yzf-r1

iTrader: (1)

If corners need to get cut, you make the customer aware of it beforehand - like I said, shady

jamespond24

iTrader: (13)

Wow! I would never thought Kevin would take this shortcut it's not hard to replace the sleeves. I hope the diffuser was not grinded down when the motor is together?

F1blueRx7

iTrader: (5)

From what I read you abused the tort laws because you bought a budget rebuilt motor. IMO, cutting corners would have been to give you used 93-95 housings. Those N/a housings were probably in better shape and still didn't cause your turbos to fail. Kevin even told the judge this in the court room according to the link you posted but it was ignored.

Cutting the exhaust diffusers did not cause your failure. I fail to understand how you won a judgment against Kevin. The burden of proof that the modified exhaust sleeves caused the turbos to fail is on you, and I didn't see any proof in what you posted. Unfortunately since the court didn't have a lick of automotive sense once they heard some other shop say "well that's not the way I'd put a motor together" they found in your favor.

I don't think this is shady, it's common knowledge that they are interchangeable. It's also advertised on Kevin's website that he is a budget rebuild shop. And since they weren't advertised as NEW, I don't think they should have ruled in your favor.

I believe Kevin was right to not offer you a refund.

Just my 2c.

Carzy Driver

interesting read

coneklr

iTrader: (2)

F1blueRX7, I don't think I ever argued in court that the melted exhaust sleeves caused my turbos to fail. I DID argue that I would not use the engine now because the finger-loose metal shards could break loose and damage a new turbo at some point.

You are correct that the burden of proof was on me. And it is a high bar. However, I wasn't trying to prove that the cut sleeves caused the turbos to fail. I was trying to prove that I did not get what I paid for (breach of contract). I know there was a lot of text to read in my post. But if you take a second look, you will see that it was his own expert witness under cross-examination who admitted that he would not call this a 93-95 engine. I think that went a long way to meeting the burden of proof. Courts have to make rulings involving things that they are not experts in all the time. That is why each side presents testimony from expert witnesses.

F1blueRx7

iTrader: (5)

I understand what you're saying but I think you and I both know you got lucky in Kevins expert witness testimony. I know *most* shops wouldn't rebuild with older engine housings because the perception among the users of this forum is that old = Bad. And that shops reputation was to build only the highest quality engines.

That said, it's a well known fact that Kevin will re-use parts most other shops will not in order to keep his prices reasonable for the budget minded folks. That's the difference between a budget build and a high dollar build from RP or Ihor. You're paying for higher quality/newer parts in the build.

For all intents and purposes you got a 93-95 Engine. It could only be installed in a 93-95 body and would only use 93-95 accessories. It's like suing Jasper because they rebuilt a 350ci motor with a block from a different year then what you ordered.

It really does suck about the exhaust diffusers, and I feel for you on that. I do know that those diffusers are cut with a plasma cutter. At one point I believe he was offering cutting the diffusers out for customers as an added service, and this is the first time I've heard of a failure as a result of that cutting. Is it possible that excessively rich or lean conditions caused extreme EGT's further damaging the sleeves and causing them to become brittle?

For the full disclosure, I've had Kevin build three different motors for me between 2002 and 2005. Two turbo blocks and 1 N/a motor. I also had him do all of the install/removal work and it was top notch for being a budget operation. I put a total of 125k miles on them, with most of those miles on the turbo block. When I pulled it to swap in an V8 motor in 2008 it was still holding excellent compression. This is by no means a "nut swinging" post. My rotary days are LONG over, but I still recognize who Kevin markets to, and the affidavits from Ihor and RP are just apples to oranges comparisons IMO.

rotary_ghost

Gordon Gray has posted this thread publicly as the culmination of his personal vendetta and years of attempts to force Kevin Landers capitulate to his unreasonable demands. He has tried to portray the situation in such a way as to make the public think that Kevin Landers has failed to respond to or attempt to resolve the problem, but nothing could be further from the truth. Gordon is one of those armchair engineers who thinks he knows everything and cannot be pleased, and things are going to be done his way or the highway.

The heart of the matter here is, at what point does a car, engine, or a part thereof, become no longer what it was originally stated? For example, let's say that you buy a 1993 rx-7 brand new. Years later you change the battery, brake pads, exhaust, and wheels to non-mazda, non-OEM parts. Or perhaps you install the 86-91 ignition coils (semi-common FD mod). Or perhaps you install the 87-88 turbo clutch-type LSD differential into your FD. Maybe you even replace the tires with all season tires that some would say are not as good dry-performance-rated as the original stock tires that originally came on the car. Does this make your rx-7, no longer a 1993 mazda rx-7, because some of the parts contained in the whole assembly are no longer 100% stock for that year? Should you, if you decide to sell that car, be required by law to identify it specifically as a "hybrid" rx-7 and no longer 100% oem 1993 mazda rx-7 to any buyer, and be legally liable and penalized for it's entire purchase price years later if you fail to do so even though it still operates normally? Reasonable people are saying "no", but that is exactly the standard to which Kevin Landers is being held.

The engine in question was originally built by Kevin Landers, for his personal vehicle. At the time, he owned a highly modified FD, and also maintained a large group of used stock FD parts. It was from these parts that a spare stock FD longblock engine w/accessories was built for potential use in his car. IT was possible that the car may be sold in the future. Modified parts are often devalued when sold as a group or on a whole car, sometimes it is more profitable to restore a car closer to stock condition and then sell the modifications piece by piece, and this was the line of thinking in building this engine. This engine was built originally for personal use and was not custom built for or ordered by a customer nor built with that in mind. Kevin Landers builds all customer ordered engines to spec from the customer's own core, with rare exception to an engine block built and sold outright from Kevin's own core parts, and provides photo documentation of teardown and parts used/reassembly.

Kevin has built hundreds of rotary engines in the 11 years since he started working on rx7s for people all over the country (and a few international), including a few such "hybrids" with mixed and matched internal and external parts, both for himself and for others. This is how knowledge is gained (as opposed to armchair engineering similar to what has gone on here) and this is also how it can be factually stated that such a modification will not cause further issues later, due to prior experience of having done such a build and tested it in the field. This is in no way abnormal and in fact is in the very nature of "hotrodding" or building old performance cars. This engine was built using a great condition set of rotor housings that were on hand at the time. Due to a variety of factors, the stock 93-95 rotor housings tend to wear and crack significantly even with low miles. This is why it is often easier to find better condition housings from some earlier models even though those parts are technically different and older. Obviously an experienced builder is always going to use some of the best parts available for his own project. Think about that fact when pondering the quality of the build in question. Even if you would accuse a builder of attempting to screw a customer, you would have a hard time convincing any reasonable person that a builder might assemble a poor quality engine for his own intended use. Kevin has in fact built more than one identical hybrid engine in the past for both his own use and that of other individuals. They are most likely still in operation today. They all performed 100% normally.

At a later time the rx7 in question was sold and this stock engine was left over, unused, having sat for many months since being built. It was at this time that the engine was posted for sale in the hopes that someone else could gain use from it. It was sold with a 1 year warranty on the block itself, and no warranty on the accessories. The warranty simply stated that the engine will maintain oil pressure, will not excessively burn oil, coolant, and will maintain compression.

Gordon Gray called to inquire about purchase of the engine, apparently from a noisy work environment that made communication very difficult. In spite of this a deal was arranged with a minimum of questions from Gordon, payment was sent, and the engine was shipped. Gordon's calls were returned in a timely manner (there were only two, one initially, one a few days after). GORDON WAS INFORMED OF THE HOUSING SUBSTITUTION OVER THE PHONE AND AGREED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE, apparently he did not feel that private message, email, or other text medium was necessary to clarify details during negotiation or prior to shipment and so the engine was shipped.

Gordon received the engine, installed it and reported that there were issues with the alternator. In spite of the fact that the original sale clearly indicated that external accessories were not warrantied and were strictly sold as is, Kevin refunded Gordon a fair value for the alternator so that he could purchase another. Over a year later Gordon commented that the engine ran normally except that his (aftermarket) downpipe glowed at idle sometimes. Gordon indicated that he thought this was a "stuck side seal" and wanted to know if it was covered by warranty. By this time the normal warranty had run out due to time since purchase, however Kevin Landers offered to tear the engine down and evaluate/repair it for FREE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. IT was obvious that Gordon did not have a good grasp of how things actually work inside an engine, however Kevin still humored the situation and explained that a side seal could most likely not be the cause of such a problem, rather that it was most likely a tuning or electrical issue. Gordon reported that this issue only occured with the air pump plugged in. IT is commonly known that the air pump leans out the fuel ratio in the exhaust resulting in a hotter AFR. It's also known that aftermarket pipes are thin and heat up more easily than heavier stock components, so this is to be expected. Later, Gordon reported that he thought he resolved the issue on his own, and it turned out that there was no seal/compression problem with the engine, and that everything was fine.

Another year or so goes by and Gordon sends another complaint to Kevin re: the exhaust sleeves which he had somehow discovered while working on the turbochargers. Gordon claimed that this was responsible for his glowing downpipe at idle. Kevin explained that it was impossible. Gordon claimed the engine had 'failed" yet was unable to offer any reason why. Gordon never cited any problems with smoking or oil consumption; coolant loss, pressurization, or overheating; compression, difficulty starting, difficulty idling, or lack of power. Bottom line, Gordon didn't like the way the sleeves "looked" and used this as the sole basis for calling the engine "failed". Gordon expected a used engine, with no material defects in performance, to be cash refunded out of warranty solely due to a cosmetic defect. In his last direct email correspondence, Gordon asked for a $1900 cash refund in exchange for the engine block since "it had received two years and 8000 miles of use and was thus devalued" and further stated that "I have no expectation to be able to get a refund for any external engine accessories" meaning that he wished to keep them.

During this correspondence, Kevin Landers made the following statement and offer to Gordon:

"Bottom line, if the engine holds coolant and oil, and makes good enough
compression to start and idle, then it is doing it's job. Let it run until
there is a real reason to take it apart. Nothing can be done about the
sleeves at this point, the engine has to be apart. Hypothetically let's say
I were to give you some money to make you happy...it wouldn't have anything
to do with the engine still, and it would still run the same, so I see it as
pointless. IF you ever do have the engine apart, then you can send the
housings to me and I will put in a set of smooth sleeves for you at no cost.
I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I get the impression you expect
some sort of compensation. I am not really sure what needs to be, or can be
"worked out". I obviously feel that nothing has changed, and again if the
engine holds oil, coolant, and makes compression, I define it as good. If
the engine had the exhaust diffusers still in place, this could affect spool
of the turbos and would be a legitimate complaint. Or if it had a series 4
and a series 5/6 housing mixed together with different timed plugholes, or
something similar. None of which is the case. I do not agree that the engine
is substantially different than advertised. It will still make 100% of the
power it should. Sure, a lot of armchair engineers/builders would get all
up in arms about it if it were posed to them, but if you talked to some
people who knew a lot about what they were doing and/or had built similar
setups before, they'd tell you the same thing. It may not be cosmetically
pretty but it won't change how it runs.

Bear in mind again that this was not just thrown together for the purpose of
being sold, but I put it together for my own use. Yeah, sometimes I will do
something with my own stuff that I would not do with a customer's setup,
because I don't mind experimenting on my own time/parts. But in this case
there is nothing experimental about it, I have run this setup many times in
the past. I would not have done it (for myself, no less) if it would not
have worked perfectly fine. When I put this together I used some of the best
stuff I had laying around at the time. And, when I put it together,
I didn't intend on selling it to anyone and having the parts critiqued 2 or
3 years down the line, either. But, I figured rather than letting it sit and
go to waste, or tearing it apart and trying to sell it piece by piece, I
would let someone else get some use out of it at a fair price.

I'll be totally honest, as you have already mentioned I have went out of my
way time after time to try and comfort you and try to make up for
deficiencies that came about as a result of this transaction, whether actual
or perceived. But it is time for the deal to come to a conclusion and all
claims to be finalized and dismissed for good. I certainly feel for you and
your situation, but considering the amount of time that has passed, I have
to find a point to cut my ties and draw the line against further claims, and
be done with it. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, and I hope you
can see things from my point of view.

For this one last time, I am willing to hear your expectations out and
perhaps we can bring this transaction to an amicable conclusion once and for
all. I hope things do not end on a sour note, but none of this is in my
hands any longer so there is a limit to what I am willing to do.

I look forward to your thoughts."

Gordon ignored these offers/statements, then filed a report with the local BBB seeking further response. Kevin did respond to this report twice, further explaining his stance.

Gordon then had an attorney draft a threat letter and send to Kevin Landers. In the letter Gordon demanded a 100% refund for the purchase price of the complete engine ($2800) as well as a REFUND OF THE SHIPPING COSTS which Gordon never even paid to Kevin to begin with. The basis of this claim was that Kevin Landers did not actually sell a "93-95 rx7 engine". In Gordon's mind, the substitution of two parts, equivalent in size and function, made the whole assembly no longer that, in spite of the fact that it can operate and function perfectly as a 93-95 rx7 engine.

This threat letter went on to explain that should this demand not be met, Gordon intended to file suit in his home state of OK for an inflated amount of almost $6000, which included "labor" charges for the work Gordon had done himself installing the engine. Gordon attempted to justify these labor charges in court by saying that certain shops charge X amount for this job and he should be entitled to the same as an individual. Kevin Landers' TN attorney responded that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over this matter since his business is based in TN, and that they would await further action in the state of TN.

Gordon then filed suit in OK. Although it was not believed that a foreign state's judgement could be effectively enforced on Kevin Landers (should one be granted) in TN, Kevin took the additional step of hiring a second, remote attorney in the state of OK to further defend his interests. Both attorneys advised Kevin that by the strict letter of the law, the state of OK did NOT have jurisdiction over this transaction since the seller was located out of state and the product was shipped from out of state, and thus the plaintiff should have been required to come to TN to file suit. But, as is sometimes the case, judges choose to ignore the actual law and make decisions based on emotion or other interests. Such may have been the case here because each legally supported motion was rejected by this same OK judge for reasons that were not explained and the case was set for trial in OK.

Prior to trial, Kevin Landers and his attorney made SEVERAL seemingly fair/generous offers to Gray to resolve the issue. IN fact these were directly in line with Gordon's original demand of a $1900 cash refund for the return of the engine block. Included among these pretrial offers, was the offer to rebuild the engine in question for Gordon using NEW IN BOX FD ROTOR HOUSINGS and photo documentation of the build (approximately a $2000 value excluding labor), with Kevin Landers paying shipping. It was rejected. The offer to give Gordon a 100% rebuilt stock FD block built from a low mile core (valued at $2700) with photo documentation of parts used in exchange for the old block, with Kevin Landers paying shipping. It was rejected. The offer to give Gordon Gray $2000 cash for the complete engine with accessories and Kevin Landers paying shipping. It was rejected. The offer to give Gordon Gray $1500 for the engine block itself and Kevin Landers paying shipping. It was rejected. Does anybody see a pattern here?

Then Gordon counteroffered with a demand of $2900 cash for the block itself (more than he paid for the entire engine with accessories three years and 8000 miles earlier) and Kevin Landers paying shipping, or $2715 and Gordon keeps EVERYTHING for himself (amounting to a net $6000 loss for Kevin). He justified part of these demands by citing $400 in attorney expenses. To this point Gordon had two attorney letters mailed to Kevin Landers. Such services normally cost $50-75 each. Gordon was never represented by an attorney in court, so this is just another example of how unreasonable he was. Again it seems like it has to be Gordon's way or the highway.

Kevin Landers actually took time off from work to travel to OK to further defend his interests. After driving for 15 hours straight the night before, he arrived in court at 9am and waited half the day for the case to be heard. Then for four more hours Gordon Gray attempted to bring over 20 pieces of "evidence" as part of his case, including "testimony" from other shops and builders. Both defense attorneys agreed that this was highly unusual (one described it as a "circus") and that most of the "evidence" should not have been allowed, but this OK judge allowed almost all of it. After being in the courtroom for approx 8 hours and having been up for over 24 hours at that time (and not wanting to draw the process out long enough to necessitate extending the case another day), Kevin Landers gave a short statement in his defense and answered a handful of questions for approximately 30 minutes. After court Kevin drove 14 hours back to TN, having expended approximately $2500 in defense of this matter at that point in addition to 2.5 days of lost work. Some would say that it would have been smarter to simply capitulate and pay Gray his extortion to begin with, however Kevin Landers viewed this as a matter of principle at that point and felt it was best for the money to be spent in defense of his name rather than paying it to someone with dishonorable intent.

Outside the courtroom prior to trial, Gordon approached Kevin to discuss a settlement. During this conversation he asked to be compensated for his use of evans' coolant, $200. He stated that he felt an FD engine should last 100,000 miles, and since he only obtained 8,000 miles before his "failed" he should be entitled to 90% of it's value in refund. Kevin Landers stated that average life expectancy of an FD engine was 50-75k when new, and often less when rebuilt with used parts, and thus his previous settlement offers of $1500-2000 were fair. Gordon balked and did not agree re: the mileage assertion. No deal was reached, and the case went to trial.

In open court, Gordon Gray admitted that KEVIN LANDERS NOTIFIED HIM OF THE SUBSTITUTION OVER THE PHONE. He stated that at a later time he had more time to think about it and later decided that this was not acceptable. By the strict letter of the law this constitutes a "meeting of the minds" in any business deal and absolves the seller of any misrepresentation, but the judge in this case chose to IGNORE that fact. Also, at no time during presentation of the case did Gordon submit ANY evidence that the engine had actually "failed". Not a single compression test, dyno test, video or witness testimony of failure to start, idle, or make normal power. He simply noticed the modified sleeves, called it "failed", removed it, and that was that.

Gordon brought a sample used FD rotor housing, and a sample used 86-88 non turbo rotor housing to demonstrate to the judge the differences. It was obvious the judge was not technically minded and understood very little of what Gordon was showing him. Gordon was pointing out differences betrween the s4 housing and FD housing, even though there was no s4 housing in the engine in question. This was called into question, but for whatever reason, the judge was still accepting all of Gordon's testimony as fact.

Kevin Landers brought a similarly modified 89-91 non turbo rotor housing and compared it with Gray's example FD housing in front of the judge. Kevin pointed out that in spite of the "improvements" Gray was pointing out, the FD rotor housings tend to have significant cracking by the leading spark plug holes as well as significant surface wear on the chrome surface. Gordon's FD example housing did have this cracking and other surface wear present, none of which was present on the 89-91 example housing Kevin showed. Side by side the housings were compared and Kevin showed the judge that there was no visible difference in the composition of the chrome surface of the used housings. This proved Kevin's point that often/usually the 89-91 housings can be found in better condition than the 93-95, and thus will make a better engine in terms of compression and longevity.

One of Gordon's "exhibits" was the "rx-7" book, which he referred to as "the bible". In it, he pointed to a passage that described the FD rotor housings as being graphite coated for longer life. The judge accepted this evidence as fact. (This comes into play just below).

In court, Gordon tried to submit "evidence" in the form of written statements (printed emails) from two other builders regarding the nature of the engine build. This is obviously not standard legal procedure and not admissible in court. Kevin Landers was prepared to submit his own evidence in the form of NOTARIZED LEGAL AFFADAVITS from three other builders/shops who supported his own position that this substitution would not significantly impact the longevity or performance of the engine. The judge CHOSE TO REJECT THESE LEGALLY PRESENTED STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF KEVIN LANDERS' POSITION. Instead the judge came up with the idea of having Gray and Landers both attempt to contact their respective supporting shops/builders via phone, and then be questioned by the judge via phone immediately. ONCE AGAIN THIS OK JUDGE CHOSE TO IGNORE ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROCEDURE in favor of his local plaintiff.

Kevin Landers was unable to contact one of his supporting shops (they were most likely busy working), the other two testified that the modifications would cause no problems whatsoever. Gordon Gray was able to contact both of his builders. One of these builders was Ihor of IRP in NJ. During questioning about why the housing substitution was unacceptable in his opinion, he stated that the FD rotor housings are "coated with nitride" and thus superior to the earlier housings. He was questioned on this specifically again and once again confirmed that the rotor housings are 'coated with a nitride". As we all know (and as Gordon's own prior evidence states), the IRON HOUSINGS are coated with nitride, while the ROTOR HOUSINGS are not. This should have caused the judge to discredit Ihor as an "expert witness", yet again THE JUDGE IGNORED STANDARD LEGAL PROCEDURE AND RETAINED HIS TESTIMONY AS EXPERT/FACT in support of Gray's case.

OF course it wasn’t hard for Gordon to find competing shops/builders to testify against Kevin Landers. The rotary community is a niche market with only a handful of successful and nationally known rotary builders in the country. There is a lot of competition between these few remaining shops for what rotary business still exists. IF you ask ANY shop about the work of ANY other shop they are almost certainly going to try and point out some things they’ve heard or seen that they think the other shop does wrong. It’s no wonder that Gordon was able to find two or three builders who jumped at the chance to cause damage to one of their competition who has no doubt stolen a few jobs away from them over the years due to a lower price, quicker communication, or faster turnaround.

Gordon stated that he felt the engine was "blown", and that it's current value was approximately $200 in his estimation. He never offered any reasoning as to why he felt it was "blown". Kevin Landers is of the opinion that Gray actually blew the engine up due to some tuning or maintenance issue, replaced it, at that time noticed the housing sleeves, and decided to try and get something out of it since he had nothing to lose at that point. This is the only reason Gordon would have to insist that the engine was 'blown". No reasonable person can be expected to believe that Gordon saw a cosmetic defect in an otherwise perfectly running engine; stopped right there and removed the engine; purchased a replacement engine elsewhere and immediately installed it. A reasonable person would run that engine until it gave them a legitimate performance reason to remove or replace it; this potential failure would make things infinitely easier to prove that there was an actual problem later.

After trial the judge rendered a judgement for Gray for the full purchase amount of the engine, plus the original shipping costs (which were never even paid to Kevin Landers to begin with) plus court costs. He also allowed Gray to retain possession of the entire engine with accessories, so this in effect penalized Kevin Landers $6000. ONCE AGAIN THIS OK JUDGE IGNORED STANDARD LEGAL PROCEDURE in issuing his ruling. Kevin Landers' attorney appealed this order on grounds that it was excessive damages, and once again the judge rejected it giving no justification (legal or otherwise).

In the time since, Gordon Gray inquired whether Kevin intended to pay the judgement. Kevin responded that Gordon would have to come to TN to try and file/collect it. Gordon then stated that he would be willing to negotiate a settlement for release of the judgement. To that end, a dialogue was opened between the parties. Eventually a settlement of $2300 cash for return of the engine block, with Kevin Landers paying shipping, was agreed on. The only conditions were that Gordon legally release the full judgement, and that he agree to a limited non disclusure agreement preventing him from speaking or posting publicly about the matter. Gordon agreed to this in writing via email, and again via Kevin Landers' attorney. It was decided that Kevin Landers would send the funds to his attorney's office in OK in trust. Gordon would then ship the engine, and once Kevin received it, Gordon would go to the attorney office, sign the release form, and pick up his $2300 settlement.

Kevin Landers sent the $2300 funds to his attorney in trust as agreed. After two weeks, GORDON REFUSED TO TENDER THE ENGINE FOR SHIPMENT AS PROMISED AND BEGAIN INSISTING ON CHANGING THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAD BEEN REACHED. Now he wanted no NDA whatsoever PLUS the $2300 settlement. Obviously his action and intent was dishonorable and his demands were again rejected. This also resulted in more time wasted and more attorney fees for Kevin Landers. Again, Gordon's way or the highway, because Gordon knows everything.

Well this time Gordon got exactly what he wanted. Consider this his $2300 internet thread. Kevin Landers still has the settlement funds and Gordon has this post. Seems intelligent doesn't it? Reasonable people will read this and begin to realize exactly how unreasonable Gordon Gray has been (and continues to be) thoughout this whole ordeal and that Kevin Landers is not the only one at fault. After all, anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree to keep their mouth shut for 2300 bucks...but not Gordon, he's too smart for that.

Somewhere in the midst of composing his thread on this matter, Gordon felt the need to link to an old thread where a set of NA rotor housings were sold to a forum member. Kevin Landers and this forum member had had a discussion via phone in which the member asked for turbo rotor housings, Kevin responded that he had none for sale, but commented that he could modify NA housings for use in a turbo engine if the customer wanted, he agreed, then later complained (in the aforementioned linked thread) because he "thought he was buying turbo housings". Initially many members rode the "customer got screwed" bandwagon, but once the situation was thoroughly explained, most readers determined that the buyer got what he paid for and actually got a great deal in terms of the condition of the parts. Gordon is apparently trying to use the initial shock value of the responses in that thread to bolster his own position, when instead it may wind up supporting Kevin Landers' position by demonstrating that he always responds to complaints and attempts to deal fairly with individuals who are reasonable.

Regarding the technical aspect of cutting the diffusers out of NA exhaust sleeves for use in a rotary engine: Gordon brought up several inaccurate theories of his about the internal operation of the engine and exhaust gases. Here are some direct quotes from his correspondence so that the public can see the logical fallacies involved.

"Cutting the exhaust diffuser out of the sleeve
would have left rough/sharp edges as you know. Rough/sharp edges would
have become super heated by the exhaust flow with respect to the rest
of the sleeve. This edge would have been much more likely to ignite
the unburned fuel in the exhaust - further increasing the exhaust
temperature and leading to a glowing down pipe. Additionally, the
sharp edge would have begun melting sooner than the rest of the
sleeve. Once it began melting, it probably would have spread until a
hole was melted through. Furthermore, if Mazda coated the exhaust
sleeve with some other composite, cutting the diffuser out would have
damaged this coating. I believe that this modification either led to
my down pipe glowing red after sitting at idle (only when the air pump
is plugged in) which melted the sleeve. Or it caused the exhaust
sleeve to melt when it shouldn't have when combined with whatever
actually caused my down pipe to glow red. I have seen others with
glowing down pipe issues, but no one with melted exhaust port sleeves."

Above Gordon has stated his theory that the sleeve heats up and melts. In order for that to happen, first the aluminum rotor housing exhaust port material itself would first have to melt or distort (after all the melting point of aluminum is lower than that of the sleeve) which obviously does not occur, so this theory is implausible. In fact the sleeves are so stubborn that it is all a 6300 degree F oxy-acetylene torch can do to cut the diffusers off of the NA sleeves. Rotary engine exhausts can run as high as 1600 degrees F under boost, but certainly not to exceed 2000 degrees F. It would not be possible for an internal combustion engine to generate exhaust gas temperatures required to melt the sleeves under any circumstances, modified or otherwise. No one could convince Gordon otherwise, however.

Here is another statement from Gray:

"Here are the differences between the S5 NA housing and the FD housing
that are unacceptable:
-The FD rotor housing is thicker so it does not flex as much as the
FC. The flexing puts strain on the dowel pins which try to then push
out of the plates. The FD is reinforced from the factory so they have
a lot less problems. The first turbo motors, S4 had a big problem with
cracking rear plates w/ "ping" or just from too much hp."

In his eagerness to demonstrate his prowess as a wikipedia warrior, Gordon mistakenly relates information about the castings on the rear IRON HOUSING to differences in the ROTOR HOUSING.

Another statement:

"-The FD rotor housing has a better internal coating. The coating
change was made for a reason. To increase life. The chrome is more
pourous than the previous. And the extra oil is a good thing."

Yes, and obviously that change proved to be significant and successful, given how much longer the FD engines last as compared to the 89-91 engines.
Oh...wait.

Another interesting statement:

"-S4 rotor housings do not have the same spark plug hole location as
S5/6. The S4 has different spark plug locations which is not ideal
to mix series of parts. S5/6 have knock sensor hole above "T" plug.
The bathtub was optimized for the plug location. Although these
housings appear to be S5 NA."

Why is Gordon talking about s4 rotor housings? There are no series 4 parts in the engine in question.