Terry makes the easy bets.

He bets everything and everyone will fail, and when they don't no one remembers he said anything.

Only thing I'll agree with him on is the oil scavenge system, I didn't think it would work either.

 

[quote]
You know the kind of person that rubs your nose in **** forever? The kind that runs an issue in the ground 'til you reach China?
<hr></blockquote>

Hey I'm just trying to get some credit for calling BS on this thing from the start. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

 

Terry, weren't your comments more about how the Incon cars would not make power or perform at the track? The 450-600rwhp dyno charts made me a believer.

The two years folks have waited for parts is just plain bad business.

 

Ha! <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Terry, you can't get credit that the concept was a POS when there are happy customers that were lucky enough to get the complete kit.

If you predicted Incon would not deliver all their kits to their customers, I'll be the first to give you credit.

What I recall is, you thought they couldn't develop a kit that would match their claims. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

 

[quote]
Terry, weren't your comments more about how the Incon cars would not make power or perform at the track? The 450-600rwhp dyno charts made me a believer.
<hr></blockquote>

I fought Incon on all fronts.

With regard to the power I doubted the cars would put out 450rwhp@5psi on pump gas as claimed. Later this argument became moot as Dave started talking about octane ratings and that the 450 figure was only with 94 octane. Most Incon cars do not put out 450rwhp@5psi. The guys that are putting out serious power with the kits, are using their own fuel management systems, not the Incon supplied parts.

I argued that the stock LS1 motors would prove to be unreliable under boost for any length of time. As far as I am concerned the verdict is still out on this. Not enough people have their kits to really tell. We have seen a lot of non-motor reliability problems (turbos and scavenging pumps going out).

I argued packaging would be difficult, and later I argued against an electric drain back system (at the time I was having problems with one on my single turbo car). In this area Incon did package the kit nicely, but install time is outrageous. People are having problems with the scavenging pumps.

I argued the kit would not meet CARB approval, I won this argument.

I argued that their method of funding the product (money up front) combined with the over complicated engineering Dave wanted to do, would be a bad mix for customers. I used Turbo Techs manufacturing process as an example. Turbotech was able to bring a similar product to the market in literally months, while Incon took years. Turbotech did not take money up front, their product is just as reliable as Incon's, and it produces similar output.

Later when Dave started to go over the delivery date, I jumped in with supply chain problems. I argued that he needed to find new suppliers and it was his responsibility to make things happen. Looking back its likely that Incon lost most of the depositors money in the stock market and needed to stall a bit until he could get some more working capitol going. This is pure speculation on my part, but is consistent with the facts.

I won a few and I lost a few, Dave is an interesting person to debate with and luckily we were arguing in an arena that allowed me to jump around from point to point easily. Bad points I made could be easily dropped and I could easily open new lines of arguments. Overall it was just a fun game for me to play. What's ironic is that I hit on several key points through the ordeal that we now know to be fact.

 

[quote]
If you predicted Incon would not deliver all their kits to their customers, I'll be the first to give you credit.

What I recall is, you thought they couldn't develop a kit that would match their claims.
<hr></blockquote>

Nah the whole thing started when I pointed out that it was a bad idea for people to put their money up front for a kit that didn't exist. Everything else was establishing that there was reason to believe they might be disappointed.

 

Another funny argument people made was that turbo systems are not affected by altitude. We now know turbo cars run a lot slower at altitude, yet another point I was right about. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

 

But I think there are some InconTT setups that made 450rwhp on pump gas, I saw one at ARE last fall.

I have not seen a lot or any Incon TT cars blow up and kill botton ends.

Turbotech had a lot of warts, Raymer did a lot of work taking their kit making it actually a bolton kit.

On the other hand, I did not agree in the all-money-up front format of Incon.

Incon did not get CARB certification.

Folks still need their parts or money back.

 

"What's ironic is that I hit on several key points through the ordeal that we now know to be fact."

I guess there IS something to be said for the 'shotgun' effect. <img src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" border="0" alt="[jester]" />

 

I didn't see a problem with the cash up front part, and that I do not think has effected the whole situation, people are out their deposit or all of their cash, those who wanted out early enough did not have a hard time I think.

Think back to the point in time when this was brought up, what were your options, N20 or a 460rwhp Vortech kit and a soiled turbo tech kit which was pushed out and had problems of its own.

Dave was right on alot of things, he could have won all the arguements, but bad business decisions lost that, not his technical expertise.

 

Hell, I sold my entire kit (after paying the full price) to someone else through Incon. Last I checked, I don't have my money, and he doesn't have a kit.

I hadn't received a single part before I sold it either.

 

wow, all these horrible stories coming out from the wood work. I wonder if they didn't come out because of some board rule on ls1.com

Joel

 

I wonder if they didn't come out because of some board rule on ls1.com

exactly the case...
I bet I have read 100 threads over the past 18 months that were locked or deleted by mods or admins over there concerning Incon.
Chris

 

[quote]Originally posted by C5 Hardtop:
<strong>wow, all these horrible stories coming out from the wood work. I wonder if they didn't come out because of some board rule on ls1.com

Joel</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is/was my biggest bitch with LS1.com.

 

[quote]Originally posted by C5 Hardtop:
<strong>wow, all these horrible stories coming out from the wood work. I wonder if they didn't come out because of some board rule on ls1.com

Joel</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thats the problem, and a prime example why that board is ran like ****.

Flaming a sponser is one thing, have a legit proble and expressing it on the board simpley because the vendor was flat out screwing people is different.

 

Re: the CARB approval.

I'm sure Incon never got anywhere near pursuing this, though I'll bet that it would have been approved had they seriously made an effort.

I'm in SoCal, and my Incon fed 9:1 compression, mild cam daily driver passed smog w/ absolutely flying colors. In fact it was MUCH cleaner than my completely stock '97 M3.

I did, however, have to go to three smog places before I found one that didn't ask any questions about the funny looking intake...

Chris

 

I warned at least 2 dozen people about giving money up front. Especially to a company that is based on another continent AND after the trouble the Mustang guys had already gone through.

I think the whole situation is ridiculous. <img src="gr_images/icons/mad.gif" border="0">

If Incon is still taking LS1 deposits for kits from unsuspecting consumers they should be hung up by the *****. <img src="gr_images/icons/mad.gif" border="0">
Chris

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Chris ARE 360 ]</p>

 

[quote]Originally posted by NoOne:
<strong>I didn't see a problem with the cash up front part, and that I do not think has effected the whole situation, people are out their deposit or all of their cash, those who wanted out early enough did not have a hard time I think.

Think back to the point in time when this was brought up, what were your options, N20 or a 460rwhp Vortech kit and a soiled turbo tech kit which was pushed out and had problems of its own.

Dave was right on alot of things, he could have won all the arguements, but bad business decisions lost that, not his technical expertise.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well said.

 

[quote]Originally posted by NoOne:
<strong>
Think back to the point in time when this was brought up, what were your options, N20 or a 460rwhp Vortech kit and a soiled turbo tech kit which was pushed out and had problems of its own.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely right.

It's kind of easy to say "I told you so" at this point in time. I think a lot of people have forgotten the FI prospects at the time Inall started taking deposits - it was slim and none.

That we have so many FI options now has partially to due with Incon announcing their kit. At that time, Vortech had a kit, but it was getting delayed every 3 months. Turbo tech rushed out their kit to beat Incon, and it showed. Powerdyne was also later, and had many issues. And who knows if ATI would have jumped in this soon.

 

Terry, i was the second kit with 93 octane 5 psi i put 490 rwhp and 490 rwtq. I have the sheet for ya <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
It would be a real GOOD idea for Dave to atleast post something in response to all this. Tom has been taking the hits for him for about 1 year now <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="gr_images/icons/mad.gif" />

The kit works and it works very well...well worth waiting for!!! This is too long for you guys though <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" />