Bad Engine?
06-24-2005, 12:57 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced will
occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies something
different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take that
> as a sign to get a different vehicle....
>
>
>> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine from
>> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
>> >> Missouri.
>> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I installed
>> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
>> >> Clifford
>> >> valve
>> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> third
>> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
>> >>
>> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> about
>> >> 3-4
>> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> test
>> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> (upper
>> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run OK.
>> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> everything
>> >> else,
>> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
>> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
>> >> are
>> >> at
>> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
>> >> in
>> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
>> >>
>> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
>> >> mixture
>> >> was
>> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
>> >> Hesco
>> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> sound
>> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
>> >> miles
>> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> was
>> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so I
>> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> (I'm
>> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says they'll
>> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
>> >> Neither
>> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
>> >>
>
also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced will
occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies something
different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take that
> as a sign to get a different vehicle....
>
>
>> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine from
>> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
>> >> Missouri.
>> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I installed
>> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
>> >> Clifford
>> >> valve
>> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> third
>> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
>> >>
>> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> about
>> >> 3-4
>> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> test
>> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> (upper
>> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run OK.
>> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> everything
>> >> else,
>> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
>> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
>> >> are
>> >> at
>> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
>> >> in
>> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
>> >>
>> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
>> >> mixture
>> >> was
>> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
>> >> Hesco
>> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> sound
>> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
>> >> miles
>> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> was
>> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so I
>> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> (I'm
>> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says they'll
>> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
>> >> Neither
>> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
>> >>
>
06-24-2005, 12:58 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
Like if you don't break the glaze with a hone when just ringing an
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
06-24-2005, 12:58 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
Like if you don't break the glaze with a hone when just ringing an
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
06-24-2005, 12:58 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
Like if you don't break the glaze with a hone when just ringing an
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
06-24-2005, 12:58 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
Like if you don't break the glaze with a hone when just ringing an
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
engine, to force your rings to break in, then they never will, riding
just off the surface, in the areas that are not perfectly round. And I
did it for a full fifty miles, first lugging the engine, then full
throttle over and over and over again to make sure.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Michael White wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I followed their break-in procedure which, although not identical to the
> ones on the web page you listed (e.g. accelerate to 55 MPH rather than 50
> MPH, repeat 10 times rather than several times, etc...), are probably close
> enough. Besides, their engine, their break-in procedure.
>
> And even if I didn't, I don't understand how this could cause damage to the
> cylinder walls.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
06-24-2005, 09:40 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
06-24-2005, 09:40 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
06-24-2005, 09:40 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
06-24-2005, 09:40 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
not noticeably smoke.
He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has the
engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
Earle
"Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the phone
> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
will
> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
something
> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>
>
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
that
> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
> >
> >
> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
from
> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
> >> >> Missouri.
> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
installed
> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
> >> >> Clifford
> >> >> valve
> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
> > third
> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
> > about
> >> >> 3-4
> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The compression
> > test
> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
> > (upper
> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
OK.
> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
> > everything
> >> >> else,
> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run a
> >> >> leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four others
> >> >> are
> >> >> at
> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had been
> >> >> in
> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
> >> >>
> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
> >> >> mixture
> >> >> was
> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
> >> >> Hesco
> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
> > sound
> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about two
> >> >> miles
> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of this
> > was
> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
I
> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis? Preliminarily
> > (I'm
> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
they'll
> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
> >> >> Neither
> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
> >> >>
> >
>
>
06-24-2005, 09:53 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bad Engine?
Earle,
It's the AMC 258 (4.2 L) 6 cylinder. They still haven't gotten back to me
yet, with the guy I'm working with saying he needs to confirm or check
something (he wasn't real clear). I'm supposed to hear from him on Monday.
BTW, the web site for this company is
http://www.powerpro2000.com/long_block_engines.htm
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
Earle Horton (earle-NOSPAM-horton@msn.com) wrote on Friday 24 June 2005
08:40 am:
> As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
> not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
> warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
> stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
> walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
> gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
> necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
> rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
> not noticeably smoke.
>
> He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
> in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
> claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
> something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has
> the
> engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
>
> Earle
>
> "Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
>> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
>> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the
>> phone
>> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
> will
>> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
> something
>> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>>
>>
>> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
>> >
>> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
> that
>> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
> from
>> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
>> >> >> Missouri.
>> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
> installed
>> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
>> >> >> Clifford
>> >> >> valve
>> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
>> > third
>> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
>> > about
>> >> >> 3-4
>> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The
>> >> >> compression
>> > test
>> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
>> > (upper
>> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
> OK.
>> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
>> > everything
>> >> >> else,
>> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run
>> >> >> a leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four
>> >> >> others are
>> >> >> at
>> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had
>> >> >> been in
>> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
>> >> >> mixture
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
>> >> >> Hesco
>> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
>> > sound
>> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about
>> >> >> two miles
>> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of
>> >> >> this
>> > was
>> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
> I
>> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis?
>> >> >> Preliminarily
>> > (I'm
>> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
> they'll
>> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
>> >> >> Neither
>> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
>> >> >>
>> >
>>
>>
It's the AMC 258 (4.2 L) 6 cylinder. They still haven't gotten back to me
yet, with the guy I'm working with saying he needs to confirm or check
something (he wasn't real clear). I'm supposed to hear from him on Monday.
BTW, the web site for this company is
http://www.powerpro2000.com/long_block_engines.htm
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
Earle Horton (earle-NOSPAM-horton@msn.com) wrote on Friday 24 June 2005
08:40 am:
> As I remember from 1978, the Chrysler Corp. engines with this problem were
> not producing smoke screens. Up to some limit, oil will burn clean. The
> warranty fix to the problem, by the way, was to take out the pistons,
> stagger the rings, and put them back. No new rings, no honing of cylinder
> walls. I had a heck of a time talking the parts counter out of new head
> gaskets, because it wasn't listed on the warranty repair bulletin as a
> necessary part! I saw another case where a private mechanic put all the
> rings in a Volvo B18 engine upside down. It pumped a lot of oil, but did
> not noticeably smoke.
>
> He didn't get three bad engines. The second was supposedly OK, but he put
> in a bad claim. I am skeptical of the "not broken in" theory, since he
> claims that the third engine pumped oil since new. I would look for
> something installed incorrectly, but since PowerPro Performance now has
> the
> engine how to prove this? Mike, what make and model engine is it?
>
> Earle
>
> "Billy Ray" <jpbSPAM357@junoSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:4def3$42bb92c8$453dda38$18769@FUSE.NET...
>> If the rings are not staggered you can pump a lot of oil out but you are
>> also producing a smoke screen behind you. I think I would be on the
>> phone
>> to find out why you received three bad engines. Anything mass produced
> will
>> occasionally produce a defective product. Three in a row implies
> something
>> different. What reasoning (excuse) are they offering?
>>
>>
>> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h9idnW5VsuGWHCbfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
>> >
>> > This doesn't help, but three engines gone bad? Some folks might take
> that
>> > as a sign to get a different vehicle....
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> In December 2002, I bought and installed a remanufactured engine
> from
>> >> >> PowerPro Performance (the company with the long warranty) out of
>> >> >> Missouri.
>> >> >> That engine had bad rings in #6 cylinder so it went back. I
> installed
>> >> >> the second engine, and made a bad claim due to the Mopar MPI +
>> >> >> Clifford
>> >> >> valve
>> >> >> combo (fixed thanks to Hesco) and sent it back. They shipped me a
>> > third
>> >> >> engine before I had analyzed the problem properly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I installed the third engine in March of 2003, but it's been using
>> > about
>> >> >> 3-4
>> >> >> quarts of oil between changes since I installed it. The
>> >> >> compression
>> > test
>> >> >> passed (at least 160 on every cylinder) and mileage was acceptable
>> > (upper
>> >> >> teens), although I got better with a carb. It also seemed to run
> OK.
>> >> >> Not wanting to make another bad claim, I've been checking out
>> > everything
>> >> >> else,
>> >> >> but to no avail. Finally, I took it to the Jeep dealership to run
>> >> >> a leakdown test: cylinder #4 has 33% leakdown (fail), and four
>> >> >> others are
>> >> >> at
>> >> >> about 22% (marginal). So I sent the third engine back. It had
>> >> >> been in
>> >> >> my Jeep for about 15,000 miles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PowerPro Performance's analysis of the problem was that my fuel
>> >> >> mixture
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> so bad that the fuel washed away the cylinder walls. I talked to
>> >> >> Hesco
>> >> >> about this analysis, and they said that PowerPro's analysis didn't
>> > sound
>> >> >> right. In order for this problem to occur, I'd be getting about
>> >> >> two miles
>> >> >> gallon, spewing black smoke, and choking on gas fumes. None of
>> >> >> this
>> > was
>> >> >> true. Also, my catalytic converter is only about two years old, so
> I
>> >> >> don't think that could contribute to this problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any opinion on either Hesco's or PowerPro's analysis?
>> >> >> Preliminarily
>> > (I'm
>> >> >> supposed to hear from PowerPro again tomorrow), PowerPro says
> they'll
>> >> >> either ship back the bad engine (at my cost) or keep it as a core.
>> >> >> Neither
>> >> >> option sounds good to me. Anyone else think of any other options?
>> >> >>
>> >
>>
>>
