Re: [Amc-list] "A Pacer in Your Future"

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

The assumption of front wheel drive is one that I had too for years, but an article turned up from an auto design magazine disproving that idea. A GM rotary engine was to be used, but it would still be rear drive. AMC did some market research in Atlanta that explored various engine placements. Rear drive was the most accepted, with many disliking front drive to the point of saying they wouldn't consider buying a US made front drive car. Funny that GM switched, but GM hasn't cared what customers really think for a long time -- if it's cheaper/better for THEM then is also that for the customer -- like it or not! 

I don't know what transmission was planned, but would assume the same ones AMC was already using. The key attribute of the rotary was its compact size and relatively light weight for the power produced. It didn't get better mileage than similar sized piston engines. That was one problem GM faced -- that and that it produced higher amounts of some pollutants (I forget which). GM just gave up since they couldn't get better mileage and would have to switch a large percentage of production over to achieve any cost savings. Rotary's also have fewer moving parts and potential savings in production costs, but would need completely new tooling -- nothing from a piston engien could be used. So instead of the massive cash layout GM canned the project. They had asked the US Government for a freeze on pollution standards for the rotary to give them more time to fix it, but the gov't said NO. GM said "we'll write the development costs off then". End of engine! AMC had spent way to much mo
 ney on development of the Pacer to can the project like GM could afford to do, so they modified the firewall and engine mounts to stick their six in. They didn't make it wider to enclose the driveshaft -- it was already that wide! That's another myth debunked by the article. 

I don't know if performance would have been any better with the GM rotary or not, I have no clue as to size or power ratings. The Pacer was a heavy car for its size though, so it may not have been better performing even losing a couple hundred pounds. I don't think trimming a couple hundred pounds from a stock 258 Pacer would help a noticeable amount. 

--------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:45:59 -0400
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>

SNIP
Kent wrote: 
I can't help but wonder what the Pacer would have been, had GM not screwed
up the engine deal.  Did AMC change the trannie out to the one that was
used, or was that trannine planned for the rotory engine, as well?  Anyone
know about that?

SNIP

It is generally accepted that the Pacer was originally designed to be a
front wheel drive automobile using the Curtis Wright Rotary engine and a
transaxle sourced from GM. When that fell through the corporate AMC I6 and
the 904 torqueflyte was installed as quickly as possible into the existing
design. If you get the chance to work on a Pacer you will find that the
front sub frame (which has a bit of notoriety as an alternative to a Mustang
II front suspension in hot rods) still exists and is held on to the car with
4 bolts common to the techniques used by contemporary front drive cars. The
fact that the cradle is there does make the car a bit awkward to work on
with the engine and trans combination that came with the car but you can get
a bit of an insight into what it might have looked like if the best laid
plans of mice and men had not gone awry! 

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


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