Re: Lycoming 0-360 factory overhaul core charges - Does Air Power tell the truth ?

[nuke]

>I was planning on going to Airpower for a factory overhauled
>O-360-A4A next month, but this is quite disturbing. I'd appreciate it
>if you'd please keep us updated on the details.
>Thanks,
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Used car salesman and tactics. They fed me a line of BS in their quote and
aviation is hard enough without getting lied to.

I picked a local O/H shop with good references to do the job.

The policy as written amounts to this:

1. Give them a check for $9000.
2. Send us your core and you'll never see it again, no matter what.
3. If we don't like it, we keep the $9000. It might takes us 3 months to
decide.

This is not an acceptable policy and violates every sense of consideration. If
they reject the core, you at least ought to get it back with a detailed reason
as to why.

Since the FAA requires all kinds of traceability and everything in the motor
has a serial number on it, there is no excuse.

Van Bortel (aka, Air Power and FactoryEngines.com) fed me a line about Lycoming
not taking engines over 36 years old for factory overhauls. But they fed the
same line with different numbers of years to other folks. So it is either a.) a
lie, or b.) a stupid mistake they make over and over.

So that only left a 0-time reman or a new engine as options. They said that
Lycoming would waive the core on a factory new engine.

I'm sorry, but if I'm going gambling with $9K, I want better odds, I want to
see the cards dealt and the see that the dice are not loaded, not to mention a
hotel room and free drinks.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:31:47 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>This was before Lyc got hit with their ****ty crankshaft recall. They
>are trying to make up for that debacle by screwing their remaining
>customers.

From where did you get that information (about Lycoming using this method
to make up for the crankshaft recall)?

I'm sure I'll need another O/H in the future, and I'd like to research this
sort of thing a bit more.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[JDupre5762]

>From: "Roy Page"

>Now the core has been examined by Lycoming we are being charged an extra
>$3,000 core charge because the engine case was stamped with a code number
>when last overhauled.
>. It was last overhauled by T.W.Smith in 1998

I am dealing with this for a customer and have made posts about it before. I
just talked to a Lycoming Factory rep today in fact.

I think you will find that the number stamped on the case is not from T.W.
Smith but from a case repair facility like Divco. Lycoming's position is that
they have no control over Divco's processes so that they cannot certify the
case as being to original specification therefore Lycoming cannot reuse it.

This has been happening a fair amount and the Rep's excuse for my not getting a
phone call back from anyone is that they are inundated with responses from
people refusing to pay the extra core charge. My customer is refusing to pay
since it was not made clear at the time of sale that a case previously repaired
reworked by an FAA authorized shop and processes would be cause for rejection.

When I asked for the cases back so that we might resell them I was told that a)
they weren't sure they still had them and b) they weren't sure that they could
release parts deemed unairworthy. My response is that if I have to pay $3000
per case I will damned well get something for my money. Today I was told they
will only keep cases for 30 days in any event.

Ball is back in Lycoming's court for now. My usual overhauler says that word
is Lycoming is trying anything they can to generate some cash flow do to the
myriad problems in the last few years from bad crankshafts and other things.
It seems pretty short sighted to me as they must be destroying their rebuilt
and overhauled business.

John Dupre'

[Roy Page]

Elliot,
I very much appreciate your factual and detailed account of the problems you
experienced and the suggestions to seek return of the crankcases etc.
This is what I need, good sound advice.
Do you have any documents from your situation that you would be prepared to
copy to me.
I am a bit of a leech when folk do me down.
In this case Airpower and Lycoming have gained a leech that, with help from
the forum, is going to be difficult to shake off.
Thanks again.

--
Roy Page - Secretary
Taylorcraft Flying Club
http://www.taylorcraftflyingclub.org


> wrote in message
news:Y7qud.3516$lZ6.3310@trnddc02...
>
> On 9-Dec-2004, "Roy Page" > wrote:
>
>> We would appreciate any suggestions how to counter this attack on our
>> depleted piggy bank.
>
>
> I thought you might appreciate some constructive advice regarding your
> specific situation, as opposed to general griping. I reported this
> situation in an earlier thread, so I'll just summarize here.
>
> We recently swapped the IO-360 in our Arrow IV, which had about 2100 SMOH,
> for a Lyc factory rebuilt ("zero time") engine purchased through Airpower.
> Lycoming wanted to withhold $3000 of our core deposit because of some
> vaguely described cracks in the old crankcase. Our A&P (a very straight
> shooter at a very reputable shop) was quite surprised, as he had never
> seen
> the cracking problem as described on an IO-360. He had just recently
> inspected the old engine during the plane's regular annual. Upon
> questioning, the Lyc representative claimed that the cracks were well
> documented in photos of the dye penetrant test. We asked for copies of
> the
> photos, but after being put off for weeks, Lycoming claimed that the
> photos
> were not available, and that the case had been scrapped. At that point we
> SHOULD have demanded a full refund of the core deposit, but what we did do
> is offer to split the difference -- $1500 -- which was accepted.
>
> Throughout this process, Airpower acted merely as a conduit of
> communication
> between us (the owners) and Lycoming, so I can't say they really had
> anything to do with the outcome.
>
> Bottom line, my advice to you is to demand the "unacceptable" case back.
> You will, of course, have to pay shipping charges. If Lycoming has
> scrapped
> the case, then demand a full refund of the core deposit.
>
> I don't know whether Lycoming is doing anything underhanded in all of
> this.
> It could just be that they are becoming increasingly fussy about integrity
> of the case cores that they reuse in "rebuilt" engines. That would be
> good
> news for us, since that is what we just bought. My understanding is that
> there is a big demand for rebuilt IO-360s, so it is hard to imagine why
> they
> would scrap a usable case to save $3000. Unless, that is, they can build
> a
> new case for less than that.
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:09:58 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld >
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:31:47 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>>This was before Lyc got hit with their ****ty crankshaft recall. They
>>are trying to make up for that debacle by screwing their remaining
>>customers.
>
>From where did you get that information (about Lycoming using this method
>to make up for the crankshaft recall)?
>
>I'm sure I'll need another O/H in the future, and I'd like to research this
>sort of thing a bit more.
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Oh, never mind. I've seen some later posts about this.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)