ESS VT3 - LC built engine failure in 2,000 miles

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by Hans@ESS

Sergei,

I personally did the dyno testing on your car in Norway.

I can confirm that the dyno's posted are from your car right before
delivery. VT3 testing and development has been done in the US and your car
is the only VT3 car that has ever been on the Norwegian dyno so to try and
claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

We tested the car with air fuel monitoring and fuel pressure monitoring on
the dyno. Your fuel pressure and airfuel was 100% when we did the last dyno
run right before the car was picked up by you as the dyno's prove.

If the fuel system had not been working properly I would simply not given
you the car. Why would I deliver a car I knew did not work? This logic makes
no sense other than to shift blame after you damaged your motor in an
attempt to have us pay the bill.

There is no doubt that something had gone wrong later on, otherwise your
engine would not have been damaged. My guess based on the information you
gave us and our history with these builds is that the fuel pressure
regulator went bad and that the fuel pressure was not stable. We did send
you a new fuel pressure regulator and this is the one you are using now.

The point is that you should have installed the gauges before driving the
car hard and you should not have continued to drive the car hard after
feeling problems at higher rpms. This was a bad choice and is 100% the
reason your motor failed.

I also clearly stated to you that we wanted more time to do hard road
testing on the car. You ignored this and collected the car in haste. If a
problem had turned up while we where testing the car it would have been
fixed and this situation would have been avoided. Again another bad decision
on your part.

When it comes to the fuel system I see that you have changed the fuel lines.
The hoses/fittings used by ESS are high quality fuel hoses.
The hoses used under the car are protected by the oem plastic covers and
there is nothing in this installation that is dangerous or not safe. Did you
ever have a fuel leak?

Your statement regarding the fuel pump being wired the wrong way is simply
not correct. It would not be possible for one pump to deliver enough fuel to
get this air fuel and correct fuel pressure and the vehicle would not have
run to redline.
You say that you tested the pump in water?? and that you are now using a
pump that you claim has been running the wrong way for all this time again??
Most of what you post makes no sense other than that you clearly do not want
to take any responsibility for your own actions and when things break you
make up false stories in an attempt to have someone else pay the bill as you
have done in this case.

Your history speaks for itself im afraid, two blown stock motors from
overboosting kits and a 3rd from not following simple directions. You have
only yourself to blame for your history of damaged motors. You handled not
only your vehicle but this entire matter incorrectly from the beginning.

Hans

Hans,

You are the only ESS rep whom I know personally "face to face" and my attitude to a MAN whom I once recognized personally as good guy and had 5 years relations, could not be changed irrespective of anything

Saying this, I have no personal negative to you and this thread is all about bad product from ESS only and ESS reaction to the customer's claims that the product was really bad

I would comment your first appearance from December in the form of factual statements.

1. God helps me to have money required to have a possibility to look on such shit with a smile. Thus, if ESS did not like to pay for their mistake, no problem.

2. Irrespective of what went wrong, i.e. Aeromotive fuel pump, Aeromotive FPR etc., ESS personally installed them and is responsible for their work cause the only obligation from my side was gently fulfilled - I paid ESS the full amount for the work done and parts installed. If ESS did not agree with such a proposition - this is the end, nothing to talk about.

3. Going to the "overboosted stock engines: Hans, my first engine was not overboosted, it was loaded by 92mm SC pulley resulting to 8 psi, ie your normal 650 kit. The engine did 70,000 miles and hundreds of runs - enough, I think

Second engine was overboosted by 1 psi only per AJ calculations and that setup was used only for one day for 5 runs and using 100 RON only. That is it! But OK, it was overboosted, so my fault

Third engine was completely built by ESS and was broken due to ESS fuel system. Fact. No fault from my side.

You should do your work 100% and receive money. If you claim afterwards that the project is beta one, once I informed about the issues, that is ESS approach, not market best practice, and that is ESS problem.

4. If you feel gauges are so necessary, install them and that is it.

5. I am not using your second FueLab FPR, cause it was also of poor quality with a leakage from the body...

6. I am not using that Aeromotive pump. I am not using my stock M3 pump, cause you broke the body by making holes in it...

7. I am not using your stock fuel rails. What I am running is new OEM M3 fuel pump, new OEM 335 pump and modified OEM fuel rails with modified OEM sending unit

8. If ESS consider that rubber fuel lines being covered by OEM plastic under the car as non-dangerous, that is ESS problem, but the car is mine and my life is my life...

9. I am not telling stories and not blaming ESS. Just facts and photos. ESS in its turn did tell real stories by stipulating their "facts" from their book of tales

10. Forget about the possibility to return the car back that time... No way! My visa expired next day after the pick-up, lots of personal things and 10$k just for the road and back to ESS with the clear message from ESS that the car is damaged by me, no warranty, hourly rates, no timeline etc... It was a joke from ESS! For 10$k I repaired the car in 2 months and made it significantly stronger from engine and fuel system perspectives.

Good luck!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by s85e90

Yes, I know we're talking about a/m pumps, which also have been known to use black + and red - rather than the normal red+ and black- causing some people to hook them up backwards. But I am pretty sure this would mean that the pump would be trying to pull fuel from the rail/motor and may not let the engine run.

this pump was run alone? or in series to the OE pump.

I don't know if this pump runs in series or parallel. If it's in series and running backwards, then I don't think any fuel would get to the engine. If it's in parallel, then I would think the check valve would prevent fuel going TO the fuel rails, and I'm not sure if it could pull fuel FROM the rails. I don't think it could...but I'm pretty far out of my expertise on this one. I was only intending to comment on the wiring and direction of the pump and check valve (the stuff the pump manufacturer told me).

BTW, I'm pretty stunned at your comment that some A/F pump makers use black+, and red-. I never thought to ask the pump maker about that. Maybe if I get time, I'll see if I can find the installation manual of the pump online somewhere...to see what it says.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, I'm pretty stunned at your comment that some A/F pump makers use black+, and red-. I never thought to ask the pump maker about that. Maybe if I get time, I'll see if I can find the installation manual of the pump online somewhere...to see what it says.

Some of Aeromative pumps accidentally came with wrong markings.

The car would run with a reverse wired pump. Unlike what Sergei's words might suggest, the secondary pump wouldn't start pumping fuel in the wrong direction. It would just do nothing and act more like a restrictive point for the primary pump.

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by Soorena

Some of Aeromative pumps accidentally came with wrong markings.

The car would run with a reverse wired pump. Unlike what Sergei's words might suggest, the secondary pump wouldn't start pumping fuel in the wrong direction. It would just do nothing and act more like a restrictive point for the primary pump.

Yes

[Verify]

How is the car running now that you have gotten it sorted out?

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by Serpico

How is the car running now that you have gotten it sorted out?

All is ok! I've already passed 3,000 miles and last weekend won Moscow Unlim 500+ 1,000m and 1/4 mile event for RWD cars!!!

The results:

60f = 1,93;
1/4 mile = 11,02s with trap 136,01 mph;
1,000m = 19,62s with trap 174,19 mph.

Temp was quite hot (28C) and the road surface was really poor compared to US drag strips.... But 315/30/18 Hoosier Drag Radials did their job!!!

By the way, 1/4 mile time is Russian record for RWD car of any power at this event from 2009

All runs were made in MDM mode for DSC and from 600 rpms Fuel was 102 RON. Dry ice was used to cool down the car

To compare with other cars there:

1. Aventador LP700 = 19,85s for 1,000m standing start;

2. Porsche 991 Turbo S = 19,9s for 1,000m standing start;

3. Porsche 911 Turbo Stage 2+ on MS109 (650 HP) = 19,75s for 1,000m standing start;

4. Corvette ZR1 full bolt-ons (850 HP) = 19,95s;

5. Corvette Z06 full bolt-ons (707 HP) = 20,5s.

All of them had also significantly less 1,000m trap speed

I am just happy!!!

[Sal@AUTOcouture]

Nice times!

[Verify]

Originally Posted by filinm3

All is ok! I've already passed 3,000 miles and last weekend won Moscow Unlim 500+ 1,000m and 1/4 mile event for RWD cars!!!

The results:

60f = 1,93;
1/4 mile = 11,02s with trap 136,01 mph;
1,000m = 19,62s with trap 174,19 mph.

Temp was quite hot (28C) and the road surface was really poor compared to US drag strips.... But 315/30/18 Hoosier Drag Radials did their job!!!

By the way, 1/4 mile time is Russian record for RWD car of any power at this event from 2009

All runs were made in MDM mode for DSC and from 600 rpms Fuel was 102 RON. Dry ice was used to cool down the car

To compare with other cars there:

1. Aventador LP700 = 19,85s for 1,000m standing start;

2. Porsche 991 Turbo S = 19,9s for 1,000m standing start;

3. Porsche 911 Turbo Stage 2+ on MS109 (650 HP) = 19,75s for 1,000m standing start;

4. Corvette ZR1 full bolt-ons (850 HP) = 19,95s;

5. Corvette Z06 full bolt-ons (707 HP) = 20,5s.

All of them had also significantly less 1,000m trap speed

I am just happy!!!

Thats crazy!

1/4 mile MPH means you have the worlds fastest E9x then!

What tires were you on? any decent 60-130's from it?

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by Serpico

Thats crazy!

1/4 mile MPH means you have the worlds fastest E9x then!

What tires were you on? any decent 60-130's from it?

Tires: Hoosier Drag Radials with white letters 315/30/18

As for 60-130 do not know, but 0-100 kmh was 4.0s, 0-200kmh was 9.4s and 0-217,5 kmh was 11,02, thus 60-130 mph was near 6,5s

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by filinm3

Tires: Hoosier Drag Radials with white letters 315/30/18

As for 60-130 do not know, but 0-100 kmh was 4.0s, 0-200kmh was 9.4s and 0-217,5 kmh was 11,02, thus 60-130 mph was near 6,5s

Congrats Sergei on the great results. Did you have a vBox or AIM-Solo on your car? We can extract 60-130's from that if you did.

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Congrats Sergei on the great results. Did you have a vBox or AIM-Solo on your car? We can extract 60-130's from that if you did.

Thank you, Robert!!!

You know that substantial part of that success goes to you!

Thank you again for ALL you did for me so kindly

As for Vbox, no, nothing was installed in my car due to incorrect work of any equipment in that forest place... I would try sometime to measure 60-130 mph.

As of now, I did measure 100-200 kmh starting from 50kmh at 2nd gear and my best result is 5.1s in 10C and 5.4-5.7c in 17-18C.

[DLSJ5]

Nice work Sergei, glad to hear she's up and running well, those are impressive results!

[filinm3]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Nice work Sergei, glad to hear she's up and running well, those are impressive results!

Drew,

Thank you!!!