AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17

[amc-list-request@xxxxxxx]

Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
	amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
	amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMC-List digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: 232 Trans into a '64 American.. (Sandwich Maker)
   2. Re: t-89/r10od (Sandwich Maker)
   3. your Charity case has bought us something to eat
      ......'Paradise City' (Brien Tourville)
   4. Re: 232 Trans into a '64 American.. (Mark Price)
   5. Re: Fuel Injecting the big dogs (Mark Price)
   6. Re: Trans for 232 six (Jim Blair)
   7. Re: Fuel Injecting the big dogs (Tom Jennings)
   8. Re: Fuel Injecting the big dogs (Widiker, John D)
   9. Re; Trans for 232 six (John Elle)
  10. Re: Fuel Injecting the big dogs (Tom Jennings)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:51:57 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 232 Trans into a '64 American..
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200612062251.kB6Mpvt19468@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "Jerijan" <jerijan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" I have just completed the trans conversion from a larger/later (1970 Hornet) transmisison.
" You are correct...the Yoke MUST be changed.
" []
" He took the larger yoke from the larger car's tranny (This is the
" yoke onto the output shaft...the baby one from the '64 is splined
" differently), cut both off their respective drive shafts, and
" rewelded, balanced it unto the American's (Mine is a '65).

non-big-nut americans use the same u-jiunts as hornets etc up to the
mid '70s at least.  you'd probably still need a custom driveshaft
because the new tranny's length is likely different from your old one.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] t-89/r10od
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200612062257.kB6MvHv19557@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: Mark Price <markprice242@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Jim, I think that because the input is longer on this trans it would
" be fairly straght forward to make an adapter to bolt it on to the 196.
" Not sure it's worth the effort, good trans but how heavy is it and
" what all else will need adapted is beyond my knowledge. Just a thought!

i think it would be almost as easy to adapt the o/d to your t14, after
the factory manner.

"    Or, Talk Andrew Hay out of his bellhousing! I think he had one!

i do, but i haven't yet decided what to do with it.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:59:25 -0500
From: "Brien Tourville" <hh7x@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] your Charity case has bought us something to eat
	......'Paradise City'
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <4577130D.56.1E8A2CE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII




"Body work we are correcting before paint can be applied:
Passenger door perfectly aligned to the front fender that's very much 
in
the wrong place (meaning the door and fender are both way off) Rocker
panels are VERY rough and mostly composed of filler at this time 
(anyone
has some it would be nice to weld them in) Rear of roof panel is 
somewhat
s shaped at this time, looks like someone roughed in some filler then 
shot
primer over it (looks BAD) Hood skin is not connected to the hood 
right
now except at the edges, this is distorting the shape and we're
reattaching the two before we form more opinions 

Finding body seams that
were bondo'd over, using an original amx for reference.

The guy who did this work no longer works for Zion and I'm not 
judging
their work by this car... It is however a long way from being ready 
for
paint. They did a very nice job putting the quarter panel on the car 
and
I've got no complaints about how it looks." 
Sgt. Frank.
  

<>


'The Guy' - sounds like a 'real lover'..... Zion is probably taking 
heat from his previous work - and, I'd speculate on where those
parts went - we should give him a blanket party ;)



Biggest worry is the RUST in the seams or ANYWHERE AMC - 

so here is my donation
to the cause:



http://tinyurl.com/qjhhe




get a plastic household sump pump - some garden
hose - a garden sprinkler - some tarps >

set up the tarps under the car on a raised platform
with a hole cut in the center to sink the sump pump.

tarps will contain your pool of rust wash fluid.

set up sprinkler to spray site to be cleaned -

personally, I'd do the entire car and every seam since
it requires zero labor to wash out ALL the rust anywhere
in the car -

7 hours later > you have zero rust - no acid residue -
only  clean pristine metal ready to seal - prime and shoot.

way to go or what - .

might do this after the plastic media blasting -
or do they use walnut shells ?




        =Bt=
  milnersXcoupe
   "The Heretic"



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:14:05 -0800
From: Mark Price <markprice242@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 232 Trans into a '64 American..
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <11916194.1165450445920.JavaMail.root@web20>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Non big nut Americans share that Ujoint with things as obscure as 77 Pinto wagons!
Imagine my delight to discover that the Pinto shaft is bolt into a T5 swap in an American with an AMC15 rear axle! It would have been a true bolt in, except I had to swap the trans yoke to the AMC T5 version. Same exact Ujoint on both. The Pinto shaft is even larger diameter! $20 for the used shaft sure beat the cost of having one made.
--
Mark Price
markprice242ATadelphia.net
Morgantown, WV


---- Sandwich Maker <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> " From: "Jerijan" <jerijan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> " 
> " I have just completed the trans conversion from a larger/later (1970 Hornet) transmisison.
> " You are correct...the Yoke MUST be changed.
> " []
> " He took the larger yoke from the larger car's tranny (This is the
> " yoke onto the output shaft...the baby one from the '64 is splined
> " differently), cut both off their respective drive shafts, and
> " rewelded, balanced it unto the American's (Mine is a '65).
> 
> non-big-nut americans use the same u-jiunts as hornets etc up to the
> mid '70s at least.  you'd probably still need a custom driveshaft
> because the new tranny's length is likely different from your old one.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-List mailing list
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:22:08 -0800
From: Mark Price <markprice242@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <25070995.1165450928335.JavaMail.root@web20>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Just ask Dino over on the Strokers site how well his XJ Jeep runs! It's a mid nineties Export model. Which means no O2 sensor or mass air flow, It's always in "open loop". There were quite a few "open loop" cars out there that run fine. The first TPI kits ran "open loop" too.
Closed loop is better, especially for emissions, but "open loop" system can be tuned to work amazingly well. Call it "old school" EFI.
--
Mark Price
markprice242ATadelphia.net
Morgantown, WV


---- Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> 
> > I haven't seen one -- I don't think it's in stores yet, but check this
> > out:
> > http://www.retrotekspeed.com/
> 
> That's totally great!!!!
> 
> I'll wait to see how it behaves without the other useful feedback
> (air mass and flow, temperature, etc) but I don't see how it
> could be worse than a carb, and if done right, 10X better.
> 
> But I want a 300cfm 2bbl version! Boo hoo!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-List mailing list
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:37:46 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Trans for 232 six
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F33BE6A96AE708B040C42DBACDC0@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

I recall with GM powerglides that the 6 cyl got a higher stall converter 
than the V8. I swapped the one from a '66 Pontiac Strato Chief wagon 
(Canadian with 283 and 2 speed auto) to my '66 Nova with 194 and powerglide 
and vise versa. The end result was the wagon perked up nicely (I could do 
burnouts all day long with that tired motor till I broke the frame doing 
jumps from the upper parking lot to the lower lot at welding school when I 
got impatient waiting to go home and someone had abandoned a truck in the 
only driveway) and the Nova took off at much higher speed from a stand 
still. (It's that inline 6 low end torque liking the lower stall better)


From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Trans for 232 six.
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200612061943.kB6Jhbd17601@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
"
" I'm willing to bet the V-8 has a higher rpm stall converter
than the
" six, so might want to get a new or rebuilt converter.

it might not be any different.  i'm pretty sure i saw a
crossover
between 232s and 290s in the mitchell interchange.  the v8's
higher
torque would give a higher stall.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
in

_________________________________________________________________
WIN up to $10,000 in cash or prizes ? enter the Microsoft Office Live 
Sweepstakes http://clk..atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0050001581mrt/direct/01/



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:55:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs
To: Mark Price <markprice242@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612061854020.5493@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Mark Price wrote:

> Just ask Dino over on the Strokers site how well his XJ Jeep runs! It's a mid nineties Export model. Which means no O2 sensor or mass air flow, It's always in "open loop". There were quite a few "open loop" cars out there that run fine. The first TPI kits ran "open loop" too.
> Closed loop is better, especially for emissions, but "open loop" system can be tuned to work amazingly well. Call it "old school" EFI.

That's really good news -- I'd never heard of anyone running
open-loop *FI successfully. Even carbs are not exactly "open
loop"; fuel flow is proportional to airflow plus and minus. But I
guess if you get the right initial settings dialed in it should
work pretty well.





> --
> Mark Price
> markprice242ATadelphia.net
> Morgantown, WV
> 
> 
> ---- Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> > 
> > > I haven't seen one -- I don't think it's in stores yet, but check this
> > > out:
> > > http://www.retrotekspeed.com/
> > 
> > That's totally great!!!!
> > 
> > I'll wait to see how it behaves without the other useful feedback
> > (air mass and flow, temperature, etc) but I don't see how it
> > could be worse than a carb, and if done right, 10X better.
> > 
> > But I want a 300cfm 2bbl version! Boo hoo!
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMC-List mailing list
> > AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> > 
> > or go to http://www.amc-list.com
> 


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:37:09 -0500
From: "Widiker, John D" <john.widiker@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs
To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<053E34168692C4438533FE33E79C1A181233DC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

 If you blow up the picture you can see MAP written on part of the
harness as well as other connections, there is nothing that implies it
doesn't have an O2 or other interfaces that I can see. Am I missing
something?

~J

-----Original Message-----
From: amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark Price
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:22 PM
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs

Just ask Dino over on the Strokers site how well his XJ Jeep runs! It's
a mid nineties Export model. Which means no O2 sensor or mass air flow,
It's always in "open loop". There were quite a few "open loop" cars out
there that run fine. The first TPI kits ran "open loop" too.
Closed loop is better, especially for emissions, but "open loop" system
can be tuned to work amazingly well. Call it "old school" EFI.
--
Mark Price
markprice242ATadelphia.net
Morgantown, WV


---- Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> 
> > I haven't seen one -- I don't think it's in stores yet, but check 
> > this
> > out:
> > http://www.retrotekspeed.com/
> 
> That's totally great!!!!
> 
> I'll wait to see how it behaves without the other useful feedback (air

> mass and flow, temperature, etc) but I don't see how it could be worse

> than a carb, and if done right, 10X better.
> 
> But I want a 300cfm 2bbl version! Boo hoo!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:36:09 -0700
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] Re; Trans for 232 six
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <000001c719b9$3c404e80$38dc0d82@john1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

 
For information purposes
 
Snip
The V-8 model should bolt right on. I'm willing to bet the V-8 has a
higher rpm stall converter than the six, so might want to get a new or
rebuilt converter.
Snip
However if you are scrounging from scratch that fact that AMC built
far more I-6 cars than they did V8 cars being able to get all of the 
parts off of one car to install a torque flyte transmission is much 
more probable. This would not only include the transmission, but all 
kick down linkage, mounts, brackets, speedo-cables nuts and bolts and
misc. stuff. As the flex plate for I-6's are neutral balanced it would 
not make any difference what engine you got it off of. Yup, V-8 stuff
is usable even if you have to take a BF Hammer to parts of it but for 
one stop shopping an AMC I-6 car will give you everything. For what it
is worth. 
 
Snip
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
Snip
 
Yup, that was me, I have 2 1980 AMC I-6 cars using this transmission 
with this rear axle and they were available from 1980 through end of
production. 
The point being that this is at least one other transmission variation
that is available for back fitting and although the rear axle is
probably
not an alternative due to fit, it points out that this type of 
transmission can and did work with taller rear axles. As far as I know
there were two OEM style torque converters available for this
transmission
a high and a low stall torque converter. My AMX has the high stall OEM 
converter and my Spirit has the low stall converter as that is the one
I purchased for it. It was a mistake that eventually I will fix. The
transmission works better with the high stall torque converter as the
2.53:1
rear axle is a bit tall for the application but it is workable, just not
really so when you use the low stall (oem style) torque converter.
Something
2.7x rear axle might be better at. 'Specially if there is any additional

weight in the car you are switching in to. 
Two things to keep in mind though when contemplating the possible use of
This transmission. 
1-    the first 2 gears are shorter to compensate for acceleration with
a 
2.53:1 rear axle ratio. 
2 - The torque converter slippage is an aid for low rpm operation in
high 
and it does give you torque multiplication to aid in pulling the car 
around. 
 
Of course the torque converter locks up at some stupid vale of about 37
mph.
And this does create something of a slug for some types of acceleration.

By adjusting spring tension for the valve you can get it to lock up at a

more reasonable 55 mph thus improving in town performance on one hand
and 
still giving something in the area of 30mph/1000 rpm depending on axle
gear 
and tires in high leading toward decent on the road fuel economy. 
 
If you have to buy a converter I would opt for the higher of the 2 OEM
style 
Converters at the get go. I intend to replace my converter with a 2000
rpm 
stall lock up converter in the not too distant future for a couple of
reasons,
some mentioned others not. 
 
The point is again, in doing back fitting into older models if the rear
axle 
ratio is below 3.XX:1 there is a lot that can be done with the later
lock
up torque converter transmissions and some benefits to be gained.
Although I 
hear what Frank is saying my Stock 1980 fully smog legal and functional
258 
with the Carter BBD carbureted engine pulls the AMX around quite
adequately 
here in AZ through the city and hill and dale and 7% graded mountains.
No it 
aint a hot rod but it keeps up with traffic well and can get numbers as
high
as 28 mpg using a 2.53:1 rear axle. Now either I am getting more out of
my 
stock 258 engine than some one else is, but I really do not find the car
gutless
out on the road. At least under 80 mph. Keeping in mind of course that
75mph
is the state speed limit. 
 
Now with my Port Injected 1980 258 with a cam and some compression using
the
same transmission and rear axle but with bigger rear tires, it does not
take 
much sass from anything out there on the road. The transmission is
modified to 
lock up at 55 mph and it is adjusted to up shift from WOT passing gear
(2nd) to 
high (3rd) at 75mph and will do it with a firm hard shift. (even with
the A/C on)
Once again the versatility of the later design does have some benefits
that can
be used when back fitting components. There is no way I would purposely
install 
a rear axle in a like weight I-6 powered car that is much over a 3.07:1
just 
so I can wind out the long stroke I-6 and listen to it buzz at 75mph, I
don't 
even like my 390 winding along at rpm at that speed. I would preferably
want to 
run a gear in the order of 2.7x to 3.00:1 if I could but with in reason
 taller is better than shorter in my book for my applications. 
 
Long stroke in-line I-6 engines are not really happy at higher rpms, but
they 
can be built better to run hard between 2 and 4000 rpms and twist
tighter up
through 5000 rpm with out a whole lot of expense or problems.
 
But the bottom line is really this. If you are gonna bolt a whole bunch
of 
stuff together and expect it to run flawlessly the way you want it to
with 
out thinking about the ramifications of the parts you are bolting
together 
you are setting yourself up for disappointment. It is a little bit like
trying 
to use a computer program you are not familiar with and then wondering
where 
the DWIM button is. 
 
(DWIM - Do What I Mean)
 
        
For what it is worth 
John. 
 
 


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:07:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612062102280.12466@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Widiker, John D wrote:

>  If you blow up the picture you can see MAP written on part of the
> harness as well as other connections, there is nothing that implies it
> doesn't have an O2 or other interfaces that I can see. Am I missing
> something?

The page for that new-fangled thing does say it likes a
wide-range O2 sensor. Even the Holley Projection or whatever it's
called stuff says it works better with feedback from the motor
(O2, etc). Most of the bad rep from the Holley etc I notice
are from NOT using feedback -- hence it's totally dependent
on finely tuned maps, which would have to change with tempo,
altitude, air density durin rain, etc making them a total pain
for daily drivers. For drag-racing it would be a LOT less hassle.

Carbs get "feedback" from venturi airflow. They obviously work
pretty well. They're generally terrible at altitude compensation.

tomj

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mark Price
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Fuel Injecting the big dogs
> 
> Just ask Dino over on the Strokers site how well his XJ Jeep runs! It's
> a mid nineties Export model. Which means no O2 sensor or mass air flow,
> It's always in "open loop". There were quite a few "open loop" cars out
> there that run fine. The first TPI kits ran "open loop" too.
> Closed loop is better, especially for emissions, but "open loop" system
> can be tuned to work amazingly well. Call it "old school" EFI.
> --
> Mark Price
> markprice242ATadelphia.net
> Morgantown, WV
> 
> 
> ---- Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> > 
> > > I haven't seen one -- I don't think it's in stores yet, but check 
> > > this
> > > out:
> > > http://www.retrotekspeed.com/
> > 
> > That's totally great!!!!
> > 
> > I'll wait to see how it behaves without the other useful feedback (air
> 
> > mass and flow, temperature, etc) but I don't see how it could be worse
> 
> > than a carb, and if done right, 10X better.
> > 
> > But I want a 300cfm 2bbl version! Boo hoo!
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17
****************************************