autox-cm
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Reverse

To: The Narbys <narby@centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Reverse
From: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:45:39 -0400
The Narbys wrote:
> In my case, a functioning reverse is present, but the linkage is
> adjusted in a way that it won't engage - to avoid scraping my
> knuckles on the bodywork when shifting to 3rd...or does "not
> reachable"="not functional"?

A maladjusted linkage (whether deliberate or not) doesn't bother
me nearly as much as the opportunity to use a custom gearbox.

Of course, that opportunity already exists, but at least it has to
have reverse.

Why is this being proposed?  What is the supposed advantage?

Mark

///
///  autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Reverse, The Narbys
    • Re: Reverse, Mark Sirota <=