Re: [Amc-list] Cam Bearings 195.6 OHV

[JOE FULTON <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for explaining the oil line routing.  I'm gonna
use the full flow oil pump and filter arrangement that
came on my 1965 block.  I plan to use the 1963 block
now so I guess I will route the oil line like it was
routed on the 65 block.  I'll have to check my
pictures.  However, the Kanter web site order sheet
does ask for the specific engine number (build date
presumably) for 1961 engines when ordering cam
bearings so I wonder what sort of change was made in
1961.

Joe Fulton
--- Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> The change I was referring to was for oiling the
> head, which was in 64. The cam and first bearing
> changed so that the cam metered oil going to the
> head instead of a straight feed as in earlier
> engines. Some late 63 models may also have the
> change. I seem to recall that the change was made in
> May of 63, so late 63 models will have it also. Easy
> to spot -- the early models have one oil line
> running from the main galley to a T in the head,
> then to the filter. The late 63-65 models have two
> separate oil lines -- one from the main galley to
> the filter and another from the front cam bearing
> (side of block just above main galley "hump", near
> front) to the head. The front bearing has to have a
> hole in the side to match the head oiling hole. Easy
> enough to drill it after the cam bearing is
> installed if you get an older bearing set, or plug
> the hole and switch to the old oil line routing. 
> 
> Andre Jacobs discovered that there was a change in
> cam bearing size for 1965 built engines. Not sure
> exactly when the change occurred, but nearly all
> 1965 built 196s have a smaller cam bearing than
> earlier models. Neither of us could figure out why
> in blazes AMC would change the cam bearing size on
> an engine scheduled to be discontinued the following
> year! I don't recall the size of the bearings --
> maybe they are the same as the 232 and it was such a
> minor casting and machining change that it saved a
> few bucks? I have no idea WHY the change, and I
> don't know if the bearings are the same as the
> 199/232 or not. It's just a wild guess. The old size
> worked fine from 1940 (41 models) to 1964 -- why
> change it the last year?? 

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list