GH Sharp wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that sounds familiar.
IMHO, this "past practice" needs to be updated. It needs to be okay to
honor these TSB's, as that would get the SFC monkey (and its cousins)
off our backs. Then we'd be able to legitimately tell people to go
complain to the manufacturers.
Can anyone come up with a TSB that would be "dangerous" if the practice
were changed to allow either the newer or older part, even if the newer
one isn't actually mandated? I know the reason it's there is to prevent
the situation where once the TSB is issued, everyone *has* to go spend
money on their car to be competitive. (If that happened, by the current
rule, everyone might have to actually go buy a newer car to get one
legally with the updated part!)
I'm not at all persuaded by Phil's comment that the manufacturer won't
be willing to admit that they made a mistake. Bullpuckey. I'll have
to hunt through my TSB folder to find some counterexamples, but I'm
confident there are some.
Mark
|