LC Engineering
03-05-2007, 10:40 AM
#21
Sponsor
i dont understand how that is bad service? you always have to pay for something before you receive it... unless you do C.O.D. yes it sucks that they are back ordered but cut them some slack....
03-05-2007, 11:09 AM
#23
Contributing Member
LCEngineering
They took a long time on my bore/port throttle body and plenum too.
However when I received it it was awesome. Top quality work, great packaging, and great performance. I recommend them, but it seems that they do take their time. Must be the influence of lake havasu and the houseboats/party culture
However when I received it it was awesome. Top quality work, great packaging, and great performance. I recommend them, but it seems that they do take their time. Must be the influence of lake havasu and the houseboats/party culture
03-05-2007, 03:52 PM
#24
Registered User
So... he ordered the headers 2 weeks ago, they charged his card. If the card's billing cycle spins before he actually gets the headers (now projected out an additional week) he'll be stuck with 3 weeks of interest on something he doesn't have.
In the meantime, the company (LCE in this case) could effectively have already gotten "his" money and be using it to buy booze for the company picnic.
03-05-2007, 04:31 PM
#25
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cal Poly Pomona or Redlands, CA
Posts: 1,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most companies will not charge your card until they ship your product. furthermore, they wont charge it if it is backordered because there is a definite chance that it will never come back in to stock.
03-05-2007, 05:05 PM
#26
Registered User
Yeup... Looks like LCE needed the cash though.
Last edited by midiwall; 03-05-2007 at 05:52 PM.
03-05-2007, 05:46 PM
#27
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCE may be a great company. I'm just bothered by the fact that I ordered something, was charged for it immediately, told 7 days to send the part, and then the actual arrival day on my doorstep is 1 month (ship on 14th plus a week shipping time...) later...
Most of us order parts because a job is in progress. This was my case. I ordered the headers because I desperately needed them within 2 weeks. I was told that I would get the parts within that time frame.
I'm not upset at LCE and I'm not running them down. However, I do believe in voting with my money and I'll go somewhere that can send me parts when they say they will.
The lesson from this for me is to watch arrival dates more carefully to ensure you don't end up in my scenario which is cleaning up the now-rusted stock manifold to get it back on the truck so I can get it running (two fingers crossed).
Most of us order parts because a job is in progress. This was my case. I ordered the headers because I desperately needed them within 2 weeks. I was told that I would get the parts within that time frame.
I'm not upset at LCE and I'm not running them down. However, I do believe in voting with my money and I'll go somewhere that can send me parts when they say they will.
The lesson from this for me is to watch arrival dates more carefully to ensure you don't end up in my scenario which is cleaning up the now-rusted stock manifold to get it back on the truck so I can get it running (two fingers crossed).
12-23-2007, 06:17 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LC Engineering threating legal action
I bought a 2.5 liter (22re) LC engineering EFI Pro Long Block and it spun a bearing around 2 months and 2,000 miles. I had the motor pulled and shipped to LC for inspection. They refused to honor the 3 month warranty claiming the failure was caused by the motor running too rich. About 2 years ago I put up a web page detailing everything that happened. I just recieved a Cease and Desist letter from LC Engineering threating legal action if I don't take the web page down. Apparently they just figured out that "LCEngineering 22RE Lemon" appears under their webpage when you google lcengineering.
Google
I'm not taking the web page down. It's absolutly rediculous that they want to cover up the facts and prevent others from being warned about what happened.
Don't make large purchases over the internet, you have no recourse without going to the state the vendor is located.
I'm not taking the web page down. It's absolutly rediculous that they want to cover up the facts and prevent others from being warned about what happened.
Don't make large purchases over the internet, you have no recourse without going to the state the vendor is located.
12-23-2007, 06:38 PM
#29
Tell 'em to go suck lemon's. Sorry...that slipped out.
But seriously, what a bunch of BS. Keep fightin' the good fight my brother!
P.S.
LCE sucks!
What are you gonna do, huh? Sue me too?!
But seriously, what a bunch of BS. Keep fightin' the good fight my brother!
P.S.
LCE sucks!
What are you gonna do, huh? Sue me too?!
Last edited by MudHippy; 12-23-2007 at 06:52 PM.
12-23-2007, 06:47 PM
#31
Contributing Member
You might want to talk to a lawyer, not a bunch of 'wheelers.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night:
It is possible that disregarding the Cease and Desist order in itself is worse. I doubt when you go to court that "they didn't honor the warranty" will stand up - it will be "you received the order on December 23, 2007, as of (date) your website was still in operation" - hell they may type in the URL in the courtroom and show it still active and you're done.
The case COULD go like a slander case, in which YOU have the burden of proof that the bearing indeed spun because of their fault, and from what you say above, I don't think you have solid PROOF.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night:
It is possible that disregarding the Cease and Desist order in itself is worse. I doubt when you go to court that "they didn't honor the warranty" will stand up - it will be "you received the order on December 23, 2007, as of (date) your website was still in operation" - hell they may type in the URL in the courtroom and show it still active and you're done.
The case COULD go like a slander case, in which YOU have the burden of proof that the bearing indeed spun because of their fault, and from what you say above, I don't think you have solid PROOF.
12-23-2007, 08:02 PM
#32
Registered User
Pushing all the legal stuff aside for a moment,
I think its crap that a company featuring top of the line engines for our trucks wont out of courtesy help him out, even a bit. It sounds like poor assembly is at fault to me too or poor a quality bearing was used.
I dont think there is much you can do to get your money back, not to mention a new motor.
I think its crap that a company featuring top of the line engines for our trucks wont out of courtesy help him out, even a bit. It sounds like poor assembly is at fault to me too or poor a quality bearing was used.
I dont think there is much you can do to get your money back, not to mention a new motor.
12-23-2007, 08:48 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I live in Red Bluff ca. Right by the Sacramento river
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont take it down. there not going to go throuh the trouble. Hell, Id call them and tell them your gonna make 1000 more pages, and ruin there business, if they dont give you a new engine. 1 sale lost because of your page, wont be worth it to them. Good luck, and stick it to the man!!!!
12-24-2007, 12:30 PM
#35
Contributing Member
You might want to talk to a lawyer, not a bunch of 'wheelers.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night:
It is possible that disregarding the Cease and Desist order in itself is worse. I doubt when you go to court that "they didn't honor the warranty" will stand up - it will be "you received the order on December 23, 2007, as of (date) your website was still in operation" - hell they may type in the URL in the courtroom and show it still active and you're done.
The case COULD go like a slander case, in which YOU have the burden of proof that the bearing indeed spun because of their fault, and from what you say above, I don't think you have solid PROOF.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night:
It is possible that disregarding the Cease and Desist order in itself is worse. I doubt when you go to court that "they didn't honor the warranty" will stand up - it will be "you received the order on December 23, 2007, as of (date) your website was still in operation" - hell they may type in the URL in the courtroom and show it still active and you're done.
The case COULD go like a slander case, in which YOU have the burden of proof that the bearing indeed spun because of their fault, and from what you say above, I don't think you have solid PROOF.
12-24-2007, 12:36 PM
#36
Registered User
host it on a foreign server, problem solved 
i love loopholes
not that i had any plan on ever going to LCE considering shipping anything here can cost more than the part itself, but after reading that.. my decision is solidified
i love loopholes
not that i had any plan on ever going to LCE considering shipping anything here can cost more than the part itself, but after reading that.. my decision is solidified
Last edited by fork; 12-24-2007 at 12:56 PM.
12-24-2007, 04:43 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san diego
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive never heard of an engine spinning a bearing from running too rich.
They call your situation a latency defect.
They call your situation a latency defect.
Last edited by deserttoy84; 12-24-2007 at 04:56 PM.
12-24-2007, 04:51 PM
#38
Registered User
Just one more reason I will never do buisness with them again.
I want to go down and
their, 
them up, 
them and send 
on them, 
at them, 
bomb them, then finish it off with a good 
and 
Sorry man im disgusted with them too. I feel a bit better after this post though
I want to go down and
their, them up, them and send on them, at them, bomb them, then finish it off with a good and Sorry man im disgusted with them too. I feel a bit better after this post though
12-25-2007, 08:42 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san diego
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-25-2007, 09:45 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the deal on freedom of speech issues:
1) I'm entitled to my opinion as is LC Engineering. LC's opinion is that the motor failed because it was running too rich. My opinion and the opinion of dozen mechanics I've consulted with is that LC's opinion is full of . It is also the opinion of these mechanics that LC's opinion of the motor running too rich is highly unlikely and if it were running that rich it would have been running like crap and would not have passed smog in California. I believe the motor failed due to a faulty machine work and that they refused to honor the warranty because they know I live in another state and I would need to travel to Arizona to dispute their findings in court. The hassle of bringing expert witnesses to Arizona to fight them in court would cost as much as the engine. Especially when they're in possession of the engine and I'd need to get it back from them to have it inspected by prior to taking them to court. They have nothing to lose by not honoring the warranty, unless of course I tell the world what happened which I don't think they expected. I'm not going to be taken for $3,500 without warning others that it could happen to them.
2) You need to tell the truth. You can't make up lies with the intent of harming someone. The web page consists of facts, facts that LC doesn't want potential customers to know. LC doesn't want people to know that they sold a motor that failed within the warranty period and they refused to honor the warranty. This fact could cause them to lose motor sales. After all, if I knew they did this to someone, I wouldn't have risked $3,500. The motor failure is fact; the failure to honor the warranty is fact. The cause of the failure is opinion. I’m entitled to my opinion and so are they.
Freedom of speech on the Internet has become a big issue in recent years because the internet made it easy for an individual to publish information to the masses. Big companies with lots of money have been attempting to squash the opinions and facts published by individuals whose intent is to educate the public. My intent is not to cause LC harm. My intent is to share my experience so that others can make an decision of their own knowing the facts about what happened to me.
There are now anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws to protect individuals from companies that attempt to suppress the facts and opinions. There is a lot of information on the California Anti-SLAPP Project website.
FYI. Barrett v. Rosenthal established limits liability for Internet defamation. The decision holds that Internet users and providers are immune from civil liability for reposting third party content on the Internet. ie. This website cannot be sued for allowing me to post my opinion.
If LC were to pursue legal action to suppress my voice, I would make the details of the court action public and the case would cause them more harm than good. I'm pretty sure LC knows they have no right to control my speech. That's why the sent me a letter typed up by a secretary rather than something form a lawyer. Almost all companies of their size have a lawyer on retainer and if they had case against me it would have come from their lawyer, not from their receptionist.
Thanks for your opinions and support.
http://www.blowsand.com/truck/
1) I'm entitled to my opinion as is LC Engineering. LC's opinion is that the motor failed because it was running too rich. My opinion and the opinion of dozen mechanics I've consulted with is that LC's opinion is full of . It is also the opinion of these mechanics that LC's opinion of the motor running too rich is highly unlikely and if it were running that rich it would have been running like crap and would not have passed smog in California. I believe the motor failed due to a faulty machine work and that they refused to honor the warranty because they know I live in another state and I would need to travel to Arizona to dispute their findings in court. The hassle of bringing expert witnesses to Arizona to fight them in court would cost as much as the engine. Especially when they're in possession of the engine and I'd need to get it back from them to have it inspected by prior to taking them to court. They have nothing to lose by not honoring the warranty, unless of course I tell the world what happened which I don't think they expected. I'm not going to be taken for $3,500 without warning others that it could happen to them.
2) You need to tell the truth. You can't make up lies with the intent of harming someone. The web page consists of facts, facts that LC doesn't want potential customers to know. LC doesn't want people to know that they sold a motor that failed within the warranty period and they refused to honor the warranty. This fact could cause them to lose motor sales. After all, if I knew they did this to someone, I wouldn't have risked $3,500. The motor failure is fact; the failure to honor the warranty is fact. The cause of the failure is opinion. I’m entitled to my opinion and so are they.
Freedom of speech on the Internet has become a big issue in recent years because the internet made it easy for an individual to publish information to the masses. Big companies with lots of money have been attempting to squash the opinions and facts published by individuals whose intent is to educate the public. My intent is not to cause LC harm. My intent is to share my experience so that others can make an decision of their own knowing the facts about what happened to me.
There are now anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws to protect individuals from companies that attempt to suppress the facts and opinions. There is a lot of information on the California Anti-SLAPP Project website.
FYI. Barrett v. Rosenthal established limits liability for Internet defamation. The decision holds that Internet users and providers are immune from civil liability for reposting third party content on the Internet. ie. This website cannot be sued for allowing me to post my opinion.
If LC were to pursue legal action to suppress my voice, I would make the details of the court action public and the case would cause them more harm than good. I'm pretty sure LC knows they have no right to control my speech. That's why the sent me a letter typed up by a secretary rather than something form a lawyer. Almost all companies of their size have a lawyer on retainer and if they had case against me it would have come from their lawyer, not from their receptionist.
Thanks for your opinions and support.
http://www.blowsand.com/truck/
