Re: [Amc-list] oops bent 'em again again

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, farna@xxxxxxx wrote:

> As far as I recall there's only about an inch between the top of the oil pump and the upper control arm mount. THAT'S the problem! The full flow won't fit there. The filter length isn't a problem at all. The filter is 90 degrees to the pump and runs alongside the engine. The problem is the new top with filter mount is a bit more than half the diameter of the filter -- won't fit between engine and suspension mount. So a remote mount won't help, those use an adapter to screw onto the filter mount. If you had a full flow filter top you could machine it down to use hoses or use it as a pattern to make a new billet top from 1" aluminum plate, but I don't think there's room even for that. The 50-55 Nash Rambler/58-63 American chassis is narrow up front!

Sure is tight in there!

Yeah, it's very tight down there near the oil pump. I've never
seen one of those pumps, and hardly any of the one I've got.

There's no way I'm doing any non-bolt-on hacks to this car.


I know it's common knowledge a modern AMC six won't fit, but
since I had two cars side by side I did a quick check.

To drop a 232 into a 63 American would require an additional
5 inches of length!  With a "medium" water pump pulley, 3"
or so, the front of the pulley would be out past the front of
the radiator (which is forward of its brackets).

Didn't even check width.

That little 195.6 six is short! Like a longish 4-cyl.

I'm not contemplating any such swap, I was just curious. I still
think the Jeep 2.5 would be the modern solution. Putting one
in front of a T-96/OD would be perversely interesting (though
a mismatch of power bands possibly).  I would imagine it to be
ultra cheap, since that engine isn't very popular outside it's
natural habitat.

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