Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTASIX
Of them they all share one thing in common and thats the common hate for anything LN or Flat 6 developed.
|
Personally I don't have a big issue with LN products. What I do dislike is the LN/Flat 6 marketing in this thread. You have no interest in fairly exploring other options because your intent is to crush the competition. The picture that you, Jake, posted of the lion with blood dripping from its jaws was taking it too far and hurts the credibility of your arguments as it's clear that you're just out for blood. I think you've realized this and removed the photo because of that. I also think that your choices to not sell the IMS Solution to the DIY installer and not to sell the IMS Retrofit ceramic bearing alone are poor marketing choices. When I told folks at PCA Palooza that their IMS Retrofit would need to be changed in 50,000 miles AND that you won't sell them just the bearing, but they have to buy the $650 kit all over again, they were pissed. Marketing plans that piss off the customer and drive them away are poor marketing plans...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTASIX
They may make comments about "here's how NASA does it" or "In my factory" but none of that has a single thing to do with this IMS Bearing in this M96 engine that they have never opened up themselves and never reassembled and made run for even 5 minutes. Unless NASA is fitting M96 engines to Ground Support Equipment or unless that "factory" is producing M96 engines all of that gibberish has no place in these topics.
|
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Experience has its place. But science also has its place even though you want to throw it out if it is not exactly specific to our engines. Decades of research about bearing design and lubrication is quite significant to this discussion. LN and Flat 6 even enlisted the help of a bearing design engineer when developing the IMS Retrofit. Was his input just gibberish because he had never rebuilt an M96 engine?
The mention of NASA brings up a good example - following Jake's logic we should have never gotten a man on the moon. Sure we tested rockets and had some experience - but LANDING on the moon!?!? It wasn't experience that got us there, it was science! Science that was drawn from other areas, other disciplines than landing on the moon. Personally then I am very interested in what science outside the tiny world of our M96 engine has to say about this problem because it's a big, big world Jake and we have been dealing with these kinds of problems long, long, long before
you ever cracked open your first M96 engine.
Kirk Bristol