|
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-18-2015, 05:59 PM
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Alaska
Posts: 516
|
why did they even bother with anything bigger than 3/4 ton?
here is a video grabbed from a facebook page, hopefully linking to the page wont infringe any copy rights. http://www.facebook.com/fullsizechev...14785/?fref=nf
|
|
|
|
06-18-2015, 06:48 PM
|
#2 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: California
Posts: 928
|
Re: why did they even bother with anything bigger than 3/4 ton?
Heh, I like how it's stressing the frame so much that the cab and bed don't line up properly. I also bet that transmission(among other things...) was toast after about 30 feet.
|
|
|
|
|
06-18-2015, 08:59 PM
|
#3 |
|
Special Order
  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,863
|
Re: why did they even bother with anything bigger than 3/4 ton?
I'd expect the chain to snap in that NP203. Hey, where can I get a set of narrow trim rings like that for 16.5s???
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ |
|
|
|
|
06-18-2015, 11:47 PM
|
#4 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: California
Posts: 928
|
Re: why did they even bother with anything bigger than 3/4 ton?
They were chain driven? Holy moly...
|
|
|
|
|
06-19-2015, 01:56 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Alaska
Posts: 516
|
Re: why did they even bother with anything bigger than 3/4 ton?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
