Thanks for the clarifaction. Boy what a thread. More posts from you in
one day, than all of last year. :^)
BTW, Congrats on the win, on my home turf.
Matt Murray
mailto:mattm@optonline.net
mailto:mdmurray@gwns.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ghsharp@aol.com <Ghsharp@aol.com>
To: mattm@optonline.net <mattm@optonline.net>
Cc: autox@autox.team.net <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: C&C mods in stock...
>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
>
|