This may have been covered (I didn't get a digest #3400), but...
GH Sharp wrote in response to Matt Murray
>> While having a side discussion about this I found a TSB doe not ensure
>> approval.
>>
>> Apparently, Porsche DOES have a cam chain tensioner TSB. It was
>> submitted to the powers that be. It was turned down. Somehow, that
>> doesn't make sense.
>
>If I remember correctly, the TSB from Porsche gave the_option_of using
>the oil-fed tensioner *or* the older-style hydraulic one. According to
past
>practice, a TSB or mfr recall notice that *mandates* use of a superceding
>part in place of an older one makes the newer one legal for Stock and SP.
>If_both_parts are still stocked and sold, then the older cars that came
with
>the older part must still use it.
This is why alternate motor mounts for Neons will never be legal via TSB.
No amount of letter writing will convince Chrysler to make a mandatory
change
to TONS of Neons that SERIOUSLY worsens the car's NVH just so a few SCCA
members don't have to spend as much on their hobby.
>I suspect the reason Porsche has not told
>dealers to only use the oil-fed tensioner is that it would lead to lots of
911
>owners demanding that Porsche pay for the consequences of the failure
>of what the owners would claim was a defective or inadequate part.
And why GM/Ford won't do one for SFC's?
etc...
John Ryan
DS/Neon ACR (with solid front mm 98% of the time)
ryan@ctc.com
|