jimlab

A gap letting air past the intercooler rather than forcing it through the core would have some effect on cooling, especially since the gap offers less resistance to airflow than passing through the core, but Kevin didn't say that it was a HUGE design flaw.

"The problem is the duct overhangs on the bottom battery side corner and allows air to vent out to the engine bay instead of passing through the IC and cooling the air. You can pretty easily seal it with tape or something but if it hadn't been changed you wouldn't have to correct anything to begin with. Needless to say it will substantially reduce performance unless you seal it.

Don't lose sleep over it but make sure to seal the gap up if you can."

Now... who needs to work on their reading comprehension?

By the way, ***** is spelled with a "c".

matty

Well for starters i would like to hear brians or others thoughts on the matter...thats what this forum is about right right.
Then i suppose i would seal it and feel pissed off about my decision.....to answer your question directly. Tks for asking.

jimlab

I don't have to. You've been acting like a spastic child having dramatic fits all morning.

matty

substantially reduce performance is very close to a design flaw. Seems like pretty similar statements to me..

Oh yeah this is what you do now when u run in to a dead end ...u point out spelling errors...very nice.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

The problem is Brian is going to stand behind the change, Kevin is going to say the change is wrong. That's the way it always works when you have an original designer and then someone who modifies someone's design without their permission.

So, what I'm getting at is that it doesn't really matter. Check to see if you have the gap. If you do, go ahead and plug the gap up. If not, just enjoy the car and have fun.

matty

i have to laugh....like i said i am done feeding your need to argue on this thread...you're a jerk bottom line and everyone knows it.

SlingShotRX7

So does this mean I can get the OLDER designed flawed
m2/Asp IC for CHEAP???

Like Half price???

BTW.. Nothing wrong with airing your SIDE of the story.
the BILL of RIGHTS, settles that.. Well for all the
American citizens in the states, at least..

Ironic how the BIG FD aftermarket co. are falling by the way side, IE: PFS, now M2.. Funny how $$$$
in capitalist society effects t hings..

jimlab

Which means that you don't know enough about how intercoolers work to be able to evaluate the severity of Kevin's statement for yourself. Coupled with your "chicken little" act this morning, I'd say that ranks your intelligence right up there with... ZeroBanger's.

When you're accusing someone else of being illiterate, it's usually best not to include spelling errors in your own post...

EdwardNorth

If I may ask, which Medium Intercoolers are the ones being sold at the RX7STORE right now? Are they they fixed/improved ASP ones or are they the potentially flawed M2 ones (if I'm reading this right)?

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

This is exaclty how I feel, everytime I see Kevin post it's a bullshit drama thread be it Chuck or M2, let it go let "your products" do the talking you only hurt your image with this crap. My exact point below.





Matty there is nothing wrong with your IC it's the ducting that is a little off, I personally would take the tapered tanks, and rework the duct.

yzf-r1

iTrader: (1)

let's face it, there's no way the duct is going to be "sealed" anyway, just resting against a rubber gasket

ideally the duct would be secured to the IC with fasteners

jimlab

Have you owned one?

rynberg

Securing the duct doesn't work either, because the fiberglass warps over time. I have a PFS SMIC, where the duct bolts to the IC and I still have to seal the top. IMO, having to work a slight bit to seal the duct to the IC is not an issue.

yzf-r1

iTrader: (1)

yes, I have one on my car now

the gasket seems to seal ok at the top, but the base of the IC is questionable, perhaps I need to tweak it

yzf-r1

iTrader: (1)

what are you using?

jimlab

I used pressure from adjusting the piping and hoses at the top and a big piece of industrial plastic Velcro on the cross bar at the bottom to maintain pressure against the duct, once it was properly seated. The collection of pine needles and other debris in the bottom of the duct when I removed my IC indicated that it was sealing well enough, in my opinion. I don't know what more you could ask for.

yzf-r1

iTrader: (1)

velcro is a good idea, thanks Jim

I now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

I think we're talking (?!) about more than one "design change" here. As I recall:

Kevin/ASP developed both the medium and large IC, with as i've gathered, a universal duct for both, to save development time on what is the most difficult part of a SMIC design, something he allowed for with a square outlet tank on the medium.

The SCC/Shiv article I read said that the M2 medium cooled almost as well as the large, attributed to the two using different core designs (per ASP's original design). M2 changed the large to use a core like the medium (presumably better). This had nothing to do with the duct "gap"... Also don't remember a follow-up test confirming that the new core performed any better in "large" configuration (correct me if i'm wrong)... alot of folks contributed the similar cooling ability to the fact that they are both sourcing fresh air from the same size inlet.

Somewhere along the line though, it looks like M2 then changed the medium cooler to use the same endtanks on each side (and the same as the ones on the large).... obviously to save manufacturing costs by eliminating one unique component... at the expense of the consumer who got a poorly sealed product. Sound like they also cut a few more corners by eliminating the beading on the pipes.

DamonB

I'll be the first to say I have no firsthand info but Kevin says there was a signed contractual agreement in place between he and M2. If M2 just woke up one morning and decided to not honor that contract I would expect there to be lawsuits involved. Product improvement or differentiation is irrelevant. The binding agreement was not followed as I see here from the telling of the story.

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

Also, for what its worth, I really don't think you can take the core design from one product design that you contracted to pay royalties for, and substitute it for the core design on a sister product you contracted to pay royalties for, and call that a different product that you shouldn't have to pay royalties on.

Same goes for enacting cost-cutting measures like the endtank design and pipe beading.

Same goes for the airpump pipe. I would characterize that as an accessory... no different than the mirriad of inlet pipes that have been fabbed for single turbos, etc.

I guess the lesson is, if you didn't want to pay royalties, and didn't want to get sued, you should've NOT entered into a contract, paid $1450 up front for the original unpatented product, knocked it off (totally legal), and then turned around and charged MORE for it like PFS and Pettit!

KevinK2

The large core cooled well but had a high pressure drop. M2 changed the core (at least for the tested IC) to one that flowed better. SCC retested and the drop was now about the same as the Med IC ... mabe .8 psi vs 2.6 psi for the stock IC, at 12-13 lbs boost , iirc.

pomanferrari

iTrader: (1)

I think Brian at M2 was dumb to go into a contract with Kevin. Copying is permitted as long as there is no copyright or patent covering the product notwithstanding Kevin's rant about how unethical it is to copy another person unprotected product on the big list: if you're ignorant in business you're bound to be screwed.

Kevin T. Wyum

The directional change in this is all pretty funny. To end the debate about which design does this or that yadda yadda and it's somehow different and XYZ's design is this or that is all moot and pointless. The signed contract, just for this reason specifically states that the agreement applies to any and all products that are "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR". It was intended with the expectation that a person would try to get cute with what exactly constitutes an ASP IC. : )

Gene,
There is already a partial judgment of $25,000 entered in Contra Costa County at this time. As for airing dirty laundry, as my second post clarifies my intent is to explain why I had to defend Brian, the problems he was creating for my products and make excuses for him when people were complaining to me in the past. You don't have to look very far on this forum to see the complaints people were making about his construction of the IC's and unfortunately I had to essentially cover for him hoping he would clear things up. My post was my final break with him and "clearing the air" not "airing dirty laundry" A distinct line had to be drawn for everyone and a real explanation provided for it to mitigate the direct damages he had been causing to my products and me. Keep in mind I had to make a big public statement at the start of his production that he would be taking over the manufacture and sale of the ASP IC's, giving him my public endorsement and giving him an existing proven product in extreme demand at the time. After the nonsense I had to go through I feel it would have been unreasonable to cover for him even more and allow my perceived endorsement of him to continue, as I had always had to in the past. If I had not mentioned the basis for all of this it would have been subject to rumor and assumptions and I'm sure plenty of spin would have been applied which I don't feel is acceptable given the circumstances. You're also forgetting he was using the molds and metal stamps I owned with these vendors to build all of the IC's in question.

Counter to your suggestion I do feel that the community has been served by this and is the better for it. The public interest is to hopefully prevent the future victimization of others that might fall prey to the same tactics. Imagine if I hadn't included the language "substantially similar" in the contract? Suffice it to say there's a lot of supportive details and other information that I could bring up that I'm not. My goal wasn't to do damage, if it was this was only the tip of the ice berg, the goal was to clear my product of any association with M2 et al. and provide the truthful reason why. Your post was, for the most part, very polite and courteous, which I do appreciate, but respectfully disagree with and feel that you simply don't have enough information.



Where did the idea come from that the same duct was used for both IC's? They're quite a bit different.

ZeroR, I think it's best that I simply defer to JimL, you've clearly got a lot of animosity and an unpleasant agenda here.

What was the rent an apartment remark ROFL?

Kevin T. Wyum

DamonB

I'm sure Brian did so because Kevin had already done the work: The design work was done and all the plans, tooling and dies were a done deal. All M2 had to do was take that given set of tools, manufacture the product and run the customer service end. In return Kevin was to receive a percentage of the sales dollars.

M2 could have easily not entered into a contract and instead developed their own designs, built their own tooling and truthfully called it an M2 product. That for me seals it: If any part of the M2 intercooler was built using the tooling that Kevin originally turned over to M2 you can quite easily prove that the M2 product was therefore in fact Kevin's ASP product since M2 built their product directly from Kevin's plans and tools. Kevin did not outright sell his design to M2, he only sold M2 the right to build his design.

It's a wash. No matter what "changes" or "improvements" M2 made to the product if Kevin's tools were in fact used to build them and there was a signed contract in place giving M2 the rights to build the product in exchange for a percentage of sales returned to Kevin it seems quite easy to prove that M2 did not have any original ownership of the product and in fact owes Kevin the money it agreed to pay when the contract was signed.

If M2 made an original design with original tools I could allow M2's claim that they owe nothing to Kevin. If they were building products from tools supplied by Kevin I cannot see how M2 can then claim the product as their own even if they did change one endtank on the thing.

pp13bnos

iTrader: (1)

I just want to find out about the nocab7/Rx7store thing.....I allways wonderd what happend to nocab. CJ