You've obviously never seen Ken.

The first time I met him, after having him badger me, online, I literally laughed out loud and said (also out loud) "Now I understand."

I'm 62, but that match would be over in nano seconds.

 

Ahhh...

Very good! Glad to see that.

So, there's actually three versions....the version Rob Edwards got, with the ungraded Home Depot hardware (knowing Rob, I'm sure he has pictures), the version that you did change the hardware, even though you badgered Jim Corenman and me about the quality of the hardware, and now the "black version".

Maybe the catastrophic engine failures are only with the original version with the Home Depot hardware?

Jim Corenman....you still have your unit right? Got any pictures of the hardware you were complaining about?

 

-ish. The stock run did not go up to 6000 rpm, where peak HP is made on a S3.

At least it IS better than the results of the comparative GTS runs posted there, where you deceptively mixed SAE and STD correction.

In reality, there was only about 20 rwhp difference...on a GTS. How do you screw that up?



Funny, that paraphrases how a certain 'massage therapist' describes you on Twitter.

 

First off, I have no real horse in this race, my old '90 GT has had an early PKT on it for 6+ years now and had no issues. If there is a real issue with the bracket mounting bolts, I just hope that Cardinal has been notified and been sent the set up upgraded hardware and the instructions on how to perform the upgrade.

I also assume that since this is an early bracket that Roger bears no responsibility in contacting Cardinal, if it hasn't happened already.

I have a couple of pics of the original early Porkensioner (still in use on my old GT), the hydraulic tensioner mounting bolts were 10.9's, as was the socket head cap screw on the pulley. (Looks like it was changed at some point to a conventional bolt?)





The lever bolt just says '8' on it. Not sure what that means since there is no grade 8 metric bolt, maybe it's shorthand for 8.8 (?)

I can't tell what the grade of the countersunk bolt or the bracket mounting bolts are, Looks like a "T" marking and some other mfg identifier, but no metric grade markings. Maybe someone can read the tea leaves?

Apologies for the blurry (blown up) images..




[

 

More innuendo and a pissing match that has dropped all pretense of staying impersonal, but I'm still waiting for an answer to: Anyone have a documented case of a PK Tensioner failing due the older hardware used? Or how about simply a documented case of a PK Tensioner failing?

Regarding the proposed boxing match: I don't know either player, but those Wing Chun guys can be tiny little fellows, and I still wouldn't want to have to fight one. Greg you never know ;-)

 

There has been one failure of the Audi pulley bolt (that the pulley mfr. supplies) at the exposed thread. Through bolts are used now for higher strength, but also for easier manufacturing of the bracket.

There was a failure of an early yellow bracket (apparently) after the flange head bolt(s) became loose. In the reconstruction of this failure it was also found that the flat head bolt counter sink angle was incorrect. Although no flat head bolts have been reported loose as a result of the reduced contact area, custom 8x25 FH bolts are available through Roger to match this angle.

 

That will be enough.

You have the nerve to call me "deceptive"?

That's absolutely priceless!

The guy that openly sold performance chips on the internet that were copies of someone else's work, calling me deceptive!

The guy that spent 3 years unable to get better results than those chips made, so then had to figure out how to cheat the dyno into giving him higher horsepower results, calling me deceptive!

The guy that has had a catastrophic engine failure due to his tensioner design, but has conspired to cover it up, calling me deceptive!

That will be enough!

Roger....we all know you have the pictures of the failure. We all know that Sean fixed it. We all know that you have been trying to keep the failure as quiet as possible from the people that care...the people that have this device on their vehicle.

And Ken calls has the ***** to call me deceptive?


Roger....we request, no.....we demand to see the pictures of the failure....so we can all decide what to do with our own customers, our own vehicles, that have this device in them, before this failure mode turns our customers, our own engines into trash. AFTER ALL, THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON TO COVER ANYTHING UP.....AND IT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO BE GOOD NEWS!!

Enough of this crap!

Let's find out where "deception" really lives!

 

Dude, you-are-losin'-it.

Of what chips do you speak? Copies of wha'?


Silly goose. You were the one caught trying to pass off my chip(s) as your own work on your header thread.

 

How far you want to go with this?

You seriously think I don't know what happened with "your" chips and the whole history of what happened?

Just show us the pictures of the covered up failures, so we can all judge, for ourselves, if we need to worry.

The intentional cover-up (deception) of your tensioner failures speaks volumes.

Let's not all forget that your tensioner has been marketed to eliminate failures.....well, imaginary failures of the stock tensioner.

So any failure of your tensioner system is going to be a death blow to that idea.

Which is your obvious reason to cover up the failure, in the first place.

The results on my header thread speak for themselves. From the first test where your chips did nothing (except try to burn the engine up), to the results I posted on Thursday that show what my new exhaust system, with tuning, will do.

44 rwhp, to date....versus a 1 rwhp loss, with your chips.

And when I do my product introduction, I'm going to, like I do with all my products, guarantee the results, not offer up excuses of how people need to do special tricks, on the dyno, to try and duplicate "dreams".

Clearly, I'm the deceptive one.

 

I think the proposed fight was just poking fun at the situation....and came from neither of us.

 

Is this thread, too, degenerating to threats of violence? At some point, Internet Brands is going to have an issue with this.

 

Since I've had several phone calls on this tonight I might as well respond.

There is no fvcking cover up, there is no conspiracy. I think you have one, and only one motive here and that is to destroy the reputation of someone who disagrees with you on here. Ken.

You two continue to fvck up each others threads with so much bull**** that no one is benefiting from it.

Yes, I have pictures. I have the damn tensioner here on my desk and many people have seen it, seen the pictures and all they had to do was ask. But fvck if I'll post them to someone who deems to demand it to further their own agenda. We know why it failed and we know what the fix is and it's been talked about on several threads. Why you continue to pull this **** is beyond me. There has not been some grand scheme to keep it quiet.

I determined, like many others, that I will continue to install the PKT on customers cars who request it. I still have it on my personal vehicle and will continue to do so. You have decided not to and that is your choice, you've stated it so many times there isn't a soul on the internet who would question that.

 

You and everyone else...because...I wrote about the whole process of disassembling the factory LH2.2 and EZF code and posted it here over the span of a couple of years?

This is weird tack, even for you.



...Hogg?

 

I have installed a great number of Porkensioners over the years, and will continue to do so.

When I do a belt change, I will update the hardware. I will continue to use them, both on my car, and customers cars.

I have also seen the pictures of the failure, it was not covered up in any way shape or form. And people were notified immediately.

If any 928 owners in Canada have the other versions of the Porkensioner and do not feel comfortable drilling out the two holes, you can ship me the bracket, I will drill it out and return it. The only cost will be the cost of shipping.

 

This is absurd. I will use what the factory intended and make sure it is up to snuff according to WSM. I have no beefs with Kens system just I go with what a team of Porsche engineers designed.
I read these threads and they tend to get personal, hence my choice.