383

That's what I thought, odi at Feal would know better than me. He told me that the shock seemed to be "haphazardly slapped together" with missing o rings etc...

Olitho

Unless I missed that you are a moderator or you inform me you are in possession of an NDA, gag order or the like, I hope you are not offended when I purposely and enthusiastically disregard your suggestion.

It seems to me one of the major themes of this thread is to discuss issues out in the open and not have topics censored. There has been much good discussion on this thread.

Many people, including me, have had a good track record with the sways and sphericals. I race and drive my car as hard as anybody on this forum with the exception of maybe one or two other drivers.

I have broken so many things on my cars I cannot even remember. I have broken Penske shocks internally and at the shafts. I have broken the OEM sway bar clamps while running both GM T1 and Pfadt sway bars. I have broken endlinks and hubs. I have broken wheels. I have broken three Quaife Diffs, three OEM torque tubes and two transmissions. I have broken at least three T1 monoleaf springs, OEM spindle, and hubs. I have replaced countless OEM axles when the boots tear. I think I am on my fourth engine, but I don't quite recall for sure. Steering racks and pumps, I forget how many. I could go on and on.

My car has 36,000+ racing and track miles. It has been crashed hard by me twice and once by another driver. In one crash I remember thinking, "Oh, my car is finally totalled." It is funny that I did not think about myself. That crash hurt me personally, but the car lived on.

The bottom line is I know a few things about breaking parts and race cars. I now keep a log of how old all the parts are in the car that I have a history of breaking or wearing out and others I think I should log. Shocks, no matter who makes them, even Penskes, should be rebuilt at least once per year if you have any sort of decent racing schedule. The shims inside break, the oil gets dirty and detiorates, etc. I have even broken parts from one of the other racing vendors discussed in this thread. That just happens with enough hours logged on the car.

It is very unfortunate that some consumers have had some issues or taken a loss, but so far the number seems to be quite few. On this particular thread one driver has issue with the fitment of his headers. He has not yet taken the issue up with Pfadt, but he should. If there are legions of others who did not get their product or money back, they should post a claim with Aaron. If they need his direct contact info they can PM or e-mail me and I will get that for them.

Werks

Oli we are all intelligent people on here. If you (and I should probably say anyone else) are going to comment on peoples post, please at least quote their posts correctly. This is what the poster wrote:

As you can see from reading his post he had taken the issue up with Pfadt. Moving on, no one is debating that all parts if used for racing or track days etc. break or wear out. Again that is not the issue, hearing people post that they had to buy 2 or 3 sets of shocks before they got a set that stopped leaking etc when discussing Pfadt product is not talking about a product breaking on the track. It's talking about their experience trying to just get a product that even works properly to start with. There are a huge amount of people that have relayed similar experiences on here too and I just do not understand why we are sitting here debating that Pfadt products had issues. For some reason or another you seem to be the only person on this forum that has not heard about problems with his stuff, experienced it personally or know of someone first hand that has had problems with them which is a little confusing.

You mentioned that you are not having any issues with their sway bars, in giving that some thought I'm guessing that it's because you are running a pretty high spring rate on your race car so the bars are not really being stressed as much (dealing with as much body roll) as a lot of cars running OEM leaf springs that people take to the track which is probably why you have not seen an issue with them so far.

Olitho

It is my understanding the earliest versions did have some issues, but they were redesigned. I could be wrong as that is before I had a set. Addtionally, I will supect and suggest that the spacing on the sway bar clamps might not have been correct for some drivers. I had an issue where, as mentioned in the installation instructions, sometimes some washers need to be inserted between the sway bar clamps and the frame so as to not bind. I know I had to insert some spacers for both my T1 racing sway bars and the Pfadts so they would not bind. The binding could be severe and that would certainly put undo loads on the sways. That is probably why I broke an endlink when I first had my T1 sways.

I am not denying the testimony from those that say their shocks leaked. I am sure that is fact, but there seems to be an extrapolation or a campaign by some to turn this into empirical evidence that all Pfadt shocks leak and all sway bars broke. I am here as well as a few others to say we did not have that problem.

I am a person who frequently argues with people about making wrong interpretations with regards to surveys and studies. There are other reasons sway bars can break. I have mounted shocks improperly and caused them to leak. You may be right, perhaps the shocks have an inherent flaw or manufacturing quality problem. Maybe the sway bars are improperly engineered. My use does not bear that out. Debate on the forums is very good. Drawing conclusions from the vocal respondents, you and me included, might not always be accurate. I remain open to the idea that maybe the bars are not the strongest design, but I have not broken a set three seasons in a row like I did with the Quaife diff. I made a conclusion on the Quaife that it might be good, but it was not good for me. That is why I now run OS Giken. Choices are a wonderful thing to have.....

PS. I don't think Street has taken up the issue with Aaron now that they are back on their feet. That is the point I meant to convey.

Werks

I'm a pretty big believer in not cobbling together stuff so I never ran the oem sway bar mounts on my car with the Pfadt heavy rate sway bars. So I have no idea about potential binding with them as I used the Pfadt pfadty sway bar mounts with poly inserts. I would assume that their mounts should have been designed correctly to be used together with their bars with no binding. In any case though no campaign on my part to make everyone believe that they all broke, I think that there is enough people talking about issues with them to make it pretty obvious that there was something wrong with them and that a lot of people have had or have seen the problems with them (more it would seem than are on here saying that they did not have problems). Good choice on the OS Giken diff, I too did my research a few years ago and based on that decided to do something a little different and go with their diff.

As far as the guy taking up the issue with Pfadt now that they are back on their feet, I don't think anyone has known of a way to get ahold of him in the last couple days lol.

RapidC84B

This has been a fun thread.... I just want spare inserts for my poly motor mounts. Had one set fail and they told me it was from the heat of my oil cooler lines and the exhaust. I put the spare set I had (they used to ship the mounts with 2 sets of inserts). Now I have the OEM heat shields wrapped around them and my oil cooler lines are shielded where they pass behind them. Who knows how long they'll last.

Car is a fully built aero ST2/TT2 car... any one recommend a different poly motor mount that lasts and lasts? I don't want solid. I like the Pfadt design as it opened up more room between the mount and bock to run the cooler lines.

JDIllon

As I mentioned, I have run Pfadt stuff for the last 7 years on 2 different cars (25 to 30 track days a year) and had very little trouble and when I did, Pfadt handled the problem to my satisfaction. Large Sways, First and Second generation single stage shocks, Engine mounts, poly bushings on both cars, Camber kit, Ball joints. So you can count me a satisfied Pfadt customer. If I had lost money as some have in the close down, I'm sure that I would feel differently also.
I don't think that anyone that has posted so far on this thread, fully knows what happened when Pfadt went under! I think it is interesting that the ones screaming the loudest about Pfadt's integrity and morals didn't loose any money at all from their demise. And if you have friends and relatives that have, let them come on here and express their dissatisfaction because I can tell you about all of my friends that love his stuff!!! LOL! And LG who gained the most, is on here still calling them names and bad mouthing them?? I will tell you this, I have been in sales all of my life and have never talked about a competitor the way Lou and his people do. And I am not just talking about Pfadt. I think that Lou and LG make some great products and frankly, would have bought more of them, but I felt that these attacks on his competitors at shows and events was totally uncalled for. And NO Lou I don't need to be deposed, what I have said here is all first hand information and not hearsay, as most of yours would seem to be. And no I don't care to get into a pissing contest with you. I have stated how I feel about this matter as respectfully as I can. From one hard head to another.
Also it has been inferred that there was no race testing done at Pfadt. Maybe not to the degree that Lou does! but Pfadt did run a car with all of his stuff. And that car was driven by Danny Popp and other successful drivers as I recall.
I personally wish Aaron the best in his new partnership, one of the reasons we have bankruptcy laws in this country is to allow people to start over. I didn't make this post to change anyone's mind or sway anyone's buying decisions. Aaron's future success or failure will be decided by the market place and consumer. If you personally don't like him or his products, don't buy them and tell all of your friends. And I will tell my friends about how I feel about Pfadt and his products. Thanks for reading. JD

Werks

Was that comment directed towards me?

Streetk14

It's true that I have not yet tried to contact the "new" Pfadt. Without hearing anything official yet on their opening, I doubt they're up to speed with production. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was planning to give them some time to get on their feet before I bring this issue up again.

For the record though, I was very patient with Pfadt when I initially found my header issues. Please read my thread to see for yourself: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...8-headers.html

They promised me a new header, and it didn't happen. After the phones and emails stopped getting answered, I did eventually get a small box from Pfadt that contained a couple 02 sensor bungs. That allowed me to fix one of the issues myself. Unfortunately, I didn't notice the larger issue until they had officially gone belly-up. Not that it would have mattered, as a new header was supposed to be in the works for me anyway.

And for what it's worth...I was put on the list for "Pfadt customers with problems" that SaveWave was putting together, but never heard anything from Aaron. I feel like I was strung along while they were still in business, then ignored after they announced their closing.

Oli.... do you have a way I can realistically get in touch with Aaron? He owes me a properly fitting header or a refund.

Olitho

Yes I do and I already did.

Give the guys at aFe a bit of time to sort things out. They are aware of your situation now. Remember, I am not aFe or Pfadt, just a fellow racer on this forum who knows those guys.

If you send me a PM or preferably forum e-mail I will put you guys in touch with each other.

Streetk14

Thanks. I'll shoot you an email. I was just looking through all my old emails from the guys at Pfadt from January. I still have them all, and can forward them to Aaron if need be.

Streetk14

Forum email sent.....

savewave

Some of you appear to believe that supporting vendors get a pass when it comes to moderators and administrators protecting them from rules violations and misdeeds. The issue comes up from time to time and has been explained, but is worth addressing again.

The situation is complicated and, perhaps, that’s one of the reasons for the misunderstandings.

First, you have to understand that the site’s moderators and administrators are Corvette enthusiasts who volunteer their time to monitor the site and try to keep site users and vendors in line on the site rules. FWIW, the moderators and administrators wrote the rules.

The site is owned by Internet Brands. They sell advertising and provide the technical expertise and hardware necessary to keep the site running.

IB bans vendors in two situations: non-payment of fees and at the request of the site’s moderators/administrators.

The moderators/administrators have no financial stake in the matter and no incentive to protect vendors. When I see a bias in a dispute between a vendor and a site user, it’s typically pro site user, not pro vendor. Asked individually, I believe each of the site’s moderators/administrators would say their lives would be a lot easier if there were no vendors on the site.

The reality, of course, is that it’s the vendors who pay the fees necessary to keep the site operating and the job of the moderators/administrators is to keep site users and vendors in compliance with the rules.

The site’s rules apply to all – users, moderators/administrators and supporting vendors. You may not know, but there is an additional set of rules that applies just to vendors. Those rules limit them on the number of sales threads they can post so as to try to avoid overwhelming the generational discussion sections with sales threads. Supporting vendors also are prohibited from directly or indirectly bashing another supporting vendor in their posts. The reason for that is to thwart so-called “vendor wars” that crop up from time to time.

We encourage supporting vendors to market and promote their products and services based on their inherent merit, rather than by denigrating the products/services of another vendor.

Some of the supporting vendors regularly ask moderators/administrators to remove posts or threads they don’t like. In those instances, moderators/administrators review the request and act on it based on whether the request involves addressing something that conflicts with the rules. If the “offending” post is within the rules, it stays.

The most commonly deleted posts are those where a site user posts in a supporting vendor’s sales thread. The rule prohibiting “interference in a sale thread” …

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...le-thread.html

… was implemented at the request of site users who complained that their sale threads were often hijacked by other site users. After implementing the rule, it has been used to protect site users and supporting vendors alike from the hijacking of sale threads.

There are some instances where a supporting vendor’s sale thread will be hijacked by a site user who has an issue with a product they have ordered from the vendor. That is in conflict with the site’s rules, so moderators/administrators will delete those posts. At the same time, we tell the user why the post was removed, link them to the rules, ask them if they want us to intercede with the supporting vendor on their behalf and/or encourage them to post their own thread providing a factual account of the dispute with the vendor.

The rules allow for the posting of issues site users have had with a supporting vendor …

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-disputes.html

… and we believe posting such information in the Transactions Feedback section, where it easily can be found, can serve as a guide to other site users as they make decisions on future purchases. We monitor the activity in that section to identify patterns in the issues with vendors and the manner in which they address them. Those patterns have in numerous situations resulted in our asking IB to remove a supporting vendor from the site.

While we encourage site users to post factual accounts of transactions they have had with the vendor, we do not allow the bashing of vendors by third-parties who have no actual experience with the vendor, but are just repeating second and third-hand information where they may not have the facts.

How does that relate to Pfadt? In the past, I would hear from Aaron Pfadt from time to time, asking me to take a look at a thread he believed may be in conflict with site rules. Sometimes I agreed that his concerns were valid, other times not. My experience was that Aaron preferred to address such issues offline, rather than confronting them head-on in an open thread.

At some point last year, the person representing Pfadt online through the user ID “Pfadt Racing” switched to someone who was known to me and others as “Eric.” That user was more aggressive in promoting Pfadt products than anyone had been previously. The result was that we began to see some conflicts with the rules on the limits imposed by Corvetteforum on sales threads posted by supporting vendors. That wasn’t unusual as we continue to have disputes of that nature with some of the supporting vendors.

He also was more aggressive in demanding that posts he didn’t like be removed. That wasn’t so unusual either in that there continue to be complaints of that nature from some of the supporting vendors when we decline to remove the posts they are “offended” by.


The difference with Eric/Pfadt was that he had difficulty accepting a “no” answer to his requests and eventually decided he would no longer deal with the site’s moderators/administrators and, instead, would take his complaints to Internet Brands.

This coincided with the first instances of site users posting complaints about slow delivery and no delivery on products that had been paid for in advance. There also were some posts regarding fitment issues on headers Pfadt had just introduced.

I think the folks at IB were polite and patient with Eric, but they eventually told him he’d have to deal with the Forum’s moderators/administrators on his complaints.

During the same period, we started to see a proliferation of newly registered users who were using Corvetteforum pretty aggressively to laud Pfadt and its products and/or to bash the products offered by some competing vendors. Most notable among that activity were the posts that lauded a new Pfadt header design as being so far superior to all other headers being offered as to render them ineffective. Those same “junior members” also began proclaiming that the headers being sold by LGM, ARH and Kooks were all made in China.

That activity was suspicious, of course, so we started monitoring those user IDs to try to determine who those people were and where they had come from. The made in China allegation also didn’t ring true because we know that Nick at ARH, as an example, has campaigned aggressively for Corvetteforum to prohibit the sale of any headers made in China.

We allowed the posts to remain since they were posted by site users and not competing vendors, but also allowed the vendors being bashed to respond in the same threads. While we appreciate ARH’s sentiments on the matter, we have taken the position that supporting vendors can sell products regardless of where they are made so long as they do not misrepresent the products they sell.

During that time, there was someone who agreed to conduct an objective, head-to-head comparison on the headers being offered by all supporting vendors and those results were shared here.

The time came when were able to determine that most of the “junior members” using the site to bash competitors of Pfadt were coming to us from the Pfadt computer network. As we identified those user IDs, we banned them and deleted the content they had posted.

Then, Lou at LGM posted weigh bills he said were proof that Pfadt headers were being shipped from China. Pfadt demanded those posts be removed immediately. I declined, saying they were made in response to similar accusations made from the Pfadt computer network. The accusations from the “junior members” having an association with Pfadt had been available for viewing at Corvetteforum for two weeks, so I said I would allow Lou’s posts about Pfadt to remain for two weeks. At the end of that period, they were removed.

About the same time, the number of complaints about non-delivery of paid orders from Pfadt had reached the point where it was apparent something was wrong, particularly when Pfadt customers said they couldn’t get a response from Pfadt on their concerns.

We also reached out to Pfadt for an explanation and got no response.

As a result, we started this thread as a heads-up to site users:

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...rs-update.html

We asked site users with pending issues to contact us offline so we could establish a group e-mail list that could be used as those Pfadt customers developed strategies and shared information in an attempt to get refunds or products they had ordered.

About an hour after the post was made, Pfadt announced on Facebook that they were closing down their business.

At that point, we removed or locked all Pfadt sales threads and put Pfadt in a user group which prevented the posting of any additional sale threads. They were allowed to get and receive PMs and emails through Corvetteforum and to respond in threads on their situation and to the complaints posted by customers.

Pfadt asked customers to be patient with the process and said all customers would be made whole. A number of Corvetteforum users continued to post that they were being ignored by Pfadt, had not gotten refunds and/or had been told there was no record they were actually Pfadt customers.

If there are people still in that category, I hope they will renew their efforts to contact Pfadt and will let us know what the outcome is.

Pfadt has not asked to return as a supporting vendor and our past practice has been not to allow former vendors to return if they have not addressed the pending disputes with Forum users. There have been some instances where we didn’t allow a former supporting vendor to return even after they made their customers whole.

I’m going to leave this thread open so those with pending issues on their Pfadt orders can continue to post. If you have questions or complaints about moderation of Corvetteforum, please let us know via PMs or emails.

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...questions.html

If you are here to promote the resurrection of Pfadt as a business entity, be forewarned that using the site to market and promote a non-supporting vendor is in conflict with site rules:

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...l-posting.html

Werks

Thank you for making a very clear and concise post explaining what went on "behind the scenes" so to speak. Those of us posting on the forum generally question what you "moderators" do, based on your post it shows that there is and was a whole lot more going on behind the scenes than any of us could have ever imagined. A lot of which imho just confirms some of the comments that I and others have made about that companies conduct and business ethics. Having previously been the recipient of a warning from moderators because of a discussion on one of the mentioned "for sale" threads degrading into an argument, I previously thought that my comments were simply being suppressed in order to protect Pfadt. Now I'm learning that you guys are actually taking a lot more interest in what is going on than I thought so for the incorrect criticism previously let me say two things, sorry and thank you.

JDIllon

NOPE! It was a general statement expressing my feelings toward the entire thread JD

moespeeds

Competition in the aftermarket is good for us all.

Just saying...

383

Not if the vendor intentionally misleads and rips you off, its not good

Solofast

Honest competition is good.

Poorly designed or failure prone parts are another story.

What clearly happened here is that the true story as to the reliability and quality of their parts was suppressed (for a couple of years at least) and the members of the forum weren't allowed to share their experience so that other members could avoid spending a lot of hard earned money on stuff that was basically, junk.

Unfortunately it appears that by becoming a sponsor, you can (as Pfadt successfully did) suppress, posts that are unfavorable to your product. While the original person posting the problem (as happened to the folks posting threads about their failing sway bars) was made whole by Pfadt (they replaced the broken parts and the person who was the OP was happy) so the post was then deleted. This approach does a disservice to the other folks on the board. While Pfadt replaced the broken parts, many folks never got to see the photos of the broken hardware, and consequently weren't warned of potentially a dangerous part that was on the market.

I always thought that Pfadt was a prime candidate for a product liability lawsuit if the failure of one of their front bars would have caused an accident. I even mentioned this to Aaron in a PM because if somebody broke one in a fast corner (on the track or not), it could have had tragic results. If it eventually came out that a potential safety related defect was swept under the rug and posts that might have warned the buyer of that defect were deleted the board could be held liable. I sure wouldn't want to be the one trying to defend the forum in that kind of a lawsuit.

savewave

Perhaps you missed my earlier contribution to this thread. If so, here's the link:

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1588237367

I just searched for posts referencing Pfadt in the Transactions Feedback section and got about 20 hits. Two were favorable and seven were oblique references. The remainder of them were complaints about Pfadt products and customer service.

I'm not familiar with the sway bar issue you referenced. I will address my own practice in deleting complaint threads at the request of the person who posted the complaint and note that most threads involving complaints against a vendor are handled by me or one of the other administrators. I think we are of like mind in these issues.

Sometimes a site user will post a complaint about a vendor without ever even contacting the vendor to ask for help. When that happens, we will close or remove the thread and ask the OP to contact the vendor so as to resolve the issue offline, if possible.

If that doesn't resolve the issue, we ask the customer to repost the complaint as per site rules or we update the original thread.

If the vendor promptly resolves the issue as soon as they learn about it, sometimes the OP will decide it wasn't fair to have bashed the vendor without first contacting them and will ask us to remove their original complaint. We sometimes do so.

There have been instances where the OP has been told by a vendor that they will not address the issue raised until or unless the OP removes his posted complaint. That's extortion. We refuse to remove posted complaints in that situation and will issue a strong caution to the vendor. If it happened again, we would start the process to remove the vendor from the site.

There also have been instances where a user has contacted a vendor offline to resolve an issue, but could not get it resolved to his satisfaction because he was being unreasonable or dishonest in his efforts. Often that involves a situation where someone lies about how the item was damaged or failed.

So, they will threaten to "ruin the reputation" of the vendor online if they don't cave in and replace the part damaged under questionable circumstances.

That's extortion. In those instances, we remove any thread the OP has posted bashing the vendor and advise them we will remove them from the site, if they persist.

The possibility exists that we might sometimes be fooled by either the OP or the vendor in a situation such as that. We don't have subpoena power we can use in a quest for the truth in such situations. So, typically we prefer to leave complaint threads as they have been posted and leave them open until the vendor has had a chance to post his version of the truth.

Then, site users can read both sides of the dispute and make up their own minds.

I don't think vendors have to cave in when a customer posts a complaint about them online. I do think they should promptly respond and show they are concerned and will treat their customers fairly. Fair treatment will depend on the circumstances and conditions associated with each individual complaint.

Solofast

Since I'm not sure you can or would be able to find them, and I'm going from memory here, but there were a couple of posts on this page and in the C5 technical page that were made by folks who had the Pfadt front sway bars with the aluminum arms that bolt around a splined shaft. I know there were at least two threads that were taken down, there may have been more but I am positive there were at least two of them.

One was being used in autocross service and the arm broke. A picture of the broken arm was posted and within a day or two Pfadt had resolved the problem, overnighted replacement parts to the member, and the Forum subsequently deleted the thread. Several months later it happened again, with similar results. Pfadt was very vigilant and to their credit they resolved the problem to the satisfaction of the person who's parts failed.

None of these threads were antagonistic to Pfadt or were they an way an attempt to "ruin their reputation". The failures were real, and the problem is that the Forum took them down after they were resolved, and the OP had said he was satisfied with Pfadt's prompt replacing the parts.

Since the matter was resolved, and Pfadt had received kudos for standing behind their product from the OP, I see no reason to remove the thread. At that point you are just sweeping the issue of a poor quality product under the rug. If it was left out there where it could be seen by others considering the product it would perhaps warn others that there were potential problems with the product, or it would serve as an incentive for Pfadt to have redesigned the bars, and then they could have touted their "new and improved" design in later posts to the thread.

As it stands now the Forum has a problem since it was complicit in removing threads that warned of a potential safety issue, and all you can do now is hope nobody gets hurt when one of those things fail and a lawyer gets involved.

If a person is buying a product like a trim accessory and there are issues with it and the OP and company have resolved their issues then perhaps the thread can be taken down. But this problem was with a suspension part and failures of this type are safety related. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon or a lawyer to figure out that the policy of removing threads the way these were handled probably should be though over thoroughly before it is done again.

JMHO