MTPZ06

Did you consult with them before making those changes for the second build, and were you expressly told at that time that you would be once again voiding your warranty?

Katech_Zach

Yes, this was explained to him after both rebuilds. We proceeded with the rebuild with a voided warranty. We were extremely clear about our stance on calibrating our warrantied package.

Hib Halverson

A week or so ago, I said:Ok, let's fill in some of those blanks.

So, I'm a great guy...who posts an unbalanced narrative? That seems a bit paradoxical

Katech is correct...well, sorta. It "delivered", but it took three rebuilds to produce a "Street Attack LS7" which did not consume oil at a rate of a quart every 200 miles.

Katech is correct. I knew what the warranty said. Once I made my first calibration change in late February 2018, I violated that warranty.

That is not accurate.

I changed no parts except the spark plugs and the engine oil filer. Saying that I was "...changing parts as he desired." is a distortion of fact and I have pictures to back up that statement.

Calibration did not cause the first failure. The failures of both "Rebuild1" and "Rebuild2" were caused by the same, faulty top compression ring. The plasma-sprayed, ceramic/molybdenum coating on the Mahle 1-mm top ring used by Katech in my Street Attack LS7, as well as those of at least four other Katech customers failed. Abrasive debris from the coating failure destroyed the crosshatch on the bore walls causing loss of oil control. As a result, oil consumption skyrocketed. At the root of those problems was Katech's failure to properly validate the durability of a change in ring configuration and bore finish in its Street Attack LS7 engine packages.

The catalysts failed because of the high concentration of combusted oil vapor which went through them during the 5784 miles the engine lasted after the first rebuild. Other than damaged cats, there was no evidence of combustion temperatures high enough to damage engine parts. The piston tops came out of that engine with oil residue on them. Had combustion temperature been excessive, that would have been burned away and the piston tops themselves might have been damaged which they were not. The exhaust valves showed no evidence of excessive combustion temperature. In fact, their condition was such that they were reused during rebuild2.

Katech was confused by what they found in my engine. I suggest that because its report on the failure stated that: 1) my calibration caused high combustion temperature due to excessively lean air:fuel ratio and 2) the pistons had soot buildup due to excessively rich air:fuel ratio. The air:fuel ratio could not have been be both lean and rich at the same time.

Let's look at some more evidence starting with video footage of how the engine was running about 3000-miles after Rebuild1.

You Tube

That 3000 miles included the 2600-mile drive home from Katech to California and several hundred street miles around where I live. The footage was shot on 14JAN2018, five weeks after leaving Katech on 7DEC2017. That was before I changed calibration. The accusation that I destroyed my engine by changing the calibration is ridiculous. The engine was burning oil like crazy way before I changed anything. On 15JAN2018, I sent the video footage to Katech's former Director of Aftermarket Operations. His reply was that the smoke was not normal, a problem with the PCV system was likely and he had to have the car back in Michigan to diagnose. In my opinion, for the $25,268.25 I spent with Katech, the reply should have been, "We'll pay to have the car shipped here and if there's something wrong with the build, we'll fix it. If we find nothing wrong, we'll bill you for the shipping." If Katech's position on customer satisfaction is......then, that's what it should have done.

At the time that video was shot, the cal file in the ECM was "Katech-Halverson_91_V1b" which was the second cal file Katech emailed me in an attempt to solve the car's street drivability problems. I was concerned about street drivability because the engine was marketed to myself and other Katech customers as a "Street Attack LS7." Thus, I expected it to be reasonably drivable on the street. Katech emailed me one additional cal file on 19FEB2018. It was no better than the first two. When I continued to ask its help with calibration improvements for street use in order to fix an unstable, 850-950-RPM idle and occasional stalling, Katech told me no more calibrations were coming and that my choices were: either accept the car's drivability so Katech could move on to, "...other ventures." or bring the car to Katech for a free tune. Neither of those choices were satisfactory because: 1) the car's drivability was unacceptable and 2) I was unwilling to spend the money to return the car to Katech (either drive it or ship it) to get a "free" tune...which should have been done right to begin with. I was frustrated by Katech's email to me of 23FEB2018 said they would not "...remote problem solve changed calibrations." in spite of the fact that the only cals I had run up to then were the one in the ECM when I picked-up the car on 7DEC2017 and three that Katech emailed me.

It was at that point, in late-February, when I decided to violate Katech's warranty and make my first calibration change. I started with idle speed and stability. It didn't take much for an amateur calibrator like myself to get the engine to idle at 700-RPM with far less idle speed oscillation or "hunting" and stop the occasional stalling. I was told that Katech's calibrator was "one of the best in the business", so I was astonished at my success, but...I digress.

Ok, so...what about my changes to WOT spark and fueling? My first goal was to deal with knock retard which I could feel as the car accelerated. When I logged data using HPTuners VCM Scanner, there was tons of KR at high-RPM and high-load so, I retarded the spark in the high-RPM/high-load parts of the spark map, as you can see in this image which compares the Katech calibration in my car's ECM when I picked-up the car on 7DEC2017 to the calibration I wrote on 8MAY2018 a couple of weeks before I shipped the car to Katech for Rebuild2. The blue area is what I changed.



So, yes. Katech is correct. The engine was "down on power" and it should have been with the WOT spark retarded to stop all the knock retard which I later decided was caused by oil ingestion. I'll add that with Rebuild3, on the same test course, driven the same way, on the same 91-octane pump gas, there is far less KR and what KR is present is minimal.

Next, with my wideband oxygen sensor installed, I ran some acceleration tests and found the air:fuel ratio was rich at high-RPM. Based on that, I began to alter the MAF table. An image of the MAF table is below. It is described by Katech as having a "hole" but it really doesn't. The MAF table has values all the way to 1,914.59 g/s air flow at 15,000-Hz, but a Street Attack LS7 at 6800-RPM doesn't flow much more than about 325 g/s and doesn't generate higher MAF frequencies than 9750-Hz so I didn't change anything beyond that. Ok, I admit, that's sloppy cal work but, at that point, it was a "work-in-progress". I leaned the engine at air flow levels where my wideband read the exhaust as rich and left the airflow cells alone above the maximum output frequency my MAF generated.



I'm sorry but...that's just not true. Here's the reality.

Someone at Katech–perhaps the person who oversaw the company's "car shop" before I first took the car to Katech in late Summer of 2017–decided to switch Katech's LS7 engines to a Mahle forged piston which used a 1-mm/1-mm/2-mm ring package with a plasma-coated top ring face. Had Katech validated that piston/ring package for use in a "Street Attack LS7", the engine would have run about 2500-miles at which point its oil consumption would have been clearly problematic. At that point, Katech would have already been into the validation process for the cost of parts and labor to build a validation engine and the time to drive the car 2500-miles. Then, they'd have to spend the time and money to diagnose the problem and develop a fix. As it turned out, Katech ended-up out my $10,000.00 "half-a-refund", which might have been close to its cost on a test engine. The cost of the problem solving efforts would have been spent before coming to market with a Street Attack LS7 using Mahle pistons and rings rather betting on a customer doing the validation for them. Unfortunately, that bet was a looser and it was I who settled the bet.

I voided Katech's warranty and I agree with Katech's opinion on OEM's paying warranty claims.

The craftsmanship of the guys in Katech's engine shop was outstanding. I give all the people who assemble engines at Katech a major shout-out. I do the same for a couple of people who worked on my stuff but are no longer employed at Katech, Kevin Pranger and Chris Meszaros. Where Katech fell short is at the department manager and executive levels which are where parts choices were made as well as choices for how Katech's customer care process was administrated.

The cover letter to which Katech's $10,000.00 check was attached along with Katech's post to this thread at 1333-hrs on 13MARCH pursuaded me that further attempts to convince the company to give me a full refund on Rebuild2 would be a fool's errand.

There have been several posts to this thread as well PM's and private emails attempting to convince me to litigate, but I've decided not to go down that hole. Municipal courts in Michigan are similar to municipal courts in California in that the limits for a small claims case are similar. In CA it's $7500.00 and in MI its $6000.00. Suits for damages higher than that have to be filed in "Superior Court" and only an idiot represents him or herself at that level. If I chose to sue Katech, I'd be looking at major court costs in hiring legal counsel, filing documents and gathering evidence. Plus, I'd have to fund a number of round trips to Michigan and devote another couple of years of my life to the Michigan legal process.

I cashed Katech's check.

Tomorrow, I have chassis dyno time reserved at Full Throttle Kustoms, about 90-min southeast of here in Filmore. I'm in Santa Barbara County which, so far, has no "shelter-in-place" order. As long as Ventura County, in which Filmore is located, has no "shelter-in-place" order; I'll be there tomorrow morning to test. I'll post the data in a day or so.

It's possible that the CF could delete or lock this thread. If that happens there is another site on which I will post the chassis dyno numbers. CF rules prohibit me from posting a link or naming it but if you Google "Blue-Bullet Blog" you'll likely find it.

Katech_Zach

All,

We are getting hit pretty hard in this thread

Hib – You told me there was closure in this matter… and our differences were resolved in a note on March 17 as you were cashing our $10,000 check. Obviously, from your most recent post, that statement was a clear misrepresentation to induce us to paying you money that you were not entitled to.

Key FACTS are being left out.

One small item before we go any further:
Hib claims that he changed no parts except spark plugs and the engine oil filter, this is not the case. The intake filter media is just one of the additional items that were changed and documented. Upon diagnosis, we found sand and other foreign debris were inside the intake manifold.

On to the tune:
The 1st Engine that Hib tuned excessively and without regard melted the catalyst and damaged the engine. The engine returned to Katech making 152whp less than what it left with (390whp). After Katech flashed the same calibration that it left with, it was within 54whp (490whp). The car had initially left with 544whp. The report below shows calibration and dyno summaries.

We also didn’t charge Hib anywhere near full rate on the rebuild. We also donated many parts to the cause. All details that have been left out up until now.

The 2nd engine that Hib refrained from tuning high load areas had no damage to the engine or the cats. Despite having the same level of oil consumption as engine 1, it made the same power when it left as when it returned. This engine was fully warrantied and Katech covered all costs related to fixing the oil consumption.

We were never able to diagnose ring / bore wall material incompatibility due to the calibration and part components changed. We never had a chance to properly root cause the high oil consumption condition; due to Hib’s admitted failure to follow our warranty policy.

One of our engineers said it best, “Ring / bore wall interaction may have caused the engine oil consumption but not 1 engine on the planet would have lived through Hib’s tune.”

Dyno Comparison:
The calibration that Hib left on the car came back with less power than a stock LS7.

• Green Line: 1st Engine as it left Katech
• Blue Line: 1st Engine as it returned to Katech with Hib's Calibration
• Red Line: 1st Engine as it returned to Katech with reflashed Katech Calibration from Green Line.

MAF Sensor Calibration Curve Differences:
The graph with the hole in the MAF curve is after Hib was done with his tuning. The graph that has no hole present is our calibration. Hib admitted that this is sloppy cal work.



High Octane Spark Difference.
Here is a comparison of the Katech Calibration to the Hib calibration. Hib pulled as high as 12deg of timing at high loads. This has SEVERE risks of high EGT’s and damaged components. The significant changes were above 3600 RPM, not at idle as he claims. Idle changes did not show any inherent reason to cause engine damage. We can all agree on that.



Low Octane Spark Difference:
Here is a comparison of the Katech Calibration to the Hib calibration. He pulled timing out above 3600rpm at low loads. Again, this has SEVERE risks to damaging engine components. Idle changes did not show any inherent reason to cause engine damage.



Calibration Changes:
Ghuggins of HPTuners forum claims Hib is not logging anywhere near enough pids to make the changes he is making. NTIMID8 of HPTuners forum responded that the ECU was responding exactly as he was commanding it to do and that the car was running lean rather than rich, which lines up with our conclusion from our engine diagnosis. Hib was “pretty sure it’s not lean”.




Hib also admitted on the HP Tuner’s message board, “But then, dumb-assed mistakes are how I learn, sometimes.”

For those of you would like to review the tune or Hib's comment above see the HP Tuners thread from 2/24/18:
https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...sesed&p=516190.

Our Warranty is not a test bed for folks to try their tuning skills.

There was a lot of wasted time that we paid dearly for, between four and eight times what it costed Hib. Now he’s not stopping, voided our warranty, took our money, and runs our reputation through the mud.

Fast forward to today. He now has an engine that Katech put 2000 miles on it. We were satisfied and handed him the keys. He put another 3000+ miles on it himself and was excited about the torque, power, and lack of oil consumption. So, what does he do?

Goes and tunes it…

How did we find out? The Corvette Forum.

He takes our generosity and slams us for it. He changes things without our prior knowledge and expects us to figure out what he did, what kind of impact it had, and how we should fix it all on our dime.

We’ve got other things to do and good honest customers to serve.

To anyone that is concerned about our quality and question our ability to honor our warranty: Our quality is better than ever and we continue to stand by our work. Your warranty will remain intact, it will be honored, as long as you do not void it.

Steve Spurr – Katech President.

savewave

This appears to have begun as a sale/marketing/promotion thread about the build Katech was doing for Hib Halverson and at some point thereafter became a dispute thread. If that assessment is accurate, then there are a number of site rules that might apply.

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

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

At the least, the thread needs to move to Transactions Feedback and be closed to further discussion as it appears each of the parties in the dispute has had the opportunity to post their version of the facts. Meanwhile, we'll begin a review of the thread for compliance with the rules. It may take a while as there are 631 posts in the thread -- 151 by the customer and 14 by the vendor. So, potentially, there are 466 posts by third parties without direct knowledge of the dispute.

Corvetteforum is not in a position to determine whose facts are the true facts in any transactional dispute. At the request of either of the parties involved, however, we will be glad to ask each of the parties to work together offline in a genuine effort to resolve the dispute in a manner that is fair to all involved. If there is an update on the resolution or a failure to reach a resolution, let us know and we can add it to the locked thread.

savewave

Sorry for the delay in getting this thread reviewed and back online. I was on the road today and had an unreliable WiFi connection. Now that I'm back at home, I've completed the review and editing on the thread to bring it into compliance with rules linked to in post #225 above.

Basically, dispute threads should be posted in the Transactions Feedback section where they will be available for future review by those interested in a product, service or vendor. The rules call for the posting of a factual account of the dispute by the customer and allow the vendor or selller the opportunity to post his version of the facts. Third-party commentary is not permitted. Once each side of the dispute has posted, the threads are locked to prevent a running debate from becoming a circular in nature.

In this thread, we've eliminated posts that did not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, for instance, who makes the best catch cans, the desirability of the color of Hib's C6, requests for C8 production pictures, etc. We've also eliminated third-party commentary, threats and personal attacks. Third-party questions that seemed relevant to the discussion and which were answered by Hib and/or Katech were left in the thread. Also remaining are other users who used the thread to report similar issues or experiences.

What's left, while still long, should be more useful going forward to those interested in reviewing it because most of the chaff is gone and doesn't get in the way of honing in on the details of the issue.

Hib expressed concern at one point that Katech might pressure us to remove the thread. I explained to Hib that we don't delete threads or posts in Transactions Feedback so long as they conform to the above-referenced rules. As it turned out, Katech made no request to remove the thread or any material in it.

Corvetteforum is not in a position to determine whose facts are the true facts or to take sides in a dispute. The detials are here so that site users can make up their own minds.