On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey, I could do a dyno test for the "before" with the tube and "after" it removed. I wonder if Car Craft would be interested. Well, me, you, Dave, and ummm... a cast of... dozens? would love to know! :-) > Seriously, I might remove that tube and see if makes any difference. I will be putting a bung in the exhaust pipe below the manifold so I can tune the carb using my wide band oxygen sensor. I'm curious as to how much tunability is avalable in that RBS carb. My guess is, it won't make one bit of difference at any RPM range that motor is capable of surviving! And how is it plumbed? The TSM and parts catalog doesn't show anything. It would need it's own spigot off the water pump else it would have to go in series with the heater, which makes little sense (unless it's only used in winter?). > Yes the motor is running, but I'm slowly working on the gas tank replacement. Oh yeah, I forgot that little detail of the missing trunk floor! The mousetang tank, I hope that works out right, it will be nice to know. Can you take some photos of hacks you make to it? One area where the old motor is superior to the later one (until the 4.0 head) is fuel distribution. The 232 etc is pretty terrible, with any of the manifolds, the old iron one being the worst. The 195.6 OHV distribution is perfect (going by plug readings). After 10,000 miles all 6 are perfect colored and exactly the same, zero difference. Very sweet. Just today, I paid attention to a detail cast into the trough, take a look: http://wps.com/AMC/1963-Rambler-American/Intake/images/intake-trough.jpg Note the "anti-reversion" wedges! It's right over intakes for 2-3 and 4-5. (1 and 6 intakes are at the far end of the trough). More Nash tweaking to a venerable design. I wonder if any of Nash's other sixes got that. _______________________________________________ Amc-list mailing list Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list