[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by ponjohn

I did miss that if Jim was mentioned by name or company - I think it was said to be a VA machine shop that was reputible.

Jim is CVM. The original block was shipped to him. He was working on it and farmed out some of the high end work. We all do it. Can't own it all and if we did have that kind of money........ I personally would be using it to race only like Scott Rex. LOL

That's when certain issues came to light. Some machined, some below stated K & M specs at that time, since pulled. K & M and all parties involved were notified. The block was sent back. Checked and same issues were confirmed. The block was sent back to Va, but to another outside source instead to do more testing?

K & M decided the waranty was null & viod for issues posted in the original topic.

Then.................... Others finally came forward with similair results and the same deal. Then others decided to check their products as to falling within advertised specifications at that time, since pulled. Nothing is being done at this time. DI issues was a done deal. Over.

From K&M (Kauffman& Mellott) performance spec on MR-1 Blocks, Block tensile strength is 35,000 psi twice that of any other block. The deck thickness is around 5/8 of and inch thick. The deck height 10.240 ,block is 22.160" long, cylinder bores are 4.145" from the cnc it will accept a 4.400 bore with a 4.375 bore this block has .250 of wall thickness. Defection of the cylinder bores should be outstanding with the wall thickness and tensile strength. This was an absolute when we decide to crank up the wick on the Pro-Mods. Ever aspect of the machining is measured in house which guarantees the lifters, distributer,oil pump will fit with no mods. Deck height measures within .002 or less which should pose no problems. The mains and cam tunnels are within .0002 and are precisely set on 5.192" this CNC Machine just loves to make precise parts. Main caps are from Pro-Gram engineering they are four bolt dowel pined caps.KRE and K&M are bringing Pontiac Performance Parts to all of the people that enjoy driving or racing a Pontiac. We are trying to set standards that the consumers wise to have at all levels. And we have tried our best to keep prices affordable for everyone to be able to enjoy some type of performance, as most of you know try calling and talk to my son Jeff he doesn't have time to turn around some days! Our web site should be up it is MR-1.COM we will be putting more info up soon. Any questions can be directed to KRE or Tin Indian and as Kev stated we are shipping blocks every week.
Thank You
Steve Kauffman

They posted 'initially' when the block was offered to the Public promoting how much better it was then a factory block and another offered out there.


A Company can't reply if they have no foot to stand on?????

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Ron H

The hardness issue has no resolve. No proof it won't or will work, save that other blocks in use are not having issue if they are "soft".
I thought that the cylinder wall thickness was with DI's block.
You and Skip had seal issues only?

Ron H. Apparently you are not absorbing the whole jist of the posts and additions made. This is not an isolated incident. And the way they are handling it is not just one person. This applies to other areas as well.

But hope that any dealings and products purchased from the aformentioned parties works to your favor.

FWIW:

The hardness issue can have an affect if ............. you get into Excessive cylinder pressures relating to Competition use and head gasket seal. Possible stud pulling? Deck warpage?

The hardness issue can have an affect if .............. you get into long stroke crankshafts and the force they excert on the web webbing area along with rpm and cylinder pressures.

The hardness issue can have an affect if ................ long term or even short term ring seal. Moly ring seal and material content? Can rip the moly off the face of the ring as the block surface starts it's wear pattern. Sorta like not using the right grit stones to hone for the type of ring pac used.

[Steve C.]

Ron H-
I suspect all of these early "TC" blocks have the potential for wall thickness issues depending on core shift. My piticular block has a few places where the thickness does not meet their advertised dimensions but its not as bad as Scotts block was. His is a disaster. I have some readings just under .200 at a 4.350 bore. How many people out there have measured their TC block, a few more might pop up.

As far as I know Skip and I have the only two blocks with the bad rear main seal grooves. It is so obvious that they were screwed up big time !

And based on the input from some VERY knowledgable people my brinell reading of 145-150 would have lead to issues in time. I do believe it's been covered here.

[Ron H]

Originally Posted by Mo

I agree. Bad mouthing is too easy. Their products should be boycotted and they be banned from Norwalk and VMP events for a couple of years. JMHO.

So Jeff and Mark Kauffman should go down because of this as well?
WTF Mo? You must be in AP's pocket or in competition with KRE somehow to have this attitude. You are as bad as the problem itself.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Ron H

So Jeff and Mark Kauffman should go down because of this as well?
WTF Mo? You must be in AP's pocket or in competition with KRE somehow to have this attitude. You are as bad as the problem itself.

Ron. At what shop are the blocks being Machined in house?

The blocks are sold and promoted at Pontiac events under who and with who?

K & M or KRE?

Re-read Line 7 of the previously advertised info on the PY forum board I posted above. How do you take this? Also line 8 includes the word. We?

The two K's are seperate in all these dealings? You know this personally?

[Brian Baker]

I think it's ridiculous to state that KRE should be "banned" from any event. That's absolutely absurd. Their money is just as green as anyone elses that wants to sell and or advertise their products and services. As for "boycotting", that's a personal decision on the consumer's part.

[Ron H]

It may be Steve's decision to take the approach that K&M have and Jeff and Mark have nothing to do with those decisions.
I work for a Family company that the sons run but Dad makes many decisions that are his own and though contradict the opinions of the ones running the show, are still made.
Understandibly they are all family, I don't agree that KRE has the same customer relations or attitudes when it comes to their products as the block itself.
Many are in competition with them at all levels so I can see why many would like to see another player out of the game and will jump on the band wagon to shut them down as a whole. I disagree with this part of the game that's being played here.
We are all allowed our opinions and we all have them for one reason or another. But jumping on a band wagon for the sake of seeing a bigger lynching is BS.
If you are better, you will out do them because of that. Dirty tactics shouldn't be needed to out do your competition.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Well good luck to ya on any future purchases with either company and hope their Customer Service is satisfactory and meets your expectations if an issue arrises.



Race Hard & Have Fun, dude.

Later, back to work. LOL.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Ron H

So Jeff and Mark Kauffman should go down because of this as well?
WTF Mo? You must be in AP's pocket or in competition with KRE somehow to have this attitude. You are as bad as the problem itself.

My comments are no more absurd that those on this board implying there is some kind of conspiracy.

As for being in anyone's pocket. That is not true. I have, in fact, spent $1500 with KRE this year. I have seen the guys from AP at events but do not know them. I have not purchased or been given anything from them. I am free to think for myself. Thank you.

As for them being banned. I know it would never happen. You can't enforce it anyway. Just a thought.

I prefer the "Philly" way of setting things straight................at the track!

[Rob]

Thanks for the photos DI, I agree that the block could be better Minor thrust .214, .198, .156, .146 and Major .264, .270, .280, .284. doesn't need sleeves from that information, but when pulling a block for 2000hp looking a little further through the castings would be a smart move. Anyone that has asked me knows I believe the IAII has better water jacket sand cores.

My opinion, at 4.350 correct would be .270 all the way around...well ok I might make em oval...wall pins?...answer is just not simple... .270 would be really nice.

-Rob

WWW.ICTCengines.com

[johnta1]

But Rob, from his very first post:

Cylinders
1-.149
3-.154
5-.137
7-.087

Which is correct?

[Tom Vaught]

I am confused about that deal too, John.

The writing on the block came from someone (Who) (K+M?)

Drunk-ins numbers were like you posted.

Even using the larger numbers posted by Rob, there is not ONE cylinder posted on the minor side that meets the advertising quoted by Steve Kauffman in his "quoted statement" posted above ".250 MINIMUM thickness at 4.375 bore." The deal is John, whether you take Drunk-ins posted numbers or Rob's numbers none meet the specified quoted advertised numbers. More smoke and mirrors vs knowing the blocks are right before shipping them out. All Pontiac does that.

Tom V.

[Brian Baker]

Just pulled out my sonic sheet for my IA-2. Keep in mind these numbers are for a 4.180" bore as delivered, on the thrust side.

1 - .405" 2 - .436"
3 - .439" 4 - .410"
5 - .420" 6 - .437"
7 - .427" 8 - .395"

[drunk'n Injun]

Originally Posted by Rob

Thanks for the photos DI, I agree that the block could be better Minor thrust .214, .198, .156, .146 and Major .264, .270, .280, .284. doesn't need sleeves from that information, but when pulling a block for 2000hp looking a little further through the castings would be a smart move. Anyone that has asked me knows I believe the IAII has better water jacket sand cores.

My opinion, at 4.350 correct would be .270 all the way around...well ok I might make em oval...wall pins?...answer is just not simple... .270 would be really nice.

-Rob

WWW.ICTCengines.com

Rob,

On #7 You see .146 at 3:00 O'clock now look up near 1:00 O'Clock and see
.093 number that is where the wall is the thinest. We found less around .088BWT#. You can look down the core hole and see it tapper off, but is is hard to see. In one hole there is a piece of wire cast in the block coming out of the cast iron. It is about .062 thick. I think it is a chap lett wire. This is no big deal. Thrust is not only at 3:00 O'clock it is from 12:00 around to 6:00 O'clock. If an area is thin it is a week spot.

[Rob]

I remember when Steve wrote that, was more as the pontiac world turns posting going on.

It's easy to pile on the .250" at 4.375" cuz it's numerically impossible...well almost numerically impossible. All Pontiac or K&M would have to alter the bore spacing to make that statement true for a Pontiac block. 4.620"-4.375" is .245", so unless you snuck the bore spacing out some, .245" is guaranteed to be the thickness from top to bottom of adjacent cylinders at a 4.375" bore.

I see the other #s in the pic, next to thicker spots. It does look to me like you have a legit grievance on cylinder walls and cam tunnel. It's not a throw away block with what I've seen so far, but it's not what you should have received either.

-Rob

WWW.ICTCengines.com

[Tom Vaught]

Rob,

When that first came out I posted somewhere the bore spacing calculation vs the wall material thicknesses but I think it went over a lot of peoples heads.

If you do not understand the calculations to get the numbers sometimes you post stuff that comes back to haunt you later on. Fat Fingers is one thing, stupidity is one thing, but ignoring a proven group of issues is poor business practices.

Rarely is a part a throw-away part unless the basic part is constructed of the wrong material from the beginning. The old "Rubber Rods" from Pontiac is a good example. No amount of work was going to make them acceptable for performance work. So now we have Rubber Rods and "Soft Blocks"

Tom V.

[ponjohn]

Tom-

I have a question. In one of Scott's pictures he showed a caliper in the headbolt hole and the cylinder bore.

I took it as that was an unacceptable measurement. IF this is the case how can it become acceptable - the head bolt hole can not be moved?

John

[Skip Fix]

I think it was a coolant hole, not a bolt hole. But I don't remember what page to sort through to double check the picture.

[Tom Vaught]

It is about 6 pages back. It would be Much better if people would reference the post number in their comment. As you can see Skip's last post was # 718.

It was a coolant hole but I also think that the block was actually sonic checked in many places vs the simple type measurement that was shown in the pic. Don't be too quick to Po Po the measurements. Personally I don't think we have seen the end of this topic unless it gets closed.

Tom V.

[ponjohn]

Im not poo pooing by any means, I am trying to learn.