Re: [AMC-List] Trans for 232 six.

[Mark Price <markprice242@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Third.
The high axles only work in highway use.
My mom's 83 Concord 4 door with a 258 six, lockup auto trans 2.21 gears got 28mpg cruising the flat lands of ohio at 70mph when it was new.
It was a pig in the hills of western Pa though.
Dad changed it over to 2.79 and gas mileage rose in town and the mountains. Mpg dropped on the highway, but mom never took it out of town so who cared!
--
Mark Price
markprice242ATadelphia.net
Morgantown, WV


---- Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> 
> > Someone mentioned using this trans, or rather a lock-up version and a
> > high gear (2.53 or so) in the rear. I know AMC used a high gear like
> > that in Spirits and possibly Concords to get fuel mileage up. But I have
> > to tell you, that only works for highway mileage. In town mileage
> > suffers with such a high gear. I'd stick with something like a 3.08, no
> > higher than a 2.73. The auto does multiply engine torque by about 3:1,
> > so that helps get the car moving, but a little more gear surely won't
> > hurt. Those 2.53 geared cars are just a bit on the sluggish side taking
> > off. Unless you're planning on a lot of highway cruising you'll
> > appreciate a little more gear.
> 
> I'm with Frank here --
> 
> I run 25" tires (205/70-R14's), a 2.73:1 axle, and an early 904
> (non-lock up), and a 258 with the later aluminum intake, a 2
> bbl Weber, 2.5" exhaust turbo muffler, Duraspark II ignition,
> and careful tuning -- quicker than stock but not that much.
> 
> The 70 Hornet is a lot lighter than later cars, no side-impact
> panels in the doors etc, so it's pretty much a 60's American,
> chassis-wise.
> 
> 2.73:1 is as steep as I'd want to go; it's about the right
> compromise overall. It really wants a lower first gear; the
> motor pulls hard, but the overall ratio in first is steep (it
> was designed as an economy car...). It will just barely smoke
> the tires from dead stop.
> 
> Yet performance at highway speeds is excellent; 50 - 80 mph,
> I'm faster than most things on the road, it pulls like hell
> to 90mph!  But that's because 68mph = 2500 rpm, a bit fast for
> maximum mileage... I feel like 2000 - 2100 for 65mph would be
> better for mileage, but of course then performance would suffer
> if I just changed the axle to get that.
> 
> AMC knew what it was doing; it picked a pretty good combo for
> overall performance and mileage given a big inefficient six
> and an inexpensive 3-speed auto trans. What did this car cost
> new, $2500?!
> 
> 
> The "ideal" combo for me would be a 15% lower total first-gear
> overall ratio, yet 2000 rpm at 65mph. A four speed and
> axle-juggling would get that (or my T150+OD).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-List mailing list
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com