Check with the 911 guys who had the timing tensioners that WOULD
fail (using OEM parts). Very expensive repair (probably more than
a Fiero is worth) when they did let go (valve vs. piston). The
only choice was for the tensioners to be replaced on a regular
basis. Mike Piera argued this for many years for his '72 911T (or
was it an "S"?). Not that many early seventies 911s then or now
in Solo 2 stock configuration.
Matt Murray
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Ryan" <george.ryan@sbcglobal.net>
> In a message dated 5/7/04 21:43:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Smokerbros@aol.com writes:
> >
> > I guess if not allowing Fiero drivers to update/backdate in
a way that
> > no other cars are allowed to is looking down our nose at
Fieros, then
> > yes, we're guilty as charged.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> My question for you - - What's wrong with making a unique
allowance
> for a unique car? The Fiero is different, there are no other
cars out there
> quite like it. So the Fiero community asks for a little
consideration to
> accomodate their uniqueness, what it is wrong with that??
>
> Actually, the answer I once received from someone very high in
the
> SCCA Solo program was that there weren't enough Fieros
competing
> at the National level to warrant that type consideration. In
reality, the
> reason that there are so few in National level competition is
just the
> opposite - most Fiero drivers don't want to waste their time
and money
> only to be a backmarker. That is the role that the SCCA has
relegated
> to the Fiero owners/drivers through their regulations - since
the early
> 90's, even a hot-shoe driver could not be Nationally
competitive in a
> Fiero the way the rules have been. (The V6 Fiero was very
competitive
> until then, if you recall)
>
> I could list a host of travesties by the SCCA against our
community
> since the early 90's - for example, how about them classing a
90hp
> 2700lb car ( the 2.5L four cylinder Fiero) against the Neon for
years
> and years, refusing to re-class it even when petitioned? Can
you,
> Charlie (or anybody else for that matter) offer a reasonable
explanation
> for that decision???
>
> But what's the point - -. In any case, I hope the SCCA marches
on in
> their current direction. I would rather the SCCA sanction
go-karts and
> drifting, and leave the real grassroots stuff to clubs that
know how to run
> a motorsports organization - - and offer a user-friendly
website for it's
> members use to boot!
>
> G
|