A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lycoming 0-360 factory overhaul core charges - Does Air Powertell the truth ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 11th 04, 06:12 PM
Mike Spera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lycoming 0-360 factory overhaul core charges - Does Air Powertell the truth ?

O.K. I read all the replies. I offer another viewpoint. As a contract
negotiator for the last 17 years dealing with all types of vendors, I
have a few observations.

First rule: GET IT IN WRITING BEFORE YOU START THE WORK!!!!!!!!
Second rule: If they won't put the deal in writing, or you don't like
the deal... move on.

So, you won't get a zero time logbook if you don't use the Manufacturer.
The FAA makes that rule. If you would like, petition the FAA and your
congress critter to get this changed. Let us know how you do.

Why is this happening? Do Lycoming and other vendors take great delight
in screwing people? Not likely. It may be a matter of survival. They are
getting persnickety about cases because they are getting burned and can
no longer afford to absorb it. Face it, these engines are getting OLD.
They are failing because they were not made to last 40 years. Lycoming
has probably also concluded they cannot be Divco's insurance company and
take in every repaired case and put their seal (and legal butt) on the
line. Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
business. Will owning an airplane get less expensive or more expensive?
Want to place a bet? There is a big difference between gouging just
because you can and altering your business practices to survive. This
appears to be the latter. If anyone has evidence that Lycoming is doing
this solely to increase profits at the expense of customer satisfaction,
please fill us in.

We have choices. We can gripe and steer business to independents. But,
believe me, there are PLENTY of risks in that route. We can fight with
Lycoming and try to work out every disconnect. Or, we might get in
writing up front what the deal is and, if we accept the terms, go along
with the agreement. As hard as it is for some people to accept, there is
a cost to owning an airplane. This may be an inevitable part of that
cost. If this is unacceptable (or unaffordable) to you, you might
consider whether owning is right for you.

Good Luck,
Mike

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Ads
  #2  
Old December 11th 04, 06:46 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mike Spera wrote:

Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
business.


No effect as there is already a company that has for many years sold
legal replacement parts for the Lyc engines. Goofy part was until
recently you couldn't buy all new parts from them and have a legal Lyc,
now you can for the 320 and 360.
  #3  
Old December 11th 04, 09:34 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 11-Dec-2004, Mike Spera wrote:

First rule: GET IT IN WRITING BEFORE YOU START THE WORK!!!!!!!!
Second rule: If they won't put the deal in writing, or you don't like
the deal... move on.


For those of us that have bought new, Lycoming factory rebuilt, or Lycoming
factory overhauled engines through Air Power, we DID get it in writing, in
the form of a purchase agreement. That agreement specifies the core deposit
(assuming the buyer wishes to exchange his/her old engine for the new one).
It also states that the core deposit will be refunded assuming that hte
crank and case are reusable. Lycoming (and who can argue that they are not
best equipped to make this determination?) decides whether the old crank and
case are, in fact, reusable. I suspect that Lycoming will reuse other
components from the old engine if they meet standards, but they really only
expect to recover the case and crank.

So, you won't get a zero time logbook if you don't use the Manufacturer.
The FAA makes that rule. If you would like, petition the FAA and your
congress critter to get this changed. Let us know how you do.


The zero time logbook only applies to the more expensive factory rebuilt
engines, which use many new components and only reused components that meet
new part tolerances. But the "zero time" designation is only part of the
story. Lycoming provides a good warranty, and a lot of peace of mind with
its factory engines.



Why is this happening? Do Lycoming and other vendors take great delight
in screwing people? Not likely. It may be a matter of survival. They are
getting persnickety about cases because they are getting burned and can
no longer afford to absorb it.


I think that the core deposit system works in general when it is in both the
buyer's and seller's interests that the old parts be reused. In other
words, if Lycoming can recover a usable case for less money than it costs to
build a new one, and if there is demand for products (i.e. overhauled or
rebuilt engines) that can use a refurbished, used case, then they would have
no incentive to reject one that really is usable. What may be happening
here is that Lycoming has found that it costs less to build a new IO-360
case than the sum of the core deposit and refurbishment costs. Another
(less likely) possibility is that Lycoming has more used, servicable cases
in inventory than it needs to meet anticipated demand. In either case it
would be more honest if Lycoming were to raise the base price of the engine
and lower the exchange allowance.

Face it, these engines are getting OLD.
They are failing because they were not made to last 40 years. Lycoming
has probably also concluded they cannot be Divco's insurance company and
take in every repaired case and put their seal (and legal butt) on the
line.


The designs of the engines may be that old, but I doubt that there are all
that many 40 year old engines flying around. Lycoming always builds more
new engines than it provides to airframe manufacturers for use in new
airplanes. New engines are often installed in old airplanes when the old
engine cannot be overhauled cost-effectively.

Regarding Lycoming accepting cases that have been reworked by others, all I
know is that they told us they judge on condition. This was important to us
because our old engine had incomplete logbooks

Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
business. Will owning an airplane get less expensive or more expensive?
Want to place a bet? There is a big difference between gouging just
because you can and altering your business practices to survive. This
appears to be the latter. If anyone has evidence that Lycoming is doing
this solely to increase profits at the expense of customer satisfaction,
please fill us in.


Lycoming may simply be getting more fussy about case integrity in an
appropriate concern over safety and product reputation. I don't think
anybody would object to this. After all, when we gave them our old engine
we got a rebuilt one that most likely has a recycled case, and we hope they
were VERY fussy in deciding that it was OK. My concern isn't that they
rejected our old case but rather that they did not provide complete and
documented reasons for the rejection, and that they scrapped the rejected
case before they gave us the option to retake possession of it.


We have choices. We can gripe and steer business to independents. But,
believe me, there are PLENTY of risks in that route. We can fight with
Lycoming and try to work out every disconnect. Or, we might get in
writing up front what the deal is and, if we accept the terms, go along
with the agreement. As hard as it is for some people to accept, there is
a cost to owning an airplane. This may be an inevitable part of that
cost. If this is unacceptable (or unaffordable) to you, you might
consider whether owning is right for you.


Can't argue with any of that. However, one of the supposed advantages of
getting a Lycoming factory engine is that you know up front exactly what the
cost will be. No unpleasant surprises like you might get in a field
overhaul. If your old engine is running well, has had benign oil analysis
results, and has not been mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that you
will get your core deposit back.

--
-Elliott Drucker
  #4  
Old December 12th 04, 03:57 PM
Mike Spera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Can't argue with any of that. However, one of the supposed advantages of
getting a Lycoming factory engine is that you know up front exactly what the
cost will be. No unpleasant surprises like you might get in a field
overhaul. If your old engine is running well, has had benign oil analysis
results, and has not been mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that you
will get your core deposit back.

Ah, but here is where the disconnect appears to be. They said the
evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your
disappointment that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions
did not appear to have any impact on how they arrived at their
conclusion. They may look at journal alignment, case mating surface
condition, surface fractures at known stress points, etc. I think your
concern is that simply saying "reject" does not go a long way to
customer satisfaction when thousands of your dollars hang in the
balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and costly decisions will
rile most folks.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #5  
Old December 12th 04, 04:16 PM
Daniel Gram
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The cases in question were stamped "WDC 55685" That was the reason give for
their rejection. Nothing else. One big problem is the rebuilder is now out
of business so we can't go back to them and tell them that Lycoming doesn't
approve their processes. Also the 3 grand in questionis quite possibly just
low enough not to justify the fees to fight for it. Sad!!
And by the way we do have it in writing "While Lycoming will accept
field-overhauled engines for exchange, engines that have been field
overhauled and subsequently fail are not acceptable for core credit. " But
read on "Engine cores with a crankshaft or crankcase deemed unreusable by
the factory, for any reason, are subject to reductions." Bottom line read
all the fine print.

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
...

Can't argue with any of that. However, one of the supposed advantages of
getting a Lycoming factory engine is that you know up front exactly what
the
cost will be. No unpleasant surprises like you might get in a field
overhaul. If your old engine is running well, has had benign oil
analysis
results, and has not been mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that you
will get your core deposit back.

Ah, but here is where the disconnect appears to be. They said the
evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your disappointment
that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions did not appear
to have any impact on how they arrived at their conclusion. They may look
at journal alignment, case mating surface condition, surface fractures at
known stress points, etc. I think your concern is that simply saying
"reject" does not go a long way to customer satisfaction when thousands of
your dollars hang in the balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and
costly decisions will rile most folks.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source




  #6  
Old December 12th 04, 04:31 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mike Spera wrote:


Ah, but here is where the disconnect appears to be. They said the
evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your
disappointment that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions
did not appear to have any impact on how they arrived at their
conclusion. They may look at journal alignment, case mating surface
condition, surface fractures at known stress points, etc. I think your
concern is that simply saying "reject" does not go a long way to
customer satisfaction when thousands of your dollars hang in the
balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and costly decisions will
rile most folks.


You make it sound like they actually inspect the engine. They "inspect"
the logbooks, if somebody else worked on the case then it automatically
fails. I have no doubt they still use a large percentage of these
cases. That's their policy, they should have the decency to tell us that.
  #7  
Old December 13th 04, 01:13 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 12-Dec-2004, Newps wrote:

You make it sound like they actually inspect the engine. They "inspect"
the logbooks, if somebody else worked on the case then it automatically
fails. I have no doubt they still use a large percentage of these
cases. That's their policy, they should have the decency to tell us that.



I do not believe that Lycoming's decision as to whether to reuse a case or
crank is based on what is in the logbooks. In our situation, there were no
complete logs for our old engine, and while Lyc refused the case (supposedly
for some cracking problems) they took the crank. Of course, if the logbook
indicated a repair that Lycoming deems to render the case or crank unusable,
or that would make it uneconomical to refurbish, then they would and should
reject it.

My beef with Lycoming is that they apparently do not have a mechanism for
providing adequate documentation to the customer as to reasons for
rejection, and that they will scrap parts they deem unusable without giving
the customer the option of retaking possession.
--
-Elliott Drucker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lycoming 0-360 factory overhaul core charges - Does Air Power tell the truth ? nuke Owning 4 December 11th 04 12:59 PM
Looking For A Lycoming IO-360-C136 Core Clyde Torres Home Built 8 August 28th 04 10:22 PM
lycoming major overhaul Marty from Sunny Florida Owning 14 June 7th 04 05:57 PM
Engine... Overhaul? / Replace? advice please text news Owning 11 February 17th 04 04:44 PM
FS: O-235C1 Lycoming engine (core) Del Rawlins Home Built 0 October 8th 03 09:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.