November 14,1997

Bill Miller
Bill Miller Engineering
4895 Convair Drive
Carson City, Nevada 89706

Dear Mr. Miller:

Aluminum Precision Products recently received a connecting rod sample machined from billet. We were asked to pull tensile specimens to check mechanical properties and to provide a chemical analysis of the metal to determine the alloy. We were able to pull (2) specimens from the beam area of the rod (one ea. long. and trans). In addition to the billet rod, APP checked mechanical properties on one of your forged connecting rods (BME500) for comparison. Both rods were sent to an independent testing lab for evaluation. The results are as follows:

Specimen No. Rod Type Tensile   Yield   Elong. Hardness Comments
1-Long. Forged 98.6 KSI 91.5 KSI 12.5% 92.0/HRB
1-Trans. Forged 89.8 KSI 82.7 KSI 10.0%
2-Long. Billet 69.2 KSI 60.0 KSI 14.0% 76.0/HRB 7075 alloy
2-Trans. Billet 69.3 KSI 59.6 KSI 15.0%

We are very surprised with these results as the billet rod does not even meet 7075-T6 minimum properties. In comparison, the material we are using for your forged rods have mechanical properties that are over 45% higher than the billet rods. Based on the above data, the raw forgings APP supplies to BME have superior strength to that of billet rods. It appears that the manufacturer of the sample billet rod we received is supplying an inferior product to the racing industry.

Walter E. Howard

3333 W. Warner Ave., Santa Ana, California 92704 [714] 546-8125 Fax [714] 540-8662

Click Here for the PDF version of the above letter.

Bill Miller Engineering, Ltd, 4895 Convair Drive, Carson City, Nevada 89706
Phone: 775.887.1299 FAX: 775.887.0390
Last Updated: November 17, 2015  Copyright © 2015 Bill Miller Engineering
Web Page Maintained by: CV World Internet Publishing