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

[farna@xxxxxxx]

According to the Jeep Engines book put out by MOPAR that's correct. The GM 2.5 isn't actually 2.5L either (I forget if it's closer than the AMC or not). Some books use the 2.46L (accurate) description just to distinguish between the two. If they said AMC 2.5 some people would still get confused as AMC used the GM 2.5 also. You and I know the difference, but average Joe (even AJ mechanic!!) would likely just get confused. 

I think the mounts for both 2.5s are pretty much the same, but haven't looked closely.

On April 3, 2005 Jim B wrote:

> A: Okay, the GM motor is 2.5L and the AMC motor is 2.46?
> 
> 
> From: TABunsey@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AMC 2.5 only used in Jeeps, right? RIGHT...almost
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <ADVANCES62s5tKE6zeI000013aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> John:
> 
> You're mostly right.
> 
> Per my AMC Parts books and 1983 Service Manual Supplement, AMC introduced
> the 150 (AMC) engine in mid-year 1983, at which time it replaced the Pontiac
> "Iron Puke" 151 engine. AMc never bothered to tool up a 150 install for the
> Concords & Spirits because they were already slated to cease production at
> the end of the model year (And, for 1983 the AMC 258 was the standard
> powerplant in the Concord/Spirit anyway).
> 
> The AMC 150 became the base engine for 1984 Eagles, but the 4-cylinder was
> dropped for the 1985 model year due to poor sales, as less than 200 Eagles
> were sold in 1984 with the 4-cylinder. It simply wasn't worth the production
> line hassles for such miniscule sales.
> 
> I have seen several 1983 SX-4s with the AMC 4-cylinder. Actually, I would
> like to find one as a future collectable.
> 
> 
> Tom Bunsey
> 
> 
> 
> .


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