Lycoming 0-360 factory overhaul core charges - Does Air Power tell the truth ?
Roy Page
engine from Air Power.
Now the core has been examined by Lycoming we are being charged an extra
$3,000 core charge because the engine case was stamped with a code number
when last overhauled. It was last overhauled by T.W.Smith in 1998 and had
2200 SMOH when removed 3 weeks ago.
Air Power are advising that Lycoming are making the charge because the
engine was not previously overhauled by Lycoming.
It seems that we are being taken for a ride down an expensive runway.
Has anyone on this forum had this kind of problem with Air Power & Lycoming
?
We would appreciate any suggestions how to counter this attack on our
depleted piggy bank.
--
Roy
N5804F - PA28-181
Drew Dalgleish
wrote:
>Just ask them to return the core and sell it on ebey or barnstormers. there's lots of homebuilders looking for good cores to overhaul for their project
Nathan Young
wrote:
>Our flying club have recently bought a Lycoming 0-360 A4M factory overhauled
Interesting. There was just a thread on core charges about a week
ago. You should do a google groups search on it. Anyway, it was
exactly the same story. Lyc trying to reduce the core exchange value
because the previous overhaul was not by Lyc.
I suspect Lyc is having financial difficulties. ... Or just realized
that core exchange offers an incredible opportunity to grow their
profit margin.
Think about it - core exchange is like trading in a used car on the
purchase of a new one. Imagine if car dealerships offered $7k as a
price for your used car, but then got to renegotiate the used car
price after the new car was purchased... How many dealerships would
still offer the $7k? Very few.
My point is - there is no way the purchaser would ever agree to that
deal - but we do it all the time when buying an aircraft engine.
It is bad enough to pay $15k for an overhauled engine, but to tolerate
extra core charges for a core that has no obvious problems is
ridiculous.
I cannot wait for the day that cost effective (FAA approved) engines
are available as substitutes for our planes.
-Nathan
Doug
hearing, I will have MY core rebuilt by and independent. It won't be
zero time, but who cares, just as good. Put the old logbook in the safe
and start a new engine logbook. I absolutely HATE to be put in these
stuations. Airpower......phhhttt.
Jim Burns
Has some core policy info
Jim
"Roy Page" <g4...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m07ud.200$xw1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004
Ron Rosenfeld
In the Spring of 2000 I had an "unscheduled" overhaul of my IO-360-A1A done
by Lycoming (through Airpower) due to a crack in the case discovered at
annual.
The engine had been previously overhauled by a company in Halifax, NS.
I was told that Lycoming's policy was that if you flew the airplane in,
there would be no core charge (crank or case).
I had flown my Mooney to the FBO; we ordered an exchange factory overhaul
engine from Lycoming through Airpower, and there was NOT a core charge,
even though the case had a crack.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Newps
Reason number 6498 why Lycoming isn't long for this world. Not only are
their new engines hideously expensive, a new IO-540 as seen in a Cessna
206 is $80K more expensive than the comparable IO-520 from Continental,
but now they are pissing off existing customers by reducing the value of
your core for no other reason than somebody else rebuilt it at some
point. The real answer is to send the new engine back to Lyc and tell
them to shove it up their ass and then buy all the new parts from Spruce
or Chief, somebody, I forget who. They just got approval for their Lyc
engines, your mechanic will know.
Newps
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> In the Spring of 2000 I had an "unscheduled" overhaul of my IO-360-A1A done
> by Lycoming (through Airpower) due to a crack in the case discovered at
> annual.
This was before Lyc got hit with their shitty crankshaft recall. They
are trying to make up for that debacle by screwing their remaining
customers.
Nathan Young
Is $80k a typo? I think the IO-540 costs $55k new from
factoryengines.com. IO-520 was listed as $32k new.
-Nathan
jga...@hotmail.com
>Air Power are advising that Lycoming are making the charge because the
>engine was not previously overhauled by Lycoming.
Roy,
Here's the text of Lycoming's core policy (with respect to field
overhauls) from Airpower's website :
"While Lycoming will accept field-overhauled engines for exchange,
engines that have been field overhauled and
subsequently fail are not acceptable for core credit."
Can you explain what exactly is Lycoming's basis for the core charge?
Unless your engine had a field overhaul and subsequently failed, I
can't see their objection.
I was planning on going to Airpower for a factory overhauled
O-360-A4A next month, but this is quite disturbing. I'd appreciate it
if you'd please keep us updated on the details.
Thanks,
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Newps
jga...@hotmail.com wrote:
Start asking around and here's what you'll find...anybody sending an
engine to Lyc for a core charge will never get the whole charge back if
that engine was overhauled by somebody else. It has nothing to do with
the core passing any inspection.
Fly
You ever hear of the strategy of loading a core with unserviceable parts
before sending it on exchange?
Increases an engine shop profit margin.
Lycoming finally realized how they were getting burnt?
e.drucke...@verizon.net
On 9-Dec-2004, "Roy Page" <g4...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We would appreciate any suggestions how to counter this attack on our
> depleted piggy bank.
I thought you might appreciate some constructive advice regarding your
specific situation, as opposed to general griping. I reported this
situation in an earlier thread, so I'll just summarize here.
We recently swapped the IO-360 in our Arrow IV, which had about 2100 SMOH,
for a Lyc factory rebuilt ("zero time") engine purchased through Airpower.
Lycoming wanted to withhold $3000 of our core deposit because of some
vaguely described cracks in the old crankcase. Our A&P (a very straight
shooter at a very reputable shop) was quite surprised, as he had never seen
the cracking problem as described on an IO-360. He had just recently
inspected the old engine during the plane's regular annual. Upon
questioning, the Lyc representative claimed that the cracks were well
documented in photos of the dye penetrant test. We asked for copies of the
photos, but after being put off for weeks, Lycoming claimed that the photos
were not available, and that the case had been scrapped. At that point we
SHOULD have demanded a full refund of the core deposit, but what we did do
is offer to split the difference -- $1500 -- which was accepted.
Throughout this process, Airpower acted merely as a conduit of communication
between us (the owners) and Lycoming, so I can't say they really had
anything to do with the outcome.
Bottom line, my advice to you is to demand the "unacceptable" case back.
You will, of course, have to pay shipping charges. If Lycoming has scrapped
the case, then demand a full refund of the core deposit.
I don't know whether Lycoming is doing anything underhanded in all of this.
It could just be that they are becoming increasingly fussy about integrity
of the case cores that they reuse in "rebuilt" engines. That would be good
news for us, since that is what we just bought. My understanding is that
there is a big demand for rebuilt IO-360s, so it is hard to imagine why they
would scrap a usable case to save $3000. Unless, that is, they can build a
new case for less than that.
--
-Elliott Drucker
nuke
>O-360-A4A next month, but this is quite disturbing. I'd appreciate it
>if you'd please keep us updated on the details.
>Thanks,
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Used car salesman and tactics. They fed me a line of BS in their quote and
aviation is hard enough without getting lied to.
I picked a local O/H shop with good references to do the job.
The policy as written amounts to this:
1. Give them a check for $9000.
2. Send us your core and you'll never see it again, no matter what.
3. If we don't like it, we keep the $9000. It might takes us 3 months to
decide.
This is not an acceptable policy and violates every sense of consideration. If
they reject the core, you at least ought to get it back with a detailed reason
as to why.
Since the FAA requires all kinds of traceability and everything in the motor
has a serial number on it, there is no excuse.
Van Bortel (aka, Air Power and FactoryEngines.com) fed me a line about Lycoming
not taking engines over 36 years old for factory overhauls. But they fed the
same line with different numbers of years to other folks. So it is either a.) a
lie, or b.) a stupid mistake they make over and over.
So that only left a 0-time reman or a new engine as options. They said that
Lycoming would waive the core on a factory new engine.
I'm sorry, but if I'm going gambling with $9K, I want better odds, I want to
see the cards dealt and the see that the dice are not loaded, not to mention a
hotel room and free drinks.
--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.
Ron Rosenfeld
>This was before Lyc got hit with their shitty crankshaft recall. They
>are trying to make up for that debacle by screwing their remaining
>customers.
From where did you get that information (about Lycoming using this method
to make up for the crankshaft recall)?
I'm sure I'll need another O/H in the future, and I'd like to research this
sort of thing a bit more.
JDupre5762
>Now the core has been examined by Lycoming we are being charged an extra
>$3,000 core charge because the engine case was stamped with a code number
>when last overhauled.
>. It was last overhauled by T.W.Smith in 1998
I am dealing with this for a customer and have made posts about it before. I
just talked to a Lycoming Factory rep today in fact.
I think you will find that the number stamped on the case is not from T.W.
Smith but from a case repair facility like Divco. Lycoming's position is that
they have no control over Divco's processes so that they cannot certify the
case as being to original specification therefore Lycoming cannot reuse it.
This has been happening a fair amount and the Rep's excuse for my not getting a
phone call back from anyone is that they are inundated with responses from
people refusing to pay the extra core charge. My customer is refusing to pay
since it was not made clear at the time of sale that a case previously repaired
reworked by an FAA authorized shop and processes would be cause for rejection.
When I asked for the cases back so that we might resell them I was told that a)
they weren't sure they still had them and b) they weren't sure that they could
release parts deemed unairworthy. My response is that if I have to pay $3000
per case I will damned well get something for my money. Today I was told they
will only keep cases for 30 days in any event.
Ball is back in Lycoming's court for now. My usual overhauler says that word
is Lycoming is trying anything they can to generate some cash flow do to the
myriad problems in the last few years from bad crankshafts and other things.
It seems pretty short sighted to me as they must be destroying their rebuilt
and overhauled business.
John Dupre'
Roy Page
I very much appreciate your factual and detailed account of the problems you
experienced and the suggestions to seek return of the crankcases etc.
This is what I need, good sound advice.
Do you have any documents from your situation that you would be prepared to
copy to me.
I am a bit of a leech when folk do me down.
In this case Airpower and Lycoming have gained a leech that, with help from
the forum, is going to be difficult to shake off.
Thanks again.
--
Roy Page - Secretary
Taylorcraft Flying Club
http://www.taylorcraftflyingclub.org
<e.drucke...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Y7qud.3516$lZ6.3310@trnddc02...
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
Oh, never mind. I've seen some later posts about this.
Mike Spera
negotiator for the last 17 years dealing with all types of vendors, I
have a few observations.
First rule: GET IT IN WRITING BEFORE YOU START THE WORK!!!!!!!!
Second rule: If they won't put the deal in writing, or you don't like
the deal... move on.
So, you won't get a zero time logbook if you don't use the Manufacturer.
The FAA makes that rule. If you would like, petition the FAA and your
congress critter to get this changed. Let us know how you do.
Why is this happening? Do Lycoming and other vendors take great delight
in screwing people? Not likely. It may be a matter of survival. They are
getting persnickety about cases because they are getting burned and can
no longer afford to absorb it. Face it, these engines are getting OLD.
They are failing because they were not made to last 40 years. Lycoming
has probably also concluded they cannot be Divco's insurance company and
take in every repaired case and put their seal (and legal butt) on the
line. Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
business. Will owning an airplane get less expensive or more expensive?
Want to place a bet? There is a big difference between gouging just
because you can and altering your business practices to survive. This
appears to be the latter. If anyone has evidence that Lycoming is doing
this solely to increase profits at the expense of customer satisfaction,
please fill us in.
We have choices. We can gripe and steer business to independents. But,
believe me, there are PLENTY of risks in that route. We can fight with
Lycoming and try to work out every disconnect. Or, we might get in
writing up front what the deal is and, if we accept the terms, go along
with the agreement. As hard as it is for some people to accept, there is
a cost to owning an airplane. This may be an inevitable part of that
cost. If this is unacceptable (or unaffordable) to you, you might
consider whether owning is right for you.
Good Luck,
Mike
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Newps
Mike Spera wrote:
Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
> business.
No effect as there is already a company that has for many years sold
legal replacement parts for the Lyc engines. Goofy part was until
recently you couldn't buy all new parts from them and have a legal Lyc,
now you can for the 320 and 360.
e.drucke...@verizon.net
On 11-Dec-2004, Mike Spera <mws...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> First rule: GET IT IN WRITING BEFORE YOU START THE WORK!!!!!!!!
> Second rule: If they won't put the deal in writing, or you don't like
> the deal... move on.
For those of us that have bought new, Lycoming factory rebuilt, or Lycoming
factory overhauled engines through Air Power, we DID get it in writing, in
the form of a purchase agreement. That agreement specifies the core deposit
(assuming the buyer wishes to exchange his/her old engine for the new one).
It also states that the core deposit will be refunded assuming that hte
crank and case are reusable. Lycoming (and who can argue that they are not
best equipped to make this determination?) decides whether the old crank and
case are, in fact, reusable. I suspect that Lycoming will reuse other
components from the old engine if they meet standards, but they really only
expect to recover the case and crank.
>
> So, you won't get a zero time logbook if you don't use the Manufacturer.
> The FAA makes that rule. If you would like, petition the FAA and your
> congress critter to get this changed. Let us know how you do.
The zero time logbook only applies to the more expensive factory rebuilt
engines, which use many new components and only reused components that meet
new part tolerances. But the "zero time" designation is only part of the
story. Lycoming provides a good warranty, and a lot of peace of mind with
its factory engines.
>
> Why is this happening? Do Lycoming and other vendors take great delight
> in screwing people? Not likely. It may be a matter of survival. They are
> getting persnickety about cases because they are getting burned and can
> no longer afford to absorb it.
I think that the core deposit system works in general when it is in both the
buyer's and seller's interests that the old parts be reused. In other
words, if Lycoming can recover a usable case for less money than it costs to
build a new one, and if there is demand for products (i.e. overhauled or
rebuilt engines) that can use a refurbished, used case, then they would have
no incentive to reject one that really is usable. What may be happening
here is that Lycoming has found that it costs less to build a new IO-360
case than the sum of the core deposit and refurbishment costs. Another
(less likely) possibility is that Lycoming has more used, servicable cases
in inventory than it needs to meet anticipated demand. In either case it
would be more honest if Lycoming were to raise the base price of the engine
and lower the exchange allowance.
> Face it, these engines are getting OLD.
> They are failing because they were not made to last 40 years. Lycoming
> has probably also concluded they cannot be Divco's insurance company and
> take in every repaired case and put their seal (and legal butt) on the
> line.
The designs of the engines may be that old, but I doubt that there are all
that many 40 year old engines flying around. Lycoming always builds more
new engines than it provides to airframe manufacturers for use in new
airplanes. New engines are often installed in old airplanes when the old
engine cannot be overhauled cost-effectively.
Regarding Lycoming accepting cases that have been reworked by others, all I
know is that they told us they judge on condition. This was important to us
because our old engine had incomplete logbooks
Ask yourself what life will be like if Lycoming goes out of
> business. Will owning an airplane get less expensive or more expensive?
> Want to place a bet? There is a big difference between gouging just
> because you can and altering your business practices to survive. This
> appears to be the latter. If anyone has evidence that Lycoming is doing
> this solely to increase profits at the expense of customer satisfaction,
> please fill us in.
Lycoming may simply be getting more fussy about case integrity in an
appropriate concern over safety and product reputation. I don't think
anybody would object to this. After all, when we gave them our old engine
we got a rebuilt one that most likely has a recycled case, and we hope they
were VERY fussy in deciding that it was OK. My concern isn't that they
rejected our old case but rather that they did not provide complete and
documented reasons for the rejection, and that they scrapped the rejected
case before they gave us the option to retake possession of it.
>
> We have choices. We can gripe and steer business to independents. But,
> believe me, there are PLENTY of risks in that route. We can fight with
> Lycoming and try to work out every disconnect. Or, we might get in
> writing up front what the deal is and, if we accept the terms, go along
> with the agreement. As hard as it is for some people to accept, there is
> a cost to owning an airplane. This may be an inevitable part of that
> cost. If this is unacceptable (or unaffordable) to you, you might
> consider whether owning is right for you.
Can't argue with any of that. However, one of the supposed advantages of
getting a Lycoming factory engine is that you know up front exactly what the
cost will be. No unpleasant surprises like you might get in a field
overhaul. If your old engine is running well, has had benign oil analysis
results, and has not been mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that you
will get your core deposit back.
--
-Elliott Drucker
Mike Spera
> Can't argue with any of that. However, one of the supposed advantages of
> getting a Lycoming factory engine is that you know up front exactly what the
> cost will be. No unpleasant surprises like you might get in a field
> overhaul. If your old engine is running well, has had benign oil analysis
> results, and has not been mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that you
> will get your core deposit back.
evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your
disappointment that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions
did not appear to have any impact on how they arrived at their
conclusion. They may look at journal alignment, case mating surface
condition, surface fractures at known stress points, etc. I think your
concern is that simply saying "reject" does not go a long way to
customer satisfaction when thousands of your dollars hang in the
balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and costly decisions will
rile most folks.
Daniel Gram
their rejection. Nothing else. One big problem is the rebuilder is now out
of business so we can't go back to them and tell them that Lycoming doesn't
approve their processes. Also the 3 grand in questionis quite possibly just
low enough not to justify the fees to fight for it. Sad!!
And by the way we do have it in writing "While Lycoming will accept
read on "Engine cores with a crankshaft or crankcase deemed unreusable by
the factory, for any reason, are subject to reductions." Bottom line read
all the fine print.
"Mike Spera" <mws...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41bc6a53$2...@news.uncensored-news.com...
Newps
Mike Spera wrote:
>
> Ah, but here is where the disconnect appears to be. They said the
> evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your
> disappointment that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions
> did not appear to have any impact on how they arrived at their
> conclusion. They may look at journal alignment, case mating surface
> condition, surface fractures at known stress points, etc. I think your
> concern is that simply saying "reject" does not go a long way to
> customer satisfaction when thousands of your dollars hang in the
> balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and costly decisions will
> rile most folks.
You make it sound like they actually inspect the engine. They "inspect"
the logbooks, if somebody else worked on the case then it automatically
fails. I have no doubt they still use a large percentage of these
cases. That's their policy, they should have the decency to tell us that.
e.drucke...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2004, Newps <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> You make it sound like they actually inspect the engine. They "inspect"
> the logbooks, if somebody else worked on the case then it automatically
> fails. I have no doubt they still use a large percentage of these
> cases. That's their policy, they should have the decency to tell us that.
I do not believe that Lycoming's decision as to whether to reuse a case or
crank is based on what is in the logbooks. In our situation, there were no
complete logs for our old engine, and while Lyc refused the case (supposedly
for some cracking problems) they took the crank. Of course, if the logbook
indicated a repair that Lycoming deems to render the case or crank unusable,
or that would make it uneconomical to refurbish, then they would and should
reject it.
My beef with Lycoming is that they apparently do not have a mechanism for
providing adequate documentation to the customer as to reasons for
rejection, and that they will scrap parts they deem unusable without giving
the customer the option of retaking possession.
--
-Elliott Drucker