[D-CEL]

Superdouche (aka Rodknock, )

So you are calling me a liar? Copying at the local Kinkos? I am offended.
But I digress.
You would never need, want, nor be able to handle the type of power a 385 series BB can produce, so in that respect all are safer because of your choice.
The two people in the world that are closest to this issue and that are currently responsible for it, are not enough for you. Clearly, you only hear what you want to hear. No answer to the contrary will be considered let alone accepted. Spoken like the true child that you are.
“Minions”, “Indicting the entire line”
Are you functionally illiterate or just suffering from severe case adult A.D.D.?
Its not about the RM 8010 or any other non SFI housings, It’s about a manufacturer that claims a product be something it clearly is not.
I’ll say it again, Quick Time builds a nice housing, Certified or not, that has never been an issue for me. My issue is the claim that the two very different designs offer remotely similar protection. The former owner made the claim, I checked it out and it’s simply is not true.
I condemn the false adverting practice and the propagandists that continue to spew it forth. It led someone to purchase a part that was no suitable for his application.

Please return to whatever rectum you dribbled from.

Brent,

Yes the 2000 Cobra R did in fact come with a QT RM-8080…. that was SFI 6.1 certified. As the car was intended for racing I would imagine Ford felt it important enough to provide a certified bellhousing…
But what happened to all the pro QT rhetoric? “Ross said it has been tested, So until someone proves that it hasn’t..” …yea that what I thought…

It’s interesting that you brought up failures of SFI certed housings. During my conversation with Graham from Prestolite, I asked the question. “Since all of the validation test and field failure data for Lakewood and QT is now in one place, how many “failures to contain” of SFI certified housings do you see between both companies.
It surprised me when he said “none”. That certainly points toward a 6.1 design advantage. But that means nothing right? You wont do the research, and when I do it, you saythat I have some "Axe to grind with QT"
I have no axe to grind, just looking for truth and honesty in advertising.

I have to laugh when people make engineering statements but obviously don’t understand the mechanics and dynamics of the failure. The lower bolts are not there to “protect the ground” LOL. They are there to inhibit ROTATION of the housing. While the threaded mounting holes are sufficiently strong in straight tension, if the housing is allowed to rotate (as we see in the photos) the load is applied perpendicular to designed load path of the threaded hole and unfortunately against a relatively thin and unsupported wall of the brittle block casting. That is why we see a failure of the entire length of the threaded hole. I doubt any of you junior engineers would be willing to put a bolt on your block and hit it perpendicular to its axis with a 16oz hammer in a full swing.
Given that logic, how could it possible survive the force generated by a 5lb piece of a flywheel spinning at 9000rpm (the ring gear speed of a 20” flywheel @ 9k is roughly 535.5 mph)
The cumulative shear and tension strength of the lower bolts and nuts has historically proven sufficient to overcome that rotational force thereby saving the block from damage and containig all the pieces.
Again, How and why would anybody state that the lower bolts are not structural? They are critical.

Rick,
How can the block be blamed? The block mounts aren’t designed to take that type of impact load. The block failed as a result of the Flywheel failure and the design of the housing. If there was a cast alum or no housing on the motor, would the block have failed?
Lets perform a thought experiment based on what is known.
This same shape, depth, material and mfg process, yields a housing, that in its SFI 6.1 compliant form, has passed all of the SFI testing requirements and is certified. With 3 housings tested, all 3 contained all of the pieces and remained attached to the motor plate. The photographs of this failed housing suggest that its basic form remained intact after the failure. However pieces escaped and its attachment was compromised.
Q: what changed? (The OP stated that he used all of the attachment hardware as provided by QT)
The differences being:
1) The lack of lower containment bolts in this design.
2) it was bolted to an actual block vs. the steel mounting plate of the test stand.

If the failure cause is #2 than we should see failures in 6.1 compliant designs.

This pissing match is old and tiring, stop stating that the designs offer the same level of protection and I won’t comment on QT.

For my own edification, I have contacted a lab (Balco in Vandalla Oh.) that provides the SFI testing service and asked them to quote me on a test of a single housing without the lower bolts. When I discussed the test and its parameters with them (Mike Belcher), he was quite clear is stating his opinion that the results would not be good. But that is why we run tests, to separate opinion and fact.

If I can get it set up, I will publish the data pass or fail.


Jason