Re: 304/290/200R4

[farna@xxxxxxx]

You'll have to have an adapter fro the trans regardless. That makes the bolt-on TF adapter attractive, except you wouldn't use the 1/4" spacer for the bell. I don't know how thick the Advance Adapters part is, but it's at least 1/4", more likely 3/8". 

I'd go with a TBI on a bone stock 290. AMC always torque biased their cams, and the TBI will "auto correct" for weather/reunning conditions. Unless your buddy has a TPI setup for a 305 he's willing to let go cheap and you are willing to modify a manifold (weld in injector bungs). The cast iron manifold will work with steel bungs. 

Most overdrive trannys want a low rear axle ratio. I ran a 3.08 with mine and it got worse mileage than it does with the 3.55 gears (standard in an XJ w/4.0L & AW4, 3.08 is standard for five speed). Remember, I'm running an AW4 with standard high efficiency lock-up converter (torque multilication is only 1.2:1 instead of between 2:1 and 3:1 like standard US converters). I'd start by seeing what the Monty has in it. With the higher torque multiplication most US cars can use a higher gear than models with high efficiency converters. Of course once the converter is locked there is no torque multiplication advantage. But US cars can have a higher gear for takeoff (2.87 was standard for the older V-8 big Ramblers -- similar converter). 

If mileage is the primary concern I'd stick with the lighter car -- the American. But I don't think I'd build a V-8 either. A standard 4.0L with AW4 would probably work in an American with a 3.08 axle, or a 3.31 at best. I get about 24 on the highway, 18-19 in town with my 4.6L (standard 4.0L got about 2 mpg more in both with the T-96 OD and 3.31 axle). I'd think a lighter American would get around 28 on the highway at moderate cruising speed (65-70) with 3.31 gears, and might get as high as 30. My car didn't like the 3.08 gears even on the highway -- highway mileage was hurt the worst since the engine had to work a bit pulling hills in OD (it was only running around 1400 rpm at 70, now runs around 2000). Takeoff was fine. An American might work with 3.08s though. You might coax the same out of a 290 though.


On May 5, 2005 Jim Boone wrote:

> With all the gas availability issues, I've been thinking down the road on setting up a small AMC V8 for gas mileage.  I have access to a SS Monte Carlo 200R4 that's in pretty good shape for free from my Cheby friend here in town (sure wish he was into AMC's - he's got a ton of parts!) and am looking for how to set it up behind the AMC V8.
> 
> I know that for the 304, it's no big deal, just need either a factory adaptor, or the Advance Adaptors one with the correct flexplate.
> 
> I'm curious about setting up a 290.  I know we've talked here on the list in the past, including recently, about how to modify an earlier crank for a later trans.  Would that same setup work, with the above adaptor, for putting the 200R4 on the back of the earlier AMC V8's?
> 
> I have 2 possible candidates for this conversion, a '65 440 American, and my '67 Rebel 770 Station Wagon.  Both 290's and especially 304's pop up with regularity.  I'm thinking low RPM, Hi torque, free flowing motor, possibly with either a small 4V carb, or TBI conversion.  Gear ratio's would need to be considered and optimized as well to make this get the results I'm wanting.
> 
> Ideas?
> 
> Jim Boone
> Mims, FL
> 
> =============================================================
> Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


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