Harrop TVS86 Owners Thread

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Not that slow.

You seem to be an expert in this subject. Care to enlighten the rest of us?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

You seem to be an expert in this subject. Care to enlighten the rest of us?

I already did here:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=753

This quote found in the link below, along with the timelines of the other companies, leads me to believe this is a Harrop problem and not a CARB problem like you said: “CARB is slow”.

Once you have obtained satisfactory test results, the lab will prepare a summary report that reveals all the findings and indicates the necessary E.O. requirements have been met. It is at this juncture the ARB will either (1) conduct confirmatory tests to verify the lab’s data or (2) assume all results are conclusive and proceed to issue of the E.O. This latter step typically requires about 30 days of administrative time, on the part of the CARB. If you have not received any communication from the CARB in this period of time, it’s best to contact the staff person with whom you have previously been working.

https://www.sema.org/files/attachmen...black-book.pdf

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I already did here:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=753

This quote found in the link below, along with the timelines of the other companies, leads me to believe this is a Harrop problem and not a CARB problem like you said: “CARB is slow”.



https://www.sema.org/files/attachmen...black-book.pdf

Reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit.

Great information, but the SEMA documentation has nothing to do with CARB being slow.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit.

Great information, but the SEMA documentation has nothing to do with CARB being slow.

Apparently you do too by missing my point. Do you have an explanation of why Harrop has taken more than four years to get...not CARB approved yet when their competition has done it in a fraction of the time, yet Harrop and their dealers have advertised “CARB pending” since the release of their kit...five years ago? How is that fair to their customers or likely to be a result of CARB being the slow ones when other companies have managed to get CARB approved in like a year, maybe less?

[86MLR]

Maybe they give no care for getting CARB compliance, Edelbrock cover it anyway, well, Edelbrock covers CARB, but from the Googles, that is the least of the Edelbrock superchargers worries.

Maybe they looked it and thought the amount of CARB kits sold wouldn't cover the cost/time for approval.

Maybe they just don't give no care at all for the "CARB approved" market.

Is this CARB thing just for the Californian market?

Are they really that strict doing an inspection in California?

Why does they still have CARB "pending", grey marketing maybe?

Their supercharger is the best looking SC on the market, most importantly their reliability seems good.

My advice, risk it for the biscuit, or, don't.

TL;DR, get a AVO turbo...

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

TL;DR, get a AVO turbo...

It was very hard decision for me between AVO and JRSC. I don't really regret but I sometimes wish I had a second car to put AVO on. It looks like the best designed turbo kit to me with better heat management and minimum lag having turbo so close to header.

Edit: I notice this is Harrop thread. So, to say something about that kit, I agree with you. It makes most sense to buy a CARB certified kit if certification is needed instead of depending on promises that are not accountable.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Maybe they give no care for getting CARB compliance, Edelbrock cover it anyway, well, Edelbrock covers CARB, but from the Googles, that is the least of the Edelbrock superchargers worries.

Maybe they looked it and thought the amount of CARB kits sold wouldn't cover the cost/time for approval.

Maybe they just don't give no care at all for the "CARB approved" market.

Is this CARB thing just for the Californian market?

Are they really that strict doing an inspection in California?

Why does they still have CARB "pending", grey marketing maybe?

Their supercharger is the best looking SC on the market, most importantly their reliability seems good.

My advice, risk it for the biscuit, or, don't.

TL;DR, get a AVO turbo...

If that was the case then the company should make an announcement that they are suspending or canceling any efforts to get CARB approved; they should put out an order to their dealers to remove any advertisements that suggest the kits are CARB pending; and if they valued their customers and didn’t wish to see a suit filed for false advertising then they would offer a buy back option.

CARB approval is expensive and does take time, but it can be worth it to gain sales in the largest car market in the US. Just to repost the timeline for the Jackson Racing’s supercharger: they had announced the kit in spring of 2013, had it on sale that fall and had it CARB approval by November of 2013. Unless they had a preproduction car, at worst they had a car by May 2012 and had a CARB EO in a year and a half.

For Harrop, they released their kit in 2015 and had Aussie emissions in less than a year and have been CARB pending for almost five years. This isn’t a CARB issue at this point. This is a company that is failing to deliver on a promise/statement they made. It comes off as incompetence or as if they are willfully misleading or neglecting their customers.

I enjoy my kit, and I believe Harrop produces a quality product, but I think their failure to timely deliver on their product promises to be a huge failure on their part. Moving forward, I have lost confidence in them to follow through as advertised, such that, on any future products, I wouldn’t buy a “pre-CARB” kit. I’m willing to change this perspective in the future if they can demonstrate competency and/or integrity, or even more communication and transparency, with regard to their products.

[86MLR]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If that was the case then the company should make an announcement that they are suspending or canceling any efforts to get CARB approved; they should put out an order to their dealers to remove any advertisements that suggest the kits are CARB pending; and if they valued their customers and didn’t wish to see a suit filed for false advertising then they would offer a buy back option.

CARB approval is expensive and does take time, but it can be worth it to gain sales in the largest car market in the US. Just to repost the timeline for the Jackson Racing’s supercharger: they had announced the kit in spring of 2013, had it on sale that fall and had it CARB approval by November of 2013. Unless they had a preproduction car, at worst they had a car by May 2012 and had a CARB EO in a year and a half.

For Harrop, they released their kit in 2015 and had Aussie emissions in less than a year and have been CARB pending for almost five years. This isn’t a CARB issue at this point. This is a company that is failing to deliver on a promise/statement they made. It comes off as incompetence or as if they are willfully misleading or neglecting their customers.

I enjoy my kit, and I believe Harrop produces a quality product, but I think their failure to timely deliver on their product promises to be a huge failure on their part. Moving forward, I have lost confidence in them to follow through as advertised, such that, on any future products, I wouldn’t buy a “pre-CARB” kit. I’m willing to change this perspective in the future if they can demonstrate competency and/or integrity, or even more communication and transparency, with regard to their products.

Why would they retract that statement, it is "pending", which means they may, or may not, get CARB, no promises, pending....

As for your "suit filed for false advertising", yeah nah, they used the word "pending", they are not liable for anything.

To much >

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Why would they retract that statement, it is "pending", which means they may, or may not, get CARB, no promises, pending....

As for your "suit filed for false advertising", yeah nah, they used the word "pending", they are not liable for anything.

To much >

I never said I was going to file a suit. I have no interest in ever dealing with lawyers or court if I can avoid it, but just saying.

Oh I see your point. Since they used the word “pending” that means that they never need to get a CARB EO.

If they don’t have anything to gain then why make the statement?

[86MLR]

Marketing!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Marketing!

Exactly.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Apparently you do too by missing my point. Do you have an explanation of why Harrop has taken more than four years to get...not CARB approved yet when their competition has done it in a fraction of the time, yet Harrop and their dealers have advertised “CARB pending” since the release of their kit...five years ago? How is that fair to their customers or likely to be a result of CARB being the slow ones when other companies have managed to get CARB approved in like a year, maybe less?

All I can say, is that you're wrong.

Correlation =/= causation.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

All I can say, is that you're wrong.

Correlation =/= causation.

This is what cigarette companies have said for years with regard to lung cancer. There is such a thing as a correlation coefficient, and in this case, there seems to be a high amount of evidence suggesting correlation = causation.

The application process appears to be relatively straight forward with response times in the 30 days or less for paperwork processing. The biggest delay seems to be if CARB decides to perform their own "confirmatory tests" after a manufacture provides the results of an independent lab. In that case, they are subject to a timeline as follows (max 50 days):

If the executive order requires such additional or alternative testing of vehicles, the Executieve Officer shall notify the applicant of the requirement prior to the start of any other required testing and shall provide the applicant with reasons or justification for imposing the alternative or additional requirements. The Air Resources Board may conduct confirmatory tests at the option of the Executive Officer. Confirmatory tests, if required, shall be performed by ARB within 30 days of receipt of all data, materials, and vehicles necessary for the conduct of the test. The results of the ARB confirmatory tests shall be reported to the applicant within 20 days of completion of all ARB testing. The applicant shall be given the opportunity to observe the confirmatory tests. The confirmatory testing conducted the Air Resources Board shall utilize the same procedure and test type as that used by the applicant.

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/afterm...procedures.pdf

I looked up product executive orders, and it appears that Harrop doesn't have any products that have received an EO, so maybe they are causing their own delays by being unfamiliar with the process. On the other side, it appears that Edelbrock and Jackson Racing have dozens of EOs, but then again, even companies like Works was able to get this done fast, so again, I can't really explain their delay, outside of a lack of effort, which may be partially tied to the inconvenience of operating out of Australia, but at this point, seems more like a lazy excuse than an actual reason.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is what cigarette companies have said for years with regard to lung cancer. There is such a thing as a correlation coefficient, and in this case, there seems to be a high amount of evidence suggesting correlation = causation.

The application process appears to be relatively straight forward with response times in the 30 days or less for paperwork processing. The biggest delay seems to be if CARB decides to perform their own "confirmatory tests" after a manufacture provides the results of an independent lab. In that case, they are subject to a timeline as follows (max 50 days):



https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/afterm...procedures.pdf

I looked up product executive orders, and it appears that Harrop doesn't have any products that have received an EO, so maybe they are causing their own delays by being unfamiliar with the process. On the other side, it appears that Edelbrock and Jackson Racing have dozens of EOs, but then again, even companies like Works was able to get this done fast, so again, I can't really explain their delay, outside of a lack of effort, which may be partially tied to the inconvenience of operating out of Australia, but at this point, seems more like a lazy excuse than an actual reason.

You can't explain why, only speculate.

I can, but am unable to share.

Lets just leave it at, it's not due to any lack of effort on Harrop's part, and that also, CARB is slow.

Did you know the system, is so underfunded and mismanaged, that a consumer hasn't been able to proactively get their own modified car inspected and legalized on their own for almost 4 years now?

For example, you could do a 100% would-be legal swap, but not actually be able to legalize it, because the system to do so is mothballed from lack of funding.

Let me reiterate: CARB is slow.