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

[farna@xxxxxxx]

The Jeep 2.5L will be to wide at the intake manifold though, like all modern fours. The left side inner wheel well hump would have to be cut back, but that's not a problem since it's not needed (since the 53 model!). I'd cut both back if I were doing the swap just to make it look "right" in the engine bay. The only engine that fits with no engine bay mods (except engine mounts) is the small Ford in-line six with cast-onto-head intake manifold. It's short enough and narrow enough to squeeze in by moving the radiator about an inch forward (swap brackets left to right). Might not fit with an AC condensor in front of the radiator though. I helped put a 2.3L Ford four from a Pinto in a 53 Nash Rambler (virtually the same under the hood -- the firewall/heater is different), and I don't recall shaving or "reshaping" the hump. It was an early 70s 2.3L though, and I'm pretty sure the intake didn't stick out as far as later models in other cars. All stock Pinto intkaes might fit up clo
 se to 
the engine. 

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
(free download available!)


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: 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