Tom,Style-wise, I think the 64 and 65 are better looking than the 66-69 but parts-wise, I think you'll be better off with a mid-68 through 69. The reasons for this are that firstly, the bodies are stronger (benefit of improved safety standards) so that means less wear and tear on the body towing and the other benefit is that the T-14 was available in place of the T-96 (You could still get that too for whatever reason. Probably the same reason they offered a vacuum wiper option the first few years electrics were standard).
On the down-side, these same years with the stronger bodies are also stuck with the early style shoulder belts which suck. Besides not being able to move around (great if you're racing, bad if you just want to change the radio), those tend to hit me (I'm 6'1") right across the neck. I'm not safety expert but something tells me that's not the idea thing to use to hold my upper body in place in a crash.
As far as telling an early 68 from a mid-year, it's pretty easy. The mid-year 68's have a VIN tag on the dash as well as the shock tower. You can also peek under the car and see if the front and rear frame sills are tied together. BTW, you can't go just by the shoulder belt. That was offered as an option the first half of the year.
Also, there was a water pump change for 1968 that makes it a pita to find the correct water pump for 64 - 67 199 and 232 cars. The change is that the heater hose nipple went from 5/8" to 3/4". It isn't an insurmountable problem but if the water pump goes out on the road, it's one more pita to deal with to get it going again. The water pump with the 3/4" nipple was used from 68 up through 80 or so and is generally stocked by parts stores. Parts stores will list the 68 and up style pump as fitting but it doesn't really because of the nipple size difference. The 64-67 engines also use different pistons than 68 and up which makes them more expensive (I think mine were about $70 each for cast replacements) and harder to find.
As far as gas mileage goes, my 68 4 door with a T-14 and 232 (slightly higher compression than stock [flat top pistons from a 199] and an RV cam) gets about 26 mpg on this highway. My 67 wagon with an automatic and a 199 (bone stock except for the .030" overbore) gets about 20. I've also head that 232's with a 2bbl do better than the 1bbl.
Matt On 8/21/2010 12:39 AM, tom jennings spouted this sage advice:
Thanks for the words, Bruce. I'm slowly moving in the direction of a non-wagon. I think a 65 (earlyish) American is the way to go. There's far more of them than wagons. I honestly don't care 2 or 4 doors, both have their advantages. I imagine 4 doors are easier to find. A sedan will be better as a daily driver (though the dogs love the station wagon most of all -- they hang out in it when I leave the doors open parked in the yard). There's only one hardtop, 67? Unlikely to find one. Wouldn't rule it out though if I did! I should have enough money to buy someone's full restoration. I'm not saying I will keep it totally stock, but a clean intact car with good paint and the right setup, I doubt I'd do more than bolt-on changes (wheels, tires, Pertronix, etc). Speakers in the door and rear shelf would be the biggest atrocities. Probably remove any stereo, return the AM radio, these days, I do a brick amp under the seat with the 1/8" stereo plug to an iPod clone. Nothing to steal! I know the feeling about "cheating", and it not being *my* project, but buying someone's resto is a hell of a lot better than buying some stock 90's used plastic car! And the one thing I can't do for the next year or so is a full ground-up project. It's gotta be a six, and I strongly prefer no power steering nor power brakes. Prefer manual, but auto would not be a deal killer on the right car. I honestly think the 199 or 232 would be better; mileage matters more than power for daily use. I don't know the details in the 64 - 69 models (I like the earlier body styles better), I know some years (69?) there's a good selection of front suspension and such aftermarket. Not sure about the early stuff, but trunnions are not one of my worries. I probably wouldn't even do a disc swap; I'd do what I did to my little American. The fully ventilated brakes are GREAT. Yeah, it will tow the little trailer just fine. Like I do now, just slow down for the tough stuff, crawling a long hill with a trailer is like .001% of my driving time, saving that extra hour on a long trip isn't worth the cost of a bigger car that other 99.999% of the time. We've found that the camper negates the need to cram the wagon full of crap. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Bruce Griffis <bruce.griffis@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:That sounds like a great driving/camping/cruising project! Tom, I've taken my '65 American sedan camping - and while it is not a wagon, it is a nice little car. It did well with the 600 pound or so popup. It's fun to drive. I love draping an arm on the bench seat, or hanging a hand on the open vent window. But when I give it thought - the idea of a Rebel or Matador wagon keep popping up. I know you don't like the newer cars with plastic and all that. But I wonder if a Rebel wagon with a 232 and 3 speed manual would make a good every day car? Easier parts, still a Rambler. But on the other hand, an American with a 232 and 3 speed manual would be pretty cool, too. Especially a wagon. Have fun searching and deciding! On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Tom if you wanted a project I have a 63 Classic wagon, less than 80,000miles (I forget exactly), sat in Nevada for over 20 years.. 195.6 aluminum (stuck) BW/auto. The interior is cooked but I have an NOS dash pad, extra 195.6, or I have a 232 freshly rebuilt, Ambassador seats (somewhat matching the tan Classic interior). All fairly cheap. Wagon needs paint and all the mechanicals gone through. The underside looks factory new though, unbelievably clean. Brake lines and fuel lines are still bright. Oh and I have a windsheld for it. Lower tail gate is rusty, but I have still another one if you don't use the spare I sold you. This thing is a time machine.Joe Fulton_______________________________________________ AMC-list mailing list AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20100820/9070d6ce/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ AMC-list mailing list AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
-- mhaas@xxxxxxx Cincinnati, OH http://www.mattsoldcars.com 1967 Rambler American wagon 1968 Rambler American sedan ================================================================= According to a February 2003 survey of Internet holdouts released by UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, people cite not having a computer as the No. 1 reason they won't go online. _______________________________________________ AMC-list mailing list AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com