Re: AMC history (Buick/Jeep V-6)

["Steven M.Dristy, Jr." <soundwve@xxxxxxx>]

The  Buick-derived V-6 was the 225ci, used mainly in 1966-69.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <farna@xxxxxxx>
To: "AMC-List" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:44 PM
Subject: AMC history (Buick/Jeep V-6)


> The GM V-6 has the "AMCish" oil pump because the Buick V-8, from which the
V-6 was derived, is made that way. So it would be more correct to say AMC
has a "Buickish" oil pump.
>
> Jeep was using the even fire V-6 under 231 inches (226??). Kaiser-Jeep
continued the engine as it was when they got the tooling from Buick with no
changes. I'm not sure AMC cast ANY new blocks -- they used up the stock of
parts in a special model CJ (the first Wrangler, maybe??) for 1971, and may
have used it in the 72 Commando as well (don't have my Jeep books handy for
exact dates/models). In any case, once the stock was used up they didn't
make any more, and made no changes. When Buick got the tooling back they
made the changes, more cubes and that awful odd fire crank to begin with. My
ex wife had a Pontiac Sunbird (78 or 79) when we met with that shaking odd
fire in it! Timng chain noise and vibration were always a problem with it.
Don't know when GM wised up and started making a new crank for even firing
and smoother running. I still don't knwo the theory behind the odd firing
order to begin with!
>
> As for the rotary... as John Mahoney mentioned AMC signed a licensing
agreement with Curtiss-Wright in 1973. CW had exclusive north american (or
was it just US?) rights to the rotary engine, so GM had to buy a license
from them also. As you know AMC was always short on funds in the late 60s
through the 70s. They couldn't afford to tool up for a new engine and new
body at the same time, especially not with double digit inflation starting
in the late 70s. So they signed an agreement with GM to purchase rotary
engines for at least a few years ( I don't knwo how long). This benefitted
GM because they could start building a high number of engines from the
start, bringing down their per unit costs. GM had problems getting the
rotary to meet upcoming emission standards and asked congress for a
temporary stay on emissions for the rotary until they could solve the
issues. Congress said no, GM said screw it and wrote the whole billion
dollar project off, leaving AMC hanging with a car!
>   designed around the compact rotary and no engine. Mazda solved the
immediate emissions problem by mounting a chamber that burned up excess
emissions inside the exhaust, right behind the manifold. Just inject some
air and the stuff will burn in the chamber before it gets pushed out. Simple
and effective. I don't think the newer rotaries have that chamber though.
>
> The rotary had only two real advantages: compact size and fewer moving
parts. In theory it would be cheaper to build than a reciprocating V-8 as
long as production numbers were high. It also fit in a smaller space for the
same amount of power, and had a bit of a weight advantage. Other than higher
emissions it had another disadvantage -- it burned the same amount of fuel
for the same amount of power as a V-8. Only the weight advantage helped
mileage any, and that was no more than 1 mpg, certainly not enough to
retool. The production savings wasn't that great in the short term because
of all the new tooling. Long term it would be, but the engine was so
different few of the existing tools could be modified to work -- almost all
new equipment was required. This is why many engines, like the AMC V-8s and
sixes, share common bore centers over different models and years -- the same
machining equipment can be used with slight modifications to fixtures. The
only way to really take a!
>  dvantage of the rotary was to design a car around it, like AMC did with
the Pacer. Put the rotary in a standard front engine car and the only
difference was you might be able to get by without power steering because of
less weight on the front wheels. Power felt different, as the rotary has a
steady thrust rather than a surge,but that was all. GM wasn't ready to
redesign the fleet for an unproven engine, and they weren't ready to build
another Corvair (unique engine and parts for one or two models is very
expensive, compared to many platforms sharing a few common parts, the main
reason the Corvair was discontinued).
>
>
> From: "Geoff Harrison" <geoff_h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AMC history
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:26:48 +1100
>
> Hi all, in a recent post there was mention of AMCs dealings with GM in
> regard to Buick V6. (and also Mazda rotary)
> Does any one know what AMC did in the way of development of the V6. I
> understand when GM took it back it was different. The oil pump looks very
> AMCish for one. And I believe the engine grew a few cubes. Some reference
I
> have seen states the balance shaft in Mitsubishi 4s in under licence to
> Chrysler. So did AMC put the balance shaft in? I don't know if the 225 V6
> had the balance shaft.
>
> If AMC did do some mods, we could say AMC has been living under our noses
in
> disguise.
>
> Regards to all,
> Geoff
>
> Geoff Harrison IT Services.
> Port Macquarie  NSW.
> Tel 65827181
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Independent
> Magazine" (AIM)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
>
>
>
>