New Engine QA and Paul Shinn's Concerns

[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.