Old news: ATI vs. Vortech
09-15-2005, 11:30 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Member Since: Aug 2005
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old news: ATI vs. Vortech
Old but interesting..
ATI PROCHARGER FILES LAWSUIT
AGAINST VORTECH
For Immediate Release
April 13, 1999
On April 13, 1999, in United States District Court in Kansas City, Accessible Technologies, Inc. (ATI), manufacturer of ProCharger supercharger systems, filed a federal lawsuit against Vortech of Oxnard, California. The multiple-count lawsuit charges Vortech with the following: 1) violation of Section 1125 (a) of Title 15 of the United States Code by making false and misleading statements of fact in its advertising and promotional materials; 2) Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage; and 3) Common Law Unfair Competition.
According to ATI, Vortech has engaged in a campaign of anti-competitive business practices designed to confuse the fact that an intercooled centrifugal supercharger system produces substantially greater horsepower gains and engine reliability than a supercharger system with a compressor alone, and has willfully and maliciously misinformed consumers and disparaged ATI. Accessible Technologies alleges that Vortech has fabricated test results, presented false performance claims, and intentionally distributed false and misleading statements regarding the physics of supercharging and intercooling.
Through third-party dynamometer and track testing, ATI will show that Vortech's hp claims for the majority of its 50 state legal automotive applications are false and severely overstated, and that Vortech has also misrepresented the durability and performance of certain race products. Furthermore, ATI will prove that Vortech has distributed fabricated test data designed to mislead and confuse consumers by grossly understating the performance of ATI's products.
ATI seeks a permanent injunction against Vortech prohibiting the further use of any and all alleged false statements, treble damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys fees and expenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ATI vs Vortech •
Why Won't Vortech Agree to Third-Party Head-to-Head Testing?
For Immediate Release
October 19, 1998
As many people are aware, Accessible Technologies (ATI) is currently involved in a lawsuit with Vortech Engineering. A great deal of information, some true and some not, has been made available to you. The main issue in this lawsuit is simple: what performance gains are reliably produced by an Intercooled ProCharger system vs a Vortech Gearcharger system? ATI has proposed independent comparative testing to verify the facts. Vortech has declined to test. Why?
Many separate tests have already proven that ATI's performance claims and ads are absolutely true, and that an Intercooled ProCharger system will outperform a Vortech Gearcharger system by a substantial margin. What has been missing is direct head-to-head testing of the products. The following dyno test was recently performed by ATI on a 5.0 engine running pump gas, and ATI has proposed to Vortech that this test be repeated by an independent third party. The specific purpose of this test would be to verify the accuracy of ATI's dyno test, as well as to verify that a calculated model previously created and distributed by Vortech is highly inaccurate and misleading.
Please note that the above performance results were produced from an actual dyno test, while Vortech's previously distributed "5.0 Comparison" was simply a calculated spreadsheet "model", not an actual test, and this model was severely flawed. ATI welcomes anyone to replicate the above dyno results for themselves. Full test specifications can be found at http://www.ProCharger.com .
The above dyno results explain why Vortech introduced their own intercoolers after stating for years that intercooling was not necessary; proper intercooling substantially increases both performance and engine reliability. Yet it appears that Vortech still does not fully understand the physics of intercooled supercharging, as evidenced by the poor efficiency (15-45% without ice, vs 65-80% for ATI) of their street intercoolers, and the fact that they still do not offer an intercooled supercharger system; they sell intercooling only as an expensive and relatively ineffective upgrade. Furthermore, the SAE standard which Vortech repeatedly refers to specifically does not apply to intercooled supercharging. As stated within the standard itself, SAE standard J1723 http://www.sae.org/ PRODSERV/stds is "a method to compare superchargers without the affects of engine dynamics and intercooling". The correct measure is reliable horsepower gains, and ATI actually guarantees the best hp gains.
Vortech is attempting to portray themselves as a victim, while the fact is that ATI and supercharger consumers in general are the victims of yet another attempt by Vortech to stifle and twist the truth. Vortech apparently objects to the truth being told, including a Chevy High Performance test of a Vortech LT1 system (Jan '98, pg 94) which produced only a 27% increase in hp and damaged the motor. ATI's Intercooled ProCharger system for this same application produces a 55% hp gain, while a Vortech customer must buy a separate intercooler and use icewater to achieve the same gain on pump gas. ATI has earned its position in the market by providing superior supercharger systems, and through the support of customers and dealers has provided competition to Vortech.
Vortech has decided to make this lawsuit public rather than having the facts decided in court. While ATI has been forced to set the record straight regarding Vortech's misinformation, we all know that talk is cheap. Why won't Vortech agree to third-party head-to-head testing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals for Testing:
First proposal for testing as follows, for ATI and Vortech to resolve their differences through quarter mile track testing performed under the following conditions:
1. That the Supercharger kits used by the parties shall be those sold to the public.
2. That the fuel used shall be "pump gas" not to exceed 91 octane.
3. That both parties shall use a 1993-97 GM F-body with a stock LT1 engine.
4. The test shall be monitored by a mutually agreeable independent third party.
This proposal was declined by Vortech.
While ATI is of the opinion that such a track test is the most realistic measure of comparative performance, ATI also proposes the following alternative test:
ATI and Vortech will submit to dynamometer testing in order to replicate and verify Vortech’s “model” created 3/96 and the recent testing submitted by ATI http://www.ProCharger.com
This test would be conducted using ATI’s Intercooled P600B ProCharger system against Vortech’s non-intercooled S-trim system on a stock ‘86-93 5.0 Mustang engine. ATI proposes once again substituting an air-to-water intercooler for the air-to-air intercooler which is standard in an Intercooled ProCharger system to address the lack of airflow across an air-to-air intercooler in a dyno test. Boost loses and temperature drops can be verified for the performance of an air-to-air intercooler on an actual 5.0 Mustang. This testing should be performed by a mutually agreeable third party.
Testing should be performed on unleaded pump gas, as this is not only the fuel utilized for approval by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), http://www.arb.ca.gov but also the fuel utilized by supercharger customers for street use. “Stock” engine means stock mass air electronic fuel system, stock injectors, and stock exhaust emission system, as prescribed by the CARB. A minimum of two (2) engine block spark knock sensors should be employed, as reliable engine tuning is at least as important as power output.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI to Vigorously Defend Vortech Litigation,
Vortech Declines Head-to-Head Test
September 15, 1998
For Immediate Release
In response to a lawsuit from Vortech Engineering, Accessible Technologies, Inc (ATI) has submitted a proposal that the parties resolve their differences via track testing of ATI's ProCharger supercharger systems vs Vortech's Gearcharger supercharger systems, with the testing monitored by an independent third party. On August 27, 1998 Vortech termed the proposal "unacceptable" and declined this opportunity for track testing. To date, Vortech has failed to suggest an alternative proposal.
Accessible Technologies, Inc (ATI) pioneered intercooled supercharging nearly five years ago with the introduction of its ProCharger supercharger systems. For several years Vortech claimed that intercooling was not necessary before introducing their own air-to-water intercoolers for the street less than two years ago. ATI has recently entered the competition supercharger market, with the introduction of the new ProCharger model D-3, the industry's most powerful, reliable and efficient competition supercharger.
Accessible Technologies will vigorously defend itself against Vortech's claims, and is confident it will fully prevail. In the meantime, ATI will not be intimidated or distracted, and will continue to develop and market innovative technology and products for the high performance needs of automotive and marine consumers.
ATI PROCHARGER FILES LAWSUIT
AGAINST VORTECH
For Immediate Release
April 13, 1999
On April 13, 1999, in United States District Court in Kansas City, Accessible Technologies, Inc. (ATI), manufacturer of ProCharger supercharger systems, filed a federal lawsuit against Vortech of Oxnard, California. The multiple-count lawsuit charges Vortech with the following: 1) violation of Section 1125 (a) of Title 15 of the United States Code by making false and misleading statements of fact in its advertising and promotional materials; 2) Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage; and 3) Common Law Unfair Competition.
According to ATI, Vortech has engaged in a campaign of anti-competitive business practices designed to confuse the fact that an intercooled centrifugal supercharger system produces substantially greater horsepower gains and engine reliability than a supercharger system with a compressor alone, and has willfully and maliciously misinformed consumers and disparaged ATI. Accessible Technologies alleges that Vortech has fabricated test results, presented false performance claims, and intentionally distributed false and misleading statements regarding the physics of supercharging and intercooling.
Through third-party dynamometer and track testing, ATI will show that Vortech's hp claims for the majority of its 50 state legal automotive applications are false and severely overstated, and that Vortech has also misrepresented the durability and performance of certain race products. Furthermore, ATI will prove that Vortech has distributed fabricated test data designed to mislead and confuse consumers by grossly understating the performance of ATI's products.
ATI seeks a permanent injunction against Vortech prohibiting the further use of any and all alleged false statements, treble damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys fees and expenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ATI vs Vortech •
Why Won't Vortech Agree to Third-Party Head-to-Head Testing?
For Immediate Release
October 19, 1998
As many people are aware, Accessible Technologies (ATI) is currently involved in a lawsuit with Vortech Engineering. A great deal of information, some true and some not, has been made available to you. The main issue in this lawsuit is simple: what performance gains are reliably produced by an Intercooled ProCharger system vs a Vortech Gearcharger system? ATI has proposed independent comparative testing to verify the facts. Vortech has declined to test. Why?
Many separate tests have already proven that ATI's performance claims and ads are absolutely true, and that an Intercooled ProCharger system will outperform a Vortech Gearcharger system by a substantial margin. What has been missing is direct head-to-head testing of the products. The following dyno test was recently performed by ATI on a 5.0 engine running pump gas, and ATI has proposed to Vortech that this test be repeated by an independent third party. The specific purpose of this test would be to verify the accuracy of ATI's dyno test, as well as to verify that a calculated model previously created and distributed by Vortech is highly inaccurate and misleading.
Please note that the above performance results were produced from an actual dyno test, while Vortech's previously distributed "5.0 Comparison" was simply a calculated spreadsheet "model", not an actual test, and this model was severely flawed. ATI welcomes anyone to replicate the above dyno results for themselves. Full test specifications can be found at http://www.ProCharger.com .
The above dyno results explain why Vortech introduced their own intercoolers after stating for years that intercooling was not necessary; proper intercooling substantially increases both performance and engine reliability. Yet it appears that Vortech still does not fully understand the physics of intercooled supercharging, as evidenced by the poor efficiency (15-45% without ice, vs 65-80% for ATI) of their street intercoolers, and the fact that they still do not offer an intercooled supercharger system; they sell intercooling only as an expensive and relatively ineffective upgrade. Furthermore, the SAE standard which Vortech repeatedly refers to specifically does not apply to intercooled supercharging. As stated within the standard itself, SAE standard J1723 http://www.sae.org/ PRODSERV/stds is "a method to compare superchargers without the affects of engine dynamics and intercooling". The correct measure is reliable horsepower gains, and ATI actually guarantees the best hp gains.
Vortech is attempting to portray themselves as a victim, while the fact is that ATI and supercharger consumers in general are the victims of yet another attempt by Vortech to stifle and twist the truth. Vortech apparently objects to the truth being told, including a Chevy High Performance test of a Vortech LT1 system (Jan '98, pg 94) which produced only a 27% increase in hp and damaged the motor. ATI's Intercooled ProCharger system for this same application produces a 55% hp gain, while a Vortech customer must buy a separate intercooler and use icewater to achieve the same gain on pump gas. ATI has earned its position in the market by providing superior supercharger systems, and through the support of customers and dealers has provided competition to Vortech.
Vortech has decided to make this lawsuit public rather than having the facts decided in court. While ATI has been forced to set the record straight regarding Vortech's misinformation, we all know that talk is cheap. Why won't Vortech agree to third-party head-to-head testing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals for Testing:
First proposal for testing as follows, for ATI and Vortech to resolve their differences through quarter mile track testing performed under the following conditions:
1. That the Supercharger kits used by the parties shall be those sold to the public.
2. That the fuel used shall be "pump gas" not to exceed 91 octane.
3. That both parties shall use a 1993-97 GM F-body with a stock LT1 engine.
4. The test shall be monitored by a mutually agreeable independent third party.
This proposal was declined by Vortech.
While ATI is of the opinion that such a track test is the most realistic measure of comparative performance, ATI also proposes the following alternative test:
ATI and Vortech will submit to dynamometer testing in order to replicate and verify Vortech’s “model” created 3/96 and the recent testing submitted by ATI http://www.ProCharger.com
This test would be conducted using ATI’s Intercooled P600B ProCharger system against Vortech’s non-intercooled S-trim system on a stock ‘86-93 5.0 Mustang engine. ATI proposes once again substituting an air-to-water intercooler for the air-to-air intercooler which is standard in an Intercooled ProCharger system to address the lack of airflow across an air-to-air intercooler in a dyno test. Boost loses and temperature drops can be verified for the performance of an air-to-air intercooler on an actual 5.0 Mustang. This testing should be performed by a mutually agreeable third party.
Testing should be performed on unleaded pump gas, as this is not only the fuel utilized for approval by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), http://www.arb.ca.gov but also the fuel utilized by supercharger customers for street use. “Stock” engine means stock mass air electronic fuel system, stock injectors, and stock exhaust emission system, as prescribed by the CARB. A minimum of two (2) engine block spark knock sensors should be employed, as reliable engine tuning is at least as important as power output.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI to Vigorously Defend Vortech Litigation,
Vortech Declines Head-to-Head Test
September 15, 1998
For Immediate Release
In response to a lawsuit from Vortech Engineering, Accessible Technologies, Inc (ATI) has submitted a proposal that the parties resolve their differences via track testing of ATI's ProCharger supercharger systems vs Vortech's Gearcharger supercharger systems, with the testing monitored by an independent third party. On August 27, 1998 Vortech termed the proposal "unacceptable" and declined this opportunity for track testing. To date, Vortech has failed to suggest an alternative proposal.
Accessible Technologies, Inc (ATI) pioneered intercooled supercharging nearly five years ago with the introduction of its ProCharger supercharger systems. For several years Vortech claimed that intercooling was not necessary before introducing their own air-to-water intercoolers for the street less than two years ago. ATI has recently entered the competition supercharger market, with the introduction of the new ProCharger model D-3, the industry's most powerful, reliable and efficient competition supercharger.
Accessible Technologies will vigorously defend itself against Vortech's claims, and is confident it will fully prevail. In the meantime, ATI will not be intimidated or distracted, and will continue to develop and market innovative technology and products for the high performance needs of automotive and marine consumers.
09-16-2005, 12:07 AM
#3
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: Chicagoland Area IL
Posts: 3,418
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Two competing companies will always play up a strength against a weakness. It’s the nature of business when competing for market share. A small part of me sees truth in both sides of argument.
Was it not two months ago nobody wanted a Vortech or Paxton (both very similar as large number of internal components share common design). Self contained was a large selling point and to some extent equated to efficiency and solid design. Then there was a falling from graces with ATI (Procharger) and every thing changed!
Look at results and ignore BS. Vortech publishes compressor maps, does ATI?
Design philosophies are just that, one company chooses a path and other will go another way. That’s fine because if we all thought the same we wouldn’t have any options.
Mike
Was it not two months ago nobody wanted a Vortech or Paxton (both very similar as large number of internal components share common design). Self contained was a large selling point and to some extent equated to efficiency and solid design. Then there was a falling from graces with ATI (Procharger) and every thing changed!
Look at results and ignore BS. Vortech publishes compressor maps, does ATI?
Design philosophies are just that, one company chooses a path and other will go another way. That’s fine because if we all thought the same we wouldn’t have any options.
Mike
Last edited by Skunkworks; 09-16-2005 at 12:13 AM.
09-16-2005, 09:35 AM
#5
It seems that Andy is doing the head to head comparison of the actual head units. Look at the P-series kit on Andy's Procharger kit, and compare it to the Vortech SQ- numbers that are on his new kit. They look pretty close in terms of performance.
I've had a Vortech for a couple of years. Yes, I have had some of the Vortech problems, but they were all fairly easily resolved.
The tuners here had refined the Procharger kits to a pretty high level. Now we will begin to see the true potential of the Vortech head unit as the Vortech head units will now have new kits from several of our best tuners. These new Vortech kits seems to resolve some of the issues with their stock kit.
I've had a Vortech for a couple of years. Yes, I have had some of the Vortech problems, but they were all fairly easily resolved.
The tuners here had refined the Procharger kits to a pretty high level. Now we will begin to see the true potential of the Vortech head unit as the Vortech head units will now have new kits from several of our best tuners. These new Vortech kits seems to resolve some of the issues with their stock kit.
Last edited by Bigben; 09-16-2005 at 09:37 AM.
09-21-2005, 05:42 AM
#7
well, i will have to admit that i did not read ALL of the first post. But i did find it very interesting that in this months GMhightech magazine, there is a ProCharger, Vortech and Magnacharger blower install on 3 seperate and different LS1 based vehicles. The Vortech smoked the ProCharger's output and the starting/baseline HP and TQ #s were very close!!!!!!!!!!!!
