Look guys, there are a number of issues that resulted in our policy not to name and shame.
FIRSTLY there is the COMMERCIAL BUSINESS side of things. I know many of you will hate me for saying this but there really is no one else in the specialist Porsche market with anything like my experience, qualifications and proven track record in designing , manufacturing and delivering high performance Porsche engine remanufacturing technology - Worldwide.
This is said not to boast but to explain why over 15 years ago we recognised the technical weaknesses of this engine range and were confident we knew how to fix it – but more importantly we also realised that the highest quality could only be delivered if all the work was kept 'in house" and that would mean massive investment in all sorts of expensive machinery, organisation, training and quality control that could only be justified if the outcome was receiving enough of the work available upon which to amortise those costs – it was simple business economics based on anticipated turnover – based on engineering judgment and confidence.
It was a typical business commercial RISK that we correctly anticipated the right numbers we expected to fail (and over what period ahead when everyone else was disagreeing with our projections as scare mongering) and that lots of specialists would try and get in on that market – each handling smaller numbers, relying on outside sub-contractors to do some of the work (outside of their direct control) and being unable themselves to justify such huge investment for a smaller market share.
We guessed right and have had the best designs and since then – by handling far more engines than anyone else – and continually investing - it does not become rocket science to see trends and issues to concentrate on-going development on - which sustains that technical lead, results in more and more quality options and alternatives , more experienced staff and results in the highest quality at very reasonable prices.
We don't limit what we do to the most expensive options but discuss them with customers (to suit their circumstances), we fit our cylinders to crankcases and/or build bottom ends and/or whole engines for other specialists to benefit from that quality (and get a share of the income) and of course the whole job with a reputable guarantee.
In the last 2 years alone we continued to invest in another CNC machine, better Alloy welding equipment, engine cleaning machinery (to clean up the tarnished external finish) and dynamometer improvements (to improve repeatability of oversized engine test results) while spreading our hefty research and development into newer engines, performance enhancements and continual improvements in components and internal parts. No one else comes close to that.
We absolutely are not the most expensive (but also not the cheapest) but I defy anyone to make out a case that we do not offer by far the best value for money and the most reliable outcome.
Now you complain because we are not telling you who not to go to so you can work out which other specialists you could try as an alternative to us – which inevitably reduces our turnover and with that the investment that has benefitted so many owners for so long.
SECONDLY there is the simple fact that we do not know all the details of what was agreed between owners and their chosen specialist before their engine rebuild went wrong (not everyone tells us the truth about it). We also don't know what that specialist was promised by the sub-contractors they chose to supply or fit their liners, pistons etc. This is important because that specialist might use us for one rebuild and other technology or sub-contractors for others (depending perhaps on their customers preferences) and if some outcomes are better than others – that would not necessarily mean that sub-contractor should be black listed.
Thirdly we appreciate that some owners prefer to use their local trusted specialist that knows them and their car to carry out most of the work (and anyway we don't have the space or staff to do the whole job for everyone) and that those specialists may have a learning curve to go through (they will just be behind us in experience but perfectly capable of getting better) and so as long as they are using us for the important parts – we support them as best we can, even when they encounter a few small issues – which do not deserve harsh criticism – as long as they help their customer when small things go wrong – to put them right without trying to deflect the blame elsewhere.
Fourthly – some problems result in litigation between the owner and their chosen specialist and it is always better in those circumstances to keep details private or it can limit the owner's legitimate case.
Finally we are accused of NOT BEING PRUDENT. Dictionary definition is 'someone who is sensible, careful, has good judgment and is practical". It speaks for itself that we could not be more PRUDENT than to offer the best engine rebuild options available to all that want to use it at reasonable prices and with proven reliability.
We know that what we offer is the best available, why on earth should we be expected to damage our own future (that has cost us such a lot of hard work and effort to create) just so that owners can work out who else to go to that cannot offer anything like as much researched and 'IN HOUSE" expertise or overall quality – than we can?
Naming and shaming is not our style – you want the best – you know what to do – you go elsewhere – it's at your risk – why should you expect me to minimise it for you?
Baz
