I do not "know" the CRRC engine you refer to. I do know the CRRC track recod, and to date it is rather dismal. I prefer not to use the consuming public as the product testing grounds. It is not right to have the public buy a product and be used as consumer guinea pigs for product performance testing, which is something commonly done with a great many Chinese engine producers. A list of those makes is quite long, and CRRC is one of them. If and when CRRC completes extensive pruduct testing, and substantially improves on their current level of QA, it could become a viable product for the consuming market. Do you KNOW how long the engine will last, it's true output, or explored failure potential? Have you or CRRC performed life cycle and destructive failure analysis? Have you mapped cylinder porting and performed fuel maps on 10 or more engines to establish consistency? I'm prone to think not. There's been an ocean of grief generated by the number of new engines that "looked good" and priced right but failed to perform for any length of time.

Because you sell and service a product line does not make the product a good one. It only means you make money from your efforts. Not a bad thing but not proof of quality. Prove the validity of your statements, and in doing so you would start generating some sales. Looks fine and seeing a spec sheet tells people nothing. You could probably name all the other engines that provided the same"data" to excite people to buy on price and looks alone.

My original point remains the same. Buy what one knows will work, and work all the time, or be prepared to deal with issues that have no resolution. Be prepared to accept the responsibility for your actions and not blame others when you make a bad call.