Injected
15+ Year Contributor
- 704
- 16
- Apr 29, 2004
-
Houston,
Texas
Moderators,
Please do not close this thread. This debate will go on until real results are posted. If this thread dies, who knows how many will pop up elsewhere. It has remained mostly civil (thanks to everyone for that) and hopefully will remain so. It is no surprise that some in the community feel lied to, or betrayed. Tempers will flare in these circumstances and considering this, things are very calm.
As for the legal case:
US companies must give fair representation of the product that is being sold and are not to withhold pertinent information from the purchaser. That is the law. However, if the person in question did not ask for an Evo 3 16G and did in fact order an Evo 3 GT, then the consumer is responsible for the order and is subject to the suppliers restocking fees, handling fees and any other BS fee that is stacked on top. With all of this in perspective, both purchaser of the turbo and supplier may want to consult a business lawyer for further insight into the possible repercussions. Please don't discuss this further in this thread as it may lead to it being locked. Start a new thread called "Didn't get the turbo I thought I ordered."
As for where it is made:
China has the largest counterfit market in the world. If you want a knockoff, theyve got it. Everything from Callaway golf clubs, Harry Potter books, even baby formula. Most of these knockoffs are harmless look-alikes that function much like the original, but have no R&D behind them and break easily because they are low quality. Taiwan however, is a different country all together (not according to official US policy however). If the R&D was done in Taiwan, then it could be done for far less than a State-side company, thus lower overhead and lower cost, with far less engineering concerns for loss in quality as compared to a look-alike from the mainland. If you are going to call it a China GT and its from Taiwan, please call it a Taipei GT to signify it is from Taiwan, not mainland China. This is very important to those who know about the implications of Chinese counterfits.
As for the turbo:
If the Evo 3 GT is in fact the turbo it was designed to be, then it will stand the test of DSMer abuse. What I am curious to know is the physical abilities/attributes of the turbo. It has a larger flapper, and is made with thicker blades (not typically a great thing for spool). It is also made of different materials. But what does this all amount to. Lets examine the evidence.
Buschur has decided that this is a good turbo and posts that the information on SBRs site is bogus. Buschurs information says that the ported housing is in the cast. The picture from SBRs site tells the same story.
From SBRs site:
From Buschurs info:
Buschurs information then points to an upgraded flapper and SBRs site does not even mention this (also a design feature that should have told SBR the engineers knew what they were doing as this is a design flaw on the MHI spec 3). Again, the picture from SBRs site shows the bigger flapper, but doesnt mention it.
From SBRs site:
From Buschurs info:
I could pick apart the information further, but this debate will still be here tomorrow and if youve followed along this far, then you get the idea. I am unbiased in the matter and will probably buy whichever turbo is, in the end, a better performing turbo for my application (street driven car).
What I still want to know is the reasoning for twice the blade thickness on the GT. The metallurgy argument will depend of what SBR posts (which will hopefully sound more like confirmation of Buschurs post).
To Buschur and SBR:
Both of you have become very reputable in the DSM community, and many enthusiasts owe you debts to turning our passions into a reality. I for one thank you both for reporting your finds. When the dust settles, the facts will be known, and hopefully we will have another great turbo to choose from and you will have a new product to offer. Thank you both for your time and devotion to seeing this through. A dyno sheet, timeslip, or some other quantifiable measure of the GT turbo would be a key end-all figure in this.
Please do not close this thread. This debate will go on until real results are posted. If this thread dies, who knows how many will pop up elsewhere. It has remained mostly civil (thanks to everyone for that) and hopefully will remain so. It is no surprise that some in the community feel lied to, or betrayed. Tempers will flare in these circumstances and considering this, things are very calm.
As for the legal case:
US companies must give fair representation of the product that is being sold and are not to withhold pertinent information from the purchaser. That is the law. However, if the person in question did not ask for an Evo 3 16G and did in fact order an Evo 3 GT, then the consumer is responsible for the order and is subject to the suppliers restocking fees, handling fees and any other BS fee that is stacked on top. With all of this in perspective, both purchaser of the turbo and supplier may want to consult a business lawyer for further insight into the possible repercussions. Please don't discuss this further in this thread as it may lead to it being locked. Start a new thread called "Didn't get the turbo I thought I ordered."
As for where it is made:
China has the largest counterfit market in the world. If you want a knockoff, theyve got it. Everything from Callaway golf clubs, Harry Potter books, even baby formula. Most of these knockoffs are harmless look-alikes that function much like the original, but have no R&D behind them and break easily because they are low quality. Taiwan however, is a different country all together (not according to official US policy however). If the R&D was done in Taiwan, then it could be done for far less than a State-side company, thus lower overhead and lower cost, with far less engineering concerns for loss in quality as compared to a look-alike from the mainland. If you are going to call it a China GT and its from Taiwan, please call it a Taipei GT to signify it is from Taiwan, not mainland China. This is very important to those who know about the implications of Chinese counterfits.
As for the turbo:
If the Evo 3 GT is in fact the turbo it was designed to be, then it will stand the test of DSMer abuse. What I am curious to know is the physical abilities/attributes of the turbo. It has a larger flapper, and is made with thicker blades (not typically a great thing for spool). It is also made of different materials. But what does this all amount to. Lets examine the evidence.
Buschur has decided that this is a good turbo and posts that the information on SBRs site is bogus. Buschurs information says that the ported housing is in the cast. The picture from SBRs site tells the same story.
From SBRs site:
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
From Buschurs info:
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
Buschurs information then points to an upgraded flapper and SBRs site does not even mention this (also a design feature that should have told SBR the engineers knew what they were doing as this is a design flaw on the MHI spec 3). Again, the picture from SBRs site shows the bigger flapper, but doesnt mention it.
From SBRs site:
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
From Buschurs info:
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
I could pick apart the information further, but this debate will still be here tomorrow and if youve followed along this far, then you get the idea. I am unbiased in the matter and will probably buy whichever turbo is, in the end, a better performing turbo for my application (street driven car).
What I still want to know is the reasoning for twice the blade thickness on the GT. The metallurgy argument will depend of what SBR posts (which will hopefully sound more like confirmation of Buschurs post).
To Buschur and SBR:
Both of you have become very reputable in the DSM community, and many enthusiasts owe you debts to turning our passions into a reality. I for one thank you both for reporting your finds. When the dust settles, the facts will be known, and hopefully we will have another great turbo to choose from and you will have a new product to offer. Thank you both for your time and devotion to seeing this through. A dyno sheet, timeslip, or some other quantifiable measure of the GT turbo would be a key end-all figure in this.