Re: Telling the diff between AMC 2.5 and Iron Duke

[<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would guess the 4.0L is quite a bit lighter.
I put a 95 4.0L in place of a 232 and it sat quite a bit higher in the front after the swap. I've got lowering plates in place now to get it down in the front.
Mark Price
mpriceATwestco.net
Morgantown, WV
69 AMC rambler, 4.0L, EFI, 5 speed 
65 Ambassador Conv, 327 AUTO, Basketcase
01 S-10 CREWCRAP 4X4



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Reply-To: mail-From-mprice-westco.net@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:  Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:23:03 -0400 (EDT)

>" From: farna@xxxxxxx
>" 
>" The 196 is a bit heavier than a 199/232/258 -- at least the mid 1980+
>" 258. remember, they shaved about 40 pounds off the engine weight that
>" year. The 4.0L is comparable to the mid 80+ 258, might weigh a little
>" more due to slightly heavier crank and block, but then the tubular
>" exhaust is lighter than the cast iron used on the 258, so I'd think
>" any weight gain would be no more than 15-20 pounds over the late 258.
>
>i can't recall where i saw it, but iirc the 196 is ~12 lbs heavier
>than the original [heavy] 199/232/258, which can often be bored 0.125"
>safely.  '65 americans used the same front springs for both 196 and
>232 engines...
>
>the '81 258 was 90-100 lbs lighter overall than the earlier motors,
>but the 4.0 gained some of that weight back and continued to gain as
>the block was revised.  it probably still weighs less than the
>'60s-'70s sixes though, even including the '99-up iron exhaust
>manifolds.
>________________________________________________________________________
>Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
>internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
>
>adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
>
>
>
>