Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic brake drum weights
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic brake drum weights
- From: Joe <jgray_55@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
I have to use a spacer to make them fit anyway due to the deep recessed center of the front drums. BUT no way is there a thick enough spacer to clear these weights on the left drum.It is odd...one drum has NO weights, other one has three BIG weights?? HOW could the drum be that out of balance? Years ago i knocked weights off of drums to put mags on and never had an issue. But then again...i've never seen a drum with that large of weights? It has three end to end? Thankyou,Joe
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx <amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx <amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Amc-list Digest, Vol 21, Issue 18
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 12:24 AM
> Send Amc-list mailing list submissions to
> amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of Amc-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: proper transmission lube, was Re: T-96 woes...
> (Ken Ames)
> 2. Re: T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant) (Frank
> Swygert)
> 3. Re: proper transmission lube, was Re: T-96 woes...
> (Sandwich Maker)
> 4. Re: 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights (Frank Swygert)
> 5. Re: The Pickens Plan (not) (Archimedes)
> 6. Re: The Pickens Plan (not) (Joe Fulton)
> 7. Re: T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant) (Glen Hoag)
> 8. Re: T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant)
> (Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> 9. Re: The Pickens Plan (not) (Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> 10. Re: 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights
> (Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> 11. Re: T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant) (Glen Hoag)
> 12. Re: 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights (Joe Fulton)
> 13. 65 classic headlight bezels (Ron Barwell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:35:26 -0600
> From: Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] proper transmission lube, was Re:
> T-96 woes...
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <1220988926.48c6cffec4ef3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> nnb. Actually, bronze is copper/tin. : )
>
> Ken
>
>
> Quoting "(Sandwich Maker)"
> <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >
> > " From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
> > "
> > " Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > " > Follow the link.
> > " >
> > " >
> http://www.jeepsunlimited.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8261620
> > " >
> > " > Most of the reasoning is covered.
> > "
> > " There's an excellent post in there
> (twmattox) (with those foolish things
> > " I think called "facks") which reminds
> me of one of the critical deciding
> > " factors in gear oil: is there brass/bronze in
> there, or not?
> > "
> > " * Old transmissions (T-96...) with plain
> bearings and brass synchronizer
> > " gears CANNOT use "extreme pressure"
> additives, eg. anything with sulphur
> > " (sulphates, etc) as those EAT COPPER AND ZINC
> METAL (that's in
> > " brass/bronze).
> > "
> > " * That's a separate issue from the
> viscosity choice stuff that's partly
> > " subjective and use-based.
> > " _______________________________________________
> >
> > also true of some newer trannies. i don't recall
> if it's the ax15 or
> > nv3550 or both, but jeep/chrysler expressly forbids
> use of gl5 gear
> > lube and specs gl4, for this reason. gl5 will eat
> those synchros.
> >
> > nb. brass is copper/zinc; bronze is copper/lead.
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > Andrew Hay the genius
> nature
> > internet rambler is to see
> what all have seen
> > adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and think
> what none thought
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amc-list mailing list
> > Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:43:41 -0400
> From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant)
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <48C6D1ED.4060102@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I read your previous post and think I see the problem now.
> AMC *DID*
> recommend ATF in the T-5 in 1982. That caused problems, and
> you probably
> had to fix quite a few! I also went back and took a closer
> look at the
> 1983 supplement. There IS a different lube recommendation!!
> I missed it
> the first time... T4 and T5 lube changed to AMC/Jeep SAE 90
> or 80W-90
> Gear Lubricant. I bet there was a tech bulletin that came
> out sometime
> in 82 as well. Feel better now? ;> -------------- Date:
> Tue, 09 Sep 2008
> 16:32:19 +0000 From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx No, I'm
> not. I'm also not
> going to argue about it... -------------- Original message
> ---------------------- From: Frank Swygert
> <farna@xxxxxxx>
>
> > > directly from 1982 TSM (83 was a supplement to
> the 82, nothing different about
> > > lube in the supp):
> > >
> > > "The recommended lubricant for the SR4
> transmission is SAE 85W-90 Lubricant, API
> > > Grade GL-5. T4 and T5 transmissions should be
> refilled with AMC Automatic
> > > Transmission Fluid or equivalent labeled Dexron
> II. Use the correct fluid
> > > whenever adding or replacing transmission
> lubricant."
> > >
> > > Mark, you may be thinking about the SR4 instead
> of the T4/T5. I bet you worked
> > > on a lot more SR4s than the Ts!
> > >
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] proper transmission lube, was Re:
> T-96 woes...
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID:
> <200809091942.m89JgU118660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> " From: Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>
> "
> " nnb. Actually, bronze is copper/tin. : )
>
> oops! you're right. maybe i'm thinking of
> 'marine bronze'.
>
> " Quoting "(Sandwich Maker)"
> <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> "
> " >
> " >
> " > nb. brass is copper/zinc; bronze is
> copper/lead.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay the genius
> nature
> internet rambler is to see what
> all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and think what
> none thought
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:48:22 -0400
> From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <48C6D306.1000507@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'd probably knock the weight off too if a spacer
> won't work, but bear in mind that if there IS an
> imbalance that can't be corrected by balancing the tire
> you might have to get another drum... or switch to disk
> brakes!
>
> Use the kit for 68-69 Javelin/AMX from www.scarebird.com.
> Under $400 including the Scarebird kit, there's about
> $200 more in parts you need to find, parts list with numbers
> included with the kit. It fits all AMCs as far as I can
> figure out -- I test fit it on a 63 Classic, 65 American,
> and 63 American. You use the drum spindle with the kit.
>
> -----------
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:56:09 +0000
> From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I once machined the balanced Lip off of rear drums on a
> half ton checy truck to fit 6 lug Jeep wheels.
> No vibration resulted, but they were on the rear.
> If you could find a shop that still spin balances on the
> car they could balance out any vibration should it occur.
>
> I'd agree with Frank and install a spacer if one will
> fit and allow the wheel/tire to still fit the car.
>
> If not, I'd get out the hammer and knock the weight
> off...
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:04:46 -0400
> From: Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID:
> <5.1.0.14.1.20080909150725.042aa8a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> >ethanol from starch is -very- short term, for all the
> negative reasons
> >you cite, plus it's a very inefficient use of the
> plant. the only
> >thing it has going for it is 'off-the-shelf'
> technology. cellulosic
> >ethanol is more efficient and could use many plants on
> sub-prime
> >arable land, but it still isn't a good fuel
> strategy.
>
>
> Alcohol made with switchgrass ("cellulosic")
> isn't efficient at all, either. The best hope for
> alcohol is these new algae farms:
>
> http://e85.whipnet.net/alt.fuel/algae.html
>
> http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/Home.asp
>
> Said it before, but... I think for a plant-based fuel
> infrastructure, the solution is to grow in the oceans or at
> least on floating farms. The main benefits there might
> simply be the fact that massive production wouldn't take
> up scarce land, unlike growing corn for ethanol. There are
> a bunch of researchers trying to figure out how to
> profitably harvest plant oil with algae. I think that's
> where the fuel revolution will start. The method is showing
> a lot of early promise; I hope the kinks get worked out
> quickly.
>
>
> >brazil tried to go 100% ethanol. okay, they're a
> small economy.
> >okay, they stuck with conventional fermentation. but
> their plan was
> >pretty close to a total failure.
>
>
> Actually they've made a pretty good go of it, and it
> continues to this day:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
>
> The biggest problem with it is the fact that they don't
> have the wealth to protect massive areas of rainforest; as a
> result, mostly due to increasing demand for imported alcohol
> by the United States, the Brazilians are ripping up
> increasingly massive stretches of life-intense rain forest
> every year.
>
>
> >butanol isn't infinitely soluble in water; 7%
> saturates, so it can be
> >pumped around the country via the pipeline system.
> butanol can be
> >poured straight into the tank of virtually all efi
> vehicles on the
> >road -right-now-, if butanol.com's experience with
> a '94 buick is any
> >guide. and i think developing large scale
> 'cellulosic butanol' would
> >be little more effort than is now being put to similar
> ethanol research.
> >
> >i'm not convinced that butanol is -the- answer, but
> i am convinced
> >it's a -much-better- answer than ethanol.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> In the meantime, the technology **is** available to reduce
> usage of gasoline. It just costs more than the current
> tech:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Intrepid_ESX
>
> If every greenie would just plunk down $80k on
> Chrysler's lap and demanded to buy an ESX3, Chrysler and
> other companies would have immediately responded to the
> demand and *found* the technology to bring costs down.
>
> Heck, those who had their panties in a twist about oil had
> the opportunity to do something about it long ago, but they
> refused: Even when low-tech cars with great fuel mileage
> have been offered by the domestic producers, greenies
> refused to buy them. AMC had its 40 mpg Alliance. The
> Chevette diesel in the 80's got an honest to goodness 50
> mpg. The 90's Geo Metro (OK, it was a captive import)
> got 53 mpg. Even the mid-nineties Saturn SC models would
> get above 40 mpg with a 5 speed. None of these cars sold in
> great numbers. But then Toyata brings out the Prius and
> suddenly the noses go up into the air and mileage becomes
> fashionable for the well-heeled left.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <35460.81010.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Ethanol from food grade stock might be short term and might
> be diadvantageous for other reasons, but there is a movement
> afoot to produce it from waste biomass, namely municipal
> solid waste. There's at least one pilot plant operating
> now in a southern city. forget where.
>
> Joe Fulton
>
> --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)
> > To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 1:04 PM
> > >ethanol from starch is -very- short term, for all
> the
> > negative reasons
> > >you cite, plus it's a very inefficient use of
> the
> > plant. the only
> > >thing it has going for it is
> 'off-the-shelf'
> > technology. cellulosic
> > >ethanol is more efficient and could use many
> plants on
> > sub-prime
> > >arable land, but it still isn't a good fuel
> > strategy.
> ://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:56:49 -0500
> From: Glen Hoag <hoag@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant)
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <200809092058.m89Kw3Cf1440006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> I have the technical bulletins in the 77-82 bound volume.
>
> In fact, this was the subject of a recall. Campaign number
> 8207,
> NHTSA number 82V-126. It covers Kenosha-built Concord,
> Spirit, and
> Eagle models with either the T4 or T5 transmission, vin
> 1xxxxxxxxxx100019 through 1xxxxxxxxxx723607.
>
> Technical Bulletin 2-05-82, dated 11 Nov 1982, changes the
> lubricant
> specification for T4 and T5 transmissions from Dexron II to
> SAE
> 80W-90 or 85W-90 API Grade GL-5 gear lubricant and lists
> fill
> capacities for in-service refills and dry fills. It also
> changes the
> lubricant specification for the Model 129 transfer case
> from 10W-30
> motor oil to Dexron II. This bulletin supercedes bulletins
> 2-01-82
> and 2-03-82, which are not included in the bound volume.
>
> Technical Bulletin 2-06-82, dated 3 Jan 1983, covers the
> recall
> campaign and includes a copy of the letter sent to vehicle
> owners. The instruction is to drain and replace the fluid,
> and to
> paint the drain plug red to indicate that the fluid had
> been changed
> under the recall campaign. Curiously, it introduces a new
> part
> number, 8983 000 000, for the transmission lubricant to be
> used only
> in T4/T5 transmissions.
>
> --Glen
>
>
> At 02:43 PM 9/9/2008, you wrote:
> >I read your previous post and think I see the problem
> now. AMC *DID*
> >recommend ATF in the T-5 in 1982. That caused problems,
> and you probably
> >had to fix quite a few! I also went back and took a
> closer look at the
> >1983 supplement. There IS a different lube
> recommendation!! I missed it
> >the first time... T4 and T5 lube changed to AMC/Jeep
> SAE 90 or 80W-90
> >Gear Lubricant. I bet there was a tech bulletin that
> came out sometime
> >in 82 as well. Feel better now? ;> --------------
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008
> >16:32:19 +0000 From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx No,
> I'm not. I'm also not
> >going to argue about it... -------------- Original
> message
> >---------------------- From: Frank Swygert
> <farna@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > > > directly from 1982 TSM (83 was a supplement
> to the 82, nothing
> > different about
> > > > lube in the supp):
> > > >
> > > > "The recommended lubricant for the SR4
> transmission is SAE
> > 85W-90 Lubricant, API
> > > > Grade GL-5. T4 and T5 transmissions should
> be refilled with AMC
> > Automatic
> > > > Transmission Fluid or equivalent labeled
> Dexron II. Use the
> > correct fluid
> > > > whenever adding or replacing transmission
> lubricant."
> > > >
> > > > Mark, you may be thinking about the SR4
> instead of the T4/T5. I
> > bet you worked
> > > > on a lot more SR4s than the Ts!
> > > >
> >--
> >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://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:21:03 +0000
> From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant)
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <090920082221.16898.48C6F6CF000D3225000042022216525856CDCBCD0A0C079D9F059D0E03@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> That's better.
> It feels good to be right once and a while.
> Shallow perhaps,
> But good nonetheless :]
>
> Thanks guys!
>
> --
> Mark Price
> Morgantown, WV
> 1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
> 2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrac II
> " I realize that death is inevitable.
> I just don't want to be around when it happens! "
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Glen Hoag <hoag@xxxxxx>
> > I have the technical bulletins in the 77-82 bound
> volume.
> >
> > In fact, this was the subject of a recall. Campaign
> number 8207,
> > NHTSA number 82V-126. It covers Kenosha-built
> Concord, Spirit, and
> > Eagle models with either the T4 or T5 transmission,
> vin
> > 1xxxxxxxxxx100019 through 1xxxxxxxxxx723607.
> >
> > Technical Bulletin 2-05-82, dated 11 Nov 1982, changes
> the lubricant
> > specification for T4 and T5 transmissions from Dexron
> II to SAE
> > 80W-90 or 85W-90 API Grade GL-5 gear lubricant and
> lists fill
> > capacities for in-service refills and dry fills. It
> also changes the
> > lubricant specification for the Model 129 transfer
> case from 10W-30
> > motor oil to Dexron II. This bulletin supercedes
> bulletins 2-01-82
> > and 2-03-82, which are not included in the bound
> volume.
> >
> > Technical Bulletin 2-06-82, dated 3 Jan 1983, covers
> the recall
> > campaign and includes a copy of the letter sent to
> vehicle
> > owners. The instruction is to drain and replace the
> fluid, and to
> > paint the drain plug red to indicate that the fluid
> had been changed
> > under the recall campaign. Curiously, it introduces a
> new part
> > number, 8983 000 000, for the transmission lubricant
> to be used only
> > in T4/T5 transmissions.
> >
> > --Glen
> >
> >
> > At 02:43 PM 9/9/2008, you wrote:
> > >I read your previous post and think I see the
> problem now. AMC *DID*
> > >recommend ATF in the T-5 in 1982. That caused
> problems, and you probably
> > >had to fix quite a few! I also went back and took
> a closer look at the
> > >1983 supplement. There IS a different lube
> recommendation!! I missed it
> > >the first time... T4 and T5 lube changed to
> AMC/Jeep SAE 90 or 80W-90
> > >Gear Lubricant. I bet there was a tech bulletin
> that came out sometime
> > >in 82 as well. Feel better now? ;>
> -------------- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008
> > >16:32:19 +0000 From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx No,
> I'm not. I'm also not
> > >going to argue about it... -------------- Original
> message
> > >---------------------- From: Frank Swygert
> <farna@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > > directly from 1982 TSM (83 was a
> supplement to the 82, nothing
> > > different about
> > > > > lube in the supp):
> > > > >
> > > > > "The recommended lubricant for the
> SR4 transmission is SAE
> > > 85W-90 Lubricant, API
> > > > > Grade GL-5. T4 and T5 transmissions
> should be refilled with AMC
> > > Automatic
> > > > > Transmission Fluid or equivalent
> labeled Dexron II. Use the
> > > correct fluid
> > > > > whenever adding or replacing
> transmission lubricant."
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark, you may be thinking about the SR4
> instead of the T4/T5. I
> > > bet you worked
> > > > > on a lot more SR4s than the Ts!
> > > > >
> > >--
> > >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://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amc-list mailing list
> > Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:25:36 +0000
> From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)
> To: piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx, "AMC/Rambler
> owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <090920082225.580.48C6F7E0000533DE000002442216525856CDCBCD0A0C079D9F059D0E03@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> It all rolls back too.
> There is not any one solution.
> There are many smaller ones.
>
> Most alternative fuels will have place in the picture
> somewhere.
> Some bigger
> Some smaller
> Some for limited time frames.
>
> --
> Mark Price
> Morgantown, WV
> 1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
> 2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrac II
> " I realize that death is inevitable.
> I just don't want to be around when it happens! "
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Ethanol from food grade stock might be short term and
> might be diadvantageous
> > for other reasons, but there is a movement afoot to
> produce it from waste
> > biomass, namely municipal solid waste. There's at
> least one pilot plant
> > operating now in a southern city. forget where.
> >
> > Joe Fulton
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Archimedes
> <Freedom@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)
> > > To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 1:04 PM
> > > >ethanol from starch is -very- short term, for
> all the
> > > negative reasons
> > > >you cite, plus it's a very inefficient
> use of the
> > > plant. the only
> > > >thing it has going for it is
> 'off-the-shelf'
> > > technology. cellulosic
> > > >ethanol is more efficient and could use many
> plants on
> > > sub-prime
> > > >arable land, but it still isn't a good
> fuel
> > > strategy.
> > ://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amc-list mailing list
> > Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:30:05 +0000
> From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <090920082230.13599.48C6F8ED000326AA0000351F2216525856CDCBCD0A0C079D9F059D0E03@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> O.K.
> I'll bite.
> Why can the imbalance not be corrected if the
> tire/wheel/drum are balanced as one???
> They are bolted together.
> Effectively making them one piece.
> You'd have to mark a lug and maintain the same
> placement.
>
>
> --
> Mark Price
> Morgantown, WV
> 1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
> 2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrac II
> " I realize that death is inevitable.
> I just don't want to be around when it happens! "
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
> > I'd probably knock the weight off too if a spacer
> won't work, but bear in mind
> > that if there IS an imbalance that can't be
> corrected by balancing the tire you
> > might have to get another drum... or switch to disk
> brakes!
> >
> > Use the kit for 68-69 Javelin/AMX from
> www.scarebird.com. Under $400 including
> > the Scarebird kit, there's about $200 more in
> parts you need to find, parts list
> > with numbers included with the kit. It fits all AMCs
> as far as I can figure out
> > -- I test fit it on a 63 Classic, 65 American, and 63
> American. You use the drum
> > spindle with the kit.
> >
> > -----------
> > Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:56:09 +0000
> > From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I once machined the balanced Lip off of rear drums on
> a half ton checy truck to
> > fit 6 lug Jeep wheels.
> > No vibration resulted, but they were on the rear.
> > If you could find a shop that still spin balances on
> the car they could balance
> > out any vibration should it occur.
> >
> > I'd agree with Frank and install a spacer if one
> will fit and allow the
> > wheel/tire to still fit the car.
> >
> > If not, I'd get out the hammer and knock the
> weight off...
> >
> > --
> > 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://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:04:01 -0500
> From: Glen Hoag <hoag@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] T-96 woes... (factory t5 lubricant)
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <200809092307.m89N73Jk1476667@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> Frank,
> My copy of Supplement No. 1 (covering 1983 vehicles)
> specifies
> AMC/Jeep SAE 90 or 80W-90 Gear Lubricant (page 99, section
>
> 2B). This is probably the same as the change made in TB
> 2-1-82 (or
> TB 2-3-82), which was superceded by TB 2-5-82, mentioned in
> my other
> post on this topic.
>
> 1984 through 88 vehicles are covered in M.R.251, which
> specifies
> AMC/Jeep/Renault Manual Transmission Fluid Part No. 8983
> 000 000 for
> both the T-4 and T-5. (Page E-3) This is the lubricant
> that was
> known as "fish oil".
>
> Modern Driveline
> <http://www.moderndriveline.com/Technical_Bits/t5_history.htm>
> states
> that one should use SAE 75 gear oil for non World-Class T-5
> (and by
> implication, T-4) transmissions, due to cold weather
> shifting issues
> with SAE 80W-90 gear oils.
>
> --Glen
>
>
> At 10:26 AM 9/9/2008, Frank Swygert wrote:
> >directly from 1982 TSM (83 was a supplement to the 82,
> nothing
> >different about lube in the supp):
> >
> >"The recommended lubricant for the SR4
> transmission is SAE 85W-90
> >Lubricant, API Grade GL-5. T4 and T5 transmissions
> should be
> >refilled with AMC Automatic Transmission Fluid or
> equivalent labeled
> >Dexron II. Use the correct fluid whenever adding or
> replacing
> >transmission lubricant."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic Brake Drum Weights
> To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <997122.27466.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The problem is on-the-car balancers are rare these days and
> you can't use them with a limited slip differential
> anyway. Every modern shop just as the computerized
> off-the-car spin balancer don't they?
>
> There was an article in Auto Restorer Magazine that I think
> I mentioned before about balancing brake drums on a bubble
> balancer (by grinding weight off of the perimeter) to ensure
> you have a super smooth ride.
>
> Joe Fulton
>
> --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [Amc-list] 1966 Classic Brake Drum
> Weights
> > To: "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and fans."
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 3:30 PM
> > O.K.
> > I'll bite.
> > Why can the imbalance not be corrected if the
> > tire/wheel/drum are balanced as one???
> > They are bolted together.
> > Effectively making them one piece.
> > You'd have to mark a lug and maintain the same
> > placement.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Price
> > Morgantown, WV
> .wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:24:38 -0500
> From: Ron Barwell <bender_@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Amc-list] 65 classic headlight bezels
> To: "amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <BAY104-W2327FF880567092A38B63980540@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Anyone out there know where any 1965 classic headlight
> bezels can be had. I will be at the Jefferson show in
> Wisconsin this fall. Please email.
> Ron C. Barwell
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows
> Live.
> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://splatter.wps.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20080909/f6050834/attachment.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>
> End of Amc-list Digest, Vol 21, Issue 18
> ****************************************
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
Back to the Home of the AMC Gremlin