S2Krazy89

You sure are angry, and I'm not sure why.

My comments were based off the fact that MB's engine inspector seems to think that Urge sold him an inherently imbalanced motor from the factory, when Urge has documented proof that the engine was in fact exceptionally well balanced.
[/quote]

Sorry but where did you get the document proving that MB's engine in particular was balanced well? The document by Urge was on 7/21/14 therefore I think the document provided was not of this specific engine that failed.

SlowTeg

Forgive me for getting irritated when people don't read and then come in acting like they know it all. Since you were so quick to discredit the inspector, let's hear your assessment.

MB's inspector said: "Total crank balance is 318gmm @ 27 degrees (TDC on cylinder 1 is 0 degrees)." I'm going to assume he put MB's crank on a balancer and got the measurement himself. The degree to which it's "out of balance" I won't try to argue, but since you're the expert maybe you can chime in. Regarding the crank lightening I can't comment either, we just left them stock and micropolished the journals and balanced them. Crank lightening is definitely a point of contention for engine builders I've found.

Another possible problem could've been the bearings themselves? What if they were over/undersized, wouldn't this cause the same problem?

mattie170

I think it is a great idea, flashing lights could be missed if in the heat of the moment but full ignition cut can't be missed, its just another level of security for the future engine! I will be doing this with my new built engine.

deepbluejh

The document posted was for a crank (claimed) to be identical in design to the one in MB's engine. The numbers would therefore be very close and certainly NOT as inherently imbalanced as UK engine inspector is claiming. That one point marks a HUGE difference in the understanding of the design of this motor by the UK inspector.

But we really are splitting hairs about this. I'm not going to get caught in some degenerative online cat fight about a motor that isn't even mine.

SlowTeg

My friend purchased some "Endyn" valve springs from Larry 13 yrs ago. They were claimed to be good to 11k rpms. Car was ran for a few days and was running like s**t. Car was running Toda C cams. We pulled the valve cover and what did we find? The inner (or was it outter) valve springs BROKE, as in the coils snapped for many of the valve springs (they were dual valve springs). The response he got was basically "tough luck." Claims != reality fyi.

Gernby

I agree that cars do jump curbs all the time without blowing motors, but I suspect most S2000 track cars either have accusumps or they run with an oil level that is somewhat overfilled. When I lost my motor, I did not have it overfilled. I just had it about mid-way between low and high while warm.

S2Krazy89

Not trying to start a cat fight, but if they're going to post evidence that they did everything right on MB's crank they better post that particular bobweight card.

1. No cost to either party
2. It'll better counter the diagnoses made by MB's inspector

Why not?

As Slowteg says the bearing measurements can come into question as well.

Not directed to anyone just my thoughts.

-=Zeqs=-

Not trying to start a cat fight, but if they're going to post evidence that that they did everything right on MB's crank they better post that particular bobweight card.

1. No cost to either party
2. It'll better counter the claims made by MB's inspector

Why not?
[/quote]

I am going to have to agree here. No two engines are identical, though they were made from the same casting and over all branded parts. If they were identical, then every car of the same model with the same engine model would make exact same power on the dyno. Basically I'm giving a round-about explanation of how using the spec card from another, albeit similar, crank is unacceptable in stating that the failed crank was fine when it left the manufacture. If that were acceptable, then there would never be lemons when it comes to new cars.

HappyMint

I suspect that you are wrong. I track consistently with 6 other guys with S2ks. No one runs an accusump, no one overfills, everyone repeatedly jumps curbs, and no one has any issues. The notion that jumping a curb (if you can call what he did even that, the curb was damn near flat) can cause this type of engine damage is in my opinion, outrageous. I've never heard of such a thing on this car. The S2k is bar none one of the most reliable track cars you can get for the money, and hopping a small curb isn't going to do ANYTHING to this car. Between just the people I know personally, I'm sure we've got more than 75k track miles alone on the s2000. Including wrecks, curb hopping, countless off road excursions, yet never has a bearing gone from one of these incidents.

It's unbelievably unlikely that your engine failed for hopping a curb. That's just a coincidence, not causation. And just because no one can prove that you hopping that curb, or him going off track briefly is NOT the cause of the failure, doesn't mean there is any evidence of the contrary, that would be a logical fallacy, the burden of proof is on someone to prove that hopping the curb did cause the issue.

For URGE (or anyone) to suggest that him avoiding the accident and going off track is under any circumstance a potential cause for the engine failure is in my mind preposterous. To suggest such is clearly an attempt to divert blame, and that's what everyone here is seeing. We all see it, and we all agree it's ridiculous. This engine didn't go in 30 minute from hopping a curb. I'm not saying it went from a mis balanced crank, but the curb hopping argument has got to go, it's asinine to the Nth degree.

SlowTeg

^HappyMint


I'm a relative track newb, and out of the local s2k track guys I know/have met, no one runs an accusump or even a baffled pan (I'd guess about a dozen folks). Track folks are notoriously BAD at checking oil too. I just got a canton pan this year primarily for piece of mind.