Re: [Amc-list] Fire up the way back Sherman, let's visit the 1934 version of the 252

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

You mention winding tight, but not too tight.
Makes me contemplate what I did to my 63.
I once cruised it on the Pa turnpike at 80+ mph for 2-3 hrs.
What axle would have been in  63 Classic, aluminum block car with an auto?
I wonder how tight the thing was wound?
  yeah, I managed to take out the aluminum six in short order.
I can't rememebr if it was before or after that trip though.
I'm thinking it died after, go figure....
Ended up with a cast iron engine in it with JC whitney chrome rings.
I accidently overheated it once it was running on the cheapy rebuild.
good thing too, as the rings never sealed till that happened!!!

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
" I was different before people dared to be different" 

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
> What is the interest in the 252 other than History. The engine dates
> back to 1934 and it developed 75 hp at 3200 rpm. A real power house in
> it's day and application I am sure, sporting a compression ratio of
> 5.54:1 and 217 cu in. It was in production for a long period of time as
> many '30's engines were and by the time the middle '50's rolled around,
> the types of cars and the roads they rode on had changed and average
> speeds were higher and many of the '30's engines were long in tooth and
> short in power and stamina. The 1954 252 developed 130 hp at 3700 rpm
> with a 7.6:1 compression ratio or 140 ho at4000 rpm with an 8:1
> compression ratio if you had an automatic. 
> The lower end components were interchangeable if my data is correct so
> almost twice as much horsepower is being developed  by 20% higher rpm
> running 30% more compression pulling a heavier car at higher average
> speeds than any engine designer in 1934 ever imagined.  The short block
> for the overhead valve I-6 was changed from the original L-6 design by
> relocating the water pump from the generator shaft to the front of the
> engine in it's final configurations and some casting work to get rid of
> the vestiges of the L-Head porting etc. 
> The stroke on this thing is enormous looked at from the short stroke
> stand point, the power is at best anemic compared like size engines
> today and in it's final stages it was about as outdated as any engine
> could be with the only savings grace that it had a lot of company at
> that time. 
> So if it chugged rod bearings as a force of habit or the mains were not
> all that stable or there was a bit of crank shaft whip when you tried to
> twist it tight "but not too tight" what left over 30's engine that was
> still in use at the time was much if any better? 
> Curious minds ponder!
> John
>  
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070605/e78b4138/attachm
> ent.htm 
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

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