Thread: Questions for Dave PWCFAN
08-27-2007, 01:24 PM #1
Questions for Dave PWCFAN
Since you are now a member of this board, perhaps you can provide answers to some lingering questions a number of us have..
The rubber nubs on the dip-stick are pushing down the oil in the dipstick tube and possibly giving false readings.
Use of sythetic oil in the 250X o.k. or not ?? reccomended or not ?? harmful ?? beneficial or not ??
Installation of R&D supposed oil/fuel blow by elimination kit in an effort to help control oil contamination, wll this void any warranty ??
Why are double platinum spark plugs, designed to last a hundred thousand miles failing so quickly in our 250's ??
Are you saying that running 250X's at sustained full throttle is improper opertation,, I CERTAINLY hope thats not what your saying.
Last edited by Chris288; 08-27-2007 at 01:39 PM.
08-27-2007, 09:27 PM #2
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
9950 Jeronimo Road
Irvine, California 92618-2084
DONALD J. KOPROWSKI. (Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary) Born 1942; admitted to bar, 1967, Wisconsin, California, Illinois and Minnesota; registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Education: University of Notre Dame (B.S.); University of Wisconsin-Madison (J.D.).Member: Orange County and American Bar Associations; State Bar of California; American Corporate Counsel Association. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
WM. DAVID ARMSTRONG. (Legal Counsel) Born Los Angeles, California, July 11,1949; admitted to bar, 1984, California; 1985, U.S. District Court, Central District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Education: Orange Coast College (A.A., 1973); Western State University (B.S.L., 1981; J.D., 1983). Member: Orange County and American Bar Associations; State Bar of California. Responsibilities: Products Liability Law; Personal Injury. Email:email@example.com
Dear Mr. Koprowski:
After careful review of David Armstrong’s email correspondence dated 27 August 2007, and a subsequent conversation with David on the same date, I respond as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Armstrong has predicated a supposition that I am at fault for causing gasoline and carbon to contaminate the motor oil on a contrived “suspicion” that I failed to follow the break-in procedures promulgated by Kawasaki in both the owner’s manual and on a warning label affixed to the Kawasaki Ultra 250x. David specifically states:
“I have investigated your reported issue of fuel contaminating the crankcase oil. I can confirm that we are aware that a number of customers are experiencing this… customers run their units at wide open throttle during the engine break-in period and before the piston rings have had a chance to seat properly… I have spoken with Riva's Service Manager, and he has confirmed that the compression and leakdown rates for your engine are normal. Therefore, I suspectthat you are among the group of owner's who engage in prolonged operation at maximum rpm. “
To be clear, David’s supposition based upon his “suspicion” is not supported by any evidence. Kawasaki’s promulgated procedures were methodically adhered to during the initial break-in period, and at no time during the initial break-in period was this Ultra 250x subjected to “wide-open-throttle” usage. Moreover, Riva Yamaha has found no evidence whatsoever of abuse or failure to adhere to break-in procedures, including “maximum rpm” usage, either during the break-in, or subsequent to. It is simply unclear how David has concluded that an engine showing no evidence of abuse during break-in has in fact been subjected to an improper break-in. His contrived “suspicion” is even more perplexing, when, after a detailed disassembly and inspection of the engine, Riva has refused to support David’s contrived “suspicion” that there was an improper break-in. Simply stated, Riva has found no evidence of improper break-in supporting David’s asserted “suspicion” that I failed to adhere to “break-in procedures.”
Most troubling, Mr. Armstrong has failed to acknowledge a suggested cause for the blow-by set forth by Riva after its inspection of the disassembled engine. Riva has suggested to Kawasaki that the blow-by is because the metal compounds used for the cylinder walls and piston rings are too hard and, as a consequence, the piston rings will never seat properly with the cylinder walls. Thus, Mr. Armstrong has knowingly engaged in deception by purposely omitting inculpatory information provided by Riva supporting my claim of an existing manufacturing defect.
Mr. Armstrong has asserted that he “expects” the manufacturing defect (the blow-by problem), will “eventually resolve itself”, and specifically states:
“Eventually, the condition will resolve itself…I expect that, ultimately, the rings will seat and the blow-by issue will resolve itself.”
The issue here is that David’s stated term of “eventually” is one of indefiniteness and when combined with the word “expect”, the resolution may or may not happen. Thus, Mr. Armstrong has stated it is a mere possibility that the condition will resolve itself; that is, that the rings will properly seat with the cylinder walls. This point was further reinforced when I asked David whether he could identify a single customer owning an Ultra 250x with this problem that “eventually resolved itself”. David’s response to this was “No”. To my next question, in which I asked David how it was possible to make the assertion that the problem of blow-by and oil contamination would resolve itself, if not a single customer has reported such a natural resolution, Mr. Armstrong ’s reply was that he was so told by our (Kawasaki’s) “tech people”.
Mr. Armstrong has implied by his statements that I have voided my warranty for this watercraft, and as a consequence have now become responsible for ‘frequent oil changes’, made necessary by ‘owners not following the break-in instructions contained in the Owner’s Manual’. In addition, this change from the required maintenance regimen for the watercraft, as specified in the Owner’s Manual, was made wholly unilaterally and without basis on Mr. Armstrong’s part. He specifically states:
“[If] owners can[not] follow the break-in instructions contained in the Owner's Manual… frequent oil changes will be necessary. Additionally, during such period of extreme use, the oil level will need to be monitored more closely. If the oil level rises too high, there may be a decrease in engine performance and a higher potential for spark plug fouling.”
It is simply a perversion of the facts for Mr. Armstrong to assert that, based upon his imaginative “suspicions”, the break-in procedures were not followed pursuant to the “Owner’s Manual”. As stated above, after a complete disassembly and inspection of the engine, Riva found no evidence of improper break-in supporting David’s asserted “suspicion” that I failed to adhere to “break-in procedures”. To the contrary, Riva suspects a manufacturing defect with the hardness of the metal used for the piston rings and the cylinder walls that prevents the rings from sealing.
Since David has changed the maintenance regimen required for this craft, kindly state the time intervals that will be required for maintenance. Without maintenance interval information for this watercraft maintenance will be impossible.
Please take notice: In view of Mr. Armstrong’s denial of a manufacturing defect, deceptive postulating, and his effort to shift the burden to the end user, civil proceedings will now be initiated against the interests of Kawasaki.
Kindly review and respond accordingly.
R. Archer Bowman, J.D., LL.M.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By SKR8PN in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 3Last Post: 07-18-2005, 08:35 AM
By SKR8PN in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 2Last Post: 06-24-2005, 05:21 PM
By BertInTexas in forum Sea Doo Open DiscussionReplies: 11Last Post: 06-14-2005, 04:24 AM
By Therock in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 9Last Post: 05-25-2005, 05:11 PM
By Therock in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 3Last Post: 05-20-2005, 07:13 AM