it was just shimmed to sit level on the table of the grinder.

P. I usually just say to folks, 'Hey, it's your lie, tell it however you want to. We both know the truth'

Honesly I think the cam failed hard once you go it. It was on the way out, but did you notice it running rough while listening to the windage tray? A 400 cubic inch motor will idle smooth on seven cylinder with the plug wire off. If it's firing it will run smooth with a couple lobes going away. A 302 will sound rough but still run.

Regarding the cylinder scratches, you bought a new motor if they were scratched at ten minutes of run time what's the point of honing the scratches out, then the piston wobbles in the bore more, the rings don't seat or seal as well, oil control goes out the window and you end up with blowby sooner. If anything just put it back together and forget about it, why make it worse.

Jamie

[fomocoguy]

M. So where did the other $6500 go for your motor? Ask him that, loudly. Perhap you could look up some other motors keith craft, etc. that have excellent street reps for comparison.


Jamie

That's exactly what I was thinking ( besides not being surprised at the defense of sloppy work). If he gets $2300 for a rebuild, that means that you could have supplied him with a $200 core engine and got a PU engine for $2500 plus shipping. That's a far cry from $8995. If he tries to tell you it's because it's a "high performance build", you can tell him that stock compression ratios, stock heads, pretty much stock EVERYTHING besides an aftermarket cam, pistons, and roller rockers does not make a $9000 400+ hp engine. Lets say we add $1200 for nice pistons, cam, and rockers. You're still at $3700. At least half of the left over money should have gone into machine work to make it all right. Let's say he had spent another $2500 in machining; that still makes for a $2700 profit. Heck, throw in another $1000 for intake, carb, and acessories. That's $1700 profit now IF all that machine work had been done. So, I think it would be pretty fair to say that you weren't even offered anything close to the PROFIT that was made on your engine.

For that money every aspect of every part of that engine should have been as good as or better than new, period. No loose valves to suck oil into the engine, no recessed seats to hamper flow, no tapered bearing surfaces, no bent crankshafts, period. It should have had everything decked and had PERFECT mounting surfaces, especially the exhaust side of the head. Did it even have a mild port job done to the heads? Were the chambers smoothed or polished? Were the ports at least smoothed and cleaned of any surface defects?

The fact is that the majority of the problems that this engine has have nothing to do with the windage tray or the camshaft. You have absolute proof of that. If it all plays out and it is agreed that PU holds no responsibility for the cam and tray (which they ARE responsible because the tray (and pan for that matter) should have been right in the first place), then subtract pistons, bore, and cam from Tom's estimate. That's $1685, so that leaves PU responsible for $6815, minus a couple hours of labor.

[70_F100]

Robroy, here is the tool he was talking about (Rimac):

http://www.precisionmeasure.com/valve6.htm

This one looks more like the one that Tom was using:

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/PRO-6 ... mage=large

[ToughOldFord]

Hmmmm, special tool...

[ToughOldFord]

Ooops, sorry 71_F100, I was replying to Robroy's post. Yours snuck in there above mine.