Season's Greetings.

I used to own, and restored a 59 Chev 1/2 ton stepside P/U. Basically a
farm truck with a starter on the floor. It had large narrow bias ply
tires. Designed that way so when you are in the field, a muddy field you
don't get stuck. The tires just cut their way through the mud till they
hit solid ground. Of course that depends on how deep the mud is. It was
never great in he snow without good snows and lots of wood or sand bags
in the box. Rear end was pretty light.

Woody Halsey wrote:
>
> Dear Great and Wise List,
>
> Recently I have heard my mechanic say two things which do not seem to be
> backed by either the List or Common Sense. I am curious to know our
> thoughts.
>
> 1) He told another customer, "Narrow tires have better traction in snow
> than wide tires with the same tread, because there is less surface to slip
> on." Is that counterintuitive fact, or just plain wrong? This reminds me of
> a friend in France who insisted that her little 2CV (Deux-chevaux) was
> great in the snow because it was so *light.*  I never figured that out
> either (always thoguht "heavy over the powered wheels" was what you
> wanted), but I do know that my Beetle is pretty good and my Vanagon is
> pretty bad when the snow flies.
>
> 2) He told me when my transmission gave up the ghost last year that VW
> waterboxer transmissions were designed in such a way that they can NOT be
> rebuilt. Yet I have seen references to rebuilt transmissions here. What is
> the scoop? I now have two. One in the car, running OK, but thumping into
> first every once and a while; and one that came out of the parts van and is
> sitting in my basement. No idea what shape it is in inside, but I'd be
> tempted to have it rebuilt if possible and put aside for the inevitable day
> when the other one dies.
>
> Thanks and Merry Christmas to all,
>
> Woody

--
R.Feuerriegel
88 syncro