Date:         Mon, 3 May 2004 16:35:09 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Should I "bother" replacing the waterpump?
Comments: To: Daniel Katz <katz54d@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To:  <BAY10-F83piFvUGxEJX00003431@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Daniel Katz wrote:
>parts quality, i wonder if the real issue may be new parts vs
>remanufactured, or more questionable still, rebuilt. also, with used

Just an aside -- I had occasion a few years ago to look up the distinction
btw these two terms.  I made a long post about it back then, but the
crucial point for automotive stuff is that there is no distinction --  US
Federal law (citations are in the old post) specifies that "rebuild" and
"remanufacture" in automotive usage are legally the same word, having the
lesser meaning of "fix what's broken, maybe or maybe not replace worn
bits."  Furthermore that the legal meaning of "factory
re-built/-manufactured" is that the parts were rebuilt in a factory, *not*
that they went anywhere near their original manufacturers or had any
relationship with them.  Anyone is of course at liberty to enter into a
contract that defines the terms more restrictively, but short of that it
doesn't do to put any weight on them...there was some interesting
correspondence from the attorneys for the big second-hand-parts-dealers
trade association, essentially reminding the US Gov't of this fact.

:)
david