Re: [Amc-list] If you were me..

["oldcars@xxxxxxxxx" <oldcars@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark, 

   You are actually about the closest lister to me, since you are 2
counties over in Berkley, whereas I am across the state line in Loudoun.

   For sure the 81 has an SR4. It boldly proclaims the Ford brand, which I
am pretty sure was NOT cast into the side of the T4. I think it even says
SR-4 somewhere on the case.

   The SR4 as used in the 4-cyl has a different input shaft - not sure why,
but it is thinner and I believe it is also longer than the 6 cyl input. 

   Anyone have a spare 6-cyl input shaft for an SR4? Or a 6-cyl SR4 for
parts?

   The 4-cylinder cars all had hydraulically assisted clutches, where the
6-cylinder passenger cars did not; they did keep the linkage right up to
83. I had an 80 Spirit 4cyl years ago that had a flaky clutch master
cylinder but it only acted up when the temperature was below freezing. 

   I did get a Jeep master cyl and now will try that out. Not sure what the
Concord master cyl looks like yet so I can't tell what differences there
are. 

   As luck would have it I was given an 82 Buick Century with throttle body
injection. I have the EFI stuff off of it and will have to swipe the intake
and the dizzy. The previous owner had a Goodwrench rebuilt engine installed
in this car after he blew up Mom's last car on the Autobahns when he was
posted to Germany. I got the car 15K miles later (when the tinworms had
gone to town on it), so the engine is very low mileage, even though I have
a good running 2.5 in the Concord. It would be nice to be able to configure
the 81 with TBI so I could toss the spaghetti since it makes it impossible
to reach anything on the engine. 

(Anyone needing a low-mileage FWD 2.5 Iron Duke, let me know. The rest of
the Buick will end up going to the local Volunteer Fire Department for a
Jaws of Life training car and will subsequently be used as a fire source
for practice.)

    The other option for the 81 I have been thinking about is an automatic
from an S10 and I may go that route if the Jeep master cyl does not work. I
think that they used the 2.5 between about 1988 and 1996, although I would
want the earlier years if possible to avoid too much computerized wizardry.
I think that the computer from the Buick does get an input from the
automatic, but I think it is only which gear the car is in and perhaps
whether the torque converter lockup clutch is engaged. 

    I do have a 6-cyl bell for a T4/T5, so that could work too (could use
the 232 behind it), but I would have to pick up a T5 and that would not be
cheap. The 150T is free...and even a driveshaft mod is a lot cheaper than a
T5!

    Fitting a 7-main-bearing engine into the 64 looks like it would be a
chore. 
There is not much room between the 196 and the radiator. I am sure that
there are ways of mounting the radiator further forward, and since the Grem
crossmember would bolt in the front mounts are fine. I could even keep the
Grem bellhousing since it would bolt up to the T-96. The problem is making
it fit in the front. I bought what was supposed to be a 1971 CJ5 waterpump,
but I think that I got a generic 232 pump, as it does not seem any shorter.
That is why the idea of the 2.5 in there is attractive - it is short enough
to work just fine. If I could fix the bellhousing of the 2.5 to bolt up to
the T96 in the 64, it would work fine and since the 64 is the lightest car
I own it would not feel underpowered. I think the rear in the 64 is a 3.31,
but it could be 3.73, which would do fine if I got an OD T96 from the
Studebaker vendor - which would let me keep the stock column shift for a
sleeper upgrade. In this case, not really a performance upgrade, but a nice
economical driver. I think I could even use 65-66 Stude clutch parts if
needed since they had the 194 bolted up to the T-96, if I can find them.

Jim

Original Message:
-----------------
From:  Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:49:03 +0000
To: oldcars@xxxxxxxxx, amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Amc-list]  If you were me..


One, forget the 91 and bring it over to me :]
Two, the fourspeed depending on the build date may be a T4 and if so is
fine to use behind the six.
T4 shares all the dimensions and gear ratios between sixes and fours.
Even the SR4 may be good to go behind the six if it is still good. I'm not
sure what they used in those wagons exactly.
Three, Clutch master? I thought the 81 still had linkage in a Concord, but
if not, the master can be used from either a concord or eagle six or four.
The difference is that the 4cyl had a diff bore that created a stiff pedal.
My only guess is they wanted the 4cyl driver to pay attention to what they
were doing to decrease stalling!
Four, I'd take the American Wagon too :]

My build would be a nice stroker based on 4.0L backed by a T5 or even the
T150, efi and drop it in either the 64 or the 81!

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrc II
" Chronic Pain Hurts"

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "oldcars@xxxxxxxxx" <oldcars@xxxxxxxxx>
> OK, I have had a fair amount of good luck in finding cars, but now it is
> time to do someting with them
> 
> #1 - 81 Concord wagon, good body, 4 cyl 4 speed. Clutch went up some time
> ago and the pedal went down and is stuck there. NOBODY seems to have the
> clutch master cylinder, although the slave cylinder is the same as a Jeep.
> Honestly the 4 cyl is a little weak for the car but it is manageable. The
> engine runs quite well. Pretty sure it has a 3.73 rear. 
> 
> #2 - 75 Gremlin, drove it home from near Baltimore (over an hour on the
> road) and it ran OK. The car was originally from Minnesota and the body
> shows it as it is missing not only a lot of front floor but also the
rocker
> box on the passenger side and this defect even goes up to where the
> passenger seat belt lower mount would attach. Honestly I love Grems but I
> am afraid this one has rust that is beyond repair. Its drivetrain is a
good
> old 232 1-barrel with a 150-T trans. Not sure what the axle ratio is but I
> believe it is either 3.31 or 3.73. 
> 
> #3 - 64 American wagon. Hasn't been driven since about 1988. Flathead 6
> with T96 3 speed, accelerator linkage is messed up. No clue on axle ratio.
> 
> So...looking at the first 2 cars, I have a great drivetrain in one and a
> good body in the other. I guess I will need to move over the crossmember
to
> move the 232 and 3 speed into the Concord, and of course it would mean no
> way to get it through smog tests so it would always have to be registered
> as an antique. It looks like I would have to modify the shifter hole since
> they don't match up perfectly. The Grem has a multi-pattern bell so I do
> know it has holes for a T96 but doubt it would work for the SR4 and anyway
> it is the 4-cyl version. I had bought a bell for the 6cyl SR4/T4/T5, but
> not sure I would want to pay the cost of a T5, and I am not sure that the
> internal clutch parts from the 150T would work with any other trans. 
> 
> So, should I merge the two? 
> 
> That would open up another possibility, since I am not too fond of the
idea
> of the flathead (although it ran well when parked). Since the American
> wagon is much lighter than the Concord wagon, the Iron Duke should do
> better there. The question would be whether I could get the 1964 clutch
> internals to work in the bell from the 81 2.5, and also whether I could
> modify the 2.5 liter clutch housing to work with the T96 - it looks like
at
> least a couple of the transmission housing front bolts would line up; not
> sure whether the center hole for the input shaft would be the same. The
T96
> is already in place and working, and anyway I know where I can get a brand
> new (open driveshaft) T96 with OD from a Studebaker parts vendor, so I
have
> a built-in upgrade path. 
> 
> I saw a Car Craft article (URL is
>
http://www.carcraft.com/projectbuild/116_0703_rambler_american/photo_01.html
> ) where they swapped a Gremlin cross member into a 67 American. So, I
> figure that the 4-cyl crossmember would work in the 64 American. 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Jim
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE


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