autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: C&C mods in stock...

To: "Mark Sirota" <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>, "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>
Subject: Re: C&C mods in stock...
From: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:52:03 -0400
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.

Sounds like those same powers should take away the Toyota crash bolts
allowance, since they won't permit the  tensioners.

Matt Murray

mailto:mattm@optonline.net
mailto:mdmurray@gwns.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
To: Mark J. Andy <marka@telerama.com>
Cc: autox mailing list <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: C&C mods in stock...


>"Mark J. Andy" wrote:
>> Seems strange to me that we can write rules that effectively
prohibit
>> turbo swaps on one model of car but we can't write rules that allow
>> competitors in OUR GRASSROOTS SPORT FOR THE AVERAGE SCHMOE to
PREVENT
>> DAMAGE TO THEIR CAR.
>
>I continue to be befuddled about why there's such an uproar about
this
>stuff.  Those people driving cars like this have a solution -- get
>together and get the manufacturer to issue a TSB authorizing the
>modification.
>
>If subframe connectors are so commonplace on Mustangs and
Camarobirds,
>start a letter writing campaign in those circles, and write to the
>manufacturer, not to the SEB.
>
>If there are such reliability problems, then it's a manufacturer
>problem, not an SCCA problem.  Complain to the right people!
>
>Mark
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>