Which was a stupid answer by the SCCA, IMNSHO. There isn't an early
(Pre-carrera) 911 owner that wouldn't upgrade to the hydraulic chain
tensioners. If you don't do it, it's a good way to make a $6000
paperweight out of your engine. Racing around cones isn't worth that,
and if the SCCA wants to turn a deaf ear to it, they can put that logic
where the sun don't shine...
This is the same governing body that completely eliminated UD/BD in STS
because of a single car...the 88-91 Honda Civic. So don't tell me the
SCCA doesn't pay attention to certain cars when making the rules. If
early 911's were classed correctly (Like in BSP instead of ASP, for
example), more drivers would run them.
On May 10, 2004, at 7:13 PM, Matt Murray wrote:
> 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
ASP 1972 Porsche 911
mto
--
Michael O'Neal
Head Honcho
http://www.WhirledMedia.com
emptyo@whirledmedia.com
Boulder, Colorado
720.436.2922
IM: AOL-emptyo1
MSN: emptyo@whirledmedia.com
Yahoo: bambisapartment
|