Re: Telling the diff between AMC 2.5 and Iron Duke

[farna@xxxxxxx]

The 2.5L is 2/3 of a 4.0L, but can't underweigh the 4.0L by more than 20% because of all the accessories. I agree though, the EFI version is a good substitute for the old L-head six or even 195.6 OHV. The only problem is width. The intake sticks out a good bit, making it difficult to fit in the 58-63 American and 50-55 Nash Rambler. The "hump" under the hood has to come off the driver's side, and even then it's still a tight fit. It would be eay enough to fit in a 63-65 American though, and should be economical in one of those for running around town. There would be a little power gain over the 195.6 OHV, but the torque curve would move up. The old engine has loads of torque right off idle -- a stick shift 62 American was the only stick car my ex-wife ever could drive because of that! the four would drive very different, and would need a lower rear end gear (Jeeps use a 4.10, 3.73 might be okay with the American, but nothing higher). 

As Andrew noted with the XJ Jeeps, the four isn't necessarily more economical than the six. For light  driving around on the highway it is, but do any hard driving and any economy gains quickly go out the door. Sort of like the little 1.4L auto trans Alliance I had a long time ago. Running around town and short trips it was great, but take a long trip on the interstate (two hours of interstate driving between my house and my parent's at the time, of a four hour total drive) and it quickly got tiring! That's the only automatic car that really needed a tach. Once you dropped below a certain rpm there was no power on the road. Had to keep it over 50 mph or it took forever to climb a hill! It's not mountainous between Warner Robins, GA, and Lexington, SC, but it is hilly. So I had to race down a hill just to keep from dropping below 55-60 going up the next one! Load was two adults, one 8-9 year old kid, and three large suit cases. I wouldn't think that to be a heavy load, but wa!
 s for that thing! But around town it was great, even with four adults in it. 


On April 4, 2005 Tom Jennings wrote:

> Anyone know what the fully-accessorized weights are, AMC 2.5L vs.
> 258 or 4.0?
> 
> I know this list has a bias against things less than 2 * 4
> cylinders, but the 2.5 sounds like a good retrofit for older,
> smaller cars.
> 
> If there's substantial weight differences it would help a lot;
> also it moves the mass towards the back of the car, always a good
> thing (for front-heavy cars like AMC/Rambler).
> 
> Modest turbo on one of these things for HP around 180 would be
> very, very hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


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