An Open Letter to SCAT Crankshafts
08-02-2009, 11:22 AM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Open Letter to SCAT Crankshafts xxxx xxx xxxxx Rd.
Allison Park, PA 15101
August 2, 2009
Mr. Tom Lieb
c/o SCAT Crankshafts
1400 Kingsdale Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(310)370-5501
Dear Mr. Lieb:
Good day, sir. I hope you are having a pleasant day.
In my opinion, you owe me a set of flywheel bolts.
Let me explain. Yesterday, as we were planning to drop my 416 "SCAT-equipped" LS3 into my 2004 GTO, we discovered that the $26.00 set of ARP flywheel bolts would not thread into the SCAT crankshaft. Subsequently, I discovered that the threads in the SCAT crankshaft are not M11 x 1.5 as they should be, but rather they are 7/16-20.
There is no mention of this on your website. There was no note enclosed with the crankshaft stating it would not accept the proper LS1 flywheel bolts.
I had to find this out on the internet from, among others, Erik Koenig, one of the most respected engine builders in the country.
It has been stated on LS1tech.com that SCAT produced a "batch of bad crankshafts with the wrong thread size" for the flywheel bolts.
Also, the issue was raised, and confirmed again by Mr. Koenig, that there was a problem with the "thrust walls" being too short where they contact the thrust surfaces of the #3 main bearing in these LS engines. Apparently the "thrust wall issue" was prevalent with many of the SCAT cranks that had the wrong threads tapped into them for the flywheel bolts.
So, the upshot of all of this is:
-I have a set of $26.00 ARP flywheel bolts that I cannot use.
-I have to purchase yet another set of flywheel bolts (7/16-20), and guess at the ARP part #, and hope I order the right ones.
-since my engine is already assembled, I have to "hope" that the thrust walls are tall enough to prevent "crank walking" and premature engine failure.
I pose to you, Mr. Lieb, a couple of questions:
-where is your quality control, that you would even permit crankshafts with the wrong threadsize to leave the SCAT facility?
-knowing that these cranks were shipped, why did you not recall them?
-since you obviously did not recall them, would it have killed you to notify your distributors and/or put a notice up on your website?
-how did the wrong size tap even make it into your machinery? and once there, how did it remain there, apparently for a protracted period of time?
I have one more issue, and it concerns the keyway at the front of the crank for the harmonic dampener.
Why do you not supply the proper key for this keyway WITH the crankshaft? We chased all over Pittsburgh, PA and could not find a key anywhere that would work properly.
You still owe me a set of 7/16-20 flywheel bolts.
Since SCAT has been non-responsive in the past at answering my internet queries for technical support, I will be posting this letter on the internet.
I await your response. Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
xxxxx x xxxxxxxx
Allison Park, PA 15101
August 2, 2009
Mr. Tom Lieb
c/o SCAT Crankshafts
1400 Kingsdale Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(310)370-5501
Dear Mr. Lieb:
Good day, sir. I hope you are having a pleasant day.
In my opinion, you owe me a set of flywheel bolts.
Let me explain. Yesterday, as we were planning to drop my 416 "SCAT-equipped" LS3 into my 2004 GTO, we discovered that the $26.00 set of ARP flywheel bolts would not thread into the SCAT crankshaft. Subsequently, I discovered that the threads in the SCAT crankshaft are not M11 x 1.5 as they should be, but rather they are 7/16-20.
There is no mention of this on your website. There was no note enclosed with the crankshaft stating it would not accept the proper LS1 flywheel bolts.
I had to find this out on the internet from, among others, Erik Koenig, one of the most respected engine builders in the country.
It has been stated on LS1tech.com that SCAT produced a "batch of bad crankshafts with the wrong thread size" for the flywheel bolts.
Also, the issue was raised, and confirmed again by Mr. Koenig, that there was a problem with the "thrust walls" being too short where they contact the thrust surfaces of the #3 main bearing in these LS engines. Apparently the "thrust wall issue" was prevalent with many of the SCAT cranks that had the wrong threads tapped into them for the flywheel bolts.
So, the upshot of all of this is:
-I have a set of $26.00 ARP flywheel bolts that I cannot use.
-I have to purchase yet another set of flywheel bolts (7/16-20), and guess at the ARP part #, and hope I order the right ones.
-since my engine is already assembled, I have to "hope" that the thrust walls are tall enough to prevent "crank walking" and premature engine failure.
I pose to you, Mr. Lieb, a couple of questions:
-where is your quality control, that you would even permit crankshafts with the wrong threadsize to leave the SCAT facility?
-knowing that these cranks were shipped, why did you not recall them?
-since you obviously did not recall them, would it have killed you to notify your distributors and/or put a notice up on your website?
-how did the wrong size tap even make it into your machinery? and once there, how did it remain there, apparently for a protracted period of time?
I have one more issue, and it concerns the keyway at the front of the crank for the harmonic dampener.
Why do you not supply the proper key for this keyway WITH the crankshaft? We chased all over Pittsburgh, PA and could not find a key anywhere that would work properly.
You still owe me a set of 7/16-20 flywheel bolts.
Since SCAT has been non-responsive in the past at answering my internet queries for technical support, I will be posting this letter on the internet.
I await your response. Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
xxxxx x xxxxxxxx
08-03-2009, 07:36 AM
#3
Thats messed up, how could they manufacture parts that don't accept standard LS hardware and not let anyone know. They leave it up to the buyer to "figure out" what nuts and bolts are needed. Then they don't answer your questions.
08-07-2009, 02:46 PM
#4
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to "open letter to scat crankshafts" It is very unfortunate that Mr. Corsello and Mr. Koening never contacted SCAT about this dilemma. As a result, both individuals have made false statements which are only too easy to post on a blog.
We have attempted to contact Mr. Corsello via the E-mail address he has on file from his previous inquiries, but it came back as undeliverable. And because Mr. Corsello did not provide us with a phone number, it makes it difficult to contact him. We also contacted directory assistance in a further attempt to contact him, but his number is not listed.
In regards to Mr. Corsello’s post on this site, first and foremost, SCAT has been making crankshafts since 1966 (44 years), so we know what we are doing.
Second, SCAT made all of the prototype cranks for the GM when the LS engine was in it’s initial design stage (150 billet cranks to be exact). A couple of design changes were made before the engine was put into production. One was the thrust bearing. A second was the flywheel attachment. SCAT in fact, was responsible for the initial design of the LS crankshaft for GM.
After the 1st engines appeared on the market, SCAT made a handful of billet cranks (8 to be exact) for the aftermarket using a prototype smaller thrust diameter. This was long before any aftermarket forgings were available from anyone. The statements by Mr. Corsello and Mr. Koening are blatantly false. SCAT’s catalogued forged cranks have always been made to the larger thrust diameter.
When SCAT first started to make LS cranks, ARP did not make a performance aftermarket flywheel bolt for this application. The engine builders requested that we tap the flywheel flange for use of ARP ‘350’ bolts, 7/16 x 20. We have continued the practice to this day. Now ARP makes an 11mm bolt. Should we change? “Corsello” bought 11mm bolts. He intended to spend $26 on bolts. Why did he not exchange the bolts for 7/16 x 20? If you Mr. Corsello feel that this is an unreasonable question, send the new ARP bolts and receipt of purchase to SCAT and we will be happy to refund your money.
Reference to the keyway. Stock LS cranks do not have a keyway. The SCAT keyway is a standard 350 which can be found new, used, everywhere. I assumed you also have criticized the damper manufacturer who sold you a damper for an LS engine with a keyway to be used on an LS application which may or may not have a keyway. Did they furnish a key?
As far as your comment that SCAT is non-responsive. You sent us two queries, one regarding proper side clearance for rods. A second regarding how to install the rods on your crank. The rods due to the radii on the crank throw and the offset of the bearing can only go on one way. It is obvious but a reasonable question for a novice.
Again, the E-mail response by SCAT was returned as non-deliverable.
These queries were answered in a timely fashion. Most queries SCAT receives, the person furnishes a phone number. Again, you did not. As mentioned above, I personally called directory assistance, but you either do not have a phone or it is unlisted. On our dime we prefer to speak to the customer to have a complete conversation to understand the problem and to provide a complete solution. Mr. Corsello never queried SCAT regarding the content of his letter.
The internet offers unlimited access to the world however it also can be abused, as in this case. Spreading false rumors and making derogatory comments for the specific purpose of trashing a company or person should not be permitted on any site without first giving the accused an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Corsello published his letter on LS1tech.com on August 2nd. He has our E-mail. Instead of E-mailing SAT, he chose to send a copy by post which we received in the mail today. This is the rest of the story.
I welcome your phone calls. My direct line is 310-370-5501 x112, Tom Lieb, Owner.
We have attempted to contact Mr. Corsello via the E-mail address he has on file from his previous inquiries, but it came back as undeliverable. And because Mr. Corsello did not provide us with a phone number, it makes it difficult to contact him. We also contacted directory assistance in a further attempt to contact him, but his number is not listed.
In regards to Mr. Corsello’s post on this site, first and foremost, SCAT has been making crankshafts since 1966 (44 years), so we know what we are doing.
Second, SCAT made all of the prototype cranks for the GM when the LS engine was in it’s initial design stage (150 billet cranks to be exact). A couple of design changes were made before the engine was put into production. One was the thrust bearing. A second was the flywheel attachment. SCAT in fact, was responsible for the initial design of the LS crankshaft for GM.
After the 1st engines appeared on the market, SCAT made a handful of billet cranks (8 to be exact) for the aftermarket using a prototype smaller thrust diameter. This was long before any aftermarket forgings were available from anyone. The statements by Mr. Corsello and Mr. Koening are blatantly false. SCAT’s catalogued forged cranks have always been made to the larger thrust diameter.
When SCAT first started to make LS cranks, ARP did not make a performance aftermarket flywheel bolt for this application. The engine builders requested that we tap the flywheel flange for use of ARP ‘350’ bolts, 7/16 x 20. We have continued the practice to this day. Now ARP makes an 11mm bolt. Should we change? “Corsello” bought 11mm bolts. He intended to spend $26 on bolts. Why did he not exchange the bolts for 7/16 x 20? If you Mr. Corsello feel that this is an unreasonable question, send the new ARP bolts and receipt of purchase to SCAT and we will be happy to refund your money.
Reference to the keyway. Stock LS cranks do not have a keyway. The SCAT keyway is a standard 350 which can be found new, used, everywhere. I assumed you also have criticized the damper manufacturer who sold you a damper for an LS engine with a keyway to be used on an LS application which may or may not have a keyway. Did they furnish a key?
As far as your comment that SCAT is non-responsive. You sent us two queries, one regarding proper side clearance for rods. A second regarding how to install the rods on your crank. The rods due to the radii on the crank throw and the offset of the bearing can only go on one way. It is obvious but a reasonable question for a novice.
Again, the E-mail response by SCAT was returned as non-deliverable.
These queries were answered in a timely fashion. Most queries SCAT receives, the person furnishes a phone number. Again, you did not. As mentioned above, I personally called directory assistance, but you either do not have a phone or it is unlisted. On our dime we prefer to speak to the customer to have a complete conversation to understand the problem and to provide a complete solution. Mr. Corsello never queried SCAT regarding the content of his letter.
The internet offers unlimited access to the world however it also can be abused, as in this case. Spreading false rumors and making derogatory comments for the specific purpose of trashing a company or person should not be permitted on any site without first giving the accused an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Corsello published his letter on LS1tech.com on August 2nd. He has our E-mail. Instead of E-mailing SAT, he chose to send a copy by post which we received in the mail today. This is the rest of the story.
I welcome your phone calls. My direct line is 310-370-5501 x112, Tom Lieb, Owner.
08-07-2009, 03:06 PM
#5
^^^ Well said. I assume you registered just to reply to this? That speaks volumes to me.
And to answer Mel's question, my guess is because the cranks were designed before LS-style upgraded hardware was available. A phone call to Scat would have probably cleared this up.
And to answer Mel's question, my guess is because the cranks were designed before LS-style upgraded hardware was available. A phone call to Scat would have probably cleared this up.
08-07-2009, 03:08 PM
#6
TECH Addict
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, this is the 2nd one of these I've seen this week...this happens way too often. People really need to take these matters up with the company and as a very last resort bring it here. For something as simple as $26 (hardly a last resort matter), you'd think one would have at least a little courtesy and common sense..
Trending Topics
08-07-2009, 03:18 PM
#8
I'm tired of reading posts like this. It takes less than 5 minutes to pickup the phone and call.
When I got my last set of ARP Main studs and they had larger nuts, I didn't complain on here, I called ARP and got the skinny. They changed over to a larger nut and offered to replace the larger nuts with smaller ones with washers at no cost. 3 minutes later I was a happy camper.
When I got my last set of ARP Main studs and they had larger nuts, I didn't complain on here, I called ARP and got the skinny. They changed over to a larger nut and offered to replace the larger nuts with smaller ones with washers at no cost. 3 minutes later I was a happy camper.
08-07-2009, 03:36 PM
#10
Sadly, this is the 2nd one of these I've seen this week...this happens way too often. People really need to take these matters up with the company and as a very last resort bring it here. For something as simple as $26 (hardly a last resort matter), you'd think one would have at least a little courtesy and common sense..
Here's a question: Did you read something in the SCAT literature that told you the threads were M11x1.5, if not what is your basis for saying "as they should be"?
Last edited by FormulaZR; 08-07-2009 at 04:16 PM.
08-07-2009, 03:51 PM
#11
On a brighter note. SCAT, I hope you stay here at LS1Tech. It's a shame that this brought you to register, but we would love to have your technical expertise around. All too often, consumers do not take appropriate measures to rectify a situation. It is easier to bash someone on the internet than to pick up a telephone and actually talk to someone.
08-07-2009, 04:23 PM
#13
On a brighter note. SCAT, I hope you stay here at LS1Tech. It's a shame that this brought you to register, but we would love to have your technical expertise around. All too often, consumers do not take appropriate measures to rectify a situation. It is easier to bash someone on the internet than to pick up a telephone and actually talk to someone.
It'd actually be nice if you guys thought about sponsorship so you could advertise and we could buy!
08-07-2009, 04:39 PM
#15
TECH Addict
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup...I understand it might be the "principle" of the thing. BUT, a company like SCAT is not fly by night, and does still utilize phone service as a customer service method. However, if you don't have $26 for new bolts, you don't have enough money for this hobby. Maybe quad should check into knitting???
Here's a question: Did you read something in the SCAT literature that told you the threads were M11x1.5, if not what is your basis for saying "as they should be"?
Here's a question: Did you read something in the SCAT literature that told you the threads were M11x1.5, if not what is your basis for saying "as they should be"?
I dunno man....those knitting patterns get expensive!
08-07-2009, 04:57 PM
#16
Launching!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. But I also have to agree that there should be some sort of notification for the end user to know to use the different bolts. I'm not siding with the OP, I think it's just a valid point.
08-07-2009, 05:11 PM
#18
Launching!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True but you shouldn't have to call tech support to know that. If you knew before hand to order different bolts, it could save some headaches. I see both sides here but if it were me and it was me bolting up a flywheel/flexplate to said crank, it would be nice to be informed of these changes. Now I know a professional engine builder would have no problem with this. But I know the transmission rebuild kits I get are intended for professionals but they still have little notes of changes. Not arguing for either side, I'm just saying...
Last edited by PedaltoMetal; 08-07-2009 at 05:24 PM. Reason: Cause I wanted too
08-07-2009, 05:56 PM
#19
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is obvious that he sent the letter out of frustration, and that is somewhat understandable to probly almost all of us who have reached a certain level of frustration over a stressful project.
SCAT sounds like they tried thier best to get in touch with him, and its too bad that they couldnt cuz if they did, this wouldnt be on here.
However, the website should state that different fasteners are required for proper installation of this product. An astrix or something to denote there is something different about these bolts. Not everyone knows that SCAT was involved with GM while developing the cranks (great story btw), and that over 10 years ago SCAT made the call to run 7/16 fasteners there. That part, IMHO, is crap, and should be on the site, or the documentation that comes with the product should state that, or come with the proper bolts. That crank goes in an "LS" engine, and "LS" engines use metric threads, so why would ANYONE assume that they would need some different (SAE) bolts for this purpose.
I appreciate the response from SCAT on this and it is very professional, and shows they are a stand up group.
Also, maybe they should start making them in metric. What are all the other cranks?? Why should SCAT be the only ones not?? Just seems silly to me.
Just my $0.02.
SCAT sounds like they tried thier best to get in touch with him, and its too bad that they couldnt cuz if they did, this wouldnt be on here.
However, the website should state that different fasteners are required for proper installation of this product. An astrix or something to denote there is something different about these bolts. Not everyone knows that SCAT was involved with GM while developing the cranks (great story btw), and that over 10 years ago SCAT made the call to run 7/16 fasteners there. That part, IMHO, is crap, and should be on the site, or the documentation that comes with the product should state that, or come with the proper bolts. That crank goes in an "LS" engine, and "LS" engines use metric threads, so why would ANYONE assume that they would need some different (SAE) bolts for this purpose.
I appreciate the response from SCAT on this and it is very professional, and shows they are a stand up group.
Also, maybe they should start making them in metric. What are all the other cranks?? Why should SCAT be the only ones not?? Just seems silly to me.
Just my $0.02.
08-08-2009, 08:26 AM
#20
Blame the situation that gave us half sae and half metric not scat. Once upon a time we had one set of sockets and one kind of bolts. If you do not expect those kind of glitches you need more experience.
Last edited by ChucksZ06; 08-08-2009 at 08:27 AM. Reason: sp