Turbo Kraft

Mr. [redacted]’s claim is fictitious and lacks any no detail or evidence is provided to substantiate any of his claims. Instead, he presents a grievance based on his emotions, not fact, and proceeds to follow up with a link to a message board posting that is not...

about TurboKraft.  Mr. [redacted] is a used car salesman, a “flipper” – he buys used sports cars, primarily Porsches, has them cleaned up, and sells them for a profit.  The 1991 Porsche Turbo he is referring to is one such car that he has since sold.  Mr. [redacted] does not present himself as a technically astute car owner, and either does not understand – or chooses not to believe – that this particular car was in much better condition after TurboKraft worked on it compared to when he dropped it off. The specific details that contradict his claims, line by line:Was quoted $800-$1200,CLEARLY Stated to inform if estimate would be more! At no time was [redacted] quoted a price of $800-1200 to resolve the problem his 1991 Porsche 911 Turbo was experiencing.  He cannot provide any anything to support this claim:  TurboKraft has no record of giving such a low estimate, nor does Mr. [redacted] have record of receiving one.  Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] was kept in communication concerning the progress, the labor performed to the car, via both email and verbally upon his visits to TurboKraft.  When Mr. [redacted] called TurboKraft and spoke to me, [redacted], in early December 2014, he described problems with a 1991 911 Turbo he had.  He said he had the car at another shop, but they couldn’t get it to run right, and when he had tested it on a dynamometer at a different shop he found the fuel mixture was too lean in the upper rpms.  Based on the problems described, Mr. [redacted] was given the following estimate over the phone:1) Test on dynamometer to verify condition, establish performance baseline, $200/hr plus shop supplies (ex: fuel)2) $750/exchange for an adjustable warm-up regulator (aka WUR, fuel pressure regulator) package, plus 3) Installation of adjustable WUR package, approximately 2 hours at $140/hr 4) Retest on dynamometer and adjust available fuel system controls including adjustable WUR, approximately 2 hours at $200/hr plus shop supplies (ex: fuel) This initial verbal estimate totals $1,630 plus sales tax, quite clearly more than the amount Mr. [redacted] claims he was quoted. Furthermore, it was explained that would be *the bare minimum required* to resolve the problem Mr. [redacted] described the car as having, assuming everything else on the engine was correct. The promised outcome was short and simple:  If TurboKraft were to do the job, the car would be tuned to make as much power as it could safely do.  It is the same outcome we offer to every Porsche Turbo owner bringing us a car to tune:  “It will do what it can do, safely.”  We make it this simple because we have no interest in delivering cars that will be unsafe, unreliable, or at risk of an expensive failure -- and therefore promise nothing more. This quote was given with certainty because it is the exact same one TurboKraft has quoted many other 1976-94 911 Turbo owners over the years as a first step in resolving this well-documented engine fueling problem.  (There are dozens upon dozens of threads on the two top Porsche 911 Turbo message boards, [redacted] and [redacted], outlining this problem in great detail.)  TurboKraft is a worldwide recognized expert in the air-cooled 911 Turbos, and with 2 employees possessing over 30 years combined experience on these specific vehicles, we have successfully dealt with it many times.  Mr. [redacted] described the common problem, and the common estimate was given.  The phone conversation was concluded by Mr. [redacted] asking if TurboKraft could supply these parts – the adjustable WUR package – to the shop where his car was already being worked on ([redacted] Enterprises) for them to install and tune on the same dyno already used (Dyno Comp in Scottsdale, AZ), and I agreed.  I was glad to agree to this as Mr. [redacted] had been a TurboKraft customer in the past, but we really did not wish to have anything more to do with him as a TurboKraft shop customer.  We had 7 transactions with him between 9/15/2008 and 4/03/2012 covering parts sales plus 3 different Porschesfor repairs and modifications, and no transaction went smoothly or ended well.  No matter what the bill was, no matter how low or fair, [redacted] always complained about the amount and sought a lower price.  I also knew he had pulled this same routine with at least 3 other independent Porsche specialist shops in the greater Phoenix area, further making me want to keep a distance from Mr. [redacted].  For that reason, TurboKraft had not [redacted]e any business with [redacted] since April 2012. After hanging up with Mr. [redacted], I called [redacted] of [redacted] Enterprises, whom Mr. [redacted] identified as working on his car at the time.  I have known [redacted] for approximately 20 years, trust him and his shop’s workmanship, but expressed my concern over being involved with anything relating to [redacted] given our history with him as a customer.  [redacted] said Mr. [redacted] was a little like that with him, but that so far he had not experienced problems with Mr. [redacted] when it was time to be paid, and that he would buy and parts from TurboKraft and install them.  To our surprise, the car was sent to TurboKraft a few days later.  A quick call to [redacted] revealed it was not his but [redacted]’s decision to send the car to TurboKraft.  Because [redacted] vouched for Mr. [redacted] as not being a problem customer, the car and job was accepted.  As it was mid-December it was explained clearly to Mr. [redacted], in the presence of other non-employees in the workshop, that TurboKraft was busy concluding a major engine build project due by the end of the year, plus two other high-profile 1991-92 Turbo jobs with January deadlines, plus we would be closed the two weeks of the holidays -- thus his car would be next in line and nothing would be [redacted]e until January 2015.  Mr. [redacted] not only consented, but proceeded to go into a lengthy tale about all the car deals he had in process, buying and selling, going and coming, and how this worked out for him dropping the car off early at TurboKraft’s workshop instead storing it at his house.  The time table was reinforced once more in an email exchange: Friday 12/12/2014 @ 7:40pm:  [redacted], did you get a chance to dyno car? Monday 12/15/2014 @ 12:39pm:  No, dyno testing & tuning the other CIS-injected C2T here, yours is next. Monday 12/15/2014 @ 2:35pm:  Okay give me a call when you know something ** mentioned you might have somebody interested in the car I [redacted]'* want to sell it till I get my 993 turbo sorted out that's next Had car for two months, had to go by several times due to no returned call, This claim is partially correct, at least.  Correct, because the vehicle was at TurboKraft from mid-December 2014 until 06 February 2015. Incorrect, because calls were received during business hours, and voicemail messages were returned during business hours. Mr. [redacted] did visit TurboKraft at least twice while his car was being worked on.  From an email received 13 Jan. at 6:39pm, after business hours: “I might be in Area Tomm, left you a VM” (Same message left on voice mail immediately prior, after hours, so not answered or immediately returned.) Mr. [redacted] casually dropped by TurboKraft’s workshop around midday 14 Jan.  He was brought current to the progress made, the work performed, and the schedule.  At no time did he express dissatisfaction or object to work performed.  Timetable: 05 January:  TurboKraft reopened 06 January:  Began work on Mr. [redacted]’s 1991 Turbo.  Put car on a service lift, noted overall shiny-but-worn condition of the car:  93,500 miles on chassis, engine leaking oil, transmission leaking oil. [see photos A, B, C at end] An initial baseline dyno test confirmed what we suspected and what was reported to us:  the engine’s fuel mixture was much too rich in the midrange, and dangerously lean in the upper rpms – the classic fuel curve of a hot-rodded but un-tuned 911 Turbo still using the factory original CIS fuel injection system. [see photos D, E, F – baseline dyno result plots of torque (TQ), horsepower (HP), air:fuel ratio (AFR) and boost pressure (PSI)] Mr. [redacted] was called with the results, and he confirmed they were similar to results he got on a dynamometer at Dyno Comp in Scottsdale prior to contacting TurboKraft.  I also mentioned how hard the car was to start cold, how rich the car was when idling warm, and how the present boost pressure of 17.2psi was not safe, that 16psi is generally the maximum safe limit on a 1991-94 Turbo.  Too much boost exacerbates the existing problem of the engine running lean in the upper rpms, and too lean a fuel mixture leads to predetonation and expensive engine failure. I reiterated what we planned to do to remedy the mid- and upper rpm fueling as best as could be [redacted]e with the otherwise stock CIS fuel injection system, including turning down the boost pressure, tuning all that could be extracted from it safely.  Again, Mr. [redacted] consented to the work proposed. Other items noted: * failed intercooler mounts & seals – bleeding off boost pressure = bleeding off air flow, meaning will get more lean when fixed * Boost diverter valve also failed with a bad diaphragm, affecting drivability * So rich at startup and midrange that the white paint on the bumper is speckled black, area discolored yellow. * Receive adjustable WUR – no deposit received towards parts as is customary.  Install WUR package. 14 January:  Mr. [redacted] dropped by TurboKraft’s workshop around midday 14 Jan.  He was brought current to the progress made, the work performed, and the schedule.  At no time did he express dissatisfaction or object to work performed: * install new adjustable warm-up regulator (WUR) package, adjust starting pressures Turbo Kraft also shared with Mr. [redacted] that there were larger factory fuel injector lines and fuel injectors available from other model years, how we had just installed some in a similar Turbo engine of greater displacement and were able to deliver more fuel in the upper rpms. The lines would have to be sourced used and then be reconditioned, as they are discontinued by the factory, but one set of injectors was confirmed available in stock with [redacted] North America. Mr. [redacted] agreed to the installation of these parts as well. 14 Jan, 3:46pm – Mr. [redacted] declines fuel lines in email: “[redacted], let's focus only on the warm-up regulator and adjustments and not worry about the fuel lines, if we can't get it figured out that way I'll determine whether or not I'm going to do any EFI later” We schedule the next available 2+ hour dyno appointment available, 01 February. 01 February:  Retest.  Engine is taking too long to warm up and reach full operating temperature.  Turn down manual boost controller but is still overboosting.  Something wrong on car.  [See retest dynos G, H, I] We also verify the air flow meter (AFM) sensor plate is maxed out, and the aftermarket fuel enrichment controller (FEC) is working. Mr. [redacted] calls, we give him the news, tell him we have to be able to turn down the boost so the car will not be dangerously lean in the upper rpms, keep from risking the engine.  Mr. [redacted] gives his consent to trouble shoot it. WG not assembled properly, pinched diaphragm and base spring pressure too high. [See photo J, K – photos of WG] TurboKraft is able to repair the wastegate, otherwise it would cost more time and money to send the part to the manufacturer in MI for repair:  approx. 2-3 weeks total turn-around with Ground shipping (much more for air shipping). It is also discovered that there is no power to the WUR circuit (runs “cold” too long), or cold start valve (explains why hard to start), or aux air regulator (idle valve).  I inform [redacted] these have to work to get the engine to run properly, that the WUR needs power to regulate fuel correctly, and advise troubleshooting would take 1-2 hours.  He consents. We call [redacted] to see if he knows about the power failure, but he does not.  Problem is traced to power relays under driver’s seat (repaired) and poor jumpers added in the factory relay panel (repaired). Make last dyno appointment. 03 February: Final dyno.  Engine starts well, warms up in proper time, good idle.  Still lean upper revs.  Ask [redacted] and [redacted] of both pumps are -044, get affirmation but still running lean so verify.  Next measure voltage (V) to fuel pumps, find low.  Temporarily jumper powder from battery to the pumps = measurable improvement (will need final repair).  2 hrs of back-and-forth tweaking of CO – WUR – FEC.  Finally get respectable results:  * 406hp / 367tq to the wheels at just 13.4psi. * AFR improved, higher useful rev range [see final dynos, printed with notes concerning gains] We were quite satisfied with results, as they were exactly in line with our expectations of ~400whp measured on previous 911 Turbos fitted with similar upgrades and mostly factory original fuel systems.  car was worse than when I dropped off, Did NO Improvement whatso ever! Once more, completely incorrect.  It was tuned to do as much as possible, safely, and practical gains were realized at the same time.  Looking over the final dyno results confirms this: * a 3.8psi reduction in peak boost from 17.15psi down to 13.39psi, yet the turbocharger spools up faster, the wastegate achieving cracking pressure approx. 250rpm earlier * a loss of -59lb.ft. peak torque, but a gain of +75lb.ft. in the midrange – where the engine is used most * a loss of -30hp peak, but a gain of +50hp in the midrange – there the engine is used most * now leaning higher than 12.5:1 at 5,575-5,675rpm, a gain of 600 more useable rpms of rev range The peak power and peak torque numbers were reduced because they had to be – they were artificially high due to the engine running lean, and were not sustainable.  Long-term the engine would not have survived.  That is our professional assessment based on 30+ years of experience. Had to get correct parts & pay another shop to do correct repair, The correct repair Mr. [redacted] is referring to? The same fuel lines *he declined in writing* on 14 January 2015. On 14 January, Mr. [redacted] was made aware that larger 6mm O.D. fuel injection lines were once produced by Porsche for a different model year, and could be installed on this engine to increase fuel throughput. At the same time, Mr. [redacted] was made aware that larger fuel injectors were produced by Porsche for a different model year, and could be installed on this engine to increase fuel throughput. Prior to this conversation he had no knowledge of the parts, and admitted as much to TurboKraft, plus UMS Tuning (owner of the dyno). [redacted] was also not aware such parts existed. Mr. [redacted] knew they could benefit his engine, yet he declined to have TurboKraft install them. He took the car back to [redacted], who installed these same lines as supplied by Mr. [redacted].  (In a follow up phone call, [redacted] confirmed installing them.) Correct parts?  Yes. Whose failure to allow TurboKraft to install them and achieve higher HP and TQ numbers?  Mr. [redacted]’s. A final point on this:  no evidence has been presented that these “correct parts” achieved anything beyond what was accomplished by TurboKraft’s repairs and tuning.  Mr. [redacted] emailed a snarky message to TurboKraft on 27 Feb, accompanied by a dyno graph: “This is a 15 psi with $650 worth of RIGHT parts, under 13 AFR, Hooked back up Everything you disconnected.......”  [see [redacted] Dynocomp graph below]? The dyno graph shows higher HP and TQ numbers recorded at Dynocomp, but there is no boost or AFR information printed on it as is standard with that dyno.  Without boost or AFR data, this is completely meaningless – the higher number could just as well be achieved by once more over-boosting the engine and running it too lean, the same as when Mr. [redacted] brought to TurboKraft in the first place. felt I would not have car released if I did not pay, Correct – isn’t that how it works with any purchase of goods and services?  Take your car to Porsche North Scottsdale for repair and then see if they will release it without payment. Mr. [redacted] is a grown adult, not naïve.  You request it, you pay for it, and then you receive it.  Dispute is also filed with Credit card company, they have credited & are doing a investigation as well. I will reiterate that Mr. [redacted] is a grown adult, and in possession of a credit card.  Having the card places some obligations upon him, including: a)  Raising any objections to the bill prior to signing a copy of the charge slip -- but he did not do so.  He was not rushed out the door and he had plenty of opportunity – not just that day but over the prior weeks – to say if something concerned him.   b)  Making a good faith effort, such as verbally and in writing, to resolve any dispute concerning charges prior to initiating a chargeback – but he did not do so.  In neither a voice message (still saved on our voicemail), a phone conversation, nor an email (see “final M.D. email, below) subsequent to him picking up the car has Mr. [redacted] requested we discuss the bill some more, or that the bill be changed. Even within this complaint, there is no specific, detailed reason outlined by Mr. [redacted] why he should be refunded.  Without it, his threat of a chargeback is not only a violation of his cardholder agreement, it’s just plain immoral and unethical. GOOGLE SEARCHES SHOW OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THEM:  View Single Post - Problem with TURBOKRAFTforums.[redacted].com/6599829-post53.html Mar 4, 2012 - Thread: Problem with TURBOKRAFT. View Single Post ... I won a Revdex.com suit on him and posted everywhere. Never got a penny back. Old ...Anyone have any complaints about Patrick Motorsports ...5 postsJan 22, 2014 Problem with TURBOKRAFT -Pelican Parts Bulletin Boards19 posts Jan 31, 2011More results from ums.[redacted].com This is the only detailed evidence offered by Mr. [redacted] in a weak attempt to show some pattern of misconduct by TurboKraft – a quote and a hyperlink: “… I won a Revdex.com suit on him and posted everywhere. Never got a penny back.” http://forums.[redacted].com/6599829-post53.html This is a complaint from some individual who: (a)  Was not a TurboKraft customer, and  (b)  Was writing about his experience WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMPANY It would appear that in his haste to paint as negative a picture as possible about TurboKraft, Mr. [redacted] failed to even read the negative online posting he cites. TurboKraft has been in business nearly 12 years and has served approximately 2,000 customers.  We are exceedingly meticulous and do not rush jobs, so we rarely make mistakes.  When we do, we own up to them.  For this reason, the only two “bad press” articles quickly turned into “good press” for our company.  Occasional unhappy rants, from 0.1%  customers, over 12 years… hardly a trend or pattern. And for every complaint thread, there’s several of these “TurboKraft appreciation” threads, too, such as: http://forums.[redacted].com/911-930-turbo-super-charging-forum/850687-offi...⇄ http://forums.[redacted].com/911-930-turbo-super-charging-forum/609178-another-t...⇄ -- a glowing 40+ page build thread documenting the EFI Hot-Rod Odyssey, including how appreciative a TK client is. This thread is still that forum’s #1-rated and 5th-most-read out of nearly 13,500 threads and 13 years. Clients are proud to cite TurboKraft in their signatures, for example: http://forums.[redacted].com/8322680-post18.html10515642