Re: [Amc-list] 7 Main Bearing engine into 62 Classic

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

For starters, the T-96 problem is an easy fix. The synchronizer is jammed. You should be able to remove the trans, take the top off, then spin it. There should be three spaces in the top (main) shaft synchronizer, roughly in the middle IIRC. One of those spaces will have a piece of metal in it. Reach in with a pair of pliers and jerk it out! Now the trans will shift, but it will grind between 2-3 up and down. Like a fellow told me, you'll get the hang of shifting! Or you can pull it apart and replace the synchro. Also check the column shifter for wear. If it's worn bad the column is jamming, not the transmission. 

The top two bolt holes on the T-96 are the same regardless of year, just the bottom two changed. It would be relatively easy to make a brace to hold the bottom of the trans to the bell. The trans just hangs off the bell, no transmission mount. you just need something to keep the trans from bouncing up when you hit a bump. A couple pieces of 1/8" thick x 1" wide steel bars bolted to the lower trans bolt holes and the rear engine mount bolts on the bell would do. Sort of Rube Goldberg, but would make it work. 

I've always though a 199/232/258/4.0L would easily fit in the big car engine bay, at least front to back. You will have to use a 65 American or 70s Jeep CJ water pump and pulley setup, or Hornet/Gremlin/Concord/Spirit setup might work. The 60s big cars w/232/258 used a longer water pump shaft -- so did the 196 in the big cars. I've been told that the 199/232 was a problem due to length, but I don't think so. Three more inches and I'd get a 232 in a 58-63 American, but there's not three inches to be had! There is in the big cars, but you need the short shaft water pump and pulley system. The radiator may need to be moved forward an inch also. I think the guy who told me it won't work tried to use the longer water pump/pulley setup -- he stated he tried a 199, which didn't come out until 66, the same year the American was lengthened in the front to accommodate a standard water pump. The 65 American used a short shaft system like early 70s CJs w/232. I'm not sure if the Hornet/e
 t-al system is short enough or not, but I do know that the 4.0L system is! 

IIRC, the crossmember in a 62 Classic is stout enough to weld engine mounts to. The only problem you might have with the bell housing is that the hole in it might be bigger than the bearing retainer on the T-96. If it is, either drill the 150T bearing retainer to fit the T-96 or drill and tap the T-96 case for the 150T bearing retainer. Clutch linkage should be no problem. You might have to modify the inside mount that goes on the engine block near the bell, but it should be in close to the same position. As far as the trans mount, you will need something more than just an insulator. You should be able to make a bracket that bolts to the tailshaft housing bolts -- the bolts that hold it to the main trans case. That's the way I'd proceed first. If that won't work get a large u-bolt that will go around the tailshaft housing at some point and a piece of angle or bar to bolt underneath it. Bolt the angle/bar to a trans mount then clamp the trans down. That will be sturdy enough! 
 You might need to use a different clutch disc, but use the 75 pressure plate. The T-96 spline is pretty common, you should be able to find a clutch disc of the correct size with that spline pattern. 

Keep us posted as you go. I suggest you get a photobucket account or post pics at a website. Then if you run into a problem you can post a few pics. That ALWAYS helps tremendously!! 

-----------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:07:24 -0400
From: "oldcars@xxxxxxxxx" <oldcars@xxxxxxxxx>

    I have been looking at my 62 Classic, and trying to figure out what to
do with it.
As you may remember, the T96 is jammed into 2 gears at once, and I figure
it is a
writeoff. 

    I have a T96 out of a 67 American, and was figuring on taking it and
using the 
gearbox (front part) from it and the tailshaft housing from the 62, but as
was pointed
out, the front face of the T96 got changed when the cars went from 4-point
mounting
to 3-point mounting, so that the 67 gearbox will not bolt up to the 62
clutch.

    Sitting next to the 62 is a pretty rusty 75 Gremlin, with a good
running 232, and '
it has the multi-pattern bell so it will bolt up to a T96 (the Grem has a
150-T).

    This has spurred my imagination - and after measuring a lot, it looks
like it could
work out. 

    The 62 Classic front mounts are on the front crossmember, and bolt to
the timing 
cover. However, the middle crossmember is at pretty well the same location
relative to
the front face of the bellhousing in the Classic and the Gremlin -- the
main difference
is the welded on brackets which move the bolt hole about 1 1/2" forward
from the 
center line of the middle cross member.

     The Multi-pattern bell housing comes down farther from the top
mounting bolts than
the 1962 bell does - it comes down about 7 inches, where the 1962 bell has
those holes 
about 7 1/2" above the rear cross member, and the 62 bell mounts on the
side and only
comes down about 5 1/2" from the top mounting bolts.

      So....if I take the gearbox from the 1967 and bolt it to the 62
tailshaft housing,
and bolt that up to the 232 and multi-pattern bell, and get the extensions
welded onto
the middle crossmember (would need to make some kind of jig up, so that it
would hold
them at the right distance apart and and the right angle of rotation
relative to the horizon looking at it from the front), and if I could find
some kind of really thin
insulator to go between the multi-pattern bell and the rear cross
member...would it work?

       Has anyone else put a 7-main-bearing engine into a 56-62 Classic?

       One question is the clutch bellcrank - can I use the inner pivot
(mounted to the
bell housing) from the 75 with the 62 bellcrank? They look like they would
line up. 
Can I just use the clutch internals from the 75? It looks like the input
shafts should 
be compatible.

       I would really like to get this car back on the road. I know the
7-main-bearing
engine quite well and am much more comfortable with it than the 196, for
all that it is
a great engine. Having that drivetrain would make the car more of a driver
since I could
get spare parts anywhere. 

       Anyone with any ideas, please let me know.

       And if it works out for me...anyone need a 62 196?

-- 
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