who's in, who's waiting? new belt cam design is done and manufacturing begins now!

Newman,
I'm alway looking for NLA plastic parts to reproduce. I keep an eye on this thread in particular, & update it when I have something that's been requested there. Pls respond to this post there to avoid further hijacking this thread:

UNAVAILABLE PARTS
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9490&page=2&highlight=door+switch

The 308 tail lights are still available from Ferrari.uk:

#60170206 REAR LAMP ASSY (INDICATOR/REVERSE)
Unit price: £43.53

#60170305 REAR LAMP ASSY (STOP/TAIL)
Unit price: £59.80

I've got a pair in very good shape, so when they go NLA I'll be able to supply them.

Again, are avail from Ferrari.uk:
#60197000 RH FRONT INDICATOR LENS (ORANGE)
Unit price: £36.20
[45] #60197109 LH FRONT INDICATOR LENS (ORANGE)
Unit price: £36.20

I'm keeping a NOS pair of these for mold masters as well.

Looks like these are truly NLA, if someone is willing to loan me one (or a pair if L & R aren't the same part) to make a mold from, I'd greatly appreciate it. Best would be a NOS one, as most in use ones will have a lot of small chips that will require copying the part, cleaning the copy up & then making a 2n d mold.

 

Scott,
I hate to admit it, but darned if I know where to look for the crankcase serial#. I remember seeing it when we pulled JWise's engine, but that was almost 2 years ago!

The early carb'd version had the outer bearings inside of the seal.

The middle version used larger sealed outer bearings & the seal was inboard of the bearings.

The 328s & late QVs used even larger non-standard outer bearings.

Anyway, my car is an '82 QV, & I know it has the middle version of the timing drive system.

 

Thanks for the update. Did you ever find the cross-reference for the QV/3.2 belt?

 

On my 308 QV, the crankcase # is stamped under where the warm-up regulator mounts.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What type of warranty are you offering if this new design fails and damages a Ferrari engine? Will you have a bond to back any such warranty?

 

you may could do what I've seen in other things like this (aircraft) - sell the parts for 'experimental use only';
Check with someone, but this may offer some liabiity protection, although only a real litiginous @#$%^&^%$# purchaser would go into this not realizing that any part may fail for any number of reasons.
It's experimental.
best of luck!

 

He's going to refuse to sell to ambulance-chasing litigous scum

 

You're so kind...while you're obviously too dense to understand, hopefully the inventer/salesman of this new design is smart enough to understand that my comment is something he needs to seriously consider and come up with a plan to either cover any failures that the new design may cause...and they will be expensive ones if they occur...as well as have his lawyer draft him a good waiver for buyers to sign as part of their purchase of the parts...that's just sound business practices regardless of what type of business you're in...

 

I have read both threads but did not get a clear picture of life.....More mileage obviously but what about the time interval? Still 5 years?

 

This has been discussed over and over until it begins to hurt. There is no warrantee! You take all risk, period. I subit all purchasers sign a waver, to the effect they are buying a experimental racing part and hold the maker blameless for any consequential loss. If you dont have the knowledge to understand what you are purchasing, dont buy it. If you own a 30 year old Ferrari, many of the parts are no longer warranteed. Everytime you turn the key, 30 year old parts are put into motion, and any of them may fail at any time. You could even have a cascade failure. You have no guarantees of any kind on anything, excepting perhaps a part purchased directly from the manufacture that is installed by a official dealer, and then the warrantee may only replace the failed part.

Our overly litigous society is forcing more and more American manufacturing to move overseas. Scott is simply attempting to build better endurance into the belt drive by using a more modern design belt that is many times stronger and longer lasting, and doing it basically at cost. I feel he may, at his option, replace any failed part if there is something wrong due to machining, but outside of that he could never afford to do this if you want insurance coverage. For a small run of parts such as this, insurance costs would more than double the cost of these parts. So maybe thats what you want? Hey Scott, for anyone who wants full coverage insurance, add on $15000 to the parts cost. That should cover a full overhaul if they dont put it together right. And that is something Scott also has no control over, who installs it, or how its installed. Get a grip on this guys, NO WARRANTEE! This warrantee BS is what killed the last the last redesign project that Gault attempted. So many started asking for coverage he bowed out. So you cant have your cake and eat it too, it has to be one way, or no way.

If you take the time to look through hot rod magazines, or motorcycle magazines, or even the ricer/import magazines, there are tens of thousands of aftermarket engine parts available that come with no warrantee of consquential damages. It just would work any other way, you would drive everyone out of buisness.

 

You are correct that most aftermarket and OEM parts have disclaimers in the packaging that they are sold in which attempts to limit the liability of the seller and/or manufacturer...and they work most of the time. However, if such a part fails due to a manufacturing 'defect', that disclaimer is not worth the paper its printed on. I note from the tone of some of the posts that it seems some are resentful of the important role product liability laws and attorneys play in our great society. Don't forget without manufacturers being held accountable for defective products Ford would still be making exploding Pintos, GM would still be making trucks with side-saddle fuel tanks and Kool would still be advertising that its menthol cigarettes are good for clearing congestion in your chest(you have to be able to remember magazine cigarette ads of the 50s and early 60s for that one) ... . Capitalism is a great system for inovation, but it has to be kept in check or greed will cause products to be made and sold that are dangerous to the property and safety of the consumer. Back to the issue at hand...what would you do if you bought this new cam belt pulley/belt product, properly installed in on your car and while showing your wife, while idling in your driveway, the pulley breaks apart due to a defect of some sort, hits the fuel tank causing the car to explode and burns your wife to death...now, are you anti-tort people telling me that you would not sue the pulley manufacturer for the wrongful death of your wife? Be honest now.. I know that sounds far fetched, but the law has to cover even far fetched things...So again, I would still recommend a good disclaimer on the packaging and maybe a waiver to be signed by the buyer...but, its your risk, not mine...hey, I'm a lawyer and that's how we think...

 

You're serious aren't you?...and clearly on the do not sell any to for any reason list.

 

OMG. Your veiws are the reason Cessna stopped building the 152, and why Aeronca, Luscombe, Piper, and just about every other small Aircraft manufacture either went out of buisness altogether, or stopped building small aircraft. It is that view, that has stripped this country of its freedom to prosper and move forward inventively. That job now belongs to the Chinese.

Want a vacuum pump for your airplane? One manufacture left, may not be around long, few more lawsuits against them and they will topple. Even when they win a case, the court costs can exceed $300K. How many cases like that do you want to win? Exploding Pintos? Well, the NTHSB made all cars since 1968 carry a federal sticker that the car met all safety standars in effect at the date of manufacture, as did GM cars, or any other motor vehicle sold in the US for use on public roads. I could agree it was a poorly designed car, but the fault was not simply Fords as much as it was the US governments.

I personally felt no settlements should have been awarded, based on that sticker, on both the Pinto, as well as GM trucks. If people are stupid enough to buy a poorly designed vehicle, when all the top magazines who test such things attest to its inherint quality, or the lack therof, the responsibility should rest squarely on the purchaser.

Did Eli Whittney have liability on the cotton jin? Did Fulton have liability on his steam engines? I am sure many people were hurt or killed, but in most cases it was due to negligence. I am sure you know a chain saw will do great damage to you should you decide to touch some part of the moving chain with some body part. The chain saw makers can only go so far at offering protection, but in the end, its the operator who assumes the risk.

With the recent Ford Explorer and Firestone tire situation fresh in mind, I found it odd that people couldnt control thier car in a tire blow out situation. As bad as they make out how bad the Explorer was, it was light years better than just about any vehicle built prior to 1970. Those people should try controlling a front blow out with a bias ply tire at 80 mph in a 68 Ford station wagon.

I appologise in advance, Parkerfe, but I would agree with mk e, and not ever sell you anything, even used. You appear to be the type of individual that would make someones life very miserable when you failed to take responsibility for your own actions. I think that would probably have to extend to repairing machinery as well. Which is another issue, garages are probably going to greatly disappear in the next decade, for both of those reasons, among others.

 

So I guess now all you have to do is put a "not responsible for blowing up your wife" disclaimer on the boxes, right?

Keep on with your design, brother. Fresh ideas like this one are vital to any automotive community.

 

Wasn't there some deal years after this went down where they found that Dateline NBC or whatever the quack journalism show that filmed that segment actually had to put explosives in the fuel tanks of those trucks to get them to blow up?

Not saying it wasn't a bad design (I think it was), but how many cars with fuel tanks in back get rear-ended and leak gas? 18-wheelers still have "side saddle" tanks, you know. Maybe we should get the Safety Nazis to investigate them.

 

Good God, this is how they think.....Note to everyone in my company....Do not sell ANYTHING to Lawyers anymore.

 

me thinks , something along the lines of :-

"this product is sold to you at a discounted price to take into account the
fact that by installing this product , you agree to participate in an ongoing
trial and user-assessment as regards to the suitability , mechantability,
fitness for use , quality and effectiveness of this product."


[ cut and paste here ] - all other usual exclusion terms.

 

an idea...

just have the warranty state that the pullies may or may not damage the engine.

If the engine blows up, they can't sue because the warranty said is was a possability.

JD

 

You forgot the part about blowing up your wife, and while you're at it you may want to throw in something about accidentally starting World War III if the pully were to break, launch itself into orbit, and disable a Russian spy satellite, causing it to fall on the Chinese president's lap while he is on the crapper.

 

I almost fell off my chair laughing at that !!!

riot.

wahahahah