In a message dated 6/17/99 4:53:03 PM EST, mattm@optonline.net writes:
> 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. 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.
In the case of the Toyota crash bolts, these are a factory-approved method
of crash repair and therefore legal according to the rulebook.
Just two more of those *goofy* rules......
GHS
|