Re: [Amc-list] why "upgrade"?

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

My 63 Classic has been upgraded a good bit -- Jag IRS, AMC/Jeep 4.6L EFI six, AW-4 auto trans (w/manual controller), T-bird rack and pinion steering, 79 Spirit front disc brakes (plus Jag rear discs), S-10 tilt steering column, power bucket seats from a 90 or 91 Eagle Premier (at least it's somewhat AMC!), and 90s Ford Ranger power booster/master cylinder. Even so, it hardly feels like a modern car. You still have the wind noise and occasional vibrations and sounds from the 63 body that modern cars just don't have. So even with extensive upgrading you still have some of that "old car" feel. I've left the original instrumentation alone simply because the 1-12 speedo is part of the "Rambler look". But I agree with you in principle, old cars should be enjoyed for what they are, not envious of what they aren't! My goal when building was to build a modern Rambler, something similar to what AMC would have been capable of producing had they kept the 63-66 body through the mid 80s. 

I've always felt they should have kept the 69 Rambler (American) sedan and gave it a facelift to replace the Rebel instead of a bigger car, but stretch it to the 112" wheelbase of the 63-66 Classic for more leg room. Drop the Ambo, then use the Matador as the largest car, especially since the main difference between the Matador and Ambo is the extended wheelbase that adds no room! The American could have even had a similar extension and replaced the bog body altogether. Similar to what Chrysler did in the 80s -- using the Volare/Aspen body to repalce their big cars. Would have kept AMC as the compact leader and saved lots of money with just two major car lines (Hprnet/Gremlin then the American/Ambo combo). Could have even left the American name on the smaller one. Then spend money on developing a good four for the Gremlin instead of more car models. I think attempting to compete with the big three was a fatal mistake, and history seems to prove me correct. Just one of the thi
 ngs I'd have considered, but then I have 20/20 vision in the matter working for me now! 

INCORRECT TOM!! My car had the M-35 with 3.31 axle. You're forgetting that the torque converter has a torque multiplication factor of at least 2.5:1 (more likely 3:1). So you need less axle for the same performance. I installed a 3.78 axle from an OD car behind my auto once. Left it in their about two months then switched back. No performance gain whatsoever -- at least nothing noticeable. The only thing it did was increase engine rpm by 500 at cruising speed. A stick has to have more gear since there is no torque multiplication helping it out. Now the stock 2.87 gear would probably have been a dog in comparison to the 3.31. 

---------------
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:38:31 -0800
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

I'm all for -- if you are driving and old car, it should drive like an old 
car. OK scary brakes and crappy tires must go, etc, but utterly modernizing 
an old car -- what's the point? Get a modern car!

The secret is I think as I said before, the 3.77 axle and manual trans. 
With an auto and around 3:1 this car would suck for performance. 

-- 
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