Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu> wrote :
>>...Same for Porsche chain tensioners, and Mustang subframe
connectors. If they're making a crappy (unreliable) product,
they should fix it. <<
They (Porsche) did. See below.
and Jodi Fordahl <soundtire@email.msn.com> replied :
>> Porsche has recommended updating the chain tensioners but
won't make it a recall. The SEB ruling on this issue in the past is
that if it wasn't a mandatory recall they weren't allowed. <<
That is true, but more recent rulings have allowed replacements
that were NOT mandatory (crach bolts, driveshafts, etc).
Then "Murray, Mad Dog" <MDMURRAY@gwns.com> replied :
>> To jump on the "Piera" 911 chain tensioners. The Toyota crash bolts for
the MR2, Camry, Corolla, Tercel, and Cressida were not a factory recall.
It
existed as a TSB. Something to the effect of "if the car cannot be brought
into spec use the bolts to bring the car into spec." There were three
different size bolts. For some twisted reason I still have the TSB and
Howard's original letter saying the bolts were legal. They were not a
recall/special service campaign.
If PCNA or Porsche AG sez in a service bulletin to upgrade the tensioner,
that would follow the same presidence as the Toyota crash bolts. I suspect
if King or Mikey reapplied for relief, they might get somewhere. <<
It has been reapplied. Porsche sent a "technical bulletin" to all
dealers telling them about the new chain tensioners and how to install
them on older (pre -1984) 911s. The SEB will be considering this at the
SCCA convention. There have been other changes since this was
last looked at (over 10 years ago) in addition to the Toyota crash bolts :
Camaro 1LE driveshafts, Neon crash bolts, etc, all of which actually
improve performance (which the updated chain tensioners do not).
Regards, mike piera AnalogMike@aol.com
'72 911S (retired AS) , '73 911RS Replica (AP) '93 SE-R (ST???)
~^v^~ aNaLoG.MaN ~^v^~ vintage guitars www.analogman.com
|