Three Paths After A Long Garage Meeting Sergey gathers with Vitalii and Aleksandr to dissect the GT‑R saga after an unrecorded stream debate. Today he spent about two and a half hours in the bay with Kolya and agreed to outline paths forward. He asked Kolya to calculate what he owes and to propose a new configuration with costs. The discussion crystallized into three development options for the car.
Payments Made, Debts Disputed Sergey has not paid Kolya personally for labor. He paid 250,000 rubles to Raketa for engine assembly and covered all initial engine parts, plus separate gearbox work. After the crank failure he did not pay for the new crank, new bearings, and a new oil pump. He paid 220,000 rubles for a Moscow tuning session that, with logistics, cost about 350,000, and he refused to pay for a second tune because the car broke.
An Invoice For Experiments, Not Results The shop’s estimate lists fabrication of fuel and cooling lines, intercooler welding, fuel station installation, Teflon hoses, and ceramic brakes. It also includes “armature” work for 250,000, multiple engine removals at 200,000 each, and gearbox removals at 150,000. Sergey notes the only thing that reliably works is the ceramic brakes. He refuses to pay for nonfunctional work or repeated rework.
Catch Can, Intercooler, And The Cost Of Guessing The oil catch can selection blew oil through the intercooler, then was deemed inadequate for the power despite being approved. The intercooler was bought and reworked based on claims of supporting 1,600 hp, later declared wrong and insufficient. Sergey questions why parts are being trial‑and‑errored on his car. He insists learning curves should not be financed by the client.
Clutch Choices That Kept Failing From the start he proposed buying a stronger clutch pack, but was told his tuned discs with a fresh OEM housing would hold. The first clutch was burned on the dyno when all‑wheel drive wasn’t disabled, triggering more removals. Now he is told to buy a costly unit rated for 1,500 hp after previous choices proved inadequate. He rejects paying repeatedly for the same subsystem.
Leakdown At 23% And The Blow‑By Storm The engine showed 23% leakdown from the beginning and still does, far above the expected 5–10%. Excessive blow‑by pressurized the crankcase and overwhelmed the catch can. Questions now arise about the condition of the cylinder heads and valves. Sergey sees the leakdown as the root of cascading failures.
A Tuning Process Without Control Tuning charges were framed as fixed per visit, but bills inflated despite little usable progress. A Motec tuner loaded a generic “drum” map, causing throttle and drivability issues in the city. Later, a new tune was promised for 50,000 on a different ECU, but the tally ballooned to 175,000 and even back‑charges from 2023 resurfaced. Lapses like a loose battery clamp led to sensor faults and wasted attempts.
Only Pay For What Works Sergey agrees to pay for the ceramic brake installation because it delivers. He rejects paying for fabricated systems that don’t function and for repeated engine and gearbox removals caused by shop errors. He asks that any future single, successful assembly on new components be payable once. He refuses to fund endless iterations.
Service Ethics And Full Responsibility A proper service standard is simple: if a car leaves unfinished due to the shop’s fault, the shop does not take money. When subcontractors fail, the main shop still owns the guarantee to the client and absorbs the rebuild. Reputation outweighs short‑term losses. Doing work “to the gate” must be explicitly agreed up front; otherwise the shop carries the warranty burden.
A Costly Lesson In Communication Every removal, modification, and charge should have been pre‑approved with transparent pricing. Sergey wasn’t called for consent on even minor items like plugs, let alone major rework. Presenting a large tab at the end, after multiple failed attempts, is unacceptable. Clear written estimates protect both sides from this exact dispute.
Who Sold The Old Parts And Where’s The Money? Kolya sold Sergey’s old parts for roughly 800,000 rubles yet kept no records. The amount is presented as “approximately,” which destroys trust. Sergey expects those proceeds accounted for and returned. He no longer accepts handshake accounting.
A Build Meant For Rolls, Not Digs The original plan targeted about 1,500 hp for roll racing, not hard launches. Despite that, the engine was assembled in a way that produced high leakage and fragile results. The mismatch between intended use and actual build decisions magnified failures. Goals were clear; execution wasn’t.
Turnkey Means The Shop Owns The Outcome Sergey ordered and paid for parts through the shop, relying on their selections and relationships. Turnkey responsibility lies with whoever took the full project and collected the money. Blaming vendors or telling the client to chase subcontractors is not acceptable. The shop must deliver a ready product or own the consequences.
The Brain‑Crower Crank Confusion A used forged crank was procured without Sergey seeing verification video, measurements, or brand due diligence. Only later did “Brain Crower” get mentioned, while oversight remained unclear. Kolya didn’t personally inspect and sign off on such a critical component. On a 1,400–1,500 hp build, that lapse is indefensible.
Test‑Pilot Instead Of Customer Sergey ended up driving the car himself during tuning because the project never stabilized. He backed off when he heard knock or misfires, essentially acting as the safety net. If he had been a regular customer expecting a finished car, he wouldn’t have driven it at all. The situation flipped roles and blurred accountability.
Why The First Option Is To Leave Cleanly Option one is to reinstall the subframe with the engine, roll the GT‑R out, and take it to another shop. Sergey would pay nothing further because the car doesn’t run. He demands his parts remain with the car and an official confirmation that no debt is owed. Given the 800,000 in sold parts, he also expects reconciliation.
What A Proper Drift Build Proved Sergey contrasts this mess with his drift car built for 700 hp. There, parts were chosen once, installed once, and stayed on the car; only minor wiring refinements followed. The shop calculated requirements, sought advice when unsure, and delivered a working product. Planning prevented waste and rework.
The Tuning Money Maze Sergey already paid 220,000 to one tuner, yet later was asked for 50,000 more for a recalibration and then billed 175,000. He was also told he owed 50,000 for 2023 despite having paid through another shop that allegedly passed on only 40,000. These internal disputes are not the client’s burden. The car still failed to run properly.
Leakdown Known, Rebuild Ignored With 23% leakage known early, the engine should have been torn down and fixed before pushing power. Instead, the project limped along, breaking at around 1,000 hp—low for the intended hardware. Failures were mechanical, not just calibration. The avoidable delay made everything costlier.
Option Two: A New Engine With A Conditional Discount The shop proposes a fully new engine—new block, heads, and crank—priced at 5,000,000 rubles. Sergey would pay 50% (about 2.5 million) only if the engine runs, makes time, and completes a season. On top of that, he must buy a new clutch, new turbos (Garretts instead of Pulsars), new manifolds, and a new driveshaft. The extras add roughly another 2.5 million.
Option Three: Rebuild The Existing, Gamble The Outcome The shop would tear down Sergey’s engine, fix the leakdown and valves, and replace only what’s necessary. He would still need a new clutch, one replacement Pulsar, and a driveshaft. Sergey calls this an adventure at his risk, especially since he wants genuinely new parts, not salvaged compromises. The plan relies on a block they once called “ideal” but now doubt.
Kolya’s Confidence vs. History’s Warnings Kolya insists he can now make it right, yet he promised the same years ago without delivering. Sergey repeatedly asked for a budget during the build and got none; only at the end did a large estimate appear. Confidence without process and controls rings hollow. Past assurances do not pay current bills.
Don’t Charge The Client For Your Education Sergey is willing to pay once for a correct, successful assembly using the new components he already bought. He refuses to cover the cost of repeated removals, failed clutches, and incorrect part choices. A bill compiled after multiple do‑overs reads like tuition for the shop’s learning curve. Experience must be earned on the shop’s dime, not the client’s.
When To Outsource Or Bow Out If a shop can’t solve a problem, it must outsource to a proven specialist or step aside. Find funds, pay qualified people, and motivate them to deliver, rather than drag the client through endless delays. If that’s impossible, admit defeat, return money, and let the client move on. Pride should not outrank responsibility.
Write It Down, Stamp It, Agree It Future work must come with written scope, prices, approvals, and warranty terms, not just handshakes. Even spark plug changes should be communicated. Documentation prevents end‑of‑project surprises. It anchors accountability on both sides.
Pulsar vs. Garrett, Facts vs. Blame The Pulsar turbos were said to be about 10% weaker than Garretts at full boost, which was known and acceptable. One Pulsar was damaged because debris entered it, not because the brand failed. Replacing brands to cover unrelated issues is misdirection. Decisions should be based on evidence, not scapegoats.
A Battery Clamp And Other Small Big Things A loose battery terminal led to throttle faults and a wasted tuning session. Lambda sensors failed during attempts, compounding delays. Such basics should have been caught in quality control. Small oversights cost big money.
What Sergey Is Still Ready To Fund He will pay for the working brakes and for one final, correct assembly on all‑new components he already purchased. He accepts buying a new driveshaft because his failed. He will not pay for repeated tear‑downs, nonfunctional fabrications, or retroactive tuning bills. Payment follows results.
A Clean Exit Requires A Clean Ledger If he leaves for another shop, Sergey wants written confirmation that he owes nothing. He also wants his parts intact and the proceeds from any sold parts accounted for. Without this, narratives of “he left owing a million” will persist. The exit must be transparent.
Lessons Every Performance Shop Should Live By Inspect every critical part, control every subcontractor, and test before committing the client’s money. Pre‑approve costs, plan for the actual target use, and build with margin where it matters. Deliver a ready product, not a rolling experiment. If overwhelmed, say no or bring in help.
Fair Resolution And The Only Acceptable Finish Line Sergey seeks a fair resolution: keep the new parts he bought, rebuild correctly, or let him leave with zero debt. Accountability must replace excuses. Only a car that runs and completes a season justifies payment. Anything less means closing this chapter and starting fresh elsewhere.
Turnkey Responsibility Accepted, Payment for Old Work Disputed The builder took a turnkey job, which should include assuming risk and settling internal mechanic issues. Despite that, he wants money for prior work while promising not to charge for the new attempt. A true turnkey commitment means owning the risks from day one and closing open questions with staff. Prolonging the situation only keeps everyone in survival mode.
Previous Payment Pattern Was Strictly Milestone-Based Assembly at Rocket Motorsport followed clear milestones: engine assembled—pay; engine tuned—pay; parts delivered—pay. Each stage triggered immediate settlement, keeping scope and expectations aligned. The current plan lacks that clarity. Restoring milestone discipline would reduce friction and ambiguity.
Commitment to Repair Locally With Zero Liability on Failure The goal is to stay and have the work genuinely corrected rather than leave. If the rebuilt engine fails again, no payment is owed for anything tied to the new motor or the old one. Willingness to pay exists only for a functioning result. That condition protects against another round of sunk costs.
Scarce Parts Turn Delays Into Chronic Stress Components trickle in from abroad, turning handovers into months of waiting. Each missing item can stall the entire chain and erode patience. The resulting tension is real and constant, not a smear campaign. Everyone wants the car delivered, but supply gaps keep resetting the clock.
Take Ownership of Failure or Lose Reputation A responsible builder admits when a task is beyond capacity and proposes a calm resolution. Choosing reputation means absorbing risks and avoiding self-pity. Breaking engines at clients’ expense while blaming “bloggers” only erodes trust. Experience should be gained on one’s own dime, not the customer’s.
The Five‑Million “Stolp” and the Two‑and‑a‑Half‑Million Copay The proposed new long‑block is framed as a 5,000,000 build with the client covering 2,500,000 now. That collides with prior spending that already exceeded this figure on parts. The arithmetic needs transparent justification before any commitment. Vague pooling of costs will not do.
What Counts as Motor vs Chassis Spending The split floats between roughly 2.5m for the motor and about 2m for chassis items like gearbox, driveshaft, and clutch. Crank and block numbers are tossed around at 500k–900k without a fixed list. The original block was intact, making blanket replacement costs questionable. Clear boundaries are needed.
Concrete Prior Outlay: 834,000 on 08 Nov 2023 A documented 834,000 payment covered pistons, rods, valves, guides, valve springs and retainers, head studs, a head gasket set, and main bearings. That list was not a full engine, yet it represents real investment. Any overlap with the new proposal must be credited. Double billing is unacceptable.
Rough Totals Contradict the 5,000,000 Claim Even with a block around a million, a crank near 500k, and a million in other parts, the subtotal sits far below five million. Turbos add cost, yet the long‑block number still feels inflated. The price formation appears desire‑driven rather than parts‑driven. A line‑by‑line tally is required.
Fair Path Forward Requires New Parts and Balanced Terms All previously purchased items should remain recognized, not re‑bought under different brands. The builder should assemble with new components and charge reasonably for labor. A one‑sided order where the client funds another complete motor is unacceptable. Balance restores trust.
Reputation Path, Principle Path, or Victimhood The builder can restore standing by delivering a working car, or burn bridges by insisting on flawed terms. Two years have elapsed with enough time to finish. Professionalism means solving problems without theatrics. Pride without delivery only deepens the hole.
Precision, Documentation, and Cameras as Process Control High‑power builds demand meticulous oversight: multiple torque checks, cross‑validation, and photo evidence at every step. Continuous filming of parts installation removes ambiguity. Such rigor protects both sides from suspicion. Precision is the bridge between promise and result.
Fear of Repeating Failure and the Prepay Dilemma Another promise risks another failure, and prepaying for parts puts risk back on the client. Prior sunk costs make fresh outlays even harder to justify. Only verifiable transparency can partially offset that. Without it, fear outweighs hope.
No Double‑Paying for Previously Purchased Components Pistons, rods, studs, and similar items already bought should not be re‑billed to the client. Switching brands does not justify new client payment for the same line items. Declaring existing hardware “junk” requires evidence, not blanket assertions. Crediting prior purchases is mandatory.
Cap the Cash: 2.5 Million Upfront, All‑New Parts, No More A pragmatic offer caps outlay at 2,500,000 for a complete list of new parts, fully on the builder to make work. The builder regains reputation through a stable result rather than invoices. Past spending is treated as sunk, not a springboard for upsells. After that cap, no further payments are made.
Verifiable Safeguards Against Parts Substitution A bench camera and detailed logs for every installed component minimize the chance of used parts slipping back in. With such visibility, reusing old inventory becomes irrational. If the engine still fails, the upfront sum risks going to waste. Transparency limits, but cannot remove, that risk.
The “Go Elsewhere” Alternative Is Costly and Uncertain Moving to another shop means starting over, paying more, and waiting again, with no guarantee of success. The sunk cost makes walking away especially painful. Renegotiating here remains the least bad option. Certainty is scarce everywhere.
Contracts, Stamps, Deadlines, and Fixed Estimates The deal needs a written estimate with stamp, signatures, part numbers, and firm deadlines. Claims like “it’s impossible to count the work” are unacceptable at this stage. Rough costing is feasible now; vagueness only breeds delay. Paperwork is non‑negotiable.
Reset the Scope and Sums With Clear Arithmetic Assemble a new motor while acknowledging that 2.5m previously spent is gone and not billable again. Apply any new 2.5m strictly to parts with a reconciled list. Challenge the 5m long‑block by itemizing real components together at the table. The calculator should decide, not feelings.
Extras Under Scrutiny: Intercooler, Turbos, Driveshaft, Clutch Proposed add‑ons inflate the ticket: an intercooler at about 600k, new turbos, a 200k driveshaft, and a fresh clutch. Necessity and pricing need evidence, especially where “wear” is claimed after roughly 1,000 km. Failures from debris are not the same as worn components. Each case requires causality, not labels.
Keep Title to Every New Part and Store With the Client All purchased components should be new, documented, and physically controlled by the client, not left for resale. If the builder insists on 5m, then 2.5m upfront must cover a full, turnkey result with no further payments. Ownership and custody prevent later disputes. Control the inventory, control the risk.
Pay for One Successful Integration, at a Humane Price Labor is payable only once the engine, gearbox, and fuel system function together reliably. The client is ready to pay for that single integration if it works. Inflated labor tallies for repeated removals and retries must be excluded. Humane pricing reflects one pass, not ten.
Timelines, Cash Flow, and Intercooler Reality Parts often take five to six months, so cash and scheduling must reflect that. A 520k Level intercooler exists, yet the current unit already supported 33.4s with intake temperatures around 40°C. Solving oiling may matter more than enlarging the core. Hardware must follow evidence.
Oil in the Charge Air Drove Intake Heat Soak Crankcase gases pushed oil into the intercooler, soaking the intake filters and heating the charge. Significant oil volume drained from the core, confirming contamination. Heated, oil‑laden air explains elevated intake temps despite cold ambient. Clean air is the cheapest cooling mod.
Bad Piping Geometry and “From Scratch” Accountability The intake path used harsh angles and poor routing that even the builder now concedes. Reusing GTR Shop’s layout instead of redesigning it was a mistake. Building “from zero” means owning every decision and its consequences. No more blaming predecessors.
No Documents, No Liability, and Dubious Parts Choices The shop operated without order forms, stamps, or responsibility for failures, hiding behind “it’s tuning.” Questionable choices appeared, from a suspect crank to leaky plumbing and a catch can routed into the intake. Such practices compound risk and cost. Process must change before parts do.
Tied by Sunk Costs, Not by Preference With substantial money already invested, walking away means sacrificing the equivalent of an apartment. Recovering funds would take years, if ever, so exiting is unrealistic. The only viable exit is leaving with a working car. That is the north star.
Negotiation Tactics: Bring Technical Allies and Set Tests Enter the meeting with knowledgeable allies to balance pressure and verify claims. Present client conditions, separate parts from labor, and define acceptance tests. Final payment follows only after a stable, repeatable result. Goodwill is fine; evidence is better.
Acknowledged Risks and a Makeshift Engine Room The builder lacks a proper engine room and intends to improvise, turning any continuation into an adventure. Even “at our cost” would still cost time; with client money, both time and cash are at stake. Advice from the community is available, but discipline must follow. Capability must match ambition.
Final Position and Next Step The acceptable route is the second option under strict terms: documented scope, firm deadlines, full transparency, and a capped payment. Otherwise, recalculate the real parts list or be prepared to walk. The plan is to meet, record agreements, and seal them with a handshake on camera to prevent later denial. Trust is earned by results, not promises.