Re: Re: re re re re re re re oh wait wagons

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
" 
" Here's my quick, informal, pragmatic daily-driver biased, sloppy  
" summary of AMC wagons.
" 
" []
" 
" 
" 
" 59-60 (58-60?) are the "bathtub" americans (Nash-looking); 

didn't the early '50s nash ramblers also look like this?

" 64 redesign; modern looking-ish. I think the modern 232 fits it.  

not sure.  the '65 upper rad support has a z so it can put the rad an
additional 2" fwd, and even then the 232 used a short waterpump unique
to that year and model amc only, though '65-'74 jeeps also used it.

it's possible the 4.0 wp, even shorter, would clear the '64 rad.

" First year you can think about putting in modern driveline without  
" cutting. 65-69 Americans more modern,

you mean '66-9; '65  looks like the '64.

" plainer, but very very handsome, 

bias?  it's not bias when you speak the simple truth!

" 01 chassis always had Hotchkiss rears, but the rear axle design ("big  
" nut") is Unpleasant, but easily swapped with modern.

that only lasted up to the '66 199.  '65-6 232 and all later are
normal.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought