Re: AMC 2.5 only used in Jeeps, right? RIGHT...almost

[farna@xxxxxxx]

I've heard of a Spirit with an AMC four, not positive if it was a late production or transplant though. More likely a late production, as a transplant would require changing transmission as well as different engine mounts. The 81-83 Eagle was available with a four cylinder (might have started in 82), so the 84 was just a continuation. Most of the time a smaller engine is false economy -- the engine has to work harder and burns nearly as much fuel as a larger one. The Pacer is a prime example. The V-8 model only got a couple more mpg than the six, but acceleration and overall performance was noticeably better. Ford discovered the same between the 200 six and 302 in the mid 80s (Fairmont based) T-bird -- the six only got 2-3 mpg more than the V-8 but other performance was drasticly hampered -- more so than with the Pacer. I think the T-bird with the six was over five seconds slower 0-60 than the V-8. But people don't always think about such things, especially non-gearhead type!
 s! Less motor has to mean less fuel, right? Same ting with the Selec-Trac Eagle. Engineers figured it wasn't worth the trouble for 1-2 mpg so they didn't offer it in 1980. Consumer PERCEPTION demanded they spend the money on the t-case and controls though. 


On April 3, 2005 John Rosa wrote:

> I just checked my documentation for 1983 AMCs and
> all of it states that the standard engine was the
> 151cid 4-cyl (which is the Iron Duke).
> 
> To my knowledge, no Spirit/Concord ever got the
> 150cid AMC four, and I'd be VERY interested to see
> clear photos of any such car, and it's emissions
> label clearly showing the CID. If an 83 AMC did get
> the 150, it may have been a late-production 83
> Eagle, but no way a Spirit or Concord.
> 
> The Eagles did switch to the 150 for 1984, but by
> 1985, all Eagles were 258-powered. This is an odd
> situation, as why do the work to ready the Eagle
> for it, then only offer it one year when the engine
> was still in use in Jeeps for years after? Perhaps
> the pool was polluted for consumers who didn't like
> the 151 and wouldn't consider the 150 afterwards,
> so sales of 84 4-bangers was so poor, they killed
> the option...but that's just a guess. Sems Jeeps
> did fine with it.
> 
> I'd be glad to be proven wrong on this...so start
> digging!! (BTW- Stories about cars we used to own
> don't count as evidence, so skip those, please!)
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist