Originally posted by Mr.Biggs
Well Dave, you MAY have me on a technicality, but I won't go down without offering a defense (even tho I don't feel the need for such).
I agree that the term is odd and not based on a rational application thought process, but it is described in the Studebaker Parts Books that way; it's not my description. Yours makes more sense. However, my grandfather favored his belt more around the upper door version.
By the way, the screw holes on the '61 belt mouldings are somewhat different than the '60s, even though the outside appears identical for the J&L bodies.
Well Dave, you MAY have me on a technicality, but I won't go down without offering a defense (even tho I don't feel the need for such).
I agree that the term is odd and not based on a rational application thought process, but it is described in the Studebaker Parts Books that way; it's not my description. Yours makes more sense. However, my grandfather favored his belt more around the upper door version.
By the way, the screw holes on the '61 belt mouldings are somewhat different than the '60s, even though the outside appears identical for the J&L bodies.


] [
)] [
can pounce and drool. 
Comment