Fitting parts - responsibility

Neither party was mentioned in my post--- Z1 is an impartial 3rd party, one of the major supplier of Z parts as most if not all know.

The statement was more easily written and reads better by simply writing "Z1" rather than "impartial 3rd party A" and "impartial 3rd party B"...

 

When did you move to Australasia smart ass?

 

Disrupting? He asked for pictures of said incident, I provided. That's hardly disrupting the forum... perhaps you should look up what the word disrupting means in the dictionary?

Yes they are.

The fitter discovered this upon test fitting, they were not completely installed. Taking them off wasn't the problem at hand it was waiting on new manifolds to come in to replace the faulty ones.

Oh sorry he can't post to the Aus forum? By that logic you can't post to the US one.
GOOD DAY

 

PM'd

 

What part do YOU not understand??

 

Oh sorry I'll just PM it to him then

-bows-

Honestly I just came for the popcorn.

 

Its in the Ams thread on 300zxclub where bonez & mungyz are having a nice big argument about it, pages & pages back & forth.

Dot point version:
- Customer provides installer, Ashspec, with parts
- Installer finds 'slight' issue with the manifolds, as pictured above, which prevent manifolds/turbos being fitted to engine. posts photos of it on facebook
- Customer can't get any reply from ams for days
- Certain people say its partially Ash's fault for not inspecting supplied parts
- mungyz puts 'impartial' poll up here & tells them he'll post results

- drama arrives here.

 

Cause attention whore?

 

Wow

Some really passionate opinions in the other thread that names all the names involved.

I probably would have picked up the phone and spoke to the supplier and given him some options. Customer had places he wanted to be.
Either send me a serviceable part immediately or pay me to bodge them up to fit.
Not sure on the wall thickness but I'd say the easiest fix was to do some creative porting to both the left and right manifold. One hours work on each side, two hours in total or perhaps three max.

Assuming the binding was not too bad that is... but really should not have been an issue.

Should have been an easy thing to sort out. The supplier should have fixed the issue PRONTO!

Poor quality manifolds regardless.

 

I guess Rob that maybe I just have to much faith in people and expect that others will have respect for what the poll was for - an unbiased opinion on the basic scenario.

Now due to the lack of self control and maturity of some people the poll is corrupt and unreliable.

Like I said - they were just worried the poll would show something they wouldn't like, like the thugs in Africa running around with guns messing up election results etc.

Typical of these guys, they give their country a bad name.

 

Except that your recreation of the "basic scenario" is not an accurate reflection of what occurred.

Your intent to use a biased poll to argue a point that you have been trying to defend for about two weeks now should make it clear that you are not going to get anywhere with this...

 

I dont think the poll was ever going to shed light on the situation happing on another forum Glen.

Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, there is no cut and dry answer, and it depends on the details.

Who supplied the part, who ordered the part, how the discussion was arrived at, what guarantees/warranty is there, what was an acceptable level of inspection of receiving the product depending on who that responsibility is allocated to, what level was product inspection needed to ascertain it was faulty was that above and beyond reasonable duty of care, when was a reasonable point of discovery, costs associated with rectification etc etc etc.

There is no simple answer that can be polled.

You were just looking for the answer you wanted.

Threads like this should be burnt from the surface of the earth. It just fosters bad will and makes us dumber for reading it.

 

why are you bringing this shit here? Its bad enough when the US dribble makes its way to the Aus300zx forum..... dont send an invite.

 

I actually extended an exclusion but what ever :rofl:

 

I was trying to keep the crap out of the thread - some people are not very good at keeping the peace it seems.

The modification was the removal of the AMS logos from the manifolds and the smoothing of the castings etc - interesting that none of the pictures show the area where the logo was removed. I have been asked by a few people via PM and email if I thought it might not have been there to start with - a moderator even suggested in the thread that they were knock off manifolds not AMS ones.

I'd guess they are AMS ones at this stage.

There are witness marks that indicate the turbo did actually bolt on and there has been a complete refusal to supply the centre to centre distances on the studs - pictures and computers are awesome though and I know for a fact there is no serious issue here at all.

You would know yourself if that gasket goes on as far as that then it's only going to be a .5mm issue at worst.

If he was happy with the location of the ports etc prior to fitting it to the engine then why suddenly such an issue to enlarge one or two holes on the turbo.
Concerns about quality were the excuse - the irony of not checking the part but then refusing to use it over claims of butchery etc.

It seems it is impossible to convey my stance on this across the net, the written word simply isn't working but to put it simply it's extremely poor form for Ash to bitch about the product he installed without checking and to complain a customer is missing an event because they chose to upgrade quality.

I intend to get my hands on these exact manifolds ................

 

This, nothing more, nothing less.

 

It sounds like typical US zed owners with too much sand in their female genitalia.



Also, agree with Eric.