VTT GC 2.0 Failure: Subsequent Strong-arming Customers, Warranty Declinations, and Forum Censorship.

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Since the VTT Forum Rep has decided to remove these posts from their thread and pretend they are not of any value- we have decided to create a new thread to make sure they are not lost in the shuffle.

History of this particular case is that the customer initially bought VTT GC 1.0s- and they failed- twice. Fortunately thereafter the new fix was the VTT GC 2.0's, so their CHRA units were rebuilt to GC 2.0 specs a mere ~2 months ago. While VTT simply re-used the original GC 1.0 housings for this servicing, it is understandable as the actual "failure alleviating updates" with the GC 2.0's were addressed within the CHRA.

Now they have failed again and while this is far from unusual from this breed and brand of turbos, the hope was that it was all behind us with all of the improvements the GC 2.0's brought forth early/mid 2018. The failure mode however is so eerily familiar to the GC 1.0 issues, it is anyones best guess on what is really going on out there. The biggest question is that can you rely on the vendor to be forthright about these things, after all the hiding they had done with the past GC failures?

At any rate as the customer does not speak english, a companion who does posted about the failure online. While obviously frustrated from all the failures, he was looking for a resolve in light of a "new Mar-M" turbine on the horizon that is a supposed "advancement only". However this online disclosure did not go over well with VTT- literally to the point of declining further warrantable considerations. Then just as that was not enough, the forum rep attempts to further mask the issue by pretending the CURRENT FAILED turbos are really GC 1.0's, which they clearly are not even by the writings of the actual owner (his boss) of VTT. Censored link here: https://bmw.spoolstreet.com/threads/all-vtt-v2-gc-turbos-move-to-mar-m246-turbine-wheels.4418/

If this is not strong-arming customers into silence who knows what is? This also leads one to ponder if there is yet another GC 1.0 debacle forthcoming even with the GC 2.0's, and the vendor is already seeing them tallying up only 7-8 post-production months later- leading to "advancing turbines" yet again? If so are involved customers who are caught up in this ordeal fearing coverage by saying anything online? Would you be willing to jeopardize your coverage if you were facing these manufacturer responses? Things that make you you hmmm to say the least.

Anyway enough about all of that let the attached video failure and communications with VTT thereafter do the rest of the talking.
https://bmw.spoolstreet.com/media/vargas-turbo-failure.1182/

 

[mfractal]

Thanks for posting this Rob. I was just about to do that after Chris erased my posts trying to brush it off as a “guy who knows a guy” rumor type of thing which is absolutely false. The customer in question is a good friend of mine and I’ll do everything possible to help him out.
We have decided to make this issue as widely known as possible so that potential customers of VTT will know what they are getting themselves into. I didn’t have time to post anything online today but I’ll do it over the weekend. If possible, please post on other forums where your participate. As I’ve previously mentioned and was censored, this is by far not the first customer in Brazil that is suffering from that exact same problem with the GC line. It’s always the same - pieces of the hot side wheel brake off. I have another guys pictures here which I’ll post in a second.

 

[mfractal]

So here's the video of my friend's 3rd turbo failure

Vargas Turbo Failure

• mfractal
• Dec 6, 2018
• 3
• failure turbo vargas

3rd set failure, each failed within the first 1500km

And here's another, unrelated failure here in Brazil. I know a lot of guys who had these failed and can get more images of failure if needed. Just don't believe their B.S excuses saying these are isolated cases.

 

[mfractal]

Also where did we exactly say about what revision were these, you're the one, (actually Chris) that claimed these are V1, not us!

Guess i'll have to turn to facebook groups and other forums next with same info to expose these cases and maybe prevent this from happening to others.

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

You are welcome sir figured it may help out to lay out all out there. We have been keeping a close eye on this GC ordeal since intro, its basically just been a train wreck in slo-mo where all you can do is watch and shake the head...

Really not sure how they keep up with the revolving door of broken GC's, meanwhile while they keep building more for new sales for only a larger sample to end up back on the doorstep. Must be brutal day to day dealing with it, and more than likely new sales are needed to pay for the old sales at this point (ie. has to rob peter to pay paul sort of thing).

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

Customer has been reached out to, as previously stated we'll take a look and find out what's going on. There are many possible causes for failures. I don't know the exact history of all that's transpired but after looking through my emails and gathering information, I saw that a while ago I was cc'd (by Tony) on an email where they were running very high WGDC and not obtaining expected boost. The warning was given that the boost leak needed to be found, and that damage was going to occur if they didn't immediately do so. It is worth noting that the warning had to be repeatedly stated.

We always try to do the right thing, the best path forward is always to contact me directly and we figure out what went wrong, why, and get the customer back up and running as quickly and efficiently as possible.

All the above said, I'm just not interested in engaging of manipulation by seemingly informed individuals. If any VTT customers have issues/questions/concerns contact me directly and I'll be more than happy to do my best to help you out.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Customer has been reached out to, as previously stated we'll take a look and find out what's going on. There are many possible causes for failures.

Chris,

Any chance of what is going on is simply that the GC turbine issue was never fixed, through all the changes and even with the latest GC 2.0 Iteration? Is this the first GC 2.0 failure that you have seen that has failed in the same manner as the GC 1.0's had?

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Panzerfaust]

Chris,

Any chance of what is going on is simply that the GC turbine issue was never fixed, through all the changes and even with the latest GC 2.0 Iteration? Is this the first GC 2.0 failure that you have seen that has failed in the same manner as the GC 1.0's had?

Thanks,
Rob

Rob, a shop about 45 minutes away from me posted these two posts in the last ~3 months I've followed them.

Any chance what's going on here is a continuation of the 0% failure rate - aside from the one set that was an admitted user install error, obviously - in the two-three sets you steadily pump out every week? Is this the solid evidence you've been far too busy to post, in the same manner that you're too busy shipping out turbos and fixing other companies products to answer questions on forums that people have posted on your own products? If so, I'm glad I could help.

Or maybe as evidenced by the Precision turbo picture, sometimes shit happens and people misuse things or just have bad luck?

Precision turbo:

 

[mfractal]

....but after looking through my emails and gathering information, I saw that a while ago I was cc'd (by Tony) on an email where they were running very high WGDC and not obtaining expected boost. The warning was given that the boost leak needed to be found, and that damage was going to occur if they didn't immediately do so. It is worth noting that the warning had to be repeatedly stated.

Either you're confusing customers or you're B.Sing on purpose sir. Nothing of the sort was ever discussed with Rodrigo. NEVER. Stop blaming the car and take responsibility already. This is a third set of crappy turbos you sent him.

I don't have a log of Rodrigo's car's run while the turbos broke here unfortunately but here's the log of another GCs that broke, the one i posted pictures of

https://datazap.me/u/mfractal/mandala-v17-ethanol-street-02?log=2&data=3-14-24

Boost leak my ass.

again for reference

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

Just FYI, all the photos (of VTT turbos) thus far are V1.0 GC's.

ALL V1: 10mm 6 point unmachined hex. Many failures.
ALL V2 Inconel: 13.75mm 12 point. No documented failures without assembler error.
ALL V2 Mar-M: 12.45 machined 6 point hex (these will not be found on any GC's until ~2019).

See attached files.

Again, customer has been reached out to, have them send them in, we do our best to take care of any issues, if you have a problem email me, etc. etc.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[mfractal]

Didn’t tony himself say that the last replacement was v2 chra in v1 housing ?

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

ALL V1: 10mm 6 point unmachined hex. Many failures.
ALL V2 Inconel: 13.75mm 12 point. No documented failures without assembler error.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris,

So you have admittedly seen some of the V2's failing, but only those with "assembler errors". How many of these "assembler error" setups have failed in the same manner as the "many failed" GC V1's (ie. breaking a turbine fin/wheel)?

Rob

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Didn’t tony himself say that the last replacement was v2 chra in v1 housing ?

View attachment 20970

He did say this but one would say it just depends on when the repairs were done on this final set. If the repairs were done after around March/April 2018, one would think they would have not been repaired to old specs that are prone to fail. If so certainly shame of the manufacturer for not making all repairs necessary to eliminate all known defects.

 

[Torgus]

I usually avoid facebook but I logged on the other day and the posts based on this thread are priceless. Someone with more time should screen shot them and post here.

@Chris@VargasTurboTech Why is your policy to help 'less' or 'not at all' if someone posts something publicly online per Tony above? I thought only MMP were the assholes who did that? FYI that is about as bad PR as you can offer and is VERY bad optics. Might what to consider changing that policy moving forward. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you provide excellent customer service I think most people would be willing to take down their post showing your failed turbo(s) etc. Just a thought.

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

I usually avoid facebook but I logged on the other day and the posts based on this thread are priceless. Someone with more time should screen shot them and post here.

@Chris@VargasTurboTech Why is your policy to help 'less' or 'not at all' if someone posts something publicly online per Tony above? I thought only MMP were the assholes who did that? FYI that is about as bad PR as you can offer and is VERY bad optics. Might what to consider changing that policy moving forward. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you provide excellent customer service I think most people would be willing to take down their post showing your failed turbo(s) etc. Just a thought.

Would be interesting to see the FB convos, if anyone has them definitely copy them in here. Perhaps some more may chime in here with the same issues, it would be extremely likely.

As for the policy rest assured it is there to keep people in the dark, by keeping the "bad" news away from the masses. Similar tactics were used during the GC 1.0 debacle, tons of similar failures and all seemingly were classified as "assembler errors". That was until we publicized the epidemic, then "transparency" finally become of the companies interest.

And while one above who we have on ignore (we were emailed about it) may want to try to dig up old bones against us as a lame retort, they are digging really deep to get them with long ago discontinued products (literally years). At least try to stay just a little bit relevant to the times if you want to make some point.

The continual hope surely is that "We have taken it to email, customer is being looked after"- turns into "please take the thread down, as we are helping you out" (again). The problem is that "help" only seems to be lasting anywhere from 3 months to 12 months from much of the feedback we hear- and all ending right back with the same failure modes. Then they can just sell another set to another who can roll the dice with their very poor quality output, and start the cycle all over again.

Rob

 

[mfractal]

I usually avoid facebook but I logged on the other day and the posts based on this thread are priceless. Someone with more time should screen shot them and post here.

@Chris@VargasTurboTech Why is your policy to help 'less' or 'not at all' if someone posts something publicly online per Tony above? I thought only MMP were the assholes who did that? FYI that is about as bad PR as you can offer and is VERY bad optics. Might what to consider changing that policy moving forward. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you provide excellent customer service I think most people would be willing to take down their post showing your failed turbo(s) etc. Just a thought.

Would be interesting to see the FB convos, if anyone has them definitely copy them in here. Perhaps some more may chime in here with the same issues, it would be extremely likely.

As for the policy rest assured it is there to keep people in the dark, by keeping the "bad" news away from the masses. Similar tactics were used during the GC 1.0 debacle, tons of similar failures and all seemingly were classified as "assembler errors". That was until we publicized the epidemic, then "transparency" finally become of the companies interest.

And while one above who we have on ignore (we were emailed about it) may want to try to dig up old bones against us as a lame retort, they are digging really deep to get them with long ago discontinued products (literally years). At least try to stay just a little bit relevant to the times if you want to make some point.

The continual hope surely is that "We have taken it to email, customer is being looked after"- turns into "please take the thread down, as we are helping you out" (again). The problem is that "help" only seems to be lasting anywhere from 3 months to 12 months from much of the feedback we hear- and all ending right back with the same failure modes. Then they can just sell another set to another who can roll the dice with their very poor quality output, and start the cycle all over again.

Rob

Here's a relevant excerpt from FB conversation :

 

[Torgus]

The company I work for makes capital equipment for electrical infrastructure. We have failures, we have a customer service department for a reason. We also replace parts for customers under warranty when we know it is very likely their workmanship or an external event. We explain what we believe the failure resulted from how to avoid it in the future and then comp them often. It's how you handle the customer and relationship that matters most. We sell products that cost less than twins and ones that cost 100 times as much. You just have to take care of your customers and they will in turn respect you and not trash you on social media. Unfortunately upgraded turbos I feel are different animal perhaps as you don't care about return customers most times and warranty liability is limited. Short sighted but I can see why if your sales don't plummet and get a bad reputation.

See Pure or RB getting shit on left and right on social media? I can only assume its because when there is an issue they rectify it in a professional manner and or have lower failure rates. Unless MMPs policy has changed it was warranty void if posted on social media iirc. Similar to what VVT's policy above is per the owner Tony.

From a business standpoint you need to factor in warranty replacements and costs into your sell price and business model. It can't all be margin to go in your pocket or for new product development. If you do this correctly you can take care of the very few customers who have issues and have a stellar reputation. If you don't factory this in, or have too high a failure rate, practices as refusing warranty support to issues posted online is a last ditch effort because you don't have the money reserves to correctly take care of your customers or flat out don't care imo. When you pay for a premium product you need to be taken care of if or when a problem occurs under warranty. Otherwise people would be buying zage and frankenturbos on Alibaba left and right.

The math is pretty simple. Know your estimated failure rate given your warranty length and liability. 1 year is honestly very short. We sell stuff with 20 year warranties. Add some fluff on top say 10 or 15%just encase it is worse or you have a history of bad forecasting. This money is then set aside for CS. If there is a surplus at the end if the year decide what to do with it. Keep it in the CS kitty(smart), move it to new product development, take it as a pure profit and pay yourself out, put it into marketing etc. None of what I am describing is a new concept.

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

The company I work for makes capital equipment for electrical infrastructure. We have failures, we have a customer service department for a reason. We also replace parts for customers under warranty when we know it is very likely their workmanship or an external event. We explain what we believe the failure resulted from how to avoid it in the future and then comp them often. It's how you handle the customer and relationship that matters most. We sell products that cost less than twins and ones that cost 100 times as much. You just have to take care of your customers and they will in turn respect you and not trash you on social media. Unfortunately upgraded turbos I feel are different animal perhaps as you don't care about return customers most times and warranty liability is limited. Short sighted but I can see why if your sales don't plummet and get a bad reputation.

See Pure or RB getting shit on left and right on social media? I can only assume its because when there is an issue they rectify it in a professional manner and or have lower failure rates. Unless MMPs policy has changed it was warranty void if posted on social media iirc. Similar to what VVT's policy above is per the owner Tony.

From a business standpoint you need to factor in warranty replacements and costs into your sell price and business model. It can't all be margin to go in your pocket or for new product development. If you do this correctly you can take care of the very few customers who have issues and have a stellar reputation. If you don't factory this in, or have too high a failure rate, practices as refusing warranty support to issues posted online is a last ditch effort because you don't have the money reserves to correctly take care of your customers or flat out don't care imo. When you pay for a premium product you need to be taken care of if or when a problem occurs under warranty. Otherwise people would be buying zage and frankenturbos on Alibaba left and right.

The math is pretty simple. Know your estimated failure rate given your warranty length and liability. 1 year is honestly very short. We sell stuff with 20 year warranties. Add some fluff on top say 10 or 15%just encase it is worse or you have a history of bad forecasting. This money is then set aside for CS. If there is a surplus at the end if the year decide what to do with it. Keep it in the CS kitty(smart), move it to new product development, take it as a pure profit and pay yourself out, put it into marketing etc. None of what I am describing is a new concept.

Superb post.

There's always been the race to be the cheapest which usually entails outsourcing the most, keeping the lowest margins, having the lowest overhead, or some amount of all of the above. Picking and choosing the right areas here are critical to maintaining the best quality and reputation, and sometimes it just means as well that you will not be the cheapest (which is ok).

Some vendors are far too willing to entrust others to do their work, it is an ever-growing business theme for so many out there. The consumers will also eat it up if they feel it is a "better deal" too. It get's more complicated when you do these things and then market the heaviest, only to sell more, meanwhile pretending to be the best (everyone loves to fall for "grandiose data"). All common traits from this vendor and many others involved in the American Greed Culture looking to make a quick buck today with minimal efforts usually thinking quite a bit less about their tomorrows. At some point the wheels will fall off an operation like this, it's just a question of when? Guess that comes down to just how much a market will tolerate it, or how long they can be kept in the dark.

Also when these problems keep manifesting themselves is it truly ok to keep pushing products off on new unsuspecting customers, or does going back to the drawing board sometimes really mean starting over and possibly utilizing a beta test program of sorts? It is not like these problems crept up 3-5 years later after intro, for many it is simply a matter of months which is a very serious quality issue. It is extremely sad that in nearly 3 years now this product has been riddled with the same continual turbine issues, and nonetheless they have been sold non-stop...

Regarding the business standpoint and the "Fluff on the top" commentary- this can be difficult as everyone wants something for nothing it seems. It is certainly a competitive marketplace, and the only thing that will make it for a vendor is a failure rate that is virtually non-existent over many years. As such this 100% has been our focus for years now which has been paying off greatly.

Rob

 

[veer90]

I am so glad I got away from the shitshow that is N54 upgraded twins. lmao

 

[buster84]

So here's the video of my friend's 3rd turbo failure

Vargas Turbo Failure

• mfractal
• Dec 6, 2018
• 3
• failure turbo vargas

3rd set failure, each failed within the first 1500km

And here's another, unrelated failure here in Brazil. I know a lot of guys who had these failed and can get more images of failure if needed. Just don't believe their B.S excuses saying these are isolated cases.

View attachment 20935

View attachment 20934

View attachment 20933

Seriously.... I have a busy life now since I'm in nursing school and I havnt logged into this forum for a while but i found this thread from another GC thread that was linked from google since I was bored and searching for some gc dynos and the only reason I logged on spoolstreet after so long is because of the photos.

These photos you posted are not your friends turbos these were my turbos in the usa of GC 1.0 and were repaired by Vargas with 2.0 internals since that failure. This is highly deceptive and I dont appreciate my photos being stolen and being deceptively used online. For anyone wondering, Yes, the repaired turbos are still running great and yes I need to get to the dyno, but unfortunately that'll have to wait another year until I'm done with school, that is if I dont sell it before hand to help fund a home purchase.

VTT GC Turbos Review (Updated)

UPDATE 3/27/2018 I'm always the first to admit when im wrong and today I was proven wrong. I was only in contact with Chris, not Vargas and because of that Vargas didnt know what was going on. After he found out he personally reached out to me and offered to update the turbos for free. I told...

bmw.spoolstreet.com