But as I think about it more, the bolts are only a suggestion to"help"
bring a car into an alignment spec. They are not required. The
original bolts are available, and the thinner ones that give more
camber are an option. Sounds the same as the tensioner. The original
is available, but you can use the updated tensioner. This seems
inconsistent.
Matt Murray
mailto:mattm@optonline.net
mailto:mdmurray@gwns.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>
To: Teamdotnet <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: C&C mods in stock...
>Thanks for the clarifaction
>Matt Murray
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ghsharp@aol.com
>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 does 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
>>
>
>
|