Quote:
Originally Posted by mjorgensen
.........
Some circles cannot by any means endorse the removal of ANY emissions device for a non off road application and that is exactly why I think they choose the wording the way they do, end of story...
|
Exactly, Mark. It has always been this way with Fed Emissions. The Chrysler Lawyers will NEVER (and HAVE NEVER) let it appear that any endoresemnt or recommendation is being made of such horrendous devices that are melting glaciers worldwide...The Feds are here to help us. The lawyers are doing good work, the FINES are catastrophic.
Those same lawyers probably advised Chrysler to say NOTHING....so that is probably why it seems so ________ (
weird / strange / obvious / appropriate? / inappropriate ?) that the VCA is the mouthpiece.
It is also historic. The warranty process from 4/94 til 2007 was written one way, but performed with a different, relaxed philosophy. Taken along with HUGE parts price increases, Methinks this historic and ___________ post may be a bow-shot of sorts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Y2K5SRT;2541154[COLOR=red
]........Rich - I am not going to comment on the source other than to say they have a vested interest in this. We had been asked to keep it confidential.[/color]
Thanks for your understanding, Chris............
|
Now THIS reply sure says a lot... Just some of those with a 'vested interest' in minimizing Belanger sales: A+A headers; C+C headers; ABC headers, HMFer headers, ERA headers, KUUK headers, etc etc etc.... {notice I did NOT mention any name brands...) Thanks for YOUR understanding....
PS: Late Edit from DORIS:
VCA POSTING POLICY # 9: "Negative statements about vendors, customers, or others must be first hand, and substantiated. Furthermore, we reserve the right to hold negative posts until substantiated, and to give the parties reasonable time to work it out. "