VT & Rica

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

Originally Posted by imac

I'm not trying to defend anyone, and Foggy said what I meant, but more eloquently!
/Snip
Tuning a car is a risky business, and one must always be prepared to take risks the more you tune the car....

Indeed, tuning up an engine, particularly an older engine..
However, in these two particular case, if I remember, one enginew blew up and one engine, when retuned/mapped elsewhere, ran - and continues to run perfectly.

That to me indicates that something was not done correctly to start with..

More to the point though has been the rather cavalier attitude to "customer service" that the company/staff has shown..

Des. . .

[imac]

Originally Posted by Nuisance

Just as a side question............

Those who have had work done at VT.

When the car was taken out for a "road test" did VT fit a set of trade plates to it?

No, but I have a tax disc, so trade plates are not needed?

[PNuT]

Originally Posted by Nuisance

You're missing the point too.

It's not all about Chris's car going bang. You all seem pre-occupied with his car.

I'm not

the bit i am yet to fathom..... is why were these cars sent out running weak?

coincidence that all these hybrid turbos were running weak?

the million dollar question is why?

[imac]

Originally Posted by Nuisance

You're missing the point too.

It's not all about Chris's car going bang. You all seem pre-occupied with his car.

Thats what I thought this thread was about.

People have had 'issues' with the company for as long as I remember, and admittedly I have not followed recent events (Have been dormant since March), but my experiences of them (a simple remap) and talking to them on the phone/via Email have been fine.

Apologies if I posted out of context!

[pyaap]

Originally Posted by imac

Thing is, why should a business (any business) dig several thousands into its own pocket if it is not provable that its product alone caused the damage, and that there was no underlying problem which the map amplified, causing the issue?

Have a look at this post from the following thread:
http://www.vpcuk.org/forums/showpost...2&postcount=27

http://www.vpcuk.org/forums/showthre...erchips&page=3

So why then did Superchips pay for the remedial work? If they wanted to be as difficult as VT obviously have been, do you think that it could have been irrevocably proven that it was their work which caused the failure and not poor fuel quality etc. and the thousands of other excuses as James has suggested tends to be a "get out of jail" free card in these sorts of circumstances?

Originally Posted by imac

For example: You buy a washing machine from Comet. You plug it in and set it up on a wash cycle, then go out for the day. When you arrive back, your whole house is burnt down. You automatically think it is the washing machine, because your house has been standing for X years with no problems - but how can you prove this? How can you prove it was not a fault with your electrical system that caused the fire either due to a previous problem or that the installation of the washing machine merely served to amplify a problem that was already there? If you have no buildings or contents insurance, would you expect Hotpoint to expend several hundred thousand on the basis that their product might well have been to blame?

Sorry, but this analogy had me in stitches.....and still is.........

[PNuT]

Originally Posted by imac

Thats what I thought this thread was about.

All, I presume it is already know on this forum,

That Volvo Tuning / Chip Tuning, are no longer distributors/Agents for Rica Engineering

Regards

not sure how chris's car came in to the origional post....

[imac]

If it can be proven 100%, it is very simple to take someone to court. Why not just do that? It is both inexpensive and not time consuming....

I thought my washing machine analogy was a good one, lol. Ok, maybe it should have burnt the whole kitchen down rather than the whole house

[pyaap]

Originally Posted by foggyjames

Let me illustrate with a story. Chris Wiita in the US slapped a lorry turbo onto the 3.0 straight six motor in his 960. Within 15 minutes of getting it on the road, it popped the head gasket.

Sorry James, but this was no lorry turbo slapped on a car (which possibly suggests an inappropriate application?) but an alleged bespoke turbo 'designed' for this particular application and power output.

Originally Posted by foggyjames

It's a shame Chris (in the UK!) didn't have a wideband lambda sensor - which I would recommend to anyone with a modified turbo car. That way he'd know for sure whether or not his car was running lean. Without an AFR plot, we'll never know if bad fuel tuning was the cause. Any number of things could have caused this - many of which don't relate to VT.

So at what point does an wide band become mandatory? Should everyone with a tuned car get one or why not everyone with a stock car get one too because those can allegedly run lean too right? Fact is the majority of tunees are trusting of the company they commission to work on their cars. Take another look at Nuisance's AFR plot (lambda 1 at twice stock boost) and I think you will agree that is nothing short of negligent. Perhaps the tuner does not know where the instant fuel enrichment maps are but how can anyone hand over the keys on a car which they themselves know is running lambda 1 at full load?

To be honest, I only had a wide band fitted to my car when I came across one for a steal and I decided that was going to see how minor adjustments affected the way the car performs. Even with my 310bhp / 450Nm 19T setup, I did not have a wide band because I had total trust that MTE had mapped it to be safe, which indeed they had.

Originally Posted by foggyjames

I'm not trying to defend or condemn anyone - I'm just saying take it easy, please. These things can and do happen, even with the best will in the world. I don't think the evidence is sufficiently solid to draw the conclusion that VT were at fault here.

That may indeed not be your intention, but I am afraid that from some angles, it does appear that you're trying to defend the indefensible, especially in light of the existing evidence and the lack of evidence to the contrary. To put it another way, what evidence is there that VT had carried out all the work (including pre and post diagnostic checks etc) on the car perfectly and mapped the car to run safely?

[imac]

Simple question?

VT have been selling their hybrid turbos + maps for quite some time, and there have been loads of people taking them up on their offer.

Out of all of these cars, only 1 or 2 have had issues? That to me suggests the individual car(s ) are at fault, and not the turbo/map ??

Surely if there was an inherent problem with the map/turbo, there would be many more instances of failure?

Am not being deliberately argumentative, just retaining a objective sense of perspective.

[pyaap]

Originally Posted by imac

If it can be proven 100%, it is very simple to take someone to court. Why not just do that? It is both inexpensive and not time consuming....

Again I'd have to say you've missed the whole point here; Chris took the conscious decision to let VT sort the problem out and was willing to meet them half way and that is why he did not immediately jump for the "I'll sue you" card or resort to threats of physical violence etc as is now coming out of the woodwork. Sadly, his kindness has been taken for weakness on what would seem to be pure greed. But don't worry, I am sure Chris will do what he chooses to, but none of that will detract from the facts that he has posted, supported by credible evidence, versus the assumption, speculation and hearsay that his engine had pre-existing damage posted by individuals who have no supportive evidence whatsoever.