Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
Neither am I. However, there is a distinct philosophical issue that we should be all keep in mind...



But Chris, it *is* about performance. Are there not options available in final drives and limited slips that cost less, last longer, and don't get as hot, yet offer lesser performance?

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

So the philosophical argument here, noted earlier in the thread, is neatly summed up by the "warts and all" description. You choose your car, you learn its limitations, and you prep within those limits. Can't use the much-faster final drive design and LSD without blowing up? Then choose one that lasts longer; it's your decision to make. Yep, you may not be as fast, but you'll certainly spend less money (after all, this is about cost and dependability, not performance, right...?) Within the current philosophy of the rules everyone works within the limits of their vehicles either by replacing the parts on a regular basis, or choosing a different car more suited to their limitations.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of diff coolers, as long as you recognize that it's a FAR more complex issue than about just "about dependability" or "spending less money". Since both of those options are currently available to you with different rear-end parts, it's really actually about performance, AND dependability AND about spending less money.

GA
This.

Couple of points though. The Quad4 cars were given rear discs to replace their stock rear drums, allegedly because there was a problem with them. I've asked about this several times, but nobody seems to know when and why this seemingly radical departure from the IT philosophy was allowed. And IIRC, in response to a request for something that would increase engine longevity, the AS folks were pretty much told that increased longevity was deemed to be a competitive advantage.

BTW, I've ignored the nonsense from the guy w/ the 242 Volvo because, well, just because!